4.1.1
kairosfocus
September 13, 2011 at 3:11 am
Sorry: Creationists USED already existing design arguments — starting with “that Bible-thumping fundy” — NOT — Plato in The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC, they did not own or patent them.
The core of Creationism in the relevant sense is that it holds that we have an accurate revelatory report on the actual course of origins, which we are to accept and use to control scientific interpretations and explanations of evidence. Design thought works in precisely the opposite direction, from evidence in the present and validated dynamics, on the uniformity principle, to a provisional abductive explanation of the past.
If you insist on further talking points in denial of this patent fact, then that tells me a lot about you and none of it good, I am afraid. Insistence on slander in the teeth of cogent and accessible correction is not exactly a good sign of doing due diligence.
Finally, I find something that totally discredits your effort above, when you list among your implied list of dismissible “Creationist” works:
63. Thaxton CB, Bradley WL, Olsen RL (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, New York).
Sorry, TMLO is exactly the opposite of a creationist work, it is the first technical modern design theory work, and examines the evidence and arguments in exactly the way I described. If you want to say that because TBO were theists you can label their case as “Creationist,” then I have far more warrant to dismiss almost the whole modern evolutionary edifice as thinly disguised materialistic subversion of science; starting with DARWIN.
Do you really want to go here, to the infamous Oct 13, 1880 letter to Karl Marx’s son in law?
. . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [NB: free-thought is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought [= in effect, in context, skepticism and atheism] is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. [of course, as redefined in materialistic terms, begging he worldview issues] It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.
I suggest that if you want to play at motive games and attack the man tactics, we have much bigger matches to light than you do.
Instead, I would suggest you focus on the actual merits.
As to your attempted derision of issues tied to thermodynamics by a fallacious appeal to collective authority, I suggest you work through the step by step argument here, starting from Clausius on the definition of and warrant for the 2nd law.
This is a matter to be settled on empirical and analytical merits, not the ruling of some magisterium dressed in the holy lab coat.
And, I find — on my own analysis as presented — that in fact the pivotal issue (as Thaxton et al stated) that emerges from such an analysis is the origin of energy conversion devices that exhibit functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information. The only empirically well warranted explanation of such is design.
As in, we are right back to the issue of CSI.
So, FSCO/I is an empirically well supported and reliable sign of design, even when it is inconvenient for a priori Lewontinian Materialists dressed in the Holy Lab Coats and duly shaking them at us.
Get over it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, gordo, now that you've projectile excreted your usual ton of irrelevant, accusatory shit, how about answering these questions:
Do you believe that the christian god designed and created the universe and all living things within it?
Do you believe that the christian god is supernatural, or natural?
Do you believe that Venter created a living thing?
Come on gordo, stand up for what you believe and answer the questions.
By the way, is "Get over it." a phrase that is approved by jesus and god?
kairosfocus
September 13, 2011 at 3:11 am
Sorry: Creationists USED already existing design arguments — starting with “that Bible-thumping fundy” — NOT — Plato in The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC, they did not own or patent them.
The core of Creationism in the relevant sense is that it holds that we have an accurate revelatory report on the actual course of origins, which we are to accept and use to control scientific interpretations and explanations of evidence. Design thought works in precisely the opposite direction, from evidence in the present and validated dynamics, on the uniformity principle, to a provisional abductive explanation of the past.
If you insist on further talking points in denial of this patent fact, then that tells me a lot about you and none of it good, I am afraid. Insistence on slander in the teeth of cogent and accessible correction is not exactly a good sign of doing due diligence.
Finally, I find something that totally discredits your effort above, when you list among your implied list of dismissible “Creationist” works:
63. Thaxton CB, Bradley WL, Olsen RL (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, New York).
Sorry, TMLO is exactly the opposite of a creationist work, it is the first technical modern design theory work, and examines the evidence and arguments in exactly the way I described. If you want to say that because TBO were theists you can label their case as “Creationist,” then I have far more warrant to dismiss almost the whole modern evolutionary edifice as thinly disguised materialistic subversion of science; starting with DARWIN.
Do you really want to go here, to the infamous Oct 13, 1880 letter to Karl Marx’s son in law?
. . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [NB: free-thought is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought [= in effect, in context, skepticism and atheism] is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. [of course, as redefined in materialistic terms, begging he worldview issues] It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.
I suggest that if you want to play at motive games and attack the man tactics, we have much bigger matches to light than you do.
Instead, I would suggest you focus on the actual merits.
As to your attempted derision of issues tied to thermodynamics by a fallacious appeal to collective authority, I suggest you work through the step by step argument here, starting from Clausius on the definition of and warrant for the 2nd law.
This is a matter to be settled on empirical and analytical merits, not the ruling of some magisterium dressed in the holy lab coat.
And, I find — on my own analysis as presented — that in fact the pivotal issue (as Thaxton et al stated) that emerges from such an analysis is the origin of energy conversion devices that exhibit functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information. The only empirically well warranted explanation of such is design.
As in, we are right back to the issue of CSI.
So, FSCO/I is an empirically well supported and reliable sign of design, even when it is inconvenient for a priori Lewontinian Materialists dressed in the Holy Lab Coats and duly shaking them at us.
Get over it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, gordo, now that you've projectile excreted your usual ton of irrelevant, accusatory shit, how about answering these questions:
Do you believe that the christian god designed and created the universe and all living things within it?
Do you believe that the christian god is supernatural, or natural?
Do you believe that Venter created a living thing?
Come on gordo, stand up for what you believe and answer the questions.
By the way, is "Get over it." a phrase that is approved by jesus and god?
