Intelligent Design is not creationism

Right, I really would have to be smokin' some good dope to believe anyone who advocates ID wants to advocate it simply for their own personal belief system. They want it taught in schools alongside evolution. They would like to see it spread around like the bird flu.

0 Replies

The ID critics are now claiming that forms of creationism exist that don't dispute an old earth, common descent or evolution. But when the critics claim ID is creationism they don't explain what definition of creationism they are using. They know darn well that most persons when they hear "creationism" are going to associate it with Biblical literalism and all that goes with it.

The ID critics on this thread are now using a watered-down version of creationism that would include everyone who harbors doubts about the grand materialist story of everything. This would include theistic evolutionists, biological Darwinists who embrace cosmological design, and a wide variety of scholars and ordinary citizens who reject materialism as the only worldview that counts as rational or "scientific." It seems that only atheists fall outside the ID critics definition of creationist.

0 Replies

So far, you have contended that you can provide empirical evidence for "intelligent design"--but have failed to do so.

You have never answered the question of what the nature of the designer implicit in a concept of "intelligent design" is.

Rhetorically, this thesis of yours is a train wreck.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

The ID critics are now claiming that forms of creationism exist that don't dispute an old earth, common descent or evolution. But when the critics claim ID is creationism they don't explain what definition of creationism they are using. They know darn well that most persons when they hear "creationism" are going to associate it with Biblical literalism and all that goes with it.

The ID critics on this thread are now using a watered-down version of creationism that would include everyone who harbors doubts about the grand materialist story of everything. This would include theistic evolutionists, biological Darwinists who embrace cosmological design, and a wide variety of scholars and ordinary citizens who reject materialism as the only worldview that counts as rational or "scientific." It seems that only atheists fall outside the ID critics definition of creationist.

Ahhhh ... now we get to it - your complaint really is with the godless atheists, then. Now your position makes perfect sense ... not your proposition, mind you, but your position relative to that proposition. Thanks for clearing that up. It would seem we are done here.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

The ID critics are now claiming that forms of creationism exist that don't dispute an old earth, common descent or evolution.

Which is true, except for maybe the latter.

Quote:

But when the critics claim ID is creationism they don't explain what definition of creationism they are using.

ID is one of these forms of Creationism. The concept of Creationism is on a sliding scale from the extremist Young Earth Theorists whom believe in the literal Bible to those who are ID. I would say ID is Creationism Lite, claiming that God did it but through evolution and that anything that we cannot explain is due to his power.

Quote:

The ID critics on this thread are now using a watered-down version of creationism that would include everyone who harbors doubts about the grand materialist story of everything.

Like you're using a watered-down version of ID critics to act all indignantly. Or is it that you ignore my posts? I've noticed people tend to ignore me, regardless of what I say.

My criticism of ID is not that its Creationism, but that it's not science. I cannot understand how Tower Bridge in London was created. Does that mean God built it, an Invisible Pink Unicorn perhaps?

You can say, ah, yes, "but we see Tower Bridge and we know that it's so complicated that somebody had to create it". That is not comparable. You know why? Because we don't have to posit that somebody had to create it. We can research and find out for ourselves that somebody did, because of written records and that if we look far enough back in time, we can see that the Bridge did not exist before human beings came so they must have had a role in its creation.

We can also see that other bridges that exist were also built by human beings, because we can look far enough back in time and see that these bridges only appeared soon after human beings came into the area.

To posit some potentially supernatural figure is responsible without any proof is unscientific.

Quote:

It seems that only atheists fall outside the ID critics definition of creationist.

Nope. That's jumping to conclusions, which is, exactly what ID is.

0 Replies

A statement regarding intelligent design was released today in London by the Royal Society:

Quote:

LONDON (Reuters) - The country's leading academy of scientists said on Tuesday that the teaching of evolution in schools should not be distorted by creationists out to promote their own religious beliefs.

The growing battle over God's place in the classroom has spread from the United States to Europe with the Royal Society the latest prestigious body to pitch into the bitter debate.

"The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence, the theory of intelligent design is not," it said in a carefully worded statement on the dispute between religion and science.

In its defence of evolution, the Royal Society said it is "rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world."

It said it was all in favour of stimulating academic debate but stressed: "Young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."

It also criticised attempts to present intelligent design as being based on scientific evidence.

"Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution," the Royal Society added.

0 Replies

wandeljw, didn't you post something like this before a few pages back?

0 Replies

Quote:

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

This was addressed early in this thread. The nature of the designer is outside the scope of ID just as it is outside the scope of science. If ID is science it would make perfect sense that it couldn't answer this question, right?

0 Replies

Wolf, I posted other information but it was also ignored by Teleologist (like the information you posted).

What is your opinion of the events related to intelligent design in your country?

Both sides of the Atlantic seem to associate intelligent design with creationism.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

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

This was addressed early in this thread. The nature of the designer is outside the scope of ID just as it is outside the scope of science. If ID is science it would make perfect sense that it couldn't answer this question, right?

