Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"ID is predominately, as in 99%, a Christian ideology because ID is based primarily on Christian creationism of one type or another. And with the majority of proponents being Christian, that would essentially make ID a Christian movement."

Argument from popularity?

LMAO...

Never forget Bush had a near 95% approval rating following 9/11. That made his right because of his popularity?

Clearly there is a Christian ID, and a non Christian ID.

So let's call one CID, and one ID.

Or ID and NCID.

In any case, the ID I argue in favor is not Christian, as I am not a Christian...

Quote from D2.0:

"(snipped)While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."

ID is a non-christian movement?

Holy illogic batman.

Premises:

1. All creationists necessarily believe in ID.
2. Not all ID proponents believe in God.

Let's add in some other essential premises and come to the most logical conclusion:

3. The gross majority of ID proponents are Christian.
4. The founders of the ID movement are Christian.

Conclusion:

ID is predominately, as in 99%, a Christian ideology because ID is based primarily on Christian creationism of one type or another. And with the majority of proponents being Christian, that would essentially make ID a Christian movement.

With that said, enjoy the next 8 months trying to ferret out the "generous" 1% I attributed to IDer's who are non-Christian to bolster the thread premise that ID is not creationism.

Or, optimistically, a new thread will be started titled, "Intelligent Design is not exclusively creationism."

 

[D2.0]

Quote from Teleologist:

D2.0 wrote:


Wrong. Just because the majority of ID proponents are Christian it doesn't necessarily follow that ID is based primarily on creationism of one type or another.

Yeah? Prove me wrong. Especially the primarily. Hey, if it's not primarily then your thread title has traction. But if it is, and it is, your thread title is erroneous. Which it is.

But I'll remain openminded enough for you to give it a shot.

The majority of evolutionary biologists are atheists. Does that mean evolutionary biology is based on an atheistic ideology?

Of course. Go to the source who happened to be what we would today consider an atheist. Even though he considered himself to be agnostic.

While he at the time of writing the foundational work upon which evolution is based thought himself a theist and even thought of God as the first cause, began to question his faith in light of his study and personal tragedy. He work stood in sharp contrast to what was then the widely held belief that man was a direct work of God and not an evolved being.

So ask, what is atheistic ideology? And why are most scientists, especially evolutionary biologists, atheist. And why do most Christians and other theists look upon evolution as derived of atheist thinking?

Could they be utterly wrong or are they onto something which should be obvious?

You tell me.

 

[D2.0]

Quote from fhl:

Rather easy to come to any conclusion if you are allowed to make up your own numbers( 99% and 1%). Is that how you come to your evolutionary conclusion as well?

Take the numbers away. But leave the wording such as predominately.

Same conclusion isn't it?

 

[D2.0]

Quote from jem:

while the professors themselves may not state they are part of the ID movement there are debates going on about the subject in the top echelons of physics.

You don't have to be a christian to recognize design.

see my contributions of quotes from physicists on this thread and others.

True, you don't have to be a Christian or theist who believes in divine creation to see things as designed.

But the grand majority, including the creators and proponents of ID just so happen to be theists who believe in divine creation of some kind.

The question I must ask is this: So what? Why has that been a problem from the first post of this thread? The first post and title of this title is going through a whole lot of trouble trying to defend the indefensible. ID and theists go hand in hand. Everyone knows this. (Wink, that is what argumentum Ad populum looks like, "everyone know this. Thought I'd throw that in there as an example for ZZZZZZzzzzz to play with.) Even the IDers who are honest with themselves. Are there exceptions to the rule? Yup. But not to a significant enough degree that one can come out into the middle town square and cry out "ID is not creationism!" without looking foolish.

My only guess about the abnormality of what this thread is trying to prove is that someone is looking for credibility and maybe approval of one's peers.

Whether or not things look designed is subjective. There is no objective way to determine if things "look" designed. Your worldview is the underpinning of that determination.

 

[D2.0]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"ID is predominately, as in 99%, a Christian ideology because ID is based primarily on Christian creationism of one type or another. And with the majority of proponents being Christian, that would essentially make ID a Christian movement."

