Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia Governor signed the vague creationist education
 bill
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 12:35:00 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 112
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <UYK2O.20584$pDq2.13534@fx15.iad>
References: <uu6kom$ajd9$1@dont-email.me> <AdXNN.93920$LONb.3185@fx08.iad>
 <uuc57a$1t98a$2@dont-email.me> <iUeVN.1525$zOef.453@fx35.iad>
 <g09k2jdk21qnn9vdhonpi8f9e5uj1i4s2a@4ax.com> <Aqd2O.3241$snH4.198@fx47.iad>
 <su3j4j1ko90gh83joeq89n6525mpb25lce@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="74645"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 13.4; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
In-Reply-To: <su3j4j1ko90gh83joeq89n6525mpb25lce@4ax.com>
Bytes: 7797

jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2024 22:25:35 -0400, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:43:57 -0400, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 3/30/24 9:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
>>>>>>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
>>>>>>> recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
>>>>>>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
>>>>>>> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
>>>>>>> any discussion on the topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise
>>>>>>> they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have
>>>>>>> been more honest as to what they were doing.
>>>>>>    >
>>>>>> Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
>>>>>> designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
>>>>>> know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
>>>>>
>>>>> The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not necessarily wrong. What
>>>>> students need to know about it is, first, that it violates Occam's Razor
>>>>> in that it posits superfluous and unnecessary entities;
>>>>>
>>>> What entities does ID posit?
>>>>
>>>> second, that it requires multiple designers, some of which work at
>>>> cross-purposes and
>>>>> some of which are inimical to humans;
>>>>>
>>>> Where did you multiple designer? You provided no examples regarding
>>>> cross-postoing and inimical to humans.
>>>>
>>>>    and third, that past explanations
>>>>> of natural phenomena in terms of the supernatural have a perfect record
>>>>> of failure.
>>>>>
>>>> Really the origin of life, itself could very well be the work of God.
>>>> The appearance of the complex unicellular animals of the Cambrian
>>>> explosion. And the abrupt appearance and of most species in the strata
>>>> could be explained as a act of God. And the origin of the universe
>>>> called the Big Bang everything from nothing. Only God could create
>>>> everything out or nothing. Of course, it comes down to anyone who denies
>>>> the existence of God, has no alternative, but to try finding natural
>>>> explanations for what is observed and known.
>>>
>>> It has been pointed out to you many times that accepting natural
>>> causes is not incompatible with religious belief. I am a religious
>>> believer and have no difficulty in accepting them. I have given you
>>> numerous examples of scientists who are religious believers and not
>>> alone have no problem accepting natural causes, they actually promote
>>> them as explanations for how life including humans have evolved. It
>>> seems from your lack of response that this is yet an area that you
>>> prefer to ignore rather than disturb your comfort zone.
>>>
>> I've been aware of these scientist. And I know about some of them: I
>> think Dr. Francis Collins, who was manager of the human genome project
>> is the most famous of these scientist. As a result of his research of
>> the DNA changed him from an atheist to a Christian, according to his
>> YouTube video. But he did not give up evolution, which I think is  a bit
>> curious. I think evolution should never be beyond questioning. They
>> remained evolutionist, I would like to know if they questioned the
>> theory  of evolution. . I could understand how you, as well as these
>> scientist, could conclude that a designer created evolution to achieve
>> its objectives. I could accept this, if I found a large pool of
>> empirical evidence supporting evolutionary change. But my problem is
>> that the evidence which supports the theory of evolution can also be
>> observed as supportive evidence of the ID paradigm. Another problem, no
>> one ever points to the holes, the shortcomings and the weaknesses of
>> evolution.
>>
>>>
>> Of course there are a few hundreds of "intellectuals" who question
>> Darwinism.
>> http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207
>>>
>> I'm sure you are aware that. there are scientist who think we need an
>> new revision to the theory of evolution.
>> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution
> 
> 
> There you go again, citing the same old PRATTs.  The new theory of
> evolution about which these scientists speak have nothing to do with
> ID, and your cited article doesn't even mention ID.
>
Did I claim that it did? But it indicated there's a problem with Neo 
Darwinism.
> 
>>>> But where did these natural
>>>> laws, mathematics, and natural processes come from - IOW what is the
>>>> origin of nature? For decades, I thought that agnosticism was the most
>>>> rational point of view to have, but I recently come much closer to think
>>>> there is evidence pointing to a strong possibility that there must be
>>>> some thing out there beyond our universe called God calling the shots.
>>>> But I don't pretend to know! But I think the evidence poijnting to God
>>>> is there, and no contrary evidence.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> 
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>