Great post, Pat. Thanks!
Forrest is a philospher, not a scientist.
IF her atheism is irrelevant to what she pushes, Demski's theism is irrelvant to what he pushes.
Well that is a crock of shit. She's not on the defense here, ID is. Plus her credentials lead her to being important to the discussion because her job here was to expose the religious underpinnings of the ID movement when they were claiming no such connection. The fact that she is an atheist or not doesn't change the facts of the case that Judge Jones agreed with 100%. Her experience in the area made her more credible to show the connections. ID is a religious movement, there is no getting around it. Too many times the Disco boys have wrecked their tiny little car after slip-ups that show their intentions, floppy shoes, polka dots and red noses everywhere. The clown carnage is all to frequent.
Forrest in her speech kept saying that science is naturalistic because it works.
This is the PHILOSOPHY of pragmatism, derived from John Dewey and Sidney Hook, as she even admitted in her speech.
Science works, she claims.
Not always, and it does not explain the origin of life, mind, or even consciousness, but by an inductive (look it up) leap she expresses her FAITH that it will answer all these things.
She does no know that it will.
She is making a metaphysical claim to support her atheism as surely as you claim the IDists are all religious conspirators.
She is a PHILOSOPHER.
basment activist, you're right. Dembski's being Christian has nothing to do with ID being religion. The fact that ID requires a supernatural "designer" makes it religion. The fact that ID's definition is the exact same as that of biblical creationism except for the find & replace of creator with designer makes it religion. The Wedge Document's clear statement saying its goal was to promote a belief in God makes it religion.
But the personal beliefs of a single supporter do not show a theory to be of a particular religion any more than Dawkins comments make evolution an atheist theory. Especially given that the idea that it is an atheistic theory is contradicted by the clergy letter project. Sadly, the ID movement doesn't even have this. Its supporters are 100% religious.
Additionally, it's clearly proven its not science. So what's the other option on explaining such things? That's right: religion.
Forrest is a philospher, not a scientist.
And, appropriately, she exposed the philosophy and theological underpinnings of ID.
IF her atheism is irrelevant to what she pushes, Demski's theism is irrelvant to what he pushes.
Dembski's theism is irrelevant to his claims (except where he has chosen to introduce it, as in "Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."1) Reaching the conclusion that ID is a religious and unscientific proposition does not require considering the theism (or lack thereof) of its proponents ... as BA would know if he/she had actually read and digested Pat's post or the trial transcripts.
1Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue 4 July/August, 1999
BA,
I don't need to look up what inductive means so please..
What her beliefs are still does not change the fact that the Disco boys goal is pushing religion into science. This was shown in glaring detail at the trial. Your Ad Hominem (look it up) attacks on her do not change the reality of what was exposed at the trial.
You miss the point.
Forrest said after the speech that a lawsuit is coming to either Ohio or Kansas.
I hope its Kansas.
Whats Kansas anyway without all this hoopla?
But heres the rub, this time there is a team that is actually going to show up and concentrate on different issues.
What issues you say?
Well, you are so smart, you all tell me?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Don't worry about it. What could the ignoramuses for the defense possibly bring up?
You changing the subject again? The discussion here was not about any upcoming trials, the subject here was
Forrest is a philospher, not a scientist.
IF her atheism is irrelevant to what she pushes, Demski's theism is irrelvant to what he pushes.
I know it's a tactic you guys like to use when confronted with truth and facts but please try to stay on target.
Oh, BA, you say again and again that 'This time we're bringing out our Dream Team, Olympics 1994 Style,' and yet, your best and brightest came out with their full force in Dover and whiffed. They have nothing and never will.
Stogie, the best did not come out at Dover; they didn't think the Dover standard was right issue.
Look who came out, the Thomas More Center, and the Catholic church does not even advocate ID.
And the lead counsel disappeared for DAYS at a time. See Chapman's article inthe Feb. Harpers.
But if they have nothing, then don't worry about it.
I mean, what issue could the ignoramuses possibly bring up?
So keep these posts coming!
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Anti-Intellectualism has always been part and parcel, a part of America and I'm not altogether sure why.
Maybe that question is good for someone's PhD sometime...
At any rate, there seems to be a rather large amount of this sort of
"craziness" today or at least we are all more aware of it.
Another good question for a PhD!
And I know I've probably said this before but it bears saying many times..
These folks, although they like to say they speak for Christians are Christians, I believe, in name only.
They roll around the countryside, getting into trouble here and there, pontificating on the concept that God could not have possibly made the Universe in they way he did with evolution not only in the Heavens but here on Earth.
But it just "ain't so" 
....
For those who believe and who insist on Believing that God did not create in that way are blaspheming because they are telling us that they "know" how God didn't create.
Who are they to say that he did not?
Who are they to say that an Almighty and powerful Being that brought the entire Universe into existence, didn't make the Universe in such a way as to be "knowable"? Which is, in the final analysis the very definition of Science...using our Brains to ask questions about the Universe that is knowable so we can come up with real answers.
Christianity & Science walk hand in hand and don't you let some "Sidewalk Preacher" tell you different.
