Creationists admit "We are losing badly"

[Jose Fly]

Oh, ID proponents' views are FAR FROM DEAD, sir.

Nah, it's dead. It was little more than a legal strategy designed (HAH!) to get creationist arguments in public schools, following a series of court rulings that banned teaching creationism in science classes.

It never even got off the ground before the Kitzmiller ruling put an end to that.

Science-wise, it never accomplished or contributed a single thing. So the only way it "lives" is in internet blogs and the like.

Your ridiculous atheism has no solid backing.

This has nothing to do with atheism. That you think it does only further demonstrates how ID creationism is about religion rather than science.

You deny that things on this earth can be shown to have IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. Irreducible Complexity and the acceptance thereof is good science.

Ok then, give an example of something you think is "irreducibly complex" and describe how you determined it to be so.

They do not say "God," but they recognize the ID involved.

Yeah, that was the whole point. The courts ruled you can't teach creationism in science classes, so the creationists stripped their arguments of overt Biblical references, changed "God" to a "designer", and said "See? No Biblical creationism here!" Didn't work.

 

[Jose Fly]

evolutionary theory states that cows derive from an ancestral form that was marine, correct?

Yep. Do you think that is the same thing as "a fish turning into a cow"?

 

[ok doser]

Yep. Do you think that is the same thing as "a fish turning into a cow"?

would it be inaccurate to call the marine precursor a "fish"?

 

[Jose Fly]

You didn't answer my question. Do you think "cows deriving from an ancestral form that was a fish" is the same thing as "a fish turning into a cow"?

 

[ok doser]

we'll get there

would it be inaccurate to call the marine precursor a "fish"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Never mind. I'm not interested.

 

[ok doser]

Never mind. I'm not interested.

no, of course not

 

[Zeke]

How would you go about differentiating between the two. Given say, a telescope and a tree? Do you have a criteria for deciding which occurred naturally and which was designed?

It's not a trick question?

So why would I separate the two? Are you trying to claim Mans behavior is unnatural because design and creation is part of it?

 

[brewmama]

One of the few intelligent design blogs left is "Uncommon Descent". Recently, Sal Cordova--an ID creationist--was banned from the blog, which seems kinda odd since he's a fairly well-known creationist and ID apologist. But in banning him, his fellow creationists sent him a letter that explains he was banned for also participating in a non-ID creationist site. That letter states (in part)...



I guess it's progress to see ID creationists finally coming around and recognizing the reality of the situation....ID creationism is dead, long since so. Millennials are accepting the reality of evolution in greater numbers, are leaving Christianity, and are citing the faith's anti-science attitude as among their reasons for leaving.

All good news. :up:

Interesting that you see the disappearance of Western Civilization, Christianity, freedom, justice and rationality as a good thing!

 

[ok doser]

heck, i'd just be happy if i could upgrade my filet-o-fish to a quarterpounder

 

[brewmama]

Creationism is a stain on Christianity. It is a form of Christianity that has ceased to be theology, that is thinking about God.

Do you really believe that believing God created the world is a stain on Christianity? Even when it cannot be proven that He didn't? That seems arrogant, short-sighted and presumptuous.

 

[Jose Fly]

Interesting that you see the disappearance of Western Civilization, Christianity, freedom, justice and rationality as a good thing!

Interesting how you think that's what I said.

 

[brewmama]

What? Creationism is not science based on my faith?

So then, is the Theory of Evolution based on the collective faith of the scientific community?

Think before you answer because it sounds like you are suggesting a world wide conspiracy based on Evolutionary "faith", which you will need to back up with evidence. In fact, I think you should start with the evidence.

In your own time.........

Oh come now, there's nothing new in this accusation, atheists themselves have agreed with it:

"According to Dr. John Lennox, a renowned professor, scientist and Christian apologist of the University of Oxford, many atheist scientists have not been compelled by science to accept a materialistic explanation of the universe; rather, an a priori commitment to materialism causes them to do so.[1] However, this is not Dr. Lennox's own formulation, but a viewpoint made explicit by many atheist scientists, such as Richard Lewontin, a biologist from Harvard University. Dr. Lewontin, in the New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997:31 entitled Billions and Billions of Demons (reviewing the book The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan) states:[2]
“ We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[2]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_suppression_of_science

 

[OCTOBER23]

JOSE FLY,

Are you a Darwinist ?

 

[Jose Fly]

“ We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[2]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_suppression_of_science

He's talking about methodological naturalism, not philosophical materialism (atheism).

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you a Darwinist ?

Depends on what you mean by the term.

 

[ok doser]

do you believe that fish can turn into cows like darwin did?

 

[brewmama]

He's talking about methodological naturalism, not philosophical materialism (atheism).

I think that answers her/his question without a problem.

"What Methodological Naturalism Is Not (and Never Was)

In Darwin's Doubt, Stephen Meyer argues that inferences to intelligent causation, while fully warranted by the evidence of the Cambrian explosion, run afoul of the dictum of methodological naturalism (MN). As Meyer defines MN:

"scientists should accept as a working assumption that all features of the natural world can be explained by material causes without recourse to purposive intelligence, mind, or conscious agency. (p. 19)
As Meyer later explains (p. 385), the fatal defect in MN is not hard to find: "if researchers refuse as a matter of principle [namely, MN] to consider the design hypothesis, they will obviously miss any evidence that happens to support it." One cannot evaluate the evidence for or against any hypothesis that has been ruled out a priori.

 

[Jonahdog]

do you believe that fish can turn into cows like darwin did?

Citation to Darwin please. You might have to read pretty deeply into his writings to come up with it, so take your time and pay attention.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think that answers her/his question without a problem.

"What Methodological Naturalism Is Not (and Never Was)

In Darwin's Doubt, Stephen Meyer argues that inferences to intelligent causation, while fully warranted by the evidence of the Cambrian explosion, run afoul of the dictum of methodological naturalism (MN). As Meyer defines MN:

"scientists should accept as a working assumption that all features of the natural world can be explained by material causes without recourse to purposive intelligence, mind, or conscious agency. (p. 19)
As Meyer later explains (p. 385), the fatal defect in MN is not hard to find: "if researchers refuse as a matter of principle [namely, MN] to consider the design hypothesis, they will obviously miss any evidence that happens to support it." One cannot evaluate the evidence for or against any hypothesis that has been ruled out a priori.

So you believe "God made it that way" should be an acceptable answer in science?