Thursday, March 31, 2016

Discovery Institute Summer Seminars

Intelligent Design and Science and Society

The Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute announces two intensive 9-day seminars for college students and others, to be held July 8-16, 2016.

The CSC Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences will prepare students to make research contributions advancing the growing science of intelligent design (ID). The seminar will explore cutting-edge ID work in fields such as molecular biology, biochemistry, embryology, developmental biology, paleontology, computational biology, ID-theoretic mathematics, cosmology, physics, and the history and philosophy of science. This seminar is open to students who intend to pursue graduate studies in the natural sciences or the philosophy of science. Applicants must be college juniors or seniors or already in graduate school.

56 comments:

  1. Can you please give some examples of this
    "cutting edge ID work" in biology, paleontology, or physics? Especially paleontology. Is ID finally going to commit to a time frame for when the "design" was done?

    Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you consider trying to falsify hypotheses a contribution to science? It seems to me that a critical view of a proposed hypothesis is necessary to preserve the veracity of science.

      While it's true that places like DI are approaching with something of a bias, isn't it also obvious that there exists a bias for evolution in every government sponsored research and educational institute?

      I read Dr. Hunter's critique of published papers and am amazed that only ID proponents are making these points. Stupid statements like "God didn't do it because He would have done it better" are commonplace and obviously not scientific. Equally unscientific are statements like "Feathers evolved for thermol-regulation" without any real proof.

      The explanatory power of evolution is in the narrative, not the science. Isn't that the very complaint waged against creationists? Before you object and call on the "mountains of evidence" over the past century, remember that this blog has done an exceptional job of critiquing that mountain.

      In view of the data, particularly the critique of it found here, I don't see how evolution is possible as it's currently conceived. I've never read a response from you (or anyone else) explaining how the critique is invalid. Plenty of appeals to "peer review" or some other "acceptance factor" but never actually explain why the objections are wrong.

      Delete
    2. Dirt worshipping jackass asks another dumb question:

      Can you please give some examples of this
      "cutting edge ID work" in biology, paleontology, or physics?


      The greatest physicist of them all, Sir Isaac Newton, aka the "Father of modern physics", did all his groundbreaking research from the point of view that a superior intellect created the universe.

      What have you done lately, in comparison? Other than being a brain-dead evotard who worships inert dirt as the mother life, that is.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    3. Louis, I'm not sure where you're coming from. You obviously don't see validity in evolutionary theory, yet you behave as though there is no God who cares. I'm guessing some kind of deist?

      You would find a really interactive audience for your style at youtube, not thinking its well received here.

      Delete
    4. Louis, I'm not sure where you're coming from.

      In that case, your opinion is important to me because of what again?

      Delete
    5. Ohandy, my guess is that Louis does believe in God, but that he is tired (like a lot of us) of people like Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Daniel Dennett, etc. who are full of vitriolic loathing toward religion, and especially toward anyone who doubts/questions Darwinian evolution. If you truly want to learn about the most recent ideas in the intelligent design movement, I would refer you to evolutionnews.org and uncommon descent.com for starters. Stephen Meyers books, Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt are also helpful.

      Delete
    6. OK, so no one can describe this "cutting edge ID work" talked about in the OP or give any examples in any scientific discipline.

      Pretty much what I thought.

      Delete
    7. Evotard:

      Pretty much what I thought.

      Who cares what you think? You worship dirt, don't you?

      After all your "cutting edge evotard work", you concluded that dirt was the mother of life.

      It's all the good your "cutting edge work" did for you. You de-evolved and your cranium got smaller. You deserve to crawl in the dust just like cockroaches and dung beetles.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    8. Cornelius, I hope that you are proud of the blog that this has become. At present, I can only conclude that you are striving for the echo chamber sewage dump that UD has become.

      Darwin's God moderator: I have put up with this long enough. William Spearshake has been questioning my judgment for too long. At the end of the day, this is my blog. Although Louis uses a little less tact than I would use, I believe that he is fundamentally correct. If William and Ghostrider do not like this, they are welcome to go to other blogs. I will not ban them, but they are both on warning.

