Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Wed Aug 03 2005 - 18:33:47 EDT

Cornelius Hunter <> wrote:
CH wrote:Let's see, I explain that I do not have a theological problem with evolution and my concern is over the science, you then grill me about God, and you say *I'm* the one with the theological ax to grind. I provide several evidences against evolution, with citations, yet "we know from the evidence that evolution has taken place," after all the counter evidence is "mostly in my imagination." I explain that ID is about the problem of detecting design (as opposed to purely naturalistic explanations), but you insist it must explain mechanism, erroneously citing a paragraph where J. Wells talks about embryology.
GRM: The claim that people have no theological difficulties with evolution frankly never sound very convincing to me. If there were all this problem with evolution at least one or two atheist scientists would come out against evolution. They don't. So, the correlatability of theistic beleifs with a belief that evolution has 'scientific' problems doesn't wash with me. Can you explain why there isn't a 30-40% minority of atheist scientists against evolution if there is all this evidence against it? Are these sceintists sworn to secrecy?
CH wrote::You ask: "You have said that ID says nothing about speciation. What then DOES it tell us?" I'll explain one last time. Naturalism, with its evolutionary theories, restricts the historical sciences to law-like, naturalistic, processes (for theological reasons).
You complain about having scientific problems then you insist upon bringing theology into it.
CH wrote: ID makes no such assumption. Instead, it tries to determine methods and criteria that can be used to objectively discern design.
GRM: Ok, work an example for me. Show me why the mole's nose is designed. Show the work. What parameters do you use. This is a serious question. I have yet to see someone actually discuss and illustrate why design MUST be there inbiological systems via a worked example of this new science of design.
CH:There is a need for this since naturalism simply presupposes law-like processes must always work, without checking to see if that makes sense. No matter how difficult the problem, and how badly law-like processes explain the data, naturalism can never give up its quest for, as Pim has reminded us so many times, that would be an argument from ignorance.
GRM: Are you aware that we use laws because they work? THe laws of physics work.
CH wrote: ID tries to address this difficult question without simply making an argument from ignorance. Note that ID leaves unanswered a whole raft of why / how questions that you are asking. These are philosophical / theological questions that are outside the scope of ID.
I wrote: "The fact is, that in general it is not honest to merely knock the other guy's explanation without really offering one of their own. I find it cowardly. If all you have to do is sit in the bleachers and throw rocks and criticisms and the guys on the football field actually doing the work, you are rather a useless individual." Ah yes, I knew I would get treated well here.
GRM: It isn't bad treatment to note that you offer no explanation. It is fact. Years ago, when I was a YEC and I was complaining to my wife about Henry Morris' abysmal knowledge of geology, my wife said to me, "Is all you can do throw rocks? If you can't offer anything better, quit complaining." That pretty much shut me up. At that particular point in my life I too was a bit cowardly about trying to offer solutions. I didn't have any. I was doing what you are now doing. But I didn't take it as being badly treated, cause I am not a very sensitive and tendor soul. I got to work trying to offer something better. All I can see is a tender and sensitive soul who doesn't want to do the hard work required to actually offer explanations. Are you willing or unwilling to do the hard work to actually offer a cogent and non-contradictory ID explanation for the biological systems of the world?
I must fly to the US to attend the ASA so it will be a few days before I respond again.

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Received on Wed Aug 3 18:35:15 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 03 2005 - 18:35:15 EDT