Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion
Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion has caused a stir. It’s been a worldwide hit, selling more than a million and a half copies, and winning Dawkins an author of the year award.
Dawkins has been championed as a hero of atheism for his attack on illogical and outdated religious superstition. Ironically, however, according to Amazon.co.uk, The God Delusion caused a 120% increase in sales of the Bible in 2006.
Personal crusade
This book is Dawkins personal crusade against religious belief, rather than any great scholarly argument against God. Many Christians would agree with much of what he says in The God Delusion: Not all of the Bible is meant to be taken as literal truth (surely Psalm 96:12- ‘the trees of the forest will sing for joy’ is poetic. It won’t literally happen on the Day of Judgment). Many Christians are prepared to accept the reality of Evolution. And we’d all agree that we should investigate the evidence for claims and not just accept unquestioningly what our parents have told us.
This final point is one which Dawkins is especially keen on. He has a whole chapter on the evil of calling someone ‘a Christian child’ or a ‘Muslim child,’ and defending children against being brought up in religious homes. Dawkins compares this to suggesting someone was a conservative child or a Marxist child, based purely on the views of their parents.
But a family’s religious convictions are more fundamental than any political affiliation, so this comparison isn’t a fair one. However, Dawkins is right to say that it’s good for children to question their worldview, and not just accept what their parents have brought them up to think.
Arguments that God does not exist
Dawkins criticises various arguments for the existence of God, and does so on the whole in a fair way. However, he plays the old classic ‘well who designed God then?’ Christians will argue that God is the uncreated, ultimate being. So we reach a stalemate. However, Dawkins admits that he was never going to prove for certain that God didn’t exist; rather he aims to show that God almost certainly doesn’t exist, through probability. Dawkins fails in this.
Read the rest here.
If arguing that “God is the uncreated, ultimate being” results in a stalemate, then arguing that ‘the universe is an uncreated, fundamental extant’ should result in one too.
You can’t have the infinite regression argument one way and not the other.
“…the universe is an uncreated, fundamental extant’ should result in one too.”
Which page of the book did Dawkins say that?
page 37.5
Simon, I’m sorry but I can’t find the quote you mentioned.
Assuming 37.5 means half-way down page thirty seven, all I get is Einstein publically rejecting the idea of a personal god together with a rebuke from an irate Roman Catholic lawyer.
(Chapter One, A Deeply Religious Non-Believer.)
Assuming, however, that 37.5 is a typo and it really means page three hunded and seventy-five, then we get a discussion of the famous creationist scandal at Emmanuel College.
(Chapter Nine: Childhood, Abuse and The Escape From Religion)
Would you mind double checking the page number(and chapter) or giving the quote in full?
There is no quote. I was simply paraphrasing the standard scientific story that the universe is uncaused, and came from a big bang.
One can download the free ebook “The irrational atheist” by Vox Day which -without using The Bible- demolishes the ludicrous, illogical and bald faced fabrications and hand-me-down foolishness made by Darwkins and his fellow “brights” here: http://irrationalatheist.com/freedl.html
Simon said…”There is no quote. I was simply paraphrasing the standard scientific story that the universe is uncaused, and came from a big bang.”
Wow, I really fell for that one.
That’s twice you’ve managed to bamboozle me with the ol’ “make stuff up as you go along” routine.
Did you buy the Devil’s Delusion, by the way?
Cool, thanks Whyman. There is certainly a few fallacies in the God delusion.
Cedric: Yeah, sorry.
- No I havn’t bought the Devil’s delusion yet. And I won’t because of the ridiculous title.
“And I won’t because of the ridiculous title.”
Fair enough.
May I recommend a book to you that I just bought?
Okay. Let me guess. pro-darwinism?
“Pro-Darwinism”
There’s no such thing.
It’s to do with critical thinking.
Title: The Faith Healers
Author: James Randi
Foreward by Carl Sagan.
Since I’m a big fan of Randi I’m biased of course but…I’m curious as to how you would react to it.
It’s a good read and is the only in-depth investigation on faith healing that I’m aware of.
Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.
hahaha. Only from a pro-Darwinist…
Thanks for the recommend but I’m in a good place re: fath healers…………………………………………………..It will not enlighten me much, I think.
(Ok, but it’s a good book.)
“Only from a pro-Darwinist…”
So why don’t pro-Darwinists label themselves Darwinists?
Probably for the same reason that people don’t label themselves Newtonists or Einstienists.
If you do a search on Darwinist, you’ll find that the vast majority of people using that word are (surprise, surpise) creationists.
It’s use as a label to somehow malign the “opposition”.
They should really be saying “biologist” or “informed” or “educated”.
As a matter of fact, when P.Z. Myers laid waste to Simmons in a recent debate on radio this very topic was brought up.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/02/uncommon-descent-and-great-debate.html
PZ Myers said in the debate “Darwin published his theories about evolution almost 150 years ago. We respect his work, we think he was brilliant, but we also know there were many things he got wrong. We do not adhere to Darwin’s theories anymore. He provided a rough framework but in the last century and a half we have filled in many details. It isn’t Darwin’s any more, it’s is the work of generations of scientists, and while parts of it would be recognisable to Darwin were he alive today, most of it would astonish him.
“This isn’t aboud Darwin, it’s about biology”
(…later…)
“Biology is not an issue of faith. Biology is. We have a body of hard, solid facts and strong theories with predictive power to intergrate that collection of evidence, allow us to test out interpretations and generate new ideas and new experiments. Evolution is a theory that has paractical application in medicine, agriculture, research, economics, conputer science, many other fields. It’s powerful stuff and it works! But we don’t have any faith at all in modern biology, that’s why this question is so nonsensical. There is no more faith behind modern biology then there is behind modern plumbing or modern engineering or modern computing. That’s why we keep testing it and revising it as we aquire new information. We conform the theory to the evidence, which is one reason why Darwin would not recognise many parts of it today. We do not have a pre-defined expectation of what the answer should be and we do not ignore or twist the evidence to fit the model. We leave that job to the creationists.”
I would challenge you to give one practical example. One kind to another kind.
I also understand that we must not let ourselves get tied up in a word debate. The word ‘evolution’ can have several meanings. I am not attacking ‘evolution’ if it involves minor changes within a bound set of constructs (accurately known as Natural Selection). What we claim is that there is no evidence of one kind of animal producing another kind of animal. This claim is valid: no evidence has surfaced.
As a ‘conputer’ scientist, I can tell you something about the practicalities of ‘Evolution’: there are none. Minor changes in genes NEVER result in an artificially intelligent construct to be more complex than the parent. Even computer “evolutionary” algorithms don’t (and can’t) work like that.
The process of Natural selection used in computer science is often mistakenly called evolution. NS does not lead to the formation of new kinds. Check it out here.
You know what amuses me the most? The fact that we are all humans deep down. Probably the most common feature which permeates to our core is the dogmatic assumption that we are right in ourselves. Christianity says no to that.
Everyone makes assumptions. You think you are so smart? Where were you when it all began? Who are you to tell the universe how it came into being? If you think I should turn these questions on myself, you can rest assured I do. Every single day.
Dr Smarty Pants Dawkins is obligated in his worldview to assume that no God exists. We all work with the same evidence, it is our perspectives that warp our conclusions on that evidence. Since Dawkins believes there is no God, then his interpretation cannot, because he has a foundational ‘truth’ to uphold, veer away from that belief. He is not as ‘open-minded’ as you think.
I’m not saying we should sit back and say “well God did it, it doesn’t matter how.” That is blatant ignorance. Since we are capable of discovery, we should do all we can to figure out how this world works.
We all have beliefs, to ignore that truth is to be blind and ignorant. To claim that “us scientists” are so much smarter because “we are beyond all that God stuff” is foolishness. The God you worship is found in where you determine your truth.
This does not mean that Darwinists do not exist. It is merely a label for people who take evolution a little too far, just as ‘fundamentalist’ is a label for people who take the bible/religion too seriously; no-one is a self-labelled fundamentalist either.