Forrest in her speech kept saying that science is naturalistic because it works.
It does and it is, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
This is the PHILOSOPHY of pragmatism, derived from John Dewey and Sidney Hook, as she even admitted in her speech.
Yes. So?
Science works, she claims.
You already said that.
Not always, and it does not explain the origin of life, mind, or even consciousness, but by an inductive (look it up) leap she expresses her FAITH that it will answer all these things.
Science does not claim to have explained everything yet so it cannot be criticized for such a failure.
Nor do we know that science will forever be unable to "explain the origin of life, mind, or even consciousness" so it cannot be criticized for such a shortcoming.
She does no know that it will.
And I doubt that, being a pragmatist, she claims to know that it will.
As I understand it, the pragmatist recognises the problem of induction but simply holds that, since the scientific method or methodological naturalism has served us well thus far, it is reasonable to continue using it until such time as it fails us.
She is making a metaphysical claim to support her atheism as surely as you claim the IDists are all religious conspirators.
Where is the metaphysical claim in arguing that it makes sense to continue using what works until it stops working?
And the fact that people of many faiths are able to practice science argues against the claim that evolution in particular and science in general inevitably lead to atheism.
Even so, it is indisputable that science has yet to find any evidence for the existence of a deity such as the Christian God and has, thus far, succeeded in explaining some of the natural world without having to invoke such a being.
This makes the claim of Intelligent Design one of faith which, in turn, leads us to suspect that their campaign to have it inserted in school science curricula before it has been accepted by the scientific community is driven by a religious agenda rather than honest scientific inquiry.
She is a PHILOSOPHER.
Nobody's perfect.
Pat - definitely one of your best. Ironically it was testimony of the FTE which damaged the defense. If I remember right FTE people aren't ACLU or atheist types. Forrest's role was merely to bring the FTE documents to the attention of the court.
The motion described Forrest as "little more than a conspiracy theorist and a web-surfing cyber-stalker."
That's 100% pure, unadulterated Dembski at his finest. The theological seminary that got Wise in exchange for Dembski received the better end of that transaction by far.
Dembski is also a philosopher, not a scientist. But as his own words indicate, in a statement that he made when he became the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky in June 2005, he's primarily concerned about winning the country for Christ: "This is really an opportunity to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ."
I suppose one could argue that, if one does not include theistic explanations in a history of creationism, one is advancing an atheist agenda, but then one would also have to conclude that an “atheist agenda” is advanced whenever one does not include signs, wonders, and miracles in the floor plans of buildings, the construction of bridges, the development of vaccines, etc. “Science works, he says.” Okay, so it doesn’t work: flap your arms and fly to the moon, and we’ll watch.
Awesome post Pat! [stands & claps]
BA? There's always at least one of you guys mucking up a good forum with misinformation and innuendo that is patently false and misguided. That's been detailed by previous posters, so see above for the now-extensive list.
You haven't a clue. You obviously swallow IDiocy and Cretinism theories without chewing on them. That is a big mistake. For you. Such blind *faith* in what is essentially a load of kaka, utterly and completely unsupported by ANY objective evidence, bodes ill for your education and mental health.
In fact, the article makes it abundantly clear that "ID" is a retarded step-spawn of the debunked Cretinist Movement. In fact, why don't you go to a site that has the "Wedge Document," which is NOT about Science, NOT really about Religion, per se, but about SOCIAL ENGINEERING of the populace, starting with CHILDREN, for the purpose of turning these United States from a representative secular democracy that respects all religions to a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY, authoritarian, patriarchal, and by gosh, very TALIBAN-like!
When you emerge from your teen years, go to a reputable school where you can learn *real* stuff and, if necessary, buy a clue. The *real* information is out there for your benefit. If you choose not to pick it up, that's YOUR fault, no one else's!
I'd just like to say that I resent being compared to cigar-ism. Get the name right.
should have sent a valentine to barbara forrest... she's my idea of a forthright warrior for truth. THANK YOU, Prof. Forrest, for everything you've done.
Sure Forrest is a philospher, like Dembski.
And they are both making metaphysical claims.
Science is provisional anyway, stop pretending that it is some guide to truth.
Science is provisional anyway,
But only to better science.
stop pretending that it is some guide to truth.
Who's pretending? We're actually using it.
Sure Forrest is a philospher, like Dembski.
And they are both making metaphysical claims.
Science is provisional anyway, stop pretending that it is some guide to truth.
IANAL | 04.21.06 - 2:31 pm | #
If it's not a guide to truth why does it work? How does it make valid predictions? Creationism never has and never will lead to the discovery of anything, nor will it ever form a viable hypothesis about anything. All the whining in the world can't change that so shut up and start coping.
Science is provisional anyway, stop pretending that it is some guide to truth.
Honestly one of the most asinine things I have ever read.
You really need to stop. You are making yourself out to be a gigantic fool.
You've got to love it...Professors at a Baptist College talking about
"Equiping Saints".
And I thought Baptists were not a party of my Catholic Church.
