Intelligent Design is not creationism

timberlandko wrote:

As has been pointed out before, by a stretch both ID-iocy and Science may be termed "beliefs" ... the quantitative - and critical - differentator being the relative body of evidence supporting the conclusions and postulations set forth by either.

By all evidence, we may assign to religion an age at least as old as the burial practices, cave paintings and totem figurines we find to have emerged some 45 millenia or more ago.

Science is much, much younger; whether traced to the Asian continent or the European, its real antecedents and origins are perhaps 5 millenia or so old, evidently less than 8 or 10, however one defines "science", for without writing and numeric notation, there can be no science.

A huge body of evidence - "evidence", now, as distinct from "experience" and "tradition" - has been accumulated. To date, despite a head start of several dozen millenia, religion has yet to add to the body of evidence humankind has accumulated.

The concepts of both evolution and creation have exactly the same 'evidence' (i.e. body of physical facts ) to draw from. (The geological column does not 'belong' to evolutionists or to creationists. )

Since both draw inferences from the same evidence, it is clear that it is the interpretation of that evidence that distinguishes one from the other. It is not because one group 'has evidence' and the other 'has no evidence'.

0 Replies

That statement should be easy to understand but a bitter pill to swallow for many. Science suffered a major setback with the destruction of the library at Alexandria. That one event could have set civilization back a thousand years or more. You're right, timber -- Medievalism is alive an well in the world today. Whether the US will experience a true rennaissance, dragging all those who would still like to travel in a time machine back to those times before science and the arts began to befuddle their minds is the question.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Why would you assume an explosion just because objects appear to move away from a (somewhat) central point?

physics

Quote:

Is there no other possible cause?

Perhaps, but find me one that creates objects all moving from a central point. If several objects are moving from a central point then it requires a force to move them. If those objects have a large mass then it requires a very large force to move them. One object striking another has a very different dispersal pattern from an explosion generated in that central point. The force required to move the mass and overcome the gravitational field of that mass can only be described as an explosion.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
As has been pointed out before, by a stretch both ID-iocy and Science may be termed "beliefs" ... the quantitative - and critical - differentator being the relative body of evidence supporting the conclusions and postulations set forth by either.

By all evidence, we may assign to religion an age at least as old as the burial practices, cave paintings and totem figurines we find to have emerged some 45 millenia or more ago.

Science is much, much younger; whether traced to the Asian continent or the European, its real antecedents and origins are perhaps 5 millenia or so old, evidently less than 8 or 10, however one defines "science", for without writing and numeric notation, there can be no science.

A huge body of evidence - "evidence", now, as distinct from "experience" and "tradition" - has been accumulated. To date, despite a head start of several dozen millenia, religion has yet to add to the body of evidence humankind has accumulated.

The concepts of both evolution and creation have exactly the same 'evidence' (i.e. body of physical facts ) to draw from. (The geological column does not 'belong' to evolutionists or to creationists. )

Horsie poop--what evidence do you have that any of the data upon which a theory of evolution works was the product of a deity?

Quote:

Since both draw inferences from the same evidence, it is clear that it is the interpretation of that evidence that distinguishes one from the other. It is not because one group 'has evidence' and the other 'has no evidence'.

Yes it is. There is absolutely no evidence which can undeniably be ascribed to a "creator," and to none other than a creator. Were that so, you'd have long ago provided it, as you have been asked to do, literally dozens of time.

0 Replies

I must say, though, that it is amusing to contemplate the reaction of the new member Teleologist, to the concerted assault on evolution forwarded by the young earth creationist, "real life"--one suspects that he (?) will be less than charmed.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The concepts of both evolution and creation have exactly the same 'evidence' (i.e. body of physical facts ) to draw from. (The geological column does not 'belong' to evolutionists or to creationists. )

Since both draw inferences from the same evidence, it is clear that it is the interpretation of that evidence that distinguishes one from the other. It is not because one group 'has evidence' and the other 'has no evidence'.

The difference is creationism often ignores facts that are inconvenient to its hypothesis. Evolution refines the theory based on new evidence.

0 Replies

Often ignores? They use subterfuge and outright lie to themselves and to others without providing a shred of evidence that what they purport could have the slightest truth to it. They aren't masters of double-talk because they can't chew gum and walk at the same time.

0 Replies

The concerted assault on evolution by RL, Setanta is full of dissonance and self-gratifying smuggness. The tone is not a thirst for knowledge but a thirst for controversy -- a controversy that shouldn't even be.

0 Replies

Quote:

It's because ID is just like Creationism in one aspect: It is not science.

That's another topic. The purpose of this thread is to defend ID from the false charge that it is creationism and that it is anti-evolution. I'm not going to discuss the issue of ID being science with a bunch of dead-heads that can't understand something as simple as this.

Quote:

You cannot teach it in a science class..

And who is advocating this? Not me and not the Discovery institute. So far the only ones to attempt this in the last 20 years were some creationists on the Dover school board.

Quote:

ID states that anything we cannot explain must be attributable to an Intelligent Designer.

No, that's not the ID position.

Quote:

Your position is also dishonest, because you claim that the people who do not like ID solely hate it because it posits a God-figure. This is not true.

I never said that.

