• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Would any creationist at this forum like to critique, and refute this article?

Super Universe

Defender of God
So Michael Behe's idea about how Intelligent Design works needs some tweeking, so what?

Are you under the impression that scientists get it right the first time?
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Man of Faith said:

No, I meant that I want a creationist to refute the article from his own personal knowledge and expertise, not merely copy something that he does not understand himself. I know that I do not understand the article very well. Do you know that you do not understand the article very well? I am not an expert on evolution, so I believe that it is reasonable for me, and all other people who are not experts, to accept the opinions of, as one study said, 99.86% of experts who accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. A large body of scientific literature refutes anything of importance that you could post.

My intention in this thread is to show that the vast majority of creationists who debate evolution at the Internet are arguing about things that they do not understand themselves. What is the purpose of that? I do not think that support from less than 1% of experts helps anyone debate anything, especially when they do not understand what it is that they are objecting to. Even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, you would still only be part of a relative handful of experts who have been rejected by the vast majority of experts.

Lots of lawsuits have had rulings that oppose the teaching of creationism in public schools. The Dover trial is a good, and famous example. The judge ruled against the creationists, and no one could blame him since he is a Christian, and he was appointed by a Republican president. If you wish, you can read about the Dover trial in detail in a Wikipedia article.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Man of Faith said:

Consider the following excerpts from the article:

"Dembski's critique is apt because it recognizes that Miller wrongly characterizes irreducible complexity as focusing on the non-functionality of sub-parts. In contrast, Behe properly tests irreducible complexity by assessing the plausibility of the entire functional system to assemble in a step-wise fashion, even if sub-parts can have functions outside of the final system."

Are you aware that MIchael Behe believes that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? Do you disagree with Behe? If so, why?
 

My belief is god is alive body and we make up apart of that live body, so I'm very close to creation belief. But I do not think it a supernatural thing, but a physical thing, where our creator is everything that consists of our universe, and we apart of that creation. Evolution is a process of the spirit or force that drives intelligence in all things and that force is ever changing, and older than our creator.


:facepalm: So my belief is neither based on evolution or creatorism as it stands today.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
super universe said:
So Michael Behe's idea about how Intelligent Design works needs some tweeking, so what?

Are you under the impression that scientists get it right the first time?
If Behe was truly a "scientist", then he should know that a scientist should drop or discard his own hypothesis or proposition should it be deem to be "unscientific" or that evidences have refuted his hypothesis.

But no, he tried to get his pseudoscience hypothesis taught through underhanded means -
  • pretend that ID isn't creationism so that it could be taught in science classrooms of public schools;
  • use PR and misinformation about evolution (hence propaganda);
  • use lawyers and the courtroom instead of submitting his hypothesis for reviews by his peers.
...all of which, is very unprofessional, and very unscientific approach to his profession as a scientist.
 

RitalinO.D.

Well-Known Member
So Michael Behe's idea about how Intelligent Design works needs some tweeking, so what?

Are you under the impression that scientists get it right the first time?

The thing is, Evolution is based on observable evidence, and tons of it. ID is a pipe dream invented to try and finagle creationism into science class. Tweak it all you like, you will get the same nonsense.
 

otokage007

Well-Known Member
You guys will get the same degree of success refuting evolution as u will get refuting gravity. So good luck!
 

Pozessed

Todd
I believe in a creator and evolution, so that article has nothing to do with me.

If it explained how consciousness isn't a form of energy, it would be something to do with me.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
If Behe was truly a "scientist", then he should know that a scientist should drop or discard his own hypothesis or proposition should it be deem to be "unscientific" or that evidences have refuted his hypothesis.


But no, he tried to get his pseudoscience hypothesis taught through underhanded means -
  • pretend that ID isn't creationism so that it could be taught in science classrooms of public schools;
  • use PR and misinformation about evolution (hence propaganda);
  • use lawyers and the courtroom instead of submitting his hypothesis for reviews by his peers.
...all of which, is very unprofessional, and very unscientific approach to his profession as a scientist.

Whoever Behe is he is not the spokesperson for Intelligent Design.

Whether "God did it" or not, no one on the earth has all of the answers, not Behe, not Darwin, not even Hawking.
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
Can you provide proof of this assertion?

Its been done a bimmion times just open any of the threads on the topic. Or just googke evidence of evolution. Hell the fossile record for human evolution alone is stagering especialy with an understanding of the genetic and morphological evidence.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
Its been done a bimmion times just open any of the threads on the topic. Or just googke evidence of evolution. Hell the fossile record for human evolution alone is stagering especialy with an understanding of the genetic and morphological evidence.

What about this part below?

ID is a pipe dream invented to try and finagle creationism into science class. Tweak it all you like, you will get the same nonsense.

Where is the proof?
 
Top