And there you have it!
| August 23, 2009 | Posted by William Dembski under Eyes Rolling, Religion, Science |
Janna Levin, Columbia astrophysicist, gives us the cutting-edge science on the origin of the universe: there was nothing, really nothing, nothing at all … but the potential to exist. Was it Aristotle who said that nothing admits no predicates? So where did nothing get the potential to exist and then bring the universe into existence? Not to worry. Janna does give us this assurance: “We know that something happened.” Yes, this is science at its best. Let’s not bring God or design into this discussion — we wouldn’t want to be accused of “acting stupidly.” Oh, one more thing, she’s an assistant professor (go here). Want to bet that she doesn’t have problems getting tenure? Compare this to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State.
282 Responses to And there you have it!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
StephenB,
I am surprised by your post at 274, because I always thought you a decent, intelligent and articulate poster. But Diffaxial doesn’t deserve your comments. Insofar as I have read, I haven’t seen him ignore you or misrepresent you. As for the “irrelevant trivialities”, in my view his points have always been relevant. Certainly, they may be detailed points, but that as they say is where the devil is, and arguements usually tend to stand or fall on the detail points. He’s entirely right to raise them. He has a rigour to his arguments that IDists would do well to achieve.
I hope you’ll reconsider your decision, because it looked to me as if you were both getting somewhere with the discussion – and that is very unusual for this site.
Gaz,
It is only as unusual as closed minded folks like darwinists make it my friend.
Clive Hayden (276),
“It is only as unusual as closed minded folks like darwinists make it my friend.”
It takes two to tango, darling.
Gaz,
It takes only one to stop a tango, dear. And evolutionists are the reason why the tango doesn’t flow on this site.
“And evolutionists are the reason why the tango doesn’t flow on this site.”
Why? What steps do they refuse to do?
Gaz,
Being open minded and open to the possibility that the design inference is valid and that evolution, no matter what it claims in just so stories, cannot explain all of what we see with living organisms. That’s what they usually refuse to do. It is the ID folks that are open-minded and more reasonable, in my opinion. You’ll probably disagree with me, which evidences my point even more.
StephenB @ 275:
OK.
“Rutabaga.”
P.S. Thanks, Gaz.
Clive Hayden (280),
“Being open minded and open to the possibility that the design inference is valid”
Let me put your mind at ease. I am open to the possibility. The trouble is, there is no evidnce for it. That’s all IDists have to provide. So far they haven’t.
“and that evolution, no matter what it claims in just so stories, cannot explain all of what we see with living organisms.”
Again, I am open to the possibility that evolution can’t explain all of what we see in biology. So far, though, it has an excellent track record.
“That’s what they usually refuse to do.”
Nope, they just want evidence. That’s all
“It is the ID folks that are open-minded and more reasonable, in my opinion. You’ll probably disagree with me, which evidences my point even more.”
The alternative explanation, of course, is that it is the IDists that are closed minded. The fact that you consider my disagreement with you to be evidence for the closed-mindedness of evolutionists suggests that you consider yourself to have the absolute answer, and is in indication that the reality is diametrically opposed to your view point.