So then, what's the point of ID?

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

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

This was addressed early in this thread. The nature of the designer is outside the scope of ID just as it is outside the scope of science. If ID is science it would make perfect sense that it couldn't answer this question, right?

Petitio principi--you have yet to establish that "intelligent design" is science; which is precisely why i first asked you for the empirical evidence for "intelligent design" which you allege you can provide.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

The ID critics are now claiming that forms of creationism exist that don't dispute an old earth, common descent or evolution. But when the critics claim ID is creationism they don't explain what definition of creationism they are using. They know darn well that most persons when they hear "creationism" are going to associate it with Biblical literalism and all that goes with it.

In 1969, my Episcopal priest proposed to the kids in chatechism that days were million of years long in the creation. It is hardly a NEW topic. Are you implying my priest at the time didn't believe in the biblical creation even though he said he did and rationalized it to fit other facts? I gave you my definition, twice now. You have NOT responded to it at all other than to continue to duck the questions and trot out this BS that creationism isn't creationism unless you say it is. Answer the question. Who is the designer and how does he design without creating anything? Until you can aswer that your arguments have no standing.

Quote:

The ID critics on this thread are now using a watered-down version of creationism that would include everyone who harbors doubts about the grand materialist story of everything. This would include theistic evolutionists, biological Darwinists who embrace cosmological design, and a wide variety of scholars and ordinary citizens who reject materialism as the only worldview that counts as rational or "scientific." It seems that only atheists fall outside the ID critics definition of creationist.

Now you have hit the nail on the head. Science has nothing to do with religion. You are free to believe in whatever diety you want but until you refine it to an explainable natural phenomena you can't teach it as science. You can no more prove that the world was created by Christ or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Science makes no attempt to define which one it was. Any reference to a creator raises the one single question. WHO is the creator? The answer you refuse to give with ID.

Materialism is the only worldview that counts as scientific? WTF? I don't know of too many scientists that went into the field out of materialism. Most people aren't motivated by materialism.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

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

This was addressed early in this thread. The nature of the designer is outside the scope of ID just as it is outside the scope of science. If ID is science it would make perfect sense that it couldn't answer this question, right?

Interesting idea - The scope of science is outside of science.

The purpose of science is to answer the question it raises. It might not be able to answer all of them but it never ceases its attempts to find those answers.

Your argument is that some things should just not be questioned because there is no answer. Or at least not an answer that defends your position. You are getting more like creationism all the time. "Don't seek the answer because it might conflict with the thesis."

If ID is science then the LOGICAL question is WHO is the designer since the answer to that question would open lots of doors into the HOW.

0 Replies

I've got it, let's attempt to make science into religion. Let's demand that evolution and cosmology be taught in Sunday School -- the churches are tax exempt and therefore benefit from all of us taxpayers. Where does this shoe fit? The answer -- the right shoe can be fit onto the left foot and vice versa. Let's see one walk around for a day in those shoes. That's a too mild an analogy. Let one force a square peg into a round hole by shaving it down to suit one. When attempting to force fit it, one would have no choice but to get out the knife and start carving.

0 Replies

A fool and his wits soon part company.

0 Replies

Quote:

You are the one who claimed you had empirical evidence for your thesis.

And you are the one that claims there is no evidence for intelligent design in the natural world. But how could you know this without having some idea of what counts as evidence for ID? Without some criteria to go by you could look right at evidence for ID and not recognize it. So unless you are being disengenuous you have looked for evidence of ID and not found it. So what were you looking for? If you haven't even looked for it I will assume your "no evidence" claim is just an argument from ignorance.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

What is your opinion of the events related to intelligent design in your country?

It certainly seems to prove the saying, "Anything that's trendy in the US becomes trendy over here five yeras later" or something to that degree. I also find it rather frightening to think that students will be taught something so unscientific and something that encourages lazy thinking.

Science isn't a very heavily studied subject as it is. We don't want our new generation of scientists thinking in unscientific terms and explaining everything away with some imaginary being.

Oh and Teleologist, you yourself are being disingenious. Where is your proof? You keep saying there's proof, but you haven't provided any.

(I apologise in advance for the cheesy lines that follow. I couldn't resist).

Put up or shut up. It's go time.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ahhhh ... now we get to it - your complaint really is with the godless atheists, then. Now your position makes perfect sense ... not your proposition, mind you, but your position relative to that proposition. Thanks for clearing that up. It would seem we are done here.

My complaint is with ID critics that label ID as creationism in order to make it look like Biblical literalism and when their ploy is exposed try to justify their tactic by referring to a version of creationism that is so watered-down that it includes everyone but atheists.

0 Replies

Wow... 32 pages. And not once has any proof been shown to convince us that ID is non-science, just like Creationism.

Teleologist has lost the argument! Laughing

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
You are the one who claimed you had empirical evidence for your thesis.

And you are the one that claims there is no evidence for intelligent design in the natural world.

This is a lie. Can you provide a quote of me making such a claim?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know