agentorange;
Not everyone agrees with you. There are many more very intelligent scientists, philosophers and mathematicians that don't agree with you and your outspoken evolutionists leaders. They have satisfactorily established their theories and are winning converts.

"Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God."

Dawkins hasn't discounted an intelligent agent for creation of life on earth. He at least has a grasp of 'design inference' .
Antony Flew confessed he had to be intellectually honest to give up on Darwimian evolution and accept God as creator per the ID theory. He has a strong grasp of design inference as I do.

I suggest you try another tactic of attack rather than the tired dogmas used by the evolutionists. "since (it is claimed) “no one’s ever seen it.” Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty."

Let's discuss why the conflicted Dawkins isn't 100% convinced that naturalism can explain all of life. Let's discuss why an outspoken atheist/evolutionist Antony Flew converted when presented with the truth claims of ID.

HAWK/Parrot,

‘I'll still use cut and paste when I deem it appropriate.”

You use it all day every day when it comes to discussing evolution or science in general. You know nothing of them and copy and pasting is all you can manage. And sure enough below you managed to squeeze another verbatim quote, well done.

“The philosophy of naturalism only looks at material and energy for causes and excludes consideration for the supernatural.”

You know why don’t ya? B/c that is HOW Science works. Science isn’t allowed to invoke ‘god made it that way’ or supernatural answers to equations, as they’re not falsifiable. The natural and material world is ALL that science is allowed to use to explain things, this is why its basis is always a natural one.

“Behe's observations for IC are still valid regardless of the derisions from evolutionists that Behe and the folks at DI have successfully responded to”

Still valid, really which ones? I have seen Behe’s instances for IC been tossed aside after being gutted, but I’ve yet to hear a counter argument from the ID side on them. Here, watch Miller describe why IC fails. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A

"You put your faith in naturalism and I converted first to ID then to creationism after I accepted them to conform better to reality than naturalism.”

Really, then what do you make of these? Let me guess, ‘da designer made it that way!’ Sorry, but that’s not a falsifiable answer and as such isn’t science.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

agentorange;
I'll still use cut and paste when I deem it appropriate.
Try these for starters (they are part of the article I refered you to). Two extensive online book lists are A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography by Henry M. Morris and Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography by Eric Blievernicht. Periodicals include the peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, and the popular-level Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine.

All science is interpretation from a worldview. All science evidence that I know of is material, energy and/or intelligence. The philosophy of naturalism only looks at material and energy for causes and excludes consideration for the supernatural. That's why it comes up short for considering intelligence within design; there is no sound naturalism explanation for it (Dawkins highly intelligent space aliens designing life on earth is not in the realm of naturalism; Dawkins is truly conflicted).

"Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:
sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:"

Behe's observations for IC are still valid regardless of the derisions from evolutionists that Behe and the folks at DI have successfully responded to. I'll let the testimonies from DI and ICR and that of Antony Flew and others ride with that position.

It still comes down to differences of religious worldviews and the validity of the presuppositions; naturalism Vs creationism or ID. You put your faith in naturalism and I converted first to ID then to creationism after I accepted them to conform better to reality than naturalism.

HAWK,

"what is wrong with copy and paste when it fits with the discussion or situtation? "

Are you kidding? simply copying and pasting shows how utterly little you truly know, if you write something and then source it, then that's different, you quoted word for word like you wrote it.

"naturalism (scientism) of evolution is one of those worldview issues and how it is used to interpret evidence"

You must be kidding again right? ALL SCIENCE evidence is directly the NATURAL kind, evolution is not the only one to refer to the natural, material world.

". Dawkins obviously is conflicted over this issue as well."

No he's not. Dawkinds finds ID personified by aliens (natrual mind you) as opposed to a supernatural ID is quite a difference.

"Creation science and ID also interpret the same evidence from their respective philosophical perspectives and obviously come to different conclusions many times."

Ok, I asked for some actual evidence for 'creation theory' as you so elequently put it, if the 1982 book by Morris is all you have, keep trying. any evidence for ID?

"Just a footnote, steveh20...how do you get Dr. Who at 4 in the afternoon? Must not be BBC America."

I'm in the UK, though I was watching Saturdays edition I'd recorded, 4th series is shaping up nicely.

BW

Steve

Hey Shu,
Not sure if you and Steve touched upon singularity from a naturalist point of view to the Big Bang, but Ravi Zacharias in Jesus Among Other Gods (pp 62-64) spends a little effort on this along with invoking David Hume and causality. Could be worthwhile to review. It jumps from philosophy at the singularity stage to physics once the 'big bang' occurs. Has the physicists stumped.

God Bless

agentorangex...Wow! You found a copy! Yep. It's a bit of an old book but I do believe the Bible is a tad older. :-) It was to prove a point. We are more interested in "the latest and greatest" to believe instead of the never changing. People can argue about evolution vs. creation from now until the Lord returns and never reach agreement.

It's about faith. What do you believe? Do you trust the Bible? Do you trust evolution? Do you trust science? Do you trust the media? I worked in the media for over a dozen years. If you give me a subject and how you want the story to come out...given enough time I could make the story prove anything just about.

Neither evolution nor creation is about science. It's about answering to God. If creation is true then you must accept answering to God. If evolution is true then you don't have to (unless you believe in theistic evolution and that would just really make this whole conversation a bit more complicated....)

My position is simple. There will never be enough conclusive evidence to prove one position or the other. It doesn't hold to the scientific method and takes away valueable time from the classroom. Science class should be about the scientific method.

Just a footnote, steveh20...how do you get Dr. Who at 4 in the afternoon? Must not be BBC America.

"I'd also suggest a more thorough study on the subject of causation."

Thanks I'll revisit my well thumbed Hume (I love him, he set me straight on so much)

Regards

Steve

Steve -

First, philosophy means "lover of wisdom" or "to love wisdom"; when I ask what philosophical explanations best fits the facts, I mean just that: what are the best and most truthful conclusions we come to when all is said and done.

<<I'll take matter before mind because there's lots we don't know, funny thing, you see that as an alternative but I see it as mainstream.>>

Well, I wish you good luck with that. When you can show how things like personality, love, thought, meaning, etc., come from mindless matter like a rock, let us know. I'd also suggest a more thorough study on the subject of causation.

On other thought , the the very start of the universe is not a "normal event" in everyday speak so our everyday philosphy breaks down, it becomes meaningless ,all the philosophy you mention is "everyday" based on time and space as we experience it. I think that this is what many philosphers forget (many of them are stuck up there own back sides anyway-not all )
Steve