Comments on: Enlightenment or Unholy Inquisition? http://upontruth.com/articles/intelligent-design/6/enlightenment-or-unholy-inquisition.html - the weblog that's built Upon Truth Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:21:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Stephen M. http://upontruth.com/articles/intelligent-design/6/enlightenment-or-unholy-inquisition.html/comment-page-1#comment-3 Stephen M. Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:18:35 +0000 http://upontruth.com/blog/?p=6#comment-3 A response to "Ironically", I cannot deny that design implies a designer, and I have my own world-view; I write from the perspective of a follower of Jesus Christ. However, I do not advocate blind-faith but one with strong evidence to back it up. My faith claims testability (Rom 1:20, Ps 19:1) -- that's what this site is all about. As you'll see if you keep reading here, my primary complaint is the naturalistic assumption of modern "science"; i.e. the circular argument that everything in nature occurred through blind chance and that nothing else is science. This approach, that allows ONLY random chance as a cause, is NOT an honest pursuit of truth. And isn't truth what really matters? The credibility of Darwinism depends upon the presumption of naturalism; which is itself a faith-based philosophical belief that only blind-chance operates in nature. Evolution is testable only in the production of limited change; only through assumption and extrapolation can it do more. Also, and very importantly, Darwinism has NO ABILITY to operate upon the natural laws and the properties of the inanimate universe. The extreme fine-tuning of the natural laws for life deserves a reasonable explanation, but naturalism comes up empty here. If you are really interested in understanding what is proposed by Intelligent Design, then I can suggest some of the following web sites, articles, and resources: Sites: http://www.discovery.org/csc/ "Center for Science and Culture" http://www.idthefuture.com/ "ID the Future" http://www.arn.org/ "Access Research Network" http://www.designinference.com/ "Design Inference" http://www.ideacenter.org/ "Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center" http://www.origins.org/ http://www.iscid.org/ "International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design" http://www.iconsofevolution.com/ Some articles on the topic: http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html http://www.leaderu.com/science/ross-justright.html http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html http://www.leaderu.com/science/thaxton_dna.html http://www.creationdigest.com/summer2005/Braun_Intelligent_Design.htm http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-optimal.html http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/faq.php Highly Recommended Videos on Intelligent Design <ul> "The Priviledged Planet" "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" "Icons of Evolution" </ul> Also see my links pages for additional resources: http://upontruth.com/readinglist.html http://upontruth.com/links.html And finally, I'm sorry for the delay in posting these comments -- the "Blogasphere" is still a bit new to me! A response to “Ironically”,

I cannot deny that design implies a designer, and I have my own world-view; I write from the perspective of a follower of Jesus Christ. However, I do not advocate blind-faith but one with strong evidence to back it up. My faith claims testability (Rom 1:20, Ps 19:1) — that’s what this site is all about.

As you’ll see if you keep reading here, my primary complaint is the naturalistic assumption of modern “science”; i.e. the circular argument that everything in nature occurred through blind chance and that nothing else is science. This approach, that allows ONLY random chance as a cause, is NOT an honest pursuit of truth. And isn’t truth what really matters?

The credibility of Darwinism depends upon the presumption of naturalism; which is itself a faith-based philosophical belief that only blind-chance operates in nature. Evolution is testable only in the production of limited change; only through assumption and extrapolation can it do more. Also, and very importantly, Darwinism has NO ABILITY to operate upon the natural laws and the properties of the inanimate universe. The extreme fine-tuning of the natural laws for life deserves a reasonable explanation, but naturalism comes up empty here.

If you are really interested in understanding what is proposed by Intelligent Design, then I can suggest some of the following web sites, articles, and resources:

Sites:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/ “Center for Science and Culture”
http://www.idthefuture.com/ “ID the Future”
http://www.arn.org/ “Access Research Network”
http://www.designinference.com/ “Design Inference”
http://www.ideacenter.org/ “Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center”
http://www.origins.org/
http://www.iscid.org/ “International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design”
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/

Some articles on the topic:
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html
http://www.leaderu.com/science/ross-justright.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html
http://www.leaderu.com/science/thaxton_dna.html
http://www.creationdigest.com/summer2005/Braun_Intelligent_Design.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-optimal.html
http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm
http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/faq.php

Highly Recommended Videos on Intelligent Design

    “The Priviledged Planet”
    “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”
    “Icons of Evolution”

Also see my links pages for additional resources:
http://upontruth.com/readinglist.html
http://upontruth.com/links.html

And finally, I’m sorry for the delay in posting these comments — the “Blogasphere” is still a bit new to me!

