My argument is quite sound actually. Here's why: Teleologists theorizes that some intermediary entity is responsible for life on earth. It's an intermediary entity because Teleologist never suggests that the entity he gives responsibility to possesses any ultimate qualities. Even if you didn't pick that up, the poorly named thread title is a dead give away. "ID is not creationism." The fact is, ID is predominately creationism, but Teleololgist wishes to include his minority view that ID can also be alien progeny - which it can rightfully also be. But instead, knowing how fringe his conceptualization is, he wastes page upon page trying to fight against the mainstream notion of ID and to hide his truest belief by pretending to engage in science.
ID is in fact primarily understood in terms of creationism, but simply the fact that creationism (of the Bible) is the majority opinion renders it nothing beyond majority opinion. Majority opinion makes it neither true nor false, nor the only logical possibility. Since what Teleologist suggests is as logically possible as any other theory, and since it is not necessary to have ultimate knowledge in order to speculate about life here on earth which is known through observation and experience, I see nothing wrong with his position. ID of the creationists simply is not
exclusively the only opinion out there. Alternative opinions of ID have been offered, which do not require a knowledge of some ultimate source of creation.
As mentioned before, scientific speculations are made without knowledge of any particular ultimate force, causaton or intelligence as the source of the universe, so I see no reason Teologist cannot try to advance his ID theory without a prior demand to know what the ultimate source of life here on earth is, as long as his theory itself is logically possible. Plain and simple, any theory can be advanced even though the ultimate knowledge may be lacking from the proposed theory.
In any event, the next logical question to Teleologist is, "who or what is responsible for the existence of the aliens who are responsible for life on Earth?" He could say, "God did it." And that ends the cycle. But then that means that God is ultimately responsible for life on Earth - assuming of course that Teleologist's conceptualization of God is one of an ultimate causality. If not, then we must ask, "what created your god?"
That may be the next logical question, but so is the next logical question that follows any theory of the big bang theory...what was the cause of the big bang. There is no known cause to such a supposed big bang, but that doesn't stop scientists from generating theories about the big bang.
Oh, this becomes an issue for debate, but if God produced life and gave that life absolutely free will, even the will to denounce the existence of God, and that life force that came from God on its own created life here on earth by its own means, then is God ultimately responsible?
Are parents ultimately responsible for everything their children do? Do we throw parents in jail for the actions of their criminal children? I would argue responsibility is not on the parent after a point, as their children are ultimately free to create or destroy as they wish. I think there is a distinction between what is responsible for giving the ability of free will and the power to act on that free will, and who is actually responsible for the subsequent actions that are fully removed from the initial cause.
That is why it can be logically possible that life is ultimately due to the Intelligent Design of God, who intelligently programmed and designed a system for random ignorant evolution of life. It is logically possible, as logically possible as a computer programmer to create a program that then runs on its own and creates by means of artificial intelligence.
There is a saying, "With God all things are possible" even mindless evolution as a product of God's intelligent creation is a logical possibility.
Come now Z. You know or at least by now should know that I believe all things were created by God. The good, the bad and the ugly. But I don't have a need to attempt to validate that belief. At the same time, I do not disavow evolution. Neither abiogenesis. I find no conflict with scripture with these things. My belief is that these things along with the processes we have yet to theorize and/or verify were set in motion by God and guided by formulation from inception by God. But that's just my belief.
If one starts with an ultimate believe, nearly anything is possible that could come from that ultimate belief system.
The point I am making is that even without an ultimate belief, theories and speculations can be made that life here on earth is a product of intelligent design, and not ignorant chance.
Well, no of course at this time science would not be able to recognize God.
Yes, how could limited instrumentation, from a partial perspective, recognize God?
It could recognize a superior intelligence, but have no idea the real nature of such superior intelligence except that the intelligence is beyond the current development of human beings.
The common conceptualization of God bars measurement. So why would science be inclined to account for something which does not demonstrate in measurable terms, its influence on existence? All processes appear completely "natural."
Science ignores quite a bit it can't explain, which is why broad sweeping generalization theories of an ultimate nature make are just guesses that need not be taught with such fierce dogmatism in public school systems.
This is why it makes sense to teach what we understand by direct observation and experimentation...teaching the facts, and the observed processes...but teaching grand theories lacking sufficient evidence to reach grand conclusions are not meant for public schools, unless we are also teaching other "grand unification of life" theories. If teachers want to present an idea of ignorant chance and make their case, fine. The alternative point of view should then be made so that children see both sides and come to their own conclusions...not just be indoctrinated into one possible theory.
Well, by now you should know that you have my position all wrong so we'll just interpret this as rethorical and not directed at me.
Well, that is your opinion that I have your position "all wrong" which of course is "all right" with me for you to hold that point of view.
