Same old argument, "we should change public policy because I believe in ghosts..." So sayeth the ID ostrich who thinks his personal opinions can form the basis of legislation which affects us all, and who also thinks that the fact that we can't prove there is no God means that God exists.
A quick summary for those looking at this thread for the first time. ID is not creationism. ID is not about proving the existence of God. ID is not anti-evolution. ID is the perspective that evolution is the product/output of design. Or put another way, that life is designed to exploit and channel evolutionary processes. This perspective can use science and guide science to help us better understand the natural world and the evolutionary process itself. Atheist Richard Dawkins begins his book "The Blind Watchmaker" with the observation that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." ID proponents simply take the inference of design in nature and use it as a guide for scientific research. No one has given a reason why a methodology that doesn't a priori reject teleology cannot employ an experimental, inductive approach to the world.
That's not a summary. It's a restating your starting post at the beginning of this thread. All of your points have been demolished thouroughly in this thread. Give it up.
No, you give it up. It's the arguments of the ID critics that have been demolished. And as far as I can tell, all the ID critics on this thread are evangelical atheists. Well, I've got news for you. Less than 10% of Americans are atheists. Most of the rest either believe that God created life as described in Genesis or think God guided an evolutionary process. There is no good reason why the latter group should be opposed to ID. They are the ones this thread is directed at. Many of them have been duped into thinking ID is creationism and/or anti-evolution but unlike you evangelical atheists they are not convinced that the evolutionary process is devoid of design. Once the misrepresentation that ID is creationism and/or anti-evolution is debunked do you honestly think most of the theists that accept evolution will reject ID in favor of the blind watchmaker hypothesis?
very good read ....... http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991 This is the second part of a two-part lecture given by Dr. Schaefer. Part 1 of this lecture appeared in The Real Issue, November/December, 1994. We shall begin with the philosophical aspects of A Brief History of Time, which really explains why it has sold so many copies. Stephen Hawking has stated, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief." When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions. A Brief History of Time makes wonderfully ambiguous statements such as, "Even if there is only one possible unified theory [here he's talking about the unification of quantum mechanics with an understanding of gravity], it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"(p. 174). I love that statement. Hawking pokes fun at Albert Einstein for not believing in quantum mechanics. When asked why he didn't believe in quantum mechanics, Einstein would say things like, "Well, God doesn't play dice with human beings"(p. 56). Hawking's response is that God not only plays with dice, He sometimes throws them where they can't be seen. The first time I read A Brief History of Time, for the first 122 pages I thought, "This is a great book; Hawking is building a splendid case for creation by an intelligent being." But then everything changes and this magnificent cosmological epic becomes adulterated by poor philosophy and theology. For example, he writes, "These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it" (p. 122). The grounds on which Hawking claims "it appears" are unstated and what happens is that a straw God is set up that is certainly not the God of Biblical history. What follows is a curious mixture of deism and the ubiquitous God of the gaps. Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism. One of the most famous and quoted statements in the book is, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator [the cosmological argument]. But if the universe is really completely self- contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"(pp. 140- 1). So Hawking is uncertain about his belief in a god of his own creation. I cannot resist the conclusion that Stephen Hawking's god is too small. At the end of the book he states, "However, if we do discover a complete theory. . . then we would know the mind of God"(p. 175). I'm sympathetic to this statement but I think he's claiming a bit much. I would modify it to say that if we had a unified, complete theory, we would know a lot more about the mind of God. The Anthropic Principle I must say something here about the anthropic principle: there are a number of scientific parameters or constants, any one of which, if changed just a little bit would make the earth uninhabitable by human beings. A book that I strongly recommend is by Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos. He has a substantial discussion of the anthropic principle and demonstrates why many physicists and astronomers have considered the possibility that the universe not only was divinely caused, but in fact divinely designed. ================= conitues ........... click link
why bother convincing the stubbornly unconvincable? pity them as they sit and stew in their tiny, close-minded, stark and empty existence. "MAN IS THE SUPREME BEING!" you win ultimately, they've only convinced themselves they are not fools.
Unreal. This is simply a restatement of the original post. The arguments of the ID'ers/Creationists have been completely demolished in this thread. They backed off almost all of their assertions and in the end, the only argument they were trying to defend was the idea that belief in science was just as much faith as ID/Creation. They claimed that ID/Creation was a scientifically provable alternative to evolution. They were politely asked to provide one shred of proof. In a bizarre twist, they started attacking the scientific method!! All the arguments given here are circular. They require an initial assumption, made on faith, that teleology is operative in the natural world. This is tantamount to saying 'I believe that God exists'. Once this assumption is made, scientific inquiry into the origin of life on earth is unnecessary. Of course one could inquire scientifically into how much salt will dissolve in a given volume of water at room temperature, with an a priori assumption that teleology is operative. However, the results, even if correct, would be incorrectly attributed to the designer, for which there is no evidence. Having failed to provide the proofs they claimed they had, the ID/Creationists demanded that their detractors prove a negative. Their argument evolved into this - 'Can you prove that God does NOT exist? If you cannot, ID/Creation should be taught in our schools alongside evolution'. Religion is a private matter. Ours is a secular society in its public face. We have seen the damage that can be done when special interest groups of religiously motivated believers attempt to impose their beliefs on the public at large. The West is free and anyone is free to believe anything they want and their right to do so must be protected. Just don't try to impose your views on me.
blah ...... it's always been refered to as a "Theory" . I haven't followed ZZZZZZZZZz argument, it was, as you so aptly named it, circular, but I doubt he attempted to offer "proof" of the existence of god. ..........interest groups of religiously motivated believers attempt to impose their beliefs on the public at large provide an example. Are you refering to Bush's little foray into Iraq? Or perhaps the Salem witch trials? The West is free and anyone is free to believe anything they want and their right to do so must be protected You're God Damn Right. They should also be free from ridicule and persecution. Only christians are open targets for you clowns. It's been suggested a few times on these threads that "Religion Should Be Banned", and don't think this is an outrageous or completely unfathomable idea. George McCarthy has been vilified for his efforts to stomp out communism in this country, perhaps his means where extreme but his goal was honorable. To liberals, "forced school bussing" in the name of segregation is acceptable, so is cenorsing a theory, a theory that many of the leading scientific minds through-out history have considered, on the grounds that it is "damaging". http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html ..........interest groups of ANTI-religiously motivated believers attempt to impose their beliefs on the public at large blah, CLOWNS!
Or are you refering to this: blah, CLOWNS! The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. âSuch has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows: New Hampshire Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton