Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

Design implies a designer. Otherwise we do not use the word design. If evidence points to design, the evidence implies a designer.

Why do you keep repeating this? Have I ever disputed that design implies a designer?

We both agree that life is the product of design, right? We both agree that it's fine to use this insight to guide scientific research, right? So what exactly are you arguing with me about? Is it over the fact that design hasn't been PROVEN? I have said over and over again that I can't prove design. As one ID theorist puts it:

The utility of ID is not tied up with a logical proof of design, it is tied to an ability to generate understanding about the world. And in this regard, I have found ID to be quite useful for formulating and weighing hypotheses about the origin and nature of the biotic world. For example, one can indeed tentatively interpret function as an expression of original intent/purpose rather than a coincidence that just happens to increase fitness. This line of thinking can be used to guide hypotheses and suggest future directions in research.

Notice that an ID hypothesis isn't about proving intent/purpose. Rather the inference of intent/purpose is used as a guide in formulating the hypothesis and as a guide for future research. Testing hypotheses generated via a teleological perspective is the same as testing any biological hypothesis. ID is just regular science minus an a priori assumption of ateleology. And don't forget, neither intelligence nor teleology are unnatural.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:

Why do you keep repeating this? Have I ever disputed that design implies a designer?

We both agree that life is the product of design, right? We both agree that it's fine to use this insight to guide scientific research, right? So what exactly are you arguing with me about? Is it over the fact that design hasn't been PROVEN? I have said over and over again that I can't prove design.

1. You don't directly dispute the fact that design implies a designer. You refute that observation of design is a direct result of presupposing a designer. Without that presupposition, it is impossible to even observe or recognize design. Hence your wrongly worded thread title, "ID is not creationism."

Of course it is. ID presupposes a designer. Now, if you said the ID could be ET as a way to prove ID is not creationism, the questioned begged is what created the ET ID? That question has to be asked because there's nothing to indicate that the ET ID is not designed. If a sentient intelligence creates another sentient intelligence, then the sentient intelligence is designed unless it's an ultimate first cause intelligence. And a first cause intelliegence is as close as you'll get to a god. Even if it's a Zx10 imagined intelligence. The designing acts of this ultimate intelligence are acts of creation. Who else then would be responsible for it? Sure it may not fit the definition of creationism as associated with theists (which includes deists) in that it was a diety of a religion that "did it." But this entity would be supernatural by virtue of it not having been created and possessing sentient intelligence. Everything natural and sentient has an inception. Contrast that against multiverse.

2. I do not agree that it is fine to use that pressupposition to guide scientific research. The research won't be holistic. Imagine designing a trading system with the presupposition that a holy grail trading system is possible and worse, attainable. Think about that for a minute. All of your research will be guided by this presupposition and entail mostly pattern recognition with the hopes that that exact pattern will reoccur in the future. It'll be so over optimized as to be useless.

As one ID theorist puts it:

Notice that an ID hypothesis isn't about proving intent/purpose. Rather the inference of intent/purpose is used as a guide in formulating the hypothesis and as a guide for future research. Testing hypotheses generated via a teleological perspective is the same as testing any biological hypothesis. ID is just regular science minus an a priori assumption of ateleology. And don't forget, neither intelligence nor teleology are unnatural.

It's a completely pointless endeavor if on the one hand it presupposes a designer, but on the other doesn't seek to prove intent or purpose. What is the use of it then? All that's needed is to observe the evolutionary change in species and determine the intent/purpose of that change.

What possible use is teleology and ID? What? To bolster the weak in faith? It's a useless field of study that can make no useful predictions. All it amounts to is, "well this looks designed and that looks designed, oh and that too looks designed. Therefore, it's designed."

Wee!!!

For instance, let's take that overused ID support snippet concerning ATP and its engine-like mechanism. Ok, so it looks designed. Now what? See how utterly useless it is? Only thing that matters is how it works, why it works, and the implications of what is actually happening. We can experiment on it and perhaps make predictions about how it would react under various conditions. How does ID contribute to that or anything scientific? How?

ID is nothing more than a faith booster for those who are so weak in their faith that they need validation from those who do not share their beliefs.

I strongly believe in God, believe that He created all things... slowly and over time, and used methods that scientist uncover daily. And yeah, species evolved. It's an observable fact. And I believe that evolution was directed and not random. I have no choice but the believe that if I believe in an omniscient, omnipotent diety. With the existence of such a diety, nothing can be left to chance else that diety is not omnisicent.

See? I believe all these things without the need to hide behind some pseudo-science to attempt to validate it. My faith evolves and grows - sometimes up - sometimes laterally. But I'm comfortable with just believing.

And that's the sum of my issue with you and the ID movement.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"See? I believe all these things without the need to hide behind some pseudo-science to attempt to validate it."

