Intelligent Design is not creationism

As far as combustion, there was nobody there to light a match and start a conflagration.

There was an empty Universe without conventional mass and a single source of energy that exploded -- the Universe has since been expanding, or the contents of the Universe, that is. The first place to start in understanding this energy is to read up on plasma. No, not plasma TV's, but strikingly they work because of the elemental energy in the Universe. Understanding this is quite as baffling to most as contemplating infinity. ID supposes there is an outside wall, I suppose, and some man in a beard and robe who has a very effective Tinkerbell wand.

0 Replies

Understanding what the scientists are discovering about dark matter is also helpful. It's the ying-and-yang of the Universe. Plasma and dark matter.

0 Replies

Quote:

A list of things that makes ID different from creationism doesn't mean ID is science.

True. But the topic of this thread is that ID isn't creationism. And most ID critics on this forum insist that it is. First things first. I have found from experience that it is impossible to make the case that ID is science without first establishing that ID isn't creationism and ID isn't anti-evolution. Afterall, those two misconceptions are primarily what the ID critics use to argue that ID isn't science.

0 Replies

No, I think we're in consensus that some think it is similar and some don't. If it's involved in a political agenda, it seems to be the former.

0 Replies

No, I think we're in consensus that some think it is similar and some don't. If it's involved in a political agenda, it seems to be the former, in disguise as the latter.

0 Replies

Quote:

No, I think we're in consensus that some think it is similar and some don't. If it's involved in a political agenda, it seems to be the former.

Don't confuse the ID movement with the concept of ID. They are two different things.

0 Replies

Yes, and you have certainly untangled it. I have to go to work now.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
No, I think we're in consensus that some think it is similar and some don't. If it's involved in a political agenda, it seems to be the former.

Don't confuse the ID movement with the concept of ID. They are two different things.

Just for the record: Is it your opinion that the ID movement, as promoted by the Discovery Institute and as opposed to the concept of ID, is indeed creationism relabeled?

0 Replies

Don't try and pin him down, he bleeds.

0 Replies

Quote:

Just for the record: Is it your opinion that the ID movement, as promoted by the Discovery Institute and as opposed to the concept of ID, is indeed creationism relabeled?

I'm no expert on the Discovery Institute. However, I do know this much:

They accept that the earth is 3.5-4 billion years old.

They don't claim that earth's geology can be explained primarily by a worldwide flood

They don't claim that "Created kinds" of plants and animals can vary only within fixed limits

They don't dispute that humans and apes share a common ancestor

They don't reject common descent. They are not anti-evolution. They are not trying to get ID taught as a scientific theory in the public schools. And their version of ID is based on just two basic assumptions:

· Intelligent causes exist

· These causes can be empirically detected

In light of all this I don't consider the Discovery Institute to be a creationist organization. But it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other as I'm not associated with it and I'm not interested in getting involved with a socio-political movement. I'm drawn to ID because I think it has the potential to be a fruitful research paradigm that helps us better understand the natural world.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Okay, so you're not trolling. Just testing the waters.

Your definition of theory is incomplete and I suspect some editing. Choose one:

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

I do hope that posting made you feel even more intelligent than you obviously believe yourself to be, LW.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

... There was an empty Universe without conventional mass and a single source of energy that exploded ...

Tell me again where that single source of energy came from? Okay, and why it exploded?

Lightwizard wrote:

... ID supposes there is an outside wall, I suppose, and some man in a beard and robe who has a very effective Tinkerbell wand.

For lack of a better name, maybe we could just call him "The Lightwizard" based on his omniscience?

0 Replies

The big bang has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

They say "beviges" in Rolla.

I <3 beviges.

0 Replies

teleo said

Quote:

· These causes can be empirically detected

In light of all this I don't consider the Discovery Institute to be a creationist organization. But it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other as I'm not associated with it and I'm not interested in getting involved with a socio-political movement. I'm drawn to ID because I think it has the potential to be a fruitful research paradigm that helps us better understand the natural world.

Thus far, no causeshave been detected or are , presently detectable. Most scientists, truth be said, donrt much bother with the concept since they have enough work just describing how and when.

The cynic in me will respond that YOU may not consider the Discovery Institute as Creationist, but then, you havent shown any knowledge of the history of "theID movement" Many of the Old Earth Creationists had formed the Discovery Institute and have spent considerable capital trying to convince us that, with the "undeniable" evidence for pattern, they can only conclude that a Supreme Intelligence was behind all this Creation and "directed evolution". Then they tap dance away the fact that they have no evidence on pattern, let alone purpose.
After all, why did you choose your handle as Teleologist if your mind is open on this subject?

My cynical side would further ask, please show us some of this evidence for order and pattern . So far , its escaped all scientists who arent otherwise occupied with a religious mission.

Your reasoning is based upon a rather circular path teleo.

0 Replies

Whoodathunk -- you obviously needed a dictionary other than the one you were using and editing. What was that, the Funky Wiggedbrain High School Dictionary? I wouldn't be writing about how intelligent one supposedly thinks they are or whether they suppose they are God or not.

