What is scientific about ID?

Post Reply New Topic

What on Earth makes you think that the alternative to ID is something coming from Nothing. ID advocates have a gross miunderstanding of Thermodynamics-especially the 2nd law. Scale make one HELL of a difference when it comes to the 2nd law-a serious question is: does the 2nd law hold true at the QUANTUM(and hence molecular) level? The formation of Crystals from an ionic solution upon heating and cooling is physical proof that Entropy Can decrease! And even better example is the astonishing Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction which produces complex patters that appear to come out of nowhere. There is an assumption that the emergence of order out of randomness violates physical law as we know it....this is clearly NOT the case! Besides, who designed the designer, eH?

If you are sure you want to go there, I can quote some of your recent accusations against me.


I do. In deductive reasoning, once you agreed on the premises, any comment about the intelligence, competence, honesty, ancestry or any other trait of anyone in the debate is totally irrelevant and therefore an ad hominem argument, either sloppy or dishonest. But if there is merely an element of inductive reasoning (even if only when choosing the premises for deductive reasoning), the reliability of a source of information is relevant. All the natural sciences have elements of inductive reasoning. You have made sweeping claims about evolution, a biological theory. Biology is a natural science. The reliability of sources of information is relevant to the issue, and that includes you and me. I have made specific statements on biological topics on WP, and I am happy for anyone to examine them to judge my competence. Will you be specific and back up your general statements about evolution by a demonstration of competence in a discussion about a source you chose?


I just offered to discuss, in detail, one topic of your choice and one that I choose from the anti-evolution web site you chose. I have read about evolution for over 25 years, and will continue to do so. I have also read, listened to and debated critics of evolution. Can you tell me how you get from there to your accusation?

If you can't offer an argument for your accusation being true, will you withdraw it?

Your claim is consistent with with your past behaviour of making general claims but avoiding specifics.


That is one example of what I mean by sweeping statements. How could you know whether my opinions on evolution have any piquancy at all? You claim knowledge where you have none. And what is your evidence that there is any religious element to my opinions about evolution? I asked you before to back up your claim that evolution is religious, and you said nothing. Now you say that I have a "religious belief in evolution". Do you have the guts to admit you're wrong, or will you try to prove your point?

What are you objecting to? I said ID should be examined on its merits, without demanding that its conclusion be proven independently before looking at ID. If you see any bullying in that, please show me where.

...again missing the point of the discussion.

You are the faithful monk.

If I were doing so, why would an evolutionist like you object? I'd be merely creating something from nothing.

But what if I don't want to waste my time and energy jumping through the hoops of a man who has completely closed his mind to any genuine benefit from the discussion?
What then?
What on Earth is my motivation to become your long-time personal question-answerer?
Sorry, I've learned to avoid that trap.

I just asked you to provide some evidence for that accusation. All you do is repeat it. That is an ad hominem attack. Why don't you back up or withdraw this and the rest of your accusations.

Eh, you're boring...ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

I try to be honest and fair in debate, and I ask the same of the people who debate me. Not perfection, but an honest attempt. In response, you have in the last few weeks accused me of being deluded, of lying, "ridiculously grandiose hyperbole", "obscene exaggeration", "religious beliefs about evolution", not wanting to know any more about evolution than I do, having a completely closed mind, and ad hominem attack. When I previously reminded you that making such accusations without either backing up or withdrawing them was bearing false witness, you put that reminder in the wrong context in a way that needs extreme sloppiness to be accidental. Now, when I ask you to back up or withdraw your accusations, you evade the issue yet again. That falls far short of my standards of honest and fair debate, and it falls far short of the standards you, as a Christian who tries to obey the ten commandments, should aspire to.

I hope I got that last bit right. Do you try to obey the ten commandments?

The fact that many biological structures (including the vertebrate eye, which Creationists constantly use as an argument) are so jury-rigged that they look like Rube Goldberg machines can only be explained with natural selection. No sane engineer would design things like that.

ID is not science. It never will be. It's utterly ridiculous.

Depending on which definition of science one is currently using, ID may not be "science".

It's merely true.

im sorry... just saw this site........ don't need to start anything but there are some real misinterpretations about evolutionary theory as well as complexity ect ect.

If complexity needs a creator, then the creator needs a creator. But of course, ''God has always been there''. Utter rubbish.

You know, I laugh at people who say the world is intelligently designed anyway. Broken crust, crossing respiratory and digestive tracks...if God exists, then God is an idiot.

squids actually have a "better designed" eyeball than we do. our vasculature interferes with the light hitting the retina and getting to our optic nerve and squids' vasculature in that region is in a better position not to interfere with the info processing.

edit: otherwise, the two eyeballs are on par with each other... pretty much structure and execution-wise