Comments on: The Problem of Improvable Design http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-problem-of-improvable-design/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:02:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: DaveScot http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-problem-of-improvable-design/comment-page-2/#comment-8950 DaveScot Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:05:19 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=374#comment-8950 wmmalo ID is at least as old as Paley's watchmaker argument or about 200 years. It was made before Darwin's Origin of Species. It had a leg to stand on then and it has far stronger legs today. By the way, empirical evidence isn't owned by any theory. ID is free to conscript anything, everything, or nothing that evolution uses as supportive evidence. Get used to it. wmmalo

ID is at least as old as Paley’s watchmaker argument or about 200 years. It was made before Darwin’s Origin of Species. It had a leg to stand on then and it has far stronger legs today.

By the way, empirical evidence isn’t owned by any theory. ID is free to conscript anything, everything, or nothing that evolution uses as supportive evidence. Get used to it.

]]> By: wmmalo http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-problem-of-improvable-design/comment-page-2/#comment-8895 wmmalo Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:27:58 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=374#comment-8895 Creator, designer, is there a significant difference? Is there any difference? If it looks like a duck… it’s a duck. I still have hopes for ID, however forlorn its defenders appear. As long as this theory yoyo in and out of religion it will be beaten to death by the science it’s trying so desperately to seduce. The obvious ‘threat’ it poses is its thinly veiled attempt to usurp the influential power of science, specifically evolutionary theory. Personally, I’m not threatened by the research ID might present. I’m not threatened by religion or science, or for that matter, the absence of either or both. However many people do feel intimidated by suspicious strategies, whether disingenuous or not. ID must prove first that it isn’t ‘faith-based’ or it will be tagged an ideological subversion of the scientific ‘philosophy’ and continue to scare the shit out of all those non-believers. ID needs to walk before it runs. Right now, it doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Creator, designer, is there a significant difference?
Is there any difference?
If it looks like a duck… it’s a duck.

I still have hopes for ID, however forlorn its defenders appear.
As long as this theory yoyo in and out of religion it will be beaten to death by the science it’s trying so desperately to seduce.

The obvious ‘threat’ it poses is its thinly veiled attempt to usurp the influential power of science, specifically evolutionary theory.

Personally, I’m not threatened by the research ID might present. I’m not threatened by religion or science, or for that matter, the absence of either or both. However many people do feel intimidated by suspicious strategies, whether disingenuous or not. ID must prove first that it isn’t ‘faith-based’ or it will be tagged an ideological subversion of the scientific ‘philosophy’ and continue to scare the shit out of all those non-believers.

ID needs to walk before it runs.
Right now, it doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

]]> By: MGD http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-problem-of-improvable-design/comment-page-2/#comment-8707 MGD Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:17:42 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=374#comment-8707 http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html There is a great deal of information about this and related subjects on the above web site. "but the councils selected from about 50 gospels" simply not true. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html http://www.tektonics.org/jesus.....sthub.html

There is a great deal of information about this and related subjects on the above web site.

“but the councils selected from about 50 gospels”

simply not true.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html

]]> By: Bombadill http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-problem-of-improvable-design/comment-page-2/#comment-8695 Bombadill Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:44:44 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=374#comment-8695 Again, avocationist... this treatment should answer your questions: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html Again, avocationist… this treatment should answer your questions: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/pr.....-docu.html

]]> By: jboze3131 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-problem-of-improvable-design/comment-page-2/#comment-8694 jboze3131 Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:34:24 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=374#comment-8694 if the NT isnt history, then we cant count any ancient text as history. we have tens of thousands of original texts to back up the NT, nowhere close to any other text in history. the process of which you speak of- i dont see how that has any bearing on historical accuracy. and im not sure what you mean when you say that ID only contains nonreputable scientists. thats not true at all. if youre a scientist and you publish papers in journals and you have a Phd and such- that makes you fairly reputable in my book. many of the jewish sources are contemporary sources. they battled the idea that jesus was the promised messiah. as for non-secular sources, that might make them biased, but i dont think it takes away from their historical value. early church fathers werent known for dishonest and deceit, so i think we can use those sources as well and see them as trustworthy in general. if the NT isnt history, then we cant count any ancient text as history. we have tens of thousands of original texts to back up the NT, nowhere close to any other text in history. the process of which you speak of- i dont see how that has any bearing on historical accuracy.

and im not sure what you mean when you say that ID only contains nonreputable scientists. thats not true at all. if youre a scientist and you publish papers in journals and you have a Phd and such- that makes you fairly reputable in my book.

many of the jewish sources are contemporary sources. they battled the idea that jesus was the promised messiah. as for non-secular sources, that might make them biased, but i dont think it takes away from their historical value. early church fathers werent known for dishonest and deceit, so i think we can use those sources as well and see them as trustworthy in general.