      Delete
    9. LOL! There you go Louis / Mapoo. Cornelius doesn't care if you call people shitheads and assholes and whatever other vile obscenities your sling as long as you keep attacking evolution. ID-Creationism is in dire straits now and needs all the help it can get, even from foul-mouthed ignorant cretins like you.

      I think I'll follow Nic's lead on the high road and give this place a pass until the toilet gets flushed. Good luck with your new star pupil Cornelius. He's a perfect fit for your Creation agenda.

      Delete
    10. Dirt worshipper:

      Cornelius doesn't care if you call people shitheads and assholes

      I don't recall ever using those words on Cornelius's blog. Must be one of those Freudian slips, eh? Deep down, all dirt worshippers know what they are.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    11. "In that case, your opinion is important to me because of what again?"

      Because you're an attention hound of course. An internet troll in the long tradition of trolls since the dawn of the chat room. You wish to provoke the one while reviling the other and sow discord.

      But if you truly do believe in a created existence then you are more to be pitied than the evolutionists as you show contempt towards your creator by despising your opponents.

      Delete
    12. ohandy1:

      Because you're an attention hound of course. An internet troll in the long tradition of trolls since the dawn of the chat room. You wish to provoke the one while reviling the other and sow discord.

      LOL

      Is this an example of pot, kettle and black? The whole point of commenting on the net is to draw some attention, no? What the hell is wrong with you? You're jealous or something?

      But if you truly do believe in a created existence then you are more to be pitied than the evolutionists as you show contempt towards your creator by despising your opponents.

      As if the evotards do not show nothing but contempt toward their opponents. You think the creator loves his opponents? I hope that one day you come face to face with Satan or one of his demons and tell him that Jesus loves him and give him a kiss. LOL.

      I got news for you. We live in a Yin-Yang universe. It is impossible for there to be love without hate. The two are complementary.

      And stop trolling me, goddammit!

      Delete
    13. ohandy1: "Do you consider trying to falsify hypotheses a contribution to science?"

      Of course. We are just asking for examples of peer-reviewed documents from all of those ID researches. Preferably in a journal that they are also not the editor. It seems to me that Hunter and others use research conducted by real scientists, drawing conclusions that the authors have not made.

      Delete
    14. Mapou: "The greatest physicist of them all, Sir Isaac Newton, aka the "Father of modern physics", did all his groundbreaking research from the point of view that a superior intellect created the universe."

      And he was also a paranoid, vindictive jerk. What's your point?

      Delete
    15. William

      I don't place a lot of stock in the peer review process, it's as corrupt as any political entity. Never-the-less there are quite a few at the DI website.

      I never got the impression Dr. Hunter ever intended to do more than offer critical review of claims by evolutionists. I'd reckon he does that very well. It's hard to fathom how anyone teaches evolutionary theory with a straight face given the contradictions. But with enough faith I'd guess...

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. Louis: "The whole point of commenting on the net is to draw some attention, no?"

      That may be true but in a wide range of degree. Where you are completely wrong is the idea that attention is only desired for attention's sake. That's the motive of a troll. Attention is merely a necessary component of conversation.

      Yin/Yang isn't an accurate description of our universe. Evil exists as the absence of Good just as darkness is the absence of light. Darkness is not required to create light and evil isn't required for good to exist.

      I'm not trolling you; I'm conversing. Not that I expect it will be a profitable one.

      Delete
    18. William

      I don't place a lot of stock in the peer review process, it's as corrupt as any political entity. Never-the-less there are quite a few at the DI website.

      I never got the impression Dr. Hunter ever intended to do more than offer critical review of claims by evolutionists. I'd reckon he does that very well. It's hard to fathom how anyone teaches evolutionary theory with a straight face given the contradictions. But with enough faith I'd guess...

      Delete
    19. ohandy1,

      The conversation between us has come to an end, AFAIC. See you around.

      Delete
    20. Dr. Hunter,

      "Although Louis uses a little less tact than I would use, I believe that he is fundamentally correct."

