| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2005 08:13:03 AM |
| Object: |
Op-Ed: In defense of intelligent design |
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Michael J. Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, has observed
that while theists have long been criticized for believing in a
"god-of-the-gaps," a deity they used to explain anything they did not
understand, the shoe today is often on the other foot; it has become
scientifically acceptable to believe in an "evolution-of-the-gaps."
When something appears to defy purely naturalistic explanation, it is
attributed to being the result of a process we don't understand, but
which can certainly not include the activity of an intelligent
designer. In other words, accident always trumps design in the game of
philosophical materialism.
------------------------------------------------------------
All this and Antony Flew gets a mention too.
Read it at
http://www.thedailycitizen.com/articles/2005/01/19/news/opinion/opinionmclarty.txt
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: In defense of intelligent design |
19 Jan 2005 09:39:13 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:s35su0dm12e81pucc7r9uh4vkgi4ghmv30@4ax.com...
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Michael J. Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, has observed
that while theists have long been criticized for believing in a
"god-of-the-gaps," a deity they used to explain anything they did not
understand, the shoe today is often on the other foot; it has become
scientifically acceptable to believe in an "evolution-of-the-gaps."
When something appears to defy purely naturalistic explanation, it is
attributed to being the result of a process we don't understand, but
which can certainly not include the activity of an intelligent
designer. In other words, accident always trumps design in the game of
philosophical materialism.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Behe seems to be more familiar with the mousetrap than he is with the
Razor.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: In defense of intelligent design |
19 Jan 2005 06:37:56 PM |
|
|
I'm gonna play devil's advocate, because I'm good at it... *shows-off
horns*... and because a purely natural explanation isn't necessarily
occam's answer if...
...."something appears to defy purely naturalistic explanation"
I would think that occam would deduce that something appears to have an
explanation which isn't purely naturalistic, since there is something
about this "something" which makes it appear to run contrary to this
possibility.
Having done some treasure diving, I know what it means to look for
evidence of this kind, which is typically just anything that's out of
the ordinary backdrop of the environment.
If something in the backdrop is too complex or asymmetrical to have
occured by way of the process that normally occurs within this
backdrop, then the normal process isn't likely to be the only player.
It's worth noting that the "UN-natural" stuff that I find is usually
camouflaged by the normal process, so a keen eye makes all the
difference in the world, and somebody that wasn't looking for it would
normally just swim right past the biggest load of gold that ever fell
into the backdrop... ;)
..
..
..
..
-Why is everybody looking at me... and then at the plank?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Ockham Razor |
19 Jan 2005 11:42:15 AM |
|
|
Ian H Spedding wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:s35su0dm12e81pucc7r9uh4vkgi4ghmv30@4ax.com...
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Michael J. Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, has observed
that while theists have long been criticized for believing in a
"god-of-the-gaps," a deity they used to explain anything they did
not
understand, the shoe today is often on the other foot; it has
become
scientifically acceptable to believe in an "evolution-of-the-gaps."
When something appears to defy purely naturalistic explanation, it
is
attributed to being the result of a process we don't understand,
but
which can certainly not include the activity of an intelligent
designer. In other words, accident always trumps design in the game
of
philosophical materialism.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Behe seems to be more familiar with the mousetrap than he is with
the
Razor.
Ockham OR Occam
http://www.google.com/search?q=%20Ockham%20OR%20Occam&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gw
http://www.google.com/search?q=+Ockham+OR+Occam&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_oq=Ockham%20Occam&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20Ockham%20OR%20Occam&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: In defense of intelligent design |
19 Jan 2005 08:26:32 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Michael J. Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, has observed
that while theists have long been criticized for believing in a
"god-of-the-gaps," a deity they used to explain anything they did not
understand, the shoe today is often on the other foot; it has become
scientifically acceptable to believe in an "evolution-of-the-gaps."
When something appears to defy purely naturalistic explanation, it is
attributed to being the result of a process we don't understand, but
which can certainly not include the activity of an intelligent
designer. In other words, accident always trumps design in the game
of
philosophical materialism.
------------------------------------------------------------
All this and Antony Flew gets a mention too.
Read it at
http://www.thedailycitizen.com/articles/2005/01/19/news/opinion/opinionmclarty.txt
J. Spaceman
It might be a good idea to produce something which 'appears to defy
purely naturalistic explanation' before drawing the conclusion that we
should abandon the basic principle on which science is built.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erik" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: In defense of intelligent design |
19 Jan 2005 04:06:58 PM |
|
|
Mr. Spaceman:
I agree wholeheartedly that evolutionists are using a "evolution of the
gaps" approach. All problems are answered with "evolution" as if it
were a magic word that caused their errors and misrepresentations to
just go away.
Erik
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: In defense of intelligent design |
19 Jan 2005 05:12:38 PM |
|
|
Erik wrote:
Mr. Spaceman:
I agree wholeheartedly that evolutionists are using a "evolution of the
gaps" approach. All problems are answered with "evolution" as if it
were a magic word that caused their errors and misrepresentations to
just go away.
You may agree with Behe about this, but providing a few actual
examples
of such behavior would give your opinion more weight.
People believe lots of things they can't demonstrate.
Such beliefs are sometimes called faith.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Faller" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: In defense of intelligent design |
19 Jan 2005 06:13:42 PM |
|
|
Erik wrote:
Mr. Spaceman:
I agree wholeheartedly that evolutionists are using a "evolution of the
gaps" approach. All problems are answered with "evolution" as if it
were a magic word that caused their errors and misrepresentations to
just go away.
Erik
Wow.
That was cool...
I just looked up the word "pomposity" in the dictionary, and there was
Erik's face grinning snidely in my direction!
Tom Faller
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: In defense of intelligent design |
19 Jan 2005 04:52:06 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jan 2005 08:06:58 -0800, "Erik" <nilgeranthrib@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Mr. Spaceman:
I agree wholeheartedly that evolutionists are using a "evolution of the
gaps" approach. All problems are answered with "evolution" as if it
were a magic word that caused their errors and misrepresentations to
just go away.
Erik
wonder when erik's gonna tire of the troll role...
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: In defense of intelligent design |
21 Jan 2005 06:47:36 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jan 2005 08:06:58 -0800, "Erik" <nilgeranthrib@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Mr. Spaceman:
I agree wholeheartedly that evolutionists are using a "evolution of the
gaps" approach. All problems are answered with "evolution" as if it
were a magic word that caused their errors and misrepresentations to
just go away.
(laughing at you)
There's no such thing as an 'evolutionist' except in the (cough)
'mind' of the terminally uneducated. Evolution, like gravity, is a
fact. That it is bothersome to the superstitious is their personal
problem.
Erik
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
