tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1008544650557198267..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Barbara Forrest Says ID is CreationismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5389910886699373442010-01-28T15:52:35.864-08:002010-01-28T15:52:35.864-08:00Well I would very much like to examine it. But we ...Well I would very much like to examine it. But we can't because it doesn't actually make any testable predictions. <br /><br />It is, scientifically, untestable.<br /><br />All ID does is take biological mysteries and claim that we haven't solved these puzzles yet because they are evidence for supernatural intervention - God did it.<br /><br />Then, inevitably, science solves the mystery (and guess what, the cause is always natural, not supernatural), and ID-ers simply back away and claim that the next mystery is evidence of supernatural intervention.<br /><br />Does this not fit the pattern of Dr Hunter's posts far better?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74765549463666992762010-01-27T11:37:03.976-08:002010-01-27T11:37:03.976-08:00I don't think you see.
ID maybe valid scienti...I don't think you see.<br /><br />ID maybe valid scientific theory or maybe not. But, how would you know if you don't examine it?<br /><br />That is the whole point of Dr. Hunter's post.inunisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01674429421276380675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70132968473652296252010-01-24T07:27:40.878-08:002010-01-24T07:27:40.878-08:00I see. And your position is that ID is a valid sci...I see. And your position is that ID is a valid scientific theory, I assume?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19940535834151149392010-01-23T06:38:23.676-08:002010-01-23T06:38:23.676-08:00Really? You don't have to be sorry Richie. J...Really? You don't have to be sorry Richie. Just do some more research and you'll find peer-reviewed articles supporting ID. I can give you the list, but I am not taking your bait.<br /><br />Parroting these baseless statements does nothing to promote your ideology.inunisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01674429421276380675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85922038603748260062010-01-23T04:32:09.164-08:002010-01-23T04:32:09.164-08:00Really? I'm sorry, I must have missed the arti...Really? I'm sorry, I must have missed the articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals which support the key tennets of Intelligent Design.<br /><br />We cannot engage ID on a scientific level because it is not a scientific theory. It makes no testable predecitions, it explains any possible, conceivable evidence and flat out violates key principles of science - such as methodological naturalism.<br /><br />In other words, whether or not it's Creationism, it sure isn't science.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14795390501533330232010-01-23T02:33:27.965-08:002010-01-23T02:33:27.965-08:00One cannot seriously expect Atheist Ideologists, l...One cannot seriously expect Atheist Ideologists, like Forrest to engage ID on scientific level. They have no argument, hence cheap propaganda is the order of the day.inunisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01674429421276380675noreply@blogger.com