Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
In general, the ID movement is a religious and political movement, not a scientific one. As with every generalization there are exceptions. If you want to talk about THE ID Movement that was started by Phillip Johnson and it is an overtly religious movement.
What if I don't think the movement started with him?
We could go back to Paley if you like, but I don't see how that helps.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
We could go back to Paley if you like, but I don't see how that helps.
But Denton, also a member of the movement, came to the conclusion before PJ did, and it was his work that influenced PJ. In fact Denton was toying with the idea before PJ was even an anti-evolutionist.
__________________ "If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it that you don't feel at home there?" C.S. Lewis
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." C.S. Lewis
"You can't get a cup of tea big enough or a book long enough to suit me." C. S. Lewis
one on one about whether ID can be science, and whether or not it is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo"
I think there is a lot of ignorance about the real story on these forums it seems everyone just parrots whatever the NCSE or wikipedia says. I am somewhat IDish, and I don't see any debates on this topic so far, so I think I'll challenge that.
ok one on one, and one post to one counter post as long as it goes, the posts can obviously be edited, so no need to make extra posts. When we are done we should have exactly the same number of posts, or one of us should have only one more.
Also for both of us, no insulting the other debator.
Any takers?
Too vague. Can you specify?
__________________
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.
But Denton, also a member of the movement, came to the conclusion before PJ did, and it was his work that influenced PJ. In fact Denton was toying with the idea before PJ was even an anti-evolutionist.
But Denton is not a member of the movement. He is widely cited by ID-ists for his book "evolution, theory in crisis", but ID-ists never cite his later book in which he has no qualms with evolution anymore. Denton has as far as I know never described himself as a member of the movement.
And that is neglecting the fact that the book Denton wrote is a virtual haven of quote mines, was completely outdated in it's references when it came out in the '80s or so and that Denton makes elementary errors in taxonomy that even a first-year college student in biology would probably not make.
And yes, I've read theory in crisis. As far as the above goes, it was quite humerous. Were I Denton's biology teacher, I'd shoot myself.
__________________
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.
Ah, wiki to the rescue:
Though Denton asked his name be removed from their website, the institute continues to cite his work in support of its campaign,[1] and his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis was cited in the appendix of the controversial intelligent design textbook, Of Pandas and People.
__________________
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.
But Denton, also a member of the movement, came to the conclusion before PJ did, and it was his work that influenced PJ.
As Tom points out, Denton has changed his conclusions quite drastically. Does this mean that the movement is dead?
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
one on one about whether ID can be science, and whether or not it is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo"
It is scientists, philosophers and intellectuals that have serious problems with Darwinism. If you want to debate whether or not it is science then you should define your central term.
I think there is a lot of ignorance about the real story on these forums it seems everyone just parrots whatever the NCSE or wikipedia says. I am somewhat IDish, and I don't see any debates on this topic so far, so I think I'll challenge that.
Yes there is a lot of ignorance and you will not get the 'real' story on here I can assure you.
ok one on one, and one post to one counter post as long as it goes, the posts can obviously be edited, so no need to make extra posts. When we are done we should have exactly the same number of posts, or one of us should have only one more.
I would be happy to argue that ID is not Creationism and give you explicit reasons why not. It failed the Lemon test in the Supreme Court but that does not make it Creationism. Rest assured that I am flattered to have ID mistaken for Creationism but it fails for a lot of reasons we can get into.
I'll engage you on this one formally on one condition. The rules of formal debate for the Formal Debate forum cannot be violated. Failure to abide by them will result in an instant forfeiture. That includes post lengths and number of posts, which means. you can't post more then one post at a time.
Check the rules of debate in the Formal Debate forum and if you are interested drop me a PM.
Also for both of us, no insulting the other debator.
No problem!
Any takers?
You have one conditional taker, take it or leave it.
Have a nice day
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
I am actually kind of shocked. I thought I would have too many people volenteering.
Maybe they don't like the one on one thing. If that's true, its a pretty lame reason.
We agree on everything except the topic of debate, ID is not Creationism. Some of the arguments follow the same lines but they are distinctly different. Don't be surprised if evolutionists won't take you up on the offer, many of them lack real world conviction. They like attacking in groups and don't respond well to invitations to personal dialog.
I have read a lot on the subject but bear in mind, what you are dealing with is a collective attitude. ID can be very impressive with it's scientific acumen, there is no two ways about this. Just don't confuse it with Creationism because it is distinctly different.
I wish you well and my invitation to debate it on that level still stands.
Grace and peace,
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Linear Mode
