Comments on: A critique of Dawkins’ central argument, part 3 http://aldenswan.com/2007/09/a-critique-of-dawkins-central-argument-part-3/ free speech, critical thinking, and really good coffee Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:05:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: onein6billion http://aldenswan.com/2007/09/a-critique-of-dawkins-central-argument-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-511 onein6billion Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:15:06 +0000 http://www.aldenswan.com/2007/09/24/a-critique-of-dawkins-central-argument-part-3/#comment-511 "design is still design" Or not. ID says "I know design when I see it and I see it." But evolution says "appearance of design" does not mean that there really is design or a designer. So Dembski wants to scientifically prove "design", but his argument is nonsense. “design is still design”

Or not. ID says “I know design when I see it and I see it.” But evolution says “appearance of design” does not mean that there really is design or a designer.

So Dembski wants to scientifically prove “design”, but his argument is nonsense.

]]> By: onein6billion http://aldenswan.com/2007/09/a-critique-of-dawkins-central-argument-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-510 onein6billion Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:40:14 +0000 http://www.aldenswan.com/2007/09/24/a-critique-of-dawkins-central-argument-part-3/#comment-510 "In other words, it appears merely to be circular reasoning." No, no, no. It is the discarding of an unnecessary hypothesis. "There is no reason why a Designer could not choose to design a process which operates gradually." In other words, there is no way to distinguish between a process that is entirely natural like evolution and one that a "designer" has interferred with. "Whether animals “poofed” into existence or resulted from an amazingly complex designed process, design is still design." ROTFLOL But one is "science" and the other is "religion". “In other words, it appears merely to be circular reasoning.”

No, no, no. It is the discarding of an unnecessary hypothesis.

“There is no reason why a Designer could not choose to design a process which operates gradually.”

In other words, there is no way to distinguish between a process that is entirely natural like evolution and one that a “designer” has interferred with.

“Whether animals “poofed” into existence or resulted from an amazingly complex designed process, design is still design.”

ROTFLOL But one is “science” and the other is “religion”.

]]> By: Mike Haubrich, FCD http://aldenswan.com/2007/09/a-critique-of-dawkins-central-argument-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-509 Mike Haubrich, FCD Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:48:09 +0000 http://www.aldenswan.com/2007/09/24/a-critique-of-dawkins-central-argument-part-3/#comment-509 In the meantime, you have been tagged, Alden: http://www.tuibguy.com/?p=112 (plug for the new blog) In the meantime, you have been tagged, Alden:

http://www.tuibguy.com/?p=112

(plug for the new blog)

]]>