Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from I am...:

This thread was headed in that direction, what with kjkent telling us that certain ideas don't exist unless he thinks them...er, something like that!
But then if you extend that logic to include dolpins and everything else...
I guess it got a little too close to the truth so people were pleading to shut it down already!:D

For evidence, quantum physicists are in a good position to vouch for the oneness of everything, as well as the illusive nature of duality waves.
The whole bit about needing a reciever. And yet, without a reciever, is there really an energy or sound wave?

Time buys time to think about a decision. That's all that heaven sees it is useful for.

Jesus
More...

quit trying to be so clever..

your loosing site of the trth :mad:
 
Quote from Teleologist:

Define creationism. [/B]
More...
Pretty funny that we've gone exactly nowhere in this thread after so long.

Creationism is the belief that the universe is the product of a supernatural intelligent designer.

Intelligent design is the belief that certain features of the universe are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause/designer, the identity of whom is unknown.

A thin circle that may be drawn around some designs, where we know that the designer is a natural actor (human, bee, ant, etc.), and that the actor is intelligent. But, the purpose of ID is to validate a supernatural actor and invalidate methodical naturalism (aka science).

Thus, the definition of ID does not include any designs which are provably naturalistic.

Therefore ID = Creationism.
 
Your very broad non denominational definition below would include many religions outside of Christianity, some of those religions which are viewed by Christianity as heretical, but the focus in this thread tends to be on Christianity and their specific belief systems, unfortunately.

In fact, if you search for "Creationism" I doubt you find much about other religions come up, which again illustrates the problem from a semantics perspective.

I have seen people in this thread try to post ideas that are counter to Judeo/Muslim/Christian thinking to support, and they are routinely accused of actually doing nothing but supporting some wedge argument. Quite silly, but that's the way these things go.

There is also nothing logically that precludes an observed process of biological evolution and/or naturalism taking place as a result of the programming of a Creator who is not involved in the process beyond the initial programming.

creationism:

NOUN: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/41/C0734100.html


The reality is that Creationism is mostly viewed as a Biblical thingy...

In addition, ID can also include life being seeded from other planets, a Creator of life that is a functioning supreme being within the limits of the Universe, etc.

People tend to go with the common definition though, which is Judeo/Islamic/Christian teaching...because this board caters to a west centric thought process.

Also, given that the limits put on non ID are entirely subject to the very limitations of human mind, there also exist other logical possibilities of an eternal condition of cycles of creation, dissolution, creation, dissolution...

Most people think it is has to be an either or situation...i.e. ID or non ID, not both simultaneously...but that type of thinking is also a product of the human mind which is limited by space, time, relativity, duality, etc.

ID can be viewed as separate and distinct from the common mostly used understanding of creationism.

Intelligent Design is not creationism can be a true statement, as indicated above...

Quote from kjkent1:

Pretty funny that we've gone exactly nowhere in this thread after so long.

Creationism is the belief that the universe is the product of a supernatural intelligent designer.

Intelligent design is the belief that certain features of the universe are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause/designer, the identity of whom is unknown.

A thin circle that may be drawn around some designs, where we know that the designer is a natural actor (human, bee, ant, etc.), and that the actor is intelligent. But, the purpose of ID is to validate a supernatural actor and invalidate methodical naturalism (aka science).

Thus, the definition of ID does not include any designs which are provably naturalistic.

Therefore ID = Creationism.
More...
 
good effort but the point is, its non-scientific and has no place in the science classroom and as far as science is concerned, ID = creationism = santaclausism etc, whether from jcm tradition or hindu folklore... same difference

namaste
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

There is also nothing logically that precludes an observed process of biological evolution and/or naturalism taking place as a result of the programming of a Creator who is not involved in the process beyond the initial programming
More...
and whereby humans could be descended from apes... yes why not, conceptually...

but the point again is, we could also presuppose that this Creator's got a wife and kids and his dog Pluto likes Ron Paul etc but how does that add anything to science, i'll defer to Franciscan friar William of Ockham and his famed razor to determine
 
Quote from 2cents:

easy:

creationism = ID
More...