Oh...I guess I haven't been to enough Masses!
I mean really?
Baptists saying anything about Saint making?
I didn't know The Baptist Church made Saints...
Oh where did I go wrong?
Where do these folks come from ...the planet "Zena"?
Forrest's argument was convincing in many ways, although, as a Darwin critic myself, I think other Darwin critics should learn from this to simply critique the theory of the mechanism of natural selection, within the context of evolution as given.
That could be of help to both sides.
So John as a darwin critic are you an proponent of ID or YEC or something else? Not an attack just curious.
Go to John's website. He's just another creationist wacko.
Yep, but it's always nice to hear it where I can respond.
By the way, Barbara Forrest, even though whe is an atheist, is also very cute in person.
Great hair, great personality.
If all atheists were like her, they might actually make some progress.
I'm sure you haven't a chance.
IANAL writes:"Sure Forrest is a philospher, like Dembski.
And they are both making metaphysical claims.
Science is provisional anyway, stop pretending that it is some guide to truth.
"
Fine.
Don't take anti-biotics and improve the gene pool.
Good point Stuart,
And let me remind you that Darwin thought vaccination just weakened the race as he said in the Descent of Man, along with his racist ramblings and snide remarks about the inferior intelligence of women.
There is a conceptual difficulty in place here, probably brought on by being conditioned to regard all text as either divinely inspired or else invalid.
No one supports Darwin's misconceptions about matters irrelevant to common descent; they have not been confirmed by later experimental analysis. Common descent, however, was supported, first by Mendel, later by Watson and Crick, as well as the paleontological record.
Yet BA continues to attack Darwin, as though discrediting Darwin discredits common descent. It's all part of a well-contrived smear campaign; first, get the public to equate common descent with Darwin, then make Darwin look bad, hoping to taint the previously-labelled "Darwinists" with Darwin's personal flaws.
Science isn't biblical prophecy, however; the scientist's work isn't negated by his mistakes the same way a prophet's is. The scientific method is the filter through which good science is separated from poor science, not evaluations of that scientist's personality or other opinions.
As a result, scientific conclusions become the common property of the discussion among all contributing scientists, so it is even misleading to label common descent "Darwinism," as though the label will stand or fall like the prophecies of Isaiah, for example.
But then, it just wouldn't do to attack the scientific method directly; there are no personalities to smear, and the campaign would fail from its own peculiar illogic.
BA's particular tactic of smearing all mainstream science as atheistic, and therefore on a par with totalitarianism, is inconsistent with the numbers of good scientists who profess a faith, and goes nowhere, even with potential allies.
On the other hand, in the absence of empirical data, critics of common descent have nothing to go on except the acceptance of authority, and this is where they all fail by exactly the same brush strokes with which they attempt to paint Darwin.
The nature of the supporters of ID--their absence of real research, their acceptance of rhetorical trickery, their reliance upon innuendo, their habitual re-dressings of the issues, do, in fact, tend to discredit it, BA being a fair example of the problem.
Forrest actually did her homework, and for this she is attacked as well, which suggests volumes about certain people's attitudes about homework.
Perhaps this is their overall attitude about education, as well.
Yet BA continues to attack Darwin, as though discrediting Darwin discredits common descent
BA loves the non sequitur.
This particular one is called Poisoning the Well.
What really kills me is the fundamentalist insistance that science is evil and atheistic. I feel that science IS atheistic, and that that should make it accesable to everyone. I do not mean that it is atheistic in that it denies the possibility of god, but that it ignores god and concentrates on what can be observed.
All you have to do is add "because made it that way" after everything, and it supports you perfectly.
I knew a research physiscist once who said that he was studying the mind of God through His works. Did good work though.
Hm, that was supposed to be:
"because (lessthan)insertyourdeityhere(greaterthan) made it that way"
Science is not atheistic, it is agnostic. Both the theologian and the atheist will see the same thing when they look through a microscope. Both the theologian and the atheist will get the same reading on their stopwatches as they time how long it takes for a given body to fall a given distance at sea level, etc.
There is no contradiction in a religious person doing science. Although science is methodologically naturalistic, that doesn't mean that it is ontologically naturalistic. A good Christian is perfectly justified in expecting the natural world as created by God to be predictable, measurable, and comprehensible.
This is why most of the mainstream Christian denominations find no conflict with science, and in fact many of them state that where science and theology contradict, science should prevail.
Interesting quote from St Augustine, on the subject from 400 AD:
http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm
Just because ignorant fundamentalists insist that science and religion are incompatible doesn't make it so. Real Christians figured this out 1600 years ago.
Jon V.,
Three things....ID does not require a supernatural designer, ID is clearly NOT “biblical creationism”, and while the majority of ID supporters adhere to various religious beliefs, they are not all “100% religious”.
Furthermore, the “wedge” document is no different than the big pow wow that went down at the Salk Institute last month.
Dude, you should know better by now.
Anyway, I’ll hopefully be planning a road trip soon, as it seems Dembski has offered to debate Forrest if she’s up to the task. Time will tell, I guess.
Commenting by HaloScan
