1
   

Intelligent Designer's Other Qualities

 
 
tycoon
 
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 07:06 am
Does the so-called Intelligent Designer have other qualities that are discernible to us?

We say we can stand in awe of the mind that engineered, say, an eyeball. But does the eye so designed give us other clues as to something else this designer is capable of?

For instance, is this designed eye leading us to conclude that we have a moral purpose to use the eye judiciously?

Is the Engineer also a Conductor?

It seems to me if ID proponents want this theory to succeed, more must be known about the designer behind it all. I would like to learn more along these lines, using the science of ID (of course) to instruct us.

So, what do we know?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 867 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 09:28 am
We know that the "intelligent design" crowd don't want to, and never intend to describe the designer. After all, the whole point is to get creationism in the back door dressed in a lab coat, with a pocket protector and taped eyeglasses. Heaven forbid (all puns intended) that they ever be obliged to describe the designer--that ain't in the plans.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 09:39 am
And the whole point of the anti-ID crowd is to get atheistic, amoral materialism in the back door dressed in kinky boots, with a restorative treatment to rehabilitate the matriarchy and accompanied inevitably by spending patterns to make media lick its chops gluttonously.

Herrin morale. Settin' on his knees.
0 Replies
 
Vengoropatubus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 10:26 am
Re: Intelligent Designer's Other Qualities
tycoon wrote:
Does the so-called Intelligent Designer have other qualities that are discernible to us?

We say we can stand in awe of the mind that engineered, say, an eyeball. But does the eye so designed give us other clues as to something else this designer is capable of?

For instance, is this designed eye leading us to conclude that we have a moral purpose to use the eye judiciously?

Is the Engineer also a Conductor?

It seems to me if ID proponents want this theory to succeed, more must be known about the designer behind it all. I would like to learn more along these lines, using the science of ID (of course) to instruct us.

So, what do we know?

http://truereligiondebate.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/bible3.gif
0 Replies
 
tycoon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 11:00 am
spendius wrote:
And the whole point of the anti-ID crowd is to get atheistic, amoral materialism in the back door dressed in kinky boots, with a restorative treatment to rehabilitate the matriarchy and accompanied inevitably by spending patterns to make media lick its chops gluttonously.

Herrin morale. Settin' on his knees.


Am I to conclude from this response that ID proponents fully realize the folly of their position, but cling to it in order to keep atheism at bay?

And are they doing so on the erroneous assumption that atheism equates to amoral materalism?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 01:28 pm
I have already said something to that effect on other occasions.

They would dispute "folly" and erroneous" though. Not assumption. And they wouldn't think of themselves as "clinging".

But they would set their assumption out if ever the other side dared to set out it's assumptions about atheism not leading to amoral materialism.

What's up with amoral materialism anyway? It's evolution. You make it sound like something to be vaguely ashamed of.
0 Replies
 
tycoon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 04:49 pm
What do I care about amoral materialism. Nothing. I don't even know what the term means.

I'm interested in what other obvious markers the Intelligent Designer has thrown down. Has he left indisputible proof that he is also compassionate, for instance?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 05:15 pm
Not indisputible proof. But he's trying.

They would have laughed at waterboarding being torture not all that long ago. Even for smirking at the wrong time.

You just have all your perceptions distorted.

Amoral materialism means that might is right. Do you not even know a simple thing like that?

You would care about it if you were faced with it.

Fortunately you are not.

So far.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 06:23 pm
The "painted monkeys" of ID are being used by the establishment of ID Inc. The guys like Behe and Myer are merely pawns because they try to justify their positions within a gospelmof scientific method. In Behes new book for instance, he stipulates to the full aspects of the scientifc principles of things like evolution. This , according to the Discovery Institute Inc, is a major departure from their credo. They are into an all encompassing worldview in which ID stands for ecverything from Biology to pasta recipes. I predict that we shall soon see the first major schism in the ID Inc monolith.

Can the Designer do anything else? Why not? The boys have made him, dressed him up, and given him his own TV show. Hell, he can do anything he damn pleases.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 07:57 am
That's because the opposition is so weak. Fragile.

It only answers the questions it wants to answer. It wants to play according to its own rules and on its home turf like at Dover, as I pointed out many times when that case was being heard.

That's why Dover is insignificant.

It damaged your side. It got your big Houses debating the issue of plaintiff's costs in these sorts of cases. What a disaster. I wouldn't try another Dover if I was you. Sting the taxpayers for another few million and plaintiffs will have to hire the courthouse as well as pay their costs.

