Intelligent Design is not creationism

Chumly wrote:

Teleologist wrote:
Would you agree that studying the supernatural is beyond the scope of science?
No at all, the scientific method has been applied to the claims of the supernatural very successfully.

Chumly, I'm not sure I agree with your answer on that one.

While it's true that science can be used to investigate "claims" of the supernatural, science itself is not capable of studying anything which is truely supernatural (even though nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated).

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

I have perhaps seen only the better examples of both factions as the Episcopalians were expremely broad minded. Although Father Miller did not bring it up in sermons, he was sure of Darwin's and the scientific fact of evolution but he believed in a metaphysical higher power he chose to call God. I certainly didn't hold it against him!

In Gonzaga High School I was taught about both evolution and the geological discoveries that establish that the earth is billions of years old, not the thousands referred to in the Bible. Both were presented as evident deductions from a broad base of observed facts. The failure of fact to square with literal interpretations of various sections of the Bible was shrugged off by the Jesuits with the observation that the Bible is itself inconsistent in many details; that is is the perhaps the inspired product of human beings, but a product of human effort nonetheless; and that there are numerous examples in it that point clearly to its metaphorical, and not literal, meaning, Genesis merely the most prominent among them.

An important element in our high school history classes was a focus on the stages of development of human understanding of the material world and the errors that accompanyied the discoveries along the way. This included the march from Aristotle to Gallileo, Bacon and on to modern science, and included a frank acknowledgement of the conflicts accompanying it and the errors on both sides of the famous disputes.

Out on Wisconsin Ave the tonier St. Alban's or National Cathedral) Episcopal school had a similar curriculum. They had Al Gore: we had Pat Buchanan.

0 Replies

All of the bathetic references to childhood educational memories aside, one wonders, George, what you're doing in this thread, unless it's looking to get into a pissing match with those whose opinions you suspect you want to disagree with.

Do you have a coherent response to the titular statement?

0 Replies

You are absolutely correct. Chumly, in his haste to disagree with everything I say is making himself look foolish. In fact, the ID critics often argue that ID isn't science because it supposedly invokes the supernatural.

0 Replies

Setanta,

That was yet another tiresome, and I think, pointless bark.

One could well ask the same question with respect to your post. Have you become the annointed defender of literalism with respect to thread topics?

0 Replies

Quote:

While it's true that science can be used to investigate "claims" of the supernatural, science itself is not capable of studying anything which is truely supernatural (even though nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated).

You are absolutely correct. Chumly, in his haste to disagree with everything I say is making himself look foolish. In fact, the ID critics often argue that ID isn't science because it supposedly invokes the supernatural.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

Do you have a coherent response to the titular statement?

Last ditch pedantic escape route with white feathers flying.

0 Replies

No, of course i haven't. I've also already addressed the titular contention by an attempt--so far futile--to get the author to define terms.

I was asking you a question germane to the topic of the thread--if you are not inclined to answer it, fine. You needn't disgrace your already poor reputation with more snideness, though.

0 Replies

Spendius, i'm not in your alcoholic fantasyland, so don't bother attempting to construct any of your dypso mirages using me as a character.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You needn't disgrace your already poor reputation with more snideness, though.

And what is it that you are doing?

0 Replies

wandeljw says:

Quote:

There is a religious doctrine of creation. "Creationism" refers to a view that creation can be scientifically proven. You seem to have a misunderstanding of both science and religion.

What am I misunderstanding? I agree that creationism is commonly understood to be the belief that the Biblical account of creation is scientifically accurate. However, that doesn't describe ID at all. The critics here are so intent on labeling ID creationism that they have devised a version of creationism that is so watered down that theistic evolutionists, biological Darwinists who embrace cosmological design, and anyone that thinks ID is worth investigating is a creationist.[/quote]

0 Replies

Repaying you in your own coin.

0 Replies

Do you have a cogent remark to make on the titular assertion, George?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Repaying you in your own coin.

That's a laugh. There is no sentiment in your barking. And you, not I, made the first deposit here.

Moreover, there seems to be no reason behind it and the insults you attempt to lay on others. What motivates this?

0 Replies

I asked you a question germane to the titular proposition, why is it so hard for you to answer? Why do you keep avoiding that?

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
While it's true that science can be used to investigate "claims" of the supernatural, science itself is not capable of studying anything which is truely supernatural (even though nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated).

You are absolutely correct. Chumly, in his haste to disagree with everything I say is making himself look foolish. In fact, the ID critics often argue that ID isn't science because it supposedly invokes the supernatural.

I would say old chums requests have been rather coherent and I was personally hoping you might rise to the challenge.
Not like I'm surprised you didn't or anything.
And by the way..as I may have already mentioned...
ID isn't 'not science' because it invokes the supernatural, it is 'not science' because it starts with a constraining presupposition, ie that a designer exists.

Now if measurable indications of design were found through pure research, and further investigated and tested/repeated, assuming evidence of design was found, it would be a different story.
But they haven't been. That you are 'searching' for design where no evidence of design exists indicates an agenda for a designer to exist(can you say 'specious'?).
Your approach is not scientific because you are working in reverse.
The conclusion is the final step of the scientific method, not the first step.
teleology is pseudoscience, plain and simple.

0 Replies

George wrote-

Quote:

I don't think science is the enemy here. Instead it is those who would misuse and misrepresent it.

Yes.Exactly.Couldn't have put it better myself.A serious looking tome on the coffee table for visitors to be impressed with.

A few years ago I borrowed The Oxford Companion To Philosophy from a lady with more money than sense and she hasn't asked for it back yet.It had already served its purpose you see with the salesperson who palmed it off on her for £20.S/he must have been prepared to pander to her idea of how intelligent she was for a few minutes.You have to be really intelligent to spend enough money to buy 12 pints of John Smith's Extra Smooth on a book you can't understand the first sentence of which is-

ABANDONMENT.A rhetorical term used by existential philosophers such as Heidegger and Sarte to describe the absence of any sources of ethical authority external to oneself.

And she resisted my advances due,I'm inclined to think,to factors beyond her control.

It's easier and more lucrative than selling raffle tickets

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
While it's true that science can be used to investigate "claims" of the supernatural, science itself is not capable of studying anything which is truely supernatural (even though nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated).

You are absolutely correct. Chumly, in his haste to disagree with everything I say is making himself look foolish.

I didn't think he looked foolish. I just think he rushed the answer on that one a bit.

Teleologist wrote:

In fact, the ID critics often argue that ID isn't science because it supposedly invokes the supernatural.

They say that because a vast majority of people pushing ID are just desperate to get their pet God theory accepted alongside scientific theories.

But even if you don't claim the "designer" is supernatural, the theory still isn't science. It doesn't meet the basic requirements of a scientific theory (which have been posted on A2K many times before).

But putting strict definitions aside, it's pretty obvious that Intelligent Design exists for only one reason, and that's as a wedge to crack the basis of science and to slip religion into the mix. Just because they flower it up and put fancy scientific words around it doesn't change what it is.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

Spendius, i'm not in your alcoholic fantasyland, so don't bother attempting to construct any of your dypso mirages using me as a character.

It will take more than bluster of that nature to censor me.

Decoded you mean shut the f**k up I'm the only one.You should go in pubs more if you want to discover how fatuous that line of reasoning is.They don't have cowed audiences in pubs.

0 Replies

No, decoded it means i don't give a f*ck about your dypsomaniacal ramblings.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know