Gentlefolks, first note that if God is eternal not time-bound, then his knowledge of what happens in time is not the same as forcing what happens to be so through deterministic cause-effect chains.

By sharpest contrast, evo mat derives “mind” from chance + necessity acting on matter + energy, so it ends up with chance boundary conditions and deterministic forces driving our thought world — including the real decision making we need to be rational — straight into absurdity.

THAT is the key point, one ducked by Dawkins as shown in the OP, and diverted from by others, who ar5e far more eager to discuss the perceived or real challenges of traditional theism, than they are to address the gaping hole in the foundation of today’s dominant worldview among the College educated classes of the West. A view that has taken time to redefine science to establish itself by definition, and is now resorting to classic censorship and expulsions to keep it so!

Next, observe: we live in a contingent cosmos that credibly had a beginning at a specific point in the past. Such a cosmos of contingent beings entails, logically, a necessary being that is its own cause. A quasi-infinite cosmos as a whole in which sub cosmi pop up by chance is a [poor!] candidate for that, and so is God [a much better candidate].

But, also, we see trotted out the inference that Judaeo Christian theists are enemies of liberty.

That is historically ignorant, and is utterly illogical, once one can tell the difference between liberty [which is profoundly moral in character, being rooted in issues of justice] and libertinism or amorality [this last being a logical outcome of evolutionary materialism: there are no grounds that giver weight to our moral intuitions in this view]. And, Frosty is right, I am a principled liberty-minded small-d democrat; and BTW, a cynical monarchist. (The house of Windsor gets our Caribbean tourism destinations better publicity than we can pay for, so it is worth the trifling amount it costs to keep the historical tradition going. For instance, recall a few months back where it was BBC world news that Jamaican soldiers were taking their turn at guarding Buckingham Palace, complete with Jamaican music a the change of guards! (FYI, the Monarch of Britain is per constitution also the monarch of Jamaica.))

GEM of TKI

That’s a lovely assumption would you care to back it with something other than your word?

I got your point, my problem and the paradox I presented however, were that this finite existence is all there is.

That there is absolutely nothing beyond the ever expanding membrane that makes up the spatio-temporal realm, and that space-time only exists within that membrane. There is no future universe for a God(and an irrational God at that) to look toward.

A God that has always been is simply a God who has always existed, existance had a starting point and quite likely will have an ending. Plancks constant dictates there was no time before the big bang. Space-time occurs afterward, so for all intensive purposes, God could very well be a material thing. Isn’t that an unromantic concept though? lol

ID does not calim to be for any religion and its theory is not connected by necessity or logic to any religion. The founders dont want to build some Reich and neither do I. I dont think that Kairosfocus would want any of this and he is a regular poster here and certinaly the declared athesits and deists and agnostics that post here who I have had discussions with most lilly wouldn’t either.

I think you are propagandising here a little. Once again there is no “ID day” but there is a “Darwin day.” Show me where the ID advocates are marching and demonstating like the Gay Pride- or the green peace or the anti war or all the other real and true poltical extreamist and belief based movements.

Your view has no merrit at all in my eyes because all of my knowledge and expierence completely conradicts it.

I have little more to say on this issue.

But they want to get ID into science classes.

Suggest you consider the other side too – that atheists insist on requiring students to learn materialism in classrooms and forbid any mention of any possibility of an Intelligent Designer.

That is establishment of secularism comparable to Stalin or Mao’s – just in a western context where they are only just beginning to “Expell” all “unbelievers” (in Darwinism).

Look at what Hitler did based on Darwinism.

For more on ID, please explore ResearchID.org and IntelligentDesign.org

Note that there is tons of experimental evidence published that can as or more easily be interpreted by ID than by the obligatory “evolution”, once you begin to understand the difference and potential.

austin_english at 74

I have to ask if the atheist Dawkins is acting more like a Christian than the Christians in the culture war.

What morals is Dawkins using? Worldviews based on “survival of the fittest” have no moral’s but “Might makes ‘right’” and anything goes to win. When Dawkins uses moral language of “right” and “wrong” etc., he is relying on his Christian background or the Christian culture around him to make those valuations.

Have you examined the Assumptions of ID vs the religious beliefs of those who advocate ID?
Note particularly Beliefs: Scientists and engineers working with intelligent causes have various worldviews and religious beliefs. The only assumption on their beliefs are the assumptions 1. through 8. above in examining intelligent causes.
It IS honest in establishing a scientific theory to ONLY claim what can be inferred from the EVIDENCE.
To go BEYOND that would be dishonest.

When inference from evidence coincides with someones religious beliefs, does that make the inferences dishonest?
If so what do Darwinists do when they proclaim materialism is all that there is? When there is NO logical NOR scientific basis for proving that?

