Intelligent Design is not creationism

You really love that, don't you George. What was to have been demonstrated, and how was it demonstrated? Your old Jesuit tormentors would be whalin' the livin' daylights outta you by now, the way you fling that around meaninglessly.

0 Replies

I have no obligation to refute your extraordinary claim. To repeat:

Who is your intelligent designer?

How is your intelligent designer to be distinguished from any garden variety deity?

How does the thesis of intelligent design materially differ from the Reverend Paley's "watch in a field" proposition first published in 1802, and now known as the "watchmaker thesis?"

You have posited a thesis, for which you have provided no evidence. There is absolutely no good reason to accept your claim absent any evidence.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You really love that, don't you George. What was to have been demonstrated, and how was it demonstrated? Your old Jesuit tormentors would be whalin' the livin' daylights outta you by now, the way you fling that around meaninglessly.

It is self-evident.

They weren't tormentors at all. I can hear their applause.

0 Replies

No, George, it was not self-evident. LW pointed out that shrill describes an auditory phenomenon, and that this cannot be the case in the medium we are using here, unless one might call using all capitals "shrill." That was in response to your claim about "shrill name calling."

You respond with QED. Exactly how did LW's remarks constitute "shrill name calling?"

Have you been, perhaps, drinking? Are you drunk-posting, George?

0 Replies

Quote:

I think this is being telegraphed into the fact that failing to get Creationism into the schools..

I think it's time to remind the ID critics that the Discovery institute was against the Dover school board policy. This policy was pushed by creationists on the Dover board and not by real IDers. These guys were clueless about ID.

0 Replies

So tell us, here, Boss. What is the nature of your intelligent designer, and what empirical evidence do you have for this designer? You have, after all, claimed that there is such evidence.

0 Replies

The Discovery Institute Mission Statement wrote:

The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature . . .

And yet . . .

Teleologist wrote:

I think it's time to remind the ID critics that the Discovery institute was against the Dover school board policy. This policy was pushed by creationists on the Dover board and not by real IDers. These guys were clueless about ID.

Any comment, there, Boss?

0 Replies

I did a fast scroll-through of this thread ... the usual suspects hurling the usual invectives at the usual targets by-and-large ... I really have neither the time nor the stomach to read nine pages of the stuff.

Having said that ... just thought I'd share some tales from the school where I teach. Apparently this is Big Bang Week in the science department. One poor first-year teacher is doing her very best to teach a concept she does not believe, but must impart as proven fact as required by law here in the Great State of Ohio. Apparently that's the easy part. The hard part is when she has to field questions after the lecture. Some of this spilled over into my class and I, too, did my level best to maintain the party line without compromising my own principles.

Is ID a theory with obvious flaws? Sure. But so is Darwinism. Yet which is being taught as unquestioned fact and which is the subject of litigation and ridicule? The bottom line is a bunch of savvy 15-year-olds did an admirable job of asking the right questions and exposing some very gaping holes in the fabric of evolutionary "science" despite the efforts of very many adults trying to teach them otherwise.

Yes, it's great fun to hoot and sneer at the author of this thread through the insular protection of the internet, but it would be even greater fun to watch said hooters defend their "facts" in a real world classroom - an actual level playing field, God forbid. 'Twould be quite a different shooting gallery, actually, and great, great fun, indeed!

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, George, it was not self-evident. LW pointed out that shrill describes an auditory phenomenon, and that this cannot be the case in the medium we are using here, unless one might call using all capitals "shrill." That was in response to your claim about "shrill name calling."

You respond with QED. Exactly how did LW's remarks constitute "shrill name calling?"

Have you been, perhaps, drinking? Are you drunk-posting, George?

The metaphorical leap was hardly significant. Lightwizard's notion that it would have been OK if I had used caps, adequately gave the lie to any metaphorical reluctance anyway. You are now indulging in pedantry.

0 Replies

I feel ashamed -- it's much too easy to hit some people in the semantic mid-section and knock the air right out of their argument. High toned airs bother me, whether they are verbally shrill or written by Hyakawa on speed. The train has derailed -- any survivors?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The metaphorical leap was hardly significant. Lightwizard's notion that it would have been OK if I had used caps, adequately gave the lie to any metaphorical reluctance anyway. You are now indulging in pedantry.

That's about all you ever indulge--and the abuse of QED is one of the most striking examples.

You have yet to cite a single instance of "shrill name calling."

0 Replies

Apart from a claim of some sort of victory without any foundation whatsoever, does that post have any meaning?

