The Design Revolution by William Dembski

From your original post on this topic; I can tell you, holding the record number of suspensions on this forum, Atheists indeed CANNOT do anything they want to.

quote:

---

Archeologists are not seeking signs of intelligent design, but signs of being man-made or of human origin.

---

And they also forget that geolgists look for patterns when searching for fossils, but they aren't looking for something intelligently designed. Instead, they look for something that is evolving. When they find a fossil, they don't scream out "an intelligence must have made this!"Secondly, we also look for patterns when looking at something that is derived from organisms (be it a termite mound or a burrow) by asking the question "can this be caused by non-organismal mechanisms." When looking at arrowheads, they ask "could this be caused by non-organismal mechanisms." The answer to both is no. When looking at biological organisms, scientists ask "could this be caused by something in nature," and the answer is yes: evolution. IDists throw out the one question that archaeologists and geologists ask first, is there something in nature, other than the cause in question, that could have caused this. Instead, they claim it is impossible, and leave it there.

and too many of those irrelevant interjections may get you back to suspended again.

Has anyone here read the article by Elsberry and Shalit at:http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdfIt's a pretty technically solid refutation of Dembski's work, IMHO.I am a Catholic applied physicist. I centainly don't regard Dembski's work as signaling a major paradigm shift in science. More, it signals some subtle but critical mathematical errors on the part of Dembski, coupled with the same old creationist technique of starting with a conclusion and then seeking filtered "evidence".But it's more technically sophisicated than the standard YEC fare...just enough to seem plausible to the educated non-specialist who can't see the errors.

It gives the admins some kind sick of thrill to threaten me doesn't it? This wasn't an "irrelivant interjection"...it has all the relevance in the world, in fact, it's the only thing that matters relative to the subject.No, Atheists DON'T think they are above anybody else...in fact, they are beneath. Everybody else (statisticly) have religious laws and rules they rally around...Atheists are defenseless against the status quo. We actually end up having to default comply with what everybody else has adopted to suit themselves.I don't make a fuss about "In God we trust" being on money. Hell you gotta' put something on there or how else is everybody gonna' it's money?You know Ned, I tend to try and let things go...but a few lessons you could learn:1) It's chat forum, it will NOT be changing the world.
2) You are responding to people you don't personally know over cyberspace.
3)You take yourself FAR too seriously given the above criterion.
4)Attempts to control speech can't possibly be disguised as certain rules to follow as matters of civility...because...who's civility? Yours?...you just get to run slam fests all over me because you know you can and I'm helpless.so, in summation...Athiests don't get to do whatever they want.

Take it to suggestions would you? I'd be glad to take some input.

I already made my point.

Maybe not such a helpful comment.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-23-2004 06:57 PM

Why? I have nothing further to say on the subject.

No I meant mine - I edited it out.

Oh, my mistake. I get ya'.

From the Preface: While reading this I was unsympathetic in the extreme up until the last sentence. Dembski is describing the God I believe in. I'm comfortable with a God who stands outside the natural universe, but it doesn't seem fair that I require members of the evangelical community to do the same. They believe in a personal God who cares about every individual and who involves himself in their lives through the love of his only son Jesus Christ. In my world this love means nothing, and that doesn't seem fair.But I have a slightly different perspective on it. Though it isn't my personal belief, I am amenable to a God who works his will not by subversion of but through natural laws. How he does this is not for us to know, but because everything that happens obeys natural laws, God's presence is not detectable by violations of them.While approaches to faith somewhat along these lines leaves the evangelical free to approach the natural laws of our universe as inviolate while still believing in a loving and caring God, significant problems with a literally inerrant Bible remain, and I see no easy resolution. The Bible relates many violations of natural law, and if God has never subverted natural law then the Bible isn't literally inerrant.So the evangelical is correct that my view of faith and science leaves no room for his God. I guess I have no answer to this quandry.--Percy

That is somewhat of a twist on what Lewis actually says.In Lewis view Naturalism is the ultimate determination. It is not simply a world where we know and understand natural laws.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hmmm. But Dembski says, "According to Lewis, naturalism is a toxin that pervades the air we breathe and an infection that has worked its way into our bones." That's pretty negative, but your quotation from Lewis's Miracles doesn't come anywhere close to such a characterization. Is Dembski misrepresenting Lewis's views, or does Lewis come closer to such a characterization elsewhere in his book?--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-15-2006 01:45 PM

CS Lewis speaks of Naturalism in terms of developing TRUTH, determining how people believe, how thought works. It has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, Intelegent Design or science. He is talking about Moral Systems and reasoning.Unfortunately (or Fortunately) he was also prolific so smaller minds can always find something within the body of Lewis material to support their contention (sound like any other book?)A more reasonable view (sticking to Miracles which is what Dembski is mining) might be: This is the old seperation between religion and science, between why and how. CS Lewis had no problem with Evolution or Science. They work to determine the Hows of the world. Religion deals with Why, not the how.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion