There's no business like show business.
crevoping.
Intelligent Design "Scientists"
Bwaaaaahahahaha!!!
Thanks for the laugh.
I take it Michael Denton will not be presenting.
This looks an awful lot like and advertisement. Isn't that against the rules on FR?
> The emerging scientific theory of intelligent design ...
Anybody know if they've got a testable, potentially falsifiable hypothesis to go with that yet?
Or is it still in the same place as the department of astrology?
Methodological naturalism subsumed under, or compressed into, Darwin's name. This conference will treat of philosophical underpinnings taken up by people of various faiths.
If I see a cardboard box am I being scientific or unscientific if I say it has the appearance of design? Even if an intellectual entity designed and built that box, I could say the intellect has the appearance of intelligent design, too. But I would be speaking philosophically.
So it comes down to appearance vs. substance. The substance of science is information (evidence) that cannot be interpreted apart from intelligent design.
Evolution is a theory, ID is merely a hypothesis
It is remarkable how much this debate mimics the debate on global warming. With both theories, the defenders are apoplectic, and perhaps even religious. The doubters are called names, marginalized, and ‘put in their place’.
You High Priests of Evolution should start a union with the High Priests of Global Warming. You could share dogma, saints, martyrs, and feed off each other’s fervor.
It is?
If humans are descendants from monkeys, how come monkeys are still around?
Something to ponder about.
I haven't posted on a creationist thread in eons because they all end up being the same after a while and descend into name calling. There are two logical positions one can take in this debate:
1) The Atheist approach, where evolution is correct because it is the best explanation without invoking a creator.
2) The Theist approach where you believe that the creator set everything up as it is, and we are just learning some of the workings of the creation, and evolution is a part of that.
Unfortunately, on these threads, you often get people in untenable logical positions, largely based on ignorance of science, evidence, peer review, and a host of other things. So, you get people in these positions:
3) Earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so. Pretty hard to support your position on this one unless all known scientific data is wrong.
4) Evolution is a conspiracy to wipe out Christianity. Why is it never a conspiracy to wipe out Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism, or Islam, or Taoism, or Shintoism? Could it be that not all these religions are incompatible with evolution?
5) Evolution is a religion, and has priests and acolytes. Religion has stifled science at the point of a spear for centuries(witness the dark ages). You can't have it both ways and laud the achievements of science in technology, medicine, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, but then say on the other hand that all of that is based on a false belief, and therefore that airplanes can't possibly fly because evolution is false, can you? Some people do. They somehow seem to think that evolution is not supported by geology, astrophysics, biology, chemistry, archeology, paleontology, oceanography, anthropology, or any other branch of science and somehow stands on its own as a belief system. Does that mean that all those other disciplines, and any advances they have made, are all wrong or based on falsehoods? Or does it mean that Evolution is a better religion than Creationism, since it is based on ideas that have saved millions of lives and made our day to day living easier?
6)One of Evolution or Religion has to be wrong. Why? why can't they coexist, and have religion be about the stuff we don't know(the afterlife, the creation, etc.) and have science be about what we do know(what can see, find, or discover about the world we live in)? Yet, some people are apparently so thinly attached to their religion that if evolution was proved beyond a doubt, than to them, their religion would become invalid. So, evolution is a threat to them personally, and they get mad and hostile whenever a religiously believed item is even remotely questioned.
I'm sure there are others, but these are the main ones I always see. The other thing I don't like a creationists in general(not to pick on anyone specific) is the loose use of terminology to buck up their position. The people at this presentation being referred to as "scientists" for instance. Only Behe is a scientist(when he's researching and publishing in peer reviewed journals), the rest are philosophers and theologists, and that's only going by their degrees. I don't believe a doctor of Philosophy and Theology has any real background in science, only rhetoric and colorful arguments.
Anyway, that's just where I stand.
Looks like they've got one scientist anyway.
But Dr. Behe has already admitted that he believes in evolution and said, under oath, that ID requires no facts.
ping
"Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution"
If they're "Intelligent Design" scientists, why are they not presenting evidence supporting their "theory" (I'd hardly even credit it with being an hypothesis, personally), rather than evidence challenging evolution? Could it be because The Theory of Natural Selection and other evolutionary theories actually make testable predictions, while Intelligent Design makes none? Pointing at another theory and saying "it doesn't explain this or that" doesn't make that theory wrong, just incomplete.