Search results

kjkent1 wrote: Dembski says right at the beginning of his quote that: ID's "only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable." This might help clarify where Dembski is coming from: Intelligent design is not a theory about the frequency or locality at which a...

James Bond: My Dembski quote is from 2002. Your Dembski quote is from 1996. Looks like Dembski's view has evolved. In any event, the 2002 quote best describes my ID perspective.

Seems to me this would only pose a problem for those that don't think that at some point in the future humans will have advanced technologically to where they will be able to seed distant planets with life forms capable of evolving. If this is a possible future then why couldn't a non-human ET...

What would be the point of pitting a circumstantial case against a non-circumstantial case?

No, it's a direct way of saying the case for a non-teleological origin of life is circumstantial.

He sounds confused to me. In any event, ID is best described by William Dembski:

kjkent1 wrote: Not so fast. I'm not about to waste my time presenting a circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life to a bunch of critics that are laboring under the mistaken notion that the case for a non-teleological origin of life is more than circumstantial. We need to resolve...

The only way one can pin the "creationist" label on ID proponents is to define creationism so broadly that anyone that disputes that evolution is undirected and devoid of purpose is a creationist. So to the ID critics here that claim ID is creationism I say let's hear your definition of...

kjkent1 wrote: Why? You previously said: Well, I told you I don't have a test for ID. What I have is an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life. You seem to want something that approaches certainty. An investigation does not need to deliver...

I previously said I don't have proof of ID. I previously said I don't have a test for ID. Likewise, you have no proof and no test for abiogenesis. Leaders in the field admit they are baffled. Let's compare apples to apples. I can present an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a...

kjkent1 wrote: There is evidence to support ID, other than just saying that something looks designed, but I haven't been able to get into this due to all the red herrings you keep bringing into this debate. For example, why should I bother to present evidence of design if in the end you are...

kjkent1 wrote: And you think you have this for a non-teleological origin of life?

Teleologist wrote: kjkent1 replied: This supports my contention that the only one's that are going to investigate the possibility that life is designed are those that think life looks designed. If scientists discovered a message etched into biological organisms, that would cause them to...

kjkent1 wrote: If nothing in the fossil record looked like common descent then no one would be investigating it. All investigations begin with a suspicion based on what something looks like. All hypotheses begin with observation.

Deleted.

kjkent1 wrote: The only one's that are going to investigate the possibility that life is designed are those that think life looks designed. All investgations begin with suspicions. Your perspective would insure that any investigation into design would never get off the ground. kjkent1...

ddunbar wrote: Yes, the concept of common descent is a deduction from the "looks like" approach.

kjkent1 wrote; Sure, but what if the hypothesis merely assumes something MAY be designed? Certainly if something looks designed that is evidence that it MAY be designed. Or put another way, if something looks designed that is a good reason to suspect it MAY be designed and to follow up the...

kjkent1 wrote: If someone thinks design has been established or proven simply because it “looks that way to them,” they have obviously jumped the gun. But there is nothing wrong with the argument, “it looks designed, thus I suspect it may have been designed.” If you were walking...

It might have some relevance when pondering ultimate reality but ID is focused on the origin of life on earth. One doesn't need to invoke an immortal, all powerful, limitless intelligent designer to account for the origin of life on earth. Once again, consider any artifact found on earth. Now...