Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Saturday, September 07, 06:50:02pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Very well then... Author: Biff [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 10/19/04 11:07am In reply to: Duane 's message, "The Problem with Intelligent Design" on 08/15/04 5:33am >Ever noticed that you never hear an affirmative >definition of Intelligent Design Theory (ID)? "Within biology, intelligent design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable." William A. Dembski in "Intelligent Design" pg 106. >I think this is the reason why. For any positive >statement of a theory, you first state the assumptions >required for that theory. For much of mainstream >science, these assumptions are often taken for >granted, such as: > >1) We can perceive the universe through our limited >senses, using direct and indirect methods of >measurement and observation. > >2) These observations and measurements are things that >are reproducible, or repeatably observable. > >3) Things that we cannot observe or measure, we cannot >know about. > >4) We MAY make assumptions about these unknowable >things, which allows us to continue our exploration of >our universe, even if we cannot know certain things. > >4a) BUT, since we're trying to truly understand the >universe around us, we must require that these >assumptions be minimial, and the assumptions we make >MUST be "reasonable". I think that Dembski's definition addresses these assumptions more than adequately. My question is: can anyone demonstrate that naturalistic evolution remains within these assumptions which mainstream science takes for granted? Another quote to stir the discussion: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent that it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." Malcolm Muggeridge in "The End of Christendom." [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Huh. Well, I guess you have some explaining to do then. Duane 11/ 5/04 5:22am I'll try some explaining. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 2/05 4:02pm But are they really? -- Damoclese, 04/ 3/05 8:55pm All those unprovable assumtions! -- QUITTNER, 04/ 4/05 2:03pm Are they really what? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 6/05 8:56pm Necessary -- Damoclese, 04/ 7/05 7:20am Trigger happy? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 9/05 9:15am A baloney filter -- Damoclese, 04/ 9/05 6:07pm And yet you can't find anything baloney with it! -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/10/05 12:36pm heh -- Damoclese, 04/10/05 6:44pm Tee hee -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/10/05 10:28pm chortle -- Damoclese, 04/11/05 5:57pm Inference to the best explanation -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/13/05 3:57pm Inference to the explanation Wade likes -- Damoclese, 04/13/05 8:31pm Please answer my questions regarding what Damoclese likes. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/14/05 4:08pm Like Mike -- Damoclese, 04/25/05 7:54pm Like philosophical preferences -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/26/05 5:10pm Well duh -- Damoclese, 04/26/05 9:11pm Rounding up the main points. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/27/05 5:34pm Mainly -- Damoclese, 04/27/05 7:37pm Primarily -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/27/05 10:55pm Secondarily -- Damoclese, 04/28/05 7:29am Tertiary -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/28/05 3:27pm Pomp -- Damoclese, 04/28/05 8:45pm Romp. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/29/05 11:41am Circumstance -- Damoclese, 04/29/05 6:05pm So is the answer "yes"? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 1/05 10:17pm Double bubble -- Damoclese, 05/ 2/05 6:59am Insert nonsensical title of the post here -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 5/05 2:01pm From our sponsor -- Damoclese, 05/15/05 9:00am Special pleading? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/15/05 2:32pm Special Ed -- Damoclese, 05/15/05 9:34pm How about addressing the problems I pointed out? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/16/05 3:27pm When you present something worth solving -- Damoclese, 05/16/05 7:58pm The problems of abiogenesis aren't worth solving? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/17/05 2:54pm Where have I seen this before? -- Damoclese, 05/17/05 9:48pm I know where. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/31/05 10:19pm Windows Happens -- Damoclese, 06/ 9/05 7:22pm Through the looking glass. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/10/05 1:08pm Under the chestnut tree -- Damoclese, 06/10/05 6:41pm Under the evidential tree -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/10/05 8:56pm I think I shall never see -- Damoclese, 06/11/05 9:31am ...evidence? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/11/05 10:24pm Evidentally not -- Damoclese, 06/15/05 6:38am ID is at least based on evidence; as for abiogenesis... -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/15/05 11:17am Hooked on semantics -- Damoclese, 06/15/05 6:38pm Huked awn foniks wurkt fer mee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/16/05 11:50am A correction. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 07/ 4/05 12:26pm Tertiary -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/28/05 3:24pm Inference to the best explanation -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/13/05 3:49pm