      Would it be too much to expect Louis to practice a few other fundamentals, such as courtesy, respect and decency when interacting with others on this blog? The man is singularly uncouth and nasty to anyone to whom he takes a dislike, regardless of their position on the subject at hand.

      Delete
    21. Nic, I appreciate the effort, but it is obviously not Cornelius' goal to encourage intelligent and rational discourse. He will not think twice to delete a comment from an ID critic that he deems rude but if you are an ID supporter, you are encouraged to be as rude to those who oppose you as you can.

      Frankly, Mapou does far more damage to Cornelius' viewpoints than he does to mine. Any rational person can see this.

      Delete
    22. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I find it curious that this blog never seems to have the slightest interest in discussing ID. I never see discussions here by Cornelius on irreducible complexity, CSI etc. Nothing. (yet he is a fellow of the Discovery Institute.)

    It seems really just an anti-evolution blog and that's all. I don't think that is all that useful in the long run - because ultimately if evolution really is wrong, something has to replace it and science does not tolerate a vacuum. The fact that nobody here seems interested in what might replace evolution really only evokes suspicion that the anti-evolution stance is really primarily a faith-driven perspective and not one really based in science. I think if there was really a strong regard for science, then every possible avenue that might suggest an alternative to evolution would be considered and explored. But alternatives to evolution are rarely offered here, if at all and I'm not sure Dr. Hunter truly has any interest here and certainly has never offered any alternative hypotheses.

    Why no interest in ID, Dr. Hunter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/my_debate_with102695.html

      Delete
    2. It's more than merely an anti-evolution blog. It serves two other major purposes, as far as I can tell.

      First, it identifies all the "scraps of evidence" (their words, not mine) and puts it into one place. It can be a little daunting to find a place that has hundreds of arguments put forth by hundreds of people all accessible by a list.

      Second, it serves as a testament to those who believe in evolution through their comments, and who they are, what they are like, what they believe, why they believe it. Same for the other side.

      And third, it served to help me when pondering this sort of stuff.

      And fourth, it can be used to catalogue the types of arguments put further in support of evolution (and against).

      Delete
    3. Fifth, fundamentalist Christianity (ie: the people that still believe the bible) is mentioned in posts so infrequently that shows cognizant arguments can be made regarding evolution without bringing God into it. And I think that's the first and foremost point of the blog.

      Delete
    4. I don't want to delete my previous comment, but it would have been better stated that it is possible to use evolution's own statements and tenets to show it's inconsistent and is a very, very low probability theory.

      Delete
    5. science does not tolerate a vacuum

      Except in the skulls of dirt worshippers and evotards everywhere.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    6. What do you think of ID Louis? Do you agree with the concepts regarding irreducible complexity, CSI?

      Any thoughts about how ID could become more widely accepted as a true scientific discipline/theory?

      Do you think it's possible to uncover some of the mechanisms the designer used?

      Delete
    7. I find it curious ...

      The reason evolutionists find the scientific arguments "curious" is because they are rationalists. They are incapable of scientific, empirical, evaluation of their claim that the world arose spontaneously is a fact.

      Delete
    8. Slittle87
      I would really be interested in a discussion on this subject. I think you have positioned ID correctly which is an inference to whats been observed in biochemistry. I think the challenge with really uncovering a mechanism if it is understandable through experiment is that we have a long way to go on understanding the function of the cell down to the physics. In discussion with different scientist the estimate is we understand about 1% of a eukaryotic cells function a the physics level. Would be interested in others thoughts on this.

      Delete
    9. Slittle87:

      What do you think of ID Louis? Do you agree with the concepts regarding irreducible complexity, CSI?

      Yes, of course. But I don't think it is needed. The combinatorial explosion is sufficient argument for ID. And not just with regard to living organisms. It is a sufficient argument to support the view that the entire universe was designed and created.

      Any thoughts about how ID could become more widely accepted as a true scientific discipline/theory?

      It will never happen in our current political system, IMO. Endless arguments are a waste of time. I believe that ID will come of age soon but it will require a new development or revelation that knocks everybody's socks off, dirt worshippers and creationists alike. Dirt worshipping will eventually become a footnote in the history of science, a minor aberration.

