“We found the comments hurtful..”
I know, I know.. they’ll just get ideas.. ANYhoo.. a bit of variety in our cultural exposé.. and it’s worth noting what Richard Dawkins had to say before that resignation. As Will Crawley notes here a Turkish court has ordered the state telecoms company to bar access to Richard Dawkins official website following a legal action taken by muslim creationist Adnan Oktar, who writes under the pen name of Harun Yahya. Oktar published a creationist text, Atlas of Creation, and then forwarded it, unsolicited, to many scientists, including Dawkins [Crooked Timber got hold of a copy - Ed], who responded on his website by saying “I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the breathtaking inanity of the content”. As several commenters on Dawkins website point out, the ban is ineffectual to determined users. But it’s worth noting why the complaint was made, and why the supposedly secular courts upheld that complaint. From the Guardian report.
According to Oktar’s office, Istanbul’s second criminal court of peace banned the site earlier this month on the grounds that it “violated” Oktar’s personality. His press assistant, Seda Aral, said: “We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people. We found the comments hurtful. It was not a scientific discussion. There was a line and the limit has been passed. We have used all the legal means to stop this site. We asked them to remove the comments but they did not.”
Sam
‘BTW, TAFKO the next time you are in court try arguing that your fingerprints are not evidence of your presence as that is not logical or science and see where it gets you’
This again goes back to what i said about needing to see the watchmakers tools. We can logically and rationally (the two are not the same) suppose that someone was at the scene of the crime if there fingerprints are there, because we know that the process by which their prints appeared at the scene usually requires the persons presence (though not always as this can be faked).
The same CANNOT be said about the apparent designed nature of the universe. Though it may be logical (in a way) to think that a highly complex system is designed, because in our experience this is usually the case, It is not however rational. To further your analogue, if we find a 24 year old known heroin addict dead in an apartment block, would we prefer that the police take a logical (kind of) approach and assume that the person died of an OD, because this is usually the case, or should they take the rational approach and assume nothing so they can carry out a full investigation to make sure of (to the best of their ability) the events surrounding the individuals death.
pauljames, We are not arguing that we turn to God as a last resort but from first principles ie. we have a creator and designer so lets search out His wonderful creation to understand how His mind made us.
Again the assumption. What if your discoveries show you that all (or parts) of your initial assumption, that first principle of yours, is wrong? I ask that honestly, i cant figure out how one could LOGICALLY get around that problem.
Also, you critisize ‘aggressive secularists’ for not being able to explain love or aesthetics, yet you fully expect to be able to understand this creator GOD’s mind. Give me a break! The example is also totally flawed as human emotions, morals and aesthetic preferences are comprised of countless (figure of speech) elements. Each of these elements we understand or have a relatively good idea of how they work, it makes not sense to quantify these various variable into a single quotient. Like there are many aspects to air quality including relative humidity, temperature, elemental composition, smell, etc. But we don’t consider air quality (in our everyday lives in this way), we simply say that the air is comfortable or stuffy etc.
Science itself – the belief that the scientific method (i.e. searching for causes by
observation and repetition) discovers truth can’t be proven by the scientific method itself. Science itself is simply a product of the mind.
Poor argument, most individuals of a secular disposition are perfectly aware of the self defeating rationale of rationalism as well as the limitations of our ability to know ‘truth’ (think Descartes – Cogito ergo sum). I’ll refer you to Karl Popper’s (one of the first to articulate the importance of falsifiability in science) discussion on critical rationalism.
Also, Sam Graham you should note that people like TAFKO or Driftwood have addressed your points, yet in order to try and win the argument you try and paint them as aggressive, arrogant and ‘smarter than everyone’. Why should secularists apologise for their opinions, god forbid they should think they are right. Or is thinking that your own opinion is the best (the definition of having an opinion) the reserve of the theists of this world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
There is NO scientific support for creationism. But don’t let that stop Sam etc. spreading lies. Yeah sure, Newton’s one of yours obviously. Being dead before a theory is around probably means you’re an enemy of said theory. Any other dead scientists you’d like to have on your side Sam? Because project Steve, (you’ve seen it before) represents 1% of the scientific community, approximately two thirds of the 800+ names are biologists. That works out at approximately 80,000 scientists who think you’re talking shit. Two thirds of that figure having studied biology to degree level. Pity they weren’t all geniuses like Sam the bullshitting preacher.
