Science, Creationism and Intelligent Design

ErikLaurence wrote:

av8r wrote:http://www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-Jour ... 0310241448

It's pretty dense reading and most folks I have given a copy to have never read more than a chapter or two before announcing that it is nonsense. I've read it several times and enjoy it. The author started out as an agnostic searching for the truth as best he could explain it.

You realize that's a "science" book that's written by a journalist...

Y'all shot your wad with the dover case and lost. Not only lost, but got laughed out of court by a GWB appointed judge.

Under cross examination Behe (who actually has a PhD in biochemistry) caved and said there was "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". He was teh token scientist the ID people could find.

I'm all for faith, but don't pretend it's science.

av8r wrote:So you're not interested in reading the book?

spc wrote:A few ID proponents:

Michael Behe - Professor of biochemistry

Erik, Nice coal stove you have, did someone design it?

ErikLaurence wrote:You bet. They based the design of coal stoves that we're in use at an earlier time.

ErikLaurence wrote:Was your coal stove created in a puff of smoke and a bolt of lightening?

In a November 8, 1996 interview Richard Dawkins said of Behe:

"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)…point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is…maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder." Richard Dawkins on Evolution and Religion

ErikLaurence wrote:

av8r wrote:So you're not interested in reading the book?

I'm certainly not going to pay money for it. Is it online anywhere?

Behe (who I have read, and just quoted) is source material for Strobel. So if he's just parroting Behe et al then there's no new material in the book and this is just Strobel's opinions wrapped around the same lace of evidence that lost in Dover.

"Contrary to Richard Dawkins, the power to reason is indeed the greatest possible attribute of life. The only greater talent would be the ability to reason better. The priority of thought is not due to human pride; rather, it’s because reasoning is a prerequisite to understanding. It is for this spectacularly obvious reason that almost everyone except the most besotted Darwinists regards thinking as unique, as deserving of special study, as qualitatively different from and superior to any other attribute of life, perhaps even as an immaterial ability, perhaps even as pointing to something beyond nature. Now, why would a professor of the public “understanding” of anything belittle the ability to reason?" - Michael J. Behe

My main problem with Creationism and Intelligent Design is the people that want to teach it tend to make it the be-all and end-all. You know, like, God made everything so there is no need to study it. Water flows down hill because god made it that way. Leaves on the trees change color because God made it that way so we have no reason to learn about it.