I think even you would admit that some might take evolution too far (esp social science, religion…). You will have used your own line-in-the-sand to judge whether someone takes it too far. Now, consider that others do not share your opinion of where that line exists.
There are die-hard fools/fan-boys/tools of every ideology; every idea. Evolution is no exception.
Simon said “…no-one is a self-labelled fundamentalist either.”
Um, are you sure about that?
“Sponsored by the Elusive Brethren & Right Wing American Fundamentalists”
“Elusive” not Exclusive. I assume this is a tongue-in-cheek.
“I assume this is a tongue-in-cheek.”
I wish it was. Yet I doubt it.
I’d be willing to guess that there’s some kind of connection between this site and the “Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren”.
(Check the article on them in Wikipedia.)
Also, though the term “fundamentalist” has indeed been used as a pejorative by some, it seems that the label has been warmly embraced by many over the years as something to be proud of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalists
The term “Darwinist” however has no such history. It’s used almost exclusively as a pejorative.
You are trying to dance around the charge that some people take darwinism too far, Cedric.
Such people exist.
Such people are called Darwinists.
The Whyman: There is a reason that book is free. It is even more overstated than the ‘four horsemen’s’ books are.
“..some people take darwinism too far, Cedric.”
How can you take “Darwinism” too far?
Can you take Newtonianism too far?
Or perhaps Copernicanism too far?
“Such people are called Darwinists.”
People are indeed called Darwinists…yet only by others.
It’s used as a perjorative.
If I get to label you as a Darwinist, then I already have you at a disadvantage.
You are an (….)ist.
(Such as a Communist or a Fascist.)
Calling someone ‘literate in science’ (while accurate) lacks that certain ‘bite’.
It’s a cheap debate tactic.
If you want to use such language then I can’t stop you.
I can only try and reason with you in the hope that you’ll not adopt the rhetorical labeling of the creationist crowd.
People go round claiming that the bible and biblegod underpin everthing. They take it too far. We call such people Fundamentalists.
If a physicist walked around insisting that every aspect of our understanding of the world must be framed with respect to (underpinned by) quantum mechanics. They would be taking it too far. We would soon invent a label for that.
People that go round insisting that every aspect of our understanding must be framed or underpinned by natural selection are taking it too far. They are called Darwinists.
If I accused a fundamentalist of taking the bible too far, or the hypothetical physicist of taking QM too far, or a Darwinist of taking natural selection too far, they would all ask the question you just asked “How can you take “Darwinism” too far?”
Naturalism, including Darwinism, is ultimately self-defeating. If metaphysical naturalism is true then ‘we’ do not relly exist. We are but a collection of particles obeying physical laws.
If natural selection underpins everything, then we do not really know what we think we know, for everything we think we know is merely a means to the end of having more progeny. Or could have been at one time. Or is a biproduct. How do we decide what is biproduct and what is not? – this is unfalsifyable. It cannot be trusted.
Ergo one can take natural selection too far. Hence: Darwinism.
Perhaps we can discuss metaphysical naturalism another time.
Let’s keep this simple.
You said “Okay. Let me guess. pro-darwinism?”
Did you mean this as a perjorative or not?
Well, yes, it was.
…So there is such a thing as taking evolution too seriously, and not being able to even admit it’s weaknesses. You strike me as being exactly that person.
Q:Did you mean this as a pejorative or not?
A:Well, yes, it was.
……………………………….
Thank you for being frank about it.
I’m sure that we both know that a pejorative is not exactly a nice thing to do.
So let’s make an agreement between us to keep things civil around here.
We can agree to disagree on many things and enjoy the sting of debate with all of the irony and emotion that goes with it, without the need to throw slurs on each other.
How about you don’t cast any pejoratives in my general direction and I treat you with the same basic courtesy?
Fair enough?
If you want to level an accusation at me…then go right ahead!
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Don’t hide behind code-words where the meaning is found only in your personal, private lexicon.
If you think that I am taking evolution too seriously…then say so.
Don’t pussy-foot around.
By doing so, you’ll at least give me a chance to defend myself.
