Not-So-Intelligent Design

The Scientist ^ | Mar. 4, 2002 | Neil S. Greenspan and Anthony Canamucio

[TailspinJim]

I'm talking about time dialation,due to the fact that we're traveling at near the speed of light from the reference point of the big bang, not mutations. Schroeder says the l5 + billion yrs since the big bang can and do fit into the six days (Gods time) it took him to accomplish the "creation". According to Schroeder, we're now in the latter portion of the sixth day!

[BMCDA]

Here is a website of a guy who debunks the "theories" of ID-ists like Dembski, Behe, Johnson et al. The e-mails of his conversation with some of them are also available on his site.

[anniegetyourgun]

Now, now - you know we can't have those publik skool kids doing any critical thinking among multiples.

[Free the USA]

Bump List

[cookcounty]

I hear this "you can't calculate the odds for things that have already happened," but that's nonsense. In the case of the 10,000 heads-up pennies on the driveway, YOUR only argument against randomness would be a calculation of odds---even though the pennies were already there when you arrived!

In other words, only an idiot would NOT try to calculate the odds of this past event.

[longshadow]

I'm talking about time dialation,due to the fact that we're traveling at near the speed of light from the reference point of the big bang,.... [snip]

That's very interesting. Could you provide us with the coordinates for the "reference point of the Big Bang"? In other words, were do you think the BB was located?

[Doctor Stochastic]

... then by all means teach Creation.

Which version? The one where the Flute-Playing Locust leads the Souls of Men through the Sipapu into the Third World?

[TailspinJim]

At the center of the universe, of course.

[Sabertooth]

This is such a silly controversy.

"Proofs" or "disproofs" of ID, or some sort of random or "natural cause" of the Universe (or the principles governing it) ALL speculate on causes that will more than likely remain outside the purview of science, because they tread outside the space-time continuum.

I happen to think that the Laws of Physics are a product of ID, but it's just my hunch or belief... The same would be true if I thought they came about "spontaneously" after a "spontaneous" Big Bang.

I also happen to believe that Evolution is governed and driven by more than just random mutation filtered by natural selection over a vast backdrop of time.

But even if we discover Laws of Biology, as we have Laws of Physics and Chemistry, we will forever beg the question (scientifically, anyway) of how and why those laws came to be... Because all speculation on those matters involves knowing what is or isn't going on outside of space-time. So what?

What's the problem with saying at some point, "Science can't answer, or hasn't answered that?"

[rdb3]

I'm ashamed that this clown lives in my hometown.

[Exnihilo]

You know, before you open your mouth and make yourself look like an uninformed idiot, you might take the time to learn that Phillip Johnson has no "theories", so there is nothing to debunk.

[Exnihilo]

It isn't even agreed upon by physicists and astronomers if there IS a "center" of the universe.

[TailspinJim]

I'll second that.

[rdb3]

The emperor has no clothes any more, never did.

Thank you. Evolution, at face value, is absurd.

[TailspinJim]

Perhaps then, you subscribe to Sabertooth's post number 29?

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Please list 5 journals that will accept non-evolutionary viewpoints for peer review."

Acta Biotheoretica
Bioscience
Genetics, Selection, Evolution
Mammalian Genome
Nature
Trends in Biological Sciences

Of, course, the paper must be scientific, not religious. Certainly none of the self-published papers on Dembski's (as of last fall) would qualify.

[Exnihilo]

I agree with you. These things are ultimately beyond our ability to know with certainty. The only thing that grates my nerves is how the naturalists who espouse Darwinian orthodoxy pretend that they do so from an objective, unbiased view point; that their desires, psychological make-up, or feelings towards religion and/or God(s) do not in any way effect the way that they view and/or interpret the evidences presented by both sides. The "Creationists" (whatever that happens to mean at any given time in a discussion), readily admit that they are theistic, and make no bones about their feelings about God and/or religion. The gaul of the naturalists to sit there and honestly claim that they are some how "more objective" than the opposition is the height of absurdity. They make themselves look worse with the never-ending name calling, the attempts to insult and intellectually marginalize those who disagree with them, and on and on. Table pounding rhetoric may convince those who want to believe, but it doesn't persuade anyone who has critical thinking skills.

[Exnihilo]

Indeed, see my above post.

[TailspinJim]

Touche'

[Exnihilo]

Hi Doctor Stochastic. I was wondering if you could explain for us, specifically how Dr. Dembski's ID Theory is religious. I'm confident that you've taken the time to read all of his work, and that you understand what his theory says. So, please I ask you, tell us how ID theory is "religious". I would encourage you to cite specific papers that Dembski has published, and you might go so far as to quote him in order to make your case. I'll even go further and allow you to discontinue use of the word "religious" and simply go to "unscientific". Definitions of the terms you use here will also help. I'm sure we will all be anxiously awaiting your thorough explaination!