Intelligent Design is not creationism

[D2.0]

Quote from Teleologist:

Yes, and they can also lead us to the truth. Your attitude, if applied consistently throughout science, would be the end of the whole enterprise. All our evidence for the existence of physical laws, for instance, ultimately boils down to our intuition that things look like they were caused in a lawlike manner. Someone who refused to allow that as positive evidence could insist that physics was just one big "negative argument" against things looking that way by chance, and that there was no positive evidence for laws at all.

Huge, and I mean Gigantor size difference is.... drum roll:

THEY CAN GO OUT AND TEST THEIR OBSERVATIONS AND HYPOTHESIS.

Tell me how one can test to see if something actually is the product of design or not?

That's all you have to do really to make a start of it. Otherwise what are you doing really? Except trying to proselytize with what amounts to not even circumstantial evidence.

Forget proof for a minute. Come up with something that allows for testing your theory. The proof will be in the pudding then.

Assert design. Test Design. Prove design.

A.T.P.

Ay corumba.

 

[Teleologist]

Quote from D2.0:
I didn't state that you should prove design. I stated that you should come up with a means to distinguish design from non-design since you assert design.

Didn't you previously say that the only way to distinguish design from non-design was to see the designer in action? If seeing the designer in the act of designing isn't proof of design then what is! In any event, I don't assert design. I suspect design.

Quote from D2.0:

Evolutionists don't assert design. They don't even think in such terms as non-design. Non-design only becomes an issue once you assert design.

Not so. Evolutionists argue against design all the time. Consider the subtitle of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. It reads: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.

If you are consistent in your position you will take Dawkins to task for making a non-design claim when he hasn't come up with a means to distinguish design from non-design.

Quote from D2.0:
And then the strawman of what tests I use to prove design from non-design. Actually, you're asking me to do something I didn't assert. I do not assert design because I can't seem to recognize it. But you do seem to recognize it so the burden is on you to supply to the world with how to recognize it in an objective manner.

Well, most ID critics do argue that there is no evidence of design in nature. They can't logically do this if they have no criteria for what design in nature would look like. They could be looking right at it and not recognize it. And one more time, I claim there are things in nature that cause me to merely suspect design.

Quote from D2.0:
Then you have the problem of asking me to prove a negative. There's nothing in my mind that objectively leads me to suspect design by a metaphysical force. But there is something that leads me to believe that things evolve according to their environment. So in that respect, you could say that things are "designed" by their environment. And I can prove that.

ID doesn't posit design by a metaphysical force. ID is not anti-evolution. And design is focused on the origin of life. Can you prove that the origin of life was solely the result of non-teleological processes?

Quote from D2.0:
So what the hell's the real ultimate point of ID? Tell me that.

To strengthen the design inference and use it as a guide to help us better understand biotic reality.

 

[D2.0]

Quote from Teleologist:

Didn't you previously say that the only way to distinguish design from non-design was to see the designer in action? If seeing the designer in the act of designing isn't proof of design then what is! In any event, I don't assert design. I suspect design.

No I didn't and the last sentence is sophistry. Why? You're dancing. As if there's a material difference between an assertion and a suspicion when it comes to teleology. But let's imagine there was. How do you go about investigating your "suspicion" if you don't know what you're looking for? And you don't since you didn't list a criteria. You're simply looking at things with the preconcieved notion that they are designed. But where's your falsification? How do you rule out things that weren't designed?

You have yet to answer that.

Not so. Evolutionists argue against design all the time. Consider the subtitle of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. It reads: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.

If you are consistent in your position you will take Dawkins to task for making a non-design claim when he hasn't come up with a means to distinguish design from non-design.

No, evolutionists rebut creationist arguments which have no evidence or faoundation in reality whatsoever. They make no efforts to wholly prove anything they assert, claim, or suspect.

Well, most ID critics do argue that there is no evidence of design in nature. They can't logically do this if they have no criteria for what design in nature would look like. They could be looking right at it and not recognize it. And one more time, I claim there are things in nature that cause me to merely suspect design.

LOL.

ID doesn't posit design by a metaphysical force. ID is not anti-evolution. And design is focused on the origin of life. Can you prove that the origin of life was solely the result of non-teleological processes?

Geez, more requests to prove a negative.

Anyway, yeah, ID is not anti-evolution in some minor respects. But it does indeed posit design by a metaphysical force or entity. Namely God(s). No point in trying to hide that. The leaders and creators of the ID movement are theists. Unless they've renounced their theism. And if they want to be cute and claim aliens did it, well, the question remains, "what aliens were the progenators of those aliens" and so on and so forth until you hit some sort of boogeyman(men) level. AKA, super-duper-designer.

To strengthen the design inference and use it as a guide to help us better understand biotic reality.

Oh, ok, now we're getting somewhere. So when Design inference gathers some meaningful strength ('cause it's pretty weak right now), come back on in and post your TESTABLE findings and conclusions. Has to be testable because I'd like to see for myself and maybe by using different specimens and then it would be a guide to help us better understand our biotic reality. No testablenessness, no helpusnessness.

But by then you'll probably have your own website to post that kind of info. Something you can have more control over. Who knows how long this forum will be around. Nothing lasts forever.


Good luck. Have a good weekend and beyond.

Peace

 

[D2.0]

Quote from Teleologist:

In any event, I don't assert design. I suspect design.

LOL. I just can't get over that.

CLEVAH. Especially for someone who sure puts up a lot of fuss over their suspicion.

That made my week.

I gotta use that one next time I have to pay my taxes and then refuse to. Make a federal case out of it. Start a rally. And here's what my rally sign will read: "Sirs of the IRS, I don't assert that you're wasting my tax dollars, I only suspect it."

 

[Teleologist]

Quote from D2.0

Anyway, yeah, ID is not anti-evolution in some minor respects.

ID is not anti-evolution in major respects.

Quote from D2.0
But it does indeed posit design by a metaphysical force or entity.
Namely God(s). No point in trying to hide that. The leaders and creators of the ID movement are theists.

Absolute nonsense. An ID advocate may believe the designer is God but that belief is based on theological considerations and not from the logic of ID. Show me an ID theorist that posits a metaphysical force or entity as part of their ID hypothesis.

Quote from D2.0
And if they want to be cute and claim aliens did it, well, the question remains, "what aliens were the progenators of those aliens" and so on and so forth until you hit some sort of boogeyman(men) level. AKA, super-duper-designer.

LOL! By that logic Francis Crick an atheistic evolutionist was a creationist!

 

[Teleologist]

Quote from D2.0:
Oh, ok, now we're getting somewhere. So when Design inference gathers some meaningful strength ('cause it's pretty weak right now), come back on in and post your TESTABLE findings and conclusions. Has to be testable because I'd like to see for myself and maybe by using different specimens and then it would be a guide to help us better understand our biotic reality. No testablenessness, no helpusnessness.

ID right now is as testable as the blind watchmaker hypothesis.

 

[Teleologist]

Quote from Teleologist:

Not so. Evolutionists argue against design all the time. Consider the subtitle of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. It reads: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.

If you are consistent in your position you will take Dawkins to task for making a non-design claim when he hasn't come up with a means to distinguish design from non-design.

D2.0 replied:

No, evolutionists rebut creationist arguments which have no evidence or faoundation in reality whatsoever. They make no efforts to wholly prove anything they assert, claim, or suspect.

Richard Dawkins claims "the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design." He has no methodology to distinguish design from non-design, yet he claims to have detected non-design. You have no problem with that? Nice little double standard you got going there.

 

[Teleologist]

Quote from D2.0:
Why? You're dancing. As if there's a material difference between an assertion and a suspicion when it comes to teleology.

Is there no material difference between an assertion and a suspicion when it comes to non-teleology?

Quote from D2.0:
But let's imagine there was. How do you go about investigating your "suspicion" if you don't know what you're looking for? And you don't since you didn't list a criteria. You're simply looking at things with the preconcieved notion that they are designed. But where's your falsification? How do you rule out things that weren't designed?

How do you go about investigating your "suspicion" of a non-teleological origin of life if you don't know what you're looking for? What are your criteria? You're simply looking at things with the preconcieved notion that they are not designed. Where's your falsification? How do you rule out things that were designed?[/quote]

 

[D2.0]

Quote from Teleologist:

Quote from Teleologist:


Richard Dawkins claims "the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design." He has no methodology to distinguish design from non-design, yet he claims to have detected non-design. You have no problem with that? Nice little double standard you got going there.

Umm hmm. Check this out. This will really shine you on:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." - Dawkins, from River out of Eden.

Not a double standard. Here, I'll explain why.

All of it, the design, purpose, evil, good, predicates on something that if asserted requires proof. In the abscene of proof, you default to what you can observe, test, and prove. You can't observe design because to observe it requires the observation of designing to know what the hell you're looking at.

There is no assertion of non-design. Not ever. Because you can't prove it because ultimately you MUST assert and prove a designer.

Let me explain it another way:

"The evidence (something testable) of evolution reveals a universe without oogie-boogie."

What the hell is oogie-boogie? I don't know. No one has defined it such that it's distinct from what is not oogie-boogie. This is after all how we know one thing from the other. They call it a comparative.

