Intelligent Design is not creationism

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Or conversely, that concluding design in nature is real is the equivalent of concluding that 2+2= 5?

Design is real.
Design in nature, by nature, is real. In that regard 2+2=4.
Mountains of overwhelming scientific knowledge and evidence explains and confirms that.
No gap for a "designer" in there.

Intelligent Design speculates Nature couldn't design unless there was a designer outside of nature. Natural biological processes couldn't work unless they were designed to work.
At this point Intelligent Design must turn to rhetoric and misinformation in order to produce its argument for a separate designer, as there is nothing whatsoever to support their assertions in any substantial way. ID only has "apparently" , or "it looks like" .

So your argument Tele is, stuff cannot do anything unless it is designed to do it.
Then it will follow according to your personal ID argument, in order for anything to design nature, that 'anything' must be designed too.

Your definition for Intelligent Design has the inevitable consequence of infinite regression. It's nothing else but the inelegant non-explanation of Turtles all the way down.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Quote from stu:

That is your own personal definition, not that of the official source for Intelligent Design/ creationism. Dembski and Behe way outrank you and they clearly show and confirm in their Discovery Institute "Wedge" document, Intelligent Design IS creationism.

 

[stu]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Incorrect fallacy fallacy.
(aka TrollZzz's fallacy)

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Apparently you don't recall your foray in to defining atheism according to your own terms, i.e. when you were on your baby kick.

At that time, others pointed out that your definition deviated from the accepted authoritative understanding and use of of the word atheism.

That didn't stop you from babbling on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, about how you were correct in your definition, that your definition was the right one to have and to hold.

Now that someone is defining Intelligent Design in a non Christian non creationist way...you pull the authority fallacy card.

Too much stueypoo, too much...

Quote from stu:

Incorrect fallacy fallacy.
(aka TrollZzz's fallacy)

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

That is your own personal definition, not that of the official source for Intelligent Design/ creationism. Dembski and Behe way outrank you and they clearly show and confirm in their Discovery Institute "Wedge" document, Intelligent Design IS creationism.

Pure nonsense. Show me where either Dembski or Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Design is real.
Design in nature, by nature, is real. In that regard 2+2=4.
Mountains of overwhelming scientific knowledge and evidence explains and confirms that.
No gap for a "designer" in there."

Uh, where does the "designer" nature come from...

I fully expect one of stueypoos self evoked tautologies now, you know, where stueypoo says "nature exists because it does, it exists because it exists" or something equally irrational.

stueypoo, the nature boy...

LMAO!

Wait, wait...nature came from the big bangy thingy, something from nothing...ya, that happens all the time, something from nothing, all the energy and all the mass and all the laws of the universe from nothing but random ignorant chance...no planning or design needed.

Just like magic...

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

Design is real. Design in nature, by nature, is real. In that regard 2+2=4.

Real design is done on purpose. Richard Dawkins says:

Biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.

Designed for a purpose is real design and Darwinists like Dawkins believe that the appearance of real design in nature is an illusion. Where is the evidence that backs this up?

Stu wrote:

ID only has "apparently", or "it looks like" .

And your blind watchmaker hypothesis doesn't even have that.


Stu wrote:

Your definition for Intelligent Design has the inevitable consequence of infinite regression. It's nothing else but the inelegant non-explanation of Turtles all the way down.

We have been over this before. Not knowing who designed the designer isn't sufficient to thwart a design inference. For example, if scientists exploring Mars discovered faces carved into a mountain ala Mt. Rushmore would they refuse to infer it was sculpted because they couldn't explain the origin of the sculptors? As a design theorist once said:

There is explanatory value in attributing the Jupiter Symphony to the artistry [design] of mozart, and that explanation suffers nothing by not knowing who designed Mozart.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Pure nonsense. Show me where either Dembski or Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses.

You have already been shown, over and over.

Like I say Tele, there comes a point where your denial borders on deceit and then is no more than a lie. The credibility of your argument has been shot through as it is. Lying will only make it sound even worse.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Richard Dawkins says:

Biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.

So? You don't need a separate agent to design what is observed in biology to form naturally into particular shapes. Shapes which you then call design. so you can try to attach an unnecessary designer to them.

Quote from Teleologist:


Real design is done on purpose.

You mean real design as opposed to what!... natural design!?
Real design is artificial and design is natural? Is that what you are saying? If so it is simply ridiculous.

All design is subjective, so how do you get any real design?
That would mean man made design is real and natures design isn't? How silly.

Nature forms what we call design . You observe that as consistently recognizable patterns. Come to know them as particular shapes, repeated over, time and again. They form naturally . You know like mud puddles do, which you say are not designed.

I know we've done this before. It's where irreducible infinite regression in the shape of Intelligent Design gets you. Nowhere but back to square one

 

[stu]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Uh, where does the "designer" nature come from...

Uh, where does the "designer" come from..