Home » Intelligent Design » Textbook prof: Flunk students sympathetic to intelligent design

Textbook prof: Flunk students sympathetic to intelligent design

University of Toronto-based Larry Moran, of textbook fame, has just informed the Post-Darwinist of that very entertaining proposal.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to Textbook prof: Flunk students sympathetic to intelligent design

  1. Larry Moran is just another in the long list of anti-ID intellectual cowards.

  2. Meh… Nothing new for Moran. Out of curiousity, wasn’t it 40% of the students denied Darwinism correct? That does not logically entail that they believe in ID, just as the 500 scientists who signed the petition for DI don’t all necessarily believe in ID. Was this an assumption by the university and others (like Moran)? Just curious.

  3. All I’ll say is that I’m glad I’m not taking any classes from him. I’m way too outspoken.

  4. The best way to promote an IDEA is to attempt to ban it and punish its advocates. This especially applies to college students who don’t like to be tamed, herded and indoctrinated.

    I love these people, and admire them greatly, especially Salvador Cordova, whom I admire perhaps more than anyone in the ID movement. He’s the ultimate nice guy who really stands out as a role model for all of us. The meaning of Sal’s first name in Spanish is particularly significant in this regard.

  5. I’ve corresponded with David Abel on a couple issues and he has not bashed IDism at all and has been most professional , probably because he’s aware that his doctrine along with Trevors is ID’s leading edge(which I wrote him). His choice contingency is pretty much William Dembski’s direct contingency and both argue against chance. In fact, my preamble at my page @myspace reads “Inanimacy cannot “organize” itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. “Self-organization” is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists.Trevors and Abel 2006.” Their work states in so many different ways that RM and NS do not make the grade. My question is how would design theorists adhere to this doctrine though the authors state they are not IDists? Despite their claims, based on science, that its not ID. This is groundbreaking stuff….For example another proposition fron Trevors and Abel 2005 reads “No direct physicochemical causative link exists between codon and its symbolized amino acid in the physical translative machinery.” Further, they claim that choice contingency is “abstract, conceptual” and thus nonphysical.

    Is this notion of their choice contingency along with William Dembski’s “intelligent causation” , “direct contingency” ID’s leading edge? Any professor with intellectual integrity would , I think, grab the bull by both horns yet many clearly do not understand that one need not multiply it into something caused by a deity. The Ockhamistic informationists (vs, the anti-informationists), can live with the notion that life is brought about by an unidentifiable, supersensible intelligence.

Leave a Reply