[_ Old Earth _] On Intelligent Design and Atheism

[Ellusion]

Why are devotees to atheist darwinism so fearful of the facts if those facts are not under the strict control and guidance of darwinism's high priests??

Ironic quote of the day.

hahahah. Good point.
Are you saying, BobRyan that all scientists who believe in evolution are atheists? That there aren't any agnostics among them?

Lets say perhaps a completely unbiased scientists decides that his research lead him to evolution as the origin of species. Would that instantly make him ignorant or wrong?

 

[BobRyan]

hahahah. Good point.
Are you saying, BobRyan that all scientists who believe in evolution are atheists? That there aren't any agnostics among them?

Hardly -- I think there are both Agnostic AND some kind of Christians among them as well.

As the definition shows it is an atheist religious practice that is being unwittingly followed by some who claim to be Christians -- not just by atheists and agnostics.

The "distinctively atheist" portion is the "there is no God that does stuff" argument of atheist darwinism -- that some less-atheist individuals unwittingly buy into when they follow their atheist leadership into attacks against academic freedom to question darwinism or to ALLOW scientist to "follow the data where it leads".

The goal of atheist darwinism is to sweep it's myriad list of hoaxes under the rug and "pass itself off as science" - in their attacks on Academic freedom and their political maneuvering they unwittingly expose the true atheist religionist base of their argument.

And so ID stands out "by contrast".

Here is ID -- vs ATHEISM --

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to [/u]“follow the data where it leadsâ€Â[/u] EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

Real World Validation of ID as Science Fact.

ID theorists are just scientists that happen to be willing to admit to evidence for Intelligent Design when they find it in Nature. However this method of analysis is not limited to scientists open to “inconvenient facts†and willing to free science from today’s political bindings that demand conformance to the religious distinctives of atheism.

For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers.

ID theorists are doing the same thing as they accept the fact that physics and biochemistry are the baseline medium in which Biology is expressed.

The empty claim that nothing in nature can be studied and evaluated to determine if it has an intelligent cause is disproven every day in commercial and private sector analysis of the electromagnetic wave forms alone. Admittedly the study of the instances of design found in Biology is just beginning by comparison but it is based on the same fundamental principles of analysis. While allowing this form of scientific investigation in the domain of Biology is clearly taboo to atheist religionists it is nonetheless consistent with the existing science principle of analysis already in use in many other domains of scientific investigation and discovery.

[/quote]


Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Last few days, I started reading the stuff Bob inserts in huge print. And I just realized that he's got a few favorite mantras, and just posts them over and over again. I guess I do miss a lot by not reading the spammed portions of his posts.

 

[Patashu]

We can find signals and code in EM transistions because we also came up with the method of transmission and so we know what to look for. We're not detecting some ghostly embodied information, we're just interpreting EM signals using the known mechanism and the known method of information encoding in EM signals.
If you posit a designer for Earth and the universe, how do we detect signals from him without knowing his causal mechanism, his method of encoding, his technology? The only other designers we know are human designers, so the only kind of design we can detect by analogy in the physical world is human design.
Decoding information from EM and otherwise signals is definitely an important task but before ID was even envisioned we were doing just fine at it because we knew what to do and how to do it; the protocols were decided apon beforehand. Now, what is ID good for? ID puts no constraints on what the designer could be or what he has to work with, and I'm not aware of any attempts to do so.

PS: Atheism is not a religion. Humanists are atheists but buddhists are atheists too.

PPS: Why isn't Dawkins qualified to speak on his own opinions? If you want to know what a person thinks do you ask him or the news agent?

 

[Patashu]

If ID is not a religious hypothesis/argument in nature, why are there no atheistic proponents of ID?

On what grounds is the assumption made that no atheists support ID? It is customary for the person making a claim to support the claim with evidence.

I can't really prove a universal negative, but anecdotally I have never seen or heard of an atheistic ID supporter.

I personally know of one atheist physicist that supports ID, and I have been told (hearsay from claims made by peers) that numerous others exist. Physics is not tied to religion.

