Posted on 07/13/2006 3:18:03 PM PDT by curiosity
What is unnatural about intelligent design?
I missed this one. The gene gun and John Sanford.
Where did the forces that structure the universe (physically, biologically, etc.) come from. That bind atoms and molecules together?
Next time I post those questions I'll be more specific, in order to exclude certain nonsensical responses.
I clipped that same section with the intention of writing that it bears repeating. :) It's belief vs. facts. If someone just believes, there's no reasoning with them, so I rarely bother. It's just like with the Global Warming crowd.
Hardly.
Derbyshire has the habit of calling pretty much anyone who has any doubts about any aspect of Darwin's theory a misguided Creationist--- for instance, he's called the biologist Richard Lewotin one for having the same doubts about the Bell Curve that Stephen Jay Gould expressed. Leon Wieseltier was supposedly also a Creationist, despite the fact that anyone who is familiar at all with him knows he's relentlessly secularist.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTI1YzM2ODI0MmNiMDM2MTk5NWJjZjMwYjY4MjJjZjM=
The article is nothing more than a series of insults and straw-manning of Gilder's points. For instance, Derbyshire's point about Max Planck ignores the fact the physicists have in the 20th century tended to be more open metaphysics itself than biologists. That's not anything new-- as a pioneering biologist, Aristotle was similarly more of an empiricist than his teacher, who saw mathematics as the model for thought. And Derbysire is wrong to say that biology today has no time for such conflicts-- there are tons of interesting ones, such as holism versus reductionism, functional organization, what constitutes a species and the question as to whether species themselves can function in the evolutionary process rather than simply resulting from it.
Derbyshire is just as off base when he calls the atheism of Richard Dawkins a side project that has nothing to do with his expertise as a zoologist. Dawkins might be incorrect, but if he is, he is incorrect as a biologist, since according to him, the "Blind Watchmaker thesis" is inseparable from explanation in biology.
I have to admit one thing-- if anything makes me wonder if I'm too uncritical when I read Ann Coulter or some other polemicists I'm generally sympathetic, it's when I read Derbyshire and wonder whether, if his opinions agreed with my own more often, would I overlook his sloppiness and vituperation plus brute assertion in place of argument?
"Where did the forces that structure the universe (physically, biologically, etc.) come from. That bind atoms and molecules together?"
Nobody knows.
Yeah.
So Ann Coulter ISN'T sloppy and she DOESN'T use vituperation and brute assertion in place of argument?
I like Ann too, but your bias is showing.
YOu're as wrong as you can be.
If one has facts, one doesn't need belief, as in faith. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
If one has faith, there can't BE supporting facts, because then where is the leap of faith to believe?
Unless God did it. Why reject the possibility? It is not science to say "God didn't do it" if you don't know the answer.
Yes, I thought that was odd. But then, Dembski seems almost indignant that Ken Miller and Francis Collins, both theistic evolutionists, reject ID.
Hey Darkwolf, that was my point--- I guess I was unclear about it.
What I was saying was that, when I read Derbyshire, Andrew Sullivan and others who I often disagree with who unfairly argue, it makes me wonder about my own bias.
In other words, my point was the very one you made to me, I need to be more objective when I read someone like Ann. Sure,she mostly goes after people and positions I don't like and teaches me new things (the latter being something Derbyshire often does too, especially when he writes about China and mathematics) but that doesn't mean I should excuse what I don't excuse in Derbyshire or others I might disagree with.
Your heliocentric notions about the solar system are not based upon experience, but upon faith. Otherwise you would be living somewhere outside of this planet. By faith I believe you to be otherwise located.
Faith means trust. Few people trust what cannot be verified by fact and experience. Intelligent design is a matter of experience for most people. As for flying spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, pixies, elves, etc., those seem to be an object of faith for evolutionists since they are the ones who continually bring them up along side suggestions of intelligent design in connection with organized matter that performs specific functions.
Which God didn't do it?
Do you mean Brahma?
Which eye are you missing? Right, or left?
Hey, you have to admit the logic of Hinduism, reincarnation and all, has a much stronger internal consistancy than atheism.
It is hardly nonsensical to ask what is unnatural about intelligent design. Perhaps we should consider your nonresponse to be yet another manifestation of kephalorectal proclivities.
The retinal stimulation upon any human eye, whether right or left, is two-dimensional. Thanks to the Intelligent Designer, we have more than eyes with which to observe, quantify, and explore His intelligently designed creation.
Yeah but where are all the links between those?
/creatinoidmode
That random mutations in genes drove evolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.