Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Casey Luskin at Boise State

Jason Spaceman Posts: 163 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,02:45    Quote Breaking down the definition: Intelligent Design MARTEE ORTIZ Issue date: 4/2/07 Section: News The media has portrayed intelligent design as something it is not, according to Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute of Seattle. “The news media is notorious for defining [intelligent design] very very badly,” Luskin said. Proven even by the raise of hands in Luskin’s Monday night lecture, many Americans know only half the definition of intelligent design, the only half the news media releases. People often confuse it with creationism. To inform people who may have digested a little too much of what the media has fed them, Casey Luskin answered the questions: “What is intelligent design?” and “Is it testable?” Intelligent design is purely scientific, based on facts and theories; ID does not offer proof or evidence to God as creator, which provides one way it differs from creationism. Creationism is a belief. Intelligent design is a theory, and yes it is testable. Beliefs are not necessarily testable. So to answer the question, “What is intelligent design?” Luskin explained that intelligent design is not saying that God created the earth, instead ID is a theory that life and therefore the universe did not arise by chance: an intelligent entity designed and created it. ID is about the facts that negate Darwin’s theory of evolution. “I myself do believe in a benevolent God…but a scientific argument for design in biology does not go that far,” Dr. Michael Behe, an American biochemist, said. Once again, Luskin makes it very clear that ID is not about proving God’s existence; that is a belief. Is intelligent design testable? Luskin went on later to compare ID to a bacterial flagellar motor which is similar to a rotary engine as used in Mazda RX7s. Read it here.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,22:50    Is this a joke?     Quote Casey Luskin also refuted Darwin’s common descent tree, which is thought to provide links between different species of life. This tree was said to show people how they evolved from common descent. This proved a difficult task since the limbs on the tree were going every which way. Well! That's that, then! Can't have things going every which way!   Quote So the tree turns into a tangled bush, and now, Darwin is proven wrong red-handed. "Proven wrong red-handed"? Don't they mean, "caught beyond a reasonable doubt"?   Quote Year ago, when Darwin’s argument first hit big, Uh, how many years ago was that?     Quote it tried to prove "It tried to prove"?     Quote “junk DNA.” This dreadful mistake proved its worthlessness Did it try to prove its worthlessness?     Quote when doctors (under their oath to help better anyone in their care) radiated a woman’s thyroid – vital in the human body. The thyroid, much like taking a wheel off a bike, which was thought to be useless and therefore a junk DNA aftermath, helped in disproving part of Darwin’s theory. This blind leap of faith into Darwinism proved painful to the woman and deadly to Darwin’s theory. Luskin ended with admitting that he himself is a Christian and believes in God but assured everyone listening that this theory cannot prove God’s existence. Jesus H Christ on a bicycle this is a stupid article. Who wrote it? Casey Luskin? -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,23:09    I'm a bitch. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,16:41    Quote (Jason Spaceman @ April 02 2007,21:45) Quote Breaking down the definition: Intelligent Design Is intelligent design testable? Luskin went on later to compare ID to a bacterial flagellar motor which is similar to a rotary engine as used in Mazda RX7s. *tongue in check* even the RX7's went through processes of evolution. Prior to 1993, the turbo's were single, as opposed to 1993 onwards which are now twin sesquential turbo's of the 3rd generation. Also the adaptation of the piston engine to the turbocharged as well as speciation of US modified rotaries to Japanese modified of aspirated blowers. Its not so much a complex system as a course of natural progression. *chortles*

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard