Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
No you are not getting it. You could not be anymore dense.
I have now provided you with direct quotes from his book and magazine articles. I have given you quotes by him saying that good scientists have said the universe looks designed. His whole fricken book is about showing that why scientists have realized that the universe looks design. That appearance of design may be only an illusion. If you believe that there are billions of universes.
However he just said if the math supporting the concept of billions of universes fails then science is hard presed to argue the IDers.
You must be faking the density of your skull.
am not sure what your problem is but you are probably the only person versed in this subject that does not get it.
The point of the book is that the String Theory allows for the speculation of billions and billions of universes. And if this landscape is varied with constants of every parameter all over- then it would not be surprising that one corner of the universe might be hospitable to life.
So even though the fine tuning in our universe seems designed there is a chance that our finely tuned univeres is part of almost infinite other universes or landscapes.
in the introduction to his book he says
many good scientists have said the universe looks designed.
He personally states the appearance of design is undeniable
He cites astromers Paul Davies and George Greenstein as serious scholars who have come to conclusion that there is evidence of design.
As a good scholar in his interview clearly states that if the string theory math supporting the guess of billions and billiions of universes is wrong, then science as it exists now is hard pressed to answer the IDers.
Plane fricken English KJ.
!!!!!!!!!!!
Plane English indeed.
kj, excellent job in this thread. It's getting pretty pathetic listening to the faithmongers asserting and evading.
ID/Creation is a faith-based belief system. Proponents of ID/C use appeal to authority and circular logic to defend their belief system. ID/C implies the existence of a Creator God. There is not now, nor by definition can there ever be, any proof for the existence of an Intelligent Creator God. Thus ID/C cannot ever be the basis for a scientific theory about the origin of life on earth.
Ours is a secular society in its public face. Religious faith is a private matter, and should remain private. ID/C is a reaction by religious fundamentalists against the continued ascendency of secular thought in Western society. In this, proponents of ID/C share a common goal with the Islamic fundamentalists who now threaten the West, in the sense that they seek to reverse the process of human advancement and freeze us into a steady state of religiously informed status quo.
Quote from traderNik:
!!!!!!!!!!!
Plane English indeed.
kj, excellent job in this thread.
did you notice my other typos as well. I just did. Why didn't you point out that I used 'that" incorrectly.
---------------------------------
now the little minds like nik here come out to cheer for the man sticking up or 19th century science.
oh did you see that he typed plane instead of plain.
Sorry buddy. 'Plane' for 'plain' isn't a typo, much as you might wish it were. It is a spelling error.
If you are not a native English speaker, such an error is of course no issue at all.
If you are a native English speaker and you thought that 'plain' was 'plane'... it speaks to your level of intellectual development, sorry to say.
In my experience, there is a clear negative correlation between intellectual development and religious faith. There are exceptions of course, but this seems to be the general trend. Thus, your errors are not particularly surprising.
You could be the world's best trader and not know how to spell, that is for sure. Intellectual development is not positively correlated with trading skill - this website has convinced me of that.
However, when engaged in the give and take of ideas, your errors in this area will necessarily undermine your credibility.
Sorry, that's life.
By they way, aren't you the one who was pretending to be a lawyer?
You are building your case upon the above sentence, saying:
What you have put in quotations is missing three out of seven words. That's about par for the course, though. Can you blame the biblical writers for missing the point - going from memory - when you have my exact words a few pages back to draw from?
Thus, you have changed the meaning entirely, exchanging "the desire to be special" with your "God".
Unless you remove your desire for Gilbert to be special, you are describing a God full of vanity and conceit. That is indeed the God of this world. And in this world, you cannot perceive God differently than yourself. Believe it or not.
Build on the rock and it will stand. Build on the sand and it will fall.
Jesus
The desire for man to feel special is at the core of the making of any RELIGION.