I reject the notion that ID is "anti-science". The fact that a court declared it uncontitutional to teach it in public schools is irrelevant.
I entirely agree with P Sacramento. As it is pure speculation, so is Dawkins statement.
Mad Dawg
JoinedPosts by Mad Dawg
-
43
A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity."
by BurnTheShips inhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/.
on dawkinss atheism: a responsemy august 1 essay, philosophy and faith, was primarily addressed to religious believers.
it argued that faith should go hand-in-hand with rational reflection, even though such reflection might well require serious questioning of their faith.
-
-
-
43
A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity."
by BurnTheShips inhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/.
on dawkinss atheism: a responsemy august 1 essay, philosophy and faith, was primarily addressed to religious believers.
it argued that faith should go hand-in-hand with rational reflection, even though such reflection might well require serious questioning of their faith.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Bohm said:
You wrote that i was being nasty for saying you misrepresented evolution:
I didn’t say that you were nasty, I inferred that you were being hypocritical.
Oh wait there it was - evolution is about rocks evolving. please tell me how rocks evolve. Please. What is the rock-genomen? how does rocks multiply?
I didn’t say evolution was about rocks evolving. Where did the chemicals in the primordial soup come from if it wasn’t rocks? Oh! How dare I! I am not allowed tounge in cheek comments. That is only allowed for Evo’s!
and that sort of corrolate with complexity in my head.
And that is your bottom line. Not very convincing.
I used complexity in the same sense that Dawkins did, unless you can show otherwise. I also left the complexity of God open.
Simon said:
It's up to you to come up with an example where a designer is less complex that the design to prove me wrong.
Umm… no. If one makes a positive statement, it is their responsibility to support it. To sit there and say “I am right until you prove me wrong” is intellectually dishonest. Or do you wish to be in a position of proving there is no God? Perhaps you can prove there is no multiverse?
The best thing to do would be to change the statement from “always” to “as far as we know.” But that would cut the legs out from under Dawkins statement. And we can’t have that, can we?
-
43
A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity."
by BurnTheShips inhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/.
on dawkinss atheism: a responsemy august 1 essay, philosophy and faith, was primarily addressed to religious believers.
it argued that faith should go hand-in-hand with rational reflection, even though such reflection might well require serious questioning of their faith.
-
-
Mad Dawg
I do not take your comments to be anything but an honest inquiry.
Dawkins says that, because of the complexity of the universe, an even more complex God would be needed to create the universe.
My response is:
1) To ask for proof of the premise of the statement – that the universe requires a complex designer.
2) To question the complexity of God. His being is simple: He is a spirit. Personally and intellectually, He is unknowably complex.
The rest of it is responding to stuff that is brought up.
It is not my purpose here to address whether or not God exists. I am merely responding to Dawkins statement. The Evo’s (not meant derogatorily) here could actually shut down the simple/complex issue pretty quickly – if they were to make one key observation. However, that would still leave items 1 and 2 above unanswered.
I hope this clarifies it for you.
-
43
A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity."
by BurnTheShips inhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/.
on dawkinss atheism: a responsemy august 1 essay, philosophy and faith, was primarily addressed to religious believers.
it argued that faith should go hand-in-hand with rational reflection, even though such reflection might well require serious questioning of their faith.
-
-
Mad Dawg
True, my history was off a bit, but the irony was that the Church was holding to the theories of Greek philosophers in line with what was taught in the secular universities. Scriptures were misused to support it.
Let’s see, you tell me that I have it wrong – that courts don’t determine what is true or fantastical. But wait! You immediately appeal to… *wait for it*.. the courts! The constitutionality of teaching ID is irrelevant to this discussion.
If someone makes a positive assertion, it is up to them to defend it. The following statement was made:
(T)he designer of something is ALWAYS more complex than the thing they design.
All I have asked is that someone prove it using something more than an anecdote.
Bohm said:
1) Complete misrepresentation of what evolution is. You know evolution does not mean what you say it mean, yet you keep on saying it. Why? What have I said that it means? However, you take great joy in misrepresenting creationist thought.
2) Define complex. … So what is your definition of complexity? My understanding of complexity is the simple common understanding of complexity that I presume that Dawkins uses. If you notice, I left the question open as to whether Dawkins was referring God’s being or intellect.
3) your last point seem to be claiming that some scientists are somewhat like bad pastors,… Yes that is exactly what I was saying except that they are no different than bad pastors.
…and therefore they are full of shit and bias and will never abbandon their own ideas. The bad ones – absolutely. To do so would be to give up on their fame and fortune and would subject themselves to ridicule and scorn.
whenever i hear that complete non-point,… Does that mean you will never again point out bad pastors to push your Misotheism?
