Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics': Supernatural Selection
The New York Times ^ | 14 April 2002 | JIM HOLT

Posted on 04/14/2002 12:31:25 AM PDT by sourcery

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-297 next last
To: VadeRetro
but one militant athiest told me he could prove there was no God.

The militant folks on both sides tend to be almost comically unable to make a good case, don't they? I've had people try to prove both God and No God to me, and they never made much sense, usually getting into a really nasty tangle of logic that they strangle themselves with.

141 posted on 04/15/2002 2:10:58 AM PDT by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Perhaps, but that's not Plantinga's argument.

And my argument is that the fundamental refutation of Platinga is this: just how reliable (or unreliable), in quantifiable terms, should the human mind be, given either evolution or creation as the preferred theory? Without such a quantifiable, testable prediction, no statement concerning any difference between the "predicted" and actual reliability/fitness of human reasoning has any scientific basis, and so cannot provide any scientific justification for preferring one theory over the other. I have not seen this refutation clearly stated elsewhere, and it seems to me to strike most fundamentally at the core of the issue.

142 posted on 04/15/2002 2:16:11 AM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Titus Fikus
There will always be 'that which we do not know' and a need to formulate a reasonable way to deal with it.

How about simply admitting that you are not perfect and there are unknown things that you do not know? Is the alternative of acting like a primitive tribesman, creating an angry god of the sky to explain those bright flashes and loud sound, any less absurd?

143 posted on 04/15/2002 2:16:31 AM PDT by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Reality by committee, I don't think so.

Reality by fiat is even less attractive.

144 posted on 04/15/2002 2:23:03 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
If you are open to the existence of X (with utterly no evidence for X) then why not UFOs, ghosts, etc.?"

But that doesn't make much logical sense. Lack of proof to the positive doesn't constitute proof to the negative. Even as an atheist I have to admit our knowledge is not unlimited, and therefore we can't reach such conclusions of non-existance. That would be getting just as high-and-mighty as the theists who claim to have The Answers.

145 posted on 04/15/2002 2:24:13 AM PDT by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
That is actually what the argument is about. What distinguishes "God did it" from the myriad of other apparently stupid reasons? If we could answer this, life would be easy.

One of these days, I'll be able to write this clearly.

146 posted on 04/15/2002 2:26:38 AM PDT by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I thought that an atheist "knew" that there was no God, whereas an agnostic just couldn't tell and didn't see how everybody else was acting so cocksure.

I've seen the two camps divided into "strong atheist" (there is no god) and "weak atheist" (I personally have no supernatural beliefs). It's stupid, and I hate being classified as being in any "weak" category.

147 posted on 04/15/2002 2:30:31 AM PDT by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Far from being a scientific theory of recent origin, evolution was an established religious belief at the heart of occultism and mysticism thousands of years before the Greeks gave in "scientific"...

ROTFL! This is seriously funny! Who is this guy?

148 posted on 04/15/2002 2:34:18 AM PDT by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Kent Hovind's doctoral thesis submitted to a correspondence diploma mill,

Yeah, I read about that. But it's an accredited school! Yep, by an accreditation mill. Cute. (BTW I worked at a real university when they were getting accredited by real accreditors, it's no walk in the park.)

A thesis a work in progress? At that level of writing? At the time I didn't know much about higher education, so I found the opinion of some real Ph.D.s. It's basically along the lines of "This isn't a doctoral thesis, it's an undergrad paper deserving of a C at best."

149 posted on 04/15/2002 2:40:50 AM PDT by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Perhaps you're just agnostic concerning whether or not you're an atheist? :-)

[rim shot]

150 posted on 04/15/2002 3:05:50 AM PDT by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Reality by fiat is even less attractive.

Ouch! Everybody seems to be writing far better than I am today. Time for another coffee.

151 posted on 04/15/2002 3:08:01 AM PDT by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Longshadow
[|]CLOAKED[|] Lurking, leering ...
152 posted on 04/15/2002 4:35:09 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Gladwin
"Anyway, evolution is not considered a ladder of life anymore, with man at the top of the ladder...The two driving principles of evolution are random mutation and natural selection based on those random mutations."

"Anymore"?? Really?? Why are museums and school science books still irresponsibly illustrating and displaying the "ascent of man" as though it were an actual scientific gospel truth instead of a wildly unproven absurdly?

Anyway, two points to be made - I may have to reconsider the "man at the top of the ladder" evolutionary premise based on the apparant Cro-magnon/Neanderthalian pseudo-homosapien behavior of certain "missing links" living in the Middle East region of planet Earth...

Secondly, with regard to "random mutation", there still has never been proven any actual missing link or characteristic beyond changing within a species other than color or slight alterations in appendages or eyes for example. Or perhaps you have sources that prove otherwise?

153 posted on 04/15/2002 4:37:14 AM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Quila
"Who is this guy"?

Dave Hunt is an internationally known author and lecturer who's written more than 20 books (as of 1996).

LOL -- and you are...??

154 posted on 04/15/2002 4:45:59 AM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Quila
Okay, fine, let's say evolution is found completely false and falls apart as a scientific theory. Then these 'neo creos' they'll think they've won, and believe ID is the only scientifically acceptable answer.

For sure, a false dichotomy, but you can understand them thinking, "First, we have to destroy what's there."

"The Un-Discovery Institute" would be a better term.

155 posted on 04/15/2002 4:58:41 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Here's a posit for you -- If one is to buy the evolutionary model that man has ascented from amoeba to his present form, shouldn't that ascent should logically and mathematically follow the course into eventual godhood?

You could as easily posit that man might be headed back to ape-hood if not amoeba-hood if the selection pressures take him that way. Even if man continues to develop intelligence and the fruits of intelligence, how does "godhood" result?

In this vein, Evolution can be considered both a science AND a religion.

No, it's just you, thinking religiously.

156 posted on 04/15/2002 5:05:58 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
LOL -- and you are...??

Apparently someone whose voluntary medications (a.k.a. recreational pharmaceuticals) are not as good as this guy's.

157 posted on 04/15/2002 5:10:40 AM PDT by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Quila
Don't tell me that after all these years I'm not really an atheist, but an agnostic.

Could be. At any rate, I've never considered myself a "weak atheist." (OK, I could use some time in the weight room.)

158 posted on 04/15/2002 5:11:02 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"You could as easily posit that man might be headed back to ape-hood if not ameoba-hood if the selection pressures take him that way."

"Ameoba-hood"?? "Get the microscope out Honey, and say hi to the your crazy Aunt and Uncle (who are now in the midst of a cell division).

159 posted on 04/15/2002 5:21:53 AM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Quila
With all due respect to your credentials (hello?) as an accomplished writer and researcher of scientific, religious, and occultist theory, I think I'll back the horse that can actually prove his point.
160 posted on 04/15/2002 5:30:21 AM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-297 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson