Intelligent Design is not creationism

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from kjkent1:
I'm not interested in what would convince you of design. I would like to know what would merely cause you to suspect design.

The reason that the ID/Creationists suspect design is that they have a deeply held feeling that it is so, a feeling informed 101% by faith. There is no objective reason to suspect design. The necessary progenitor of a belief in design is a faith in a Creator God. The ID/Creationists here have tried very hard to distance themselves from this fact, but it nevertheless remains a fact.

It is indeed amusing to watch the ID/Creationists squirm and wriggle in their attempts to sell the idea that life on earth could be 'designed' and yet that idea does not imply a 'designer'.

It doesn't matter that these ID/Creationists say "I'm not Christian" or "ID doesn't necessarily (watch that necessarily!!) imply a Creator God". The ultimate aim of ID is to to try, quixotically, to stem the tide of secularism. This is akin to stemming the tide of modernization, of industrialization.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Teleologist:

I see. So proof of design wouldn't convince you of design. Proof of design merely warrants further investigation. That's like me saying proof that abiogenesis happened wouldn't convince me that abiogenesis happened. It would just convince me that an investigation of abiogenesis is warranted.

This is a frivolous response. If it's what you really believe, then your reasoning ability is far below your writing skills. Since I don't find that conclusion credible in view of your responses, and because the only reasonable alternative is that you are now being intentionally disingenuous, I will simply thank you for your thoughts, and bid you adieu.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

By your definitions, the so called Big Bang was magic...

So too was the first appearance of a biological organism magic...

Oh, and I say "false" when I belief your arguments or statement is not true...

Quote from kjkent1:

You always advance your conclusions as if they are undeniable. Saying "False," just makes you seem disingenuous.

What matters for the purposes of the scientific method is the existence of AFFIRMATIVE evidence. There is no scientific proof without an experiment, so simply saying that design cannot be excluded is not a scientific proof -- it is an appeal to magic, because you are attempting to assert the existence of something, by advancing nothing in support thereof, and something from nothing is a property of magic.

Whereas, actual affirmative evidence of evolution exists, and that is not magic.

As for your other examples, (1) an ET that designed the known universe is magic if its influence is presently unmeasurable, because the definition of magic is that which is unmeasurable. If something becomes measurable at some future date, due to the advance of science, then it's not magic, anymore; (2) a designed universe using natural law would have measurable indicia of design, thus evidence would exist, so show it to me, otherwise it doesn't exist, and this example is also magic; (3) I don't understand your example of a computer generated program -- it seems a non sequitur.

(4) As for God not being magic, but rather natural, if that is your position, then God is measurable, the same as your extra-universal ET, so "show me da money." Where is your scientifically measurable evidence of God? If you don't have any, then this too is magic.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke.

So, if you want to demonstrate that ID is technology rather than magic, you must convert it to science by affirmatively proving its existence. Until you do, ID is magic.

 

[Teleologist]

kjkent1:

I didn't say that my proposed proofs would "convince me of design." I said that they would convince me that there is a "case" for design, warranting further investigation.

In other words you need proof to generate a suspicion? Why aren't subtle clues sufficient?

All investigations begin with suspicions not proof. If a detective suspects someone was murdered based on subtle clues, is that good enough reason for him to begin an investigation or does he need concrete proof first? A perspective like that would stop any investigation in its tracks.

Scientists propose hypotheses to follow up on their suspicions. Hypotheses are not needed for things that are proven. Science would come to a grinding halt if things had to be proven before they were investigated.

 

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

There is no objective reason to suspect design.

Pure nonsense. That something looks designed is sufficient reason to suspect it is designed unless there is evidence to the contrary. All investigations/hypotheses begin with how something looks. This is called observation.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

TraderNik:


Pure nonsense. That something looks designed is sufficient reason to suspect it is designed unless there is evidence to the contrary. All investigations/hypotheses begin with how something looks. This is called observation.

In a way there is something to this.

Pure chaos would of course signify a lack of design. Unless of course chaos was intended.

But the fact that there is order should be reason enough to suspect that either the order is purely natural or the order is the foundation of design. The problem is, if the order is by design, how does one go about investigating the origin of the order?

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

By your definitions, the so called Big Bang was magic...

So too was the first appearance of a biological organism magic...

Oh, and I say "false" when I belief your arguments or statement is not true...

The big bang is not magic because there is objective observable scientific evidence supporting the emanation of all matter in the universe from one point. There is no objective evidence to support that any intelligence caused this process, so that is magic.

Science does not infer a cause of the big bang from the evidence of its occurrence other than that which can be measured.

So, the cause of the big bang is as of yet unknown. The scientific fact that it occurred is supported by considerable observed evidence, although it's certainly not a perfect proof.

Similarly, science does not infer a cause of abiogenesis from the evidence of its occurrence other than that which can be measured. Some of what science can prove is that molecules can self assemble in a turbulent environment, as can viruses. And, science can prove that assembled complex molecules can evolve. So it is no leap at all to infer that once upon a time at least one of these molecules evolved into something slightly different, and so on and so forth -- thus abiogenesis.