Quote:

I don't like it because of the fact that I placed in bold. ID is an affront to science and an affront to God. It encourages sloppy thinking (saying God did it, is a lazy, easy way out that does not encourage further critical thinking into a problem that is at the time unsolveable). Furthermore, ID reduces God to nothing more than a plug, a convenient explanation; it is humiliating to the concept of God.

Total nonsense. ID has nothing to do with God. It is a methodology for detecting signs of intelligent activity. Design arguments are implicit in criminal arguments "beyond a reasonable doubt," plagiarism, phylogenetic inference, cryptography, and a host of other modern contexts.

0 Replies

Quote:

You are the one who is hawking false remarks about young earth, christian creationists--as though no other type of creationists existed--because it is convenient to a disingenuous argument on your part.

By your definition of creationism 90% of Americans are creationists. So who are you trying to convince that ID is creationism? Atheists are already convinced. Are you just preaching to the choir?

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Total nonsense. ID has nothing to do with God. It is a methodology for detecting signs of intelligent activity. Design arguments are implicit in criminal arguments "beyond a reasonable doubt," plagiarism, phylogenetic inference, cryptography, and a host of other modern contexts.

Talk about total nonsense--you still won't describe the nature of the putative designing intelligence. You don't provide a disingenuous response, you dodge the question altogether.

What is the nature of the designer implicit in a concept of "intelligent design?"

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The concepts of both evolution and creation have exactly the same 'evidence' (i.e. body of physical facts ) to draw from. (The geological column does not 'belong' to evolutionists or to creationists. )

Since both draw inferences from the same evidence, it is clear that it is the interpretation of that evidence that distinguishes one from the other. It is not because one group 'has evidence' and the other 'has no evidence'.

Poppycock. balderdash, outright misrepresentation, a conscious, deceitful mendacity, a statement of such egregious falsity as to be unattributable to mere innocent ignorance, in short, a bald-faced lie.

Absolutely all evidence, "physical facts" in your words, belongs exclusively to science; no legitimate, academically valid, forensically sound, intellectually honest"interpretation" can asign any evidence - "physical facts" - whatsoever to the support of any permutation of the religionist/creationist/ID-iot propositions, a state of affairs which of logical necessity conflates the concepts and without option parks them squarely in the space reserved for superstion.

Now, demonstrate objevtively and in forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.

0 Replies

Quote:

and the obvious purpose is to introduce religious doctrine into science curricula.

Care to back that assertion with evidence?

0 Replies

Quote:

Just as soon as the ID crowd can produce genuine, empirical evidence, of the type which you have already (falsely) claimed is avaiable, ID will get serious scientific consideration. Until such time, it won't.

And what would you count as evidence for ID?

0 Replies

Care to answer the question of the nature of the designer implicit in a concept of "intelligent design?"

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
Just as soon as the ID crowd can produce genuine, empirical evidence, of the type which you have already (falsely) claimed is avaiable, ID will get serious scientific consideration. Until such time, it won't.

And what would you count as evidence for ID?

You are the one who claimed you had empirical evidence for your thesis. Don't be afraid, vagrant electrons can't hurt you--put your evidence out there and let us have a look at it.

0 Replies

Arthur C. Clarke wrote a story, "The Nine Billion Names of God." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God Intelligent design is impossible without a super-being, a supernatural (as there is no evidence of this being) being, and by all intelligent estimations, what is commonly referred to as a God. Use all the euphemisms you want including AA's higher power and it still boils down to God. ID is not a science and cannot be taught in a science class. Period.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
You cannot teach it in a science class..

And who is advocating this? Not me and not the Discovery institute. So far the only ones to attempt this in the last 20 years were some creationists on the Dover school board.

You are wrong about the Discovery Institute, Teleologist. They wrote and disseminated a guidebook about how to teach intelligent design in public school:
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook
(David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, paperback, 42 pp.)

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Teleologist wrote:

Sure, both ID and creationism posit an intelligent designer behind the origin of life but that doesn't make them the same. There are many differences. Here they are:

Creationism posits a supernatural creator. ID doesn't.
Asked MANY TIMES.. who or what it this designer if not a supernatural one? HOW DO YOU DESIGN WITHOUT CREATING? Answer that simple question. Design without any creation.
......

Quote:

Many different kinds of creationism can be found here...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
I suggest you go read the MANY kinds of creationism found in my link.

But FIRST and FOREMOST, I would like to know how you design without creation.

You still haven't answered the one question that would delineate ID from creationism. It seems no matter how many times you are asked you simply ignore it.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
and the obvious purpose is to introduce religious doctrine into science curricula.

Care to back that assertion with evidence?

Certainly; given that no evidence whatsoever exists for ID-iocy or any related or similar proposition, any promotion of any such proposition perforce is advocacy of superstion, and given that proponents of ID-iocy advocate its consideration as a legitimate intellectual discipline, the consequent is obvious. Were there any credence whatsoever assignable to ID-iocy or any similar proposition the matter would be of other consideration, but the case is as the case presents, and in this case, no objective, academically valid, forensically sound case can be presented for ID-iocy or any similar proposition to be considered as other than superstition. Advocacy of any such proposition unambiguously and unarguably is "foot-in-the-door" stuff.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know