ID being a faith-driven inquiry as per the Wedge document, the debate is about the merits of introducing ID alongside with all major belief systems in public schools... so that children may not be arbitrarily railroaded into such or such belief system simply on the whims of a parent... or just keep ID out of it all, since Santa Claus is a better theory anyway...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
I'm glad for that., hopefully you can now appreciate the actual facts on how and why ID/Creationism is denominational, rather than just the dumb ignorant assertion that it is not.Quote from Teleologist:
Yes, it does. Thanks.
Quote from Teleologist:
I have no stake is this debate unless the ID critics are arguing that ID shouldn't be discussed in the public schools because it isn't compatible with all religions.
As far as why it was ever relevant in the first place, may I suggest you heed james bond 3rd advice and take it up with the zzzz himself. He brought the faulty assertion in the first place, others have simply shown why and how he is, yet again, just plain wrong. Though I doubt you will get far.
Quote from Teleologist:
What was being discused when this all came up was the comments of Roman Catholic Cardinal Cristoph Schoenborn of Vienna that sharply criticized efforts in America to prevent students from learning about the debate over Darwinâs theory.
...and the question was put in return to you, again by james bond 3rd , why are these same students being similarly prevented from learning about the FSM debate over Darwin's Theory.
You do not seem to have addressed that but were you to do so, an appropriate reaction to the RC's rather fatuous plea might have become clear to you.
Stu said:
I replied to James Bond 3rd that the FSM is according to its originator a supernatural entity and I don't think discussions concerning the supernatural belong in the science classroom. ID has nothing to do with the supernatural.
...and the question was put in return to you, again by james bond 3rd , why are these same students being similarly prevented from learning about the FSM debate over Darwin's Theory.
I replied to James Bond 3rd that the FSM is according to its originator a supernatural entity and I don't think discussions concerning the supernatural belong in the science classroom. ID has nothing to do with the supernatural.
2 Cents said:
ID is an empirically-driven inquiry. There are things in nature that look designed even to an atheist like Richard Dawkins. He says:
There are only two possibilities here. Either what looks like design in nature is real or it is an illusion.
According to Richard Dawkins, Darwinian theory was developed as a counter argument to the observed fact that living systems appear to be designed. Before Darwin "there was no alternative explanation for apparent design." Thus, Darwinian theory is essentially a rebuttal of design. As Dawkins points out so explicitly, it is a theory that seeks to show that the apparent design in nature is actually just an illusion.
The denial of actual design in biology is central to Darwinian thought. While Dawkins could be right, thereâs no proof that the apparent design in nature is just an illusion. Therefore, either both the ID hypothesis and the blind watchmaker hypothesis are science or they are both non-science. One is the flip-side of the other. If the hypothesis of "no design", is science, then it necessarily follows that its counter argument is science. Design is science and not metaphysics for the same reasons that the evolutionary argument against it is science and not metaphysics. To be testable, the blind watchmaker thesis needs a null hypothesis which just happens to be ID. Without it the claim of "no-design" is dogma not science.
Children in school should not be taught that the purposefulness they observe in biological processes has been scientifically proven to be an illusion because that's not true.
What is true is that there is an invalid a priori assumption of ateleology in biology and this invalid assumption is attached to what is taught in school. Philosophical materialism disguised as empirical science has no business being taught in the public schools. Eliminate the metaphysical corruption, and let the apparent design in nature speak for itself.
ID being a faith-driven inquiry as per the Wedge document, the debate is about the merits of introducing ID alongside with all major belief systems in public schools... so that children may not be arbitrarily railroaded into such or such belief system simply on the whims of a parent.
ID is an empirically-driven inquiry. There are things in nature that look designed even to an atheist like Richard Dawkins. He says:
Biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.
There are only two possibilities here. Either what looks like design in nature is real or it is an illusion.
According to Richard Dawkins, Darwinian theory was developed as a counter argument to the observed fact that living systems appear to be designed. Before Darwin "there was no alternative explanation for apparent design." Thus, Darwinian theory is essentially a rebuttal of design. As Dawkins points out so explicitly, it is a theory that seeks to show that the apparent design in nature is actually just an illusion.
The denial of actual design in biology is central to Darwinian thought. While Dawkins could be right, thereâs no proof that the apparent design in nature is just an illusion. Therefore, either both the ID hypothesis and the blind watchmaker hypothesis are science or they are both non-science. One is the flip-side of the other. If the hypothesis of "no design", is science, then it necessarily follows that its counter argument is science. Design is science and not metaphysics for the same reasons that the evolutionary argument against it is science and not metaphysics. To be testable, the blind watchmaker thesis needs a null hypothesis which just happens to be ID. Without it the claim of "no-design" is dogma not science.