So you assume others are hiding behind something?

That would be a belief of yours, right, that people are hiding behind something? Not anything factually known...or demonstrated as a logical truth...just another of your beliefs...

Quote from ddunbar:



1. You don't directly dispute the fact that design implies a designer. You refute that observation of design is a direct result of presupposing a designer. Without that presupposition, it is impossible to even observe or recognize design. Hence your wrongly worded thread title, "ID is not creationism."

Of course it is. ID presupposes a designer. Now, if you said the ID could be ET as a way to prove ID is not creationism, the questioned begged is what created the ET ID? That question has to be asked because there's nothing to indicate that the ET ID is not designed. If a sentient intelligence creates another sentient intelligence, then the sentient intelligence is designed unless it's an ultimate first cause intelligence. And a first cause intelliegence is as close as you'll get to a god. Even if it's a Zx10 imagined intelligence. The designing acts of this ultimate intelligence are acts of creation. Who else then would be responsible for it? Sure it may not fit the definition of creationism as associated with theists (which includes deists) in that it was a diety of a religion that "did it." But this entity would be supernatural by virtue of it not having been created and possessing sentient intelligence. Everything natural and sentient has an inception. Contrast that against multiverse.

2. I do not agree that it is fine to use that pressupposition to guide scientific research. The research won't be holistic. Imagine designing a trading system with the presupposition that a holy grail trading system is possible and worse, attainable. Think about that for a minute. All of your research will be guided by this presupposition and entail mostly pattern recognition with the hopes that that exact pattern will reoccur in the future. It'll be so over optimized as to be useless.



It's a completely pointless endeavor if on the one hand it presupposes a designer, but on the other doesn't seek to prove intent or purpose. What is the use of it then? All that's needed is to observe the evolutionary change in species and determine the intent/purpose of that change.

What possible use is teleology and ID? What? To bolster the weak in faith? It's a useless field of study that can make no useful predictions. All it amounts to is, "well this looks designed and that looks designed, oh and that too looks designed. Therefore, it's designed."

Wee!!!

For instance, let's take that overused ID support snippet concerning ATP and its engine-like mechanism. Ok, so it looks designed. Now what? See how utterly useless it is? Only thing that matters is how it works, why it works, and the implications of what is actually happening. We can experiment on it and perhaps make predictions about how it would react under various conditions. How does ID contribute to that or anything scientific? How?

ID is nothing more than a faith booster for those who are so weak in their faith that they need validation from those who do not share their beliefs.

I strongly believe in God, believe that He created all things... slowly and over time, and used methods that scientist uncover daily. And yeah, species evolved. It's an observable fact. And I believe that evolution was directed and not random. I have no choice but the believe that if I believe in an omniscient, omnipotent diety. With the existence of such a diety, nothing can be left to chance else that diety is not omnisicent.

See? I believe all these things without the need to hide behind some pseudo-science to attempt to validate it. My faith evolves and grows - sometimes up - sometimes laterally. But I'm comfortable with just believing.

And that's the sum of my issue with you and the ID movement. [/B]

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"See? I believe all these things without the need to hide behind some pseudo-science to attempt to validate it."

So you assume others are hiding behind something?

That would be a belief of yours, right, that people are hiding behind something? Not anything factually known...or demonstrated as a logical truth...just another of your beliefs...

Sure, a belief, a hunch. But I have no problem admitting that.

It's difficult to prove because many of those who support ID routinely engage in intellectual dishonesty and outright distortion. But classically, individuals who engage in such practices do so because of inadequacy, variance, insecurity, and at times delusions of grandeur.

What is more, to come out and say ID is not creationism, when in fact the leaders in the ID movement are overwhelmingly creationists, is quite telling.

That's like saying you're not gay even though you've been caught on numerous occasions having sex with transsexuals.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I spoke for myself on this topic previously.

I am not a Christian, nor a creationist, but as I define ID, I support ID, therefore intelligent design to me is not creationism, nor is it to many others. Is my point of view a minority position on ID? Perhaps. Is the thread starter's position on ID a minority position? Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with them being false, or that either one of us is being intellectually dishonest.

Are you still confused? Is this too high minded of a concept for you?

Are you still struggling with the concept of eternal cycles?

Eternal cycle theory allows a material perspective with its scope that generates an appearance as designed by a designer, but from an absolute perspective there is only an eternal process which was never designed, and there never is/was a creator, as it is eternal.

Both are true on their own levels, but one is a limited relative truth, the other an absolute truth, and they co-exist naturally.

What is seen while in the valley is true, that people observe they are above ground and elevated, and what is seen on the top of the mountain is that people are in a valley are far beneath them...and that is just from an example of material points of view, not from an absolute eternal frame or reference.

Yes, ID is not creationism in my mind, though in the mind of creationists, ID is creationism.