If you thing that I am unable to admit evolutions weaknesses…then say so.
Bring it on.
(Just be prepared to back up your position.)
Look, you seem like a bull, looking for a fight from what I’ve seen. You also seem green; you’re setting up the fight ring above but there’s no need. Civility, frankness etc are a given in forums etc. Perhaps I should have been more direct with the word Darwinism. Everyone I converse with seems to know what it means(It can’t be Classical Darwinism so what’s left? hehe – I assume that’s where you looked).
I used to pick fights with the likes of ‘Admin’ when I was younger – the motivation to do this is usually personal.
I can imagine that to you my position is somewhat bemusing – I argue for both sides. Because the reality is that both sides have merit. The problem is with issues like this is that people dig themselves in and can’t see the forest. Then they start claiming that things are black and white and that there is no need for words describing their position – again because they can’t see the big picture. That’s why reading philosophers is so good. And read the other side.
Don’t get me wrong ID is almost entirely baseless at a science level. But when you meet enough people believing stupid things you don’t worry about it so much. You can then step back, get perspective, acknowledge merit to either side wherever it’s due, and start to wonder why it is that THAT particular human stupidity bothered you so much. You can see the forest and address the philosophy – which is even more sceptical and cautious than science is.
Anyways, that’s how I think the overall debate looks. But since you want me to cut to the chase. About you. From your aggressiveness I’d guess that you’re relatively new to the issue. I imagine that you don’t read pro-ID books, that you can’t see any faults in ‘The God Delusion’, that you don’t see the cyclicity of some reasoning within evolution, and that you don’t see that it is possible to be ideologically, religiously, and invalidly biased TOWARDS evolution. But then I have no constructive suggestions beyond the suggestion to read the other side, and to REALLY try to understand their arguments and where they are coming from.
Deleted due to offensive and unnecessary content.
– Admin.
In holding any position it is always tempting to paint the world as black and white; the ‘either they are totally wrong or I am’ mentality.
In reality there are degrees of truth for all knowledge, it is not black and white. You will not find a philosopher or a widely-read scientist who will differ from this. But this is what I’m accusing you of, and this is exactly the mentality you display above.
(Yes I certainly have read the God delusion, End of Faith, L.T.A.Xtian Nation, Freedom Evolves…….. but I have also read rebuttals <-that’s the mark of open-mindedness which you do not have.)
For instace, insisting here that “one side can be wrong in an argument” is just horrendously misrepresentative of a topic as large as the evidence for evolution. Sure, the vast majority of evidence swings one way, but your idealised mindset has blinded you to even the tiniest argument in opposition.
Even more telling is your surprise that I can believe that some arguments in evolution are circular, but agree with it at the same time; as though they are somehow mutually exclusive! Lol. Such sheltered simplicity! The evidence for evolution is manifold and complex. A few circularities aren’t going to invalidate the whole thing!
But for instance: It is certainly true that scientists often assume that common ancestry leads to homology, and then also use homology to determine age. This in NO WAY invalidates the whole theory, but certainly, instances of reasoning within it can be circular and is a perfectly Valid criticism.(Berlinski was talking about this & the specific example of wolves in America and Australia who’s evolutionary paths are separate yet they display alarming homology!)
I was talking to a history graduate today who expressed dissatisfaction with the testability of evolution.(I’m giving his THE Miller video tommorrow) It’s not that he had a problem with any specific instances where we have tested evolution; he gladly accepts them. But evolution is jut horrendously historical and untestable. His point of view was simply that it is an unsatisfactory theory. NOT in the sense that some other theory is better, but that compared to other scientific theories it is severely lacking and untestable. He is not wrong!
The standard answer to all these types of objections, including ‘information increase’ and ‘macro’-evolution is: “a ****load of time”. But this is a rather evasive, hand-waving answer; it is a fill-in-the-gaps apologetic to why we DON’T see it. Rather akin to the convenient apologetic to why prayer experiments yield Null results: God purposely subverts our experiments on him; They’re both claming that a lot of untestable stuff is/has happened behind the scenes.
