Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2009 October
2009 September
2009 April
2009 March
2008 November
2008 October
2008 September
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Intelligent Design and its, err, Challenged Proponents |
| 03.29.05 (9:39 am) [edit] |
|
I love this quote and only wish I came accross this first. A Pennsylvania pastor said this about those who attack the teaching of Intelligent Design. "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture" From http://www.pogge.ca/cgi-bin/mt/foolthem.cgi/754" title="http://www.pogge.ca/cgi-bin/mt/foolthem.cgi/754" target="_blank"http://www.pogge.ca/cgi-bin/m... Pogge says it all. "Um, pastor? Think about that." Let me make something clear. The problem with ID is not some of the negative arguments made by its proponents. For example, some of the examples Behe gives about certain biological structures being irreducibly complex are interesting. No, the problem is their positive argument, often not even stated, sucks. Just how does a non-spatially extended God interact with the world to create these structures? What the ID people want is to have an unworkable and outdated Cartesian substance dualism declared a scientific. It is not. The quote came from here. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...;cid=1548&ncid=1548&a mp;e=1&u=/afp/2005032 7/lf_afp/uspoliticsreligi on Pogge blog's is well worth looking at by the way. One of the better Canadian blogs out there. |
posted by: Gordon Stephens (reply)
post date: 03.31.05 (12:39 am)
I don't even give them irreducible complexity. It ignores the fecundity of intermediate forms.
An example is the eye, which Behe claims is irreducibly complex, and yet molecular sequencing suggests the eye has probably evolved at least 7 different times... That in itself isn't an argument, but an invitation to explore the area further. Talkorigins.org is, as always, a great resource.
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 03.31.05 (7:53 am)
I am not prepared to give them anything. Behe and company are seeking to prove a negative whenever they lable something as a "complex structure". That said, their focusing in on difficult cases and knocking down weak adaptive explanations helps clear the way for stronger ones. What bugs me is they have offer no intellible mechanism for how a god is involved.
posted by: Wanda (reply)
post date: 03.26.06 (10:00 am)
Gotcha great blog going on here.