Word of advice to those scientifically minded folks out there, you can not best someone who relies on magic to make their argument, when they can invoke “God did it” as a central part of their argument that means they can not be cornered. The only thing that gives these people any credibility is when good folk like you and me argue with them. By arguing with them, we lend them a scintilla of credibility, which by ignoring them we deny them. As such I’m going to take my own advice now, and put Sam on ignore where he belongs.
Sorry if someone has already said this. Man can make as many brains as he likes. Its called cloning. Legal constraints rather technology stops ‘man’ doing this. If you mean, Sam, from the very building blocks, man will eventually be able to make a brain. Would 15th century man have been able to make a computer? Does this mean the computer (in the sense Sam is talking about) could never have been made? I sorta think the proof is out there somewhere!
The whole premise is answerable and silly.
“Though it may be logical (in a way) to think that a highly complex system is designed, because in our experience this is usually the case, It is not however rational. To further your analogue, if we find a 24 year old known heroin addict dead in an apartment block, would we prefer that the police take a logical (kind of) approach and assume that the person died of an OD, because this is usually the case, or should they take the rational approach and assume nothing so they can carry out a full investigation to make sure of (to the best of their ability) the events surrounding the individuals death.”
Michael, you are positing an absurd argument which leads us nowhere. Try reading Occams Razor rule which deals adequately with your point. Following your logic, we can never come to any certainty about anything even own existence as their may be other possible explanations notwithstanding how absurd they are.
“What if your discoveries show you that all (or parts) of your initial assumption, that first principle of yours, is wrong?”
I agree, we are all working by pre-suppositional faith here. Yours is that rationalism can account for everything and that rationalism is even rational! Mine is that my rationality must come from a rational source and the leading candidate for that is God. Your explanation for your own rationality is what exactly..?
“I do not expect to be able to fully understand God’s mind” – where did you get that idea? The finite created entity cannot understand the infinite uncreated First Cause.
BTW, Popper admitted that evolution was not falsifiable once though he later backtracked. He was right as it is a tautology. Also, it demands theoretical conditions that cannot be replicated in experiment today.
Neil, you write like someone just out of Purdysburn for the weekend! Listing scientific numbers as evidence you are correct is a joke. This is especially true this week of all weeks when we see the blatant intimidation of Prof Seiss for hinting at creationism. Most of Western Science now acts like the old Soviet Union Communist Committees where only those on “message” can speak.
You are right – do not debate as my genes have predetermined me to believe in God. But you do? Why does that make me suspicious that you do actually believe that our consciousness is more than materialism (which is the core of your worldview)!
The ultimate irony of this is that any one reading it, whether atheist or not, has conceded the argument merely by studying it in a logical and rational manner. In order to review this evidence as a real exercise in truth finding, and not merely a chance encounter between bundles of genetic matter, the reader assumes: that the universe is coherent, consistent, and orderly; that there is genuine rational thought (and communication of ideas)and that truth, design, predictability and natural law actually govern the processes of the universe.
Put simply, the reader has assumed a theistic worldview (despite not acknowledging it) that God exists, created mankind, and created the world in which we find ourselves. For, to say the universe is not designed, atheists must know what design is. To say theism is not true, atheists must know what is true and so on. This would be like using the laws of science to prove that the laws of science cannot be trusted.
Neil, you write like someone just out of Purdysburn for the weekend! Listing scientific numbers as evidence you are correct is a joke.
Wipe the shite of your chin Sam. Listing scientific numbers (what kind of numbers are they Sam? Oh scientific ones ok) as evidence you are correct is a joke eh? I suppose spouting barely coherent shite at anyone who dares disagree with you is the more evidential of correctness? I reckon that’s the Paisleyite in you, he who shouts loudest wins the argument – the old Christian approach. Just for giggles let’s see an example of where using numbers, (scientific or otherwise) as evidence you are correct is a joke, (your fractured grammar, not mine).
Western Science now acts like the old Soviet Union Communist Committees where only those on “message” can speak.
Yes, and we can see in black and white how accomodating you are to those who don’t agree with you. You’re an inspiration to us all. Well those of us that want to be complete dickheads anyway. We’re laughing at you Sam, ’cause there’s nothing else to do.