You think there will be no reactions to what you like to think is the last word. That's political ineptness on a grand scale.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 05:56 pm
farmerman wrote:
The "painted monkeys" of ID are being used by the establishment of ID Inc. The guys like Behe and Myer are merely pawns because they try to justify their positions within a gospelmof scientific method. In Behes new book for instance, he stipulates to the full aspects of the scientifc principles of things like evolution. This , according to the Discovery Institute Inc, is a major departure from their credo. They are into an all encompassing worldview in which ID stands for ecverything from Biology to pasta recipes. I predict that we shall soon see the first major schism in the ID Inc monolith.

Can the Designer do anything else? Why not? The boys have made him, dressed him up, and given him his own TV show. Hell, he can do anything he damn pleases.


I'm sure it pains you to admit that not all IDers walk in lockstep , thinking and saying the same thing.

You'd rather pretend they did, so you could criticize them for doing so.

So instead you criticize them for differing from one another. Laughing
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 06:07 pm
Im not the one publishing a book that goes counter to the Discovery Institutes credo for a JESUS centered universe. Ive responded to this threads point with fact. Youve responded with your typical call to emotional response. I suppose you will now not read Behe just like you dont read any other scientific or quasi scientific pieces of literature.

ACtually, if I include the YECs and The OECs wed have a fistfight amog 4 different credos.


ONWRD XTN SLDRS (IM for Xtns)
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 06:16 pm
farmerman wrote:
Im not the one publishing a book that goes counter to the Discovery Institutes credo for a JESUS centered universe. Ive responded to this threads point with fact. Youve responded with your typical call to emotional response. I suppose you will now not read Behe just like you dont read any other scientific or quasi scientific pieces of literature.

ACtually, if I include the YECs and The OECs wed have a fistfight amog 4 different credos.


ONWRD XTN SLDRS (IM for Xtns)


And so what if they don't agree?

Wouldn't you criticize them if they did?

You have no point to make, but you keep making it.
0 Replies
 
Vengoropatubus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2008 01:24 am
I don't think we'd be criticizing anyone if they were coherent.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 03:28 am
I'm always getting criticised and I'm coherent.

It's all about rumpy-pumpy. That's coherent.

300 million Americans weren't poofed into existence.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 05:17 am
RL
Quote:
And so what if they don't agree?


Then Id believe that the fundamental differences that IDers have from Creationists would make a substantive schism inthe movements. After all, Behe (the IDers) agrees with mainstream science on most issues , so he could really be a problem to strict Creationists YEC's .
I believe that , youve try to hide in therather large clot of "believing" scientists and all those bogus statistics about belief as a central core of "most " of the countrywhen, after all, when viewed dispassionately, many of the believing scientists do NOTAT ALL accept the strict Biblical interpretations that you seem to preach. (Floods, Sudden Appearances, YECism, No evolution , no fossil record, no geological processes of a really old erth, no physical chemical testing methods valid, no physics (magnetism) that suggests an old dynamic earth, ) generally, you believe that most all science is fundamentally flawed in its collective abilities to dte, predict,interpret.
When significant numbers of your "monolithic" organization actually show widely different beliefs, I call that more than a "so what".

I could be wrong, but Im not.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 07:00 am
farmerman wrote:
RL
Quote:
And so what if they don't agree?


Then Id believe that the fundamental differences that IDers have from Creationists would make a substantive schism inthe movements. After all, Behe (the IDers) agrees with mainstream science on most issues , so he could really be a problem to strict Creationists YEC's .
I believe that , youve try to hide in therather large clot of "believing" scientists and all those bogus statistics about belief as a central core of "most " of the countrywhen, after all, when viewed dispassionately, many of the believing scientists do NOTAT ALL accept the strict Biblical interpretations that you seem to preach. (Floods, Sudden Appearances, YECism, No evolution , no fossil record, no geological processes of a really old erth, no physical chemical testing methods valid, no physics (magnetism) that suggests an old dynamic earth, ) generally, you believe that most all science is fundamentally flawed in its collective abilities to dte, predict,interpret.
When significant numbers of your "monolithic" organization actually show widely different beliefs, I call that more than a "so what".

I could be wrong, but Im not.


I have no idea what 'monolithic' organization you are talking about. Yeah, you're wrong.

I've nowhere stated or implied that 'all' or even 'most' IDers and/or creationists should think the same thing about ANY of the issues you've raised.

As for your claim that 'I think most all science is fundamentally flawed', that is so much garbage. So you're wrong twice.

Hope you're having a good morning.
0 Replies
 
Vengoropatubus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2008 09:19 pm
spendius wrote:
I'm always getting criticised and I'm coherent.

It's all about rumpy-pumpy. That's coherent.

300 million Americans weren't poofed into existence.


Everybody is coherent to themselves spendi.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Intelligent Designer's Other Qualities
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 09:18:06