      Do you think it's possible to uncover some of the mechanisms the designer used?

      Certainly. In my research, I have concluded that whoever designed the universe and life on earth has left many clues and even written messages for us to find. The world is just blind to them.

      But even a cursory observation of nature tells me that it was not a single designer who did it but a huge number of them. This is obvious in the innumerable artistic styles we can observe on earth alone. Creation was not the work of a single individual but that of an extremely advanced civilization of billions of intelligent individuals, each with his own duty or specialty. But all working as one integrated entity with a single purpose.

      I can tell that the designers were extremely careful and had a lot of time on their hands. Ecological balance was very important to them. I can tell that they experimented with several terraforming/scientific projects that ended in deliberate mass extinctions. It's obvious that they must have had powerful simulators to work with but some things are so complex as to be computationally intractable and the only way to work them out is to let them run their natural course. EVen the Gods can be stumped by the combinatorial explosion. Let alone something as stupid as RM+NS.

      I can tell a lot of things. It would take a book to describe then all.

      Delete
    10. Cornelius: "They are incapable of scientific, empirical, evaluation of their claim that the world arose spontaneously is a fact."

      I'm still waiting for you to clarify what you mean by "spontaneous" in the context of biological organisms, by presenting an counter example of a species arising in a "non-spontatious" means.

      For example, I'm unaware of any biologists that claim the first primitive, low-fidelity replicators arose in deep interstellar space, where it's cold and completely dark.

      Then again, I'm being charitable in assuming you actually want to make progress, rather than continue to misrepresent the positions of others.

      Delete
    11. I'm unaware of any biologists that claim the first primitive, low-fidelity replicators arose in deep interstellar space, where it's cold and completely dark.

      No, but they do say life arose from a lifeless planet, contrary to Pasteur's law. If you assembled a cell from its constituent atoms, that would not be spontaneous.

      Delete
    12. CH: "The reason evolutionists find the scientific arguments "curious" is because they are rationalists. They are incapable of scientific, empirical, evaluation of their claim that the world arose spontaneously is a fact."

      Since evolutionists are apparently incapable of making this evaluation, can you show how empiricism and science (or at least your version it) does this evaluation?

      Delete
    13. Louis, thank you for your polite reply.

      You said "The combinatorial explosion is sufficient argument for ID."

      You've mentioned this before - what exactly do you mean by "combinatorial explosion" - is there any math to support it?

      I know you call yourself a Christian, but your response almost sounds like you think the designers were some kind of extra-terrestrial entity? (e.g., your mention of powerful simulators they may have had).

      Delete
    14. can you show how empiricism and science (or at least your version it) does this evaluation?

      Yes, sure. Here is a good place to start:

      https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions

      Delete
    15. Slittle87:

      Louis, thank you for your polite reply.

      I'm polite when I choose to be. Just don't pull any evotard crap on me or I'll turn. LOL

      You said "The combinatorial explosion is sufficient argument for ID."

      You've mentioned this before - what exactly do you mean by "combinatorial explosion" - is there any math to support it?


      Are you kidding me? It's the simple math of exponents. It simply posits that a search space increases exponentially with every new element. The space of a base-10 variable, for example, increases by a power of 10 for every new digit in the variable.

      If you have a DNA sequence of 500 base pairs, the search space is 2^500, an extremely huge space. Compare that space to the search space of the human genome with approximately 3 billion base pairs and you quickly realize that all evotards are dirt worshippers.

      But it gets worse. The above is true only if the search mechanism knows the size of the search space beforehand. In the case of evolution or OOL in a prebiotic soup, the size is unknown and is, as a result, infinite.

      I know you call yourself a Christian, but your response almost sounds like you think the designers were some kind of extra-terrestrial entity? (e.g., your mention of powerful simulators they may have had).

      I carefully study the scriptures. All the Gods are extraterrestrials since they did not come from earth. And Yahweh is not the only God. There were many other Gods who came to earth thousands of years ago and were worshipped by different nations.

      My understanding is that the Gods looks at the nations of the world the way a man looks at a beautiful woman. They think we're hot.

