|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 11/03/2006 : 00:46:47
|
The design of life by William Dembski and Jonathan Wells is to be released next year.
quote:
There are now good reasons for thinking that no such causal mechanism exists and that mind is inherently irreducible to brain.23 This is good news for intelligent design, which treats intelligence as irreducible to material entities and the mechanisms that control their interaction. At the same time, it does not mean that intelligence should be regarded as something “supernatural.” Supernatural explanations invoke miracles and therefore are not properly part of science. Explanations that call on intelligent causes require no miracles but cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations. Indeed, design theorists argue that intelligent causation is perfectly natural, provided that nature is understood aright.
Is it just me or aren't they contradicting themselves big-time in this paragraph?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 01:15:24 [Permalink]
|
Firs chapter is available online.
Pathetic. Insinuations, selective quoting and outright lies. Business as usual for Wells & Dembski.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 02:14:32 [Permalink]
|
Hawks asked: quote:
Is it just me or aren't they contradicting themselves big-time in this paragraph?
Sure seems so to me.
If "Supernatural explanations invoke miracles and therefore are not properly part of science ..." is true, then the statement that "Explanations that call on intelligent causes require no miracles ..." is evidently false, because they "cannot be reduced to materialistic [ie., natural] explanations..." and therefore the ID notions are inherently "supernatural" and "miraculous," and "therefore are not properly part of science."
QED.
I cannot help but think of the poor graduates of the fundy colleges which will require such a nonsensical, anti-science text. I imagine them trying to sue places (like Bob Jones U?) for giving them a "science" education that could not be accepted by any reputable University they tried to transfer to, and deprived them of a livelihood by making the degree worthless in the science field. Sooner or later, such Bible-thumping colleges will have to be made unaccredited, like any other diploma mill.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 11/03/2006 04:35:29 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 02:48:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Hawks asked: quote:
s it just me or aren't they contradicting themselves big-time in this paragraph?
Sure seems so to me.
If "Supernatural explanations invoke miracles and therefore are not properly part of science ..." is true, then the statement that "Explanations that call on intelligent causes require no miracles ..." is evidently false, because they "cannot be reduced to materialistic [ie., natural] explanations..." and therefore the ID notions are inherently "supernatural" and "miraculous," and "therefore are not properly part of science."
QED.
I cannot help but think of the poor graduates of the fundy colleges which will require such a nonsensical, anti-science text. I imagine them trying to sue places (like Bob Jones U?) for giving them a "science" education that could not be accepted by any reputable University they tried to transfer to, and deprived them of a livelihood by making the degree worthless in the science field. Sooner or later, such Bible-thumping colleges will have to be made unaccredited, like any other diploma mill.
Heh, indeedy!
I wonder; is ID beginning it's inevitable slide into the sillier part of the woo-woo fringe? You'd think that they would be out there electioneering like mad to get those who have the "aright" view of nature into office. I might have missed it, but I haven't heard a peep out of them. In fact, there hasn't been a hell of a lot of action from them since Dover and Kansas.
Consider; the YECs such as Answers in Genesis and even a fair number of OECs don't accept ID. Without these for allies, it comes off as no more than a weak and incontinent sister best committed to the sanatorium.
Betcha they don't sell many copies of the "textbook" to other than home-schoolers and curio collectors, 'cause the Christian schools won't want it, either.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 11:51:28 [Permalink]
|
I think that most ID proponents are trying to prove God exists instead of answering the question how and where did we come from. With this view they will never find a truth that they are not looking for.
I have experienced this in my profession as an engineer. Many times I have been asked to troubleshoot a problem with a system. Early on I would sit down with the maintenance people first and discuss their view of the problem. I found myself attracted to their explanations and had a hard time getting those idea's out of my head more than finding out what is really wrong. Now I get all the data I can and go troubleshoot the system and come to my conclusions then discuss them with maintenance personel. I have found it to be more beneficial to the client. In the same way most ID proponents already have the conclusion and want a scientific justification for it. This is why I do not think it is science although I do read and study ID.
Another point is that as a whole the scientific community does not consider ID as science. Therfore at present it is not science.
My child will go to public school next year and I am sure as she progresses through the system she will learn many things that conflict with what our family believes. I have no problem with that and I do not want to change the system. My take is that most parents that want ID in the school want it because it will be easier to explain God if it is in a science class they have to take. The error I think they make is that every child will have to come to thier own conclusions about God. A parent cannot make their child believe. They just need to give them the tools to make a good decision. And in the end it is faith and not science that God wants from us.
This is just my ramblings from a believers point of view.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 12:32:17 [Permalink]
|
| Hey Robb long time no hear! Nice post. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
