Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)
- Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
or sign in to load a different list.
Loading...Saving...
Loading...Saving...
"In fact, Darwin himself was motivated by this kind of consideration. But then in light of the evidence in terms of the things he saw in nature he came to believe that in fact Intelligent Design was false."
Yes indeed, Darwin was willing to alter his preconceptions to accomodate reality. This is what science requires. Sadly, it is not something Fuller seems intellectually equipped to do. His Jesuit indoctrination is smeared over everything he sees. ID is possible. Give evidence, and we'll talk.
Epistemofo 1 year ago
He nailed it.
ceparuak 1 year ago
Whats that book you mention? Do you know where I can get hold of one?
HFamilyKid 1 year ago
Steve Fuller show the kind of understanding one would expect from soemone who specialized in "sociology" ... one of the lesser sciences. It's the field one goes into when they fail "real" science classes. ID is not science. Astrology is not science. Demonology is not science.
SailingMonsoon 1 year ago 5
Science is about the revelation of the truth. We don't invent it. We only discover what is already there. We test it etc... True science will only reveal Gods existence in the end. The things we know today would have blown the minds of the rationalist of the 1700s. Yet they existed then. They just did not know it. There is still plenty for us to discover. We don't know everything. The Bible never taught that we do. In fact, it clearly teaches the opposite. Our Lack of understanding.
DonswatchingtheTube 2 years ago
"We should regard biology as DIVINE TECHNOLOGY"...so said this gentleman in the first few seconds. So, ID is RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE, as we all know. What can be added to our knowledge (as Darwin put it) by ascribing any property to a god? SCIENCE relies on naturalistic explanation. There MAY be a god, and it MAY have DESIGNED everything (cancer, parasites etc) EXACTLY as we see it now. So, no need for any more research....WE ALREADY HAVE THE ANSWER!
derek24hudson 2 years ago 3
Hey derek24hudson...
I would like to invite you into two separate discussions: 1) Your claim that ID is religion (I, in turn will claim that your assertion that science relies on naturalistic explanations makes a much more definitive religious claim than ID does), and 2) I'd love to discuss the science with you.
BTW, for the record, you did misquote professor Fuller and did you know that he is an agnostic?
I look forward to a fruitful exchange
RandomChance7 2 years ago