Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Why is Craig denied by many, ALL of Hitchens questions were ressolved.

Is it simply the fact that he is a theist?

This fact is independent of his philosophical/logical inferences, and this is what I was suggesting in my previous post, many atheists are dogmatic as many theists, this is an emotional appeal to the consensus and authority, furthermore to simply assert metaphysical certitude is fallacious.

This is ILLOGIC, Craig subjectively proposes that theism is the best philosophical arguement, he acknowledges that it may in fact be open to interpretation.

It would depend on "which" god one believes in.

While I assert philosophically ignostisim, I am most certainly support the practical applications (pragmatism) of verificationalism, falsificationalism, scientisms, empiricalism, positivism...ect.

I am simply attempting to answer this why interpretation utilising formal logic/semantics, in reality I deny ALL supernatural suggestion, I am actually an 'extream' skeptic.

One small problem Anomie. You miss Dawkins meaning completely and argue in support of what he actually meant while thinking you are arguing against it.

Just as any New Yorker will acknowledge that the YAnkees are the best team in baseball. However, Craig, like any New Yorker, mst also acknowledge facts and evidence.

Do you remember when I previously suggested justification theory, there is no universal quantification of evidence, humans assert normative predicates, such as the term 'rational', hence operate this meaning how it OUGHT TO (emotionally) be, meaning that a consensus is formed to justify how much (quanta) is required to convince human cognitive faculties to propositional values (of truth aptness), I am certain many 'rational' humans will believe that science is statically truth reliable and universality is 'superflous'.

Informal clarification: facts do not speak for themselves.

He is applying the facts (empirical) and evidence to cogent his beliefs, he is not restricted to naturalistic suggestion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrMFv6QoX0

Why questions (of philosophy) deconstruct scientific methodology.

Empirical induction is circular, philosophers may attempt to eliminate fallible, aprosterioristic systems, prior to such assimilated repercussions, this is ochams razor, the very individual that you defend favours this concept.

Furthermore, logic is apriorism, this means that logic contains less assumptions, empirical knowledge increases these assumptions, being the pressuposition of consistency.

Fine tunning arguementation is anthropocentric bias (cognition), this suggestion it in fact appeals to an intelligent design.

Are you referring to the example of 'reinterpretation' to ad hoc the infinite regress paradox?

If it is correct, the inferrence that was suggested remains abductive.

However, there is no solution to the questions, unless consciousness is universally defined.

Craig simply argues dualism (by intuition perhaps), furthermore argues that immaterialism (nothingness/mathematically an empty set) would be simpler to the "complex things" (however this is defined) of materialism.

Getting on TV is/was the main thing for Dawkins, Hitchens and Craig. It's a job. Being controversial. Cheap programming. Two chairs and two talking heads. Ads at beginning, middle and end. Sandwich board men really.

It's popular with a certain type of viewer. One who likes being controversial. And it doesn't take much skill. You just say that there's no God and all the filling in of the details you just look up. Then you comb your hair and powder your nose and away you go. Little old you in a vast cold universe and you've got it all at your fingertips. Everything explained.

farmerman tried it once but he obviously hadn't got what it takes. There's a few A2Kers who fancy themselves at it.

It's actually bullshit because God in not observable. Neither is no God. Under "instrumentalism" it is taken for granted that our observations are "theory laden" (Kuhn and Feyerabend) which means theories we already hold influence, determine even,what we observe and the significance we attach to them. You can see that at work all along the thread.

There is no theory neutral body of judgement to adjudicate between scientific theories. With most science it doesn't matter much because nobody is likely to bring a theory laden view to gravitation or that 2+2=4 (except O'Brien in 1984 or Spengler in the Meaning of Numbers). Everytime you see gravitation or 2+2=4 used to make a point in this debate you are seeing scientific vacuity.

That is because this subject here is very theory laden because it is intimately connected with sex. The proponents of anti-ID can be guaranteed to be seeking justifications for rejecting Christian teaching on sexual matters and other indulgencies of animalistic carnal appetites. They have no other reasons. There is no objective truth regarding observables never mind unobservables.

This is all easy enough, of course. But when the exploitation of sex and carnality for money is involved it is less easy to see what's going on. So the coalition of anti-ID actually exposes itself to view as you can observe. Media conglomerates, the legal profession, science, the medical profession, which wants everybody non-fatally sick, and the sordid little personal reasons associated with askesis denial and which there is so much of.

