Search results

Cardinal Expands Censorship Question by Bruce Chapman on February 8, 2007 It was gratifying to read the AP account of Cardinal Schoenborn’s lecture in New York last night and to note the way that His Eminence once again set the media and others straight on the position of the...

Cardinal Condemns Suppression of the Darwin Debate in America by John West on February 8, 2007 In a speech last night in New York City, Roman Catholic Cardinal Cristoph Schoenborn of Vienna sharply criticized efforts in America to prevent students and the public from learning about the...

Intelligent Design is a Science, Not a Faith By: Richard Buggs The Guardian January 9, 2007 If Darwinists distinguished between science and their religious beliefs, we'd all be wiser, says Richard Buggs, who holds a DPhil in plant ecology and evolution from the University of...

"Masterful" Federal Ruling on Intelligent Design Was Copied from ACLU By: Staff Discovery Institute December 12, 2006 Seattle -- The key section of the widely-noted court decision on intelligent design issued a year ago on December 20 was copied nearly verbatim from a document written by...

Deleted.

Does Richard Dawkins Exist? by David Anderson Some of the arguments here are Dawkinised versions of ones made by Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion Dr. Terry Tommyrot questions the existence of Richard Dawkins in this brilliant spoof. Richard: We’re privileged to have...

Kjkent1 wrote: What would you count as evidence of design?

James Bond wrote: I never claimed design could be proved by observation. James Bond wrote: Anything that can be investigated via the scientific method is relevant to science.

Stu wrote: But are we observing design by evolution or evolution by design? Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.

James Bond wrote: One of the possibilities for why something looks designed is that it may in fact be designed. There is no reason why the suspicion of design can't guide an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing.

ddunbar: Are you saying that it's impossible for life on earth to have originated via a non-supernatural designer?

James bond: You didn't answer the question. Who are you trying to convince that ID is creationism?

TraderNik: Sure, because you have no idea what design in nature would look like. Therefore, it could be right in front of your face and you wouldn't recognize it. TraderNik: I previously destroyed this assertion of yours by pointing out that Richard Dawkins who is an atheist and a...

TraderNik: Pure nonsense. That something looks designed is sufficient reason to suspect it is designed unless there is evidence to the contrary. All investigations/hypotheses begin with how something looks. This is called observation.

kjkent1: In other words you need proof to generate a suspicion? Why aren't subtle clues sufficient? All investigations begin with suspicions not proof. If a detective suspects someone was murdered based on subtle clues, is that good enough reason for him to begin an investigation or does...

kjkent1: I see. So proof of design wouldn't convince you of design. Proof of design merely warrants further investigation. That's like me saying proof that abiogenesis happened wouldn't convince me that abiogenesis happened. It would just convince me that an investigation of abiogenesis is...

James Bond: Exactly who are you trying to convince that ID is creationism? Your fellow atheists? They certainly don't need convincing so who's left? The creationists? Are you trying to convince creationists that ID is creationism?

ID is magic? Volition/Intelligence is more "magical" than accidental [acausal] poofs? It's fascinating to me that you materialists have no category for agency as a genuine type of causation. You carve up the world into natural causes and miracles, and seem completely blind that agency --...

kjkent1: I'm not interested in what would convince you of design. I would like to know what would merely cause you to suspect design.

James Bond: Irrelevant. There is no appeal to authority here. The 2002 Dembski quote happens to describe my ID perspective, that's why I posted it. Do you grant that I'm an authority on my own views?