That is purely because no ID-ot has ever produced any hard scientific evidence for their hypothesis, there has has never been any experimentation and there has never been any predictions made that could be scientifically tested to prove any aspect of ID.
Dembski's defense: quote and link(s) for the non-dogmatic
by Shining One 27 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
kid-A
What the ID-ots cant seem to grasp is that they have lost the battle, with the exception of a few hill-billy outposts in the bible belt, they are simply ignored by the scientific establishment because they are irrelevant. My research will be funded regardless of the occasional bible-thumping nut-bar claiming the earth is 6000 yrs old. All national and international science funding agencies are controlled by....you guessed....proponents of evolution and theres not a god-damned thing the creationists will EVER be able to do about it!! So to paraphrase another famous creationist who happens to be the president: "Bring em'on!!!" whooo-hoooo!!!!
-
Shining One
Watch your mouth, weasel. This isn't the area for that GD stuff.
Rex -
Shining One
>That is purely because no ID-ot has ever produced any hard scientific evidence for their hypothesis
How about looking in the mirror, ding dong? Are you absolutely sure of that statement? If so, you need to prove it or retract it.
>there has has never been any experimentation and there has never been any predictions made that could be scientifically tested to prove any aspect of ID.
Really? See the questions above? Please answer them or shut up.
Rex -
Shining One
Kid A,
>What the ID-ots cant seem to grasp is that they have lost the battle, with the exception of a few hill-billy outposts in the bible belt, they are simply ignored by the scientific establishment because they are irrelevant.
If they are 'simply ignored' then why is there such a ruckus going on all across the country? I mean the USA, not Little Europe Up North.
>My research will be funded regardless of the occasional bible-thumping nut-bar claiming the earth is 6000 yrs old.
YOUR research, you must be a SCHOLAR. Perhaps you can offer some proof of this for us?
>All national and international science funding agencies are controlled by....you guessed....proponents of evolution
Ha ha ha, you just made a good case for censorship, A.K.A., North Korea style. You ain't too awful smart for such a SCHOLAR.
>and theres not a thing the creationists will EVER be able to do about it!! So to paraphrase another famous creationist who happens to be the president: "Bring em'on!!!" whooo-hoooo!!!!
Oh really? I.D. proponents are already doing 'a thing about it' and your pet theories are 'on the run' in may areas. Naturalists cannot deal with many of the arguments that are being put forth. Your own bluster betrays a obvious level of fear for your own belief system. Just like arguing with a JW.
Rex -
Shining One
Since the resident 'scholars' refuse to have an honest discussion of Dembski's defense, I have decided to post a larger portion of it. If you SCHOLARS will actually let your bigotry and Belligerence go long enough to look at the man's argument, you might learn to be more balanced and TOLERANT.
"So far I’m not saying anything different from standard complementarianism, the view that science and Scripture point to the same reality, albeit from different vantages. Where I part company with complementarianism is in arguing that when science points to a transcendent reality, it can do so as science and not merely as religion. In particular, I argue that design in nature is empirically detectable and that the claim that natural systems exhibit design can have empirical content."
For some of you less bright 'scholars', this is a claim that 'evidence' backs up the I.D. argument.
"even so, there’s a deeper issue underlying my unwillingness to renounce unsavory associates, and that concerns how one chooses conversation partners and rejects others as cranks. Throughout my last ten years as a public advocate for intelligent design, I’ve encountered a pervasive dogmatism in the academy. In my case, this dogmatism has led fellow academicians (I hesitate to call them “colleagues” since they’ve made it clear that I’m no colleague of theirs) to trash my entire academic record and accomplishments simply because I have doubts about Darwinism, because I don’t think the rules of science are inviolable, and because I think that there can be good scientific reasons for thinking that certain natural systems are designed. These are my academic sins, no more and no less. And the academy has been merciless in punishing me for these sins."
Where is all of that famed 'skepticism of scientists'? Evidently they do not apply it to their sacred religion of naturalism and its main tenet, darwinism!
"Now, I resolutely refuse to engage in this same form of dogmatism (or any other form of dogmatism, God willing). To be sure, I think I am right about the weaknesses of Darwinism, the provisional nature of the rules of science, and the detectability of design in nature. But I’m also willing to acknowledge that I may be wrong. Yet precisely because I’m willing to acknowledge that I might be wrong, I also want to give other people who I think are wrong, and thus with whom I disagree, a fair chance--something I’ve too often been denied. What’s more, just because people are wrong about some things doesn’t mean they are wrong about other things. Granted, a valid argument from true premises leads to a true conclusion. But a valid argument from false premises can also lead to a true conclusion. Just because people have false beliefs is no reason to dismiss their work."
