Replies

He has to be a signatory of the ‘wedge’ document? Please. Does a Communist have to have been an author of the Communist Manifesto in order to be a Commie? When one signs on to the Discovery Institute one buys into their goals aspirations and philosophy. Their goal is nothing less than an overthrow of methodological naturalism (i.e. natural explanations for natural phenomenon) to be replaced by “Isn’t it lovely that the Designer made everything so well designed, yet not well designed enough to change on its own without the guidance of the designers hand.”

Please name for me another Scientist who intimates that disagreement with his findings and conclusions is an “Offense of the Gospel”, or that ANY Science could possibly be an “Offense of the Gospel”.

Saint Thomas Aquinas’ point was quite simply that when Science and your interpretation of the Bible are in conflict, it is your interpretation of the Bible that must give way; or one makes Christians the object of ridicule to those who know the facts of the situation. Dumbski Dembski’s position is that he expects better of a Baptist University than to allow Science to ‘Offend the Gospel’.

No discovery about the reality of the Universe and the laws that govern it could possibly be an affront to the creator of the Universe. That is why Dembski is a shoddy theologist (still a cromulent word), he thinks that the Gospel needs to be defended at a Baptist University against facts and theories. He is a fool, although an entertaining one. I especially liked how your supposed mathematical genius didn’t realize that the data set he cited was already normalized so he Renormalized it and found out that Australians are REALLY into Incompetent Design (what I call ‘Intelligent Design’ because it posits a Designer who creates a universe that cannot subsist without him plugging up the cracks and filling in the holes).

He has to be a signatory of the ‘wedge’ document? Please. Does a Communist have to have been an author of the Communist Manifesto in order to be a Commie? 1) Again, show me where he signed it.

2) You can support the Discovery Institutes' goal of advancing intelligent design research without subscribing to every single detail of their so called manifesto.

I personally believe ( but have no hard proof of it ) that Dembski is sympathetic to the Wedge Document, but so what ? How does that invalidate the work that he does ? Being symathetic to a cause does not mean you shouldn't be doing the hard work to present a scientific case for what you believe. Richard Dawkins ( who wrote that those who believe in God and teach their children to fear Him are child abusers ) is an honoree and a supporter of the materialistic Atheist Alliance International (AAI), an alliance of 58 atheist organisations around the world, 48 of which are located in the United States. Does this then mean that his being a member of a group that wants to promote materialism and the non-existence of God somehow now INVALIDATES the science he presents ?

When one signs on to the Discovery Institute one buys into their goals aspirations and philosophy. Their goal is nothing less than an overthrow of methodological naturalism Uh huh and when men like Dawkins signs in to Atheist International, one buys into their goals aspirations and philosophy. Their goal is nothing less than an overthrow of belief in God. so what's your point ? How does being personally sympathetic to the goals of one organization validate or invalidate your work ? Shouldn't your work stand on its own apart from your sympathy to any cause ?

“Isn’t it lovely that the Designer made everything so well designed, yet not well designed enough to change on its own without the guidance of the designers hand.”

On the other hand we have "“Isn’t it lovely that the chance made everything look so well designed, yet not well convincing enough for those it produced to be convinced that it has creative powers all on its own ?”

Please name for me another Scientist who intimates that disagreement with his findings and conclusions is an “Offense of the Gospel”, or that ANY Science could possibly be an “Offense of the Gospel”.

No one I can think of. Certainly not Dembski. Dembski wasn't refering to disagreements with his findings (as you continue to misinterprete it ), he was refering to suppression of the work of Prof. Robert Marks. Of course you continue to spin it the wrong way, therefore I have no choice but to continue to call you on it.

Saint Thomas Aquinas’ point was quite simply that when Science and your interpretation of the Bible are in conflict, it is your interpretation of the Bible that must give way;

And my point is this -- Intelligent Design and people who continue to do research on it do not refer to the Bible IN ANY WAY when they do their work. Bringing the Bible up is a red herring and shows how you simply want to insist on putting your own definition of what ID ought to be when its proponents already said it isn't what you say it is.

No discovery about the reality of the Universe and the laws that govern it could possibly be an affront to the creator of the Universe.

This, I agree with, and so I believe would Dembski and even Behe.

That is why Dembski is a shoddy theologist (still a cromulent word), he thinks that the Gospel needs to be defended at a Baptist University against facts and theories.

That is why I have to call you on your SHODDY MISINTERPRETATION of his remark. Dembski work with ID never mentions the Bible or the Gospel, nor does it mention God at all.

He is a fool, although an entertaining one.

Actually, I would say that Dawkins is the fool and an even more entertaining one at that. Your interpretation of ID is foolish as well ( although I wouldn't call a misinterpretation (and a deliberate one even after countless clarifications) entertaining though ).

I call ‘Intelligent Design’ because it posits a Designer who creates a universe that cannot subsist without him plugging up the cracks and filling in the hole

Well, look who's playing God here. By this statement, you are telling us what an intelligent designer OUGHT TO DO. Listen, you come up with a design as intelligent as the human eye and we'll see how authoritative you are in pronouncing what ought and ought not be designed.

Yes, you'd rather believe that chance can do it all even when we've never OBSERVED it happen, that's very scientific of you.