Dr. Hugh Ross, astrophysicist. Has presented a testable model of intelligent design, which includes 4 models, and 89 predictive tests, giving the scientific community the chance to publically verify or falsify the data. If you are an Atheist, will you stand still stand by science, or abandon it if the scientific community finds that the tests can be verified after repeating the tests themselves using the scientific process.
http://www.reasons.org/shop/customer/product.php?productid=747&cat=0&page=1
Why do evolutionists keep asking for proof of creationism, when since 08/22/2006 the RTB model has been supplied and offered up for testing.
Ask, and ye shall receive... You have asked, and now you have received. Are you truly interested in the truth, or is that just a cliche???
2007-07-21 04:50:55 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Solly proves to us that Atheists will report any Christian post they can click the flag on!
The link is there because it is the only link that gives the table of contents of the book. The link at Amazon does not list them, the link at CBD, target, shop.com, and the others do not list the contents of the book.
I was hoping for a link other than reasons.org, because I knew the Ad Hominem attacks would fly just by seeing what website it was posted at.
So take note Christians... Solly has proved to us all that the Atheists are hunting out our posts and trying to kill our accounts by manipulating the Yahoo guidelines.
2007-07-21 05:16:43 · update #1
Yes, and never mind that The Privileged Planet was a peer reviewed book, the free-thinking progressive faculty of Iowa State university didn't have any room for someone that disagreed with them, so hey fired the heretic Guillermo Gonzales.
So much for intellectual honesty, the scientific method, and the peer review process.
Are any of you atheists going to actually answer the question? So far all I've seen is dodging.
2007-07-21 04:56:14 · answer #1 · answered by Daniel A: Zionist Pig 3 · 5⤊ 5⤋
Let's be perfectly clear about this. Only fundamentalist Christians feel threatened by the theory of evolution -- probably because it directly contradicts the Genesis allegory. Intelligent Design is a political travesty promoted by the willfully ignorant and has nothing whatever to do with real science. Having said that, if a legitimate peer reviewed journal actually published a paper supporting Intelligent Design, I would read the paper and attempt to keep an open mind.
Your link leads directly to a book of Christian propaganda which has nothing whatever to do with legitimate professional science. The speculations of an astrophysicist with a Bible in his back pocket means very little in the realm of molecular biology and DNA analysis. Furthermore, please note that there is no scientific profession called "evolutionist" and that it is the Creationists who are far out on the lunatic fringe, when it comes to legitimate science. No practicing professional biologist with a genuine doctorate has ever publicly supported either Intelligent Design or Creationism. Even so, though I would most likely remain skeptical, I would read a proper peer reviewed paper and consider the opinions presented. I would not read Hugh Ross's book unless I read several good reviews of it by reputable scientists. (Very unlikely.)
2007-07-21 05:32:32 · answer #2 · answered by Diogenes 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
After reading the synopsis of the book and the chapter breakdown, I still see this as biblical propaganda. However, if the scientific community researchs his theories and supports his models, then yes. That is why evolution is the overwhelming standard at this point. The theory has been tested and retested and been accepted by the scientific community.
Anology: I would like to believe in ghost, but until better scientific proof is uncovered proving their existence, I will continue to believe they do not exist.
2007-07-21 05:14:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I have one. Sort of. It's what Dembski is touting these days. It doesn't really have anything to do with intelligent design or evolution for that matter. But it's all they have. Edit: The paper the nature article mentions is the one that wasn't actually reviewed. The editor of the journal just stuck it in without review. He was promptly fired and the paper retracted. This event (without the first part) was in the movie Expelled, where they tried to make him out to be the good guy. Ah, the dishonesty of creationists.
2016-04-01 05:27:21 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have to be kidding, right? "Unbiased" view of ID? That isn't possible!
From the desciption of the book you are supporting: "He understands why naturalists cling to their evolutionary models despite serious weaknesses--models that ultimately thwart scientific progress and leave humanity without hope or purpose."
Fact: Biological evolution is as thoroughly supported by scientific evidence as any scientific theory that exists, including atomic theory (you do know that the existence of atoms is "only a theory", right?), which forms the whole foundation of science.
Fact: All scientists are "naturalists" since science is the study of the natural world; however, that doesn't mean what this author insinuating - that scientists are therefore atheists. Fact: Most scientists believe in God, and many are devout Christians.
Fact: Knowledge of biological processes does not result in "loss of hope or purpose". On the contrary, greater understanding of God's Creation allows for greater appreciation and awe of the Creator.
Fact: Advancement in scientific knowledge does not "thwart" scientific progress, but produces it.
With so many totally biased statements in one brief paragraph describing this book, you seriously expect that the contents of the book are any less biased or any less ludicrous?
2007-07-21 05:05:51 · answer #5 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
How can you say "unbiased" when he constantly reverts back to the bible? In a letter to Dr. Hugh Ross by Lambert Dolphin it was stated that "The Bible must sit in judgment over all our frail and tentative ideas derived from Science". I listened to many of Dr. Ross' answers for things and you are only fooling yourself if you truly believe it is not biased. Maybe you should do a little more research if you are trying to prove a point. He's nothing but a bible beater with a science degree. Just enough info to be dangerous.
2007-07-21 05:23:41 · answer #6 · answered by Elphaba 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Let's see the data.
A link to a site selling a book is not evidence, particularly when you're dealing with someone affiliated with a movement centered on lying.
I'll bet you that there isn't any "testable model of intelligent design" in that book - that it's nothing but another set of strawman attacks on evolution, "God of the Gaps" arguments, and outright lies. Has "Dr" Ross used his models to successfully design and create new forms of life? I'm betting that I'd have already heard about it if he had.
We've seen this a few thousand times before. Talk is cheap.
==================
PaulCyp, your candor and honesty are appreciated. Thank you for your post - you do your faith proud. I'm quite impressed.
2007-07-21 05:09:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Your link only has a book ad which frankly I see no good reason to spend money on. If you actually have testable predictions which distinguish between creation and other models, for instance Max Tegmark's Mathematics TOE model present them. Otherwise I assume you are simply spamming for book sales.
2007-07-21 05:13:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well I would have to read that book first, but I won't. There are many books, should one believe something just because it is written in a book, even the bible. Personal judgement comes from logic and personal experience, it's called a learning curve. I am personally an Agnostic and feel their is no evidence either way to prove or disprove.
2007-07-21 04:59:35 · answer #9 · answered by Zappster (Deep Thunker) 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
As Thomas Kuhn said, that scientific paradigms shall change once overwhelming evidence can convince the scientific community to change. Scientists want the truth. Thats how the helio-centric universe became accepted, even though it opposed the church's view of the universe. Scientists seeking the truth found overwhelming evidence, proving their earlier theories wrong. Thats how evolution finally became accepted. Scientists seeking the truth found overwhelming evidence, proving their earlier theories wrong.
Sorry but at the moment ID is hardly viable evidence, nor overwhelming for that matter.
Nice try at trying to appear balanced though. Props for that.
2007-07-21 04:57:09 · answer #10 · answered by Menon R 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Oh, yeah. Go for it. Be sure to post the results shooting it down as many times as you do touting the "models".
BTW Why didn't Ross publish in a scientific journal or formally place his "models" up for review? Hmmm? Seems more like another case of preaching to the choir and a fast buck, to me.
Also, have you bothered to research your champion? Even Xtians don't like his arguments.
"These erroneous claims by Ross should alert readers to the fact that Ross is often sloppy in his explanations or even outright mistaken."
"Readers should not be beguiled by his smooth talk, big words or appeals to authority, and instead should believe the clear teaching of Scripture."
"Hugh Ross lays down the gauntlet!
Either AiG or Hugh Ross is seriously misleading the public on some testable claims" http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_gauntlet.asp
A few more:
"The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross" http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/hugh_ross.asp
"A Statement Concerning The Ministry Of Dr. Hugh Ross" http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm
"An Open Letter to Dr. Hugh Ross" http://www.ldolphin.org/Ross.shtml
I love watching Xtian infighting. How many angels on that pinhead?
2007-07-21 04:57:46 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