      Yahweh chose Israel as his own. The Egyptians had their own Gods and so did the Babylonians and other nations. There was jealously among the Gods. But this does not mean that the ancient Gods were single individuals. Each nation had many Gods. The word used for God in Hebrew is plural (Elohim). Yahweh, too, is many Gods in one (Yahweh of hosts) but prefer to act as one God and spoke as ONE. As the scriptures put it, Yahweh is ONE, in the sense that Yin and Yang are ONE.

      I will add that I am not a traditional Christian who believes that the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God. That would be idolatry, IMO. I am certainly not a fundamentalist Christian who believes that God is infinitely knowledgeable and powerful. Heck, I believe that infinity is crackpottery.

      Delete
    16. "If you assembled a cell from its constituent atoms, that would not be spontaneous."

      If I assembled a cell from raw materials, it would because the knowledge of what transformations of those raw materials would result in just the right genes, which would result in just the right proteins, which would result in just the right features were embedded in my material brain, that my body was adapted well enough to follow them though, etc. IOW, the assembly would actually occur because I would be well adapted for that purpose, which is the very property that cells exhibit.

      It's unclear how being well adapted from raw materials can itself be an explanation for being well adapted from raw materials. Nor has anyone observed a designer that is not well adapted for the purpose of designing thing. That includes having having a complex nervous system, etc. Again, you've merely pushed the problem up a level without improving it.

      Delete
    17. Louis: "I will add that I am not a traditional Christian who believes that the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God. "

      Thanks for sharing your beliefs, I'm always interested in what other people believe. Yes, I can see you are definitely not a traditional Christian. But what about salvation, heaven, hell etc? Is there such a thing as being "saved" in your worldview. What happen to the non-believers in the afterlife?

      Delete
    18. Slittle87:

      But what about salvation, heaven, hell etc? Is there such a thing as being "saved" in your worldview. What happen to the non-believers in the afterlife?

      My understanding from studying the scriptures is that salvation is eternal life with the Gods. Nothing more. The souls who make it will be reborn into another body, a physical but immortal body made of a different kind of matter. This is what "born again" really means. If your body is made of ordinary matter, you are not born again, regardless of how many times you claim to be.

      Those who don't make it will simply go back to what they were before they were born: an unconscious entity. Death is only slightly different than sleep. In fact, unless we are dreaming during sleep, we are essentially dead. The soul reenters the brain when the brain wakes up.

      There are only two conditions that will lead to eternal life. Your sins must be paid for and you must believe. Nothing else is required. All the other crap that organized religions ask of you is just that, crap.

      Souls/spirits are neither alive nor conscious by themselves. And they can neither be created nor destroyed. They just are. Yahweh did not create our souls, only our bodies. Souls need a living physical body and a brain in order to be conscious. I am a card-carrying Dualist. I believe that consciousness requires both a spirit/soul and a brain.

      Just one man's opinion.

      Delete
    19. Louis,

      Thanks again for sharing your beliefs! What about other religions? You mentioned in an earlier post about other gods - Yahweh has chosen Israel, but what about other nations. Some of your thoughts almost sound slightly Buddhist. But OTOH you think sins have to be paid for, so do you think Christianity (or your version of how you practice) is the only path to eternal life?

      Delete
    20. Based on my research, I've concluded that almost all the other Gods are a bunch of lying, bloodthirsty jerks. Some even required regular human and even infant sacrifices. We have historical and archaeological evidence for this among ancient Aztec, Mayan, Incan, Babylonian and other societies.

      Yahweh considers himself the first and the last Overlord. All the other Gods came after Yahweh. Spirits belong to families. According to the scriptures, humans, too, are part of the God (Elohim) family. However, we are the only ones among the Gods to have mortal bodies made of ordinary matter.

      Apparently, (although I could be wrong about this) there are other creatures (e.g., angels) that are not part of the Elohim family. The angels pledged allegiance to Yahweh a long time ago but one third of them rebelled under the leadership of Lucifer (Morning Star). They will be eliminated when their time comes.

      Don't think for a second that the Gods are far away. Many of them are right here and are heavily influencing human affairs. Most of the wars and criminal behavior on earth are instigated by them. Every once in a while they raise up especially disruptive military or religious leaders among humans to accomplish their major goals. They love war, deception and they enjoy playing God with us.

      My understanding of prophecy is that Yahweh will soon bring all of that to an end but not before it gets really ugly. Get ready to live in very interesting times.

      Delete
    21. Mapou: "Based on my research, I've concluded that almost all the other Gods are a bunch of lying, bloodthirsty jerks. Some even required regular human and even infant sacrifices."

      And how is your God any different? Your God required the killing of gays and adulterers. He killed the first born of Egypt, many of them infants. He ordered the rape of women.

      It seems to me that your God fits perfectly in that lot.

      Delete
    22. Dirt worshipper:

      And how is your God any different? Your God required the killing of gays and adulterers. He killed the first born of Egypt, many of them infants. He ordered the rape of women.

      It seems to me that your God fits perfectly in that lot.


      It is no secret that almost all atheists and Darwinists used to be Christians who revolted against the Biblical God because of what they perceive to be injustice on the part of God. They do so for essentially two reasons. First, they assume that their righteousness is superior to God's. (That, in itself, is a sin.) Second, they commit the same idolatry as fundamentalist Christians: they worship a book instead of worshipping God. Yet, one of the books within the Book tells them that they should test all things, which includes everything within the Book itself. IOW, parts of the Book could be wrong. Maybe parts of the Book came from men and not from God.

      In God's eye, all sins, even the smallest ones, are worthy of death. It is like the saying goes: "if you steal an egg, you will steal a cow." The master himself said that, if you have been unfaithful in the smallest of the commandments, it is as if you had been unfaithful in the greatest one.

      God knows that sin eventually leads to self-annihilation. Unless there is full righteousness, things deteriorates steadily until it gets to the point of catastrophic extinction. We see this happening in the world right now, as I write. The world is on a fast track toward total suicidal disaster. And the pace is accelerating.

      Under karmic laws, all humans should be destroyed because they are defective. We were born defective. It is the nature of our souls. Not one of us deserve to live. Every sin is worthy of death. Luckily for us, Yahweh fell madly in love with the human species and he paid the price for our sins. He will not allow us to perish. But first, we need to be taught a lesson.

      Yahweh is extremely powerful though, and he will bring back all the souls who have lived and died, even the firstborn of Egypt. Even Hitler and Genghis Khan. Even the Islamic state murderers. Even dirt worshippers. LOL! Everybody will be given a chance to gain eternal life.

      Just saying. Take it or leave it.

      Delete
  4. Slittle87
    "I find it curious that this blog never seems to have the slightest interest in discussing ID. I never see discussions here by Cornelius on irreducible complexity, CSI etc. Nothing. (yet he is a fellow of the Discovery Institute.)"

    Actually, I have never found the purpose of this blog to be a promoter of what I.D. believes as far as origins or any other development throughout history of living things. The purpose of this blog as I have witnessed it here is to expose the very powerful ruling orthodoxy which attempts to run and control scientific thinking and squelch any dissent which questions the belief. Many of the papers often cited, even those of journalists which are also used to promote this faith make no attempt to offer any real proofs beyond the mere act of inserting terms like "evolution", "evolved", evolves", co-evolved", "Darwin", "Natural Selection", etc. Use those words and your paper gets a free pass. It often seems that the mere act of providing those words without acting showing proof for the change is all that is needed. As Cornelius has often repeated over and over, "Nobody is arguing there is no changes, but how to we arrive at the conclusion thye change is evolution?" It's not Cornelius' or anyone else's job to prove to you or anyone else how your faith works or how you arrive at your conclusions that blind undirected forces with purpose accomplishe4d anything. And yet this is EXACTLY why evolutionary theory was invented, so that conventional religious worldview could be countered. It never had a thing to do with accidental science one day stumbled upon.

