Home
» Intelligent Design » Answers for Judge Jones
Answers for Judge Jones
| June 19, 2009 | Posted by Cornelius Hunter under Intelligent Design |
In my previous post I posed two questions for Judge Jones. The answers to the second question are A, B and C. That is, (A) Evolutionary theory incorporates religious premises, (B) Proponents of evolutionary theory are religious people and (C) Evolutionary theory mandates certain types of solutions.
Continue reading here.
768 Responses to Answers for Judge Jones
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
StephenB
Yet when asked to name 20 you stumble, give a few names one of which does not even support ID.
Yet I can point to hundreds of scientists called “Steve” who agree with this statement
http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve
This is simply untrue.
Refer to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Namely
Not what you said.
And the puddle finds itself in a hole that exactly fits it and wonders how such a miracle could have happened.
And in any case, are you saying that your “intelligent designer” would have been unable to bring about human life in a universe with different values for the gravitational force constant and the electromagnetic force constant?
Yep, but you can’t name 20.
Simple question then
If atheists can accept intelligent design then they and you must think the intelligent designer is also present (or was) in the universe with us, in a material way. Not in a non-material way. Or they’d be believeing in your god. And would no longer be athiests.
Do you accept that the intelligent designer who did the flagellum etc could just be a material alien? If so, do you accept that ID as it stands can’t be used to prove anything one way or the other about if “the designer” is a material alien entity or the christian god?
And that, logically, that alien would itself have arisen in a material way? Occams razor. Or would it have StephenB, could it have?
Willam Dembski – Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/W.....ki_logos-0
So, if Anthonly Flew believes that the evidence for ID is so great, and if you say that ID does not depend on the extent to which one believes in god then how is it that Intelligent Design convinced Flew to believe in “God” rather then the “Intelligent Designer”.
Given what I say above, which indicates you believe the designer is a materal entity (not really eh?) that athiests can believe in too, how can you say
with a straight face?
Echidna,
Meet Bradley Monton, an atheist who believes in ID.
http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/
I can’t think of an atheist who supports ID. Flew is an ex-atheist, so he can’t really count.
David Kellogg,
——”I can’t think of an atheist who supports ID. Flew is an ex-atheist, so he can’t really count.”
Bradley Monton.
http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/
David Berlinski,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGAAQfZ0AwE
Fred Hoyle,
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....st-for-id/
Typical irrational answers. Vacation time. Let the Darwinist love fest begin. Adios.
Have a wonderful vacation StephenB. Do something exotic, but stay away from the Appalachian Trail.
No, you are the irrational one. I’m the rational one in this conversation.
Gosh, that’s so easy! I wish I’d discovered it before.
Just say it, and it’s true!
Wonderful.
Now the obvious question for any thinking person, (that would rule out Judge Jones…
Do you feel that juvenile, grammatically incorrect snide aside is a good representation of your character? After seven hundred and fifty comments, I do.
If ID’s plausibility “depends on the extent to which one believes in God,” how is it that Anthony Flew, one who clearly did not believe in God, not only found it plausible, but literally changed his life as a response to it[?]
I’m not aware that the court ever said that ID is exclusively the province of religious people. I’m quite certain, having read the whole thing, that the opinion doesn’t rest on that proposition. You appear to have come to the contrary conclusion by reading one sentence, out of context, over and over and over again. If you had put that time and energy into reading the rest of the opinion, you’d be done by now.
As an aside, I think that you’ll find that telling people that ID made an atheist come to Jesus is extraordinarily poor support for your argument that ID is not inextricably bound up in religious faith.
True. And well put. But as far as I know, Flew has not come to Jesus (yet! the evangelical adds hopefully) but to God as a general proposition.
That he did so on the basis of the evidence alone is his view, of course, but it too could be conteste.d
Clive,
Unless Monton has changed his position recently, he is not an ID supporter. He is just less critical of ID than most atheists.
As Bill Dembski wrote:
Keep looking.
mereologist,
Bradley Monton argued for the atheistic ID supporter side in a debate in Ft. Worth, with David Berlinski on his side. He is pro-ID.