Basically, there are a whole lot of gaps. This degrades even further when you analyse Abioenesis. The chances that abiogenesis happen is obscenely small, but naturalists have to resort to the anthropic principle “We’re here to talk about it so that ‘ridiculously small probability’ MUST have happened”
Steven Meyer points out that while mainstream science labelled it ‘junk DNA’, ID climed it would show a purpose; We’re finding more and more purpose to it now.
And that the simplest hypothesis to explain digital information (DNA) is intelligence. (He’s right about this. It *IS* the simplest hypothesis. Indeed, one of the first things I would like to do when humanity becomes significantly capable is to seed life somewhere and see what happens.)
Anyhow, those are a few points which I think are in favour of ID. Don’t get me wrong I fully expect them to be undermined by further impartial observation, but I can’t but admit that they ARE in favour of ID. To do otherwise would be to betray the impartiality which science itself demands. To do otherwise would be to be a tool for Darwinism. A tool, period.
“In reality there are degrees of truth for all knowledge, it is not black and white.”
Ok, let’s try a practical example:
Is the Earth only 6000 years old?
Yes or No?
“You will not find a philosopher or a widely-read scientist who will differ from this.”
You mean apart from people like Sir Francis Crick?
Crick wrote, ?The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas.? (source: The Astonishing Hypothesis)
He sounds kinda definite on this one.
Hmmm.
“…even the tiniest argument in opposition.”
So any argument at all…ANY argument…is credible in your eyes?
There’s no such thing as an uninformed argument or a stupid argument or an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance?
It’s all good ’cause it’s…like…y’know…an argument and everything?
“It is certainly true that scientists often assume that common ancestry leads to homology, and then also use homology to determine age.”
I look forward to you backing up this assertion with evidence.
“His point of view was simply that it is an unsatisfactory theory. NOT in the sense that some other theory is better, but that compared to other scientific theories it is severely lacking and untestable.”
Who actually goes around saying this?
(Apart from History graduates and anonymous people over the Internet and mysteriously unnamed philosophers of science.)
Am I asking too much of you to actually back this up with a source?
“But this is a rather evasive, hand-waving answer; it is a fill-in-the-gaps apologetic to why we DON’T see it.”
Ditto for this assertion too.
“This degrades even further when you analyse Abioenesis.”
One minute we’re talking about the Theory of Evolution and then you switch to Abiogenesis.
(Okaaaaay then.)
“Steven Meyer points out that while mainstream science labelled it ‘junk DNA’, ID climed it would show a purpose; We’re finding more and more purpose to it now.”
(Leave no hoary old chestnut of an argument left unturned! That’s the spirit.)
The answer to this one is “Onion”.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/junk-dna-junk-s.html
“It *IS* the simplest hypothesis.”
How does it qualify as a hypothesis?
“To do otherwise would be to betray the impartiality which science itself demands.”
Not according to the scientific community.
“To do otherwise would be to be a tool for Darwinism.’
There you go with your code-word again.
What do you mean by Darwinism?
Let’s play Creationist Bingo!
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/09/bingo-creationi.html
So far, I’ve got five squares down.
Even Crick agrees with me then, else he’d have said it’s absolutely certain. There is simply no way to defend this; go to iidb and try to claim that some things are ABSOLUTELY certain.
No I’m not saying ANY/ALL arguments are okay. One still has to evaluate them. I’m saying that your lack of impartiality disables you from seeing the merit in even a minor point which the opposition might validly have.
evidence vis-a-vis http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp
The people that go round saying things like this are real people, as opposed to – yes – anonymous people on the internet with a chip on their shoulder looking for a fight!
Source? Ah, Berlinski for one.
“Ditto for this assertion too”
Ditto for this assertion too. (I can be childish, too)
No. I am talking about the untestability of some aspects of scientific theory. Evolution and abiogenesis, both, speak well to that.
Hehe. Don’t forget I am quite comfortable that there may well be little function in ‘junk’ DNA. My point is simply that this is one instance where a testable prediction has turned out ot be in favour of what ID advocates seemed to have been saying.
