Feedback on ID Book? (genesis, atheist, agnostic, bible)

[Shiloh1]

Has anyone read or heard about this Book 'Science Declares Or Universe is Itelligently Designed' by Robert A. Herrmann. If so what think Ye?

Here is a link to his website: Dr. Robert A. Herrmann's (GID) Intelligent Design and Considerably More Web Site

[catman]

No, I usually read nonfiction. The title is a complete travesty. "Science" hasn't declared any such thing.

[Shiloh1]

Originally Posted by catman

No, I usually read nonfiction. The title is a complete travesty. "Science" hasn't declared any such thing.

Thanks for the sarcasism - if you have not read it how would you know? From what I read on the site he approaches it from a strictly mathematical and logical perspective.

[Shiloh1]

From the first paragraph on his website.

'My analysis (the GID-model, GID) is not related, in method, to the very inadequate and highly criticized Johnson-Dembski-Behe theory (RID) as championed by members of the Discovery Institute. The GID-model (General Intelligent Design Model) is NOT the intelligent design notion discussed on Wikipedia under the heading "intelligent design" and, indeed, contradicts much written there about intelligent design.'

[sanspeur]

And here is his bias...
As a minimal requirement, I consider a properly constructed scientific theory or model a (Biblical) "creationary" science theory or model if it, at the least, does not contradict a strict interpretation of the Bible's Genesis 1 creationary statements. The strength of any such theory or model depends upon whether it also predicts not only each Biblical creationary event, including the Genesis Flood, but whether it also predicts physical events as observed today. Although such an interpretation is not necessary, there is a theological interpretation of the GGU-model that yields every strictly interpreted physical event as described in Genesis through the Flood, as well as, all physical events that have been observed and recorded since the Flood. Of course, besides this minimal requirement, Biblical creationary theories can validate many other theological principles.

[Shiloh1]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

And here is his bias...
As a minimal requirement, I consider a properly constructed scientific theory or model a (Biblical) "creationary" science theory or model if it, at the least, does not contradict a strict interpretation of the Bible's Genesis 1 creationary statements. The strength of any such theory or model depends upon whether it also predicts not only each Biblical creationary event, including the Genesis Flood, but whether it also predicts physical events as observed today. Although such an interpretation is not necessary, there is a theological interpretation of the GGU-model that yields every strictly interpreted physical event as described in Genesis through the Flood, as well as, all physical events that have been observed and recorded since the Flood. Of course, besides this minimal requirement, Biblical creationary theories can validate many other theological principles.

I wish you would give the context - I do not think he uses this as a starting point but somthing that can be drawn from his model and hence a proper 'creation' or biblical model.

[SuSuSushi]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Thanks for the sarcasism - if you have not read it how would you know? From what I read on the site he approaches it from a strictly mathematical and logical perspective.

"Intelligent Design" doesn't belong in the atheist/agnostic forum. That's more of a philosophy thing.

Oh, and it's a bunch of crap.

[Shiloh1]

Originally Posted by SuSuSushi

"Intelligent Design" doesn't belong in the atheist/agnostic forum. That's more of a philosophy thing.

Oh, and it's a bunch of crap.

I think your response is a bunch of crap. That is not a perspective when you have not read the book nor noticed the preceding post about its differences with the typical ID movement. Stop being so emotional and reactionary. If you can not offer any reasonable or constructive criticism (which you cant's because you have not read the book nor anything on his site) why don't you just ignore the post.

[SuSuSushi]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I think your response is a bunch of crap. That is not a perspective when you have not read the book nor noticed the preceding post about its differences with the typical ID movement. Stop being so emotional and reactionary. If you can not offer any reasonable or constructive criticism (which you cant's because you have not read the book nor anything on his site) why don't you just ignore the post.

I would have, except YOU wrongly chose to post it in the Atheist/Agnostic forum thankyouverymuch. Now that it's been moved to a more appropriate forum, I couldn't care less if that's what you believe. It just didn't belong where you put it.

And no, I don't believe in any sort of ID any more than I believe in any deities or anythign supernatural.

[coosjoaquin]

Shiloh1, the only people who will read these books are those who already believe in ID. Book discussions do not make good thread in CD. From experience, I think that it's best to talk about arguments the book makes since that way it will be an accessible dicussion to more CD members