…i keep thinking that its being made by a person who know he dont give a crap about evidence,… I am always very concerned about the evidence. I am still waiting for evidence to support the statement about a complex designer.
but want me to buy the delusion scientists are like him. So now, a person is delusional if he believes scientists are human?
-
43
A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity."
by BurnTheShips inhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/.
on dawkinss atheism: a responsemy august 1 essay, philosophy and faith, was primarily addressed to religious believers.
it argued that faith should go hand-in-hand with rational reflection, even though such reflection might well require serious questioning of their faith.
-
-
Mad Dawg
So, you are saying that the courts decide what is fantastical? The courts did good job with Galileo, didn’t they?
So let’s see if I have this right:
1. A court in Kentucky decided evolution is true.
2. That means anything that is not supportive of evolution is fantastical
3. Evo’s can make any statement they want without having to prove it is true, as long as it supports evolution.
I still waiting for someone tell me how you KNOW that something is ALWAYS more complex than the thing they design? If you wish to make a positive statement about the universe, please back it up with something more than an anecdote.
I am glad that you understand that there are shady scientists just as there are shady pastors and that both will lower themselves to the level of a snakeoil salesman to get what they want. Keep in mind that pastors do it “probably after a lifetime of study and hard work”.
It is more than books; there are speaking fees, posh professorships, prestige, and fame. There have been many hoaxes perpetrated by scientists in order to gain these. Scientists are not above having philosophical axes to grind any more than pastors are.
-
43
A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity."
by BurnTheShips inhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/.
on dawkinss atheism: a responsemy august 1 essay, philosophy and faith, was primarily addressed to religious believers.
it argued that faith should go hand-in-hand with rational reflection, even though such reflection might well require serious questioning of their faith.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Who decides which claim is fantastical? And lets not forget:
Fundi Atheists - We really don't know how we evolved from rocks, but here are some fantastical stories! Buy my books! Dollars, please.
-
43
A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity."
by BurnTheShips inhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/.
on dawkinss atheism: a responsemy august 1 essay, philosophy and faith, was primarily addressed to religious believers.
it argued that faith should go hand-in-hand with rational reflection, even though such reflection might well require serious questioning of their faith.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Hmmm... more flat assertions and delusional constructs. Please tell me how you KNOW that something is ALWAYS more complex than the thing they design? If you wish to make a positive statement about the universe, please back it up with something more than an anecdote.
-
43
A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity."
by BurnTheShips inhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/.
on dawkinss atheism: a responsemy august 1 essay, philosophy and faith, was primarily addressed to religious believers.
it argued that faith should go hand-in-hand with rational reflection, even though such reflection might well require serious questioning of their faith.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Nic said:
Nothing but a series of flat assertions and delusional constructs.
Do you mean like quantum fluctuations of nothingness? You do realize that Dawkins’ statements about the complexity of God, or the existence of God, are Nothing but a series of flat assertions and delusional constructs? You should listen to yourself sometime. BTW, I get very little ridicule or derision.
-
43
A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity."
by BurnTheShips inhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/.
on dawkinss atheism: a responsemy august 1 essay, philosophy and faith, was primarily addressed to religious believers.
it argued that faith should go hand-in-hand with rational reflection, even though such reflection might well require serious questioning of their faith.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Thing is he contradicts himself and renders his conclusion rediculous. On one hand he states that God must be complex because the universe is complex, then turns around and states this somehow proves that something simple made it. Of the several premesis, only one can be observed - that the universe is complex. False premises beget false conlusions. Even if he is correct in his belief, his "proofs" don't cut it.
-
5
How Would A Follower Of Christ Learn The Bible?
by wannabe in" {matthew 13:11 niv} so!
" {hebrews 7:25 niv}.
" {john 14:15-17 niv} the apostle john will explain that:.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Wannabe said:
The Bible says YES!
Sorry, I missed the verse that says we have to learn the Bible exactly as the 1 st century Christians did, please list the verse again. BTW, if you are learning the Bible in the same fashion as the early Christians, does that mean you have memorized the Law? How many chapters of Psalms and Proverbs did you memorize? What about the New Testament? That was an improtant part of their Bible training, memorization.
What is your point? Should I throw out my Strong's concordance because it wasn't written until long after Christ? What about the Bible on my computer?
Wannabe said:
The question is, though, would they ever really learn anything about the Bible by a dependance on these self-appointed Religious leaders? We will learn the answer to that, is an emphatic No!
Wannabe, I will take this to heart and not rely on self-appointed Religious leaders. Therefore, I can only conclude that you are to be ignored as far as any teaching about the Bible goes.
