Search results

ddunbar: Utter nonsense. Theistic evolution is not a form of old earth creationism. Theistic evolutionists do not consider themselves to be old earth creationists. Creationism in all it's forms is opposed to Darwinian evolution. You can't be a creationist and an evolutionist at the same...

ddunbar: I know of one promient one but what's your point? That creationism is anything other than atheism?

ddunbar: Why the need to prove both? If evidence that points to design, points to a designer, then all one needs to do is find evidence that supports design. Once that is accomplished one automatically has evidence of a designer. Isn't that what you are saying?

ddunbar: Of course Dembski is a theist. One can be a theist and an evolutionist. Ever hear of Kenneth Miller? He's a theist, a Darwinist and an ID critic. Do you consider him to be a creationist? He would certainly take issue with that!

ddunbar: I can't prove that life is designed. Never said I could. All I can do is cite evidence that I think warrants a design inference and then over time further evidence will either strengthen or weaken the inference. But the ID critics don't like this approach. They seek to thwart any...

ddunbar: I'm not adding anything to the definition of ID. This so-called problem you refer to was solved in the opening post of this thread when I quoted William Dembski. Here it is again: You call that creationism?

ddunbar: It's you ID critics that want to focus on who the designer is. Before we go looking for designers we need to infer if anything in nature might be designed . You guys want to skip the first step, then invoke infinite regress against any potential designer and use that to thwart an...

Teleologist asked, "why is it important to know what I believe?" ddunbar replied: I already explained what prompts my "hunch". Life at its core looks like bioengineering to me. ddunbar: My hypothesis is that the first life forms on this planet appear to be products of advanced...

TraderNik: Beings with human-like intelligence.

TraderNik: No. TraderNik: Why is it important for you to know what I BELIEVE? What's important in science is not what one believes but what one HYPOTHESIZES based on empirical data. I hypothesize that the first cells on this planet were products of advanced bioengineering. The...

TraderNik: Don't put words in my mouth. All hypotheses begin with observation (what something looks like). Darwin's main argument in his book was that things in nature look like they evolved. TraderNik: I've never made such an argument. Once again, don't put words in my mouth. ID has...

Darwinism isn't the cause for breakthroughs in experimental biology By: Dr. Philip S. Skell Philadelphia Daily News February 13, 2006 Excerpt ...Should students learn about weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory? Some insist the weaknesses are trivial because Darwinism is the...

James Bond 3rd: What nonsense! You think Darwinism guides scientific research? How in the world can accident and coincidence guide scientific research? For something to be a guide it must exhibit regularity, repeatability, predictability. The Darwinian mechanism exhibits none of these...

Stu: Let's clear away all the various misconceptions that often lie behind such claims. First of all, I'm not advocating that teachers be forced to teach ID in the public schools. My position is: ID is not a religious concept, therefore, there is no constitutional basis for not...

Stu: Wrong. MN is pure philosophy. You argue that because it is relevant to science that it's okay to teach it in science class. Thanks for making my point. I was challenging your assertion that anything philosophical be relegated to a philosophy class. I agree that it should be permissible...

TraderNik: Once again, what I believe is irrelevant. I presented a hypothesis. Deal with it. If you think it is untestable then explain why it's untestable. And don't invoke a standarrd of testability that you are not willing to hold abiogenesis research to.

You are evidently incapable of recognizing a testable hypothesis when one is right in front of your face.

Stu: MN is philosophy not science. If you are going to have a flat rule that philosophy can't be taught in science class then that has to include MN. If you want to make an exception that philosophy can be taught in science class if it corresponds directly to science then that includes ID...

TraderNik: Are you unaware that the majority of evolutionists believe in God? Ever hear of theistic evolutionists? That's what Darwin was. It will be interesting to see you build a case against ID that doesn't include theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Why is it important for you to...

TraderNik: ID theorists have proposed the following hypothesis: See anything religious there? Any mention of God? Any appeal to the supernatural? Anything anti-evolution? Anything that is anymore beyond the reach of empirical investigation than are the speculations involving a...