Reductio ad Absurdum

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

In light of all this I don't consider the Discovery Institute to be a creationist organization. But it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other as I'm not associated with it and I'm not interested in getting involved with a socio-political movement.

That's a good position for you to take, as it has already been pointed out to you that this: "The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature . . . " is the first clause of the first sentence of the second paragraph of the mission statement of the Discovery Institute. I won't link it in this post, as it has already been linked several times.

Quote:

I'm drawn to ID because I think it has the potential to be a fruitful research paradigm that helps us better understand the natural world.

I always avoid the use of "paradigm" because my experience is that 99 times out of 100, when someone does use it, they are peddling bullshit. Paradigm first appears in English in the 15th century, meaning a pattern or model. Dress the old whore up however you like, and that is what it means--trotting out more complex definitions won't change that.

So why don't you tell us what the pattern or model is which "intelligent design" will provide scientists in order to devise testable theses, and replicable or falsifiable experiments? Why don't you explain to us what possible value "intelligent design" can be to a scientific inquiry, given that you appear no more willing to stipulate a designer than any other peddler of this particular aroma of horse poop?

Please describe the valuable new "paradigm" which you claim "intelligent design" will provide, and please demonstrate how it can be tested and verified or falsified using standard empirical method. (After all, you claimed earlier that it can be empirically demonstrated--even though you immediately thereafter contradicted yourself by claiming the designer cannot be empirically demonstrated.)

0 Replies

Teleologist, you initiated this thread, assigning to your opening post the title - and presenting the assertion - "Intelligent Design is not creationism", thus declaring the premise setting the discussion topic.

In that opening post, you quote Dembski -
"What separates intelligent design from naturalistic evolution is not whether organisms evolved or the extent to which they evolved but what was responsible for their evolution."

You quote Lamoureux -
"I believe in Intelligent Design. I see the creation "declaring the glory" of God's mind everyday... I believe that God created life, including humanity, through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process, which even reflects intelligent design"

You yourself, in your conclusion to the post with which you initiated this discussion, wrote -
"There is no reason why a teleological approach can't run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.

The ID perspective allows one to investigate these evolutionary possibilities:

1. Evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled.

2. Evolution was designed such that it could acquire new information over time."

I submit that your major premise not merely self-moots, but self-invalidates. Your major premise - that being, in your words, "Intelligent Design is not creationism" is self-cancelling, an absurdity, an irresolvable paradox.

Your quote from Dembski unambiguously implies both the question "What was responsible for evolution?" and the answer to that question, "Intelligent Design was responsible for evolution", a proposition entailing there be an intelligent designer or designers. In no way does Dembski's statement validate or otherwise support your premise; it refutes it.

Your quote from Lamoureux goes further, not merely implying there be an intelligent designer or designers, but declaring, in Lamoureux' own words, "God created", which statement can be read no other way than imparting to "God" the role of creator. In common with the earlier reference Dembski statement, Lamoureux's statement refutes your premise.

You yourself, by your statement "Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design. imply there be an intelligent designer or designers, further, and consequently, implying that designer or designers be responsible for, initiative of, causitive of, the source of - in other words, have created - that which you assert to have been designed. As do your quotes from Dembski and Lamoureux, your own words refute your premise.

That there be Intelligent Design entails certain things:

there be an intelligent designer or designers
from whence, perforce, would proceed the product of intelligent design
necessitating that the the intelligent designer or designers created, or in your words, "front loaded", the product of intelligent design
placing the intelligent designer or designers in the role of creator
thus demonstrating that Intelligent Design and creationism be the same, an incontravertable consequence of the Intelligent Design concept.

Apart from and regardless of any consideration of the ID Movement, The Discovery Institute, or any other entity, individual, organization - philosophic, religious, academic, or other - that there be Intelligent Design entails creationism; the concept of Intelligent Design is indivorceable from, wholly dependent upon, the concept of creationism.

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4100/quitdigging4jc.jpg

0 Replies

Man, I miss all the good fights.

Hey ID folk, it seems pretty obvious that if intelligent design is required, and different continents and islands have vastly different animals and plants, that many designers must have been involved? It's certainly the more obvious conclusion, or the least equally credible.

'Cause I keep seeing the singular (and masculine) used to describe these designers...why d'ya reckon that might be?

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

As far as combustion, there was nobody there to light a match and start a conflagration.

There was an empty Universe without conventional mass and a single source of energy that exploded -- the Universe has since been expanding, or the contents of the Universe, that is. The first place to start in understanding this energy is to read up on plasma. No, not plasma TV's, but strikingly they work because of the elemental energy in the Universe. Understanding this is quite as baffling to most as contemplating infinity. ID supposes there is an outside wall, I suppose, and some man in a beard and robe who has a very effective Tinkerbell wand.

Where did this empty Universe come from? How are you sure it was empty? How large was it?

Where did this single source of energy come from? How are you sure there was only one source?

How do you know that it exploded and didn't start expanding for other reasons?

Was any of this observed and recorded, or are these inferences you have made based on what you think may have happened?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know