Argument from popularity?

LMAO...

Never forget Bush had a near 95% approval rating following 9/11. That made his right because of his popularity?

Clearly there is a Christian ID, and a non Christian ID.

So let's call one CID, and one ID.

Or ID and NCID.

In any case, the ID I argue in favor is not Christian, as I am not a Christian...

Good for you. But since it is Christians who coined the term ID, it'd be gracious of you if you would coin some other term for your view that is however similiar to their ID, ideology.

I mean, I guess NCID would do the trick. Sumbit it to wikipedia and see where it goes.

Oh and it's not an argument from popularity since it's not only a bunch of people who share a similiar view. It so happens that that same bunch of people created the concept associated with the term ID. And coined the term to boot.

An argument from popularity is used to prove something is correct, right, ethical, moral, etc.

What I've done is make a correlation. And a correct one. One that cannot be disproved. The best one can hope to do is show that there are exceedingly minor exceptions to the rule like, so and so is an atheist but thinks the universe is intelligently designed. It doesn't trump the correlation. It just suggests the inevitable minority of an ideology.

There were Jews who were members of the Nazi party.
Blacks who communed with White supremacists and think along their lines.
Etc. Etc.

But we don't make a fuss about those minority exceptions or use them to prove some obscene point other than to shake our heads or be left drop jawwed.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Argument from lunacy obviously...

Who coined the word God? There are more Hindus in India than Christians in the US, so their definition of God must be the right one...

LMAO...

Intelligent Design is not creationism per say, as I and others are proponents of intelligent design, are not Christians nor Biblical creationists.

So what if we are in the minority here in the USA? The argument from majority or popular opinion is fallacious anyway in this case.

Just like those in America who overwhelmingly say God is the the God of the Old and New Testament, doesn't make God that I might talk about the one that they talk about. People say God, then they describe what God is in their view. Hell, even atheists constantly use the word God in this thread, and they even have a concept of God that they reject.

So even while playing stupid word games, you are coming off like a dolt...

Show me the copyright or trademark where it says the term intelligent design or ID belongs to the Christian fundamentalists.

Gee whiz...

Quote from D2.0:

Good for you. But since it is Christians who coined the term ID, it'd be gracious of you if you would coin some other term for your view that is however similiar to their ID, ideology.

I mean, I guess NCID would do the trick. Sumbit it to wikipedia and see where it goes.

Oh and it's not an argument from popularity since it's not only a bunch of people who share a similiar view. It so happens that that same bunch of people created the concept associated with the term ID. And coined the term to boot.

An argument from popularity is used to prove something is correct, right, ethical, moral, etc.

What I've done is make a correlation. And a correct one. One that cannot be disproved. The best one can hope to do is show that there are exceedingly minor exceptions to the rule like, so and so is an atheist but thinks the universe is intelligently designed. It doesn't trump the correlation. It just suggests the inevitable minority of an ideology.

There were Jews who were members of the Nazi party.
Blacks who communed with White supremacists and think along their lines.
Etc. Etc.

But we don't make a fuss about those minority exceptions or use them to prove some obscene point other than to shake our heads or be left drop jawwed.

 

[D2.0]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Argument from lunacy obviously...

Who coined the word God? There are more Hindus in India than Christians in the US, so their definition of God must be the right one...

LMAO...

Intelligent Design is not creationism per say, as I and others are proponents of intelligent design, are not Christians nor Biblical creationists.

So what if we are in the minority here in the USA? The argument from majority or popular opinion is fallacious anyway in this case.

Just like those in America who overwhelmingly say God is the the God of the Old and New Testament, doesn't make God that I might talk about the one that they talk about. People say God, then they describe what God is in their view. Hell, even atheists constantly use the word God in this thread, and they even have a concept of God that they reject.

So even while playing stupid word games, you are coming off like a dolt...

Show me the copyright or trademark where it says the term intelligent design or ID belongs to the Christian fundamentalists.

