| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
13th June 2006, 10:17 AM
| | Senior Member
22     
| | Join Date: 11th April 2006
Posts: 955
Blessings: 91,695
Reps: 3,559 (power: 9) | | | Today, our top story: Major proponent of intelligent design thinks that evolution isn't true. For more on this shocking revelation, we'll go now to JohnR7 in Atlanta. John?
__________________
Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today! |
13th June 2006, 10:22 AM
|  | Legend
59  
 | | Join Date: 9th February 2002 Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,410
Blessings: 220,514
Reps: 12,682 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by MewtwoX First, why are you using Dembski to make claims on Evolution? You know people are going to consider him biased, being one of the main proponents of "Intelligent Design".
In case you have not noticed that is what we do here, we talk about creationism, intelligent design, evolution, natural selection, natural science, natural theory and so forth. Actually over 90% of the people believe in "Intelligent design", because they beleive in a "Intelligent Designer". But I am sure they believe in their OWN version of it and not Behe's or Dembski's version of just what is and what is not "Intelligent Design". |
13th June 2006, 10:26 AM
|  | Veteran
25   
| | Join Date: 11th December 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,356
Blessings: 1,052,035 My Mood 
Reps: 18,895,147,250,506 (power: 18,895,147,258) | | Originally Posted by JohnR7 In case you have not noticed that is what we do here, we talk about creationism, intelligent design, evolution, natural selection, natural science, natural theory and so forth. Actually over 90% of the people believe in "Intelligent design", because they beleive in a "Intelligent Designer". But I am sure they believe in their OWN version of it and not Behe's or Dembski's version of just what is and what is not "Intelligent Design".
This doesn't address my question. Why use Dembski to comment on the path of Evolution, when you're just going to be called on it for bias?
Also, I found the article I was talking about : http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm
__________________ "There is but one cause of human failure and that is man's lack of faith in his true self." ---------------------------------------------------
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by MewtwoX; 13th June 2006 at 10:42 AM.
|
13th June 2006, 10:27 AM
|
| | Join Date: 10th January 2006
Posts: 834
Blessings: 72,418
Reps: 720 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by JohnR7 William Dembski tells us that there was a time when evolution's theory went almost unchallanged. But now not only is there a organized opposition, but students also are becoming more educated and aware of the theory and how to argue against it.
I think it is clear that Dembski feels that evolution is losing ground and is not as unrestricted as it once was.
LOL. To any newcomers please note:
John's post citing a description of a (presumably) editorial foreword to a book is as close as he (JohnR7) or any other creationist gets to primary empirical evidence. That's right folks, this is as good as it gets. Although they like to allude to some motherlode of hard evidence that refutes evolution, there is none, and none is ever posted here by any Creationist. Watch this thread and JohnR7's responses as evidence for this. |
13th June 2006, 10:32 AM
| | Legend
59
| | Join Date: 9th February 2002 Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,410
Blessings: 220,514
Reps: 12,682 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Adriac Today, our top story: Major proponent of intelligent design thinks that evolution isn't true. For more on this shocking revelation, we'll go now to JohnR7 in Atlanta. John?
Most Intelligent Designers believe in evolution and most evolutionists believe in intelligent design. The question is how do they define intelligent design or designer. Evolution is a word in our dictionary, so it is just a question of how you define that word.
90% of the people beleive in God. The question is how much is God an active part of our lives. There are people who believe the universe is a wind up toy. God created it, but then He stands off at a distance and lets it play itself out.
"From a distance we are instruments
marching in a common band.
Playing songs of hope, playing songs of peace.
They're the songs of every man.
God is watching us. God is watching us.
God is watching us from a distance." http://www.links2love.com/love_lyrics_233.htm |
13th June 2006, 10:37 AM
|  | Regular Member
30 
| | Join Date: 11th January 2006
Posts: 417
Blessings: 63,347
Reps: 580 (power: 0) | | | Hammers CAN be fun.
But thats not what they were designed for. And they will not STOP being useful, when they STOP being fun.
(Edited for clarity.)
__________________
A lady holds her torch aloft,
she thinks she controls fire.
But fire can turn metal soft,
a molten pool her pyre.
Last edited by BVZ; 13th June 2006 at 10:44 AM.
|
13th June 2006, 11:15 AM
| | Legend
59
| | Join Date: 9th February 2002 Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,410
Blessings: 220,514
Reps: 12,682 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Beastt
So when is it that Dembski suggests the theory of evolution went without a challenge?
Evolution went without challenge in the scopes trial and it went without challenge at Dover according to Dembski. The evolutionists would not allow the IDers or Creationists to question them, their belief or their theory. Dembski believes that evolutionists are quick to ask all sorts of questions, but they do that to avoid people asking them questions about evolution. A majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed from earlier species, up from 46 percent in 1994.
I guess it depends on who is doing the poll, but according to Harris evolution is losing ground with the American public. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=581
Last edited by JohnR7; 13th June 2006 at 11:28 AM.
|
13th June 2006, 11:32 AM
|  | Titleless
31  
| | Join Date: 28th April 2004 Location: Maastricht
Posts: 9,755
Blessings: 88,870
Reps: 9,274,249 (power: 9,291) | | Originally Posted by JohnR7 Evolution went without challenge in the scopes trial and it went without challenge at Dover according to Dembski. The evolutionists would not allow the IDers or Creationists to question them, their belief or their theory. Dembski believes that evolutionists are quick to ask all sorts of questions, but they do that to avoid people asking them questions about evolution.
What utter bullcrap. Especially in the Dover trial, the ID-ists had every chance to question people like Ken Miller. That they didn't do so is not our fault. The blame for that lies squarely on their own shoulders. Their refusal to testify in those trials themselves adds to the utter hypocrisy of those statements.
The more I read of Dembski, the more I think he is a hypocritical idiot only surpassed, but not much, by the likes of raving lunatics like 'dr' Hovind.
__________________ Tom 'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.' -Ascribed to Adolf Hitler- `Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.' -Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll- Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. --Aaron Levenstein |
13th June 2006, 11:35 AM
| | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 30th January 2005
Posts: 2,538
Blessings: 93,049
Reps: 4,008 (power: 14) | | Originally Posted by JohnR7 I am really glad you asked that. ID people feel that the theory of evolution is losing ground and support and momentium. So the question would be: does evolutionary theory have less acceptance than what it did even 10 years ago IN OUR UNIVERSITIES? Or amoung the general population.
I would think that evolutionists if they can provide the "mechanism" or not, would try to claim that evolution theory and the natural sciences are gaining ground and becoming more popular and accepted.
It may have less support in our general population, but science isn't dictated by the ignorant masses. If you look at universities, nearly every single biology program teaches evolution (I say nearly every since there's one Christian school that doesn't. Not sure how their grads do as biologists). Even religious universities teach evolution as a core part of biology. John, Creationism is about accepted in biology as YECism is in geology when it comes to universities. |
13th June 2006, 12:11 PM
| | Legend
59
| | Join Date: 9th February 2002 Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,410
Blessings: 220,514
Reps: 12,682 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by random_guy If you look at universities, nearly every single biology program teaches evolution
Then why is it that my friend says he never studied evolution when he is a Associate Professor of Physiology and has a Phd in Physiology. In fact he is president of the Physiology association. He does not accept evolutionary theory. He is busy with his work and he does not have time to get involved with evolutionary theory one way or the other. My Biology teacher was a graduate of Harvard, and he never mentioned evolutionary theory.
I think that perhaps evolutions like to exaggerate just how important their theory really is. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