]]> By: avocationist http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-problem-of-improvable-design/comment-page-2/#comment-8693 avocationist Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:13:21 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=374#comment-8693 Sorry, I meant the NT. Sorry, I meant the NT.

]]> By: avocationist http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-problem-of-improvable-design/comment-page-2/#comment-8691 avocationist Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:11:44 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=374#comment-8691 No sane scholars - but some insane ones. Since the ID movement contains only nonreputable scientists, then I suppose those scholars who don't say we can prove he lived - oh I'm lost - I mean I don't care if they are called insane, I'd like to see what they say. I am not familiar with these Jewish sources, but aren't they a bit later, when the myth/beliefs of the early church were under way and they are mostly negative? That is, they are reacting to a popular movement from their ranks, but are there any mentions of Jesus' life that are contemporary with him? There is a difference between believing he never lived and believing that the facts of his life got distorted. You can't just say the OT is a history book. Have you never read that history is a fiction, or that history gets written by the victors? Of course it is purported as history - but the councils selected from about 50 gospels. The early church fathers fought long and bitterly about every aspect of doctrine. We are left with their miserable legacy. No sane scholars – but some insane ones. Since the ID movement contains only nonreputable scientists, then I suppose those scholars who don’t say we can prove he lived – oh I’m lost – I mean I don’t care if they are called insane, I’d like to see what they say. I am not familiar with these Jewish sources, but aren’t they a bit later, when the myth/beliefs of the early church were under way and they are mostly negative? That is, they are reacting to a popular movement from their ranks, but are there any mentions of Jesus’ life that are contemporary with him? There is a difference between believing he never lived and believing that the facts of his life got distorted. You can’t just say the OT is a history book. Have you never read that history is a fiction, or that history gets written by the victors? Of course it is purported as history – but the councils selected from about 50 gospels. The early church fathers fought long and bitterly about every aspect of doctrine. We are left with their miserable legacy.

]]> By: Bombadill http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-problem-of-improvable-design/comment-page-2/#comment-8689 Bombadill Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:45:16 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=374#comment-8689 There are several other sources, but they are biased non-secular ones. Namely, the early church fathers of the 2nd - 4th century era. Check out the writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, Iraneas, and Justin Martyr. There are several other sources, but they are biased non-secular ones. Namely, the early church fathers of the 2nd – 4th century era. Check out the writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, Iraneas, and Justin Martyr.

]]> By: jboze3131 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-problem-of-improvable-design/comment-page-2/#comment-8687 jboze3131 Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:20:54 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=374#comment-8687 avocationist- no sane scholars today believe that jesus never lived. as for the historical mentions of him, there are many. tacitus mentions him, hes mentioned numerous times in jewish writings (not exactly a friendly source), and josephus mentions him as well. theres one section from josephus that some think was added (the part about jesus' resurrection), but his writings about him in general are accepted as original and authentic. many scholars even think the phrase in question is authentic. there are a few other historians as well that mention him. that and the NT is a book of history basically. it was written (the gospels in particular) as a book of history. avocationist-

no sane scholars today believe that jesus never lived. as for the historical mentions of him, there are many. tacitus mentions him, hes mentioned numerous times in jewish writings (not exactly a friendly source), and josephus mentions him as well. theres one section from josephus that some think was added (the part about jesus’ resurrection), but his writings about him in general are accepted as original and authentic. many scholars even think the phrase in question is authentic. there are a few other historians as well that mention him.

that and the NT is a book of history basically. it was written (the gospels in particular) as a book of history.

]]> By: Bombadill http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-problem-of-improvable-design/comment-page-2/#comment-8683 Bombadill Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:32:34 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=374#comment-8683 Weird!!! My first post didn't show up until just now, so posted a second time. Strange things afoot in this thread. Weird!!! My first post didn’t show up until just now, so posted a second time.

Strange things afoot in this thread.

]]>