    Many of the arguments he exposes are religious arguments that have zero to do with science. Statements such as , "If there were a creator, he wouldn't have done things such and such a way" How do they arrive at such a conclusion ? I couldn't do that, how can they do that ? What experiment or test did they use to absolutely arrive at the fact of what some intelligent entity world or wouldn't do ? It's clearly a clever strategy to deflect attention away from the fact that they will never ever be able to intelligently explain how blind unguided forces accomplish anything remotely sophisticated in the biological world. And when you point this out, the replies are nothing but name calling, insults and more smoke screening to make the subject matter further fuzzier. That's not to say that such questions are not legitimate. Even folks who believe in a Creator cannot explain such things, but the inference leads us to conclude that something more than dumb luck is involved here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would further add that the blog itself and the subject matter which have been replied to over and over by defenders of the articles Cornelius exposes, provide a record of comments which actually verify what Cornelius has been pointing out. Of course I have never read everything here, but I believe I have the understanding of it's purpose close enough.

      Delete
    2. Why is there no "like" button?!?! :)

      Delete
    3. KF: "Actually, I have never found the purpose of this blog to be a promoter of what I.D. believes as far as origins or any other development throughout history of living things."

      That's right it doesn't seem to be promoting ID. Yet the DI Center for Science and Culture has this mission:

      "We are the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. "

      And Cornelius is a Fellow of the DI CSC.

      But apparently there seems little promotion of ID on this site? Is it any wonder that people think there isn't anything to promote? For a change it would be really interesting to hear what Dr. Hunter thinks about ID - does he think IR and CSI and all that are good concepts? And what does he think about Dembski effectively giving up on ID (kind of like Einstein losing interest in relativity?)

      I am not objecting to all the anti-evolution stuff here - I'd just like to see more positive discussion of the evidence for ID. And if you can't that from a Fellow of the very organization that is promoting it, well, what does that say?

      Delete
    4. Slittle87

      And Cornelius is a Fellow of the DI CSC.


      Dr. Hunter's job for the DI sees to be trying to still implement their "wedge strategy". Attack evolutionary theory every chance you can to sow doubt with untrained laymen as to open the door for a return of Christian religious dogma into public science classes. This strategy has failed miserably so far but like the poor Japanese soldiers who fought long after WW2 had ended, a few of the DI's Warriors For God soldier onward.

      Delete
  5. Slittle87

    "But apparently there seems little promotion of ID on this site?"

    Isn't this particular blog advertising Summer Seminars for ID?
    I'd call that promotion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, one blog post out of a hundred?

      Delete
    2. Seems to me that in every organization each person has their own niche and particular talent. Why would everyone be doing the same job? I hope you take the time to read the articles on DI as they make a very strong case for ID.

      Delete
  6. Slittle87
    "OK, one blog post out of a hundred?"

    Actually there are far more. Cornelius has commented on Fat Bubble theory creator, Jack Szostak, Synthetic self-replicating Enzyme designer Gerald Joyce, Prebiotic Soup World designer Stanley Miller and even RNA World Proposal designer Francis Crick. All of these reseachers are known for developing intelligently designed origin of life experiments where they created universe world's in a lab, manipulated chemical and electricity for that spark to life etc. No one has never argued against chemicals, physics, etc are not needed to provide life as we know it, but only that it takes intelligence to manipulate them all to try. No one has yet been successful, but they ALL have definitely proven it thus far takes an intelligence to think, ponder, meditate and develop ideas, plans, schemes etc with goals in mind and physically use that intelligence to experiment to arrive at various outcomes. But even with their pityful failures, they still shows us that an intelligence is required to try. So far none of us have seen record of a dirt watching or observation experiments to arrive at the conclusion that nothing more than blind unguided forces and chemicals do anything on their own. In fact every single one of those people listed above along with countless other researchers have done is nothing more than to prove this text below as true:

    Genesis 2:7

    To me it would seem creating a living cell would be much simpler, but clearly every one of those experiments have only verified this text above, which by the way makes no attempt at providing a step by step how process to be duplicated by others. Thus far it has been interesting to watch many researchers try and applaud their hard work at trying. I love to watch and read about intelligent researchers manipulating things, because then I can grasp the concepts of practical application easier. The concept of things spontaneously happening for no apparent reason offers me nothing.

    ReplyDelete