Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

Given the current power structure in academia, any researcher hoping to hold a job, obtain research funding, or get a paper published must at least pay lip service to the dominant anti-intelligence, anti-design, anti-teleology ideology. It is, however, a serious mistake to attempt to measure how much productive ID research is occurring based on ideological cloaks that researchers are forced to wear because of the financial realities imposed by the ideologues who control academia and research funding.

However, if you look at essentially any productive research being performed today in the life sciences, you will see researchers attempting to answer questions like “How does this organism achieve this goal?” or “What can be changed to increase the likelihood of achieving this goal?” or “How does changing this variable impact the organisms ability to achieve this goal?”. Addressing a goal, function, or purpose means that the researcher is using the scientific ID perspective and it means that despite whatever ideological nonsense the researcher is forced to mouth, he or she is performing ID research.

It is a serious mistake to believe that ID research is limited to the work of a few obscure supporters of ‘god dun it’. ID research is not only quite common, but it encompasses essentially all productive scientific analysis. You are going to have to search long and hard to find any productive research in the life sciences that is not ID based.

ID concepts and principles may not yet be acceptable to the academic power structure, but they already dominate productive research.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

STU I have explained this to you before and you clearly have no idea what the top mind in physics say regarding this subject.

Try reading physics before you spew your crap at me.

Can't back up any argument so you’re returning to the old spew crap line.
Everything not necessitous of God is spewing crap. So knowledgeable are you on matters of outside time, but you can't come to terms with anything outside God.

So then Einstein, you can explain how there was a "time before time" - can you? .
Explained before! don't make me laugh.
What's not been explained yet is how you got through law school (as you claimed to have done), all the time spelling site for cite and know for no.
No surprise then how you actually cannot deal with what physics does or doesn't actually explain.

There is a "top mind" in physics? Is there? Just one?
What MIND would that be? Any physicist's whose stuff you feel happiest to dumbfounded by more than another’s?

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Given the current power structure in academia, any researcher hoping to hold a job, obtain research funding, or get a paper published must at least pay lip service to the dominant anti-intelligence, anti-design, anti-teleology ideology. It is, however, a serious mistake to attempt to measure how much productive ID research is occurring based on ideological cloaks that researchers are forced to wear because of the financial realities imposed by the ideologues who control academia and research funding

Researchers being funded in the sciences, are obliged to pay attention to science. Unsurprisingly they are not being funded for producing groundless arguments, nor to support an inclination for generally arsing around in theology.

Quote from Teleologist:

However, if you look at essentially any productive research being performed today in the life sciences, you will see researchers attempting to answer questions like “How does this organism achieve this goal?” or “What can be changed to increase the likelihood of achieving this goal?” or “How does changing this variable impact the organisms ability to achieve this goal?”. Addressing a goal, function, or purpose means that the researcher is using the scientific ID perspective and it means that despite whatever ideological nonsense the researcher is forced to mouth, he or she is performing ID research.

He or she either performs scientific enquiry upon a scientific basis under the scientific method, or not. "ID research" is not scientific and has no scientific basis. If he or she is performing the former, he or she is not performing the latter.

Quote from Teleologist:

It is a serious mistake to believe that ID research is limited to the work of a few obscure supporters of ‘god dun it’. ID research is not only quite common, but it encompasses essentially all productive scientific analysis. You are going to have to search long and hard to find any productive research in the life sciences that is not ID based.

There is no ID base in life sciences, or any other science. ID's only basis of research is in the style of circular argument, rhetoric and propaganda, as seen in this thread. Not one scrap of empirical data for ID in what.. over 500 pages. It's no different anywhere else, including academia.

ID is not science. ID is creationism.

 

[Teleologist]

ID is science through and through. ID is not creationism. ID is not theology and ID is not anti-evolution. This is just nonsense spewed out by ID critics. Without ID concepts and principles all productive research in biology would come to a grinding halt.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

ID is science through and through. ID is not creationism. ID is not theology and ID is not anti-evolution. This is just nonsense spewed out by ID critics. Without ID concepts and principles all productive research in biology would come to a grinding halt.

You might just as well have said...

God is science through and through. God is not creationism. God is not theology and God is not anti-evolution. This is just nonsense spewed out by God critics. Without God concepts and principles all productive research in biology would come to a grinding halt.

.....it amounts to the same thing.

 

[I am...]

Quote from Teleologist:

Given the current power structure in academia, any researcher hoping to hold a job, obtain research funding, or get a paper published must at least pay lip service to the dominant anti-intelligence, anti-design, anti-teleology ideology. It is, however, a serious mistake to attempt to measure how much productive ID research is occurring based on ideological cloaks that researchers are forced to wear because of the financial realities imposed by the ideologues who control academia and research funding.

Very insightful.

Jesus

 

[2cents]

Quote from Teleologist:

However, if you look at essentially any productive research being performed today in the life sciences, you will see researchers attempting to answer questions like “How does this organism achieve this goal?” or “What can be changed to increase the likelihood of achieving this goal?” or “How does changing this variable impact the organisms ability to achieve this goal?”. Addressing a goal, function, or purpose means that the researcher is using the scientific ID perspective and it means that despite whatever ideological nonsense the researcher is forced to mouth, he or she is performing ID research.

absolutely not...

 

[2cents]

Quote from Teleologist:

ID is science through and through. ID is not creationism. ID is not theology and ID is not anti-evolution. This is just nonsense spewed out by ID critics. Without ID concepts and principles all productive research in biology would come to a grinding halt.

ID is creationism.

 

[2cents]

Quote from I am...:

Very insightful.

Jesus

seduced by spin my friend?... a move away from truth...

Ariya

 

[I am...]

Quote from stu:

You might just as well have said...

God is science through and through. God is not creationism. God is not theology and God is not anti-evolution. This is just nonsense spewed out by God critics. Without God concepts and principles all productive research in biology would come to a grinding halt.

.....it amounts to the same thing.

Look again...

Quote from Teleologist:

Addressing a goal, function, or purpose means that the researcher is using the scientific ID perspective and it means that despite whatever ideological nonsense the researcher is forced to mouth, he or she is performing ID research.

It's true that God is. And beyond that is nothing.

On the other hand, the world is nothing that is given meaning by your mind.

Everything you see, then, has a purpose or goal according to the meaning that you have given it.

Everything in this world is a symbol of an idea. Ask then, what is the idea behind the symbol.

Science that approaches what it sees with the question, "What is this for?"...or..."What is the goal here?", will make much better progress because it is in-line with what's going on.

As a rule of thumb, all form has the goal of making the Truth meaningless. That's because all of form is not true.

Buddha taught it thus: "All form is emptiness, and emptiness is form".

Besides confusing you about the truth, each form has specific goals as set by the mind that pictures it.

Take the body for example. It is a symbol of separation given the goal of death. Born to die, it "lives" for its purpose.

But each symbol can be given another purpose by the same mind that set the purpose of the original symbol.

As mind questions the original purpose, it looks for ways to extend the "life" of the body indefinitely.

Changing the mind about the purpose of a body can indeed neutralize the mind's previous goals of aging, sickness and death.

The world is based on the incorrect answer to a question.

It seeks to prove the incorrect answer is real.

It is a game in which meaning is given to nothing, and taken seriously.

Take that all away, and you are left where you started:

God is.


Jesus