Replies

It is NOT revisionist.

Just saying it is not does not refute the evidence I gave. The modern intelligent design movement was founded by creationists as a backdoor to teaching creation as science. Almost all modern publications on the subject are related to the Discovery Institute, which is not only complicit in, but an architect of, this devious scheme. The evidence is clear and incontrovertible.

You even linked to one of their publications in your first post on this thread. You even used their deceptive descriptions, "seeks to improve the teaching of Evolution by the Inquiry-based approach," when we know by their own statements that the goal is not to improve Evolution as a science, but to supplant it with theology.

Even in the end Darwin still thought there were "designed laws" behind everything. It's a step back from ID, saying that a powerful god could set up this universe so that it would have perfect conditions to produce life as we know it. An all-powerful, all-knowing god would also be able to create exactly what we have now just by planting the seed of physical laws at the Big Bang.

But that was just his personal belief. He didn't try to pass it off as science.

So, on the one hand we have militant Darwinist whose mission it is to teach the world about the dangers of believing in God, but whose mission you conveniently ignore in order to attack a counter-idea called the Wedge...Why ?

Dawkins is quite open about his agenda. The Discovery Institute tried to keep it hidden, using deception to pass theology off as science. And they're still doing it.

I think desiring to look at how new developments raise doubt on the materialistic paradigm is a wonderful goal.

Didn't read the rest of it, did you?

mathematician, David Berlinski ( an agnostic whose main goal in life is simply to have "a good time all the time" ) and New Zealand Biochemistry professor Michael Denton

Both members of the Discovery Institute.

And there aren't many forgeries and lies from Ideological Darwinists who fake their discoveries of ancient ape men to fool people ?

I've heard these brought up before, "See, there's fraud in evolution, too" the creationists, then creation scientists, then IDers say. I guess its some kind of victory to find a flaw or conspiracy to defraud in evolution. Yet they seem to always forget that the fraudulent claims always get disproved by the very evolutionists engaged in this supposed conspiracy, and not them. It's science working as it should. You might as well criticize the field of nuclear science because some frauds at Berkeley said they discovered element 116.

Nebraska Man was slapped down by other evolutionary scientists and pretty much forgotten, but I still hear talk from your side of the Paluxy man tracks and a supposed controversy over them long after they were shown to be a fraud.

Many people have made up their minds not because they have a religious presupposition but because the EVIDENCE compels them to do so.

Most people make up their minds because they want to believe God is important, and therefore they are important. You do have aberrations like the one you mentioned, just like evolution has aberrations like Dawkins who aren't interested in just science, but a cultural agenda like the IDers.

Just saying it is not does not refute the evidence I gave.

Which evidence ? all you've made are assertions that since it can happen, therefore it must happen. That's evidence ?

The modern intelligent design movement was founded by creationists as a backdoor to teaching creation as science.

ID as it is currently presented DOES NOT MENTION THE BIBLE and LEAVES THE AGE OF THE EARTH out of the discussion. That is a fact.

Almost all modern publications on the subject are related to the Discovery Institute, which is not only complicit in, but an architect of, this devious scheme. The evidence is clear and incontrovertible.

You mention the name Discovery Institute and fail to show how it officially sanctions Creationism. Every single article I've read from them today relating to science and technology never refers to the Bible, Koran as their authority for their arguments. If you have one from them I'd like to read it.

You even linked to one of their publications in your first post on this thread.

Uh huh, and does the publication claim the Bible as its source of authority ? Or does it encourage readers to explore the evidence for or against Evolution ? Show me where in the publication of the first post it refers to a 6 day creation or even mentions God or the Bible.... Come on, show me the page and paragraph....If you can't then you don't know what you're talking about.

You even used their deceptive descriptions, "seeks to improve the teaching of Evolution by the Inquiry-based approach,"

How is this deceptive ? You ought to use the inquiry based approach to ANY endeavor that attempts at finding the truth or falsity of a claim ( even ID and creationism ). You seem to imply that we shouldn't use that approach for teaching evolution. Why ?

when we know by their own statements that the goal is not to improve Evolution as a science, but to supplant it with theology.

