An interesting read. A rebel's journey from Creationism to Theistic Evolution to Intelligent Design (ID).
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
"Red-Penned Rage": The Mike Gene Story
"The logic of ID does not require a religious assumption nor does it mandate a religious conclusion."
An interesting read. A rebel's journey from Creationism to Theistic Evolution to Intelligent Design (ID).
Regain your humanity. Rebel against the atheist machine.™
An interesting read. A rebel's journey from Creationism to Theistic Evolution to Intelligent Design (ID).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
There is a lot wrong with this "interesting read" ( i.e Chimpanzees are not “transitional” any more than humans are; his revelation through academic dishonesty; basing a scientific viewpoint on random stuff read on the internet; ugh), but let us concentrate on the point you highlight:
"The logic of ID does not require a religious assumption nor does it mandate a religious conclusion."
This is incorrect. The “logic” of ID, by definition, requires a designer. That designer would have to be, by definition, more complex than the universe it designed. Therefore it must be outside of the natural world, by definition supernatural. Concluding supernatural beings is a religious conclusion. QED.
it is also some special pleading from you, Mr. Ball. You have been pretty clear that your opposition to Evolutionary Biology is Religious in nature.
This is incorrect. The “logic” of ID, by definition, requires a designer. That designer would have to be, by definition, more complex than the universe it designed. Therefore it must be outside of the natural world, by definition supernatural. Concluding supernatural beings is a religious conclusion. QED.
Very nice logic. However, the point is you do not have to start with a religious conviction, and the science itself does not lead to a religious conclusion. The science stops at the point of providing evidence of actual intelligence and design. That's the point.
"Therefore it must be outside of the natural world, by definition supernatural."
While I personally agree with this conclusion, scientists would say it does not follow because they hypothesize natural worlds or universes or universe-generating mechanisms that are outside of the [this] natural world, and yet are not supernatural. So, one could just hypothesize a natural super-intelligence from beyond this universe, for example.
Others, many in fact, have hypothesized that nature itself is possessed with a kind of mind, that intelligence is built-into the fabric of nature.
There is evidence that Darwin was influenced by this kind of thinking.
The point being that it takes a bit of discipline, but intelligent design can be done as science without veering into religious speculation or religious conclusions.
"basing a scientific viewpoint on random stuff read on the internet; ugh)"
Does this mean I should no longer thoughtfully ponder your contributions??!!
"it is also some special pleading from you, Mr. Ball. You have been pretty clear that your opposition to Evolutionary Biology is Religious in nature."
Yes and no.
I do have beliefs derived from other lines of reasoning that have resulted in deeply held religious convictions. However, my objections to evolutionary biology are based on the assertions of evolutionary biology in and of themselves.
As a Christian, I am free to believe that God created through either (what appear to us as) entirely natural processes, or through miraculous point-in-time infusions of e.g., information, mutation algorithms, primitive body-plans, etc. (which I take it is more the ID view).
I am free to freely investigate these matters. The materialistic atheist on the other hand is not.
And I shall continue to poke holes and fun at darwinism. But, I will do so more respectfully in the future because of what I am learning from you xn and Jonathan.
ID requires a designer; that is where it starts. These people did not look at the evidence found in nature and say, “the most parsimonious explanation is an intelligent designer”, as that is always the least parsimonious explanation (as invoking any designer requires the invoking of something to design the designer, and so on ad infinitum). They make the religious leap first, then find the evidence that fits, wholesale tossing out the evidence that doesn’t.
“scientists … hypothesize natural worlds or universes or universe-generating mechanisms that are outside of the [this] natural world, and yet are not supernatural.”
Sort of. In the case of explanatory example they do; the most basic example is any introductory physics class when the professor will say “imagine a ball rolling without friction through a vacuum,” to simplify concepts. However, they would never suggest that any mechanism outside of the natural universe could influence any mechanism within the natural universe. That violates the scientific definition of the universe.
“Does this mean I should no longer thoughtfully ponder your contributions??!!”
Yes! That is exactly what I mean. Read what xn/haefer and I have been saying all along: you should educate yourself, read a book. Take a course. Don’t just take it from us (or anyone else: educate yourself! The fruit of knowledge is right there for you to eat, and as Eve already had some, you may as well gorge yourself, as the sin is there anyway. When we say “you really have no idea what you are talking about”, we don’t say it as an insult, we say it as a prompt to get you to learn!
Post a Comment