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.
So you say but it is clear you don’t know what a hypothesis is. I challenge you to post a testable hypothesis for, say, natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes producing any bacterial flagellum. That way we can compare and see who has the better hypotheses.
petrushka,
There isn’t any limit
Wasn’t this supposed to be a “premise” of the Grand Theory Of ID?
The problem is that “creationism” as a word carries the taint of Ken Ham and the Creation Museum.
I will readily acknowledge that there are many theistic evolutionists who think Ken Ham is a clown and YEC is clown college. There are all stripes of IDists, some of whom think that not a base substitutes that is not watched over by providence, and some who are pretty much Deists. Perhaps they should be called IDeists.
Then there’s Behe and followers, who think that 99 percent of evolution is undirected, but that the magic finger of fate occasionally intervenes, like the hand that slaps the control panel of the Millennium Falcon when it stalls. Or provides an assist to get the wagon over the hump in the road.
There are Deistic evolutionists who think the clockwork was set in motion to see what would happen, and there are fatalists who think that every molecule and every motion was pre-planned.
Then there’s Jerry Coyne, an atheist deist who think everything is inevitable, but unplanned.
So much time and invective is wasted, when people could just lay their cards on the table and say, this is the way I think it is.
The only part of IDism and creationism that is a lost cause is the silliness regarding the history of life, doubting whether the standard story of common descent is correct or not. I don’t see a lot of CD doubters posting here. Sal, maybe.
And then what?
petrushka,
Common Descent is untestable and because of that it isn’t science. Also “creationism” has a specific meaning that ties it to the Bible
Frankie,
Dictionary.com:
The doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
3.
the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.
newton,
Thank you. None of those apply to ID.
The confusion is that Creationism is a specific subset of ID. If Creationism is true than ID is true. However if Creationism is false ID isn’t necessarily false. Refute the Bible and Creationism falls but ID is not fazed
Frankie, have you seen the phrase “Cdesign Proponentists”? Do you understand where this phrase comes from?
It was designed your position can even explain toothpaste?
Flint,
Yes Flint, but I bet you don’t know what I know. So allow me to update you:
The Untold Story of The Kitzmiller Trial
enjoy
Repairing broken toasters is a dying art.
All those apply to ID, remember ID does not speak to a mechanism. Actually ID requires an initial source of information beyond nature, supernatural so to speak.
Since initial designer must be undesigned to avoid an infinite regress, the initial designer must be a non contingent being, therefore a God. Any other explanation would falsify ID because information would be created without an intelligent designer.
So ID is correct only if the initial designer is God.
Did I somehow fail to convince you that I think you do not post in good faith?
You do not know what ID does not require, even when you are told what ID does not require. Got it. So you call Frankie a liar. Got it.
Such scoffing. I conclude that this is exactly what Elizabeth wants.
True, but someone with those skills will always be in demand.
Genetic Fallacy
That phrase didn’t come from the Kitzmiller trial, it was only widely publicized in that trial. The actual phrase came from trying to do a global search and replace of “creationist” with “design proponent” while leaving every other word the same. And yes, that document actually exists, all by itself resoundingly and unambiguously refuting your claim.
And it does so despite the efforts of apologists, unable to admit the truth, claiming that the “final solution” is that the truth is all wrong. You bet, Frankie.
How is it you know what ID doesn’t require? The IDiots have never identified a single quantifiable ability or trait.
2016 looks like it may be a very good vintage for wine , dense and with a hint of gym socks
newton,
ID does not require the supernatural. Behe and Minnich both testified to that effect. ID does not require God.
If by “genetic fallacy” you mean making the obvious even more self-evident, I guess so.
Empty rhetoric.
Flint,
Holy shit- I never said the phrase came from the trial. I was trying to educate you to the actual history of it. You seem to be OK with the bullshit other evos have sold you. Good luck with your biased bullshit
Right. It only requires an entity with the omnipotent powers of a God, enough to create the whole universe and everything in it from scratch. But don’t call it God, cause Behe said so!