False premises, scholars, can mean 'presuppositions' or, why many people interpret the hard evidence in opposite ways!
"One of the most insightful philosophers of science I know as well as one of my best conversation partners over the last decade is Paul Nelson, whose book On Common Descent is now in press with the University of Chicago’s Evolutionary Monographs Series. Nelson’s young earth creationism has been a matter of public record since the mid eighties. I disagree with Nelson about his views on a young earth. But I refuse to let that disagreement cast a pall over his scholarly work. A person’s presuppositions are far less important than what he or she does with them. Indeed, a person is not a crank for holding crazy ideas (I suspect all of us hold crazy ideas), but because his or her best scholarly efforts are themselves crazy. (Important point, SCHOLARS)
If someone can prove the Goldbach conjecture (i.e., that every even number greater than two is the sum of two primes), then it doesn’t matter how many crazy ideas and hair-brained schemes he or she entertains--that person will win a Fields Medal, the mathematical equivalent of the Nobel Prize. On the other hand, if someone claims to have proven that pi is a rational number (it’s been known for over a century that pi is not only an irrational number but also a transcendental number, thus satisfying no polynomial equation with integer coefficients), then that person is a crank regardless how mainstream he or she is otherwise. Kepler had a lot of crazy ideas about embedding the solar system within nested regular geometric solids. A full half of Newton’s writings were devoted to theology and alchemy. Yesterday’s geniuses in almost every instance become today’s cranks if we refuse to separate their best work from their presuppositions."
Logic in that statement as well!!!!In the prevailing scientific community, there is no TOLERANCE nor real skeptical analysis regarding the holy tenets of naruralism!
"I challenge anyone to read Paul Nelson’s On Common Descent, which critiques Darwin’s idea of common descent from the vantage of developmental biology, and show why it alone among all the volumes in the University of Chicago’s Evolutionary Monographs Series does not belong there (of course I’m refusing here to countenance an ad hominem argument, which rejects the book simply because of Nelson’s creationist views). I don’t distance myself from creationists because I’ve learned much from them. So too, I don’t distance myself from Darwinists because I’ve learned much from them as well. I commend Darwinists like Michael Ruse, Will Provine, and Elliott Sober for their willingness to engage the intelligent design community and challenge us to make our arguments better."
Well, maybe some of you 'great brains' can actually take this challenge or are you merely pretenders? Buy the book and let's see you prove it wrong!
"Unlike Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA (“Non-Overlapping Magisteria”) principle, which separates science and religion into tight compartments and which Todd Moody has rightly called a gag-order masquerading as a principle of tolerance, intelligent design theorists desire genuine tolerance. Now the problem with genuine tolerance is that it requires being willing to engage the views of people with whom we disagree and whom in some cases we find repugnant. Unfortunately, the only alternative to the classical liberalism of John Stuart Mill, which advocates genuine tolerance, is the hypocritical liberalism of today’s political correctness."
Wow, this guy tells it like it really is! HYPOCRITICAL LIBERALISM runs rampant.
"In place of Gould’s NOMA, design theorists advocate a very different principle of interdisciplinary dialogue, namely, COMA: Completely Open Magisteria. It is not the business of magisteria to assert authority by drawing disciplinary boundaries. Rather, it is their business to open up inquiry so that knowledge may grow and life may be enriched (which, by the way, is the motto of the University of Chicago). Within the culture of rational discourse, authority derives from one source and one source alone--excellence. Within the culture of rational discourse, authority never needs to be asserted, much less legislated."
What say you, SCHOLARS?
Rex -
tetrapod.sapien
Since the resident 'scholars' refuse to have an honest discussion of Dembski's defense, I have decided to post a larger portion of it.
uh, his "defense" has already been torn a new hole in this thread. perhaps you should try dealing with what people are saying in a logical manner, admitting that some arguments are better than yours.
next.
This isn't the area for that GD stuff.
i agree! george bush is god damned.
TS
-
Shining One
>uh, his "defense" has already been torn a new hole in this thread.
Oh really? I have not seen any such sort. I see a lot of hogwash trying to pass itself off as bubblebath.
>perhaps you should try dealing with what people are saying in a logical manner, admitting that some arguments are better than yours.
I am referencing 'Dembski's Defense', not my own arguments. There are none here that seem able to do what you suggest. Don't pin this label on me when you are one of the ones who is completely uncouth.
Rex