I still don't understand how you miss the overall points about ID as science. Try all you like, the founders of our modern disciplines were creationists.
I never disputed that they were Creationists. I simply contend that they did not practice Creation Science. They held (or at least professed) religious beliefs, but they did not use science to try to prove them. Again I ask about a modern Evolutionary Biologist who happens to also be Christian: is this a Creationist? Does his work necessarily support ID?
The point is that that didn't inhibit their pursuit of science. Nothing you say will or can change that. They were creationists and got a lot done, thus the argument that science will end if we "let God's foot in the door" is hogwash.
Where did I ever say that religious belief inhibited the pursuit of science? Where did I say that science will end? I'm just saying that painting religion up as science is bad for both.
What my argument has in its favor is that it WAS a belief in God that brought it along to us.
And you still haven't shown a correlation other than coincidence. Professing Christians have brought a lot of novel ideas into the world. Are you ready to claim that Chistianity was responsible for all of them?
Hmm... Which would make neo-Darwinian claims religious, I guess.
More boilerplate... I guess you missed our discussions on falsification? Care to show me a neo-Darwinian claim that is impossible to falsify?
Also, note that you produce a list of supposed refutations to Behe after stating a hard refutation of him is too high a burden of proof?
Exactly my point. He has formulated his arguments such that he can eternally claim, "your evidence isn't good enough!" Fortunately, the evidence doesn't have to be good enough for him, just good enough for reasonable people.
He's asking for detailed, testable evolutionary paths for his claimed IC systems. No one has produced any yet. So, again... You claim ID as non-science because it is non-testable, nonrefutable, non-observable, and then all but admit that Behe can't really expect neo-Darwinism to produce detailed, testable or observable responses?
There are plenty of detailed, testable (tested!), and observable (observed!) responses. What do you think is in the mountain of paper presented to him on the stand? He simply waves it off as not good enough.
The key word here is "systems." Systems are complex combinations of many different specialized cells. Providing an exact, definitive explanation for how one came to be is impossible with the tools we have today. Yet, we do have evidence to explain the development of the components of these systems. We also have evidence that points to how and when these components were combined.
To continue my analogy, it's also impossible to provide a list of every person involved in the construction of the Parthenon, and a timeline of what tasks each one performed on each day. In the absense of that detail, must we dispute that the Greeks built the Parthenon? After all, it could have been done by aliens, right?
I've detailed the chance and random involved in neo-Darwinism. It's there! Your hand waving won't change that.
Please show me where I've ever said chance was not involved.
You can't have it both ways, dogg... Was it chance or planned?
Please show me where I've ever said it was planned. I'm afraid I'm not following your argument here.
As a refresher, I wonder how the following makes any point about where my scientific endeavors lead:
Your answers to those questions certainly will influence your path of inquiry. If you believe god created the world literally as described in Genesis, you're quite likely to dismiss or ignore hard evidence to the contrary (and possibly consider it an offense against god to even entertain these contrary ideas).
as long as you limit where that scientific pursuit can lead, your beliefs will never be shaken.
I think you'll be safe for quite some time.
And if you allow your religious beliefs to dictate your scientific pursuits, you are necessarily limiting where that scientific pursuit can lead.
Dead horses?
I still don't understand how you miss the overall points about ID as science. Try all you like, the founders of our modern disciplines were creationists.
I never disputed that they were Creationists. I simply contend that they did not practice Creation Science. They held (or at least professed) religious beliefs, but they did not use science to try to prove them. Again I ask about a modern Evolutionary Biologist who happens to also be Christian: is this a Creationist? Does his work necessarily support ID?
The point is that that didn't inhibit their pursuit of science. Nothing you say will or can change that. They were creationists and got a lot done, thus the argument that science will end if we "let God's foot in the door" is hogwash.
Where did I ever say that religious belief inhibited the pursuit of science? Where did I say that science will end? I'm just saying that painting religion up as science is bad for both.
What my argument has in its favor is that it WAS a belief in God that brought it along to us.
And you still haven't shown a correlation other than coincidence. Professing Christians have brought a lot of novel ideas into the world. Are you ready to claim that Chistianity was responsible for all of them?
Hmm... Which would make neo-Darwinian claims religious, I guess.
More boilerplate... I guess you missed our discussions on falsification? Care to show me a neo-Darwinian claim that is impossible to falsify?
Also, note that you produce a list of supposed refutations to Behe after stating a hard refutation of him is too high a burden of proof?
Exactly my point. He has formulated his arguments such that he can eternally claim, "your evidence isn't good enough!" Fortunately, the evidence doesn't have to be good enough for him, just good enough for reasonable people.
He's asking for detailed, testable evolutionary paths for his claimed IC systems. No one has produced any yet. So, again... You claim ID as non-science because it is non-testable, nonrefutable, non-observable, and then all but admit that Behe can't really expect neo-Darwinism to produce detailed, testable or observable responses?
There are plenty of detailed, testable (tested!), and observable (observed!) responses. What do you think is in the mountain of paper presented to him on the stand? He simply waves it off as not good enough.
The key word here is "systems." Systems are complex combinations of many different specialized cells. Providing an exact, definitive explanation for how one came to be is impossible with the tools we have today. Yet, we do have evidence to explain the development of the components of these systems. We also have evidence that points to how and when these components were combined.
To continue my analogy, it's also impossible to provide a list of every person involved in the construction of the Parthenon, and a timeline of what tasks each one performed on each day. In the absense of that detail, must we dispute that the Greeks built the Parthenon? After all, it could have been done by aliens, right?
I've detailed the chance and random involved in neo-Darwinism. It's there! Your hand waving won't change that.
Please show me where I've ever said chance was not involved.
You can't have it both ways, dogg... Was it chance or planned?
Please show me where I've ever said it was planned. I'm afraid I'm not following your argument here.
As a refresher, I wonder how the following makes any point about where my scientific endeavors lead:
Your answers to those questions certainly will influence your path of inquiry. If you believe god created the world literally as described in Genesis, you're quite likely to dismiss or ignore hard evidence to the contrary (and possibly consider it an offense against god to even entertain these contrary ideas).
as long as you limit where that scientific pursuit can lead, your beliefs will never be shaken.
I think you'll be safe for quite some time.
And if you allow your religious beliefs to dictate your scientific pursuits, you are necessarily limiting where that scientific pursuit can lead.