Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Dembski-Ruse Rematch — See You Tomorrow!

William Dembski
February 2, 2006
Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

http://www.greer-heard.com

Comments
Saxe17 I have frequently considered killing myself but curiosity has so far prevented me. I have also predicted that Richard Dawkins will kill himself and I am hanging around to see if I'm right. Don't misunderstand me. I don't want him to kill himself at all. I want him to keep writing science fiction which is the only thing he has ever been really good at.John Davison
February 12, 2006
February
02
Feb
12
12
2006
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Saxe17, whoever that is: The mess to which I referred is humankind with all its frailities. I love nature and am an avid gardner both indoors and out. My apartment has become a jungle. That genetically deprived Darwimps still roam the earth in such huge numbers is what really disturbs me. That is the mess to which I referred. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. Also, what makes you think that there was one Creator and that He(?) is still extant? You are a lot easier to please than I am. At least you used the word if which is to your credit.John Davison
February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
Saxe is in timeout while he thinks about why asking old people why they don't kill themselves is too insensitive for words.DaveScot
February 4, 2006
February
02
Feb
4
04
2006
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT
Mr. Davison, I enjoy your posts but I do have a question. I ask this question with no sarcasm or triteness intended. You commented in post #10 about the creator(s)’ world being a “mess they wrought”. If such a “mess” outweighed its pleasures, it seems to me that you’d have taken your life by now. Honestly, if the creation is such a “mess”, why haven’t you killed yourself? If I were to speculate, I would say that the pleasure must outweigh the suffering. It is amazing that along with suffering there is so much beauty and pleasure to be found in creation that it boggles the mind. If it’s such a “mess”, it does seem odd that we’d find so much beauty in it? We stand in awe of the solar system, we stand in awe of mountains and tsunamis and flowers and mangos and spiders and horses and a million other created things. If there is a Creator with the intellect to create these things, one day He just may ask you John to explain why you see yourself fit to be His counselor. After all, were you there when He laid the foundation of the earth? If you have such understanding, did you determine the universe’s measurements? Have you put wisdom in the inward parts or given understanding to the mind? Can you provide prey for the raven when its young cry for help? Can you make the ground spout with grass? Can you guide the bear with its children? Do you give the horse its might? I mean no sarcasm or disrespect to you, but if there is a Creator, who can be His counselor? Just some random thoughts. ☺ Saxesaxe17
February 4, 2006
February
02
Feb
4
04
2006
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
It is Davison not Davidson and I see no evidence for a miracle working, meddling God and I don't think anyone else does either. They just imagine that they do as it gives them pleasure to believe they are going to pop up on the other side. Fat chance!John Davison
February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
Wait, never mind. I found it.avocationist
February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Davidson, is it your position that no religion provides empirical evidence for the existence of its meddling, miracle-working God? If yes, I'd like to see your research. If no, please clarify your position.jaredl
February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
What makes you think there was only one and why he? That is nothing but male chauvinism. No, It or them is or are no longer with us nor is that necessary. I don't blame them. Look at the mess they wrought. "The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God." Albert Einstein There is nothing conceptual about design. That is semantic nonsense. Sorry to be so blunt but that is apparently my "prescribed" fate.John Davison
February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT
Is your BFL material? Where is he now?avocationist
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
Dr. Davison wrote: "There is nothing non materialistic about Intelligent Design." Since design is conceptual, Intelligent Design is non-materialistic.Red Reader
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
There is nothing non materialistic about Intelligent Design. Once the BFL primed the pumps of the universe everything at that moment became purely material and it was no longer necessary to consider any supernatural authority or intervention. That includes all of Mathematicas, Chemistry and Physics and by inference all of Biology as well. The secrets of Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics have been largely discovered and revealed. The same will happen with ontogeny and phylogeny. It is only a matter of time. It was predetermined or, as I have described it, prescribed. Chance had absolutely nothing to do with any of it just as Leo Berg said so long ago. Comparing the organic with the physical world: "...the laws of the organic world are the same, WHETHER WE ARE DEALING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL (ontogeny) OR THAT OF A PALAEONTOLOGICAL SERIES (phylogeny). Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance." Nomogenesis, page 134. (His emphasis) In my opinion Leo Berg was the greatest evolutionary scholar of all time. Being isolated as he was in Russia, he was able to dispassionately see Nature for what she really is and was, and not with the myopia that accompanied the so-called "Age of Enlightement," which it most certainly was not. It was the "Age of Denial" with which we are still afflicted. I don't have to explain what has been denied.John Davison
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
When are you going to be hitting the Memphis area, Dr. D? If I cannot get a response to my emails, mayhaps I could ask you in person?jaredl
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
I'd go just to hear William Lane Craig or Francis J. Beckwith. I'd love to hear Dembski too.Ben Z
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Forget the Super-Bowl; I'd rather watch this if it were televised. OK Dr. D, from the peanut gallery.... Let him call the coin toss, 100 million heads in a row. Remember, all his plays will be random. But if a play works the first time, he'll run it again with slight changes. He's certain to pass fantasy off as reality Watch out for trick plays where he extrapolates a one yard gain into a 10 yard gain. He'll probably try to punctuate it up the middle. On defense, he may bring in a second string of lawyers, so be ready. OK, this may cause him to fumble: open your first series with a prayer. And remember to run your Designed plays, those will be hard for him to recognize. I understand Jones will be a field judge; that could be problematic. On the other hand, you should have the home-field advantage at Ferry Road Baptist. And listen for us cheering for you! The peanut gallery.Red Reader
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
I'm planning on being there. :-)Scott
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Well, Ruse's letter is certainly simplistic. Is that a reflection of the source?DaveScot
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
Of course, you are more skilled at the art of debating Darwinists than I. But I would first have Ruse admit that Darwinists’s appeal to "randomness" is nothing more than a simplistic idea based upon our ignorance of the underlying system (as he implicitly admitted to me). To Ruse, pragmatism is the summum bonum of science. Therefore, by his own logic, he should be willing to admit to a non-material description of causality; that is, if it makes better sense of the evidence. Once Darwinism is exposed as a non-solution, Ruse has no reason to reject your ID inferences based upon analysis of new data.Qualiatative
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply