Article <su3j4j1ko90gh83joeq89n6525mpb25lce@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<su3j4j1ko90gh83joeq89n6525mpb25lce@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
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: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia Governor signed the vague creationist education bill
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 01:45:14 -0400
Organization: What are you looking for?
Lines: 124
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <su3j4j1ko90gh83joeq89n6525mpb25lce@4ax.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="21677"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:h3MExbuNAs6gMfZkP/KO6tGO7uo=
Bytes: 7340

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:
>>=20
>>> 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-intellig=
ent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.h=
tml
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.=C2=A0 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.
>>>>>  =C2=A0>
>>>>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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=20
>think Dr. Francis Collins, who was manager of the human genome project=20
>is the most famous of these scientist. As a result of his research of=20
>the DNA changed him from an atheist to a Christian, according to his=20
>YouTube video. But he did not give up evolution, which I think is  a bit=
=20
>curious. I think evolution should never be beyond questioning. They=20
>remained evolutionist, I would like to know if they questioned the=20
>theory  of evolution. . I could understand how you, as well as these=20
>scientist, could conclude that a designer created evolution to achieve=20
>its objectives. I could accept this, if I found a large pool of=20
>empirical evidence supporting evolutionary change. But my problem is=20
>that the evidence which supports the theory of evolution can also be=20
>observed as supportive evidence of the ID paradigm. Another problem, no=20
>one ever points to the holes, the shortcomings and the weaknesses of=20
>evolution.
>
> >
>Of course there are a few hundreds of "intellectuals" who question=20
>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=20
>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. =20


>>> 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.
> >
>>>>
>>=20

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge