Calybos

We wouldn't stand a chance against you in that contest, 2dim. Produce your evidence or admit you don't have any. OR (more likely) keep taking cheap shots and childish insults because you know you can't support your claims. Either way, you've already lost and are just too stubborn to admit it.

They're really getting desperate now, aren't they? Legitimate scientists--both religious and nonreligious--know that evolution is correct. They've discarded the ID "theory" as garbage... in fact, it doesn't even qualify as a theory. And all the religious rantings and ravings you can muster won't change that.

2dim's beaten and he knows it. The facts and the experts are all arrayed against him, and he doesn't have the mental resources to defend his claims. So what's left but childish insults? If you were a bit more mature, 2dim, you'd accept your loss with good grace. Instead we're treated to another tantrum. Better luck next time.

I figured you'd keep spinning and dodging, and you didn't disappoint. So I'll sum it up in the smallest words I know, and then I'm done trying to penetrate your thick skull. The word "supernatural" has no place in science. None, zero, nada. Period. Uncaused events are a known phenomenon with a naturalistic origin, still under study. Which is why they belong to the realm of science. By trying to drag in the word "supernatural" under the cloak of these uncaused events, you're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding, and contempt, of how science works. Give it up. You will never shoehorn religion into the realm of science, and you're just embarrassing honest believers with the attempt.

Still waiting for you to figure out what the consensus among ACTUAL, PRACTICING biologists is... go ahead and look it up, I'll wait. Not engineers and divinity students; not philosophers; not even grad students at a Bible college; but actual scientists in the field of biology. You know, the ones best qualified to understand and evaluate the evidence on its own merits? THOSE guys. What do THEY have to say, 2dim? Here's one starting point: Try searching the journal archives of Nature for any published, peer-reviewed anayses of the intelligent design "theory." Good luck with that. Until you have evidence, 2dim, you've got nothing. That's the hard lesson of science; opinions and religious beliefs simply don't matter.

Not necessarily, but he's certainly not grasping the essentials of the scientific method OR the current status of the evidence on evolution. As already discussed, Behe's book has a truckload of serious errors in both facts and logic. Johnson's, however, is beneath contempt; it's full of outright lies, misquotes, distortions, and blatantly false assertions backed by unsupported claims and conclusions. Behe could simply be misguided; Johnson is actively deceitful.

Oddly enough, religious scientists (which Philip Johnson, among others, tries desperately to deny the existence of) will also defend Darwin, whether Christ shows up or not. Because Darwin was, oh, what's the word...? RIGHT.

I'll try it once more, Bryan, and then I'll accept that you simply don't want to listen. Randomness is not supernatural; it's simply random, no more. Are dice supernatural because the results of rolling them are random? Of course not. Is the Heisenberg Principle proof of supernatural forces at work? Obviously not. Are uncaused events proof of supernatural entities? No, actually, they're not. You're still trying to make room for magic in a realm where it's not useful or usable: science. You'll notice I said that science operates by methodological naturalism; that means that only natural events and processes are considered. Nowhere does science claim that gods and magic are not permitted to exist--only that they're not within the realm of science and cannot be part of a scientific theory. Ironically, the "this explains everything" attitude you're so worried about is the epitome of WHY religion isn't allowed within the borders of scientific activity: because once you open the doors to "god did it" as an explanation, all inquiry becomes meaningless. Uncaused events are a question mark; they exist, and the forces that give rise to them are under study. But accepting a "supernatural" explanation is thoroughly useless. That's why you'll never hear about supernatural stories in a science classroom; because it has no more place there than the quadratic formula does in a survey of English literature. At least TRY to understand this, okay? Because if you still can't figure it out, we really need to work on our public education system. Obvious lightweights like 2dim and "patriot" are one thing, but you seem to have a halfway functional brain. Please prove that it can accept and process new knowledge.

By your own definition, "supernatural" means unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. Uncaused events are both natural and explainable, therefore not supernatural. Seriously, Bryan, you're straining too hard to make room for theist magic in science, and it's just not gonna happen. Science is based on methodological naturalism; all things are examined on the basis of natural laws and natural explanations, including uncaused events. "Supernatural" is not an option.

PhD's... none of whom are biologists, and none of whom know any more about biology than you do. Yeah, these are some real credible "experts" you've offered. Meanwhile, what do ACTUAL biologists say? Oh yeah... they say ID is garbage. Guess who's more believable?

And yet you call pretty much 99% of the biology PhDs in the world crackpots by insisting that ID is related to science. Where's your doctorate, 2dim?

That's eight--out of a population of thousands. Congratulations, you've found a few fellow crackpots with degrees to make you feel smart. Now, as I said: If you can provide some actual PROOF that Behe's fallacies are in fact correct, I'll be waiting. And as soon as the consensus of the scientific community goes your way, I'll be more than willing to have ID taught in legitimate science courses. Till then, keep whining and sniping. It's fun to watch.

Answer: No, it doesn't. It may fit YOUR personal definition of "supernatural" because you want there to be some magic in the universe... but no, science does not equate 'uncaused' with 'supernatural' at all. Any more than it equates 'entropy' with Kali-Ma, Goddess of Destruction and Renewal. Mysticism is simply not part of science. Do yourself a favor, Bryan, and try to LEARN some science before you criticize it.

That's easy; "Uncaused events are not the same as magic." Ask any physicist whether the existence of uncaused events should be taken as proof of supernatural entities... see how hard he laughs. Now, YOU may choose to believe that uncaused events are automatically supernatural; heck, in the Bronze Age people believed that lightning was a supernatural event! Now, of course, we know better. And if you're saying "come up with a better explanation," you're falling into the God of the Gaps Fallacy: Anything not currently understood and 100% explained must be because of God. Which is a very shaky territory to defend, because it means your god gets smaller and smaller the more we learn. It winds up pitting you against all advancement of knowledge in order to defend your faith. In some cases, it puts you on high-school faculties preaching instead of teaching, in direct violation of the Constitution. Personally, I wouldn't recommend it.

"It's too complex to have evolved" is not a scientific claim; it's a personal opinion. There's no basis in science for such a conclusion, just your "hunch" that there's gotta be, MUST be, some sort of designer behind it. If that were a scientific claim, it would be testable and falsifiable. Is it?

Gosh, I had no idea he was so deviously powerful. Be careful what you say about him--he can probably see you when you're sleeping and know when you're awake....

More ad-hominem speculation, vague dodges, and a refusal to follow up with any actual facts. More ducking to avoid acknowledging that you don't have the info or knowledge needed to defend ANY of these problems. Exactly what I've come to expect from you, 2dim. Now, as soon as you can offer any actual PROOF for your claims, we'll all be here waiting in astonishment. Until then, keep up the childish sniping! It's the best thing you can do to make your side look foolish.

And I guarantee that if Mr. P had announced his conversion to Islam, you would've called him a big stinky doodyhead. See how much fun it is to speculate on stuff that never happened?

Being in the minority doesn't make you wrong; it just makes the majority mad.

In Darwin's Black Box, Behe is doing little more than dressing up an Argument from Incredulity/Complexity and calling it science. He's saying "Look at biological structure X. Since I personally can't think of a way such a thing could have evolved, it obviously must NOT have evolved. Therefore, God did it." His examples of so-called "irreducible complexity" proceed from some fundamental misunderstandings about how organic structures have, in fact, been proven and observed to evolve, as well as a healthy dose of the God of the Gaps--anything not currently explained is Proof of God's Handiwork. This is a factual as well as a philsophical fallacy, and only those already predisposed to finding fault with evolution would fall for it. Obvious problems with Behe include *His failure to address the vast amounts of "junk genes" floating around in our supposedly well-designed chromosomes. *His proven false claim (Chapter 6) about the "uselessness" of antibodies in isolation. This one is a HUGE blunder that any reputable biologist would be embarrassed to have his name associated with. *The thousands of examples of bad and near-perfect copies arising from known, and even predictable, replication methods (so much for "new information has to come from somewhere"). *His insistence that No Research has been done on interdependent systems both between and within organisms (or even between metabolic enzymes), when in fact such research already exists. No, you don't need to be a PhD in evolutionary biology to spot Behe's mistakes. But to embrace Behe's mindset, you just have to declare--as you do, 2dim--that "If it's too hard for me to understand, it must be proof that God did it." The only mystery is why Behe continues to claim that what he's doing is science.

Wrong... that's what the courts are for.

So the response to having a teacher's wrongdoings exposed is... to make sure no student is in a position to expose such wrongdoing in the future? This is a "shoot the messenger" solution, quite transparently. If you don't like what the media's reporting, then by golly, condemn the media! It's a DODGE, folks. They don't want their dirty laundy waved around in public, so they try to suppress the means of exposing it. This rule does NOTHING to correct the far more serious problem of classroom preaching... it just tries to make sure nobody hears about it in future. That's just as cowardly and dishonest when a local school board does it, as when a president does it.

As opposed to what--short but snide insults with no substance whatsoever? Sorry, folks, but the facts (and the law) are on Strife's side. You can try to change the subject to speculating about Strife's personal life (a fallacy called ad hominem, if you're curious), but that's just an admission that you can't actually present a valid argument. If you think Strife is wrong, then give your reasons and your evidence. If you can't then by all means keep sniping at him personally. It just shows how empty and foolish "your side" of the debate is.

How very Christian of you.

Read the definition of "Science." It involves studying natural processes and NOT resorting to supernatural explanations for anything. If anyone chooses to believe that a god is behind evolution, they're free to do so--but it's not going to get any air-time in a science classroom, because such speculations have nothing to do with legitimate science.