No intellectually dishonesty required to understand or promote this simple concept...just a functioning intellect.

Your gay analogy is ridiculous, of course. Have no idea what closet you got that out of...

Quote from ddunbar:

Sure, a belief, a hunch. But I have no problem admitting that.

It's difficult to prove because many of those who support ID routinely engage in intellectual dishonesty and outright distortion. But classically, individuals who engage in such practices do so because of inadequacy, variance, insecurity, and at times delusions of grandeur.

What is more, to come out and say ID is not creationism, when in fact the leaders in the ID movement are overwhelmingly creationists, is quite telling.

That's like saying you're not gay even though you've been caught on numerous occasions having sex with transsexuals.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I spoke for myself on this topic previously.

I am not a Christian, nor a creationist, but as I define ID, I support ID, therefore intelligent design to me is not creationism, nor is it to many others. Is my point of view a minority position on ID? Perhaps. Is the thread starter's position on ID a minority position? Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with them being false, or that either one of us is being intellectually dishonest.

Are you still confused? Is this too high minded of a concept for you?

Doltish. Here's why: The references T used are all creationist references. His anecdotal proofs, while not entirely creationist, are routinely used by creationists to bolster their claim of ID being science. And Dembski's laughable definition of ID is nothing but a smokescreen. Oh and not to mention T believes in God. Anyway...

Are you still struggling with the concept of eternal cycles?

Eternal cycle theory allows a material perspective with its scope that generates an appearance as designed by a designer, but from an absolute perspective there is only an eternal process which was never designed, and there never is/was a creator, as it is eternal.

Of course I'm struggling with it. It's nonsensical. First off, the term eternal cycle is of course an oxymoron. Repeating cycles that continue ad nauseum yet without an inception would be a proper way to describe what you might be alluding to. Secondly, what you're describing, though using the wrong terminology, is essentially multiverse. Thirdly, you deny design, yet somehow term it intelligent design on some level.

I ask you to do me a favor. Provide a link to something that fully fleshes out your idea so I can really critique it and see precisely how it possibly relates to the concept of intelligent design. Your musings are full of contradiction and non-sequiturs.

I have no problems with "high-minded" concepts that are descript and consistent in logic.

I can't properly critique sound bites.

Your gay analogy is ridiculous, of course. Have no idea what closet you got that out of...

Analogy was perfect and apropos. As is your subsequent tongue-in-cheek commentary about it.

EDIT: one other thing is if I recall correctly, you were trying to posit a non-sentient intelligence. And you used a computer program as an example. Here it is, can't happen on the scale you're talking about. A sentient intelligence must procede a non-sentient one. as the non-sentient intelligence would only be a facsimile of the sentient one. So if you're trying to posit some eternal "force" that lacks sentience but has intelligence, you're only going to end up in a never ending sequence of "question begging" until you reach the ultimate sentient intelligence responsible for it. There's no rational way around it.

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

The designing acts of this ultimate intelligence are acts of creation. Who else then would be responsible for it? Sure it may not fit the definition of creationism as associated with theists (which includes deists) in that it was a diety of a religion that "did it."

But it's the Biblical form of creationism (not your definition of creationism) the ID critics are trying to pin on ID and that's what this thread is disputing. I made it clear on page 1 that the purpose of this thread is to make 3 points.

1. ID is not based on the Biblical account of creation

2. ID doesn't invoke the supernatural in the origin of life on earth

3. ID is not anti-evolution

ID is not creationism as 99% of the public would define creationism. And it's creationism as 99% of the public would define it that the ID critics are trying to pin on ID. That's the issue this thread was designed to deal with.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


But it's the Biblical form of creationism (not your definition of creationism) the ID critics are trying to pin on ID and that's what this thread is disputing. I made it clear on page 1 that the purpose of this thread is to make 3 points.

1. ID is not based on the Biblical account of creation

2. ID doesn't invoke the supernatural in the origin of life on earth

3. ID is not anti-evolution

ID is not creationism as 99% of the public would define creationism. And it's creationism as 99% of the public would define it that the ID critcs are trying to pin on ID. That's the context of this thread.

1. Matter of interpretation, but 99% of all IDers are theists.

2. Right. And that's the rub. They pretend to only observe design as if their observations are empirical in nature. But the truth is, it's merely a function of their presupposition of a designer.

3. Technically, it can be pro-evolution. However, if you understand evolution correctly, no one posits evolution as a function of design but rather a natural process that is driven by natural forces. And those forces can be determined, experiemented on, and have predictions made. So while ID isn't rabidly against evolution, it violates the science behind evolution.

Then, you see, eveyone you cited in your defense are theists who are a members of one creationist camp or the other. And your interpretive style of comprehension of a proponent of multiverse and had comments on the anthropic principle (forget his name offhand) leaves much to be desired.

