Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

Stu:

Children aren't being taught that 'purposefulness is scientifically proven to be an illusion'. So what's your real beef?

Do you deny that Darwinian evolution is a purposeless process? Are you claiming that school children are not being told the truth about evolution?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Oh, of course the process of life itself has no purpose, no meaning to the atheist/humanists. It is simply a biological process that is ignorant and governed by chance happenings. Something to be observed, to be analyzed, to be understood on a purely mechanical level.

That is how the atheists/humanists view it, right? Life has no real meaning or purpose intrinsically, you have to bring meaning and purpose to it, purpose and meaning are man's creation only, and are extrinsic.

This is one of the reasons they are terrified of offering a different perspective to children in schools, i.e. that life may have a meaning and purpose beyond a purely mechanical process of evolutionary theory.

So much turns on the concept and belief that life is simply an accidental mechanical process, versus belief that life is for a purpose beyond simple mechanics, that the mechanics may just serve as a vessel for something beyond the mechanical.

It really comes down to a deeply philosophical battle between pure atheism, pure existentialism, meaningless existence versus the idea that there really is something more than that going on which is indicative of some real meaning and value in being human on an intrinsically predefined basis.

Quote from Teleologist:

Stu:


Do you deny that Darwinian evolution is a purposeless process? Are you claiming that school children are not being told the truth about evolution?

 

[2cents]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Oh, of course the process of life itself has no purpose, no meaning to the atheist/humanists. It is simply a biological process that is ignorant and governed by chance happenings. Something to be observed, to be analyzed, to be understood on a purely mechanical level.

That is how the atheists/humanists view it, right? Life has no real meaning or purpose intrinsically, you have to bring meaning and purpose to it, purpose and meaning are man's creation only, and are extrinsic.

This is one of the reasons they are terrified of offering a different perspective to children in schools, i.e. that life may have a meaning and purpose beyond a purely mechanical process of evolutionary theory.

So much turns on the concept and belief that life is simply an accidental mechanical process, versus belief that life is for a purpose beyond simple mechanics, that the mechanics may just serve as a vessel for something beyond the mechanical.

It really comes down to a deeply philosophical battle between pure atheism, pure existentialism, meaningless existence versus the idea that there really is something more than that going on which is indicative of some real meaning and value in being human on an intrinsically predefined basis.

it can of course, but it doesn't have to come down to that... there is freedom of religion etc in your country, seems to me...

 

[stu]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"I see, said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw."

Really amazing that some folks select the 4th definition of a word, when they can just as easily use the first definition of another word to communicate their meaning...

thefreedictionary.com:
see 1 Pronunciation (s)
v. saw (sô), seen (sn), see·ing, sees
v.tr.
1. To perceive with the eye.
2.
a. To apprehend as if with the eye.
b. To detect by means analogous to use of the eye: an electronic surveillance camera that saw the activity in the embassy yard.
3. To have a mental image of; visualize: They could still see their hometown as it once was.
4. To understand; comprehend: I see your point.
...

then you will find it just as easy to select the 1st definition for use of the words fuckwit and troll .
That should communicate adequately through the 4th definition what you are on a message board.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Not accidental/coincidental evolution but rather evolution by design.

so says the ID/Creationist .

Neither Darwin nor science states that.

And there your philosophical non scientific adjunct lies exposed for what it is.
A metaphysical inference shielded only by a assertion of mysteriousness, trying to dishonestly include itself into science.

It won't work simply because ID/Creationism isn't science and doesn't have what it takes to become scientific.

Quote from Teleologist:

Do you deny that Darwinian evolution is a purposeless process? Are you claiming that school children are not being told the truth about evolution?

I deny what I told you I deny and to repeat it again, I deny that Children are being taught that "purposefulness is scientifically proven to be an illusion" , which was your accusation.

To now twist that around into that quote of yours above, is acting like zzz. If you want to be that silly, don't bother even trying to sound sensible.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Darwin is a scientific theory based upon scientific facts.
The result of evolution is adaptation to survive. The purpose of evolution is to adapt to survive. There is nothing scientific to say it is a purposeless process or that evolution itself has been designed. There is no teaching of that. What is taught is the science that can be observed and demonstrated.

So I ask again. What exactly is your beef, or are you just going to repeat the same unfounded accusation until you turn blue and pass out.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu:

I deny what I told you I deny and to repeat it again, I deny that Children are being taught that "purposefulness is scientifically proven to be an illusion" , which was your accusation.

Do you agree that children are being taught that evolution is a purposeless process?

 

[Teleologist]

Stu:

It won't work simply because ID/Creationism isn't science and doesn't have what it takes to become scientific.

If it's scientific to argue against design then it's scientific to argue for design.

 

[I am...]

Quote from stu:

You did subtractions on top a false equation and then applied algebra.?

Yes. Just doing what everyone's been doing since the beginning of time and before.

Quote from stu:

Do you just simply ignore the problem you will have doing that?

No. The last time I discussed the problem I got crucified.

Quote from stu:

Working on false equations will likely give false answers.

That's what I said.

Quote from stu:


The equation I have put to you over and over is this: God+1 = Gilbert. You can say it's false all you like but you have not shown it to be so.

The value you have given "+ 1" makes it false, and I will start my proofs in subsequent posts. Meanwhile, you can say Gilbert's world is real all you like but have not shown it to be so.

Quote from stu:

Producing faulty answers off of false equations will not do.

Amen brother!

Quote from stu:

Its real simple jes. If you cannot do God+1 then God is not omnipotent.
If you can , then God's value has changed to Gilberts.

If God cannot be more omnipotent than omnipotent then He is not omnipotent? If you can do that, then God's value has been changed to Gilbert + 1.

Quote from stu:

Faith only enough to move a mountain. But not faith enough to move a mountain +1.

Maybe if you had faith-of-a-mustard-seed + 1


Jesus

 

[I am...]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Jesus, you're thick.

Answer the question. When (as in "under what circumstances") does G=G+1 hold?

Under the impression that it holds.

Jesus

 

[Teleologist]

Stu:

Evolution is a scientific fact.

I never said it wasn't. What I dispute is that evolution is an entirely non-teleological process. The assumption of ateleology is based on philosophical materialism not science.