Intelligent Design is not creationism

Queen of Ping Pong in Olympic Bid
Wang Nan has more 'on the ball' than Teleologist.

Queen of ping pong Wang Nan, who spearheads China's women's team in their national sport of table tennis, is set to be a hero in her home country should she win both singles and doubles in Sydney.

She is a stable, level-headed competitor, an unassuming, no frills champion whose faultless all-round game humbly destroys all opposition.

0 Replies

Setanta says:

Quote:

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.

I never said it was your argument. It was someone else's but you claimed my response to this person was silly. I then asked you why you thought it was silly.

Setanta says:

Quote:

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.

True. But I just don't understand the strategy of those eager to place design proponents in the creationist camp. This ends up backfiring on them because they then have to take those 45% of Americans that accept evolution but believe God guided the process and put them in the creationist camp also. I can't see how this supports your cause. I thought you guys wanted to see less creationists but in your haste to lable ID proponents creationists you end up turning millions of evolution supporters into creationists. Doesn't make sense to me.

0 Replies

Who cares whether you want to call it creationism or ID, it's clearly illogical and unscientific, regardless of whether you claim some support evolution or not. Now answer my challenges, if you've got the guts!

Chumly wrote:

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:

Setanta says:

Quote:
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.

I never said it was your argument. It was someone else's but you claimed my response to this person was silly. I then asked you why you thought it was silly.

All the while failing to address the silliness of your post. It's pretty clear that one can be religious and have no belief in creation. Setanta beat me to it but I also pointed it out. There is no logic to your statement at all.

Quote:

Setanta says:

Quote:
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.

True. But I just don't understand the strategy of those eager to place design proponents in the creationist camp. This ends up backfiring on them because they then have to take those 45% of Americans that accept evolution but believe God guided the process and put them in the creationist camp also. I can't see how this supports your cause. I thought you guys wanted to see less creationists but in your haste to lable ID proponents creationists you end up turning millions of evolution supporters into creationists. Doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing seems to make sense to you. And nothing you seem to promote makes sense to the rest of us here. A complete lack of sense seems to be the point of this thread. You certainly can't make enough sense to answer any of our simple questions that would support your opinion.

0 Replies

Deleted.

0 Replies

What makes you think there is some kind of so-called "strategy" against ID and/or creationism? What a silly notion!

0 Replies

Parados, do you consider the 45% of Americans that accept evolution but believe God guided the process to be creationists?

0 Replies

I see you deleted your above claim about so-called "strategy". Pretty weak.

0 Replies

That's part of his strategy -- however, he can't so quickly hide most of the brain farts. I suppose it is fruitless again to suggest that he actually go to a college and take classes in cosmology, geology and paleoanthropology? So much to learn, so little time. Gosh I feel so sorry for these people.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Parados, do you consider the 45% of Americans that accept evolution but believe God guided the process to be creationists?

Was my definition confusing? I repeated it twice. You haven't asked me for a clarification. You only ignored it and my questions.

0 Replies

Teleologist

Quote:

ID hypotheses work just fine with the modest assumption of a designer that possesses a human-like intelligence.

Heh.
modest
Right.....
Also,
You use the word 'hypothesis' rather loosely, don't you think? A hypothesis isn't just a guess, it's a guess based on evidence, or and educated guess. The main premise of ID (that a designer can be empirically detected through the design) is only wild guesswork, and no evidence has been found to support this wild guesswork. Fantasy and wishful thinking.
ID is the opposite of science. Science starts with a premise and works towards a conclusion, while ID begins with a conclusion and searches for premises that fit it. This is not, and never can be, science.
So....
Please refrain from using scientific terminology when referring to your pet theology k thanks

0 Replies

"The modest assumption of a designer that possess a human-like intelligence." Modest? I'd say that's a leap-of-faith extraordinary assumption which has no scientific evidence. My you do have an ego as large as Jupiter. As we have difficulty in abstract thought to conceive of infinity in our mind or a dark void before the Big Bang, so there should be difficulty with the abstract idea of intelligence that is impossible for us to understand because it is not human. That's closer to Aristotle's God.
His God did not have any individual interest in human affairs. With his God, there is total free will with no rewards and no punishment. If you would actually want to read Crick's "Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul" (now in two volumes), I'd be seriously considering your thoughts. Even you could even state you've read "Origin of the Species" and all the follow-up research and results confirming evolution, I'd consider your thoughts. However, you're stuck in the quagmire of church-taught baloney and it's like quicksand.

0 Replies

Yesterday's statement by the Royal Society makes this assessment of intelligent design:

Quote:

"Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treats gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist as if they were evidence for a designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not."

0 Replies

The unknown as evidence. Gee, if an attorney tried to introduce that in court, do you think there would be an objection? A censure from the judge?

0 Replies

Speaking of judges, the official statement in London yesterday echoes the same conclusions made by Judge Jones in Pennsylvania.

0 Replies

C'mon you guys, Teleologist has told us repeatedly that ID follows the scientific method.

You know, that scientific method that says lack of evidence is evidence of your preconceived conclusion

0 Replies

It's wonderful watching you guys beat up Teleologist for no other reason that it is so easy and avoids you having to address the real issues of religion versus science.It seems that as long as Teleologist can keep going so can you with your repetitive mantras.

He's got you in a box with elasticated walls and you seem to be content to bounce backwards and forwards for ever and are thus removed from the debate.Bouncy Castle theme park.

0 Replies

Those with hidden agendas will constantly insist they have none -- how date anyone accuse them of such nefarious activity! Sounds like President Bush to me.

0 Replies

It is a completely false statement that members at this site avoid a discussion of religion versus science. I am not surprised, though, to see the member in question make such a groundless statement.

0 Replies

Well-what is the point of religion or science or education if it is not in the social functions of them and that is the area of consequence and the one a number of people steer round as if it is a bogeyman.

If you wish to pretend to be debating religion versus science with the "it is" -"no it isn't" type of method that's your affair but it sure sidelines you.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know