Intelligent design or evolution

Teleologist wrote:

timberlandko says:

Quote:
Inherrent to design is that there be a designer capable of intending, structuring, and effecting said design, thereby creating that which was designed.

Sure, and since that's inherent in the term "intelligent design" why not let the term "intelligent design" define itself? You ID critics are confusing the issue by calling ID creationism. It is a tenet of creationism that the designer of life on earth is supernatural. ID doesn't claim the designer is supernatural. And there are other tenets of creationism that ID doesn't hold to. Who exactly do you think is confused by the term "intelligent design" and will better understand it by being told it's creationism? Atheists certainly don't need this "clarification". So who are these non-atheists you are attempting to enlighten with your ID is creationism mantra?

Tele, injecting an imaginary non-supernatural extraterrestrial contractor into the equation serves only to needlessly clutter the equation, it in no way changes the outcome.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Now that is real sohpistry.Excellent Chum.

Ask the Dover taxpayers.

I take "real" in this context to mean:
- Of or founded on practical matters and concerns: a recent graduate experiencing the real world for the first time.
- Genuine and authentic; not artificial or spurious: real mink; real humility.
- Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation: tourists hoping for a real experience on the guided tour.
Hence the controversy in question is not "real" but fallacious.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

timberlandko says:

Quote:
Inherrent to design is that there be a designer capable of intending, structuring, and effecting said design, thereby creating that which was designed.

Sure, and since that's inherent in the term "intelligent design" why not let the term "intelligent design" define itself? You ID critics are confusing the issue by calling ID creationism. It is a tenet of creationism that the designer of life on earth is supernatural. ID doesn't claim the designer is supernatural. And there are other tenets of creationism that ID doesn't hold to. Who exactly do you think is confused by the term "intelligent design" and will better understand it by being told it's creationism? Atheists certainly don't need this "clarification". So who are these non-atheists you are attempting to enlighten with your ID is creationism mantra?

Teleo, I think you are treating ID as a theory to explain how life evolved on this particular planet, not as a general theory for how all life arises (if there is any other life anywhere).

If you treat ID as an isolated theory which applies only to Earth, then you may imply that "aliens" (non-supernatural) aliens affected the evolution of life. And that would not be creationism because it implies natural aliens doing super-science.

However, ID is generally treated as a non-specific theory to describe the evolution of any/all life (anywhere), and THAT treatment of ID implies a supernatural intelligence (because it all has to start somewhere), and is indistinguishable from Creationism.

0 Replies

timberlandko says:

Quote:

Tele, injecting an imaginary non-supernatural extraterrestrial contractor into the equation serves only to needlessly clutter the equation, it in no way changes the outcome.

0 Replies

then what you are sayin tel, is that we are just science experiments??????

0 Replies

rosborne979 said:

Quote:

Teleo, I think you are treating ID as a theory to explain how life evolved on this particular planet, not as a general theory for how all life arises (if there is any other life anywhere).

That is correct.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

rosborne979 said:

Quote:
Teleo, I think you are treating ID as a theory to explain how life evolved on this particular planet, not as a general theory for how all life arises (if there is any other life anywhere).

That is correct.

Then your treatment of ID is not synomymous with creationism on a local level. However, it is still not a valid scientific theory because it postulates an unknown super science, which is only a hair's breadth away from magic.

You are dancing on the finest of margins with that argument, and I'm not even sure I can defend it, because "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and that makes it a supernatural explanation.

0 Replies

People who don't assume any deities/intelligent designers created/designed life are not creationsists. Those who do, are.

0 Replies

I have been poking fun at Teleolgist's mysterious aliens for some time now in this thread and in others (as most of you will know) and challenging Teleolgist to substantiate his claims, but he keeps up with the boring old duplicitous dodge.

Teleologist wrote:

Been there, done that.

Chumly wrote:

That's great, I am sure Micah Sparacio and Mike Gene will be talking to the aliens any day now, and all the ID'ers will start worshiping UFO's!

Chumly wrote:

On the topic of Micah Sparacio and Mike Gene, given that you have claimed "ID is limited by the scientific method" where is Micah Sparacio's and Mike Gene's scientific method to show that Aliens are Intelligent Designers?

Of course Teleolgist never rises to the challenge because he can't!

0 Replies

Quote:

Of course Teleolgist never rises to the challenge because he can't!

Yeah, I noticed my last thread was ignored in whole

I mean stuff like this:

Quote:

But the ID critic can't suspect something is designed unless they first know things about the designer.

Quote:

How could someone waste their time pissing around with such stupid word games.
Having to fight that the defeated creationism is not the same as ID, shows how weak your position is.

You can fight this all you want, teleo, with your mumbo jumbo, but the science will rule because it has benefitted society the most so far. It gets the funding and the backing and it gets taught in schools. The days of large numbers of idiots arguing fringe ideas about the creation of the world are limited. You should bail out now and 'correct your person'.

Oh and spendius you got grilled before, maybe you should stay out of the grill.

0 Replies

And to think a school district in PA got the ID BS pushed throuh. Only to have 8 of the 9 school board members replaced on the next election.

0 Replies

spendi can withstand a bit of grilling. That's been well demonstrated.

0 Replies

RD 205 wrote-

Quote:

Oh and spendius you got grilled before, maybe you should stay out of the grill.

Well-I never noticed pal. Perhaps you will enlighten me instead of making suggestions about who participates in the thread.

You'll end up talking to a mirror if you're not careful.

0 Replies

Yeah actually thats my mistake, spendius. I was thinking of 'gungasnake'. Pardon my mistake, I too get things wrong... occasionally Cool

0 Replies

RaceDriver205 wrote:

Yeah actually thats my mistake, spendius. I was thinking of 'gungasnake'. Pardon my mistake, I too get things wrong... occasionally

Ah! That name! It burns! x_x

0 Replies

Intelligent design or evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know