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Junk_DNA#ID_Predicts_Function_in_Agenic_DNA
1. Almost all, if not entirely, our experience is that only intelligence can write binary code.
2. We observe binary code in nature.
3. The most sensible/easiest/simplest explanation/Hypothesis is that intelligence is responsible for that code.
…
Don’t forget, I do not personally believe that this will turn out to be the case, but it is a positive argument for ID.
Sigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
Am I calling you a Classical Darwinist, a neutral Darwin adherent, or a dogmatic and inflexible Darwinist? Which is more likely?
(Hint: it’s not hard)
“Not according to the scientific community”
You are still thinking too black and white. Go back and look at what I’ve said. I am NOT talking about the overall conclusions (which I agree with), I am talking about weighing up many thousands of arguments, of which, at least a few go in favour of ID.
The bingo mat serves absolutely no purpose. It doesn’t even link you to the arguments from the mat!
It’s use is to give percieved power by ‘labelling’ the enemy in a demeaning way. Indeed, without the condescending bingo mat you would not have made that post. Admit it.
“It doesn’t even link you to the arguments from the mat!’
Huh? The arguments are famous.
(Or perhaps the better word for it is imfamous.)
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
(courtesy of Scientific American)
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
“It’s use is to give percieved power by ‘labelling’ the enemy in a demeaning way.”
Really? So what is the label?
Oops, “infamous”.
Exactly! The arguments. The arguments are the real meat. But the bingo thing is mocking.
It’s like if there was an ‘Atheist Bingo’ site that had squares like ‘The universe just popped into existence’ or ‘we can make up our own morals’. The whole purpose of the bingo theme would be to mock.
My other concern is that you might seem to think that just because there is a site somewhere with a name attached and a response to ID claims, does not mean that they are debunked. You have to actually read the arguments (again, at the science level, for each claim I personally think that science wins out. But this does not mean that there is ABSOLUTELY no merit in some ID arguments)
Anywho, this is a side. What about my main post.
Oh crap. By ‘the arguments’ I was talking about the _refutations_ to the creationist/ID arguments. I now see you interpreted ‘the arguments’ as referring to the creationist arguments.
Simon, I think one of your posts has gone MIA. The only ones I can see are
April 16th, 2008 12:17 am
April 16th, 2008 5:35 pm
April 16th, 2008 7:59 pm
Probably you are a victim of the arbitrary moderation bot they have here.
In the past, I’ve lost a couple of harmless posts here for the same reason.
If we are going to lock horns properly then it’s only fair to you for me to see all your posts.
If you want (and this is just a suggestion) we could open a thread at ATBC.
ATBC is the forum of http://www.pandasthumb.org
No moderation bots and practically no censorship.
I hang out there on a regular basis and all sorts of working scientists, philosophers and assorted wierdos congregate there too.
Nothing disappears mysteriously at the Panda.
You could title the thread how you please and we can kick off from there.
Or if you want to keep going here, we might be able to struggle through.
I’ll leave it up to you.
Just email me at peanutaxis@gmail.com
When I go to the site anonymously, and don’t log in, I can see all 37 comments. The problem must be at your end Cedric. (Do you live in China? Lol)
Can you see my previous post about emailing me?
Way to avoid losing an argument. Chicken!
Not including this one, I can see only 39 comments.
April 16th, 2008 12:17 am
April 16th, 2008 5:35 pm
April 16th, 2008 7:59 pm
plus
April 17th, 2008 5:24 pm
simon on April 18th, 2008 6:46 pm
simon on April 21st, 2008 2:29 pm
That’s it.
Sent you my e-mail a couple of days ago.
No reply.
Used two other computers. Same numbers.
“Way to avoid losing an argument. Chicken!”
Yeah. Right.
You did not. I even tested the email link myself.
Even Crick agrees with me then, else he’d have said it’s absolutely certain. There is simply no way to defend this; go to iidb and try to claim that some things are ABSOLUTELY certain.
No I’m not saying ANY/ALL arguments are okay. One still has to evaluate them. I’m saying that your lack of impartiality disables you from seeing the merit in even a minor point which the opposition might validly have.
evidence vis-a-vis http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp
The people that go round saying things like this are real people, as opposed to – yes – anonymous people on the internet with a chip on their shoulder looking for a fight!