He said:
“The doctrine of intelligent design has been maligned by atheists, but even though I’m an atheist, I’m of the opinion that the arguments for intelligent design are stronger than most realize. The goal of this book is to try to get people to take intelligent design seriously. I maintain that it is legitimate to view intelligent design as science, that there are somewhat plausible arguments for the existence of a cosmic designer, and that intelligent design should be taught in public school science classes.”
from his book Seeking God in Science, An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~mont.....on/ID.html
AND, of course, not to forget David Berlinski, himself as an agnostic ID supporter, and Fred Hoyle.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....st-for-id/
Clive,
You claimed that Monton is “an atheist who believes in ID.”
Nothing in your quote of Monton supports that view. All he says is that ID arguments are “somewhat plausible” and that ID should be taught in science classes.
That is a far cry from “believing in ID.”
mereologist,
follow up on the link if you want to know more about Monton supporting ID.
Clive,
You claimed that Monton “believes in ID.”
Do you now concede that your statement was incorrect?
mereologist,
I do not agree, read about him please, and you’ll see, that he, supports ID.
Clive,
How about giving us a quote from Monton that supports your contention that he “believes in ID”?
mereologist,
He’s writing a book in support of ID.
As I too head out to vacation:
I could not but observe that above one objection made was that Flew is no longer an atheist, so this outstanding case somehow does not count:
_____________
Q: So, what was he when he considered the issues on the design inference (and SB, this includes as far back as fora when TMLO came out, in which he indicated that he was taking the TBO critical review of OOL seriously)?
ANS: The world’s leading philosophical atheist, with a heavy inclination to science related issues.
________
So, he looked at the modern design theory and walked away from a lifetime of pro-atheist scholarship. And, lo and behold, this therefore suddenly “doesn’t count” in showing that the plausibility of ID evidence and reasoning does not DEPEND on one’s theism or atheism. (On that now much despised subject, logic 101: if there is but one solid counter instance to a universal claim, the universal fails.)
I must underscore in signing off: arguments draw their persuasive power from one or more of three forces: emotions, authority, claimed facts and logic.
Of these, emotions — especially those of hostility — are notoriously blinding.
(Which is why distractions, distortions, demonisation and dismissal leading to polarisation and confusion are the stock in trade of destructive propagandists. Therefore, let us never forget: distortions, confusion, and deep hostility cultivated at institutional and governmental levels — as the ACLU/Jones decision’s irresponsible and demonstrable slanders against the ID movement clearly instantiate [start with the weak argument correctives in the sidebar above, then go here for more] — have terrible consequences for the course of justice in a land. And, before we can get to the level of institutionalising massive injustice, a critical mass of the public have to first become polarised, alienated from those who have serious counters to the intended policy, and confused about the true weight of the relevant facts. So, those who come here in droves to repeat carefully crafted but demostrably false or distorted talking points and then refuse to even read a simple corrective on the many fallacies that are commonly propagated to drive a wedge across our civilisation about the evidence for design in life and in our universe, should take pause to reflect on where such trends of behaviour historically head: in the end, you, too, have a personal duty to truth and fairness. [And if you think the major totalitarianisms of the last century are the only relevant cases in point ("it can't happen here . . . "), let's bring this one a lot closer to home: the sad fate of 48+ millions of unborn children in the USA since 1973 -- thus, at the hands of courts acting under colour of law -- is not at all an irrelevant example.])
Similarly, no authority — whether acting in the name of God or of “science” or “the people” or “justice” or any other cause — is better than the facts and reasoning behind his or her claims. So, it is only when the facts claimed are so and represent the undistorted material truth; and lead on to correct reasoning that conclusions are trustworthy.
Therefore, when we see the sophomoric misunderstadnings and closed minded mateirlaistic a priorism in the Lewontinian materialism now being instituionalised by the US National Academy of Science and the like, we should think again. Very carefully indeed.
And, from the thread above, it is highly evident that in our time, many acting in the name of science have demonstrably traded on half truths, distortions, distractions and outright demonisation; which in the case of the ACLU/Jones decision on ID has been institutionalised in law.
So, it is time to think, very carefully about where our civilisation is headed.
