Intelligent Design is not creationism

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

That's horseshit--no one is obliged to disprove an extraordinary claim.

I never even hinted at such an idea.I never said anything about me requiring irrefutable proof of anything.I'm not talking about me. If you lot are talking about yourselves that's your affair not mine.

LW wrote-

Quote:

Science and religion cannot be amalgamated like Hungarian goulash.

Of course not.They are already amalgamated.If the complexities of the amalgamation are too difficult for some to understand and they wish to analyse them into black and white in order to feel they do understand them so what?

Edgar wrote-

Quote:

Setanta has nailed it. He doesn't want dialog. He wants to force his personal unsubstantiated belief into the classroom at any cost.

There's been no nailing.Setanta doesn't read my posts properly.He thinks I've said things I haven't.
I have no PUBs and even if I had I have no wish to force them on anybody. It's a PUB of yours Ed that I want what you say.Where you've got it from beats me.You can't have got it from my posts because it wasn't in there and you can't have got it from someone else so you must have got it from yourself.

0 Replies

This is like chasing a chicken around the barnyard. If you want to force ID into the schools, what setanta said is accurate.

0 Replies

He's cooked up quite a stew but must be more careful with the ingredients -- it smells to high heaven.

0 Replies

I don't want to force ID into anything. Where on earth do you get a crazy idea like that from.I don't go around telling education officials and elected representitives how to do things.Perish the thought.I don't even vote.
But I might ask a question of a policy somebody is preaching-like what will it look like if the policy comes in and works.

Boldy go where no threadsman's been before.Give us an idea what the non-religious world will look like.Just a few ideas.Working conditions,fertility arrangements,leisure activities,cultural activities-stuff like that.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Boldy go where no threadsman's been before.Give us an idea what the non-religious world will look like.Just a few ideas.Working conditions,fertility arrangements,leisure activities,cultural activities-stuff like that.

Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one

(I still get to keep my motorcylces and guitars though)

0 Replies

Only a deranged person would believe that trying to teach ID in a class on evolution or even simple anthropology would bring anything but more pinheads coming out of our schools to be interviewed by Jay Leno. Hint: you can't teach that there is an intelligent designer. A lesson plan with no actual plan? Just what plan, what goal plan does this super designer have? Is it male, female, vegetable or mineral? Is it larger than a breadbox?

The ultimate egotism is that the intelligence is "human like." If it were human like, the universe would have self-destructed by now. I've always entertained the idea of Artistotle's "God," that "it" is not anything like us, that if you want to semantically tie "it" down to anything close to semantically correct, you couldn't in terms of our understanding of intelligence. The way the Universe is looking out over the cosmos, it is not a design at all but utter chaos. The living creatures on Earth were not designed like toys coming out of a supernatural Mattel factory. The super designer with any sense of humor would likely come up with Barbie and Ken, not Adam and Eve.

The God in the Bible is humorless and unapologetically mean spirited, and not at all an abolitionist either. The sections on how to treat your slaves is probably the one Lincoln liked best.

0 Replies

Doktor said:

Quote:

Tele, your comparison is dishonest because it assumes 'the darwinians' (whoever they are, I suppose you mean mainstream science) have made the claim 'there is no design', and hence claiming 'there is design' is the other side of the same coin. They have not, they simply make no unneeded assumptions whatsoever either way.

That is absolutely false. The connection between assumptions about what God would (or wouldn't) have done, and the case for naturalistic evolution, is intimate and longstanding in the literature. Most evolutionary biology textbooks contain at least one such argument (e.g., about the panda's thumb, the pentadactyl limb, the putatively "backwards" vertebrate retina). Evolutionist and philosopher of science Elliot Sober observes:

Quote:

Many biologists have taken pains to point out how the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection makes predictions that differ dramatically from those that flow from the design hypothesis...At the same time and often in the same book, some biologists have pursued a quite different attack. They have argued that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis because it is untestable...If design cannot be tested, then what was one doing when one emphasized the imperfection of nature? Surely it is not possible to test and find wanting a hypothesis that is, in fact, untestable.

The subtitle of Richard Dawkins's book The Blind Watchmaker reads: "Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design."

Douglas Futuyma in his book Evolutionary Biology says:

Quote:

The profound, unsettling, implication of this purely mechanical, material explanation for the existence and characteristics of diverse organisms is that we need not invoke, nor can we find any evidence for, any design, goal, or purpose anywhere in the natural world, except in human behavior.

