Any good books against ID?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Andya, I'm currently reading Behe and all he talks about is common sense so just look for books that violate common sense and you've found it. 06-26-2002

---

Unfortunately we're talking time scales and proabilities well outside the ranges where "common sense" has any reliability. Cognitive psych courses will teach that in one way, Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker will teach you that in another way.Pennock's Tower of Babel is the only book I know specifically aimed at ID.------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky

^ Well if you want to believe that time is the answer for the origin of Ecoli's hundreds of metabolic pathways, the human immune system or bat echo location then each to his own faith. Behe of course points out the folly of that stand.

Really, TB? In what way? Behe's argument is a rather transparent restatement of Paley's watch argument. IOW, a combined "god of the gaps" and "argument from incredulity". Maybe you'd care to start a new thread on Behe - specifically which elements of his argument you feel are most persuasive and compelling? (Book Nook probably isn't the place.)

^ I might do that Quetzal when I've finished his book. Spoken as to a friend, I truly believe that your modern sophistication is blinding you to a message from God. It's very clear that life's inner workings are machine like and that almost no published work exists on evidence of a step by step construction of these systems individually or otherwise. Behe checked out JME ( J of Mol evol) and it's 80% sequence comparisons, 15% chemical evoltuion and 5% maths. There was not a single example of evidence of a step by step origin for any system like the immune system or molecular motors etc published.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:[/b][/QUOTE]--Respectfully, Andya primanda; how can Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindoo, or other apperceptive conscious psyches (A.K.A. spiritual beings) possibly evolve from slime (i.e., naturalistic chemicals and elements)? I’m assuming you concede (at least) that you have an apperceptive conscious psyche.--If you don't concede that you have a soul, I invite you to critique my meager hypothesis here on the proof of your spiritual existence.Sincerely,Philip

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-26-2002][/B][/QUOTE]Maybe you are not familiar with my position? I believe that I have an immortal soul, which Allah would judge after my mortal body dies. Therefore I agree with your hypothesis. However I consider that my body has the mark of evolution in it. Allah commanded humans to be the leader of His creatures; leaders are selected from within their subjects, right? Our soul may be special, however our body is not.

Great TB. Let me know when you've finished it. For reference, I'll be mostly out of contact between 6-29 July - partly for vacation, and partly for work. Enjoy your reading, and we can pick it up again then.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Maybe you are not familiar with my position? I believe that I have an immortal soul, which Allah would judge after my mortal body dies. Therefore I agree with your hypothesis. However I consider that my body has the mark of evolution in it. Allah commanded humans to be the leader of His creatures; leaders are selected from within their subjects, right? Our soul may be special, however our body is not.

​

---

--Glad we seem to agree on the immortal soul as existent. Why are you looking for books against ID? Is ID inconsistent with OEC or even one great ID at the beginning of the creation? There are plenty of ToEists here that refute ID altogether, for the soul, for the creation A PRIORI, etc.

quote:

---

Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics.
Edited by Robert T. Pennock.
Bradford Books/MIT Press, 2001.

​

For anyone who wishes to understand the "intelligent design" controversy in detail, this book is a terrific one-volume summary of the scientific, philosophical and theological issues. Philip E. Johnson, Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski make the case for intelligent design in their chapters and are rebutted by evolutionists, including Pennock, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins.

---

From:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000276B7-6792-1D0A-8E49809EC588EEDFThis is a sidebar article, to one of the articles Percy just posted in the new topic: Scientific American on Creationism -
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=22&m=1#1Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

I could have endorsed ID... if it wasn't because that nothing is perfectly designed. However, I can agree about one part of ID, that is about life as a whole. God is All-Benevolent. He creates life with the ability to evolve, so that His creatures may cope with the daily troubles of life and would not have a sealed fate of extinction.We can discuss further about this. Maybe we must start a new thread somewhere?

Design implies purpose or finality.
Do you also agree with this aspect of ID?. There is no purpose in evolution.

No, I don't think that evolution by means of natural selection is teleological. God gave the potential, it would be up to His creatures to take any path they embark on.However, the statement above is my philosophical assumption. My scientific assumption is that evolution took place as science discovers it.Even though scientific arguments are powerful, I prefer to use philosophical and theological arguments agains ID.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
God is All-Benevolent. He creates life with the ability to evolve, so that His creatures may cope with the daily troubles of life and would not have a sealed fate of extinction.

​

We can discuss further about this. Maybe we must start a new thread somewhere?

---

--I note your shrewd response. This thread may be appropriate and easier to keep track of. At present, I have no counter thoughts, except I seek redemptive design (vs. mere ID), which you, too, seem to infer.

What is it that I said which made you think that I seek for redemptive design like you do? I for one do not adhere to the doctrine of redemption. Muslims seek salvation in one's own efforts. And redemption has nothing to do with the biological world either; if any, IMO, it is our selfish bodies that we must defeat in order to reach salvation. Or so it seem.

You spoke redemptive statements:
1) God is All-Benevolent
2) createsability to evolve, so that His creatures may cope with the daily troubles of life and would not have a sealed fate of extinction.Andya, these are both redemptive statements in a broad sense, don’t you think? Both would make excellent sermons in the God-of-Gaps OEC, regardless of religion. While I’m not a Unitarian, the inference appears at least partially redemptive, i.e., temporal redemption(s). I think I realize you are not implying total redemption design here, like eternal-salvation-design, but redemptive design nonetheless.But while you’re on the subject of selfish bodies; how do you (and/or other Muslims) account for victory over the flesh via one’s own efforts. Do those efforts rely on God’s redemptive help at all (redemptive design) in real time? Does a saved soul make it SANS any redemptive plan whatsoever? Surely the commandments of Moses are impossible to obey with every jot and tittle: For who could love God 100% with all his heart, soul, mind, and spirit and his neighbor as himself, SANS some redemptive plan (A.K.A. Redeemer-Designer)?

You are beginning to touch on some matters relating to an age-old debate of determinism vs free will, which we know that nobody know the answer except God. I am more on the free will side, because God is the Highest Justice, which would not punish souls over what they have not done. He does help us, yet in order to be fair He must not prefer some of his creations over the others (e.g revealing His word to some but keeping others in the stray path). Muslims believe that personal choices do matter, and God would not judge a soul for what he/she has no control of. However, these statements are based on faith and I have no way of proving it to you in this world. Maybe we can discuss it later in the afterlife? Anyway,one thing that made me deny ID (for theological reasons) is that evolution can be used as a scapegoat for bad/flawed design, rather than blaming God. Evolution is neither omnipotent nor intelligent; that way we won't have to deny God if we see flaws in nature. We should not suspect God of doing nasty things; that is where I find the concept of evolution useful. For instance, people can be killed by their appendix; why blame God for putting it there? Blame evolution.For everybody who had suggest books, thank you very much. I am considering the books by Pennock; should I buy the smaller one (Tower of Babel) or the larger (ID and critics)? I am after Harun Yahya; he's currently spreading creationist nonsense all over the Muslim world.