Credentials of Theism and Intelligent Design

[paul becke]

Read bornagain77's posts, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.


Uncommon Descent | “Intelligent design talking points” are now legitimate science?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Read bornagain77's posts, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.


Uncommon Descent | “Intelligent design talking points” are now legitimate science?

Descent with modification, it's the "greatest show on earth and the only game in town."

 

[Socrastein]

Read through a good portion of it but honestly had to stop due to an overwhelming number of very fallacious arguments. Affirming the consequent, appealing to ignorance, appealing to tradition, conflating association with causation, and more!

The two recurring arguments I kept seeing could be phrased as thus:

Christianity had a lot to do with the emergence of our modern scientific worldview. Since our modern scientific worldview is awesome and accurate, it must necessarily be the case that whatever it is founded on is equally if not more awesome and accurate.

This is an error in reasoning and not nearly as justifiable a conclusion as the author attempts to make it appear to be through many hundreds of words. When the point is distilled, it is obviously a fallacious one.

Similarly the author repeatedly points to consciousness and basically argues that because its mysterious and hard to understand now that it must necessarily always be so.Again this is an obvious fallacy, appealing to ignorance or incredulity, and the argument becomes no more credible when it is expressed in a longer format.

As I admitted though I didn't make it through the whole thing, so if there was some solid gem I missed in there I'd be happy to take it into consideration.

 

[Farinata]

In all honesty it looks like a very amateurish attempt at using science to prove theism while not understanding any of the linked material in the slightest. What bornagain77 lacks in quality (and there's a certainly a big lack of quality from what I read), he attempts to shore up with sheer quantity. There's way too much nonsense for me to debunk all of it in one post but if you want to post individual arguments or put up what you think are his strongest points, I'd be more than happy to respond and show how utterly baseless and dishonest his arguments are.

 

[TheReasoner]

Bah. As I have stated before, the greatest argument against christianity is creationism and ID. And they're only such because of the sheer number of people who are christians and insist on ignoring reality and supporting one of these positions -without any relevant knowledge whatsoever.

I get sceptical whenever someone tries to mix religion and science. They are two different domains.

 

[AV1611VET]

I get sceptical whenever someone tries to mix religion and science.

-- That leaves me off your list, doesn't it?

 

[TheReasoner]

-- That leaves me off your list, doesn't it?

Nah. As far as that list goes, that puts you pretty much here:

I know few people who mix and match more than you do, AV. Now, you might be a good person. I don't know you so I cannot say. But: You do ignore science, viz. God's creation itself - and substitute your own interpretation of the bible. Now, your interpretation of the bible might be right. But if it is, and Christianity's validity hinges on it, then Christianity is proven false. That's it. And that's the major reason I have a questionmark and not a cross by my name. Because I take you guys seriously, and indeed IF your interpretation is right then Christianity is a hoax. You might as well have a faith that hinged on a square earth for all it mattered. That would be proven wrong to no smaller extent than what you're currently preaching.

 

[Non sequitur]

I know few people who mix and match more than you do, AV. Now, you might be a good person. I don't know you so I cannot say. But: You do ignore science...

Seen it with my own two eyes.