So, who does he think the designer is? Based on what sound evidence?

Too, there are many atheist preachers/priests whose occupation is religion. "Religious" and "atheism" are not antonyms.

Perhaps I should say 'If ID is not a theistic hypothesis/argument in nature, blah blah blah...' then.

 

[Barbarian]

Phillip Johnson is a Darwinist?

Boy, do you have a wrong number.

 

[Skavau]

As the definition shows it is an atheist religious practice that is being unwittingly followed by some who claim to be Christians -- not just by atheists and agnostics.

What definition are you referring to? The definition of evolution in biology is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Evolution explains the diversity of life that we see today. It has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

The "distinctively atheist" portion is the "there is no God that does stuff" argument of atheist darwinism -- that some less-atheist individuals unwittingly buy into when they follow their atheist leadership into attacks against academic freedom to question darwinism or to ALLOW scientist to "follow the data where it leads".

There is no such thing as 'Atheist Darwinism'. There is not even any such thing as 'Darwinism'. There is only the theory of Evolution, which was started by Charles Darwin.

There is also no attack on 'academic freedom'.

The goal of atheist darwinism is to sweep it's myriad list of hoaxes under the rug and "pass itself off as science" - in their attacks on Academic freedom and their political maneuvering they unwittingly expose the true atheist religionist base of their argument.

Again, there is no such thing as 'Atheist Darwinism'. There is not even any such thing as 'Darwinism'. The veracity of Evolution has nothing to do with politics or atheism - it has only everything to do with biology.

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to “follow the data where it leads†EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

This is not the definition of 'Intelligent Design'. Indeed, the hub of the Intelligent Design movement - The Discovery Institute do not "follow the data where it leads." Indeed, the Discovery Institute instead has a 'Wedge strategy' in place for their agenda. Its goal is to "defeat scientific materialism represented by Evolution" and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." It is a political and social plan with absolutely no scientific credibility whatsoever either in their method or their objective.

Indeed also, the Answers in Genesis show a complete disregard for the scientific method and scientific understanding. The Answers in Genesis statement of faith declares: "The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ." This is unfortunately for them, a shot in the mouth. It is a denial of the importance of scientific understanding and a preference to religious assumption.

So where do you imagine your Intelligent Design definition has actually been met?

Thanks, Skavau.

 

[BobRyan]

As the definition shows it is an atheist religious practice that is being unwittingly followed by some who claim to be Christians -- not just by atheists and agnostics.

What definition are you referring to? The definition of evolution in biology is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

Indeed many of the YEC people accept that light-weight generic form as do all the I.D scientists.

I was speaking about something a bit more "distinctively" atheist darwinist.

Something along the lines of "explaining all the diversity of life today" -- using the blind-faith claim "a rock can do this given enough time". Which as Dawkins points out is not any more of a "leap" than saying a "single cell coud do this given enough time".

Hence the definition I used.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

[

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to “follow the data where it leads†EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

Skavau
This is not the definition of 'Intelligent Design'. Indeed, the hub of the Intelligent Design movement - The Discovery Institute do not "follow the data where it leads."

yes ... they do.

And "no" -- a single 20 person "group" is not "the entire body of science".

Indeed also, the Answers in Genesis show a complete disregard for

A. Not true.

B. the AIG group is not an I.D group. In fact they oppose I.D as a definition for their position.

AIG is more of a "counterpart" to atheist darwinism itself.

So where do you imagine your Intelligent Design definition has actually been met?

There are 4 fundamental forces in nature -- Electromagnetism is one. Electromagnetic wave forms have long been a scientifically AND commercially viable test case for "Intelligent Design" and the ability to mature discriminator logic where the difference between design and random background is clearly "discoverable". It's proven. It's accepted fact.

It is that same principle of "design" over background-static that is being proposed in all other sciences that observe nature -- by I.D Scientists.

Bob

 

[Skavau]

Indeed many of the YEC people accept that light-weight generic form as do all the I.D scientists.

That is the form.

I was speaking about something a bit more "distinctively" atheist darwinist.

Something along the lines of "explaining all the diversity of life today" -- using the blind-faith claim "a rock can do this given enough time". Which as Dawkins points out is not any more of a "leap" than saying a "single cell coud do this given enough time".

Who says a 'rock can do this given enough time'? Do what precisely?

yes ... they do.

And "no" -- a single 20 person "group" is not "the entire body of science".

The Wedge Strategy is a Discovery Institute agenda. Please explain what an apparent impartial and scientific think tank is doing engaging in political and social plan to eradicate the consequences of the Age of Enlightenment.

There are 4 fundamental forces in nature -- Electromagnetism is one. Electromagnetic wave forms have long been a scientifically AND commercially viable test case for "Intelligent Design" and the ability to mature discriminator logic where the difference between design and random background is clearly "discoverable". It's proven. It's accepted fact.

It is that same principle of "design" over background-static that is being proposed in all other sciences that observe nature -- by I.D Scientists.

What are you talking about? How do Electromagnetic waves provide demonstration of an 'Intelligent Designer'?

Also, there is no such assertion in science that declares anything as proven.

Thanks, Skavau

 

[BobRyan]

What definition are you referring to? The definition of evolution in biology is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

Indeed many of the YEC people accept that light-weight generic form as do all the I.D scientists.

That is the form.

Well accepted by all.

I was speaking about something a bit more "distinctively" atheist darwinist.

Something along the lines of "explaining all the diversity of life today" -- using the blind-faith claim "a rock can do this given enough time". Which as Dawkins points out is not any more of a "leap" than saying a "single cell coud do this given enough time".

Who says a 'rock can do this given enough time'? Do what precisely?

Atheist darwinism begins with "there is no god" and a very large "rock" (i.e dust and gas in one place) the claim is that "given enough of them and enough time" you get humans.

As Isaac Asimov explained "evolution from molecule to human mind requires a massive decrease in entropy" they all start with the rock and work their way to the end point.

There are 4 fundamental forces in nature -- Electromagnetism is one. Electromagnetic wave forms have long been a scientifically AND commercially viable test case for "Intelligent Design" and the ability to mature discriminator logic where the difference between design and random background is clearly "discoverable". It's proven. It's accepted fact.

It is that same principle of "design" over background-static that is being proposed in all other sciences that observe nature -- by I.D Scientists.

[
What are you talking about? How do Electromagnetic waves provide demonstration of an 'Intelligent Designer'?

hmm - you have a TV right? How do you suppose that picture gets there?

Bob

 

[Skavau]

Atheist darwinism begins with "there is no god" and a very large "rock" (i.e dust and gas in one place) the claim is that "given enough of them and enough time" you get humans.

No it doesn't.

Atheist Darwinism does not exist. You quite literally just made that up.

hmm - you have a TV right? How do you suppose that picture gets there?

I receive it through digital signals or analog signals.

What does this have to do with an intelligent designer?

Thanks, Skavau

 

[BobRyan]

Those signals coming over satellite use electromagnetic wave form to get here.

see -- it "just works".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Atheist darwinism begins with "there is no god" and a very large "rock" (i.e dust and gas in one place) the claim is that "given enough of them and enough time" you get humans.

No it doesn't.

Atheist Darwinism does not exist.

Watch Expelled the Movie.

Listen to anything Dawkins or Provine writes.

READ Darwin's statement about his conclusion to dump Christianity based on the doctrines of Darwinism.

READ any of atheist darwinist pogroms against ID scientists.

It is there - you just have to be willing to read.

Bob

 

[Skavau]

Those signals coming over satellite use electromagnetic wave form to get here.

see -- it "just works".

I don't understand what you think this has to do with an Intelligent Design.

Watch Expelled the Movie.

This is a discussion forum. There is no point in pointing me to videos or advising me to read things - make your case here, on this forum.

What exactly do you think is so impressive about Expelled that it exposes some 'Atheistic Darwinism'? I have seen many interviews by Ben Stein regarding his documentary and he has not got a clue what he talks about regarding evolution. To put it bluntly, reading the wikipedia definition of evolution is all that is required to surpass Ben Stein's understanding of it.

