Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences

Thanks for the explanation. So, in other words, the Social Darwinists are just a bunch of Nazis with new titles.

I was being very facticious when I made my post by the way.

What really amazes me, is that I posted a critique of Kevn's original post. I thought it was a good critique, if a little long, but I wanted to cover all the absurdities presented in the post. Since then, not a single response from Kevn. This was a great opportunity to engage in the debate that Kevn says he's looking for. Instead he, as in so many other threads, falls into the false comparison of evolution and religion and then denigrates the people he claims believe in the "religion" of evolution. And, as in almost every thread he posts in, he gets in a dig against Catholics along the way. I get it already Kevn. You don't like Catholicism. You think that anyone who disagrees with you must have a religious reason to do so no matter what the subject matter. And yes, I understand that you can't tell the difference between religion and science. On one hand you tell us that ID is as valid a scientific theory as evolution and then on the other you tell us that evolution is a religious belief. So that would mean that ID is as valid a scientific theory as a religious belief?

So come on, I challenge you to defend your position. Where did I go wrong in my critique? Skip the Catholic bashing, don't tell me that my position is based on religious belief, just respond to my arguments.

Of course, you could just admit I was right and end this right now

Actually the Social Darwinists came first. Nazis were just an early twentieth century German version.

Michael you must know that Kevin is on a mission that has nothing to do with reality or what anyone else has to say about anything. If nothing else I admire his determination to forge on despite all obstacles.

Man, again?

Every ID "proof" I've read has boiled down to "look, it's just so amazingly complex, God must have done it. If not God, then God's brother, Bob. Seriously, it's a fact. Look it up."

But then there's no proof, no evidence other than "Look! Aren't we complex creatures?! Boy that's nuts. God musta did it. Yup."

And thus the circle continues itself until people like me bloody their heads on the brick wall.

Kevn Klein, if you'd like me (and perhaps the rest of the forum) to take you seriously, dig up the "facts" that explain these three puzzling "designs":

1) Why I have an appendix.
2) Why I have to wear glasses, can't see in infrared, and have a blind spot.
3) Why I have to push food through my windpipe.

but you won't, you'll either dodge the question or not answer.

As will every other ID proponent under the sun.

There is no proof. It is not a testable theory.

ID ceases to be a theory once you remove "evolution" from the table; indeed, it is a parasitic concept, attached to evolution and natural selection. It is there only to derail evolutionary discussion, without providing anything new.

It's the forum troll of scientific theories.

LF

Go back to the other thread. I have raised legitimate concerns as to the construction of your arguments, from a logics persective. In these I point out that the structure of your logic is full of several types of fallacies, including:

ad hominem
denying the antecedent
straw man
red herring
argument from ignorance.

Your response, to cite an example from the last case, was again an ad hominem attack on me, rather than addressing the fact that I pointed out that your arguments were fallacious.

This isn't about being correct or incorrect, as you state. This is about having arguments whose logic is sound and valid.

LOL

The light of truth shines through. Well put, Lordfly.

But now he's just going to ignore your post because your post points out yet again stuff everyone else has been saying to him...

On another note, if Kevn (or anyone else) really wants to have these kind of discussions on a more 'serious' level he should pursue them on the ARN board. http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php

I should point out that these boards have moderation and that badly constructed arguements, ignoring responses you don't like, and ad hominems will ensure a short stay there.

Neither do evolutionary biologists. What would there be left to study if these things already had definitive explanations? It's a mischaracterization to say that science arrogantly dismisses the notion of a designer. It is dismissed only because there is no evidence to support it, and because it's not in any way testable. Science is a process of elimination, not declaration.

Something worth looking at, for those of us who think human beings are made in God's image, and therefore are supremely important.

http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html

every day is necroposting day!

Still no way to detect design, huh?