Questions about God and Science

[Whateverist]

Also it's British, not british. It's a proper noun.

I'm American. I'm free from english rule.

What rules? Let's rebel!

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Here's an example of an atheist who thinks ID arguments constitute science:

http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/

He's an example of a philosopher of science and modern atheist who isn't ready to wave off theism as dumb or as inherently unscientific.

[IATIA]

If someone supports ID, then, by definition, they are not atheist. PERIOD!

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

If someone supports ID, then, by definition, they are not atheist. PERIOD!

I think his position is more like this: he considers ID valid as science - not to be automatically rejected as non-science, the way some people claim - and thinks they have some good arguments.

Here are his own words:

http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/categ...ef-in-god/

[IATIA]

ID is design by a god. By definition, an atheist rejects ANY claim of a god. PERIOD!

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrd...re=related

[IATIA]

First of all, we know how the first self-replicating molecules came about. We can do that in a laboratory today, now.

Secondly, that is just the same old 'ancient astronaut' spiel.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why should the example of Mr. Monton be more persuasive than yourself (or the principle proponents of ID)? Why should I give a shit if someone thinks that ID is valid science? In the same vein, upon what metrics do you imagine ID to be valid science (he offered no elaboration), just a short quip about how "some arguments (which ones...he doesn't care to elaborate here either) make him "less certain" about his atheism. Do you think you might be able to fill in those blanks for me?

(reading through his blogs on the subject offer no insight, though they do provide compelling evidence that this guy is a goddamned moron. He thinks ID is science despite having no evidence supporting it, but simultaneously thinks that Quantum Mechanics is bullshit despite there being evidence to support it........just as one glaring example)

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Why should the example of Mr. Monton be more persuasive than yourself (or the principle proponents of ID)? Why should I give a shit if someone thinks that ID is valid science? In the same vein, upon what metrics do you imagine ID to be valid science (he offered no elaboration), just a short quip about how "some arguments (which ones...he doesn't care to elaborate here either) make him "less certain" about his atheism. Do you think you might be able to fill in those blanks for me?

(reading through his blogs on the subject offer no insight, though they do provide compelling evidence that this guy is a goddamned moron. He thinks ID is science despite having no evidence supporting it, but simultaneously thinks that Quantum Mechanics is bullshit despite there being evidence to support it........just as one glaring example)

1. Only because he's a pro philosopher with a PHd and a professor of philosophy at University of Colorado. He's also more sympathetic to atheism than I am.

2. You may not care, but I do. It was my original question. Why is intelligent design automatically off the table as a possibility in science? What are the reasons intelligent design should never be taken seriously as science? My sense is that people are too emotionally invested in how they want the answers to be to feel comfortable with having a serious debate about ID. Otherwise, why not seriously hash the thing out? And if it has been hashed out - where? By who? Who's had that conversation?

3. I also listened to a lengthy interview where he offered more than in his blog. I won't try to speak for him. I suppose if you read his book or spent a little more time reading what he's got to say you could hear his reasons for thinking that ID is worthwhile as science.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. Only because he's a pro philosopher with a PHd and a professor of philosophy at University of Colorado. He's also more sympathetic to atheism than I am.

What would be compelling would be presenting evidence for ID.

2. You may not care, but I do. It was my original question. Why is intelligent design automatically off the table as a possibility in science? What are the reasons intelligent design should never be taken seriously as science? My sense is that people are too emotionally invested in how they want the answers to be to feel comfortable with having a serious debate about ID. Otherwise, why not seriously hash the thing out? And if it has been hashed out - where? By who? Who's had that conversation?

It wasn't, in fact the entirety of scientific endeavor was once very much a search for god. ID has been "seriously hashed out" and the reasons that it is not science have nothing to do with how people want answers to be. Where-across the entirety of this planet. By whom-biologists, who, in looking for explanations for these things found gods (and intelligent designs, and irreducable complexieties) to be curiously absent (as absent as they are in our textbooks...but in this case less curiously).

3. I also listened to a lengthy interview where he offered more than in his blog. I won't try to speak for him. I suppose if you read his book or spent a little more time reading what he's got to say you could hear his reasons for thinking that ID is worthwhile as science.

Or, you could summarize his strongest points (in your estimation) as the person who offered the example................. At some point Akin..you will have to be willing to stand behind these things which you offer up.