Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
From having just read the thread it appears to me to have more to do with your utter inability to define exactly what it is you wish to debate.
Every time someone tries to pin you down you say that that isn't what you wish to debate.
It would be useful if, instead of casting aspersions on those you regard as your opponents, you actually laid down in plain terms what it is that is to be debated.
I thought I was pretty clear. That the current ID movement is not fundamentally, principally, or otherwise Creationism, did not have creationist roots, etc.
__________________ "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
1. The Wedge Document.
2. Cdesign proponentists, the transitional fossil linking creationists with IDers.
3. The attempts by the Dover, PA school district to insert Intelligent Design due to the religious convictions.
4. The fact that the only grant Guillermo Gonzalez was able to get while at Iowa State was from the Templeton Foundation. This foundation's main goal is to find concilliance between religion and science. Gonzalez used this money to write his ID book "Privileged Planet".
5. ID is not found in scientific journals, but it is found in christian tracts.
6. ID supporters are on record stating that the designer is the christian God.
If ID were science you would find scientists using the theory in their research, publishing this original research, and see them presenting their ID work at scientific conferences. None of this is seen.
Care to take me up on my debate offer though?
If the peer reviewed scientific literature is considered the only legitimate criteria for what is and is not science, sure.
__________________ "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
And yet it is presented as creationism by a vast majority of it's proponents.
That's a lie, Intelligent Design scientists deny that as do most creationists. To blend the two together is disingenuous at best.
ID also runs into the problem of infinite regress. It can't be designers all the way down. At some point in the 13.7 billion year history of the universe the first designer has to come about through some type of abiogenesis and evolution.
No they don't, the simply question whether or not we can detect intelligent design.
Could some type of limited ID be couched in terms that do not rely on supernatural claims? Sure, but then ID isn't that compelling nor can it explain why the first designers can come about naturally but everything else must be designed.
There is nothing supernatural about God creating life, for God it's perfectly natural. You can only exclude God based on biased epistemology, the science is a secondary concern.
If someone can provide a compelling ID theory I would have no problem with a personal dialog, as mark kennedy already knows. However, if it is going to be a discussion of who started the modern ID movement then it is not a discussion worth having.
Personally I have never turned down a serious debate invitation. I am more then happy to take evolutionists to task based on the evidence. I am uncomfortable with Intelligent Design because it ignores the only aspect of TOE I care about, human origins.
To be honest I would be thrilled if ID took an creationist turn but it seems they probably never will. However, I will say that Loudmouth has demonstrated a willingness to stand by his convictions which is something most evolutionists lack the courage to do.
Good luck LordTimothytheWise finding an opponent because these guys only want to fight in groups.
__________________
“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)
That's a lie, Intelligent Design scientists deny that as do most creationists. To blend the two together is disingenuous at best.
Followed by . . . .
There is nothing supernatural about God creating life, for God it's perfectly natural.
'Nuff said.
No they don't, the simply question whether or not we can detect intelligent design.
And what is their method of choice? ID is whatever nature can't do, you know, like certain RNA genes that could not come about naturally? If nature can't do it then it must be due to . . . hmmm, let me think . . . OH YES, the supernatural.
You can only exclude God based on biased epistemology, the science is a secondary concern.
There is no reason (other than religious convictions) to include God. Are meteorologists evil atheists because they do not include Thor in their weather maps?
Good luck LordTimothytheWise finding an opponent because these guys only want to fight in groups.
I will agree that creationists are usually at the bottom of a gang tackle. However, this only reflects the current situation in science. When more than 99.9% of biologists accept the ToE you should expect some piling on. If someone made a geocentrist presentation at a NASA conference you would expect some piling on as well.
__________________ "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
I thought I was pretty clear. That the current ID movement is not fundamentally, principally, or otherwise Creationism, did not have creationist roots, etc.
Hasn't this premis been fatally undermined already on this thread by the DI Wedge Document?
All you could come up with is that the first proposer of ID wasn't the same person as the person most people see as the father of the ID movement.
As many people said an arguemnt about who first mooted ID is all rather pointless ( IC has beena prediction of evolutionary theory since 1918 ).
I appears to be self evidently true that the ID movement is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo", that is certainly what the Dover trial found, the fact that you don't like that conclusion or don't hold the same views as the majority within the ID movement seems a rather tedious debate to me.
There are certainly some within the ID movement who are not Creationists, but there are many more who are, the movement seems to be a fairly broad church it has a wing that have attempted, and failed, to do scientifically robust ID work, but the majority of people who identify with the ID movement seem to see it as a cover story to get Creationism into schools, that you don't also hold those views is besides the point.
But as I said, not of much interest to me, my areas of interest are geology and evolutionary palaeontology so arguing about the beliefs and politics of the ID movement holds little interest for me, but I hope you find someone as interested as you are in this debate. Good hunting.
__________________ A scientist, it's official
" The result, therefore, of this physical enquiry is that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" James Hutton, from his 1788 paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh on the principles of geology
Last edited by Baggins; 13th April 2008 at 12:32 AM.
Hasn't this premis been fatally undermined already on this thread by the DI Wedge Document?
If I didn't think there were counterpoints I wouldn't keep asking for a debate. So don't worry about that.
All you could come up with is that the first proposer of ID wasn't the same person as the person most people see as the father of the ID movement.
Lets just say I am waiting till someone accepts the debate to go any further on that issue.
If the peer reviewed scientific literature is considered the only legitimate criteria for what is and is not science, sure.
Quite frankly I was under the impression that it was methodology not 'institution' that made something scientific. I cannot agree to the terms if your requirements for something to be science means it has to be 'institutionally approved' in some respect, not that I see that the IDers don't have some of this, but that it seems like the 'institution' has not always supported the avancement of science. On what basis would you claim that peer-review is the only legitimate criteria for something to be science?
No, it is creationism because of:
Care to debate this without me spotting you some presuppositional points?
__________________ "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
Quite frankly I was under the impression that it was methodology not 'institution' that made something scientific.
The best people to judge whether or not this methodology has been followed are the experts in that field. Therefore, peer reviewed papers are the best source. This is the standard by which all scientists and science is judged.
I cannot agree to the terms if your requirements for something to be science means it has to be 'institutionally approved' in some respect, not that I see that the IDers don't have some of this, but that it seems like the 'institution' has not always supported the avancement of science.
It's not an institution. It is 3-5 scientists who are experts in the field from various institutions. The editor of a journal will send a paper to 3-5 other scientists called "referees". The referees review the paper and send their comments to the editor. From the reviews the editor will decide to outright reject the paper, send it back to the authors for revision, or publish the paper as is.
What ID papers are peer reviewed?
On what basis would you claim that peer-review is the only legitimate criteria for something to be science?
Because it is the criteria that all scientists use and have used for decades.
Care to debate this without me spotting you some presuppositional points?
Just letting you know what you are up against.
__________________ "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
There are a few ID papers peer reviewed, but that's irrelevant. We cannot only talk about peer-reviewed literature, because a trial is not necessarily a scientific peer reviewed publication and that is a big deal in this discusion no doubt. This is not that peer-review isn't important, and I believe it would be important to discuss it in the debate. So are you or anyone else willing to take up the challenge issued?
__________________ "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
I thought I was pretty clear. That the current ID movement is not fundamentally, principally, or otherwise Creationism, did not have creationist roots, etc.
Or at least, that's what the cdesign proponentsists say ...
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Linear Mode
