William Dembski Refutes the Ogre and other EvoTards
-
The Ogre and other evotards say that Dembski provs ID is a religious venue- driven by religion. However in "The Design Revolution", page 25, Dembski writes:
He goes on to say:
But I am sure that will be ignored also...
The Ogre and other evotards say that Dembski provs ID is a religious venue- driven by religion. However in "The Design Revolution", page 25, Dembski writes:
Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.
He goes on to say:
Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn't even require there be a God.
But I am sure that will be ignored also...
posted by Joe G @ 9:14 AM
42 Comments:
At 10:42 AM,
Ghostrider said…
LOL! So ID is not about the Christian GAWD because Dembski denies it. That's pretty funny JoeTard. Fact is that lie was put to rest at Kitzmiller v. Dover. You IDiots had you chance but lost big time, remember?
Did you know that virtually every incarcerated felon in prison is innocent? Just ask 'em, they'll tell you.
At 10:55 AM,
Joe G said…
As if your ThorTardGasm means something.
Strange how the ONLY people who say that ID is about the christian God are moronic evotards with an atheistic agenda.
Other people have also weighed in on this- including John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:
"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."
And BTW moron, science isn't decided in a courtroom and the fact remains you still cannot produce positive evidence for your position.
At 10:57 AM,
Joe G said…
Also ID is not about any God because ID is not about the designer.
At 11:16 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Signs of Intelligence A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design. William A. Dembski. Touchstone Journal, Volume 12, Issue 4, July/August 1999.
At 11:28 AM,
Joe G said…
And another RichTardGasm-
7] Because William Dembski once commented that the design patterns in nature are consistent with the “logos theology” of the Bible, he unwittingly exposed his intentions to do religion in the name of science:
In general, personal beliefs and personal views about the general nature of reality (be they religious, atheistic, or of any kind) should not be considered directly relevant to what scientists say and do in their specific scientific work: that’s a very simple rule of intellectual respect and democracy, and it simply means that nobody can impose a specific model of reality on others, and on science itself.
Moreover, Dembski is qualified as a theologian and a philospher-scientist-mathematician (one of a long and distinguished tradition), so he has a perfect right to comment seriously on intelligent design from both perspectives.
Further to this, the quote in question comes from a theologically oriented book in which Dembski explores the “theological implications” of the science of intelligent design. Such theological reframing of a scientific theory and/or its implications is not the same thing as the theory itself, even though each may be logically consistent with the other. Dembski’s point, of course, was that truth is unified, so we shouldn’t be surprised that theological truths confirm scientific truths and vice versa.
Also, Dembski’s reference to John 1:1 ff. underscores how a worldview level or theological claim may have empirical implications, and is thus subject to empirical test.
For, in that text, the aged Apostle John put into the heart of foundational era Christian thought, the idea that Creation is premised on Rational Mind and Intelligent Communication/Information. Now, after nineteen centuries, we see that — per empirical observation — we evidently do live in a cosmos that exhibits fine-tumed, function-specifying complex information as a premise of facilitating life, and cell-based life is also based on such functional, complex, and specific information, e.g in DNA.
Thus, theological truth claims here line up with subsequent empirical investigation:a risky empirical prediction has been confirmed by the evidence. (Of course, had it been otherwise – and per track record — many of the same critics would have pounced on the “scientific facts” as a disconfirmation. So, why then is it suddently illegitimate for Christians to point out from scientific evidence, that on this point their faith has passed a significant empirical test?)
RichTard refuted again- go figure...
At 12:03 PM,
Ghostrider said…
JoeTard said
Also ID is not about any God because ID is not about the designer.
Archaeologists don't care about who made the artifacts they find, because it's about the artifact not the artifact creator.
Police detectives don't care about identifying the murderer because police work is all about the crime not the criminal.
Is that your understanding JoeTard?
At 12:42 PM,
Joe G said…
ThorTardGasm:
Archaeologists don't care about who made the artifacts they find, because it's about the artifact not the artifact creator.
They still don't know who designed and built Stonehenge. But that is besides the point- they don't have to know who before they can determine an artifact from a rock.
ThorTardGasm:
Police detectives...
They aren't scientists, are they?
