Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
200 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, dwise1, jar (4 members, 196 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,345 Year: 4,457/6,534 Month: 671/900 Week: 195/182 Day: 28/47 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Death Knell for ID?
Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(4)
Message 20 of 102 (650053)
01-27-2012 10:14 AM


Side Comment
Creationists like Behe and Dembski put ideas out there that they then defend with great energy in the public arena but upon which they conduct no actual research. Dembski is now at a seminary while Behe, because he has tenure, remains ensconced at Lehigh where he has produced 0.2 papers per year over the past decade. Both are just as convinced of their ideas as ever, but ideas in science are measured by how convincing they are to other scientists, and by this measure both creationism generally and ID specifically have been spectacular failures for a long time.

And so it seems incongruous and almost comical to me to see evolutionists giving ID disproportionately far more critical attention than it is receiving from those who should be actively researching ID but aren't.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 01-27-2012 12:14 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 30 of 102 (650170)
01-28-2012 1:54 PM


Research Cited by the Biologic Institute
Here's the webpage where the Biologic Institute lists "Selected Publications" beginning about half way down:

Biologic Institute Research Page

Can anyone find a citation that challenges naturalistic approaches to science? Anything that seems like it introduces a "broadly theistic understanding of nature" or that challenges the "materialistic worldview"?

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Trixie, posted 01-28-2012 3:36 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 32 of 102 (650224)
01-29-2012 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Trixie
01-28-2012 3:36 PM


Re: Research Cited by the Biologic Institute
The ID research program is contradictory because it seeks evidence of the immaterial in the material. Under what circumstances do they imagine that the immaterial can have an effect on the material?

Whatever form such evidence might take, their list of research papers tells us they're convinced that evidence is well hidden. They're mostly looking at the very tiny in microbiological processes, and at the very far away in stars and exoplanets. They're apparently convinced that whatever the designer is doing, it won't be found in anything obvious like earthquakes, volcanoes, weather, comets, asteroids, medicine, politics, wars, technology, financial systems or social movements.

Since their research is notable for its exclusive focus on the material, obviously they're doing what creationists have always done: seeking the unexplained, deeming it unexplainable, then declaring, "Here be God!" Oops, I mean, "Here be the designer!"

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Trixie, posted 01-28-2012 3:36 PM Trixie has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022