Search results

TraderNik: Yes, William Dembski and I both believe in God. So what? What we believe is irrelevant to ID. What is relevant to ID is what is hypothesized within the ID paradigm. Once again:

TraderNik: As usual you don't know what you are talking about. I wrote the following back on 11-22-2006:

TraderNik: There was nothing gradual about it. It was sudden. Right at the beginning of the opening post in this thread I cited this statement by William Dembski: TraderNik: Wrong. It is the ID critics that have brought proving a negative into this debate. When I asked them what would...

TraderNik: The only one bringing God into this debate is you and other ID critics. The challenge put to ID critics to prove that "evolution does not have a teleological underpinning" is directed at those ID critics that demand ID proponents prove that non-teleological evolution is...

TraderNik: ID infers that bioengineering was behind the origin of life on earth. It has no methodology for distinguishing natural bioengineering from supernatural bioengineering.

ID is compatible with naturalism. ID infers intelligent causes not supernatural causes. As Geoscientist Marcus R. Ross correctly explained in a presentation before the Geological Society of America: Therefore, unless naturalists are prepared to admit that intelligent causes are necessarily...

Stu: Don't have to. MN is taught in science classes all the time and school boards have no problem with it. There are no ACLU lawsuits being filed. This is a double standard pure and simple.

James Bond: Yes, and ID fits that description. That you don't see this just goes to show that you don't understand ID. ID can use science and guide science.

James Bond: I'm simply saying that it's relevant to discuss in science class the philosophical presuppositions that science is built on.

James Bond: The term "methodological naturalism" was coined in 1983 by Paul de Vries, a Wheaton College philosopher, however, the concept goes back to pre-Socratic philosophers. Later it can be found in the ideas of medieval scholastic thinkers during the Renaissance of the 12th century...

ZZZzzz said: Here's an interesting quote that ties in with this nicely:

Teleologist asked: James Bond 3rd replied: Well, scientists and science teachers consider MN to be the basis for the scientific method. How does that get left out of science class? It doesn't. Teachers are free to discuss MN in science class. And I might add that teachers are also free...

Stu: Methodological naturalism is considered to be the cornerstone of modern science but MN itself is not science it is a philosophical principle. So should teachers be forbidden from discussing MN in science class?

By the way, has some scientific body officially declared that SETI isn't science? If it's not science does that mean it is useless? Are scientists that claim SETI has merit putting their reputations and careers in jeopardy? Are scientists demanding that SETI not be mentioned in science...

James Bond 3rd: ID is an alternative perspective on how evolution occurs. It is not an alternative to evolution. James Bond 3rd: SETI is not an alternative to astronomy. SETI does not contradict astronomy. SETI investigators employ the scientific method. James Bond 3rd: . ID...

Question from Teleologist: James Bond replied: Does that mean you are okay with ID being discussed in the science classroom so long as it's not being substituted for a branch of science?

Stu: By your logic the same goes for methodological naturalism. It's not science therefore it's useless.

James Bond 3rd: Only someone ignorant about ID would say that. James Bond 3rd: I never said SETI was science. Do you want any mention of SETI to be banned from the science classroom?

According to the National Academy of Sciences’ publication, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, science is “a particular way of knowing about the world.” And ID is a slant of that "particular way." ID is firmly rooted in science, but it is not itself a theory. Of...

Does this sound familiar? Richard Dawkins: Or how about this: Cambridge Paleontologist Simon Conway Morris: Del Ratzsch says: A productive, rational strategy for doing what? Proving design? No. He's talking about using the design inference as a guide for generating hypotheses...