0 Replies

Quote:

I have no obligation to refute your extraordinary claim.

Of course you have no obligation but if you are going to claim ID is creationism then you should be able to back this up in the manner I outlined. If you can't do that then that's all I need to know. There is no reason for me to answer your questions.

0 Replies

As Reagan state, "There you go again."

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Apart from a claim of some sort of victory without any foundation whatsoever, does that post have any meaning?

It entails a question, one which is germane to your specious comments about what has gone on in this thread. Here, let me restate if for you, as a question, since you appear to be having trouble with simple concepts right now:

Can you cite a single instance of "shrill name calling?"

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
I have no obligation to refute your extraordinary claim.

Of course you have no obligation but if you are going to claim ID is creationism then you should be able to back this up in the manner I outlined. If you can't do that then that's all I need to know. There is no reason for me to answer your questions.

You have no reason to answer my questions, if you are willing to stipulate that ID is identical to creationism. Of course, if you are going to claim that ID is not the same as creationism, then you need to distinguish it by describing the nature of the intelligent designer, and how said designer impinges on species diversity on this planet. Otherwise, all your claims for ID are non sequiturs to a rational description of a theory of evolution. You have stated that you have empirical evidence for ID. If that is so, it should be a simple matter to provide it.

0 Replies

Teleologist, what part of "ID-iocy and Creationism have been determned and held in a court of law to be one and the same" gives you difficulty?

I note you noted that The Creation Institute backed away from Dover (though they - or, more precisely, their philosophy as set forth in the Wedge Document, and relayed to the schoolboard members by operatives of The Institute - were found in a court of law to have been proximate facillitators of the schoolboard decision which brought about the trial and the consequent massive fine against the schoolboard). I note that Fellows of The institute, notably Behe and Dembski, did participate in the trial. I note as well no appeal has been filed, nor even hinted. The matter is settled, to the satisfaction of all but those yet championing the demonstrated-in-a-court-of-law fraud of ID-iocy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Of course, if you are going to claim that ID is not the same as creationism, then you need to distinguish it by describing the nature of the intelligent designer..

No I don't. All I have to do to distinguish ID from creationism is the following:

Show that ID theory doesn't claim that a supernatural entity was behind any origin event

Show that ID theory doesn't posit that the earth is young?-in the range of 10,000 years or so.

Show that ID theory doesn't claim the earth's geology can be explained by catastrophism, primarily a worldwide flood.

Show that ID theory doesn't maintain that "Created kinds" of plants and organism can vary only within fixed limits.

Show that ID theory doesn't reject common ancestry.

Show that ID theory doesn't claim that humans and apes have different ancestries.

Show that ID theory only involves these two basic assumptions:

· Intelligent causes exist

· These causes can be empirically detected

0 Replies

There's a fingerprint on the CD -- it's stuck on the same song.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
Of course, if you are going to claim that ID is not the same as creationism, then you need to distinguish it by describing the nature of the intelligent designer..

No I don't. All I have to do to distinguish ID from creationism is the following:

Show that ID theory claims that a supernatural entity was behind any origin event

As noted severally in previous posts, the cognates of the religious "Creator" concept were willfully, knowingly, and mendaciously replaced in Pandas with cognates of the "Intelligent Design" concept, which concept was intelligently, if dishonestly, designed to obscure the religionist foundation of ID-iocy

Quote:

Show that ID theory posits that the earth is young?-in the range of 10,000 years or so.

Irrelevant, a red herring. The point is that contrary to your assertion, Creationism and ID-iocy have by science and law been determined to be the same

Quote:

Show that ID theory claims the earth's geology can be explained by catastrophism, primarily a worldwide flood.

Another red herring - this has nothing to do with the established indifferention between Creationism and ID-iocy

Quote:

Show that ID theory maintains that "Created kinds" of plants and organism can vary only within fixed limits.
Yet another red herring having nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Quote:
Show that ID theory rejects common ancestry.

Adding one more red herring to the basket - irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Quote:
Show that ID theory claims humans and apes have different ancestries.

Your fish basket runneth over - this too has nothing to do with the established-at-law fact Creationism and ID-iocy are but coequal manifestations of one another.

Quote:
Show that ID theory involves more than these two basic assumptions:

· Intelligent causes exist

· These causes can be empirically detected

Show that any intelligent cause for the cosmos or anything in it not of humankind's making exists or can be empirically detected.

On the upside, if somebody out there has a few loaves to chip in with your basket of fish, the multitude can be fed.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know