Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”
If that’s not enough to convince the reader that Elizabeth is no prophet, there’s aways other things we can point to.
UD is still chugging along, as is the Discovery Institute. Michael Denton has a new book coming out soon, as does Douglas Axe. BIO-Complexity continues to publish. More of the incredible design of the living world is being revealed daily.
ID Is Dead. But perhaps like the proverbial cat it has more than one life.
Try again-
What religion? ID doesn’t require a belief in God. It doesn’t say anything about worship or service. There aren’t any prayers.
So please tell us what ID has to do with religion by actually addressing the points made
Living Waters Houston Premiere
Date: Feb 5, 2016
Start Time: 7:00PM
Location: Faith Bible Church – The Woodlands, TX
Visit Event Page: http://www.discovery.org/e/5661
Join us on Friday, February 5, for the greater Houston premiere of the new intelligent design film, Living Waters: Intelligent Design in the Oceans of Earth. The event will feature a special welcome by Lee Strobel, author of several best-selling books including The Case for a Creator. The screening will be followed by Q and A with one of the…
petrushka,
Darwin uses “Creator” in his book…
Actually that one person seems to work at the Discovery Institute.
ID–now better than ever!
I wouldn’t touch it, but YMMV.
Glen Davidson
Neither ID or YEC are religion. But both are only able to survive because of the strong religious bias of their adherents.
Evolutionism is not a religion but it survives only due to the strong faith of its adherents.
The alternative is unthinkable.
Virgil Cain at UD: “IOW Elizabeth and the TSZ are about as dishonest and deceptive as it gets.”
KairosFocus at UD: “You just proved what you are, a trollish agitator unable or unwilling to acknowledge a major and longstanding deep-seated problem of abusive behaviour by objectors to design theory; backed by enabling behaviour of the more genteel [aka Elizabeth] . . . some of whom com across as unwilling to confront the abusers because their feral fury will predictably turn on them if they do so.”
No, ID is not dead, but it certainly has strange bedfellows.
This is no more than a vague assertion. If you want it to be a premise of your argument you need to define exactly what you mean by “information” and show how to measure it. You also need an operational definition of irreducible complexity. You need to provide examples of both in past intelligent design. And you need to clarify that you specifically mean intelligent design by humans, not something abstract.
Unsupported unless and until you provide the operational definitions and example measurements noted above.
Baseless assertion. Provide the necessary operational definitions and proof of the claim.
This is unsupported and does not follow from your first three items.
It’s not an hypothesis, it’s at best an unsupported speculation with no testable entailments.
Whaaaa…? Quoting the two most prominent ID promoters – including the guy that started the the entire concept as defined – is conflating “what some people want”? Seriously Joe…you need to work on your argument there!
“You are conflating what some people want to use ID for with ID itself.”
Right back atcha there Joe!
Gosh…Dembski contradicting himself. Like we can’t find more examples of that…
Which has nothing to do with what I wrote or the comment I was replying to. Care to try again Joe?
See what the the most prominent ID promoters actually promote as I posted. ‘Nuff said…
Patrick,
Blah, blah, blah- You still cannot produce anything better for evolutionism.
We have defined information and said how to measure it. You cannot say how to measure natural selection wrt producing new proteins and multi-protein configurations such as ATP synthase.
The operational definitions have been provided. Your continued denial is not an argument.
And just ignore what I posted about what they say. Great. Behe even testified that ID doesn’t require God. All of the top IDists and Creationists have shown that ID doesn’t have anything to do with religion.
And yet I posted two prominent IDists that support my claim. Behe’s testimony supports my claim. I can post more prominent IDists who support what I say:
“Intelligent Design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief.”- Jonathan Wells “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”
John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:
“The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them.”
And you are still not addressing the points I made.
Patrick,
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
It is based on the fact that no one even knows how to test such a thing. You don’t have any idea how to test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes.
That is the whole problem, Patrick. If you could only support the claims of your position ID would really be dead. The way you are trying to go about just exposes the fact that you can’t.
”
Barry ArringtonJanuary 6, 2016 at 1:26 pm
SB @ 6,
I do not agree. It tells the world that you value your membership card in the “cool kids” academic club more than you value truth.
If they actually believed TE, they would be idiots. I doubt many of them do.”
TE off the table. What does that leave us with?
Frankie,
Thank you for reminding me why I stopped replying to you.
If that were true you could just copy and paste it in your response.
