spendius wrote:Start with explaining why you think this definition of intelligent design you are in bed with has more to do with what some rich Americans say than with what the 2,500 years of philosophy has been wrestling with and in which all the great names of the past have been involved.
Because they were the ones who came up with the term and they were the ones who defined it and they were the ones who kept promoting it. You, on the other hand, merely decided to rename your personal belief in Christianity, Intelligent Design and no one else in the entire world uses the same definition as you.
No one.
Not even Ben Stein.
You are the only person who has decided to define ID as some sort of 2,500 year old philosophy based on Christian beliefs.
Quote:What philosophical credentials have the Discovery Institute got to compare with that. It's leading lights will have either inherited their wealth or made it in some unrelated activity such a designing and patenting a beer can pull top and are engaged in their activities for boredom relief. Why would that sort of thing qualify them to speak on such intellectual issues as this one.
Well, you're right in thinking they're not qualified to speak on this issue. In fact, they're not really qualified to speak on any intellectual issue, but that's beside the point. They were the ones who came up with the name, they were the ones who came up with its definition.
You, however, came up with a definition and gave it a name that is already in use.
It's like me renaming Evolution, Christianity, and saying Christianity is some 150 year-old scientific theory.
Quote:It's the Jed Clampett syndrome trying to look important. You hit pay dirt and next news you are a philosopher. I've known a few in my time. It goes to their heads and with surrounding themselves with grovelling minions they get all their ideas applauded. A few years of that and they think they are the answer to a maiden's prayer.
A perfect summation of your attributes.
Quote:Would you mind stopping calling me a liar? It's hardly an argument. And "perhaps" off while you're at it. Science doesn't do smears.
If you can't understand what you're doing is dishonest, then you're either delusional or incredibly stupid. Because what you're doing is dishonest. You didn't come up with the term, ID, the Discovery Institute did.
This topic, right, was designed to discuss ID as defined by the Discovery Institute, because that was the only definition. Then you came along, decided to talk about something completely different and named it ID so that you wouldn't appear to be off-topic. That is not dishonest?
One of the above three "gloves" fits you quite well. Liar, delusional or incredibly stupid. It's one of those. From what I've gathered from your posts, from the way you've responded to other posts, it cannot be anything else.
I refuse to play your redefinition game, Spendi, and will consistently refer to your ideology as SR from now on. Not ID. I'm not going to call it ID.
Even if you weren't being dishonest, insane or stupid, you should have seen that you are confusing the issue by calling your ideology ID. That in the interest of being friendlier to other posters in this forum, you should rename your position something else such that there is no confusion. Why? Because it is absolutely, patently clear, that you will not be able to get the DI to change the name of their erroneous doctrine.
If you have an issue with the way ID is defined, take it up with the Discovery Institute. Either that or rename your ideology.
Those are your options. Challenge the Discovery Institute or give up and rename your ideology. Sticking to your guns is not in your best interest. But I predict that you will stick to your guns, because you have always come across as arrogant and self-centred.
There is nothiing more to say on that matter, although I'm sure you will find more to say or if not, invent more to say.