Gee whiz...

I'd quarrel with you if you knew what an argumentum ad populum actually was.

Anyhoo...

'Bout your question of coinage:

Read it and weep. 3rd paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design.

Yeah, I concur. Gee whiz.

Edit: Might as well include the significant section for everyone's viewing pleasure:

*"Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state.[30] Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[31] The following year a small group of proponents formed the Discovery Institute and began advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[32][33][34] The "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" challenging the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.*

GASP!

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The Wikipedia defense.

You really are junior league, aren't you?

You remind me of a certain lawyer who used to frequent this place, said he "never lied" and tried to use legal arguments in logical discussions.

Just show me the trademark or registration that shows the term ID belongs to, and is the sole exclusive property of Christian Creationists, and if someone uses the term ID or intelligent design, they have to use the Creationist Christian Bible Thumpers meaning....

Gee willikers...

Quote from D2.0:

I'd quarrel with you if you knew what an argumentum ad populum actually was.

Anyhoo...

Baout your question of coinage:

Read it and weep. 3rd paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design.

Yeah, I concur. Gee whiz.

Edit: Might as well include the significant section for everyone's viewing pleasure:

*"Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state.[30] Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[31] The following year a small group of proponents formed the Discovery Institute and began advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[32][33][34] The "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" challenging the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.*

GASP!

 

[D2.0]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The Wikipedia defense.

You really are junior league, aren't you?

You remind me of a certain lawyer who used to frequent this place, said he "never lied" and tried to use legal arguments in logical discussions.

Just show me the trademark or registration that shows the term ID belongs to, and is the sole exclusive property of Christian Creationists, and if someone uses the term ID or intelligent design, they have to use the Creationist Christian Bible Thumpers meaning....

Gee willikers...

Yeah, I'm a junior. Weeee. Wooohooo. Happy? Yes, no, maybe?

Anyway, coinage means what? Act of inventing a word of phrase maybe? So your request for trademark and registration won't be addressed since such terminology doesn't apply. American Christians coined the term unless you can offer up evidence to the contrary. I'm all eyes.

Now to get a little gruff.

You're full of shizzle. I made the effort to prove my assertion which has yet to be trumped. Doesn't mean it can't. But given most widely known info on the subject, it will be difficult to do so.

You on the other hand offered what? Shizzle. Fo' shizzle to be on the money. First, you f*cked up with attempting to point out an argumentum ad populus. Then you f*ck up again by asking for a trademark or regi for the term ID when I said it is coined by, well, you know. Ideological terms aren't marketable you boob. Hence no trademark or regi. Gee whiz. What you should have asked for is the origin of the word. But I gave you that even though you didn't know what to properly ask for.

F*ck up again, which you probably will, and you'll just end up looking like a troll just out for a fight for fight's sake. I don't play that game. When you've got something worthwhile, and I mean that objectively, we'll chat. Until then...

Piss off, little man.

 

[jem]

Quote from D2.0:

True, you don't have to be a Christian or theist who believes in divine creation to see things as designed.

But the grand majority, including the creators and proponents of ID just so happen to be theists who believe in divine creation of some kind.

The question I must ask is this: So what? Why has that been a problem from the first post of this thread? The first post and title of this title is going through a whole lot of trouble trying to defend the indefensible. ID and theists go hand in hand. Everyone knows this. (Wink, that is what argumentum Ad populum looks like, "everyone know this. Thought I'd throw that in there as an example for ZZZZZZzzzzz to play with.) Even the IDers who are honest with themselves. Are there exceptions to the rule? Yup. But not to a significant enough degree that one can come out into the middle town square and cry out "ID is not creationism!" without looking foolish.

My only guess about the abnormality of what this thread is trying to prove is that someone is looking for credibility and maybe approval of one's peers.

Whether or not things look designed is subjective. There is no objective way to determine if things "look" designed. Your worldview is the underpinning of that determination.

You should read up on physics, the cosmological constant and string theory as it is being applied - before you draw that conclusion.