You know ? How do you know that ? YOU SAID YOU KNOW but you don't really know. You simply imply it without showing any evidence. In fact, if you read the Discovery Institute, they do not even recommend teaching ID in the classroom ( that's right I said it and it isn't a typo ). Did you even bother to read what they write in their website ? I guess not.

Even in the end Darwin still thought there were "designed laws" behind everything.

If he said that, then I and all IDers agree with him. But please show me the reference, I'd like to know where he said it.

It's a step back from ID, saying that a powerful god could set up this universe

But ID as a scientific endeavor is SILENT about God or gods. It is only interested in DESIGN INFERENCE as the best possible explanation of the complexity of life. It does not bother to go further than that.

so that it would have perfect conditions to produce life as we know it. An all-powerful, all-knowing god would also be able to create exactly what we have now just by planting the seed of physical laws at the Big Bang.

And possibly DIRECTING IT. Yes, ID is OPEN to this possibility but this postulate will require further research.

But that was just his personal belief. He didn't try to pass it off as science.

1) If this was Darwin's belief, then you are saying he believes in panspermia.... interesting, I never knew that. Could you show me where Darwin said it ?

2) But even then, gradualism based on random mutation still shows very little ( very poor ) evidence that without intelligent guidance, life as we know it can arise.

Dawkins is quite open about his agenda. The Discovery Institute tried to keep it hidden, using deception to pass theology off as science. And they're still doing it.

HUH ? Where are they using it ? If they are trying to hide anything, I find it strange that they would OPENLY PUBLISH what they believe on their website for all to see.

Didn't read the rest of it, did you?

I think this is a question for you not me.

Both members of the Discovery Institute.

UH HUH, and they are PUBLISHED MATHEMATICIANS who teach and have published books and peer reviewed papers in journals. Simply because you throw in the name Discovery Institute shows us what ? That they are Bible believers ? Ask them if they are .... I'm sure you'll get a NO for an answer ( and you'll go back to calling them liars once again simply because you want to believe what you want to believe).

I've heard these brought up before, "See, there's fraud in evolution, too" the creationists, then creation scientists, then IDers say. I guess its some kind of victory to find a flaw or conspiracy to defraud in evolution.

Nope, you're getting the wrong lesson here. THE LESSON IS THIS --- FRAUDS EXIST. That does not mean that because there are frauds on both sides, their arguments and evidence cannot be analyzed ON THEIR OWN MERIT.

If a health teacher is a fraud who smokes while telling you that smoking is bad for your health, that does not necessarily mean that his hypocrisy invalidates what he teaches. I brought up the evolutionist fraud as a foil for your bringing up creationist deceit. Which is to show that this argument FAILS to go to the truth or falsity of each side's claims.

Yet they seem to always forget that the fraudulent claims always get disproved by the very evolutionists engaged in this supposed conspiracy, and not them.

And you can replace evolutionists with IDers in the above sentence too. Evolutionists aren't the only monopolists of truth seeking.

It's science working as it should. You might as well criticize the field of nuclear science because some frauds at Berkeley said they discovered element.

PRECISELY. So what's your point ? Frauds are perpetrated by people ... and frauds can be corrected and excavated by people whatever their personal beliefs are... SO ??

Most people make up their minds because they want to believe God is important,

And many ( like Anthony Flew ) make up ( and CHANGE ) their minds because of the evidence.

You do have aberrations like the one you mentioned,

Correction to make it less LOADED. You do have INTELLIGENT ONES who look at the evidence and decide accordingly as I mentioned.

just like evolution has aberrations like Dawkins who aren't interested in just science, but a cultural agenda like the IDers

Since we have cultural agendas by evolutionist and cultural agendas by IDers, I submit that the cultural agenda is a secondary issue compared to the scientific evidence presented. THAT is exactly what the book -- EXPLORING EVOLUTION is presenting ( regardless of the author's cultural agenda ). Let's argue that book for its own merits.