First science determines a crime has been committed- the science doesn't have to know who before determining a crime has been committed.
Once again ThorTard exposes its diminished mental capacity.
At 6:59 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Nice try. He *explicitly* says:
"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory"
ID = religious. Not 'like', 'is'.
And no amount of wriggling changes that. Praise the designer.
At 7:08 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
" The Ogre is censoring my comments- deleting most that expose his bullshit lies" - like you did to BLipey? ;-)
He's at least posting some of them at AtBC.
Are you still pretendimng you're not 'Jim'?
At 7:24 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard proves his ignorance once again by totally ignoring what is posted on Uncommon Descent- Dembski's blog.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
At 7:28 PM,
Joe G said…
As for blipey all he did here was spew his ignorance. There is only so much of that any person can take.
And all ogre does is post bald assertions and lies and when I call him on it he deletes them.
Now the moron sez that evolution is the process of evolution.
RichTardGasm:
Are you still pretendimng you're not 'Jim'?
I never pretended that I am not Jim.
Are you still pretending to be human?
At 7:31 PM,
Joe G said…
And RichTard redefines religion- from one of teh assholes who sez ID redefines words this asshole redefines religion.
But RichTard also sez ID is anti-evolution which means he redefined evolution.
RichTard Hughes is a fucked-up liar. Not 'like', 'is'.
At 8:55 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
1. Dembski clearly states that ID is simply theology restated
2. UD is no longer Demsbki's blog. (check the header, and compare it to this one:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050418014256/http://www.uncommondescent.com/
)
3. The 'reply' doesn't appear to be written by Dembski (primary source), but mine was.
Now I've bitchslapped you with the facts again, have a good cry.
G'night.
At 9:31 PM,
Joe G said…
I provided a quote by Dembski which refutes your claims.
Why do you ignore what I posted?
UD is still his. It doesn't matter that he has opened it up a bit.
You wouldn't know a fact if it was right in front of you.
So once again RichTard fails to support anything he sez and is forced to act like a child "is not"- style arguments- to try to make his case.
At 9:40 PM,
Joe G said…
William Dembski said:
Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.
Design Revolution 2004 RichTard's quote-mine 1999. Dembski's 2004 work supersedes anything from 1999.
Supersedes is another word RichTard has trouble with...
At 9:43 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard wants us to believe that information theory is religion?
At 9:49 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You still don't understand what 'quotemine' means. mine was whole cloth, in the spirit it was intended.
Demski's got a habit of writing what he means, getting in trouble, and then retracting it:
http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=9654
PS:
In December 2007, Dembski told Focus on the Family that "The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Is 2007 after 2004?
*BITCHSLAP*
Let me know when you've had enough.
*BITCHSLAP*
At 9:58 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe: "UD is still his. It doesn't matter that he has opened it up a bit."
Reality:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/adminstrative/change-at-ud/
"13 November 2008
Change at UD
William Dembski
As of tomorrow (Friday, November 14th), Barry Arrington assumes the leadership of UD. After more than three years at the helm, I’m finally stepping down...."
*BITCHSLAP*
Let me know when you've had enough
*BITCHSLAP*
At 6:54 AM,
Joe G said…
No, RichTard, it is YOU who is too stupid to understand what a quote-mine is.
RichTard:
In December 2007, Dembski told Focus on the Family that "The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
He thinks it is. hat is his PERSONAL belief you fucking moron.
At 6:56 AM,
Joe G said…
And as I said Dembski has opened up UD a bit.
At 6:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Until Dembski states he has nothing to do with UD whatever is there will be there under his approval.
At 7:00 AM,
Joe G said…
So RichTard conflates Dembski's PERSONAL beliefs with ID. And then he thinks his ignorance is meaningful discourse.
Geez RichTard can you be any more of a fuckhead?
At 7:40 AM,
Joe G said…
I have a 2011 email from him stating ID is not theology and that it is his personal belief that the designer is God.
He makes it clear his personal belief has nothing to do with the science of Intelligent Design.
The same goes for Behe, Meyer and Wells.
At 9:32 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Quotemine's are repurposed, non contiguous and contextualized. I didn't do that.
*BITCHSLAP*
ID is his personal belief, Joe.
