Designed by Natural Selection

Stands to Reason ^ | Gregory Koukl

[lews]

--- Behe has been totally refuted. --

This link, http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/m b_brrespbr.htm, will lead you to Behe's response to Coyne's criticisms.

It always amazes me how Darwinists, like democrats, resort to name calling in the absence of substantial contrary evidence. Your post is a clear example of atheisms high handed rule over science. By implying that "anti-E's" are not "normal" scientists, you have tipped your hat.

As I have mentioned in other posts, science most be free of ideological overtones if progress will ever be made in researching the true origins of life and the universe. Science stagnated under the dogmatic rule of the church in the middle ages and the study of origins is stagnating under the atheistic ideologues today. By limiting science to an atheistic worldview you are limiting progress.

[medved]

Those who find "PatrickHenry"'s infantile attempts at humer via links funny will be rolling on the floor over this one:

Unbridled lust leads to frustration and misunderstanding despite Jimmy Carter's advice to the lustlorn

[BMCDA]

Strange indeed. With this attitude we'd never found out what lightnings really are. After all there was a theistic explanation, so why look further?

[Gumlegs]

Heck, we've got a theistic reason for roses being red. Don't need to bother with anything else.

[PatrickHenry]

Heck, we've got a theistic reason for roses being red. Don't need to bother with anything else.

Indeed, we have a theistic reason for everything, so we should stick with it until those infernal scientists prove there's no god.

[BMCDA]

Indeed, we have a theistic reason for everything, so we should stick with it until those infernal scientists prove there's no god.

Amen brother. And until it's not been proven that there's no god I'm for removing those blasphemous lightning rods from churches.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm for removing those blasphemous lightning rods from churches.

Those are steeples, you ninny.

[Gumlegs]

Don't worry. They're not REAL scientists.

[Virginia-American]

The link doesn't work. But so what? Was Coyne lying? Did Behe deliberately misrepresent what he said or not?

It always amazes me how Darwinists, like democrats, resort to name calling in the absence of substantial contrary evidence. Your post is a clear example of atheisms high handed rule over science. By implying that "anti-E's" are not "normal" scientists, you have tipped your hat.

Normal scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals and are scrupulous about quoting others accurately. Behe and Dembski don't do either. Anti-E's are notorious for bearing false witness by misquoting normal scientists out of context, or as in Behe's case, adding a period in the middle of a sentence. If they were really trying to convince other people (scientist or not) that they were right, they'd be more honest. Therefore, one concludes they're not trying to convince anyone they're right, they're trying to get money from those who already disbelieve normal science. IOW, fleecing suckers.

Was Fred Hoyle (the b747-junkyard-tornado guy) a regular scientist, or someone who just craved a little attention after his pet theory (steady-state universe) was shot down? Is Dembski the Newton of informnation science (comparison some of his followers have made), or is he the Velikovsky?

Also, your confusing evolutionary theory with atheism.

[balrog666]

With this attitude we'd never found out what lightnings really are. After all there was a theistic explanation, so why look further?

Right. Wasn't it Zeus's lightning bolts? Or was that Thor's hammer? Vulcan's forge? No, wait, it'll come to me ...

[Gumlegs]

ZZZzzzzzt!

Whew! Glad I wasn't standing next to you.

[aruanan]

Designed by Natural Selection

Winnowed by natural selection is more like it.

[Khepera]

Interesting Observation.

[aruanan]

The fact is, Calvin thinks, one who does not believe in God is in an epistemically defective position-rather like someone who does not believe that his wife exists, or thinks that she is a cleverly constructed robot that has no thoughts, feelings, or consciousness.

That's "epistemologically".

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: ep·i·ste·mic
Pronunciation: "e-p&-'stE-mik, -'ste-mik
Function: adjective
Date: 1922
: of or relating to knowledge or knowing : COGNITIVE
- ep·i·ste·mi·cal·ly /-mi-k(&-)lE/ adverb

[aruanan]

Main Entry: epis·te·mol·o·gy
Pronunciation: i-"pis-t&-'mä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek epistEmE knowledge, from epistanai to understand, know, from epi- + histanai to cause to stand -- more at STAND
Date: circa 1856
: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity
- epis·te·mo·log·i·cal /-m&-'lä-ji-k&l/ adjective
- epis·te·mo·log·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb
- epis·te·mol·o·gist /-'mä-l&-jist/ noun

More apropos for the 'she's not there' or 'she's just a robot' aspect of the argument, otherwise you may as well say that a carrot is in an epistemically-defective position with respect to the soil in which it grows. That's true, but it's just a statement of the fact without any hint as to why it is so.

[dheretic]

And how do you suppose God came to be? I'm sure it must be very, very extrordinary.

That assumes that all things that exist are bound to time. Just as a local variable cannot know the presence of a local variable in another function, we cannot know what exists outside of the constraints of time.

[f.Christian]

Play/tune with probability and possibility a little...eventually reality/reason will come in---fantasy out!

[BMCDA]

Yepp, it's good ole Zeus who's behind all this electrickery.

[VadeRetro]

The claim is that some coelurosaur or velociraptor starting out with none of the things it needs to become a flying bird is going to develop the wings, flight feathers, light bone structure, flow-through heart and lungs, specialized tail, beak, and specialized balance parameters needed to become a flying bird SIMULTANEOUSLY, over a protracted time during which none of those features would serve any real purpose.

But of course all features are useful throughout. You're making a point of misunderstanding and not remembering what people have been explaining to you daily for probably 10 years now. (And you're not impressed with me?) Before you can do sustained flight, you can do short hops. Before you can do short hops, you can glide from a height. Either might help you get away from a predator or pounce on your prey.

Those specialized lungs so good for the high oxygen uptake for flight: think they wouldn't help with running? You're saying that birds have a lot of really, really new features. They don't. Almost everything can be found on some dinosaurian species or other. The line between dinosaur and bird species gets very blurry in species like Caudipteryx. And why is that?