Basically my take, yep.
Remarkably, teleologist asks me for this, yet he has not provided any more than as follows.

The same concepts, construed, and dogmatically resolved to return to the fine tapestry of circular logic, the perpetual thread of which is the constant reference point to the start of the string;

a creator, who must be intelligent, or a design that must be intelligent, by virtue of its creation or management by an intelligent creator.

More thoughts, here............



http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113759
 
Quote from kjkent1:

Creationism is the belief that the universe is the product of a supernatural intelligent designer.

Intelligent design is the belief that certain features of the universe are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause/designer, the identity of whom is unknown.
More...

Creationism is specifically the belief that the world was brought into being through the will of some deity, as in Genesis.

ID is the belief that the Universe is intelligently designed.

ID could be the result of the efforts of a deity or deity-like entity or the work of extremely advanced aliens living in another universe who have the capacity to create universes as some scientist believe we will be able to do at some time in the future.

Many opponents to ID object to the hypothesis on the grounds that Creationists can use ID as a first step in discrediting naturalistic explanations for the Universe, but this is irrelevant to the hypothesis' plausibility and ID should be considered on its own merit.


ID is almost Creationism... but not quite because it allows for at least one alternative to the deity explanation.

Dr. Fill ( professor emeritus, University of North Maluku ) has spoken.
 
Quote from FerdinandAlx:

Would you say that instead of "first" and "second" you might describe the relationship between cause and effect as active and passive? The creator being active and the created passive?

I reminded myself of the Gospel of Thomas saying 50 where there's talk of movement and repose:
More...

Believe it or not, only 70 of the 114 sayings in Thomas' gospel were in his original scrolls.
44 sayings were added on by others.
#50 just happens to be one of those additions.

I wouldn't say active/passive if that means being different, because Cause and Effect are exactly the same. Whatever the one is/has, so is/has the other. Think of the Effect as an extention, rather than a multiplication of individuals or a division of function or some kind of completion. It's about the joy of sharing. The Effect extends likewise, creating equals as cause.

The Effects mind is wicked powerful and far from passive. It made this upside down world in the blink of an eye, and unmade it just as fast. What seems solid is really just belief in a powerful mind. It has no basis in reality. While it considered the premise that builds this world, the mind used bodies to help it think through all possible iterations of the theme of separation.

It may seem impossible to transition from where you think you are now, to the recognition and experience of yourself as a Being this powerful. Note that those who added #50 had a hard time grasping true equality. The world is very much about the degradation of the power of the mind, heirarchy, rank, differences, servility. It may act childlike in this world, but it is every bit as powerful as It's Cause. The power of mind is constant, despite degrading beliefs about it. So it is possible to return.

Jesus
 
Quote from dr. fill:

Creationism is specifically the belief that the world was brought into being through the will of some deity, as in Genesis.

ID is the belief that the Universe is intelligently designed.

ID could be the result of the efforts of a deity or deity-like entity or the work of extremely advanced aliens living in another universe who have the capacity to create universes as some scientist believe we will be able to do at some time in the future.

Many opponents to ID object to the hypothesis on the grounds that Creationists can use ID as a first step in discrediting naturalistic explanations for the Universe, but this is irrelevant to the hypothesis' plausibility and ID should be considered on its own merit.


ID is almost Creationism... but not quite because it allows for at least one alternative to the deity explanation.

Dr. Fill ( professor emeritus, University of North Maluku ) has spoken.
More...

I think you have successfully stumbled onto the landmines of the argument, via preposterous and ridiculous arguement, which simply cant be refuted due to its being so ridiculous.

You used the term "world" for creationism, yet oddly used "universe" to define id.
If it should be considered on it's own merit, wouldnt some differentiation be expected, or are they arguements for the same thing?

Even more suspiciously, you used the "scientists say" argument in effective favor of id, despite the fact no earth bound person would ever offer up such tosh as anything but complete speculation, i figure you were being sarcastic though, but words are strange things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top