It all comes into focus, especially with unobservables like God or no-God. It's a battle of the two theories. The one, anti-ID, supports premarital sex, divorce, artificial contraception including abortion, adultery, homosexuality, price gouging and generally shitting on everybody they can get away with. But it dare not say so. Its knees turn to jelly at the bedroom door. The other side, ID, rejects those things in principle despite many of its supporters succumbing to the temptations they offer.

In fact, there is so much succumbing to temptation that it amazes me that anti-ID has not wiped out all religious ideas.

There are two glaring absurdities in the anti-ID argument. They confuse observables with unobservables and draw inferences from the former which they apply to the latter to confuse us. And they dare not sell their case on its merits as the Marquis de Sade did and I can do easily. They are wet, weak-kneed, neurotic, puritanical wimps. They won't even tell us what we get if we give them the green light. Not even a hint.

They even think that Christians breaking the rules of the Church's moral teachings are scientific evidence that the moral teachings themselves are invalid. In fact it is evidence of how difficult it is to abide by those rules and what would happen if the rules were set aside altogether, which is what they want.

A further problem they have relating to A2K is that they can't write their way out of a paper bag. I'm not that good at writing but even by my standards they are illiterate.

That's why they all have me on Ignore. And they think it's clever too. They think that putting me on Ignore is a claim to the high ground and it's actually running away.

They are pathetic and the idea of placing them in charge of the education of a superpower's 50 million kids is based on nothing else but their pantsdown theory laden rejection of Christian morality and, as such, totally ludicrous, and some would say subversive.

I don't know how you can take them seriously. They are a joke and the 90% of Americans who believe in "something" are the proof.

PS--Notice that I justified the word "bullshit". They just use the term as a splatter-gun insult and have convinced themselves that it's a logical argument. What more do you need gentle reader?

Garbage.

You said,

You contradict yourself; you have arrived at conclusions in your many posts - or can you define consciousness universally?

The error of this appears to that non-theists conform to atheism, yet do not acknowledge the logical implications, this may be an appeal to ridicule, hence a 'rational' basis.

Many atheists may in fact be agnostics, however the restrictions of formal logic deny empirical suggestion, therefore it may force many supernatural skeptics (appealing to 'rationality') to feel that such anecdotal arguements (of the supernatural) is equal to scientific methodology.

There is in fact a consistency error, theologists and philosophers logically acknowledge this propositional trichotomy:
There is no deities/other entities.
It is uncertain that there are deities/other entities.
There is in fact deities/other entities.

Furthermore, Craig has argued for the existence of God, there does not appear to be a logical arguement that suggests the first proposition (these are in fact misinterpreted agnostic arguements), as an example if there is no empirical evidence to suggests supernatural (excluding the singularity), how does this logically (deduction) entail that there is no God?

If there is NO arguementation for an atheistic assertion and there IS arguementation for a theistic/deistic assertion, God is logically possible, hence entails the ontological arguement, for simplification, this suggests if an entity is a logical possibility, it is metaphysically true, however Kant proposed a conditional refutation for this, such as if and only if being is predicative (cicerone imposter, this why consciousness requires a definition), or if God is of aprioristic, analytic (self contained predication) epistemology, hence why is the experience of Jesus required?

The other suggestions of his 'critique of pure reason' works is agnostic defence or invalid, and most certainly does not refute deism.



Consciousness has no universal definition, yet all epistomologies pressupose a definition, such as 'I think, therefore I am', this only suggest that a mind exists, not a body.

Again Crag suggests that a mind is not a minds idea, is there any reason to deny this assertion?

Philosophy exists to find solutions to such errors, I believe logic would answer the question, rather than the science of observations.

Why is this the case?

Logic is the basis of minds, it is necessarily true for an objective reality, the very fact that I cannot actualise a married bachelor suggests logical consistency.

I would estimate that to be about half way between mute consternation and a batsqueak.

Ive tired of Craig in the 90's, sounds like yore a newbie. His original arguments that evidence of evolution also evidences a deity is total bullshit. Ive followed his talking points and how theyve been nicely deconstructed by some real scientists like Jerry Coyne . Im really not very interested in these attemped underpinnings of theistic evolution because they are a waste of everyones time when theres real work to be done.

If you respect Craigs assertions, fine, its just that not many folks find his argments compelling because he telegraphs his punches very early in any debate. You dont arrive at conclusions with him, instead you try to remove any evidence that doesnt support your preselected opinion. Pretty soon, Craigs arguments become obviously specious

Logic is not the basis of mind. There are many processes where logic is completely irrelevant. Traditional Aristotlean two-valued logic is completely useless for many real-world decisions, since everything is not necessarily either ture or false, and many decisions can only be probabilistic, the so-called "fuzzy" logic is all you can employ. And further logic is only as good as the initial postulates you reason from. Craig, from the little I could stomach, starts with a number of unverifiable and indeed unlikely initial premises, which he seems to treat as inherently true, a dubious proposition. In the computer biz that's known as GIGO--Garbage in, Garbage out.

