Intelligent Design Theory Solution

rosborne979 wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:
But it negates what is said in a previously established theory.

No, it doesn't negate anything. The assumption made by IR is incorrect. It's wrong, bogus, flawed, it's a non-theory. We've been through this before.

Just because you choose to believe those who tell you that IR invalidates evolutionary theory, doesn't make is so. You have to understand both theories well enough to decide for yourself, or you have to pick somone to trust.

Do you understand both theories? I do.

If you don't understand it yourself, then who do you trust? Any why?

You were lecturing Runner for a typo, but did you mean ID instead of IR?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Either blind chance and random forces were responsible for assembling the intricate and microscopic order and complexity we see in every organism and in the physical systems of the universe...........

..........or they were not.

Can you suggest a third alternative, DrewDad?

"Or they were not" covers a large number of alternative explanations. It doesn't tell me why you prefer ID over, say, a literal interpretation of Genesis.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
thunder_runner32 wrote:
But it negates what is said in a previously established theory.

No, it doesn't negate anything. The assumption made by IR is incorrect. It's wrong, bogus, flawed, it's a non-theory. We've been through this before.

Just because you choose to believe those who tell you that IR invalidates evolutionary theory, doesn't make is so. You have to understand both theories well enough to decide for yourself, or you have to pick somone to trust.

Do you understand both theories? I do.

If you don't understand it yourself, then who do you trust? Any why?

You were lecturing Runner for a typo, but did you mean ID instead of IR?

No. I meant IR. But you would have to understand the subject material to know that.

Also, it wasnt' a typo, I have no problem with typo's. It was a usage error using one word which doesn't mean what was intended.

I'm sometimes frustrated by many of the posts which say essentially meaningless things like "natrual random selection". Or your posts which try to argue the statistical relevance of belief in a general idea of deity, against that of specific evolutionary theory.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I'm sometimes frustrated by ........your posts which try to argue the statistical relevance of belief in a general idea of deity, against that of specific evolutionary theory.

Which post would that be?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

real life wrote:
Either blind chance and random forces were responsible for assembling the intricate and microscopic order and complexity we see in every organism and in the physical systems of the universe...........

..........or they were not.

Can you suggest a third alternative, DrewDad?

"Or they were not" covers a large number of alternative explanations. It doesn't tell me why you prefer ID over, say, a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Hi DrewDad,

In your view, do any of the alternatives to blind chance NOT involve the use of intelligent direction?

If not, then it would seem that the alternatives to blind chance would all be minor variants of creationism/ID; just as all of the theories which postulate purely naturalistic forces driving evolution would be minor variants of blind chance. Would you agree?

0 Replies

Blind chance does not equal creationism by default.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Blind chance does not equal creationism by default.

I agree CI.

Blind chance does not equal creationism.

0 Replies

My understanding of ID is that it does not address the type of intelligence involved in the design, that ID does not imply a deity.

What I'm hearing you say is that ID is just creationism with the word "God" removed.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

My understanding of ID is that it does not address the type of intelligence involved in the design, that ID does not imply a deity.

What I'm hearing you say is that ID is just creationism with the word "God" removed.

You heard me say no such thing. Creationism and ID are not necessarily the same thing at all.

Not all IDers are theists but that doesn't mean that an IDer cannot be a theist.

ID is basically a position which in a broad sense says that nature shows all the earmarks of common design requiring intelligent input and used in variant ways in numerous species. Further, they may state that nature shows intricate complexity that cannot be accounted for by random forces and blind chance bringing life to pass on Earth from base elements.

Some IDers are agnostic. They recognize that life is too complex to have put itself together and / or advanced itself genetically by chance. But they have no position defining how it did happen.

One could easily be a theistic evolutionist ( i.e. God initiated and guided the process of evolution ) and an IDer. Many scientists seem to hold a similar position to this.

Some IDers are not theists at all. One example would be some proponents of panspermia. Many of these are evolutionist in the sense that they believe that life originated elsewhere in the universe, developed to a high degree and then "seeded" Earth ( and possibly other worlds) with life.

Just as not all evolutionists think the same way, not all IDers are of the same opinion either.

The agreement I referenced between creationists and IDers is that both hold that naturalistic forces and blind chance alone are insufficient to account for the origin of life, the development of human beings, etc.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Either blind chance and random forces were responsible for assembling the intricate and microscopic order and complexity we see in every organism and in the physical systems of the universe...........

..........or they were not.

Can you suggest a third alternative, DrewDad?

No one is claiming that "blind chance" and "random forces" are responsible for the evolution of life. We evolutionist lot are convinced you see, that forces are not random, but act in a predictable manner. The branch of science dealing with forces and predicting them is physics, I suggest you look into it. We are also of the opinion that chance is sometimes mixed up with things that aren't random, resulting in probabilistic prediction of events. You can think of it as playing with loaded dices, all sides can still face up, but some are more likely to than others. Over the long term the cheater is almost bound to win the game.

So "random forces" and "blind chance" doesn't account for evolution, "predictable forces" and "selective chance" does. It is necessary to understand this in order to understand the concept of evolution by natural selection.

0 Replies

Einher, Are you explaining chaos theory?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

My understanding of ID is that it does not address the type of intelligence involved in the design, that ID does not imply a deity.

What I'm hearing you say is that ID is just creationism with the word "God" removed.

No, if anything, ID is evolution with some vague God-like creature added in. The problem, I have with ID, is that it adds restrictions to the research you can do. It isn't a valid scientific viewpoint, it isn't a good solution and it's just lazy.

Sure, ID doesn't say anything about God. So technically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster could be responsible for evolution. It's saying, "I do not know this could have happened, so I'll just invent some fantastical, mystical explanation that cannot be proved scientifically."

I mean, at least with evolution there is the possibility of current theories being overturned by newer theories. New evidence can help modify your theory, improve it or destroy it.

Not so with something fictional and mystical.

0 Replies

Now, if can only destroy that mystical god once-and-for-all for all mankind.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Now, if can only destroy that mystical god once-and-for-all for all mankind.

That is impossible, because of the way that god has been defined.

How can you prove the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being that is everywhere at once and is not made of anything known to man?

You cannot prove someone is omniscient, because we cannot know everything. We might be able to prove someone is omnipotent, but that's going to be difficult. You can't prove that someone is everywhere at once, because we haven't been to every place in existance.

Yes, as people pushed the frontiers of knowledge, the definitions of a god became wilder and more imaginative. The definitions became harder to define, harder to prove. Science cannot touch god or any god, because of the way they have been defined.

0 Replies

Good points all. Even the people that believes in god can't describe it, but they claim to communicate with it.

0 Replies

I still haven't heard the reasons anyone prefers ID to evolution. And furthermore, I haven't heard a distilled explanation that could be taught in a classroom.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Yes, as people pushed the frontiers of knowledge, the definitions of a god became wilder and more imaginative. The definitions became harder to define, harder to prove. Science cannot touch god or any god, because of the way they have been defined.

The Christian view of God has been that of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being for centuries.

How are you saying it has changed?

0 Replies

real, God's have been created by man before the time the bible god was created. Thousands of years before...

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Yes, as people pushed the frontiers of knowledge, the definitions of a god became wilder and more imaginative. The definitions became harder to define, harder to prove. Science cannot touch god or any god, because of the way they have been defined.

The Christian view of God has been that of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being for centuries.

How are you saying it has changed?

I was actually talking about the concepts of gods in general and I apologise if I didn't make that particular point clear. I thought by not capitalising the word, god, I had made it clear enough, but I must have been mistaken.

And no, the Judeo-Christian God has not always been of a being that is everywhere at once. At one point, it was believed he was up in the clouds, way above us. (Is it any surprise, with that belief, that the common perception of God's physical appearance is that of Zeus, the Sky God?)

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Yes, as people pushed the frontiers of knowledge, the definitions of a god became wilder and more imaginative. The definitions became harder to define, harder to prove. Science cannot touch god or any god, because of the way they have been defined.

The Christian view of God has been that of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being for centuries.

How are you saying it has changed?

I was actually talking about the concepts of gods in general and I apologise if I didn't make that particular point clear. I thought by not capitalising the word, god, I had made it clear enough, but I must have been mistaken.

And no, the Judeo-Christian God has not always been of a being that is everywhere at once. At one point, it was believed he was up in the clouds, way above us. (Is it any surprise, with that belief, that the common perception of God's physical appearance is that of Zeus, the Sky God?)

If God is everywhere, then He is in the clouds, as well as everywhere else. Picturing God in the clouds would not be incorrect.

The Christian view of God has always been that of omnipresence.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory Solution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know