Home
» Intelligent Design » Sober Rebukes Evolution’s Religion (Sometimes)
Sober Rebukes Evolution’s Religion (Sometimes)
| June 26, 2009 | Posted by Cornelius Hunter under Intelligent Design |
The religion in evolution can be subtle and it can fool even sophisticated thinkers. Elliott Sober, for example, has recognized that religious premises are used by evolutionists. He says they don’t work because they rely on gratuitous assumptions. In his book Evidence and Evolution he writes the following:
Continue reading here.
192 Responses to Sober Rebukes Evolution’s Religion (Sometimes)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sorcerer’s Apprentice, magic wand, intelligent designer…
What’s the difference?
Jerry,
How long did the “Cambrian Explosion” take?
What is your start point/date?
What is your end point/date?
How long in time between those two points/dates?
So, as this page no longer appears on the first page of posts on the UcD web site, no one is really going to read it. I suppose that means that he no longer has to back up his assertion that Sober uses religious assumptions.
“All that amazing circuitry and coordination just appeared as if the Sorcerer’s Apprentice waved his magic wand.”
We don’t even know how sight works. What is looking at the picture? There is a picture generated somewhere and I’m pretty sure it’s not the brain. It’s been said there is no picture, and the circuitry in the brain is combining to give “you” the picture, but that can’t be; that’s describing a one terminal sight device.
To view it you need two terminals no matter how small the distance.
Did the brain alter the path of objects exterior to it as in the “double slit experiment”? No emanation from the subjects in the experiment was observed. This is information transfer alone.
This points strongly to an “information” based spirit or spirit-mind, as being the center of what is “you”.
But why build all this complex electrochemical circuitry? Probably the brain and eyes are a necessary terminal on the circuit to connect up to a spirit mind.
There’s an aura around at least plants and humans, probably all animals.
Look up the “Phantom leaf effect”, in which the ghost of a cut off section of a leaf is caught on tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yx6PaLTKTk
The truly IC evidence is sight and thought and changing particle paths via thought alone.
This will be ID’s contribution to the future of science, getting science back on track to what it really is; confirmation. Science just means imaginings are confirmed, nothing more. Focusing on material causation alone won’t lead to the truth.
Lamark
It’s quaint that you think these are new issues. I’m afraid you’ve been pre-empted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....y_of_mind)
by some considerable time!
Echidna, Isn’t it even more quaint that you INVENTED that I stated these are new issues?
Please read what I say and not what you wish I was saying.
Lamark
Can you give me an example of a scientific understanding that got worse over time?
I.E. if science had it right originally with ID then why did it then go on to “get it wrong” with Darwinism?
Has there ever been another case where the right answer was pushed back in favour of the wrong one? Or is ID a special case?
As you had it your way for thousands of years this new “wrong” idea must have had some advantage of the older but correct idea? If not, why do you suppose it’s accepted by almost all working scientists (who do science, not just book publishing).
When you say things like
It sure does seem like you think you are the first to think of such “problems”.
“Can you give me an example of a scientific understanding that got worse over time?”
Can I assume you mean to say that the truth is one straight arrow of correctness as regard’s human understanding?
This is a silly argument. You’re whole response is uninteresting to me with it’s generalized and vague unstated and sort of banal assertions. Why would I get into this if it doesn’t go anywhere solid? Get back to me with something interesting, I’m sure you can. So you know I’m not interested in consensus arguments. That’s why I posted that quote for you last night on “answers for Judge Jones”. Consensus arguments are what youtube is there for. Preach it to the choir on cdk’s channel, they’ll love you for it.
Lamark
No, of course not. An example. Some treatments for cancer have been shown to reduce survival rates when considered over larger sample and time scales then the original study that supported them.
So no, there are deviations along the path of truth. Some take us backwards.
But on a different level there is no going back.
Cancer won’t suddenly be thought of as being caused by deamons. Or inpure thoughts.
Nobody will realise that the sun orbits the earth.
People no longer need to wonder about the origin of species due to Darwin.
Etc etc.
I’m not surprised that you don’t like consensus arguments. ID supporters on this site cannot come to a consensus about what ID is and is not, what it can and cannot do. Yet they still want their private version of “ID” to replace darwinism.
“What’s the difference?”
Well Darwinian processes are based on Mickey Mouse and Intelligent Design are based on synthetic biology as being developed by MIT, Craig Venter and others.
“How long did the “Cambrian Explosion” take?”
I believe Valentine narrowed it down to 5-10 million years.