Evolution eventually leads to....

[KerrMetric]

It is unfortunate that ID is so often associated with YEC. Too often is is used as an anti-evolution arugement - which it is not. As Behe says: "My book [Darwins Black Box] concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent." Let's treat ID as separate for YEC & not critise it (or use it) for something it doesn't say.

Agreed except the majority of ID people are Creationists attempting to slink under the church/state issue radar. Behe isn't but the vast majority are.
When people who 25 years ago wrote as Creationists and now claim they are IDers and not Creationists anymore I have a real problem with that deceit.

 

[Smidlee]

Here's another example of an evolutionist use his imagination as evidence. Because they imagines that ID must be creationist then it's considered a fact.
Even if a few scientist in ID personal believes in the flood or any other YEC position, the fact is they don't use that agrument nor the Bible when it comes to ID science. Dawkins is well known being a strong atheist yet Evolutionist still welcomes him as a scientist. What a double standard!

 

[KerrMetric]

Here's another example of an evolutionist use his imagination as evidence. Because they imagines that ID must be creationist then it's considered a fact.
Even if a few scientist in ID personal believes in the flood or any other YEC position, the fact is they don't use that agrument nor the Bible when it comes to ID science. Dawkins is well known being a strong atheist yet Evolutionist still welcomes him as a scientist. What a double standard!

You are still ignoring the point.

Evolutionists as you call then ADMIT who they are.
Creationists ADMIT who they are.
IDers (for the most part - certainly the main group from the Discovery Institute) are Creationists from years gone by now LYING about what they are. They have been caught in this lie.

Please address that point instead of putting out red herrings.

 

[Smidlee]

IDers (for the most part - certainly the main group from the Discovery Institute) are Creationists from years gone by now LYING about what they are. They have been caught in this lie.

So far all we got is what you imagine without any example. Just because you go around calling people liars doesn't make them so. Again Johnson hasn't hide his faith nor any other member of ID AFAIK. All we got is you crying "liars" without anything to back your claim.

 

[KerrMetric]

So far all we got is what you imagine without any example. Just because you go around calling people liars doesn't make them so. Again Johnson hasn't hide his faith nor any other member of ID AFAIK. All we got is you crying "liars" without anything to back your claim.

No wonder they get support when people don't care as long as they like the message. Why not use Google. I told you the story about the redacted book, it's been in the news a lot the last week or two with the Dover trial.

The other question you have to ask is where did they all appear from. They didn't exist 25 years ago now they appear? Only of course because they are Creationists willing to hide their true colours as long as they can influence the education system.

Look at people like Breyer and Dembski and the other high ups at the Discovery Institute. They are all people who years ago wrote from an Evangelical and Creationist position. Now they skuk around pretending they are not Creationists. Yeah - right!

 

[Critias]

I guess people are not allowed to change positions....

 

[KerrMetric]

I guess people are not allowed to change positions....

LOL. If that were true then fine. But the fact they get caught with the 'other' position in leaked Discovery Institute memos and writings doesn't lend that interpretation.

Dembski writes about the Intelligent designer as a god or God or aliens in one publication but then turns around in other writings (in a similar time) and states that science without Jesus is not possible.

Mmmm. Methinks when he gets on a stage and says ID is not Creationism in a new guise he is lying.

 

[Smidlee]

No wonder they get support when people don't care as long as they like the message. Why not use Google. I told you the story about the redacted book, it's been in the news a lot the last week or two with the Dover trial.

I've been keeping up with the trial and all I read from Darwinist is the same lame agrument you used here. So maybe you suporting only what you want to hear. It seems Darwinist can't debate ID science so all they can do is name calling. Even Giuseppe Sermonti said because of his criticism of evolutionism he has been accused of being a "creationist".

The other question you have to ask is where did they all appear from. They didn't exist 25 years ago now they appear? Only of course because they are Creationists willing to hide their true colours as long as they can influence the education system.

Intelligent design idea has been around a lond time even before DI. Denton made a lot of design agruements in the early 80's. it was Johnson who help bring those who are critics of Darwinsm together so they support one another againest Darwinist bullies. While Darwinist put creationists on trail it was Johnson who put "Darwin on trail" and found wanting. You know the saying"you reap what you sow". "For every action there is a equal opposide reaction". Darwinists use to courts to bully those who opposed their dogma then a lawyer organized those who opposed Darwinism so their voices and evidence againest Darwinism couldn't be silence. There a new book coming out about how Johnson helped those in the ID movement called "Darwin's Nemesis."
ID reveals Darwinist true colors.

Look at people like Breyer and Dembski and the other high ups at the Discovery Institute. They are all people who years ago wrote from an Evangelical and Creationist position. Now they skuk around pretending they are not Creationists. Yeah - right!