It's not that 99% of the ID critics pin creationism on ID. It's that 99% of ID proponents are theists and therefore creationists. And everyone knows that.

To the 1% you could add Raelians and Scientologists. But these groups haven't fleshed their ideas out fully. These groups philosophies begg the question who designed the designer? And that's only because the designers of these groups are biological in nature and not "non-designed" entities.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So you excluding anyone who proposes ID who is not a creationist, (which means not ignorant chance) in your numbers to the tune of only 1%?

As I mentioned before, you calculations are extraordinarily provincial and west centric.

Eastern thought (oh, most of the people live in the Eastern part of the world, like China, India, etc.) is not an ignorant chance theory history philosophy.

Oh, and I am a theist, not a Christian. And the theism is that God is eternal, as is the Universe also eternal, and therefore either was never created. So the universe "wakes" up, is awake for a period of time that is created upon awakening, then eventually the Universe goes to back to sleep in an eternal cycle, to wake again in the future. Eternal cycle.

No creator, no creation, just eternal cycles of the Universe from this point of view.

From those who think only from a time and space bound perspective, they see beginning, middle, and end only, not an eternal cycle.

From an eternal Universe concept, there is no beginning, no middle, no end...even though those who are only able to comprehend by these limits think of beginning, middle, and end.

So both points of view are true on their own level.

Every human has a limited lifetime. Yet, every day they have a birth of sorts (they wake up) they they stay awake, they live, then they go to sleep (where their conscious awareness dies for a period of time). Their conscious awareness is born on waking, continues to varying degrees during the day, then dies upon sleep. There is a continuity even though life of the cycle of the human awareness having daily birth, life, and then death. Humans are mortal, not eternal.

Universe is eternal, God is eternal, so no creator, no creation...so ID is not creationism at all, from this point of view.

There is no designer in this concept, as there is no creation, there is just cycles, which are not random or ignorant at all...by eternal nature, or eternal design if you will.

Quote from ddunbar:

1. Matter of interpretation, but 99% of all IDers are theists.

2. Right. And that's the rub. They pretend to only observe design as if their observations are empirical in nature. But the truth is, it's merely a function of their presupposition of a designer.

3. Technically, it can be pro-evolution. However, if you understand evolution correctly, no one posits evolution as a function of design but rather a natural process that is driven by natural forces. And those forces can be determined, experiemented on, and have predictions made. So while ID isn't rabidly against evolution, it violates the science behind evolution.

Then, you see, eveyone you cited in your defense are theists who are a members of one creationist camp or the other. And your interpretive style of comprehension of a proponent of multiverse and had comments on the anthropic principle (forget his name offhand) leaves much to be desired.

It's not that 99% of the ID critics pin creationism on ID. It's that 99% of ID proponents are theists and therefore creationists. And everyone knows that.

To the 1% you could add Raelians and Scientologists. But these groups haven't fleshed their ideas out fully. These groups philosophies begg the question who designed the designer? And that's only because the designers of these groups are biological in nature and not "non-designed" entities.

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

1. Matter of interpretation, but 99% of all IDers are theists.

You find it surprising that atheists aren't attracted to the concept of intelligent design?

ddunbar:

2. Right. And that's the rub. They pretend to only observe design as if their observations are empirical in nature. But the truth is, it's merely a function of their presupposition of a designer.

Richard Dawkins is an atheist and he thinks things in nature look designed. Is this merely a function of his presupposition of an intelligent designer? And didn't you say that things in nature looked designed to you? Are you just pretending? In other words, does nothing in nature really look designed to you, you merely believe them to be designed because the Bible tells you so?

ddunbar:

3. Technically, it can be pro-evolution. However, if you understand evolution correctly, no one posits evolution as a function of design but rather a natural process that is driven by natural forces. And those forces can be determined, experiemented on, and have predictions made. So while ID isn't rabidly against evolution, it violates the science behind evolution.

So "understanding evolution correctly" is understanding that it is a non-teleological process? Based on what? Materialist philosophy? Cambridge Paleontologist Simon Conway Morris says:

Does evolution have a structure, an overall design, perhaps even a purpose? Orthodox opinion recoils from this prospect. Evolution, it is widely believed, is an effectively random process where almost any outcome is possible. If evolution is in some sense channeled, then this reopens the controversial prospect of a teleology; that is, the process is underpinned by a purpose.

There is no reason why a teleological approach can't run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. It is merely an alternative view. It is capable of using science and guiding science. That's all I expect of it. I could care less if it's called science.

ddunbar:

Then, you see, eveyone you cited in your defense are theists who are a members of one creationist camp or the other.

I don't care what someone believes theologically. I focus on what they hypothesize. If an ID theorist leaves their theological beliefs out of their hypotheses and stays within the ID paradigm, why should I have a problem with them?