Search results

Stu wrote: That evolution occurs has been tested and confirmed but ID doesn't dispute that evolution occurs. The dispute is over what causes evolution. Now, as I see it, evolution and life's history is wide-open and vulnerable before ID. Even beings as modestly intelligent as we can shape...

John Dough wrote: What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about Dembski's equations. I just argued that Dembski doesn't posit the supernatural in his hypotheses. That's all. John Dough wrote: No, but so far you haven't given me any reason to think your views regarding the...

2cents wrote: I don't blame you. Take away your philosophical materialism and you've got nothing left.

John Dough wrote: You have me confused with someone that thinks evolution doesn't occur.

John Dough wrote: You evidently don't know what an argument from authority is. The Dembski quote was to show that a prominent member of the ID community doesn't posit the supernatural in his ID hypothesizing. This was to counter your claim that ID is all about proving the existence of God...

John Dough wrote: You are obviously confused. Krauze is quoting Michael Ruse a Darwinist that is pointing out the undeniable fact that it took Darwin's idea 60 years before it was tested scientifically. Why you think this obligates Krauze to posit a verifiable experiment is beyond me.

John Dough wrote: I'm not part of the ID community but William Dembski a prominent member of the ID community disputes what you just said:

John Dough wrote: Sure, that's how things looked to Darwin but his idea had to wait 60 years before it was tested by science. Big ideas take time by Krauze Having finished Michael Ruse’s latest book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, I can confirm that it is indeed very good. One...

John Dough wrote: All in due time. I'm glad to see you backed away from ID being anti-evolution. Are you aware that it was 60 years before Darwin's theory began to be tested? Was it unscientific all that time? Have experiments been conducted that proves the evolutionary process is...

John dough wrote: It's actually the opposite. It's the ID critics that demand that ID supporters prove a negative by showing that evolution is impossible. Also, the only evidence the ID critics will accept for ID is observing the designer in action. In other words, they're looking for...

John dough wrote: This statement makes no sense to me. You are pitting ID against evolution. ID is not anti-evolution. ID is an alternative to the blind watchmaker hypothesis, the supposition that the evolutionary process is devoid of design. Cambridge Paleontologist Simon Conway Morris...

In order to get new biological structure/order/design) one needs something to produce a positive (+) evolutionary vector. Darwin's alleged great insight was to invoke Natural Selective Destruction -- a function that always "weeds out' (-) (destroys) but never weeds in (+) or creates (+) ...

Environmental changes are purely random, accidental, happenstantial. So if a random mutation is adaptive, it is so only because of an accidental, purely random change in the environment. What this means, if it isn't already crystal clear to everyone, is that Darwinian theory says that a...

As far as physics informs us, everything in the non-quantum universe is deterministic which by defintion means that randomness is an illusion caused by incomplete information of the chain of causal events. And even in quantum mechanics it’s arguable whether anything is actually unpredictable...

Randomness as Darwinians use it is a statistical term. It says nothing about individual events. I’m sure you would agree that it is an individual event that creates advantage. So how do Darwinians claim that an individual event is non-intentional? Do they have some scheme to determine that...

Randomness is an illusion caused by incomplete information of the chain of causal events.

Chance is not a cause. Do you dispute this?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Read Monod's quote again and show me where he mentions randomness. He invokes chance as the source of every innovation in the biosphere. Chance is not a cause.

The materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck. And that position is as anti-science and anti-intellectual as one can get. Most anti-IDists don't even attempt to understand what ID really is. And when their anti-ID reality is exposed (the sheer-dumb-luck scenario), live in denial and...

James Bond wrote: TraderNik wrote: Time for James Bond and TraderNik to eat a little crow. “I’m a Darwinist becase I believe the only alternatives are Lamarckism or God, neither of which does the job as an explanatory principle. Life in the universe is either Darwinian or something...