We know what non-design is when it comes to the material world by default. We have no knowledge of its opposite. Yeah yeah, I know you think same could be said of evolution. But that's where you're wrong. Truly in order to comprehend design in the context we're discussing, you invariably must know that there is a designer. Doesn't matter if you know for sure exactly what it designed. Just the fact that it can design something and did. Just like if you come upon a scene that looks like a murder happened, well, we can assume a murder because we know murderers exist and that they commit murders. I mean, why not "suspect" it was some metaphysical manifestation that committed the killing? And so when we "suspect" we do so out of known possibilities. Not unknown ones like a God(s) or Aliens or whatever metaphysical manifestations one can dream up. And when we come upon things that we have no immediate frame of reference, we break it down into things we do know and can prove. That's how science works. It builds upon knowledge.

Prove they or it exists (ID(s)). Prove that it or they has/have designed something related to what we're discussing. And then we'll have a starting point to explore design from a rational standpoint. We'll have a comparative. And if you suspect that it or they designed the universe, well, lol, you've got your work cut out for you.

Otherwise it's all just sweet talk for your faith.

One last time before happy hour:

When your camp comes up with something peer reviewable, we'll chat again. Easiest way to wrest control over the "evil elitist" scientific stronghold. Evolutionists aren't going to do your work for you. And governments, even the religious friendly US gov't will not support your work. Grassroots donation solicitations from the impressionable young, which IDers target, might give you enough money to do some real work. Gleaning published work of real scientists to see if there's language which could be used to support your "suspicion of design" is asinine and will garner ZERO respect. Only contempt. I mean, that's like evolutionists using parts of the bible or pastor sermons to support evolution. Asinine isn't it? Yep.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Who else but a Universe class designer could create an individual entity that had within its power the ability to design and create, and then turns around and creatively explains their very own existence as a product of nothing but ignorant chance non design...because they don't have the power to recognize the work of design and claim they must know the designer first to know design is at work.

Just like a computer that runs a program that repetitively computes to a conclusion that denies its own existence of being a computer, completely unaware that its very programming is a function of design.

Computer are just machines programmed to function, completely mindless...but humans are supposed to be sentient...

Complete and total mechanical mindlessness seems all that is required to argue from non design...or to assume non design as an a priori foundation of thinking...

Fascinating.

Just like a fish drowning in an ocean of water...

Quote from D2.0:

Umm hmm. Check this out. This will really shine you on:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." - Dawkins, from River out of Eden.

Not a double standard. Here, I'll explain why.

All of it, the design, purpose, evil, good, predicates on something that if asserted requires proof. In the abscene of proof, you default to what you can observe, test, and prove. You can't observe design because to observe it requires the observation of designing to know what the hell you're looking at.

There is no assertion of non-design. Not ever. Because you can't prove it because ultimately you MUST assert and prove a designer.

Let me explain it another way:

"The evidence (something testable) of evolution reveals a universe without oogie-boogie."

What the hell is oogie-boogie? I don't know. No one has defined it such that it's distinct from what is not oogie-boogie. This is after all how we know one thing from the other. They call it a comparative.

We know what non-design is when it comes to the material world by default. We have no knowledge of its opposite. Yeah yeah, I know you think same could be said of evolution. But that's where you're wrong. Truly in order to comprehend design in the context we're discussing, you invariably must know that there is a designer. Doesn't matter if you know for sure exactly what it designed. Just the fact that it can design and did. Just like if you come upon a scene that looks like a murder happened, well, we can assume a murder because we know murderers exist and that they commit murders. And so when we "suspect" we do so out of known possibilities. Not unknown ones like a God(s) or Aliens or whatever metaphysical manifestations one can dream up. And when we come upon things that we have no immediate frame of reference, we break it down into things we do know and can prove. That's how science works. It builds upon knowledge.

Prove they or it exists (ID(s)). Prove that it or they has/have designed something related to what we're discussing. And then we'll have a starting point to explore design from a rational standpoint. We'll have a comparative. And if you suspect that it or they designed the universe, well, lol, you've got your work cut out for you.

Otherwise it's all just sweet talk for your faith.

One last time before happy hour:

When your camp comes up with something peer reviewable, we'll chat again. Easiest way to wrest control over the "evil elitist" scientific stronghold. Evolutionists aren't going to do your work for you. And governments, even the religious friendly US gov't will not support your work. Grassroots donation solicitations from the impressionable young, which IDers target, might give you enough money to do some real work. Gleaning published work of real scientists to see if there's language which could be used to support your "suspicion of design" is asinine and will garner ZERO respect. Only contempt. I mean, that's like evolutionists using parts of the bible or pastor sermons to support evolution. Asinine isn't it? Yep.