Monroe W. Strickberger, of the University of Missouri-St. Louis, notes in his widely-used textbook Evolution:

Quote:

The fear that Darwinism was an attempt to displace God in the sphere of creation was therefore quite justified. To the question, is there a special purpose for the creation of humans, evolution answered no. To the question, is there a special purpose for the creation of any living species, evolution answered no. According to evolution, the adaptations of species and the adaptations of humans come from natural selection and not from design. Religion persists chiefly to satisfy strong (if irrational) emotional needs.

According to evolutionist Francisco Ayala:

Quote:

Darwin's greatest achievement was to show that the organized complexity of living things could be brought about without recourse to a designing intelligence. Indeed, it is impossible to understand Darwin's argument in The Origin of Species apart from understanding how he argues against the 19th-century version of the design hypothesis.

Mark Ryland says:

Quote:

Darwinism is an anti-teleological theory. It's a theory whose purpose is to deny the inference of design.

There is a prominent college textbook whose opening sentence reads, 'Biology is the study of things that appear to be designed but aren't.'

Some texts even state that Darwin's theory has profoundly negative implications for theism, and especially for its belief in the purposeful design of nature. As Douglas Futuyma's biology text explains:

Quote:

By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.

0 Replies

Hi yah Teleologist, I'm waiting.........are you afraid?

Teleologist wrote:

Been there, done that.

That's great, I am sure Micah Sparacio and Mike Gene will be talking to the aliens any day now, and all the ID'ers will start worshiping UFO's!

Teleologist wrote:

This thread is about ID not being creationism. It is not a thread devoted to proving ID is science.

Giggle! If you claim it's "not a thread devoted to proving ID is science" then you cannot claim in this same thread "ID is limited by the scientific method". You are the one who moved off topic. I am simply challenging your assertion "ID is limited by the scientific method". And you still can't reply.

Teleologist wrote:

Man is already a designer.

This is great, show me your proof that man is the "intelligent designer" and if as you claim "Man is already a designer" why do ID'ers lend credenceneed to aliens?

Teleologist wrote:

You evidently find a contradiction here that I fail to see.

I'll say it again, it's truly not hard: if 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?

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.

Teleologist wrote:

Would it then make no sense to you if someone claimed that science does not posit a supernatural creator?

Would what make no sense to me?

Teleologist wrote:

I'm considering starting a new thread on ID and science.

Then why don't you? You have said you were going to a number of times already, and such a thread was even started in your honor, but hey start one right now, go for it!

Teleologist wrote:

In the meantime you might want to consider this: Can you give me one good reason why a teleological approach can't run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing? I can show you that it can.

Go ahead, show me the teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing, I'm waiting.........

0 Replies

Chumly, I've answered your questions. Some of them more than once. You are wasting your time repeating them over and over again. You are not going to get a response from me unless you come up with something new.

0 Replies

Hi Teleo,

Nope you have not answered my questions! You only answered that you claim Micah Sparacio and Mike Gene believe Aliens are Intelligent Designers, which is awfully weak as you will see.

Everything else you continually and duplicitly dodge.

On the topic of Micah Sparacio and Mike Gene, given that you have claimed "ID is limited by the scientific method" where is Micah Sparacio's and Mike Gene's scientific method to show that Aliens are Intelligent Designers?

0 Replies

farmerman said;

Quote:

The history of ID is clearly religious, that alone is undeniable. The continuous hammering that ID has no connection with religion is totally disengenuous , since its original intent was to skirt the requirements imposed by the US Supreme Court upon the State of Louisiana in Edwards.

The concept of ID didn't originate in 1987. Design is a concept/explanation that has been around since the Greek philosophers. In modern times creationism became the most popular expression of teleological thinking. So when ID began to emerge near the end of the 20th century there was bound to be some overlap between ID and creationism. So, there is no reason to invoke any conspiracy theory. ID proponents have begun to sincerely express an argument, that while loosely fitting within the creationist context, was never dependent on such a context. Since 1987, intelligent design has continued to develop into a serious method to explore nature. And today, advocates of design include not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic.

Aristotle, who held to an eternal universe and an inherent purposiveness within nature did not have a conventional belief in God but would today properly be regarded as an ID advocate. And Antony Flew recently embraced intelligent design despite his rejection of conventional belief in God.

