INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

Hi Woodsy, Darwinism itself in not modern. I looked at the link. I could not just copy the remarks from 2 supposed to be respondents. They were making assessments about 'quotations taken out of context' WITHOUT themselves offering specifics.Oh well, there are opinion of pros and cons...on opinions about opinions. Anyway, how can I paste a .PDF list of a list of scientists--w/ their names and affiliations-- who strongly doubts Darwinism. It is 13 pages long?regards,
PJ

Thanks Woodsy, that link was helpful, I was suspecting as much. I should have waited for your response before posting my rant. Oh well, what's done is done.

---

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

JP, I would urge you not to be quick to judge, or to gloat.Keep in mind that we are all on the same side. The most important question has yet to be answered, and it cannot be answered by us.Is our designer evil, or just plain stupid?Always remember that many people must have been drawn to evolution, to turn away from the idea of a benevolent god. This is because there isn't enough evidence to support the idea of a responsible designer. Also keep in mind that the thrust of evolution, as an idea, may have also been supplied or coaxed by something external to us all along.And, whatever you do, please do not use the idea of a benevolent god to support either my position or the effectiveness of my argument.Go easy on evolutionists. They know what they need to do now.Besides, it's not their fault. That fault appears to rest comfortably with the designer.Edited by limbosis, : clarification

Oh yeah? Are not our so called "intelligent students" being brainwashed or at least "intellectually blinded" by the ban on teaching of creation or ID starting in high-school?Is this not the reason why there is a raging controversy in the US to at least 'teach the controversy' to high school students?

Just a small warning to all:The topic here is not creationism only ID.Under the ID heading it is NOT the teaching of it -- please refer to the OP -- we are talking about the nature of the design itself.We are not talking about teaching ID. There have been threads on that but if anyone has anything that they would like to see taught about ID then a new thread on that topic would be fun. Perhaps P_J would like to start one?Edited by AdminNosy, : small correction

First Creationism and ID are supposedly two different things so you should be sayinig creation and ID.Creationism is a religious myth no more valid or practical than say... native american creation myths. Why should we just give creationism special status? Should we teach all creation myths.Now for ID. Biologic a new ID research lab associated with the Discovery Institute, recently was quoted as saying So you want to teach youngsters about ID when the proponents are just starting doing "lab science"? Traditional science has several centuries of history and you want it to share teaching time to some philosophy that has not led to single usable scientific discovery and who practitioners are now just putting on white lab coats?Edited by iceage, : Fixed quotesEdited by AdminNosy, : topic warning

Seeing that we have now been warned to stay on topic, I will remind whoever is still interested in one of the points of the OP:The OP makes an analogy of commonality of designs in living species with that of manufactured automobiles to attempt to try to make some conclusions about the supposed designer. I wrote a couple of posts explaining how the pattern of common designs in living species is actually not analogous to that of manufactured items, and, in fact, is analogous to items that are known to be formed through common descent.http://EvC Forum: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach -->EvC Forum: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approachhttp://EvC Forum: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach -->EvC Forum: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s ApproachPerhaps I succeeded in making my point, and this is no longer a point of contention?

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Can I also point to Message 8 which also deals with the differences between cars and living creatures from a design point of view.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

For many people, accepting evolution doesn't mean turning away from God, benevolent or otherwise.--Percy

Yeah, that was good, too. You got a POTM nomination for that one, if I recall. I'm kind of put out that neither of my posts were nominated! (No, no, I am not fishing for a nomination -- now that I have mentioned it, it would be bad form to nominate them and reward my whining.)

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

What you will notice though that is common to Message 8, Message 29 and Message 64 is that the ID folk simply pretend that none of them exist. The ID fiction is simply impossible to support. It is a joke, and if it were not so profitable, and if there were not so many gullible Christians begging to be conned, it would have been still-born.They certainly did deserve a POTM.I would say that those three would make the trilogy of Garlic, Silver Bullet and Wooden Stake through the heart of the fiction called ID. Now we just need to wait and see if the Zombie has the grace to stay dead.ID is not just bad Science, not just bad Engineering but even worse Theology.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Granted. That frame of mind is especially enticing if the idea of evolution was hereafter limited to a description of the way things happened, and not allowed to pose as the explanation for a process that does not exist. You could call it a set of chronologies, a gant chart at best.But, that doesn't leave you with much, except for the same question many other people have about this god, and maybe an overwhelming sense of relief that we made the "final" cut. This, to some, would be immaterial.And, it doesn't change the fact that if most believers of a benevolent god discovered that it was truly not, then they would probably have no trouble in burning down everything in sight which suggested that benevolence. What would they have to lose, peace of mind? No.

As has been noted, this is off topic.In addition, what you did in post 101 and want to do here is also against forum guidelines: posting long copy and pastes with no content of your own brain involved, AND not referenceing where you got your (false) material. This latter is plagarism: essentially lying about your sources with the implication that you are the originator.These are also PRATTS and the argument from authority - a logical fallacy that renders any conclusion from their usage invalid.If you think even one of these statements is truly represented then please, pick the best one and start a new thread. Give the statement and a clear reference to it's source -- not the creatortionista intentional misrepresentation website, but the original scientific literature source, and be prepared to defend your assertion that the author had serious misgivings about evolution or be ready to eat crow.Now -- can you stick to the topic of this thread? Threads are limited to 300 posts for a number of reasons, thus it is good manners if nothing else, to keep on topic.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Sorry, you've lost me...--Percy

There are two problems with this "test" and one of them has already been aluded to:(1) Speciation is not contested as occurring even by creationists (they say it is "micro"evolution and hold the line on something vaguely defined as "kind" involving "macro"evolution),(2) You're test has a negative result taken as a positive for your concept. This does not mean that yout concept has to be the answer, only that a positive result may not yet have occurred.An example of this is abiogenesis: the failure to produce abiogenesis in the lab is not evidence that it can never be done, nor is the lack of result evidence that the world was created by Odin.Conclusion: not a valid test FOR you concept.You need a test where the result can produced by your concept, and that evolution cannot produce: if the result is positive then you concept must be more correct than evolution.Do you have another?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : (2)Edited by RAZD, : toyp

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.