Again Dembski admitted he personally doesn't beleive in the universal common decent and he is a christian. Denbski also doesn't hide the fact he's not an enemy to YEC even though he disagree with them. Before the actions of Johnson those who saw inteligent design in nature was isolated yet the intelligent design agrument was around long before DI.
I've notice it's the darwinists who uses religion and God in their agruments againest ID while ID uses biology and mathematics to debate darwinism.

 

[KerrMetric]

I've been keeping up with the trial and all I read from Darwinist is the same lame agrument you used here.

Huh? The redacted book only came to light recently and shows in black and white that the ID people want to hide who they are. There is no other interpretation possible with respect to that.

It seems Darwinist can't debate ID science so all they can do is name calling.

Huh redux? ID as usually put forward is not science by the very definition of science.

Again, I have not here said anything about being a 'Darwinist'. As I said earlier this is about people slinking around pretending to be something they are not; be this the evolution debate or the abortion debate or the no alar on apples debate.

This is about honesty in debate not the substance of the debate. You seem to be an excellent example of that it doesn't matter that they are dishonest as long as you agree with the message.

 

[vossler]

I thought this forum was for Creationists only and not another area to get into arguments with TEs.

 

[KerrMetric]

I thought this forum was for Creationists only and not another area to get into arguments with TEs.

I'm not a TE. Nice try at poisoning the well and maintaining the reputation of this board as a closed playground that allows no non-YEC stance.

 

[Critias]

His argument is nothing more than hypocritical. If you are going to claim you cannot follow liars and yet follow the scientists of evolution who have lied, it is being a hypocrite. If you are going to claim that all ID'rs are liars(such was done with a blanket claim) without proof, then your argument is found wanting.

Let him present proof of his claim or just dimiss it as another unfounded argument.

 

[vossler]

I'm not a TE. Nice try at poisoning the well and maintaining the reputation of this board as a closed playground that allows no non-YEC stance.

My point in that post was that arguments are prevalent in the regular forum and this was suppose to be a place where we can discuss things from a Creationists view not an evolutionists. I'm sorry if I thought you were a TE, I suppose when you say things like "Evolution works. It produces results that can be verified" it somehow makes me think you are not a Creationist. Are you telling me that you are a Creationist?

 

[KerrMetric]

His argument is nothing more than hypocritical. If you are going to claim you cannot follow liars and yet follow the scientists of evolution who have lied, it is being a hypocrite. If you are going to claim that all ID'rs are liars(such was done with a blanket claim) without proof, then your argument is found wanting.

Your refusal to address the point at hand and muddy the waters with the evolution people have lied argument is disingenueous.

My point is that the evolution people at least tell you they are just that.
The ID people for the most part deny who they are.

Let him present proof of his claim or just dimiss it as another unfounded argument.

I did, or at least told you how to find it. It's been in the news the last week or so. A well known ID book was presented as evidence related to the Dover Pa. trial. The problem was the early manuscripts were leaked and showed it was originally written with the words Creation Science & Creationist and they changed it to ID and Ider but kept the text the same.

That is the whole point I am making. And your refusal to acknowledge this or sweep it away shows a mind set and willingness to by sly of a similar vein to the ID people at the Discovery Institute.

 

[Critias]

Your refusal to address the point at hand and muddy the waters with the evolution people have lied argument is disingenueous.

My point is that the evolution people at least tell you they are just that.
The ID people for the most part deny who they are.



I did, or at least told you how to find it. It's been in the news the last week or so. A well known ID book was presented as evidence related to the Dover Pa. trial. The problem was the early manuscripts were leaked and showed it was originally written with the words Creation Science & Creationist and they changed it to ID and Ider but kept the text the same.

That is the whole point I am making. And your refusal to acknowledge this or sweep it away shows a mind set and willingness to by sly of a similar vein to the ID people at the Discovery Institute.

So you make the unfounded claims, and I am suppose to do the research for you?

You have presented nothing more than your biased view point without proof of your claim and expect others to do your research.

Present your own research to validate your claim that all ID people are liars, or drop it. Until you can do so, take care.

 

[KerrMetric]

So you make the unfounded claims, and I am suppose to do the research for you?

Unfounded? It was plastered all over the internet news sites last week.

You have presented nothing more than your biased view point without proof of your claim and expect others to do your research.

Cicking on CNN.com is not research.

Present your own research to validate your claim that all ID people are liars, or drop it. Until you can do so, take care.

Never said that. I said the majority of the ID crowd, especially the Discovery Institute people who basically are the ID crowd when it comes to an organised agenda are liars about their true colours. Behe and a few others are exceptions but most of them wrote as Creationists until they realised the problems that causes.

Peace.

 

[Smidlee]

My point is that the evolution people at least tell you they are just that.

