Intelligent design not so intellignt.

Quote from Ricter:

...To an atheist, proceeding from the forgone conclusion that there is no higher power than ourselves, there can be no higher understanding than ours.
Atheism is not about self-congratulation. It is about self-reliance. You are correct: by definition, "there can be no higher understanding than ours" -- by us. It is our place to understand what we can. And as the years progress, we understand more and more. A drop in the bucket, perhaps, but movement in the right direction nevertheless. Why the preoccupation with an "understanding" that we will never comprehend? Why not leave such (illusory) divine understanding to "god?" If "he" won't bother to explain, then why not just go about the life you understand and leave "him" to his own devices? Since we can never understand the reason "he" does what "he" does, is it not superfluous to pray to "him," or worship "him?" Such activity presumes some understanding, does it not? You are assuming an if-then relationship that, by your definition, you cannot even begin to comprehend.
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

...Why the preoccupation with an "understanding" that we will never comprehend?...

Because billions feel it to be so, and because it bestows benefits.
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

can you think of any reason a self described loving god would design suffering of newborn babies into his perfect design?

We cannot possibly understand why god does what god does because we are mere humans, of course!

:D
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

so. Massimo Pigliucci, a Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York disagrees with ken miller, a cell biologist who works every day in the field of cell biology, about cell biology?
can you see any problems here?

His problem is in the reasoning for his debate. Miller doesn't disagree with Behe that we are created, just that Behe's data is not proof of design in Miller's work.

If you will note, he states Miller disagrees with Behe on irreducible at the micro biology level, but acknowledges possible design at the quantum level.

Miller is quoted in the interview"He then proceeded to explain to me that there are essentially three ways to account for the uncanny set of physical constants that make our universe (and life in it) possible: a) it is the result of a willful creator;
 
Quote from Wallet:

His problem is in the reasoning for his debate. Miller doesn't disagree with Behe that we are created, just that Behe's data is not proof of design in Miller's work.


it is painfully obvious that you did not listen to the miller lecture if you think he believes in biblical creation.
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

it is painfully obvious that you did not listen to the miller lecture if you think he believes in biblical creation.

I'm just referring to what Miller told Pigliucci as stated in the article, if the two don't jive, sorry.

Again, I find Miller's rational flawed, as the parts of the flagellum are still constructed in order from smaller protein blocks. Too coincidental, imho, to be a random order. No I'm not a biochemist, but I'll think for myself.
 
Quote from Wallet:

I'm just referring to what Miller told Pigliucci as stated in the article, if the two don't jive, sorry.

Again, I find Miller's rational flawed, as the parts of the flagellum are still constructed in order from smaller protein blocks. Too coincidental, imho, to be a random order. No I'm not a biochemist, but I'll think for myself.
do you think it would harm you in any way to actually listen to what a respected cell biologist had to say on the subject?
 
Back
Top