Search results

Stu wrote: No. You are a joke. You seriously think you can thwart the design inference by invoking infinite regress or by putting words like fairy in front of design. Truly pathetic.

Teleologist wrote: Stu replied: Teleology didn't jump the gun or come to the wrong conclusion. In your scenario the detective's initial inference was wrong. But 99.9% of the time when a dead body is found with a knife stuck in the back the inference to murder would be correct. So it was...

Stu wrote: More nonsense. Unless you can show where Behe has invoked God in a scientific hypothesis, your claim that he has an agenda of bringing God into science is nothing but hot air.

Stu wrote: It is my contention that Crick and Behe have something in common. I'm sure Behe would agree. That I'm not aware of Behe commenting directly on this particular matter doesn't make my contention contradictory.

Stu wrote: No, it's your argument that is silly. If someone observes things in nature that they think warrants a design inference, but then wants to argue that the Designer is either "God, aliens, a powerful demigod" or "the tooth fairy" they can. But then they've moved beyond the scope of...

Teleologist: Stu replied: There is data from the natural world that design proponents count as evidence for ID. If you want to claim that evidence for ID doesn't exist then you need to have determined what counts as evidence for ID and after examining ALL the data from the natural world...

Stu wrote: That's not very convincing coming from someone that has yet to tell us what they would count as evidence for design. Stu wrote: No one is claiming Crick was a creationist. I'm simply pointing out that in regard to the origin of life on earth, Behe's hypotheses are not...

Stu wrote: How do you know that of all the data biologists have uncovered, none of it is evidence for ID (without first assuming ID is false)? You demand "evidence for ID," but won't tell us what you want. You need to first tell us what the evidence would be before you can assure us it...

Stu wrote: Similar to Francis Crick, right? Was Francis Crick a creationist? Stu wrote: Let's see your definition of creationist.

Stu wrote: Depends on what you would count as evidence for intelligent design. For a materialistic atheist there can be no evidence for ID because it is metaphysically unacceptable. Stu wrote: Really? So Behe is promoting creationism? Here is a comment by Richard Dawkins concerning...

It's the Darwinists that have much in common with the Taliban. Academic freedom is under intense attack by Darwinists across the country. The ID camp isn't attempting to censor anyone, or get anyone fired or denied tenure. Those are the tactics the Darwinists employ.

Correcting Misconceptions about Intelligent Design in Jewish Action Magazine by Casey Luskin on August 20, 2007 You cannot critique a theory for inappropriately concluding “X” when indeed the theory does not conclude “X.” Jewish Action Magazine has an article entitled...

Darwinian Evolution Is Atheist Materialism's Holiest Dogma by Robert Crowther on August 12, 2007 Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren today has an interesting piece titled "The Limits of Darwinism," an obvious nod to Michael Behe's recent book, which is subtitled, "The Search for the...

New Ben Stein Flick, Expelled, Blows the Whistle on the Darwinist Inquisition by Robert Crowther on August 23, 2007 Expelled is a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. Two years ago when we...

Teleologist said: 2cents responded: Even an atheist and Darwin defender like Michael Ruse disagrees with you. He says: Despite the fact that modern biology owes so much to teleological thinking, it aggressively shuns any explicit use of such thinking, largely because it is...

ID is science through and through. ID is not creationism. ID is not theology and ID is not anti-evolution. This is just nonsense spewed out by ID critics. Without ID concepts and principles all productive research in biology would come to a grinding halt.

Given the current power structure in academia, any researcher hoping to hold a job, obtain research funding, or get a paper published must at least pay lip service to the dominant anti-intelligence, anti-design, anti-teleology ideology. It is, however, a serious mistake to attempt to measure how...

Stu wrote: That's a lie. Cite one example where it has been shown that Dembski and Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses.

Stu wrote: You are the deceiver and liar here. You claim Dembski and Behe incorporate theology in their hypotheses and when challenged to back your claim up with an example you run for the hills. Truly pathetic.

Like I thought. You've got nothing.