Difference between revisions of "User talk:BigMike"
From Conservapedia
(→Do you think that is relivent?: new section) |
(answer) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
do you really think that it matters that they called ID creationism? Is it inaccurate? Do you ascribe to ID but not to the idea that there was a creator? Does any one ascribe to the idea with a designer but with out a creator? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 00:27, 20 November 2008 (EST) | do you really think that it matters that they called ID creationism? Is it inaccurate? Do you ascribe to ID but not to the idea that there was a creator? Does any one ascribe to the idea with a designer but with out a creator? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 00:27, 20 November 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | :Sure. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Brendanw is referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=prev&oldid=563482 this edit]<nowiki>]</nowiki>. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{cquote|It could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence of that if you look at the details of biochemistry/molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.--[[Richard Dawkins]] in the film [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | :ID is skepticism of Darwinian evolution. Dawkins cannot bring himself to give up evolution, but if design were detected, he would must certainly not attribute it to a supernatural creator. As another example, [[David Berlinski]] is a self-described agnostic (as Dawkins is a self-described atheist), but seemed in the film to be rather sympathetic to ID. I trust I have answered your question, and then some, in that I gave you two names. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 05:17, 20 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 10:17, November 20, 2008
Wow. Completely deleted. Cool trick. BigMike 23:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Do you think that is relivent?
do you really think that it matters that they called ID creationism? Is it inaccurate? Do you ascribe to ID but not to the idea that there was a creator? Does any one ascribe to the idea with a designer but with out a creator? --Brendanw 00:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)
- Sure. [Brendanw is referring to this edit].
| “ | It could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence of that if you look at the details of biochemistry/molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.--Richard Dawkins in the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed | ” |
- ID is skepticism of Darwinian evolution. Dawkins cannot bring himself to give up evolution, but if design were detected, he would must certainly not attribute it to a supernatural creator. As another example, David Berlinski is a self-described agnostic (as Dawkins is a self-described atheist), but seemed in the film to be rather sympathetic to ID. I trust I have answered your question, and then some, in that I gave you two names. BigMike 05:17, 20 November 2008 (EST)
