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
Quote from stu:
As Gilbert is every bit what God is +1, then as much as God is, .. Gilbert is , and some.
An idol is established by belief, and when it is withdrawn, the idol "dies". This is the anti-Christ; the strange idea there is a power past omnipotence, a place beyond the infinite, a time transcending the eternal. Here the world of idols has been set by the idea this power and place and time are given form, and shape the world where the impossible has happened. Here the deathless come to die, the all-encompassing to suffer loss, the timeless to be made the slaves of time. Here does the changeless change; the peace of God - forever given to all living things - give way to chaos. And the Son of God , as perfect, sinless and loving as his Father, come to hate a little while; to suffer pain, and finally to die.
Whoever has come to understand this world has found merely a corpse. And whoever has discovered the corpse, of that one the world is no longer worthy.
A grapevine has been planted outside of the Father. But since it is not strong, it will be pulled up by it's roots and pass away.
Jesus
Quote from 2cents:
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. ~Anais Nin
We see ourselves as split. Consciousness, the level of perception, was the first split introduced into the mind after the idea of separation. This made the mind a perceiver rather than a creator.
Consciousness is correctly identified as the domain of the ego. This is the "intelligent" designer. It's "creations" are actually projections...smoke and mirrors. "Projectionism" is a better word to describe it's creations.
Perception did not exist until the notion of separation introduced degrees, aspects and intervals. Spirit has no levels, and all conflict arises from the concept of levels.
There is the concept of "conscious" and "subconscious". It is one mind splitting itself into levels of unawareness. Guilt is fostered in the subconscious. Bodies are a way of dealing with it that both buffers it, and perpetuates it. No one who identifies with a body is really "conscious" of anything. They literally do not know what they do.
I speak to the deep deep levels of the mind, below the subconscious, where you know yourselves as innocent and whole. It is this part of the mind that hears my voice.
Whether you are aware of it or not, you are always looking in before you percieve anything on the outside. It's automatic. I ask you simply to look deeper inward, before looking out. From that vantage point, you can see a whole new world in perception. Seeing it, all your perceptions of yourself will be corrected. When your perceptions are lined up with reality, you will be ready to come home without fear. Reality is more than just your home, you are reality, and that is Heaven.
Jesus
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
2 cents replied:
Well, it looks that way to atheist Richard Dawkins:
The essential components of empiricism is observation and testing.
Every single time I look at life it looks designed, and it also looks designed to nearly everyone else.
2 cents replied:
it just doesn't... even if it does to you o design-victim and closet ID-pusher, and to nearly everybody in your little sanitized world.
Well, it looks that way to atheist Richard Dawkins:
If you asked Dawkin's if his observation was based on empirical evidence what do you think he would say?Biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.
It's the accident / coincidence argument that is dead.
Teleologist: I already explained what prompts my "hunch". Life at its core looks like bioengineering to me.
I infer the first cell was designed. Based not on religious revelation but on empirical data.
The Rest of Us: Okay, that sounds reasonable. So what exactly is the 'empirical data' which supports the theory of intelligently designed cells?
---------------------------------------------------
Here's evasion V 1.0
Teleologist: Don't you know a hypothesis when you see one?
V 2.0
Teleologist: The empirical datum is that life looks designed to me.
V 3.0
Teleologist: The empirical data is that I found this quote at wikipedia.com that says so
V 4.0
Teleologist:Can you prove that the first cell was not designed? No? Then that is the proof that it was designed.
V 5.0
Teleologist:That is a disingenuous question.
V 6.0
Teleologist: If I answer you will just ___________
V 7.0
(Crickets chirping)
Wouldnât it be great if the real world worked like Teleologistâs little world? You make a claim to have empirical data to support your argument. Someone on the other side of the arguments says 'Ok, can you show it to me?" You refuse. But you don't refuse and then leave quietly, you stand there proclaiming your refusal as if you were acting honourably, instead of dishonouring yourself.
I infer the first cell was designed. Based not on religious revelation but on empirical data.
The Rest of Us: Okay, that sounds reasonable. So what exactly is the 'empirical data' which supports the theory of intelligently designed cells?
---------------------------------------------------
Here's evasion V 1.0
Teleologist: Don't you know a hypothesis when you see one?
V 2.0
Teleologist: The empirical datum is that life looks designed to me.
V 3.0
Teleologist: The empirical data is that I found this quote at wikipedia.com that says so
V 4.0
Teleologist:Can you prove that the first cell was not designed? No? Then that is the proof that it was designed.
V 5.0
Teleologist:That is a disingenuous question.
V 6.0
Teleologist: If I answer you will just ___________
V 7.0
(Crickets chirping)
Wouldnât it be great if the real world worked like Teleologistâs little world? You make a claim to have empirical data to support your argument. Someone on the other side of the arguments says 'Ok, can you show it to me?" You refuse. But you don't refuse and then leave quietly, you stand there proclaiming your refusal as if you were acting honourably, instead of dishonouring yourself.
I have never claimed that ID is a scientific theory. I compare it with origin of life research. Witness simply that there is no theory of abiogenesis. Instead, there are countless speculations with very little consensus (apart from the appeal to a reductionist approach employing only non-teleological causes). The notion of panspermy is beginning to be mentioned among scientists without scoffing. Articles with the most meager results (stringing together a half-dozen amino acids or so without an enzyme) get published in Science or Nature. Paul Davies writes in his book about abiogenesis:
The OOL (origin of life) is where the ID inference begins. The ID critics want overwhelming evidence of ID. On top of that they demand to know who designed the designer. At the same time they are sure abiogenesis has occurred despite the fact that researchers in this field are baffled.
I'm not faulting OOL researchers for being baffled. I'm just pointing out the double standard of the ID critics. They need to cut ID researchers the same slack they cut OOL researchers. OOL researchers don't have a theory yet. They are building an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case that's sensitive to subtle clues. ID doesn't have a theory yet. It's researchers are likewise building an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case that's sensitive to subtle clues. But that's not good enough for the ID critics. The âevidenceâ they need for ID must be shocking, undeniable, and revolutionary.
Iâm not interested in providing some type of shock for the ID critics. Iâm interested in whether an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to weaken or strengthen ID suspicions and whether it can help expand our understanding of biotic reality.
At a time when we understand biology, chemistry, and physics better than ever, the study of abiogenesis hasn't been proportionately enlightened.Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit they are baffled.
The OOL (origin of life) is where the ID inference begins. The ID critics want overwhelming evidence of ID. On top of that they demand to know who designed the designer. At the same time they are sure abiogenesis has occurred despite the fact that researchers in this field are baffled.
I'm not faulting OOL researchers for being baffled. I'm just pointing out the double standard of the ID critics. They need to cut ID researchers the same slack they cut OOL researchers. OOL researchers don't have a theory yet. They are building an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case that's sensitive to subtle clues. ID doesn't have a theory yet. It's researchers are likewise building an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case that's sensitive to subtle clues. But that's not good enough for the ID critics. The âevidenceâ they need for ID must be shocking, undeniable, and revolutionary.
Iâm not interested in providing some type of shock for the ID critics. Iâm interested in whether an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to weaken or strengthen ID suspicions and whether it can help expand our understanding of biotic reality.