If that were true you could just copy and paste them in your response.
Frankie, tell us about the emperor’s new clothes.
‘Cuz you’re not addressing my points. So…you first.
And again…*requiring* God is not the issue. Try again.
But to further the point, since when do what Behe, Morris, Wells, or Meyer write outrank what Johnson and Dembski write? Why should should I even consider anything Meyer or Wells put out when they and Luskin’s job is to generate propaganda?
As the quotes I provided show, this is completely false.
To the point, here’s why Wells has no credibility:
– Jonathan Wells, Why I Went for a Ph.D, Unification Church presentation
Geez…no agenda there…*rolls eyes*
We know that ID has nothing to do with religion, because the IDists who post here never, never, never, uses atheist as a pejorative.
Just picking up on the prolific output of papers published at Bio-Complexity. I see Zachriel draws our attention to an impressive paper in a comment at Uncommon Descent.
As Zachriel puts it:
It’s worth a read.
The lens in my eye is made of highly evolved vinyl.
I really don’t feel like reading another piece of crap from Axe an Co. Is it the same old molecular crocoduck type of argument?
The impressive paper is not by Axe. Should have been obvious.
Axe is to experimental evolution what Mung is to GAs.
Personally I can’t do better than this critique by commenter REC at AtBC:
petrushka:
And both of them should feel insulted. 🙂
Probably the most science that ever happened in a Mung post. Perhaps he front loaded it?
I know, I know. The paper of Voordeckers is already bookmarked.
Ah, Petrushka points out that you misunderstood that I was talking about a paper by Karin Voordeckers et al.
Sorry for not being clear.
Alan Fox,
Meh, the same shit, only that this time they simply run a few simulations. Why rent lab time when you can debunk evolution from your laptop with a green screen and superimpose the lab later?
Actually your post was crystal clear, I just hit the UD link first where they were discussing Axe’s paper, so it’s my bad
But only ID creationists can continually do that and get paid to build models that don’t work
It is true and you would know that if you didn’t just deny, deny, deny.
Shannon told us how to measure information, Patrick. And Crick told us what is meant by information wrt biology- Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.
According to Meyer and Dembski, the following is the operational definition used (information):
the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
Hey, it concurs with Crick’s!
Now what, Patrick?
Robin,
Robin, you aren’t making any point. Your Dembski quote-mine doesn’t say that ID is religious and I quoted him saying it wasn’t- no interpretation required. And Johnson isn’t a scientist and he also says that evolutionism is a religion.
ID doesn’t say anything about worship. It doesn’t say anything about service and it doesn’t have any prayers. Religion has all of those.
ID doesn’t require God. ID doesn’t require the supernatural. You can be an atheist and still be an IDist
Wow- that makes Well’s motivation religious but it has nothing to do with ID.
And Dennett said that evolutionism is a universal acid for religions. By your logic evolutionism is an atheist concept and as such should be put under the Establishment Clause
Frankie,
Show the math. Provide detailed examples. Commit to a specific definition and demonstrably measurable metric.
In short, make your case with more than hot air.
LOL! Quoting someone in full is a “Quotemine” in your book…what a joke!
And yeah…I suppose that the “logos theory of John’s Gospel” could refer to anything in your book too. You’re a laugh riot Joe!
What does Johnson not being a scientist have to do with the religious implications of ID? And further, who cares if “evolutionism” is religious or not since it’s just some schlocky pejorative you made up Joe?
Again…sooooo missing the point Joe. Nice try though!
Interesting statement there Joe. Got any evidence that an atheist could be an IDist? Got any members of the ID community who claim to be atheists? I got money on you not having squat.
LoL! You asked for an operational definition and were provided with one. You asked how to measure it and I told you.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8574.full
Robin,
The quote-mine is due to the fact it doesn’t support your claim. Also Mayr says evolutionism is what you call the “theory” of evolution. I did not make it up, My, you are desperate
THAT is the point! LoL!
Yes, I posted it- ID doesn’t require GOD and ID does not require the supernatural. Do try to keep up
Patrick,
And Patrick, I know that you will never make a case for evolutionism.
Robin,
What would prevent an atheist from being an IDist? Do tell
That can’t be right. That would mean so many people here are just wasting their time and the time of everyone else here. Better to claim ID is Creationism, even if it isn’t.
Mung,
Heh
Mung,
We don’t know what ID requires. There’s no ID hypothesis yet.
Support group: FORMED!
There is one.