Even a thief will be honest if is doesn't cost him anything. A thief may even confess his actions to a priest so he feel better knowing the priest will not report the crime to the cops. Confessing to a priest is one thing , confessing your crime to a cop is totally different.
Those who oppose the Darwin dogma may have a price to pay but not someone like Dawkins. Dawkins can brag about his atheism all he wants to without any danger of him being rejected as a scientist.

 

[KerrMetric]

Those who oppose the Darwin dogma may have a price to pay but not someone like Dawkins. Dawkins can brag about his atheism all he wants to without any danger of him being rejected as a scientist.

I don't like Dawkins but he shouldn't be rejected as a scientist because he is an atheist. That's an odd thing for you to say.

 

[Smidlee]

Today Dembski repied to his critics in the Dover case with what I assume KerriMetic is referring to (in which Dembski seem to have point out a double standard):

In my book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, I remark that ID is the logos theology of John’s Gospel in the idiom of information theory and I also refer to Christ as the completion of science. Barbara Forrest and others have gotten a lot of mileage out of these quotes, using them to argue that ID is just religion masquerading as science.
I would like here to indicate why these quotes do not undercut ID’s scientific program. Indeed, the quotes derive from a book explicitly about the dialogue between science and religion — as the subtitle and publisher (IVP) make clear. In the very first paragraph of the preface, I indicate that ID is three things:

1. A scientific program for understanding the effects of intelligence in nature.
2. A program of cultural renewal.
3. A way of understanding divine action.

In that book, I address each of these aspects of intelligent design. In thus describing the broader implications of ID and connecting them to my worldview, I’m not doing anything unusual. Indeed, evolutionists have been doing the same for evolution right along. For instance, Barry Lynn, who heads Americans United for Separation of Church and State, remarked on a Firing Line program in 1997 that in the beginning was the word and the word was EVOLVE! (See bottom of page 2 here.) Thus he also sees the logos theology of John’s Gospel as relevant to this debate, though where he goes with it is quite different from where I take it.

Here's the whole reply:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/391

 

[KerrMetric]

Today Dembski repied to his critics in the Dover case with is what I assume KerriMetic is referring to (in which Dembski seem to have point out a double standard)

No the book that was redacted was not a Dembski book.

Devastating" early drafts of a controversial book recommended as reading at a US high school reveal how the word “creationism” had been later swapped for “intelligent design”, a landmark US trial scrutinising the teaching of ID heard on Wednesday. The early drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, were used as evidence to link the book to creationism, which it is illegal to teach in government-funded US schools.

“ID proponents have said for years that they are not creationists,” says Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which is advising 11 parents who are suing the school board of Dover High School in Pennsylvania for incorporating ID into the science curriculum. “This proves beyond a doubt that this is simply a new name for creationism.”

ID proposes that life is so complex that it cannot have emerged without the guidance of an intelligent designer. The school’s board voted in November 2004 to encourage students to consider ID as an alternative to evolution and recommended Of Pandas and People.

The parents claim this is a veiled attempt to bring creationism into the school. They are suing on the grounds that it has been ruled unconstitutional to teach anything in US schools that does not have a primarily secular motive and effect on pupils.

Trojan horse

The early versions of the book were displayed to the court by expert witness for the plaintiffs and creationist historian Barbara Forrest of the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. She suggested that they were strong proof that ID is indeed creationism by another name.

Forrest compared early drafts of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy, and showed how in several instances the word “creationism” had been replaced by “intelligent design”, and “creationist” simply replaced by “intelligent design proponent”.

“Forrest’s testimony showed that ID is not a scientific theory, but a Trojan horse for creationism,” said Eric Rothshild of Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

Evolving drafts

Matzke, who was at the trial, points out that the “switching” of the words is also suspicious because of its timing, which came just after the US Supreme Court’s decision on 19 June 1987 that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in schools.

The names of the drafts alone are incriminating, he says. The first draft, in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation, dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges.

His comments infuriated John West, of the Discovery Institute, a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that supports ID, but which has declined to testify on behalf of the defence in the trial.

West says that Forrest, author of a book called Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The wedge of intelligent design has used the drafts selectively and “cherry picked” the pages shown.

Attempts to discredit Forrest as a witness, by the defence lawyers from the Thomas More Law Center, in Ann Arbor, Michigan were not upheld by the judge.

Misconstrued creationism

West says that Of Pandas and People, while supporting ID, does not promote religion but rather leaves open the question of whether an intelligent designer lies within nature, or outside it. But he admits that the book states: "This is not a question that science can answer."

He says that while the timing of the changes in the drafts may not be a coincidence, this does not mean Of Pandas and People is a religious book. “If they did drop out the term creationism, [it is] because people may have misconstrued it,” he says.

Forrest will continue to be cross-examined by the defence's attorneys on Thursday. A full report on the trial at its completion will appear in New Scientist print edition.