What science doesn't do is infer intelligent causation where no supporting evidence exists, because that is something from nothing.

So, yes the technology required to create a big bang is magic by my definition, because we can conceive of no technology capable of producing an explosion of matter out of whatever existed prior to the big bang -- especially as we don't know what was prior. But, the big bang itself is not magic, because we have evidence to support its occurrence.

On the other hand, I would suggest that the technology necessary to initiate abiogenesis is not more than 10 years away, and so neither abiogenesis nor some proof of possible causation is anything close to magic by my definition.

Obviously, this won't end the debate. If we can initiate abiogenesis that will suggest to those who wish to infer a designer, that design is hypothetically possible -- and I agree.

But, the problem of evidence actually supporting an extrinsic designer other than human is still open. And, that is where the magic returns. If you want to infer an intelligent designer, then you need some verifiable affirmative evidence or you are not conducting a scientific experiment -- you're just postulating.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

An intelligence higher than human would be magic?

This is what I don't understand about the atheistic materialists, and seems illogical with the basic premise that has been put forth by them.

The odds are for one who supports evolution and chance, that this planet is not the only planet to generate life and sustain such life here in the universe, and that humans are probably not the highest form of life. So it is quite reasonable to think that humans are not top dog, and it is quite possible that life here on earth did not develop spontaneously from nothing, but was placed here. Life as we know it is here by design seem more probable than non design.

However, subscription to a chance development with no design puts human beings at the top of the food chain, which is what this really seems to be about...

In the end, your position is stuck with 2 untenable situations. Life from nothing, and the universe from nothing, both situations left begging questions of causation...

Since the cause is unknown in each case, there is no logical reason to assume either chance or design, yet there is tremendous resistance to assumption of design by the atheists, for obvious reasons...

Quote from kjkent1:

The big bang is not magic because there is objective observable scientific evidence supporting the emanation of all matter in the universe from one point. There is no objective evidence to support that any intelligence caused this process, so that is magic.

Science does not infer a cause of the big bang from the evidence of its occurrence other than that which can be measured.

So, the cause of the big bang is as of yet unknown. The scientific fact that it occurred is supported by considerable observed evidence, although it's certainly not a perfect proof.

Similarly, science does not infer a cause of abiogenesis from the evidence of its occurrence other than that which can be measured. Some of what science can prove is that molecules can self assemble in a turbulent environment, as can viruses. And, science can prove that assembled complex molecules can evolve. So it is no leap at all to infer that once upon a time at least one of these molecules evolved into something slightly different, and so on and so forth -- thus abiogenesis.

What science doesn't do is infer intelligent causation where no supporting evidence exists, because that is something from nothing.

So, yes the technology required to create a big bang is magic by my definition, because we can conceive of no technology capable of producing an explosion of matter out of whatever existed prior to the big bang -- especially as we don't know what was prior. But, the big bang itself is not magic, because we have evidence to support its occurrence.

On the other hand, I would suggest that the technology necessary to initiate abiogenesis is not more than 10 years away, and so neither abiogenesis nor some proof of possible causation is anything close to magic by my definition.

Obviously, this won't end the debate. If we can initiate abiogenesis that will suggest to those who wish to infer a designer, that design is hypothetically possible -- and I agree.

But, the problem of evidence actually supporting an extrinsic designer other than human is still open. And, that is where the magic returns. If you want to infer an intelligent designer, then you need some verifiable affirmative evidence or you are not conducting a scientific experiment -- you're just postulating.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The odds are for one who supports evolution and chance, that this planet is not the only planet to generate life and sustain such life here in the universe, and that humans are probably not the highest form of life.

(LEAP!!!!!!!!!!)

Life as we know it is here by design seem more probable than non design.

I'm going to start calling you Leapin' LoZZZer. The fascinating part is that you just make up these absurd, fallacious logical leaps and then present them without a shred of shame. No wonder none of the other ID proponents here ever respond positively to your posts. With friends like you, the ID movement needs no enemies.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

TraderNik:


Pure nonsense. That something looks designed is sufficient reason to suspect it is designed unless there is evidence to the contrary. All investigations/hypotheses begin with how something looks. This is called observation.

Sigh... it is getting tedious responding to your assertions.

I'll say this for the 90th time, just for you.

Things only APPEAR TO BE DESIGNED TO YOU because of your FAITH IN GOD.

Things DO NOT APPEAR TO BE DESIGNED TO ME

Your feeling that things LOOK DESIGNED is informed by a FAITH BASED BELIEF. There is now, NOR CAN THER EVER BE, any proof that life is designed. The only proof will be when the heavens open up and start spewing angels with trumpets, multi-eyed goats, and lakes of brimstone for the unbelievers.

There is nothing to prevent you from acting on what you claim you observe (appearance of design) and try to gather evidence which would support the theory.

Theis thread is defined by the complete and utter lack of evidence of any sort for the existence of a Intelligent Designer.

The rest of this thread is just assertion, sophistry and denial.

ID is Creation rebranded.