Search results

Yes, hese exchanges are enlightening some common ground. I haven't read anything by Johnson. I have read one by Ken Ham, wasn't thrilled. I may have the yec tag but hold to an old universe. Denton's and Bejan's books sound interesting. But I would say Behe is who seems the most sensible...

You do make a lot of good points. God is outside science, the cut n paste discovered in the dover trial, God is constantly involved in nature yet science doosn't have to consider that intheir approach. Though they shouldn't be blind to those effects. I disagree irreducible complexity has been...

You made an observation, that's all. No assumption, materialistic or otherwise, was necessary. When you say 'scientific assumption based..' you're use of the word is inductive reasoning. There is no issue with assumptions after the fact. It's the assumption what can and connot be found before...

I like Francis Collins, he does seem a reasonable man. I think 99% of scientist are reasonable people. To be honest, I think many Creationists aren't very reasonable people. I think it is possible, rare, but possible to be a Creationist and be reasonable too.

I see what you're getting at, it would be easy to dismiss ID theory if it were Creationism. Creationism is philosophy. ID theory is science. Whenever I see the label intelligent design creationism, as the link to the NCSE, I immediately know they have a weak case to make. The NSCE is like the...

There was a recent article about a correlation between a vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy and autism. True, the burden is on us. There isn't much anyone can do to help. So far, we've lost 5 dvd players, 3 tv's, several keyboards, a few carpets, we keep majic eraser in business, and...

I don't think peope have any issues with evolution as far as what is seen in nature. I think the issue is with common ancestry with other primates. I think we get a sense of greater and lesser beings from the Bible. I believe in Human exceptionalism. To be fair, I think he meant it like people...

Discovery Institute didn't invent intelligent design theory. Behe's book was from 1996, the wedge document is from 1998. True people there may have some weird beliefs (rev Moon), but a scientists beliefs doesn't impede them from conducting science. I agree God is capable of making a...

Well said, I agree. Not so. You just said science has to to with the examination of creation. Should that examination be unassuming? Or assume, prior to any examination, what can and cannot be a conclusion? If assumptions, any assumptions are made, it isn't a search for truth. It's a search...

I agree Discovery Institute is one of the biggest promoters of Intelligent Design theory. I think it's because they see it complimentary to their beliefs. Not that anyone can or is trying to prove God. A multiverse isn't trying to prove Atheist, but the implication is there. Implications of a...

I think those are the governing goals of the Discovery institute. What's so bad about overthrowing materialism?

You do make some good points there but I have to say "all science is based on materialistic assumptions" is atheist propoganda. Natural history is based on material assumptions. If Natural history used the scientific method then it would be science.

Good point, people who hate the existence of God don't like the implications of the theory.

Technically paleontology is an observational science in so far as the spatial relationship between the rocks and fossils are concerned. That is testable. The rest is natural history though, aka philosophy. The origin of walking animals for example is based on materialistic assumptions. Based...

Which 'religious premise' would that be? Also, should intelligent design theory be defined by those who proposed it or it's critics?

No offense, but I disagree with your characterization of a hypothesis. Being testable is important because if it can't be falsified it's pseudo science. In another thread you said you were against destructive materialist philosophies? Yet, their origin story appears to be the most accurate...

I don't doubt thats how it works. What hypothesis would that be from the article? Also, when you say experimentation 'when possible', why should an untestable idea be considered a valid hypothesis?

I noticed the phrase "..were thought to..". Anytime I see the words were surprised by, unexpected by, or previously thought to these are admissions the models they work from are wrong. Things are changing though, a good sign.

Hi Brother Paul, that about sums it up. Like you pointed out it's a "construction of a historical narrative.” What they say is entirely possible, it could just be that way. Although, it could just be another way too.

Soo true. I remember when my daughter was about 3 years old and got up a few hours before us on a regular basis. This one time my daughter came into the bedroom and woke us up I offered to get her something to drink. She said "Oh thank you Daddy! I GIVE YOU THREE KISSES!!" and proceeded to...