Michael, you are positing an absurd argument which leads us nowhere. Try reading Occams Razor rule which deals adequately with your point.
Sam, thats just meaningless noise! Occams Razor relies on knowing Aall of the available facts THEN making a conclusion. You have your conclusion first (like concluding that the heroin addict died from an OD) and selecting the evidence to support that assumption. Thats a terrible way to approach the world IMHO.
Also, evolution is obviously not falsifiable (as a whole)! Thats like saying meteorology isnt falsifiable, which it isnt BTW. The numerous elements of evolutionary theory ARE falsifiable, CAN make predictions and are MEASURABLE!
What Popper said was entirely consistent with the principle of falsifiability and science, and it in no way diminishes the scientific nature of evolutionary theory (please read up on the scientific definition of theory).
Sam, when it comes to presenting a logical cohesive argument, you’re so far out of your depth you’re practically the fucking Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.
Where are your fingerprints?
Taf’, michael, neil et al are showing themselves to be great examples of what has been termed ‘aggressive secularism’.
The watch requires a watchmaker. It’s that simple. Though some wish to keep the blinkers on, it remains that simple, “the watch requires a watchmaker.”
Maybe the reason for the disrespectful, disdainful tone of the aggressive secularist is best explained by Robert Jastrow when he said :-
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Well done Neil/TAFKABO for proving why people who spend weekends in straitjackets should not write on blogs. Any connection between your reality and the rest of ours is purely coincidental!
Michael, Occam’s Rule does come into play as we have the prima facie evidence for design in the brain structure. It is not conditional on knowing all the facts.
By application this principle posits that “the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.” If design can explain the phenomenon and it can then we don’t need to spend our lives scrabbling around in the hope that we can somehow discover the answer.
Your heroin argument is also misguided. CID officers start with the most likely cause and work outwards. They do not see a human fingerprint and then decide that it may have been caused by a UFO monster but apply the Occam logic once again.
The key elements of evolution are not falsifiable and that is why it is not science. All that is observable is that species have the inbuilt capacity (I will resist the urge to say the obvious that this is a design feature) to adapt to changing environmental conditions. This mechanism appears to work successfully over time. THAT IS ALL IT SHOWS – NO MORE AND NO LESS. Now, how you can say we have falsifiable evidence that this can be stretched to mean a monkey can given enough time produce you is neyond me. You are either ignorant or how incredible and miraculous a series of events would have to be to do this or you have a vivid imagination.
Taf
Neils advice, point 2 on this page, seems sound.
Empty vessels…
Sam
Im afraid that TAFKABO was right,
‘Sam, when it comes to presenting a logical cohesive argument, you’re so far out of your depth you’re practically the fucking Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.’
I (and others) have explained several times that complex systems are not prima facie evidence for design, to say so requires an assumption of the existence of a god and then a leap of faith that it was said god that created the complex system. Strangely though, you use this ‘evidence’ of designed systems as proof that god exists, if you use circular logic you’ll always be right!
It would appear that you are either incapable or unwilling to engage in rational debate, preferring to use pejorative terms like ‘aggressive secularists’ in a vain attempt to diminish and dominate your opponent.
Perhaps this is the reason why people like Dawkins (please don’t assume I’m a Dawkinite, thats just ignorant) and others in the Royal Society don’t think that engaging in debate with people like yourself is a good idea. I.e. there is no debate, just shouting. It would give credence to such a mystic world view whilst achieving nothing.
To the secularist(s) posting on here I would draw your attention to that fact that constant repetition of a single viewpoint does absolutely nothing to strengthen your argument. In fact, I would suggest it only serves to highlight it’s inadequacies. The fact remains that the theological nature of the ID theory is clear, concise and above all else logical. The fifth of Thomas Aquinas’s proofs for the existence of God in his Summa Theologica is testimony to this.
Reading this blog, people will judge for themselves who has made the strongest and most coherent argument. However it is clear that the disdainful and arrogant tones have in deed all come from ‘aggressive secularism’. I take know delight in you proving my point for me. It is clear that your understanding of “respect” amounts to little more than a patronising condescension. Your extreme secular views are clearly no different from the extreme religious views that justified flying a plane in to the Twin Towers. The world has nothing to fear from science or religion, just arrogant extremism in any guise.