Ixsnay on the odGay!
We know the actual history of it FrankenJoe, just like we know the 100% religious motivation and history of the ID movement.
But alas, Judge Jones turned out not to be a dunce. Even he could figure out that “intelligent design” requires an intelligent designer, which cannot be evolution.
Who can forget Behe testifying that he was unaware of any publications on the evolution of the immune system — and then complaining about the weight of the 3-foot-high stack of publications on the evolution of the immune system that were placed in his lap.
And STILL he testified that the immune system could not have evolved. Jones was not fooled.
Uh, you provided a link to an analysis of the trial. If the trial is not relevant, your link is not either. You can’t have it both ways.
Yes, I understand that reality is hopelessly biased against you, and that you must rewrite history as well as nature to fit your requirements. Nevertheless, there was a one for one substitution of “design proponent” for “creationist” in a revision of the book, and nothing else was changed.
And here you are saying these are different things. Better check with the creationist publishers, eh?
You’re whacky Joe…of course Well’s statements and his behavior have EVERYTHING TO DO WITH ID; he’s a key representative of the fraudulent institution.
LOL! Well hey Joe…if you think there’s a case there, why don’t you go out and see how it plays in court! I, OTOH, well recognize that few people (if anyone) take Daniel Dennett seriously on anything. But even beyond Dennett’s inanity, his arguments aren’t recognized as a basis of law anyway, so why should I care what he claims of thinks?
*sigh*…that’s not the definition of a quote mine Joe…
Regardless, Dembski’s statement makes my point. The “logos of John’s Gospel” reference only ONE religion Joe. Try harder Joe.
LOL! Citation please…
You were saying something about being desperate. Projection is strong with you, isn’t it?
You keep posting this as if it’s somehow a rebuttal to my point. Whether something requires a god or the supernatural has ZERO to do with my point Joe. Try again.
The issue is that ID relies upon the assumption of the supernatural and a undefined designer. That’s what the “D” in ID stands for even!
To wit:
The requirement to accept a non-human “designer”.
Really? Who?
Utter nonsense.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/
Berlinski?
Then ID is falsified per your criteria
Berlinski is Jewish.
ETA: Correction…Berlinski is a “secular Jew”. He identifies as Jewish culturally, but rejects the religious aspects.
Interesting…
Fair enough. Ok. There’s one.
Berlinski claims to be a secular Jew, who just happens to write diatribes against atheism.
Hey FrankenJoe, a question.
Besides the religious right wing Discovery Institute (and their associated circus clowns), what other scientific institutions or organizations are actively promoting and researching ID?
Give us a list.
Yeah…I don’t know that Berlinski is a good example. And even if he is, the Example that Proves the Rule is hardly a strong talking point.
An example of the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Anyone who rails against atheism and materialism is by definition theistic, even if not YEC or fundamentalist.
Pushing back the problem of causation or first cause does not solve it.
Cuz you say so? Really? Try to make a case
Robin,
ID does not require a supernatural designer. ID does not rely on the assumption of a supernatural designer
Mayr “What Evolution Is”- to wit- evolutionism is the same as what Dawkins calls blind watchmaker evolution
That is not making a case, Robin. Please reference the atheistic definition that prevents a non-human designer. I dare you to try
Robin,
LoL! If Wells’ statement has everything to do with ID then Dennett’s statement, along with what Dawkins and Provine have said have everything to do with evolutionism.
Flint,
Judge Jones was a dunce and fell for a literature bluff.
Yawn…you’ve become a broken record Joe. Here’s a thought – try actually addressing the issue I pointed out. Try actually addressing what your supposed ID leaders actually say.
To vague. Try again. Post a link to what Mayr actually said or a reference to where it’s published.
Robin,
I know what the ID leaders say. I quoted them and you ignored it.
Read “What Evolution Is”- I don’t care if you don’t believe me. Educating you is not my priority
Sorry Joe, but unless you can show how a non-human designer is anything other than supernatural (a la Behe’s claim), no atheist can accept such a concept.