Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID taken to the end
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6796 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 16 of 97 (241372)
09-08-2005 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Nuggin
09-08-2005 3:45 AM


Re: ID for origins only?
Nuggin writes:
What confuses me more about your post is that you say that IDers themselves can't agree on many very important factors within their own theory. (ie mechanics of, timeline of, cause of)
As far as I understand ID, this is correct.
Philip Johnson seems to believe that every species was separately created by God, within an OE \ fossil evidence framework.
Michael Behe thinks (at least at one point, Behe's thoughts have been revised since he wrote DBB and I'm not sure to what extent this was affected) that common descent is true, just that certain organelles (and whales) need an extra push from God.
I've never seen a coherent position from Dembski on this issue, he seems more interested in obfuscating the meaning of the No Free Lunch principle then in advancing his own theory. He's the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, not a biologist. He might well have put one forth, I'm not sure.
Nuggin writes:
It sounds like ID is less a theory than a collection of people who "don't like evolution" for either conceptual or religious reasons.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
The DI now admits this, after a fashion. They currently urge people to "teach the controversy" and didn't support the Dover PA. school district teaching ID to its students. This is because they can't teach anything other than problems they see with evolution, it's really all they have.
Chris
This message has been edited by cmanteuf, 09-08-2005 01:55 PM
This message has been edited by cmanteuf, 09-08-2005 01:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Nuggin, posted 09-08-2005 3:45 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2005 5:01 AM cmanteuf has replied

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6796 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 40 of 97 (241769)
09-09-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Modulous
09-09-2005 5:01 AM


Re: Dembski is the Newton of Information???
Modulous writes:
cmanteuf writes:
[Dembski is] the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, not a biologist.
That's an unusual statement.
It is. The original quote and author is:
"William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time. His "law of conservation of information" represents a revolutionary breakthrough. In Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Dembski explains the meaning and significance of his discoveries with such clarity that the general public can readily grasp them. He convincingly diagnoses our present confusions about the relationship between science and theology and offers a promising alternative."
-Rob Koons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin
It's a blurb from the back cover of Dembski's _Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology_
I might have been a trifle sarcastic when I described Dembski thus.
Chris
This message has been edited by cmanteuf, 09-09-2005 11:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2005 5:01 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2005 11:26 AM cmanteuf has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024