Search results

Stu wrote: Where? Where? You keep saying this but you refuse to back it up. Show where Dembski and Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses. You are making a fool of yourself for all to see.

Stu, You are the one claiming that the appearance of intelligent design in nature is an illusion. I asked you to back up your claim with evidence. The evidence you supplied was this: To which I replied: You responded with this: What's that got to do with anything? It is your claim that...

You are the one in denial. I asked you to show me where Dembski or Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses. You replied: "You have already been shown, over and over." So back up your claim. Provide one example of either Dembski or Behe incorporating theology into their...

And, one more time. Show me where either Dembski or Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses.

Quote from Teleologist: Stu replied: Uhh yeah, we don't observe a designer designing, if we did, then ID would be a fact, and not an inference. We don't have the common ancestor of archae and bacteria in the lab, or even of most lineages, do I have to let you touch them in order for...

Stu replied: Well, I don't recall seeing it. So humor me. Show me where either Dembski or Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses.

Stu wrote: As usual you completely miss the point. The subtitle of Richard Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker reads: "Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design." What is this "design" that Dawkins is arguing against? It is obviously intelligent design, right? He...

Stu wrote: Real design is done on purpose. Richard Dawkins says: Designed for a purpose is real design and Darwinists like Dawkins believe that the appearance of real design in nature is an illusion. Where is the evidence that backs this up? Stu wrote: And your blind watchmaker...

Stu wrote: Pure nonsense. Show me where either Dembski or Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses.

Or conversely, that concluding design in nature is real is the equivalent of concluding that 2+2= 5?

WoodyAllen wrote: I take it that means you don't think a biology student should be free to believe the design he observes in nature is real. It is your job as his teacher to correct his mistaken belief, right? Okay, let's hear the empirically based argument you will present to him as to why...

WoodyAllen wrote: So you are comparing the observation that things in nature appear designed for a purpose with the Moon being made of Green Cheese?

A biology student believes the design he observes in nature is real. You, his teacher think he is wrong. Okay, let's hear your empirically based argument as to why he should view the design in nature as an illusion.

Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. And ID is not anti-evolution if one defines evolution simply as “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry. However, the National Association of Biology Teachers...

No one here is suggesting that Intelligent Design be imposed on students. But if students inquire about intelligent design, here is a good definition: Intelligent Design--a teleological position that affirms recognition and empirical detectability of real design in the abiotic and/or biotic...

Signs of Intelligence: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design Stephen C. Meyer Only days after a district court judge in Dover, Pa., ruled that students there could not learn about the controversial theory of intelligent design, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas announced that he favors...

Is there no material difference between an assertion and a suspicion when it comes to non-teleology? How do you go about investigating your "suspicion" of a non-teleological origin of life if you don't know what you're looking for? What are your criteria? You're simply looking at things with...

Quote from Teleologist: D2.0 replied: Richard Dawkins claims "the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design." He has no methodology to distinguish design from non-design, yet he claims to have detected non-design. You have no problem with that? Nice little double standard...

ID right now is as testable as the blind watchmaker hypothesis.

ID is not anti-evolution in major respects. Absolute nonsense. An ID advocate may believe the designer is God but that belief is based on theological considerations and not from the logic of ID. Show me an ID theorist that posits a metaphysical force or entity as part of their ID hypothesis...