son of Michael Behe,the father of intelligent design theory,says its all bs.
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
jem has a deep need to believe. he only sees things that bolster his preconcieved notions. he will twist the very words of scientists who saw the world looks designed but is not into evidence of design. intellectual honesty is secondary to dogma to the religious.
when a religious person is taught in their church that the world is 6000 years old and was made by a greyhaired old guy in the sky, even though every piece of evidence shows otherwise, are they deluded or is it possible they know something we dont?
If "intellectual honesty" and the "search for the answers" held value to you, you would not be on a crusade against religion, posting everything you can to try to disprove something which may or may not exist, and something which, you by your own standards, do not believe exists.....
To be clear i dont believe in any organised religion, i just dont pretend to be intelligent enough to know whether or not a god exists, and i accept the fact that i dont know any better.
You seem to think your smarter then everyone else because you dont believe in god, well thats fine and good provided you fuck off, get a life, and quit incessantly posting about it.
If you're going to argue that evidence is a matter of opinion, then there's no reason to believe or disbelieve anything at all. Get a grip. Evidence is evidence because it is reality, and not based on beliefs or opinions.
Like jem, you have a deep-seated need to believe in some superdaddy in the sky regardless of the evidence against such a belief. Just be honest and own your superstition and stop trying to pretend like we're having some honest disagreement based on incomplete evidence.
The evidence against the god of Abraham or any similar being is overwhelming to all but the willfully ignorant. Own it. OWN IT! You'll feel better about yourself in the long run.
Have you no brain power...
The issue is whether our universe appears designed.
Dawkins a famous big atheist professors admits the appearance of design, but hopes it will be explained away by future scientific discoveries.
Do you get the gravity of the situation.
Would you expect him to come out and say the appearance of design means there must be a designer? or would you expect him to say, that the appearance may one day be explained.
yes that is why I have been teaching you that science says the universe in which we live appears designed.
"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137