I enjoy the way he talks in circles in his attempts to make his point. What's funnier is his use of the word "logic" to support what he's trying to say. His use of 1,000 dollar words only gets in the way of simple communication.

They (the religious and agnostics) continue in their attempts to tie evolution into ID. The fundamental problems being all the foundation from which they try to rationalize how evolution was always been part of ID has too many holes and contradictions in the bible itself.

Trying to infuse philosophy into the mix only proves they don't understand science or philosophy.



Anything having to do with creation is based on religious faith; nothing more, nothing less. Evolution is evidenced through science.

Im not a big DAwkins fan either (I think Ive been clear on this dislike of him) but for totally different reasons. DAwkins (and jerry Coyne sometimes) are just like tough little Bandy chickens who are always dusting for a fight, and quick to belittle their opponents rather than getting into the meat of the topic.

Thomas is always chiding me but its a personal thing about my dislike of Dawkins methods. He can say volumes ifn hed just stick to his science and quit poking poisoned needles at his targets.

As to anomies use of showy language , its a common thing with many folks with his condition. We just learn to deal with it, hes not doing it for any reasons other than thats just the way hes wired . I enjoy his input because, unlike spendi, anomie is on the topic of the moment and is not seeking to be the ballerina in the spotlight. I have to admit I have to read his stuff two or more times to "get it" but, thats on me.

So Craig's argument without logic is somehow logical?

Will you explain to us all fm exactly why I am seeking to be the ballerina in the spotlight and nobody else is? Not you, not Anomie, nobody. Just me. Is it because I'm the only one who can dance properly. There has to be a reason why me posting on A2K is different from anybody else posting. You're not exactly coyly hiding in the bushes with your knickers pulled up are you? What was it that Green Witch just did if we keep the metaphor going? Streak across the stage waving a page from a kiddie's comic.

And what have you to say to the actual ballerina in the spotlight? Are you suggesting that all those skills and practice are misplaced.

Actually, you're simply stupid.

I'm trying to teach Anomie and Spade to get all that **** out of their heads about technical details and science and stuff and realise that anti-IDers are talking through their dicks. Like WJB said--the arguments are easy and all on the record. We all know where witches are coming from no matter what colour they are. Lead us into temptation.

I like your faked humility about having the patience to read Anomie's stuff "two or more times" (which I don't believe) in order to "get it". It's incomprehensible. You don't get it at all. You're asserting again. You're up to your old tricks of trying to set your opponents against each other by praising one of them. (faintly).

The meat of the topic, as I explained above, is the "theory ladle". Your dick. It just so happens, I don't think, that all your science fits in very nicely with you being a naughty boy from a Christian perspective. Or defending someone else being naughty who you can't avoid doing.

All anti-IDers are the same. I've known since I was young. I've met so many. Abortion is the thing they keep the most secret. It's amazing how many abortions there are and I've never met anybody who had one or paid for one. Simply amazing.

Anti-IDers are probabilistically the main suspects. Obviously.

But why is it that with so many succumbing to the same temptations as anti-IDers have done that most of them still retain faith in the Christian values as a principle. After Kinsey and Masters and Johnson you really do need to explain why Christianity in the US is not just a freak cult rather than it being one of the main choices at the next election.

It is my experience from decades of pub nights that anti-ID signifies infractions of the Christian moral codes and usually those which are the most uncomfortable to talk about. Not adultery.

When are you going to start treating A2K with respect fm? Defend the infractions to the Christian moral codes like a man and knock off all this sophistry. I can defend some of them. Not abortion. That's indefensible.

Generally speaking, from the point of view of the science of psychology, the more adamant anti-IDers get the more guilty they are of sexual "sins". And ashamed.

I think that is a perfect post to illustrate fm's statement spendi.

You trot out a lot of malarky that has nothing really to do with comparing the science of ID vs the science of evolution. Instead you rely on an emotional appeal that isn't very appealing. But you don't say it in a few short sentences. You go on and on.

Really? People that say ID isn't science are only talking with their dicks? All your talk about sex and dicks makes me realize fm got the metaphor wrong. You aren't a ballerina in the spotlight. You are someone that prefers to wave his dick around and masturbate in public. You get off on your long diatribes that generally disgust the rest of us.