Tuesday, April 04, 2006

The Three Hour Challenge: Are You Courageous & Honest Enough?

Here's a challenge for all evolutionists: the Three Hour Challenge. Watch the films Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet and then, without lying, explain why and how intelligent design is not based upon scientific observation and research but instead is based on religious doctrines and faith.

To make life easier, you can go here and watch the films on your computer.

If you really think you can prove intelligent design is purely religious with no trace of science, then take the challenge, if you're courageous and honest enough.

9 comments:

Samuel S. Chen said...

I've received some posts on this. If you think intelligent design is not a science, take the three-hour challenge first and if you still have anything to say, come back and post. If you don't do this, your comments will be deleted.

James Wynne said...

Gee, Sammy, that 3-hour challenge thing sounds familiar...

Samuel S. Chen said...

James,
I never said the three-hour challenge was mine. I actually got it from a colleague of mine. If you clicked on the link in the post you would know that. Now, why don't you take the challenge?

James Wynne said...

The link to Uncommon Descent is a cut-and-paste from Joe G's blog, which you would have known if you had paid attention to the link I provided.

Joe G said...

I want to thank Samuel Chen for posting the 3-hour challenge.

I urge anyone and everyone who reads this to either take the challenge or spread the word about it.

So far there haven't been any serious challenges to "the challenge".

Mr. Chen, why do you think that is?

Intelligent Reasoning

James Wynne said...

No serious challenges? What about this one?

Joe G said...

LoL! That article starts with:

"The Privileged Planet is based upon the odd notion that the more unsuitable our universe is for producing intelligent life, the more likely it is that our universe was "designed" to produce intelligent life by a "designer" of indeterminate nature;"

Which is absolutely false. It doesn't get any better either:

"We know from experience that this is not how human beings, the only intelligent designers of which we have any experience, work."

Beavers and bees come to mind, Then there are the ants. The author is clueless.

The moron never deals with the data- the data that is published in peer-reviewed journals. All he does is to personally attack Gonzalez and Richards. IOW he is a typical intellectual coward.

Jeffreys is a weak-minded fool. As is anyone who buys his drivel.

James Wynne said...

Joe proudly shows off his ignorance again. With his reference to beavers and bees, he demonstrates that he doesn't understand the difference between intelligence and instinct.

Doppelganger said...

Hi Sam,

As a philosophy/poli. sci. major, do you believe that, say, watching a video produced by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would provide an even handed view of John Kerry's character and personal history?

That is, do you really believe that watching a couple of advocacy videos is the best way to learn about these issues?

And further, that if one watches these videos and are not convinced of the veracity of the claims (perhaps, you know, the viewer may become curious and then gone on to look into the primary source literature and discovers that much of what is claimed is not really all that accurately presented... or something like that) that they must therefore be dishonest or lying?