Wednesday, October 21, 2009

“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

Antony Flew, Professor of Philosophy, former atheist,


Leo B. Vadalà said...

Another former ahteist, Francis Collins, the head of the Genome Project, said pretty much the same thing in THE LANGUAGE OF GOD.

Gorth Satana said...

I haven't seen one argument for design that couldn't be summed up as an argument from ignorance.

Leo B. Vadalà said...

"I haven't seen one argument for design that couldn't be summed up as an argument from ignorance."

and another Gorthian gem from a comment on a different post...

"Description not prescription"

Aphorisms and potshots are no substitute for rational debate.

Glen20 said...

Gort's answer:
"Description not prescription"

was a response to your:
"Morals are utterly meaningless in a God-less world. The only thing that is ultimately meaningful is survival of the fittest. Remember? That is how things evolved."

It's a perfect answer. "Survival of the fittest" IS a description not a moral prescription.

I've been watching from the sidelines, you've not contributed anything to "rational debate".

If you want debate, why not start it? I'll help you start: what evidence can you provide for creation (intelligent design)?

Leo B. Vadalà said...

I've seen the answer before and it is cute but utterly meaningless. Survival of the fittest is the DECRIPTION that you evolutionists give to how the species evolved, which is exactly my point. I am not suggesting it as a prescription, but if there is no God there is no rational reason why it should not be.

Hugo said...

I find it ironic that you mention Francis Collins and then reply to gorth saying " evolutionists..."

You aware of the fact that Collins himself is what you call an evolutionist?

He is completely against teaching intelligent design ideas in schools for example and supports modern science at 100%

You call people "evolutionists" as if it were a bad thing. Am I wrong? I am not sure what your exact position is...

i.e. are you like JD and Makarios who think that the Earth could be 6,000 years old?

It's another subject but one cannot accept the Theory of Evolution and the possibility of a young Earth at the same time of course...

JD Curtis said...

are you like JD and Makarios who think that the Earth could be 6,000 years old?

I stated I didnt know how old the Earth is. I suspect that you don't either.

Hugo, substantiate the claim that ID is not a valid scientific theory.

Hugo said...

Hugo, substantiate the claim that ID is not a valid scientific theory.

It depends on the definition of ID you are using...

If you think, for example, that an intelligent creator created the first Eukaryota and then let it evolve, well I would not argue so much because this does no undermine the Theory of Evolution, which is well established. The debate would be shifted on discussing Abiogenesis, which I am not as familiar with.

If on the other hand, you think that ID is not compatible with the current Theory of Evolution, then it would be you who need to present evidence for that...

What is wrong with the Theory of Evolution so that you think that ID is better at explaining the diversity of life?

It could be an interesting discussion, let me know where you stand (perhaps not here...)

Hugo said...

Oh and yes I do "know" the age of the Earth, because I know, for sure, that it's more than 4 billion years old, because we have rocks that are that old. Some were found in my province by people from my univerisyt! Hooray!

I don't "know" an exact number, but it's not usefull anyway to understand anything else...

Leo B. Vadalà said...

Hugo, I just noticed the additional comments. Yes, I am perfectly aware that Collins subscribes to the theory of evolution, albeit divinely set im motion. I found his book fascinating.

I am agnostic on the subject evolution, because as compelling as the theory is, there are still too many holes and unanswered questions. But no, I am not bound to a 6000 year old earth created in 6 literal days. There is nothing in the book of Genesis that would necessitate that, as many a Christian thinker and theologian has acknoweldged centuries before anyone ever heard of Darwin.

When I wrote about "you evolutionists", I was addressing a different person and a different subject/line of argument, namely the silly "description not prescription" aphorism.

Hugo said...


That was an intelligent response Leo. I see that you are not rejecting science after all. That is an important trait in a person's understanding of the universe I think.

In other words, I find it much more interesting to converse with people who you don't have to explain scientific facts every time you approach such subjects.

So, you seem to be open minded on the subject of evolution. Because you said you were an agnostic.

i.e. you don't have enough information to belief in evolution. Therefore you do not believe in evolution.

I don't know exactly what part you do not believe. But there are some parts you don't believe in the modern Theory of Evolution.

You said "there are still too many holes and unanswered questions".

My answer would be simply... like what?

There are no holes that I am aware of... alsmot no unanswered questions because the Therory of Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth, not its origin.

So yes, Darwin's ideas were right, and we have refined them and perfected them along the years, but he was right.

So what part do you think are "holes and unanswered questions"?

If you say you have not enough knowledge to answer these questions, perhaps I can inform you...

Which part don't you understand?