Good day, gentlemen.
GEM of TKI
KF
No, that’s not at all what was meant and you know it.
Flew does not count as an atheist who believes in ID because he is not an atheist!
You tell me what you mean by the word “count” in the phrase
Well?
I’ll ask you too then as nobody else wants to answer – why does Flew now believe in the Christian god instead of the “the intelligent designer”?
So, in the whole history of science we’re up to what, 5 names of people who (you say) support ID but are athiest.
5 people?
And Hoyle? He believed in god! He’s not an athiest!
He’s was not an athiest ID supporter, whatever you might think!
As the post said
Sounds like “god” to me. Therefore he was not an athiest! Therefore you cannot claim Hoyle as an athiest who believed in ID!
This is a excerpt from Emerson’s essay “Self Reliance”. It’s for Echinda and Mereologist, who love other’s opinions:
“The political parties meet in
numerous conventions; the greater the concourse, and with each new uproar of
announcement, The delegation from Essex! The Democrats from New Hampshire! The
Whigs of Maine! the young patriot feels himself stronger than before by a new
thousand of eyes and arms. In like manner the reformers summon conventions, and
vote and resolve in multitude. Not so, O friends! will the God deign to enter
and inhabit you, but by a method precisely the reverse. It is only as a man puts
off all foreign support, and stands alone, that I see him to be strong and to
prevail. He is weaker by every recruit to his banner. Is not a man better than
a town? Ask nothing of men, and in the endless mutation, thou only firm column
must presently appear the upholder of all that surrounds thee. He who knows that
power is inborn, that he is weak because he has looked for good out of him and
elsewhere, and so perceiving, throws himself unhesitatingly on his thought,
instantly rights himself, stands in the erect position, commands his limbs,
works miracles; just as a man who stands on his feet is stronger than a man who stands on his head.
So use all that is called Fortune. Most men gamble with her, and gain all, and
lose all, as her wheel rolls. But do thou leave as unlawful these winnings, and
deal with Cause and Effect, the chancellors of God. In the Will work and acquire,
and thou hast chained the wheel of Chance, and shalt sit hereafter out of fear from
her rotations.
A political victory, a rise of rents, the recovery of your sick, or the return of your absent friend, or some other favorable event, raises your spirits,
and you think good days are preparing for you.
Do not believe it.
Nothing can bring
you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.”
—-Echidna-Levy: “Flew does not count as an atheist who believes in ID because he is not an atheist!”
Checking in from my vacation perch, I find Echidna-Levy making several incredibly irrational statements.
With regard to the above, if an atheist was converted to theism by intelligent design, then he obviously counts as one who found ID plausible without believing in God. Present or past tense has nothing to do with it.
—-”I’ll ask you too then as nobody else wants to answer – why does Flew now believe in the Christian god instead of the “the intelligent designer”?”
Your confusion may set new records here. First, Anthony Flew does not believe in the Christian God, even if he did, your point would be irrelevant.
A person can come to believe in Christianity by other means after having been brought out of his atheism by ID.
—-”So, in the whole history of science we’re up to what, 5 names of people who (you say) support ID but are athiest.”
There are a lot more than that, but there is no reason to list them all. I could have included Bill Gates, several other computer geeks and a few well-educated engineers, but what is the point. If I gave you 20, you would ask for 100, change the subject, or refuse to respond. The point is that in each case, ID did not depend on a believe in God. You are refuted. Deal with it.
—Learned Hand: “As an aside, I think that you’ll find that telling people that ID made an atheist come to Jesus is extraordinarily poor support for your argument that ID is not inextricably bound up in religious faith.”
That statement goes against the facts and against logic. First, Anthony Flew did not come to Christianity. Second, If he had, it would not mean that ID was the reason.
—-David Kellogg to Learned hand concerning his anti-factual and illogical statement: “True. And well put.”
Ah yes. Three cheers from the “Amen corner.”
Back to vacation. I hope!
Alan Fox,
——”If Jones got it wrong, why not appeal rather than whine?”
A man writes his thoughts and you call it whining? Certain things I won’t tolerate, and this is one of them.