Intelligent Design is not creationism

That's much better timber.

That's pure lonesome Faustianism.Congrats.It's the soft centres you have to watch out for.

Better the courage to fulfill your destiny.

Not so Faust now. My head is spinning. Err...I think it's the Pinot Noir.

Fauster





And Further



Only the best pass the acid test.

This appears to encapsulate your central thoughts on the matter. However I'm not sure I follow it all. If I am correct it goes - in its several parts - as follows;
1. It is not possible to disprove of the existence of a god or creator.
2. It is a lie to pretend that such a question exists.
3. It is also a lie to assert that the existence or non-existence of a god or creator is a question that must be resolved as a basis or validation of scuientific naturalism.
4. Those who assert the existence of a god or creator have a burden of proof that, over 12 millenia, they have failed to meet.

This is consistent with what you have put forward in other posts, however I believe it involves some internal contradictions or at least inconsistencies.

With respect to the several parts;
1. I agree
2. The question of whether there is or is not a god or creator is one that appears to have perplexed nearly everyone who has ever lived at some time in their lives. The existence of the question in the minds and writings of writers over the ages is demonstrated in the historical record beyond doubt. Does the question have logical validity? (perhaps that is your point here.). Certainly philosophers on both sides of the matter - from Aquinas to Kant have engaged it directly.
3. Here I agree with you. Natural Science can logically and scientifically be developed without reference to the existence or non-existence of a creator. Indeed the body of what we call science looks only to the natural world for the resolution of questions it engages, and so far has developed a deep, though incomplete, understanding of the processes of the natural world. It is incomplete because no explanation can be found within the natural world for its existence. As a result science always rests on singularities.
4. I infer you believe that the burden of proof rests only on those who assert the existence of a god or creator, and not on those, like yourself, who deny it. This is inconsistent with your earlier assertion that science can be developed independently of this question. The burden is either equally shared or there is none at all. It also leaves you accepting, without question, the unexplained and unexplainable magic of the big bang, quantum multiverses or other like infinite regressions. This logically is hardly superior to the literalists who insist on the biblical Genesis.

George, I've never denied the existence of any deity or other thing, entity, condition or state of being within the realm of the of the paranormal; I merely point out there exists no evidence for same - and by the same token, there exists no evidence such be categorically declared non-existant. What I "accept" is the evidence which points to The Big Bang and quantum theory, and I accept that much is, and much may ever remain, unknown. The ultimate question of ORIGIN is for now, and ever may remain, a purely conjectural, philosophic excersize, with neither discernable answer nor meaningful effect.


One thing we know for sure is that the more we know, the more we know there is to know. There's a lesson there.


I can accept that.

I will stick to Aristotles' The Great Mover who's job is to keep the Universe in motion -- it has no concern for each of our individuals lives, no way to communicate anything to us, and that is true free will. It does not have a human-like intelligence but more likely something so abstract we yet have to understand it. However, no matter how acceptable this might be to many of us, it also doesn't mean that ID isn't fundamentally much different than Creationism. There's no reason to even ask the question except for its perceived impact on today's society, specifically our schools and our youth. That same free will means they can take it or leave it -- go to school and learn about science and go to church to learn about God and spirituality. There's a long hard and I think dead end road for the IDers because they cannot even begin prove its relevance to science. The scientist won't have to relinquish their domain over science even as they have the individual free will to decide if they want to believe there is an intelligent designer or not.

I don't know if there if somewhere there is a direct allusion to aliens being God but doesn't everyone think that was covered, again, by "2001: A Space Odyssey?"

Doktor said:


Those quotes are a direct refutation to this claim you made:


Remember that? You cleary assert that mainstream scientists don't claim 'there is no design'. My bunch of quotes proves you are dead wrong. You then try to weasel out of your blunder by changing your question thusly:



That wasn't your original claim. I refuted your original claim.

So, because some people, who also happen to be scientists, have the audacity to hold beliefs, they must therefore incorporate their beliefs in to how they do their science?
One of us is slippery here, bub, but it ain't me.

There is a huge difference between a scientific claim and the personal belief of a scientist. You would do well to learn to distinguish between the two.

He's exhibited that he does not know how to do that, not being a scientist. He's trying to be an idealist but he's failing even at that because his philosophy is obscure and full of falsehoods.

Tele, what you did was cite a few passages, from a small, selected sample of scientists. You've demonstrated only that those you chose to quote SEEM, by those particular remarks, to hold as you assert science in general holds.

Now, in that you, by screen personna and argument style, appear to be given to teleology, I will submit teleology, etymologically the study of "telos", Greek for a concept emodying "End" and/or "Purpose", as a forensic form is invalid, as it proceeds from the undemonstrated, therefore illicit, premise that there be an ultimate cause or purpose both extrinsic and intrinsic in nature ... extrinsic in that it is presupposed a being may realize a cause and purpose beyond, apart from, superior to, and actuarial upon the being, and intrinsic in that that being ascribe to existence and all things existing the inherrent necessity of cause and purpose directed toward fulfilling a higher need than mere reality, that being the achievement of a perfection of good.

I submit that teleology, and its contemporary consanguine derivation intelligent design, from Plato on through Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Hooke, Voltaire, Paley, Hegel, Dennet, Plantinga, and so forth, proceeds from the notion there must be an all-powerful, deistic ultimate cause, to the purpose of fullfilling some higher good - period. In short, teleology is the assumption that for the complex universe to be as we observe it, there must be cause, design, and directive purpose to nature. Plain and simple, that is non sequitur, predicate upon argument from ignorance. The armature from which is hung the threadbare cloth of teleology is spophistry. To profess the teleologic argument one perforce must be a sophist, as teleology is but sophistry.

Glad you did not let him get away with that!

I thought sophistry was the building of sofa's.

I suppose that all depends on how you couch it.

Makes me want to take a trip to Davenport.

I thought naturalism was the philosophy behind nudist camps.

Chumsly said:



So far I've only seen incorrect arguments attempting to support those claims.

So far, Tele, you have ignored, dismissed, and disregarded the logically correct, intellectually honest, forensically sound, academically valid refutations of your proposition.

Mr. Teleologist,

Show me your 'correct arguments' bearing in mind that you said "ID is limited by the scientific method".

And to help you, here is a tune for you to sing!

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush..........
.
.
.
.
.
I hate to break the news to you (again), but it does not matter at all to the discipline of science what the personal beliefs are of the people doing the science.

Christian Priests have done good science
Agnostics have done good science
Atheists have done good science
Religious Jews have done good science

Sounds to me like a "Coed Naked Science" T-Shirt in the works