Barr vs. Behe - Is Intelligent Design a Valid Science?

[quote=“Eddie, post:61, topic:22185”]
In fact, working scientists, outside of the professional literature, whether on TV appearances, or in popular articles, or popular books, etc. quite often say “science has shown” or “the science of neurophysiology has established” or “the archaeology of Roman Britain has confirmed” or the like.[/quote]
Yes, that’s because unlike ID, they produce data. But you use “ID claims,” because ID hasn’t established anything. So I don’t see how pointing out that others use “established” or “shown” does anything but make my point for me.

In other words, you don’t see:
“science has claimed” or “the science of neurophysiology has claimed” or “the archaeology of Roman Britain has claimed,” even informally!

[quote]You are probably the only “purist” about such expressions on the entire internet. Not even your fellow scientists here support your pedantry. So I continue to ignore it. (As far as I can tell, everyone else here ignores it, too.)
[/quote]Eddie, you responded by vehemently pretending that I was criticizing something other than what you wrote. That’s the antithesis of “ignoring” something.

3 Likes

@Eddie,

Stop right there. I have no idea what you are trying to say with this sentence above!

If you are saying the “thing” (flagellum, or what have you) would have appeared without God’s programming … then I am able to agree with you.

But that is not what Intelligent Design people mean when they say it could only exist because of the presence of the Designer.

That, my dear sir, barring aliens, is definitional.

1 Like

I gave you two choices - - and you declined to answer. Why do you do that?
At this rate you will still be complaining for all of 2017.

But, in any case, a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, @Eddie !!!

He’s even on record as saying he’s leaving that to other people. This is an example of why ID is not science.

2 Likes

I can’t even count the number of times you have said I haven’t watched the video. As far as I can tell, the only reason you say this is because I don’t agree with what Behe said. And I don’t agree what you keep saying.

You cannot say something can ONLY happen if God is there to make it happen … and then say that this is not a miracle.

Have a good strong cup of coffee… read your words: You are saying that only God can do something … it could never happen without God. But it is not a miracle? That makes zero sense.

1 Like

Under oath, no less! As he did when he admitted not reading the primary scientific literature on the evolution of the acquired immune system.

3 Likes

@Eddie,

Oh mannn… we sorted this out long ago.

We made a distinction between something happening CONSISTENT with its nature vs. something happening DESPITE it’s nature.

The ID Camp says something just won’t happen unless God does something opposite the nature of “the thing”.

You are just slathering metaphysical mayonnaise all over what ever you say - - to try to win a debating point.
I think most readers can see it too. You are in this all on your own… and frankly, I don’t think you can swim well enough to stay out there in the deep ocean blue long enough to convince me.

If something can NEVER happen unless God intervenes … THAT, my good man, is a miracle.

3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.