When you say that ID is not “honest”, what moral basis do you use? What assumptions are you making? Can you apply those same assumptions to yourself and say that you are being honest? Or are you making ad hominem attacks on ID – i.e., claiming moral dishonesty in practitioners based on differing assumptions or logical errors?
I encourage you to be very careful on accusing others of dishonesty – especially without evidence.

Apparently you need to think beyond stigma words like faith or “religion.” What people seem to mean by “religion” or faith when they use it as a stigma word is knowledge based on low epistemic standards. Note that knowledge based on faith in another person, testimony, witness, history, tradition, etc., need not be defined by low epistemic standards at all. If you have faith in your wife it can be very high form of knowledge. But this is apparently what many mean by “religion” and faith, given their use as stigma words and the way that those with sharply limited intellects associate them with pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, etc.

Given that the nature of faith is not necessarily the equivalent of knowledge defined by low epistemic standards many scientists have come to a form of faith as the result of what they have observed of life scientifically. There are also many ID proponents who have beliefs based on their religious tradition which they think may be verified by empirical facts and logic. It’s not apparent what is so terrible about beginning with knowledge rooted in a religious tradition and finding that it is consonant with knowledge based on empirical evidence. Note that because the possibility of verification also opens the door to falsification many religious people argue against ID because they are fearful that it will falsify their faith or give that impression.

And so on and on, it’s certainly not as simple as: “ID proponents believe because they’re Christians who accept on faith that God created living things.”

Given how typical “panda’s thumb” type arguments and atheism or negative theology are to Darwinists one could just as easily argue: “Proponents of Darwinism believe it only because they’re Christian apostates who want to reject and work against their original faith.”

For many, that may be true. The story of the provincial fundamentalist who goes on a journey and finds his answers to his religion in the Darwinian creation myth is so common that it is provincial itself. Apparently a residue of Christianity remains with its apostates. Ironically blogs are named after theological arguments like the “panda’s thumb” and yet those who write it argue that theology has nothing to do with science.

The theological arguments typical to Darwinists seem to be rather puerile and shallow: “God wouldn’t make a panda’s thumb like this because we all know that the Bible says that creation is perfect or somethin’.” Perhaps that’s because they typically leave their original faith as an ignorant schoolboy and so on.

In the end it seems that there is more diversity and complexity among ID proponents than among Darwinists. That is to say, Darwinists generally share the same pattern of evolution.

Their designer is God. But they want to get ID into science classes.

Then why is it that many of the leading proponents of ID are against highschool teachers trying to teach their ideas?

They know to say they don’t know who the designer is. When I ask about the scientific support for ID, all they say is that Darwin was wrong.

Well, he was, so it would seem apposite to allow people to say so.

There is a difference between leaders and adherents. I do not think that YEC are in the minority of those who actively support ID. It is a necessary part of their religion but not for other Christians so it would be expected that they would be more interested. Look at your own words, “The majority aren’t. I don’t know of any who are. Most Christians I know don’t give a damn about DE or ID but they would probably support ID.” You have just described the missing from the debate. It is not important to them. But what are their perceptions of the debate? I know what they are in my circle of acquaintances.

My experience is that most of those who post here in support of ID in the last 2 1/2 years are very religiously motivated and there are many who look at ID as a proselytizing tool. When an ID speaker shows up as a speaker in certain areas of the country, the religious groups are out recruiting and they are mainly YEC. This is not true where I live which is the New York City area but there are many other areas where it is true. Actually I may want to change that. I got interested in ID when Behe, Dembski, Meyers came to New York in 1999 along with some others and spoke. In the lobby were some tables by religious groups which I ignored. There was not one mention of religion by any of the speakers which is what impressed me and got me started.

The number of references to quotes from the bible on this site have gone down but they are still very prevalent here. This is an indication of the interest of the contributors.

What has global warming got to do with this? And I haven’t a clue what your last sentence is about.

Truly, you must be kidding. Is this to say that you are unaware of any evidence for an inference to design in nature?

Have you ever heard of the book “No Free Lunch”? Maybe “Darwin’s Black Box”? Perhaps, “The Edge of Evolution” or “The Design Matrix” or “Privlidged Planet” or “The Design Inference” or “The Devil’s Delusion”?

Or is it, that you are saying that the people you’ve met are not skilled enough to humour you with an explanation? Is a lack of skill on their part to be used as an evidence against design in nature on your part?

Just wondering.

I think that you are either very mistaken your purposely mischaracterizing ID’s followers. We don’t have an ID day like the very stupid “Darwin day.” Our side is peaceful and tolerant and the other side isn’t. And this is the obvious truth. If you think otherwise you need to stop watching CNN and MSNBC and reading The New York Times, the international propaganda machines.

Next youll be telling us that it is ID that is responcible for the imaginary global warming that didn’t happen last year-

yet of course for some reason this NEWS didn’t find its way into the great all powerful and wonderful and truthful propaganda machine we know as “the mainstream media.”