Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » QUOTE OF THE DAY
  • QUOTE OF THE DAY

    Filed at 6:56 am under by dcobranchi

    “When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed… And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he’s not getting it.”– William Dembski, IDist (Source: The Panda’s Thumb)

    Dave and Alex– would you like for me to post one of these each day showing that the DI lies? There are plenty more where this came from. Perhaps I should start with the Wedge document?

    10 Responses to “QUOTE OF THE DAY”


    Comment by
    Dave
    November 5th, 2005
    at 11:19 am

    Are you saying that when Dembski posits that certain biological features appear designed, he is lying because he is a Christian?

    What of Richard Dawkins, an atheist, who is a strong advocate of evolution who says that anyone who questions evolution must be ignorant or evil? By your reasoning, he must be lying as well.

    As an aside, check out this insightful movie about research into the assembly and operation of the bacterial flagellum. It could have evolved, but based on what we know today, design is a more convincing argument for its origin. (The movie is mostly neutral, but leans towards a naturalistic perspective)

    nanone...1a.wmv


    Comment by
    Dave
    November 5th, 2005
    at 11:30 am

    And, the story of Sternberg is not unique. Read this to see what happens when a PhD with 60 published, peer reviewed papers dares to question the naturalistic philosophy that underpins so much of today’s science:

    miamin...5.html


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 5th, 2005
    at 11:43 am

    He asked the wrong question–

    “The argument was pure science, except for the closing. It read: “We should not be asking: ‘Are we alone?’ We should instead be asking: ‘Why are we here?'”

    That’s philosophy. Science is silent on the “Why?” and must remain so.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 5th, 2005
    at 11:45 am

    Geez! Talk about a red herring. I didn’t say he was lying because he’s a Christian. I said the DI lies every time they proclam that it’s all about the science and not about getting religion back in the schools.


    Comment by
    David
    November 5th, 2005
    at 6:45 pm

    Umm… I don’t see anything in Dembski’s quote about putting religion in schools.

    Also, since when is Science not allowed to ask “why” questions?


    Comment by
    Dave
    November 5th, 2005
    at 11:13 pm

    I do appreciate your concerns with the DI and the wedge approach, but I think that they are open about it and are sincere in terms of keeping religion out of g-school science classes. But maybe not, and maybe they should have steered clear of Dover given that they do not support ID being taught.


    Comment by
    Steven
    November 7th, 2005
    at 6:31 am

    Dave, I don’t believe Daryl is saying “that when Dembski posits that certain biological features appear designed, he is lying because he is a Christian”. I do believe, however, that Dembski is being disenguous in suggesting the Intelligent Design is not a religious position instead of a scientific one or that ID is a scientific theory based on evidence (unlike evolution). ID has no evidence in its support (and, given its philosophical base, is unlikely ever to have such evidence).


    Comment by
    Alex
    November 7th, 2005
    at 11:23 pm

    Steven – There is a significant body of evidence that supports the design hypothesis, so much so, that Richard Dawkins has said that biologists have to constantly remind themselves that biological features only appear to have been designed. Behe says you can infer design via the idea of irreducible complexity and he cites the bacterial flagellum as perhaps the best example, but there are numerous others. There are biologists that dismiss Behe’s assertion, claiming that what appears to be irreducibly complex actually came about via a process known as co-option. However, when you search the literature, you find that this is just conjecture, and that there isn’t the foggiest notion of how co-option would work, so for now design is the most plausible explanation. Now, science is always tentative, so if biologists can show co-option in the lab, then that’s another story.

    The problem is that if you exclude the design option, then evolution becomes the only possible explanation, and scientific rigor goes out the door. No other field would accept an argument such as co-option with so little basis. And, its not just Joe Blow biologists that float that idea either, its folks like Francis Collins. (Head of Genome project)

    Dawkins also has said that evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

    So, how is it that we give Dawkins a free ride and not Dembski? Perhaps Dawkins is being disengenous as well when he stretches the evidence for evolution.


    Comment by
    Alex
    November 7th, 2005
    at 11:26 pm

    Daryl, yes, go for it.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 8th, 2005
    at 5:29 am

    You know what I wish most about IDists? I wish they’d get some new talking points, as the ones they have are getting quite shopworn. In fact, the flagellum talking point was old when the “scientific creationists” were using it back in ’86. ID really is “scientific creationism” with a new name. I haven’t yet decided which of the two names– “scientific creationism” or “intelligent design”– is the more ironic.

    Does Phillip Johnson have a good sense of humor?