*BITCHSLAP*
let me know when you've had enough.
At 9:39 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard,
Don't bother- if you can't support your claims and can only attack then fuck-off
Also a quote-mine is looking for quotes that allegedly show something the author didn't intend.
Out-of-context quotes are something different.
At 9:49 AM,
Joe G said…
Yeah ID is Dembski's personal belief just like the theory of evolution is Dawkins' personal belief and just like all science is a personal belief.
And yes I have had enough of your ignorance and lies.
At 9:50 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe: "Also a quote-mine is looking for quotes that allegedly show something the author didn't intend.
Out-of-context quotes are something different.
"
Reality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]"
*BITCHSLAP*
Let me know when you've had enough
*BITCHSLAP*
At 9:53 AM,
Joe G said…
Wikipedia is not an accepted authority on anything you moron.
You might as well reference yourself.
At 9:57 AM,
Joe G said…
OK I call your wikipedia article-
quote mining:
Quote mining is the practice of using the words of partisans against them to undermine support for the viewpoint held by the partisans. Quote mining does not refer simply to taking a quote out of context, as there is already a well-understood phrase for that. Rather, the charge of "quote mining" reflects an objection to quoting someone for criticizing his own belief system, on the theory that if he still believes in the system then it is somehow unfair to quote his criticism of it.
Then I raise you with an article from talk origins on quote mining
At 9:57 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Wikipedia is not an accepted authority on anything you moron.
"
So you never use it as a reference, then?
*BITCHSLAP*
Let me know when you've had enough
*BITCHSLAP*
At 9:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes I use wikipedia as a reference for those who worship it- morons like you, for example.
That is the way it goes- I use the references that the morons I respond to know and respect.
Not that I expect your little brain to understand any of that.
At 10:01 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
How do we know what is and isn't an accepted authority, Joe?
At 10:11 AM,
Joe G said…
Well for one when university professors' say that their students can't use wikipedia as a source because it isn't accepted as any authority on anything, that would be a clue.
And when a source allows anyone to post their shit it pretty much goes without saying that it isn't an accepted authority.
At 10:25 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Well for one when university professors' say that their students can't use wikipedia as a source because it isn't accepted as any authority on anything, that would be a clue."
citation please.
At 12:42 PM,
Joe G said…
For one, moron, you could just search and find it for yourself you lazy and dishonest prick.
And for another- wikipedia:
Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.
Now go back to eating your shit sandwhich.
At 1:32 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"For one, moron, you could just search and find it for yourself you lazy and dishonest prick."
No - it's incumbent on those making the claims to support them. You dishonest prick. Do you still 'feel like a hero'?
At 3:24 PM,
Joe G said…
Don't cry RichTard- you are a dishonest and lazy prick: Not 'like', 'are':
university professors ban wikipedia
And no, I didn't even feel like a hero when I saved those people- anyone would risk their life to save the lives of total strangers, right?
Loser- how did that shit sandwhich taste? Like shit?
At 3:26 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTardGasm:
No - it's incumbent on those making the claims to support them.
Except for evolutionists of course. They never support any of their claims.
At 11:50 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
'ban' <> "isn't accepted as any authority on anything"
*BITCHSLAP*
Let me know when you've had enough
*BITCHSLAP*
At 11:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Why are you slapping yourself? You do deserve it but announcing it on my blog is sort of tarded.
Wikipedia openly admits that it isn't a credible source. That means it isn't an authority.
And do you know why it is BANNED? Because it isn't an accepted authority on anything. Duh.
OK go back to slapping yourself. Oh and bang your had against the wall until you knock yourself out- what's that, you do that too?
That would explain the way you are. Thanks.
At 12:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Oops almost forgot- no, I haven't had enough of your RichTardGasms nor have I had enough of you slapping yourself (or your bitch, blipey).
So please carry on.
At 12:08 PM,
Joe G said…
Muskrat blipey, Muskrat Rich
Rich says to blipey come and be my bitch
And they shimmy
blipey's so skinny
Richie slaps his bitch, blipey tumbles
Trying to speak but just mumbles
Tries to give Rich a big shove,
Looks like evotard love.
Post a Comment
<< Home