]]> By: Ironically, he wrote http://upontruth.com/articles/intelligent-design/6/enlightenment-or-unholy-inquisition.html/comment-page-1#comment-2 Ironically, he wrote Thu, 03 Nov 2005 07:22:56 +0000 http://upontruth.com/blog/?p=6#comment-2 You've noted here a number of scientific theories that once faced severe challenges if not outright ridicule from the scientific establishment, including plate tectonics and the Big Bang theory. However, these theories involved testable hypotheses that rendered them inherently falsifiable by methods of research, which in turn placed them firmly within the realm of useful scientific inquiry. You wrote: "When an ingrained establishment wields dogma to silence credible researchers, we all lose." "[ID] merely looks for evidence that can only be explained by an intelligent agent." "If science is truly interested in discovering truth, then the debate should be won by exposing all the evidence – not by trying to gag the proponents of a competing theory." With these things in mind, I'm curious about a few things. * Who are the "credible researchers" involved in Intelligent Design (ID) and how are they credible? Surely they would have published something or, failing that and operating on the idea that mainstreamers are blacklisting their efforts, proposed something meaningful in their own niche realms. Oddly, though, there's nothing out there to support this idea. * What would be (or is) the evidence of conscious design in nature? That is, what is being suppressed by "Darwinists"? As things stand, natural selection acting on the grist of genetic mutations explains with uncanny predictability and accuracy exactly why we would expect to find evidence of *apparent* design resulting from natural processes extended over long time scales and involving successive incremental changes or a non-random sort. With such a successful theory extant, why the rush to embrace an alternative that, well, doesn't offer anything but an already-debunked argument from incredulity? * What exactly is the theory of ID? That is, how does it merit the designation of a scientific theory? What does it do other than posit that evolution is incomplete (not a failing of evolution or any theory; quite the opposite) or rife with flaws (outright bunk) and that it therefore makes sense to plug existing knowledge gaps with a guiding force that bears an undeniable resemblance to the Christian (triune) deity? You’ve noted here a number of scientific theories that once faced severe challenges if not outright ridicule from the scientific establishment, including plate tectonics and the Big Bang theory. However, these theories involved testable hypotheses that rendered them inherently falsifiable by methods of research, which in turn placed them firmly within the realm of useful scientific inquiry.

You wrote:

“When an ingrained establishment wields dogma to silence credible researchers, we all lose.”

“[ID] merely looks for evidence that can only be explained by an intelligent agent.”

“If science is truly interested in discovering truth, then the debate should be won by exposing all the evidence – not by trying to gag the proponents of a competing theory.”

With these things in mind, I’m curious about a few things.

* Who are the “credible researchers” involved in Intelligent Design (ID) and how are they credible? Surely they would have published something or, failing that and operating on the idea that mainstreamers are blacklisting their efforts, proposed something meaningful in their own niche realms. Oddly, though, there’s nothing out there to support this idea.

* What would be (or is) the evidence of conscious design in nature? That is, what is being suppressed by “Darwinists”? As things stand, natural selection acting on the grist of genetic mutations explains with uncanny predictability and accuracy exactly why we would expect to find evidence of *apparent* design resulting from natural processes extended over long time scales and involving successive incremental changes or a non-random sort. With such a successful theory extant, why the rush to embrace an alternative that, well, doesn’t offer anything but an already-debunked argument from incredulity?

* What exactly is the theory of ID? That is, how does it merit the designation of a scientific theory? What does it do other than posit that evolution is incomplete (not a failing of evolution or any theory; quite the opposite) or rife with flaws (outright bunk) and that it therefore makes sense to plug existing knowledge gaps with a guiding force that bears an undeniable resemblance to the Christian (triune) deity?

]]>