[Mr. Silverback]

I presume by "tomorrow" he means Monday. Probably he had the three Lord of the Rings commentaries and these two on materialism as his schedule for this week, and then the Saddam capture threw him off.

Barr is definitely onto something. How many times have we heard that intelligent design theory isn't science simply because it allows for the possibility of a God, so it's religion? Yet those who hold to that are basically saying that if you find empirical evidence that leads to a conclusion, your research and thinking is only valid if the conclusion supports the (also religious) conclusion that there is no Creator. In other words, you aren't allowed to search for truth, only certain kinds of truth.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Stars N Stripes]

Just picked this up, looking forward to reading it after hearing Mr. Barr on Dennis Pragers show last month.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[scouse]

I read this yesterday on the BBC site and I haven't seen or heard any more comments.

Ivory bird displays ancient skill
By Jonathan Amos
BBC News Online science staff

A sculpted piece of mammoth ivory may be the earliest representation of a bird in the archaeological record. The 30,000-year-old figurine, found at Hohle Fels Cave in Germany's Ach Valley, depicts what looks to be a diving cormorant with swept-back wings.

It was found with carvings of a similar style - one shaped like a horse's head; the other is half-animal, half-human.

Experts have told the journal Nature that the figurines are among the most exquisite examples of early human art.

[Right Wing Professor]

How many times have we heard that intelligent design theory isn't science simply because it allows for the possibility of a God, so it's religion?

I've never heard that. I have heard it said that Intelligent Design really has no scientific or mathematical substance to it, and is just a Trojan Horse for creationism.

[ghostrider]

bump for later

[RightWhale]

A slight deviation here or there, and we wouldn't exist -- the anthropic principle.

Not just 'us' but matter in any form. Apparently, according to GUTH, there could be an infinite number of universes with absolutely no connection or possibility of communication between any of them, and--this is the point--most of them would be totally empty. We would, of course, not exist in a totally empty universe, that is, in most universes. Special? No, there is no communication, so there is no relation.

[js1138]

How many times have we heard that intelligent design theory isn't science simply because it allows for the possibility of a God, so it's religion?

Intelligent Design isn't science because it proposes no testable hypotheses, has no research agends, and has no predictions that could, even in principal, be falsified by evidence.

It is as if police, coming upon a case they can't solve with current procedures, declare that aliens did it.

[azhenfud]

"Yet those who hold to that are basically saying that if you find empirical evidence that leads to a conclusion, your research and thinking is only valid if the conclusion supports the (also religious) conclusion that there is no Creator."

Nice read. Could you ping me for more of the article?

I read of Stephen Hawking's being reluctant to take his theory of the beginning of time to its logical conclusion of God's input because he feared being discredited by his peers. The book was "God, Time, and Stephen Hawking" by David Wilkinson.

[whattajoke]

Evo's don't accept ID b/c] intelligent design theory isn't science simply because it allows for the possibility of a God

is this implying that the universally accepted theory of evolution does not?

Hint: No.

[Aquinasfan]

The assumption that you have to take a materialist worldview in order to do science is simply wrong.

Not just that. Natural science is an impossible enterprise under a materialist rubric.

(Stanley Jaki is a great writer on faith and science.)

[rightwingcrazy]

Dogmatic materialism has served scientists well for several centuries. It has steered the community away from unprovable and useless flights of fancy. But those that declare ID "unscientific" and "irrational" are being unscientific and irrational themselves. At least, Barr makes a persuasive case that they are.

[MattAMiller]

How many times have we heard that intelligent design theory isn't science simply because it allows for the possibility of a God, so it's religion?

Probably zero. ID isn't science because it has yet to put forth any falsifiable theory.

[MissAmericanPie]

bttt

[martin gibson]

In fact, many of the greatest scientists, like Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus, were religious believers.

thank you...

[Doctor Stochastic]

How many times have we heard that intelligent design theory isn't science simply because it allows for the possibility of a God, so it's religion?

Zero. Ok, your post makes the first. (If you can find this exact quotation, I'll up the count.)

ID isn't a science primarily because it makes no testable predictions. The relibious orientation (or lacke thereof) of ID supporters has no bearing on the validity of their comments.

[Junior]

Ping.

[lonevoice]

bookmark and bump

[Terriergal]

Excellent.

[Cacique]

bttfl