Source? Ah, Berlinski for one.
“Ditto for this assertion too”
Ditto for this assertion too. (I can be childish, too)
No. I am talking about the untestability of some aspects of scientific theory. Evolution and abiogenesis, both, speak well to that.
Hehe. Don’t forget I am quite comfortable that there may well be little function in ‘junk’ DNA. My point is simply that this is one instance where a testable prediction has turned out ot be in favour of what ID advocates seemed to have been saying.
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Junk_DNA#ID_Predicts_Function_in_Agenic_DNA
1. Almost all, if not entirely, our experience is that only intelligence can write binary code.
2. We observe binary code in nature.
3. The most sensible/easiest/simplest explanation/Hypothesis is that intelligence is responsible for that code.
…
Don’t forget, I do not personally believe that this will turn out to be the case, but it is a positive argument for ID.
Sigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
Am I calling you a Classical Darwinist, a neutral Darwin adherent, or a dogmatic and inflexible Darwinist? Which is more likely?
(Hint: it’s not hard)
“Not according to the scientific community”
You are still thinking too black and white. Go back and look at what I’ve said. I am NOT talking about the overall conclusions (which I agree with), I am talking about weighing up many thousands of arguments, of which, at least a few go in favour of ID.
“You did not.”
Yes, I did. Why would I bother to lie about something so trivial?
What is the time marker of the missing post?
April 16 12.09am. But it says ‘awaiting moderation’. That’s the problem!
“But it says ‘awaiting moderation’.”
Annoying, isn’t it?
Anyway, I can understand your impatience.
I promise that I really did send you an e-mail before.
Sent another test e-mail a few minutes ago.
Not received. Your move.
Well, you could try re-sending your post.
Only do it in small installments.
Part One of Three, Part Two of Three etc.
I tried that once before with reasonable success.
No guarantees but worth a try.
Na
Pity.
Would you reconsider the invite to open a thread at “Pandasthumb”?
No censorship, no moderation bots.
Just lots and lots of professors, grad students, philosophers and other interested bods in various fields who really do love discussions on science vs creationism/ID.
In fact, it’s their speciality.
Lively and informed discussion guaranteed.
(Of course, some people can’t take the heat.)
No, because you end up having to wade through kilometers of rhettoric. (Some people can’t do the arguing for themselves)
-
No?
Kilometres of rhetoric?
(Hmm. Never heard that excuse before.)
It would be enjoyable to listen to your former argument as to why you feel that evolution or biology is “less credible” than some other branch of science.
You never got around to citing your sources.
Last time you just waved your hands and said…”Look, talk to a philosopher of science.”
It’s not like you even named any philosopher of science in particular!
Maybe you’re absolutely correct.
Evolution is “less credible”.
Evolution is “far less testable”.
Since there are more than a few working philosophers of science who are contributers at the “Pandasthumb”, I’d be VERY interested in having you repeat such a …novel position.
Yet all those kilometres of rhetoric…
Yes. Yes, of course.
I think we both understand why you’re not too keen on the idea of arguing your views on a science blog.
If you want to talk you’d make it happen. But, unsurprisingly you just want to re-confirm over and over your biases by ridiculing people.
“If you want to talk you’d make it happen.”
Huh?
I’m the one that’s inviting you, remember?
You the one who had his post vanish.
You’re the one that’s acting coy.
Seriously, though…
If you want to talk science, then I’ll listen.
It doesn’t have to be at the Panda.
However, that site is a damn good place to have have our discussion.
If you feel more comfortable at some creationist web-site for some reason then..(shrug)..let’s go there.
I’ll go along with that if it will make you more secure.
My only stipulation is that there are no moderation bots and arbitrary censorship.
That’s all I need.
Register at the Panda.
Set up a thread and let’s do it.
Leave your response!
Nano-Blog News from around the world
NZ CHRISTIAN BLOGS
NZ CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
PLACES TO VISIT