Intelligent Design/Evolution debate

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dr. Gary Hurd on October 30, 2009 at 9:51am

This is not the best possible presentation of either perspective.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mr McStizzle on October 30, 2009 at 10:11am

I would agree with Gary on this one, it isn't really the best possible presentation of either side of the argument. I come away from it feeling that nothing was really gained and key issues weren't addressed.

Interesting, yes but unfortunately nothing ground breaking.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nehemiah Ryan on October 30, 2009 at 3:53pm

I agree too. Nothing was settled and neither side was offered enough time to present their case. But at least it gives us an idea of how the professors in academia discuss this issue. I would say it was a rather heated discussion and fun to watch, even if nothing was settled.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael on October 30, 2009 at 7:43pm

The trouble is that Intelligent Design is neither intelligent nor about design as it is based on god of the gaps seen so well in irreducible complxity.

It is interesting that ID proponents largely stopped meeting with proper scienitsts in about 2000 and now focus on the political side

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on October 30, 2009 at 10:37pm

Michael

>proper scienitsts<

Very silly.

Martin

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nehemiah Ryan on October 31, 2009 at 6:39am

Berlinski is not a Christian theist (possibly a deist). In fact i don't even think he was there to argue for ID. I think he was there because he only wanted to argue against darwinian evolution. Also, why does God have to be the answer for every gap? If there is a God, that does not necessitate he/she filling in all the gaps. In fact you could have scientific answers to everything and still have a God. God is not believed in just so the gaps will be filled, nor is he the only answer to a gap.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Old Peculier on October 31, 2009 at 10:39am

Quite. Gapism, of which I.D. is a classic example, is not only bad science; it's also bad theology.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on October 31, 2009 at 11:17am

OP

>Gapism, of which I.D. is a classic example<

Hardly.

Martin

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Old Peculier on October 31, 2009 at 9:42pm

Not your most helpful reply ever. I.D.ism isgaspism because it uses God toexplain what at the moment appear to be examples of irreducible complexity. If they are eventually explained naturalistically, that's God driven out of another bit of the universe.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael on October 31, 2009 at 9:44pm

Hey that's not fair , that is what I said in my review of Behe in 1997

godofthegapswrappedupinaminoacids

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on October 31, 2009 at 9:44pm

OP

>because it uses God toexplain<

Wrong again.

>If they are eventually explained naturalistically<

Unlikely seeing how little 'naturalistic' explanations explain.

Martin

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Old Peculier on November 4, 2009 at 10:50am

I meant "gapism", of course, not "gaspism", although I.D. could be described as the last gasp of creationism, so maybe I was right first time...

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page