God is Not Silent

[IamDeityOne]

No, the '"god" of creation is not silent, he's dead. The Mother saw to that. Well, I guess things that no longer exist could be described as silent, in a poetic way.

[Iconoclastithon]

Antony Flew is'nt a scientist. He's a philosopher.

I.D./Creationism ISN'T science, it is a specific undermining of material sciences by revealed religionists. I.D./Creationism does'nt except evolution by natural selection, DEISTS DO! Deism only prposes that the mathematical preciness of the over-arching natural laws imply the likelyhood of something creative & calculating{or 'intelligent" if you wish} behind or wihin them. THATS IT!

And it's philosophy UTILIZING science, but it's not A science

[Iconoclastithon]

...CONT;

..utilizing the findings OF science. I.D. at best can only "philosophy", not 'science". Not unless God is natural and is dicovere dby natural means{which MAY be the case; and someday maybe that's happen and I.D. will be science; but the I.D./creationism masquerading as science today, the christians/revealed religionist tjeists bastardizing deistic arguments and in part masquerading their arguments as deism both mock deism and their own religion in the process}..

[Iconoclastithon]

...CONT;

...It's also amusing tos ee christians celebrate Antony Flew becoming a Deist. It's amusing and ironic to see them do that with any Atheist that becomes a Deist; yet when a christian/revealed religionist/ or theist becomes a Deist- the opposite of celebration happens. When an atheist becomes a deist they act as if that validates their absurd religion and them, but one of themselves becomes a deist- and that person is now seen as not much better than an atheist. LoL!

CONT...

[Iconoclastithon]

...CONT;

...Non-theism{including atheism, agnosticism, and deism, and anti-theism} or "rationalism/reason" and secularism, as well as scientific method FTW!{for the win}

: )

Revealed religion, faith, theism, supersition FTL{for the lose}.

[caveman0101]

God created the Universe right.

We are all eternal being.

Birth and re-birth repeats it self.

Unit we realize God.

[friedlish]

One problem lies within the term "supernatural". It implies that the laws of physics should be set aside for the sake of wishful thinking. Perhaps there is an underlying tendency towards intelligence in out universe, but since life and intelligence are not inherently supernatural things, why should they need a supernatural origin? The problem is that ID/Creationism is merely a quest to find ways of making humans as individuals important. Futile, as we're only important as a part of the universe.

[ElectraDescending]

When was the last time a murder charge was dropped because the evidence pointed toward an intelligent murderer?

[ForestChristian]

The crime scene investigator seeks to determine if design is present so they can make a case to the court. They ask questions like this: Is the murder weapon in a position where it could only have gotten by another person, or did the person commit suicide and it fall in that position by chance? Such is a search for design. It has nothing to do with the murderer's intelligence.

[ElectraDescending]

Crime scene investigators only collect evidence. This evidence is brought to the court to make a decision based on the evidence.

The evidence for design has not only been rejected by science, but also by the court system. The evidence for design does not even meet the Daubert Standar, the standards used by the courts to qualify evidence as scientific evidence. Therefore, In court, evidence for design is not scientific evidence.

[ForestChristian]

If you are going to make the argument that the court is the final arbiter of the case of intelligent design, please remember that the courts of America have also upheld slavery in the past. Courts can err.

Also, not all scientists have rejected design. Ben Stein's film "Expelled" makes this point.

[mkfoskey]

Also, the person described in the video, Anthony Flew, is a scientist. The evidence certainly has convinced him.

[StandForScience]

"Also, the person described in the video, Anthony Flew, is a scientist. "

"Oh look at me! I have a lab coat! So I have the absolute truth."

Science is all about the evidence; not about who presents them.

[ForestChristian]

Science is the interpretation of evidence, which goes through the filter of the human brain, which is often influenced by prejudice.

[StandForScience]

Also, science can err, that's the bases of it. But creationism hasn't produced any scientific evidence, thus it cannot be recognized as science.

And don't be fooled with "Expelled" propaganda. Read ExpelledExposed(dot)com and get your facts straight.

[mkfoskey]

The subject at hand is intelligent design, which is different than creationism. And the argument is that the order and function of the world, including the scientific laws that govern it, indicates purpose and design features that point to an intelligent source. All scientists have the same evidence. Interpretation of that evidence, however, differs greatly, and is always influenced by a person's worldview.

[ForestChristian]

You call "Expelled" propaganda, but again you speak from a certain perspective. Because it disagrees with you, it has to be propaganda. It could not be anything else, because it opposes your view. Just know this, there are propagandists on both sides. Some would argue that Al Gore is a propagandist with his film about climate change. But, be that as it may, it does not mean that all he said in his film was in error.

[StandForScience]

Have you read the information on the website I gave you? I say it's propaganda because it's full of intentinal LIES and nothing else.

At least Al Gore has some REAL data to back up his claims.

[ForestChristian]

I have read the info on the website, and I could argue that it includes propaganda as well. Most of the arguments made on the website regarding those people who were "expelled" come from the institutions that are in question. In the end, it becomes "he said/she said" argumentation. Certainly the institutions are going to try to cover themselves. Surely there would be motivation for them to do so.

[StandForScience]

"The subject at hand is intelligent design, which is different than creationism."

No, it's not. It's creationism in discuise; a blind man can see that.

"design features" and "compelxity" are really subjective matters, which cannot be measured or tested scientificly

And that talk about the worldview cleary indicates that you get your information from AIG... And it's total BS

[ForestChristian]

Everyone has presuppositions which stem from a worldview. You can call it what you want, but that is true. And they are a lens through which a person sees the world. If you examine the world through the lens of anti-supernaturalism, meaning that you refuse to accept that there is anything outside of what can be determined through the senses, then you will interpret the evidence accordingly.

This is basic stuff, not something I would have to regurgitate from AiG.

[StandForScience]

"lens of anti-supernaturalism"

That's the funniest thing I've heard for a while...

You do realise science is restricted to natural world, so it cannot say anything about supernatural causes. Thus, ID or creationism is not science. Period.

Creationism/ID is NOT intetpretation of evidence; it's denial of evidence.

[mkfoskey]

Yes, science is limited to the natural world. But there are questions that the natural world does not answer. So the observer makes certain deductions based upon what is seen in the natural world. These are deductions based upon evidence, not denials of evidence. ID is one theory of why the universe functions as a system, and is not utterly chaotic, as would seem to be the case if it were not for an intelligent, guiding force.

ID seeks to explain why we have cosmos rather than chaos.

[ForestChristian]

Creationism may stem from intelligent design, but they are different. They seek to answer two fundamentally different questions. ID seeks to answer the question of whether or not an intelligent, outside force or power was instrumental in the formation of our universe. Creationism seeks to answer "how" it happened.

[Iconoclastithon]

All legitimate scientists reject 'deign" as scientific, even if they see it as valid or lean towards it "philosophically". That's the point Stein and you and so many others seem to miss.

Take physicist Paul Davies{an Agnostic-PanDeist of sorts}, or Stephen Hawking{essentially the same as Davies}, they both like some others "think" PHILOSOPHICALLY that the evidence persuades them to lean in that sort of deistic direction. But they reject I.D./Creationism as the pseudo-science it is.