Re: Behe: God May be Dead

"Frank J" <fnci@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1130009191.981223.44280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Brett Aubrey wrote:
> > "Frank J" <fnci@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1129993878.882046.288010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > desertphile@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > "Rothschild asked if it was true that the intelligent designer
might
> > > > > not actually exist any longer."
> > > >
> > > > What the heck is this "designer," singular? Why is Behe not asked
> > > > about the "designers?" If life was "designed"here on Earth, what
> > > > makes him "think" there was only one?
> > >
> > > I'll do the devil's advocate thing too. I know that Behe doesn't
> > > care 2c about Occams Razor, but barring evidence of more than
> > > one designer, one can invoke Occams Razor to speak in terms of
> > > a single designer. I would imagine that they do that in forensics.
> > > Turning off the "devil's advocate" button, I must say that forensics
> > > is a terrible analogy for the biological ID argument.
> >
> > Well, if you're gonna use Occam's Razor (which is a valid thing to do,
IMO),
> > invoke it one level up. I'd say it's simpler to view nature as we see
it,
> > with evoution being the primary cause than to create a complex,
> > all-powerful, all-seeing God who (which?) creates all the world's
> > life-forms. Where's the simplicity in that? The only major unknown
left is
> > OOL. - Brett.
>
> OOL? Acronym Finder was no help.

Sorry; Origin Of Life (it's in fairly common use over at
sci.bio.evolution).

> If by "one level up" you mean 0 designers is preferable to 1, that's
> why I said that forensics is not a good analogy. When describing the
> design of life, universes, etc. science does not say 1, or 0, or many,
> it is just silent. Which means that anyone can invoke their faith to
> believe that there are as many designers as they like, or none if
> that's their preference. In that respect science is complementary to
> *mainstream* religion in that the latter says that we should take such
> designers on faith, not scientific evidence, or worse, the
> god-of-the-gaps "evidence" of ID and creationism.

OK.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hershey fails to see his own zealous fath in the unscientific doctrine of "Nature done it"
    ... there is or isn't a 'designer' is a matter of personal faith. ... But science is not atheism or philosophical materialism ("nature done ... to the extent that we can using a methodology that limits itself to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Case for a Designer
    ... It's calling it science that's the real problem. ... you scientifically establish a Designer, there's no need for faith. ... religion, or claiming religion as justification for weird actions. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Events and threads ... whose thread am I on anyway?
    ... we can just create a single worker thread that handles the task ... designer invoked the handlers that way. ... to do yourself under some cases (i.e. invoke them manually). ... calcClass. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Commentary: No faith in ID
    ... designer behind the complexity of the universe and call it ... God. ... prove that there is an intelligent designer and that designer is ... Faith is belief in what cannot be proved; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Where are the quotes from Creationist Organizations Objecting
    ... one's faith would point to a designer. ... certain designer and have no objection to evolution learn more about ... What God did (and this is matter of faith emanating from free will, something that differentiates me and you from chimps and earthworms) is clearly explained in the Bible. ... Christians have been some of the best scientists and continue to be. ...
    (talk.origins)