Here a very astute observation from an ID proponent:

Quote:

Twenty years ago teleologists were constrained to creationist concepts because that is all that was available to them. But a conceptual revolution took place, and thus the distinctions that are made by ID proponents today, is progress, not deception. Today we are able to distinguish between creationism and intelligent design. Any reasonable person without an agenda or a victory to acheive, should agree that there is a conceptual distinction to be made here. Progress has been made in the last 20 years and rather than ridicule it as conspiracy, perhaps those who are open minded and actually seeking enlightenment can be thankful for the distinction. It can enable us to think more clearly about the issues at hand. Maybe intelligent design is false, but at least now we have the conceptual precision to investigate the question..

0 Replies

Yeah-I told you that faster.

To give life a point.

We are healthier,more prosperous,more powerful and happier when we have a point rather than being pointless as anti-IDers insist we are.

0 Replies

I see Teleoeogist has switched antics somewhat, he is now trying to argue by quoting other sources he vacuously claims support ID, instead of simply explaining himself.

0 Replies

No reasonable person without an agenda to press in hope of achieving victory over logic and truth can conceive ID-iocy anything other than the religious - albeit in some instances perhaps quasi-religious - claptrap it is. Any who press the case that ID-iocy can be divorced from creationism is either deluded, the victim of deceit, or dishonest, the perpetrator of deceit. A more clear and concise example of sophistry cannot be imagined than that required to attempt to present a case that ID-iocy be not creationism. Perhaps the only "reality" such a notion's proponents recognize is the reality that their absurd, self-cancelling proposition widely is met with scorn, ridicule, and dismissal.

0 Replies

Raamen.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I see Teleoeogist has switched antics somewhat, he is now trying to argue by quoting other sources he vacuously claims support ID, instead of simply explaining himself.

spendi, no nobler point than the advancement of humankind's knowledge and achievement can exist ... it precisely is that, knowledge and achievement, which has brought about, and continues to foster, the exponentially expanding search for the remedies to disease, suffering, injustice, inequallity, poverty, squalor, and despair that has been far, far too long the lot of far, far too large a portion of this planet's inhabitants. There remains much to be done, for certain and beyond argument, but while on the one hand religion offors support, succor, and charity to some oppressed, on the other hand, religion itself is the driving force behind almost all of the suffering and oppression afflicting humankind. It is not religion which has brought about the medical, nutritional, and other scientific advances that have eased humankind's burden and promise even more in the future, it is not religion which has provided prosperity through the industrio-mercantile engine of capitalism, or fostered liberty and justice through democracy.

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

No reasonable person without an agenda to press in hope of achieving victory over logic and truth can conceive ID-iocy anything other than the religious - albeit in some instances perhaps quasi-religious - claptrap it is.

Look timber-we all know that logic and truth renders each and everyone one of us,and our nearest and dearest, pointless.That idea is at least 2500 years old.And there's few things worse that being pointless except maybe being pointless and continually pointing it out.

0 Replies

Weak sauce Tele.
A bunch of quotes from scientists regarding their personal feelings on ID/Evolution is neither here nor there.
Show how the scientific process (IE research and testing) in the field of evolution incorporates the assumption 'there is no designer'
'There is no designer' is not a testable or observable statement, it is not science, it is conjecture.
But even if some scientists did taint their research with this extraneous assumption it doesn't justify those sitting behind the opposite, and must more fantastical postulation, doing the same.

If I were to find a group of scientists that thought the idea of invisible pink unicorns was a preposterous idea, would that then justify a new line of teleological pinkunicornocentric science?
Ridiculous.
I have come to the only logical conclusion ;You have only the loosest grasp of what constitutes science in the first place.

0 Replies

Teleoeogist,

Let me explain it simply:

- There are those who correctly argue ID is Creationism simply reformatted and rebranded.
- There are those who correctly argue that it does not matter what you call it because it's not scientific, it's not logical, it's not factual, and it's not rational.

That was not so hard now was it?

0 Replies

No, spendi, the point is the religionist hijacks the concepts of morality, truth, and compassion. The point is the religionist has his feet anchored in the grave and his eyes focused on a fantasy, clinginging to, inhibited by, even dominated by, millenia-old fairytales, while the realist strides the earth, the seas, the skies, and the cosmos unanchored, his eyes ever on the future, indomitably exploring it, mapping it, making it his own.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know