Children in school should not be taught that the purposefulness they observe in biological processes has been scientifically proven to be an illusion because that's not true.
What is true is that there is an invalid a priori assumption of ateleology in biology and this invalid assumption is attached to what is taught in school. Philosophical materialism disguised as empirical science has no business being taught in the public schools. Eliminate the metaphysical corruption, and let the apparent design in nature speak for itself.
Quote from Teleologist:
The denial of actual design in biology is central to Darwinian thought. While Dawkins could be right, thereâs no proof that the apparent design in nature is just an illusion.
This is a very different question than the one you raised at the beginning of the thread, whether ID is creationism. Now you want to debate whether design is real.
Can you fix the goalpost in one place so we can try to shoot for it?
Stephen Meyer says:
Is design in biology real or apparent? Clearly, there are two possible answers to this question. Neo-Darwinism provides one answer to the question and intelligent design provides the opposite answer. By almost all accounts the Darwinian answer to this question is a scientific proposition. But what then is the status of the opposite answer? If the proposition âJupiter is made of methane gasâ is a scientific proposition, then the proposition âJupiter is not made of methane gasâ would seem to be a scientific proposition as well. If the proposition âhumans have free willâ is classified as a metaphysical (rather than scientific) claim, then the proposition âhumans do not have free willâ should logically be classified in the same way.
The negation of a proposition does not make it a different type of claim. Similarly, the claim âthe appearance of design in biology does not result from actual designâ and the claim "the appearance of design in biology does result from actual designâ are not two different kinds of propositions; they represent two different answers to the same question, a question that has long been part of evolutionary biology. Indeed, it is impossible to understand Darwinâs argument in The Origin of Species apart from understanding how he argues against the 19th-century version of the design hypothesis. The Darwinian mechanism (which functions in Darwinian thought as a kind of "designer substitute" ) and the theory of intelligent design are dialectical complements. Thus, if one is scientific, then it would seem, prima facie, that the other is scientific as well.
Quote from Teleologist:
Stephen Meyer says:
Slick. Why don't you address this instead of always cuting and pasting from somewhere else.
Which question do you want to debate?
1. Whether ID is creationism.
2. Whether design is real.
Can you fix the goalpost in one place so we can try to shoot for it?
James Bond 3rd:
Well, you wanted to debate Buddhism.
There are many facets to the ID versus Blind Watchmaking debate. I'm not locked into only debating one aspect of this topic. I was responding to 2 cents that claimed that ID is a faith-driven inquiry. In endeavoring to rebut that claim I'm certainly going to contend that design is real.
This is a very different question than the one you raised at the beginning of the thread, whether ID is creationism. Now you want to debate whether design is real.
Well, you wanted to debate Buddhism.
There are many facets to the ID versus Blind Watchmaking debate. I'm not locked into only debating one aspect of this topic. I was responding to 2 cents that claimed that ID is a faith-driven inquiry. In endeavoring to rebut that claim I'm certainly going to contend that design is real.
Define your terms first.
For example:
1. the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=creationism
Since I do not have a literal belief in the Book of Genesis, and as I support ID then ID is not creationism.
2. Does a designer need to be known for design to occur?
Obviously not. We wear clothing and don't really know who the designer actually was.
So the question is can we exclude that there is a designer on the basis of lack of scientific findings of who/what would be a designer of the universe?
Logically no, as this is an argument from ignorance.
So, while current scientists and their supporters may strongly believe that there is no designer, to hold that belief to be true on the basis of an appeal to ignorance is of course illogical.
For example:
1. the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=creationism
Since I do not have a literal belief in the Book of Genesis, and as I support ID then ID is not creationism.
2. Does a designer need to be known for design to occur?
Obviously not. We wear clothing and don't really know who the designer actually was.
So the question is can we exclude that there is a designer on the basis of lack of scientific findings of who/what would be a designer of the universe?
Logically no, as this is an argument from ignorance.
So, while current scientists and their supporters may strongly believe that there is no designer, to hold that belief to be true on the basis of an appeal to ignorance is of course illogical.
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Slick. Why don't you address this instead of always cuting and pasting from somewhere else.
Which question do you want to debate?
1. Whether ID is creationism.
2. Whether design is real.
Can you fix the goalpost in one place so we can try to shoot for it?