Listen to anything Dawkins or Provine writes.

Neither Dawkin or Provine define Evolution.

[quote"BobRyan"]
READ Darwin's statement about his conclusion to dump Christianity based on the doctrines of Darwinism.

READ any of atheist darwinist pogroms against ID scientists.
[/quote]
What 'Atheist Darwinist' programs against ID Scientists? I don't know of anyone professing to be an 'Atheist Darwinist' much less programs designed by them.

 

[Patashu]

Atheist darwinism begins with "there is no god" and a very large "rock" (i.e dust and gas in one place) the claim is that "given enough of them and enough time" you get humans.

No it doesn't.

Atheist Darwinism does not exist.

Watch Expelled the Movie.

Listen to anything Dawkins or Provine writes.

READ Darwin's statement about his conclusion to dump Christianity based on the doctrines of Darwinism.

READ any of atheist darwinist pogroms against ID scientists.

It is there - you just have to be willing to read.

Bob

How about all those who see that evolution is not inherently atheistic and thus are theists/christians at the same time they use the theory of evolution for their work and study? Kenneth Miller, etc. You can't just sweep them ALL under the carpet by claiming that they are ALL mislead/deluded somehow, they are making their own decisions.

 

[Dunzo]

Those signals coming over satellite use electromagnetic wave form to get here.

see -- it "just works".

I don't understand what you think this has to do with an Intelligent Design.

Watch Expelled the Movie.

This is a discussion forum. There is no point in pointing me to videos or advising me to read things - make your case here, on this forum.

What exactly do you think is so impressive about Expelled that it exposes some 'Atheistic Darwinism'? I have seen many interviews by Ben Stein regarding his documentary and he has not got a clue what he talks about regarding evolution. To put it bluntly, reading the wikipedia definition of evolution is all that is required to surpass Ben Stein's understanding of it.

Listen to anything Dawkins or Provine writes.

Neither Dawkin or Provine define Evolution.

[quote"BobRyan"]
READ Darwin's statement about his conclusion to dump Christianity based on the doctrines of Darwinism.

READ any of atheist darwinist pogroms against ID scientists.

What 'Atheist Darwinist' programs against ID Scientists? I don't know of anyone professing to be an 'Atheist Darwinist' much less programs designed by them.[/quote]

I fucking love Ayreon.

 

[Dunzo]

Those signals coming over satellite use electromagnetic wave form to get here.

see -- it "just works".

I don't understand what you think this has to do with an Intelligent Design.

Watch Expelled the Movie.

This is a discussion forum. There is no point in pointing me to videos or advising me to read things - make your case here, on this forum.

What exactly do you think is so impressive about Expelled that it exposes some 'Atheistic Darwinism'? I have seen many interviews by Ben Stein regarding his documentary and he has not got a clue what he talks about regarding evolution. To put it bluntly, reading the wikipedia definition of evolution is all that is required to surpass Ben Stein's understanding of it.

Listen to anything Dawkins or Provine writes.

Neither Dawkin or Provine define Evolution.

READ Darwin's statement about his conclusion to dump Christianity based on the doctrines of Darwinism.

READ any of atheist darwinist pogroms against ID scientists.

What 'Atheist Darwinist' programs against ID Scientists? I don't know of anyone professing to be an 'Atheist Darwinist' much less programs designed by them.

I fucking love Ayreon.

 

[Skavau]

I Loving love Ayreon.

That's good to hear.

 

[BobRyan]

How about all those who see that evolution is not inherently atheistic and thus are theists/christians at the same time they use the theory of evolution for their work and study? Kenneth Miller, etc. You can't just sweep them ALL under the carpet by claiming that they are ALL mislead/deluded somehow, they are making their own decisions.

Many of the ID scientists are in fact evolutionists -- just not "in the tank" devotees of atheist darwinism that we see as in the case of Dawkins and all who follow Darwinist doctrines when they attack the academic freedom being demonstrated by ID scientists.

Bob