I'll do my impression of Z responding to questions which make him uncomfortable -------------------------------------------- Ad Hominem!! Strawman!! Red Herring!! More Nonsense!! (picture of a rabbit smelling its own finger) (repeatedly post the same text over and over again) It's always nice to own the troll, isn't it? Nice job here, 2c.
Smarmy folks struggle with forming, then posing easy but irrelevant questions all the time...wondering in complete stupefaction why people pay no attention to the questions... Posing, from a poser...yep, that's about right...
am off for the day folks... think zizzz needs at least that to come up with better excuses to avoid simple questions... zizzz, here's one to cut your teeth on: did God create Science? it's ok if your not done by tomorrow mate
It is paying attention to the response time... ROTFLMAO... Probably gumming down the separation anxiety medicine like baby food... Like shooting brain impaired atheists in a barrel...
How misinformation about intelligent design is spread to students and recycled to other anti-ID academics (Part I) by Casey Luskin Access Research Network has noted a Darwinist's lecture at East Tennessee State University entitled "Intelligent Design Theory and the Poverty of Anti-Science Thought," by historian, philosopher, and cognitive scientist George Kampis. ARN aptly observes, "Dr. Kampis hit every 'talking point' of Darwinists." Dr. Kampis' lecture spread much misinformation about intelligent design. For example, a premed female student said: "he raised a good point when he said Intelligent Design wasn't science." Would her view have been the same if she had heard the facts about ID and not a false caricature? A few of Kampis' errors will be highlighted over a series of two posts: Dr. Kampis says: "The Intelligent Design movement holds that living organisms are too complex to have arisen through random mutation and natural selection, and therefore must have been designed by some outside entity." Question: Where do ID-proponents define ID like that? Answer: Nowhere. ID makes positive arguments where design is inferred based upon detecting the types of complexity we know are produced only by intelligence. ID is not inferred merely based upon the falsification of evolution. In short, the theory of intelligent design holds that some aspects of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause because they hold informational properties which are known to come only from intelligence. Kampis again wrongly characterizes ID as if it is merely a negative argument against evolution with no positive content: "When they can't explain a phenomenon they immediately claim that it must be the work of God. This is just giving in." This is wrong for two reasons: ID doesn't try to identify the intelligence responsible for life. Second, design isn't an argument from ignorance. Design theorists infer intelligent design because intelligence does explain the data. Consider what ID-proponents actually say: Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system. ... Although some may argue this is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation, given what we know about the powers of intelligent as opposed to strictly natural or material causes. We know that intelligent designers can and do produce irreducibly complex systems. We find such systems within living organisms. (Scott Minnich and Stephen Meyer, "Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria") Kampis continues his misrepresentation of ID: "Supporters of Intelligent Design don't take the normal route to creating a theory. They don't write peer reviewed papers or present research at scientific seminars." That's easy to say, but is it true? No, it's false. ID-proponents do write peer-reviewed papers supportive of ID, see here: http://tinyurl.com/b2j9h and ID-proponents also offer papers at conferences. For a couple of examples, see the post here: http://tinyurl.com/2hm5th and Jonathan Wells had a scientific article published here: http://tinyurl.com/37uumx Dr. Kampis appears to have been misinformed, and unfortunately he passed on that misinformation to his audience. This is how the spread of misinformation works among ID-critics. It gets worse when Kampis misrepresents Phillip Johnson, which will be discussed in the next post on this topic. But this is a good example of how misinformation about intelligent design is spread to students and recycled to other anti-ID academics.
How misinformation about intelligent design is spread to students and recycled to other anti-ID academics (Part II) by Casey Luskin In Part I of this short response, I explained some false information about intelligent design promoted by George Kampis at East Tennessee State University. This second and final post will discuss the false information about both intelligent design arguments and Phillip Johnson that Kampis spread. Dr. Kampis's view was summarized as: "Dr. Phillip Johnson, ID founder and longtime critic of Charles Darwin, rejects the concept of natural selection" There are many problems here. "Intelligent design" was founded by scientists, and the term was coined in its modern form by chemist Charles Thaxton in the mid-1980s, before Johnson got involved with the subject. Jonathan Witt's The Origin of Intelligent Design gives an excellent account of Thaxton's coinage and early usage of the term. Go here: http://tinyurl.com/algjs But does Phillip Johnson "reject the concept of natural selection"? In reality, Johnson observes that natural selection occurs and that it works just fine; he just questions its creative power. The problem for Darwinian evolution is giving natural selection something to select for: "Natural selection is the most famous element in Darwinism, but is not necessarily the most important element. Selection merely preserves or destroys something that already exists. Mutation has to provide the favorable innovations before natural selection can retain and encourage them." (Phillip Johnson, Darwin On Trial, pg. 31) Johnson even recounts six established examples of natural selection, including the Galapagos finches: "There is no reason to doubt that peculiar circumstances sometimes favor drug-resistant bacteria, or large birds as opposed to small ones..." (pgs. 26-27). This is ironic because Kampis' claim that "evolutionary theory is well grounded in facts" was based upon a discussion of Darwin's observations in the Galapagos Islands. Yet Johnson is rightly unimpressed with the minor variations between finch species on the Galapagos Islands: None of the 'proofs' provides any persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce new species, new organs, or other major changes, or even minor changes that are permanent. ... That larger birds have an advantage over smaller birds in high winds or droughts has no tendency to prove that similar factors caused birds to come into existence in the first place. (Darwin on Trial, pg. 27) Has Kampis read Johnson's work? Kampis's viewpoint continues to misrepresent both Johnson and Discovery Institute: "Johnson co-founded the Discovery Institute, a think tank that promotes the teaching of ID in the science classroom." This statement is doubly wrong: First, Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman and George Gilder; Phillip Johnson had nothing to do with it. In fact, Discovery Institute did not start considering the ID issue until around 1995, and Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture was not founded until 1996. This lecture sounds like Darwinist mythology. Second, Discovery does not favor mandating ID for inclusion in schools. As Discovery's Science Education Policy page has long-stated, "As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education." Kampis then goes on to discuss the "wedge document", apparently failing to mention Discovery's response. There is one Darwinist quoted in the article who got something right. Philosophy professor Dr. David Harker was quoted supporting suppression of the debate: "to engage in the debate seems to fuel it. When eminent scientists respond to ID supporters, it provides them with a platform and a sense of credibility." Given how Kampis barely managed to engage ID, I assume that Harker had nothing to worry about after sponsoring this lecture.
Profile For The Disgusting Alcoholic Hypocrite Date Registered: 06-14-04 Total Posts: 160376 (150.08 posts per day) Who can blame him? We all look at your posting history with a mixture of revulsion and disbelief. Who knows what the numbers would be if we included all the usernames under which you've been banned from the site for inappropriate behaviour.