Intelligent Design is not creationism

spendius wrote:

Wolf wrote-

I didn't agree with you at all Wolf.I agreed with the obvious fact that ID isn't science.

Which means that you agreed with me. Obviously, you don't agree with me whole-heartedly, but you agreed me on this fact, which if you read my post, was what I was referring to.

Quote:

I don't see what was two-faced or hypocritical about what I said.Your repitition of the obvious fact that ID isn't science is exactly what I was getting at.

Yet you in a previous post stated that we were afraid of ID in that it would provide untrammeled science. Yet, ID is not science. In fact, the logic behind it is dogmatic and limits science.

Quote:

You want to stay down there with that as if it is an earthshaking piece of wisdom or something.You are using that tactic because you don't wish to discuss what this debate is really about.And you are not alone by any means.

There is nothing else to say. ID is not science. It should not be taught in classes. There is no justification to teach it in science classes. End of story.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

If as you claim ID does not posit a supernatural creator, it must follow that ID gives credence to a natural creator, therefore show me where ID'ers give credence to the concept that advanced extraterrestrials are the intelligent designers.

I answered this before. It is beyond the scope of ID to determine the nature of a designer. ID is limited to the scientific method. I don't see anyway that the scientific method can help us out here.

0 Replies

That's one of your sillier statements . . . no mean feat!

0 Replies

Well, if it's so silly why don't you explain how the scientific method can be used to determine the nature of a designer from billions of years ago?

0 Replies

First Teleologist says "ID does not posit a supernatural creator" then Teleologist says "it is beyond the scope of ID to determine the nature of a designer" which is exactly what Teleologist just determined.

Then Teleologist says "ID is limited to the scientific method." Which is bizarre because Teleologist has proposed no scientific methodologies to support ID at all.

Then Teleologist says "I don't see anyway that the scientific method can help us out here." This is after Teleologist says "ID is limited to the scientific method."

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Well, if it's so silly why don't you explain how the scientific method can be used to determine the nature of a designer from billions of years ago?

That would presuppose there was a designer from billions of years ago. And who by chance is making that argument? Hmmm

0 Replies

Quote:

There is nothing else to say. ID is not science. It should not be taught in classes. There is no justification to teach it in science classes.

Has anyone on this thread advocated teaching ID in science classes? I must have missed it. I have a question. Is it okay to teach methodological naturalism in science classes?

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Well, if it's so silly why don't you explain how the scientific method can be used to determine the nature of a designer from billions of years ago?

Actually, that post referred to your silly dichotomous statement about atheists and creationists. But i'm happy to see this. You therefore posit, then, that billions of years ago, there was a designer. That's a start. Animal, mineral or vegetable?

0 Replies

Cream cheese.

0 Replies

Not chopped liver, though, right?

0 Replies

Chumly says:

Quote:

First Teleologist says "ID does not posit a supernatural creator" then Teleologist says "it is beyond the scope of ID to determine the nature of a designer" which is exactly what Teleologist just determined.

It is beyond the scope of ID to determine the nature of a designer from billions of years ago. ID is limited by the scientific method. However, I haven't seen an ID hypothesis where the designer of life on earth was posited to be supernatural. ID hypotheses work just fine with the modest assumption of a designer that possesses a human-like intelligence.

Chumly says:

Quote:

Then Teleologist says "ID is limited to the scientific method." Which is bizarre because Teleologist has proposed no scientific methodologies to support ID at all.

That's because the purpose of this thread is to dispute that ID is creationism and that ID is anti-evolution. I've been pretty busy just doing that. More will come in due time. Maybe I'll start another thread.

0 Replies

Are you threatening us?

0 Replies

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=72697

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

paradose says:

Quote:
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.

So if you're not an atheist you're a creationist?

What utter lunacy.

Someone is free to be religious without believing that God created anything. God has many shapes and sizes and they all don't require creation by him/her/it.

Your argument points to a very specific religious agenda on your part since you presuppose that God must be the designer in ID and without belief in that designer then you can't be religious.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Quote:
If as you claim ID does not posit a supernatural creator, it must follow that ID gives credence to a natural creator, therefore show me where ID'ers give credence to the concept that advanced extraterrestrials are the intelligent designers.

I answered this before. It is beyond the scope of ID to determine the nature of a designer. ID is limited to the scientific method. I don't see anyway that the scientific method can help us out here.

Then perhaps you can tell us how the scientific method points to a designer at all.

Give us your hypothesis and how you tested it. Then we can examine your procedure and see if it has flaws based solely on the scientific method. Remember, we should be able to reproduce your experiments.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

There is nothing else to say. ID is not science. It should not be taught in classes. There is no justification to teach it in science classes. End of story.

There's no such thing as "science classes" without the frayed edges where they shade into social activity."Science classes" cannot be divorced from their social setting.They are not inhuman specimens under the microscope.

0 Replies

Setanta:

Quote:

Actually, that post referred to your silly dichotomous statement about atheists and creationists.

What's silly about it? If one makes the argument that belief in a designer makes one a creationist doesn't it logically follow that just about everyone but atheists are creationists?

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Setanta:

Quote:
Actually, that post referred to your silly dichotomous statement about atheists and creationists.

What's silly about it? If one makes the argument that belief in a designer makes one a creationist doesn't it logically follow that everyone but atheists are creationists?

Not necessarily. Whether or not, i have made no such argument. You need to learn how to do this BB stuff--you're really bad at it. If you want to allege that someone has articulated a position, you need to quote them having done it. It is entirely possible that one could be, for example, an agnostic, and therefore ambivalent on the issue of a creation. One could believe in a deity, and not believe in a creation. One could believe that a diety or deities were the product of a creation.

You do reveal, however, to a greater and greater extent, the similarity of your views with Christianity in its more fundamental forms--at the very least, an Abrahamic world view.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

It is beyond the scope of ID to determine the nature of a designer from billions of years ago.

Then how can you say "ID does not posit a supernatural creator? You make no sense.

Teleologist wrote:

ID is limited by the scientific method.

So where is the scientific method for ID? You have provided none.

Teleologist wrote:

However, I haven't seen an ID hypothesis where the designer of life on earth was posited to be supernatural. ID hypotheses work just fine with the modest assumption of a designer that possesses a human-like intelligence.

Given that man has your so-called "human-like intelligence" you would be now saying man is able to be a designer. Where is your proof man can be a designer?

Teleologist wrote:

More will come in due time.

More what exactly? To date no rational arguments or evidence have been forthcoming from you at all!

Teleologist, I note you still have avoided my first question (for the third time) so I'll pose it again. Go ahead, I challenge you! You made the claim, now back it up, big boy!

Teleologist wrote:

Creationism posits a supernatural creator. ID doesn't.

Chumly wrote:

If as you claim ID does not posit a supernatural creator, it must follow that ID gives credence to a natural creator, therefore show me where ID'ers give credence to the concept that advanced extraterrestrials are the intelligent designers.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Maybe I'll start another thread.

Please do. Even a discussion on the contents of a ping pong ball would have more substance than this thread.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know