real life wrote:Yeah great reply, timber.
'Very little is known for sure, so it's almost certain that this is what happened. No other conclusion is permitted.'
Great reply.
Let us suppose someone has disappeared, ceased to participate in all activities formerly practiced, has not been in contact with co-workers, freinds or family from a certain point in time. Let us further suppose it be a matter of general observation that now-missing someone and another individual were parties to an ongoing rancorous dispute, and further that the last known observation of the missing someone places those two individuals in the company of one another, engaged in heated argument. Let us now suppose the second individual be observed driving the missing individuals car, wearing the missing individual's expensive watch, and exhibiting scratches and contusions about the face and hands. Let us now assume the missing individual's remains be discovered, bearing signs of a violent struggle, and that those remains be discovered in a location not known to be one generally frequented by either the deceased individual or the other party to the dispute, a location in relatively convenient proximity to an all-night gas station where further investigation confirms the second party was observed to purchase gas and cigarettes, using the deceased person's credit card, within a period of time consistent with the deceased individual's probable time of death .
No one saw the assault take place. No one saw the deceased person die. By the evidence at hand, what conclusion may be drawn?
Lightwizard wrote:IDiot isn't name-calling I suppose? It seems to be timber's favorite.
The term ID-iot and its cognates ridicule a proposition and the demographic comprising its proponents, LW - any individual may infer the term and/or its cognates to apply to that individual or not as that individual may find appropriate.
Teleologist wrote:I started this thread to refute the claim of ID critics that ID is creationism and is anti-evolution. The ID critics here have failed to back up their claim and are now switching to the ID isn't science tactic. Well of course ID isn't science if it is indeed creationism and anti-evolution but I've shown that it isn't.
I submit you have done no such thing, but rather that you persist in denial and sophistry. You musta missed something somewhere, Teleologist - for your convenience, I refer you to an earlier post on this thread:
[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1972282#1972282][u][i][b]timber[/b][/i][/u][/url] wrote: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.
I submit, Teleologist, your proposition, that Intelligent Design is not creationism, is demonstrably invalid, and, using your own cited supporting sources and your own words, has been demonstrated so, in that the concept of a causal designer must of necessity be incorporated with and dependent upon a creator concept. A case
MIGHT be made that creationism does not of necessity entail Intelligent Design - though it would be difficult if not impossible to make any such case conclusivey, given the mutual, interwoven ramifications of the two concepts, but without a creationism concept, there cannot be an Intelligent Design concept.
Take the hint -
Quit digging.
