Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

TraderNik wrote:

The arguments of the ID'ers/Creationists have been completely demolished in this thread. They backed off almost all of their assertions and in the end, the only argument they were trying to defend was the idea that belief in science was just as much faith as ID/Creation.

Pure bunk. The purpose of this thread was to dispute the claim that ID is creationism. The arguments from the ID critics that ID is creationism have been totally refuted.

TraderNik wrote:

They claimed that ID/Creation was a scientifically provable alternative to evolution. They were politely asked to provide one shred of proof. In a bizarre twist, they started attacking the scientific method!!

Totally false! No one has attacked the scientific method and no one has claimed ID is scientifically provable. What has been claimed is that when it comes to the orgin of life there is as much empirical evidence supporting a teleological origin as there is supporting a non-teleological origin.

Tradernik wrote:

All the arguments given here are circular. They require an initial assumption, made on faith, that teleology is operative in the natural world.

More nonsense. Faith has nothing to do with it. Teleology is already apparent in the purposefulness of biological processes. All we have to do is NOT ASSUME that the purposefulness of biological processes has been "scientifically proven" to be an illusion, because that's not true. The assumption of ateleology is LESS empirical than straightforward acknowledgement (and investigation) of apparent teleology.

TraderNik wrote:

Of course one could inquire scientifically into how much salt will dissolve in a given volume of water at room temperature, with an a priori assumption that teleology is operative. However, the results, even if correct, would be incorrectly attributed to the designer, for which there is no evidence.

You seem to equate teleology with a supernatural force. That's not what it is.


TraderNik wrote:

Having failed to provide the proofs they claimed they had, the ID/Creationists demanded that their detractors prove a negative. Their argument evolved into this - 'Can you prove that God does NOT exist? If you cannot, ID/Creation should be taught in our schools alongside evolution'.

I don't recall anyone making that argument, certainly not me.

TraderNik wrote:

Religion is a private matter. Ours is a secular society in its public face. We have seen the damage that can be done when special interest groups of religiously motivated believers attempt to impose their beliefs on the public at large. The West is free and anyone is free to believe anything they want and their right to do so must be protected. Just don't try to impose your views on me.

You are confusing ID with creationism. Creationists are the ones trying to get the Genesis account taught in school not the ID'ers.

 

[neophyte321]

You deserve credit Teologizzzt for fighting off these joker's for 1100 posts!

Discussing the specifics of the theory are beyond me, I leave that to the experts, but pointing out their utter hypocrisy is child's play.(When I labeled your argument "circular", I was refering only the points at which it was. )

Virtually every scientific mind throughout history has considered the concepts embodied in this theory in some way or another. Only a fool would dismiss this is the equivalent of believing in "Flying Unicorns" and/or "Spagehetti Monsters". Talk about taking a leap of faith! They've revealed themselves in more ways than one.

There is a course in the History of Cosomology at my former(Public) College, which covers the progression of ID in it's various forms, (actually there hasnt been much progression in this idea for centuries), and IMHO High School students would be well served if an equivalent course was available to them, or at least a few chapters in World History ...

The anti-religious automatically consider it to be a trojan horse for christians to take over schools, when in actuality it provides a scientific approach to critically considering the existence of a divinity. A question that seems to be on the minds of a lot of people.

I'd like to believe in a "Designer", but I'm not totally convinced. There are certainly more compelling arguments in favor of one than against one.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Why not just take it one step at a time?

Computers can be programmed to "design" things.

Do we really need to know about the programmer, to see that a program is in play?

The reaction to the concept of design by the atheist is funny and predictable, as it is typical of all or nothing.

The very thought of design immediately takes the atheist to a DESIGNER, or God and they freak out.

Why not just leave it at design? Design of nature, design or something else, but design, not chance...

They are terrified of a crack in the wall that they have up of ignorant chance...

Quote from neophyte321:

You deserve credit Teologizzzt for fighting off these joker's for 1100 posts!

Discussing the specifics of the theory are beyond me, I leave that to the experts, but pointing out their utter hypocrisy is child's play.(When I labeled your argument "circular", I was refering only the points at which it was. )

Virtually every scientific mind throughout history has considered the concepts embodied in this theory in some way or another. Only a fool would dismiss this is the equivalent of believing in "Flying Unicorns" and/or "Spagehetti Monsters". Talk about taking a leap of faith! They've revealed themselves in more ways than one.

There is a course in the History of Cosomology at my former(Public) College, which covers the progression of ID in it's various forms, (actually there hasnt been much progression in this idea for centuries), and IMHO High School students would be well served if an equivalent course was available to them, or at least a few chapters in World History ...

The anti-religious automatically consider it to be a trojan horse for christians to take over schools, when in actuality it provides a scientific approach to critically considering the existence of a divinity. A question that seems to be on the minds of a lot of people.

I'd like to believe in a "Designer", but I'm not totally convinced. There are certainly more compelling arguments in favor of one than against one.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from neophyte321:

You deserve credit Teologizzzt for fighting off these joker's for 1100 posts!

Discussing the specifics of the theory are beyond me, I leave that to the experts, but pointing out their utter hypocrisy is child's play.(When I labeled your argument "circular", I was refering only the points at which it was. )

Virtually every scientific mind throughout history has considered the concepts embodied in this theory in some way or another. Only a fool would dismiss this is the equivalent of believing in "Flying Unicorns" and/or "Spagehetti Monsters". Talk about taking a leap of faith! They've revealed themselves in more ways than one.

There is a course in the History of Cosomology at my former(Public) College, which covers the progression of ID in it's various forms, (actually there hasnt been much progression in this idea for centuries), and IMHO High School students would be well served if an equivalent course was available to them, or at least a few chapters in World History ...

The anti-religious automatically consider it to be a trojan horse for christians to take over schools, when in actuality it provides a scientific approach to critically considering the existence of a divinity. A question that seems to be on the minds of a lot of people.

I'd like to believe in a "Designer", but I'm not totally convinced. There are certainly more compelling arguments in favor of one than against one.

Too bad you haven't really learned anything from your (public) college courses. You don't even know what a scientific method is for Christ's sake!

And BTW, there are certainly more compelling arguments in favor of multiple "Designers" than in favor of a single "Designer." You don't even know what you're talking about.

 

[Teleologist]

Before we concern ourselves with identifying intelligent designers we first need to have a logical reason to suspect that something is intelligently designed. Scientists that are investigating a non-teleological origin of life are doing nothing more than following up on their suspicions.

Even once something is scored as tentatively designed, I don't think the next logical step is to ask "who?" When dealing with ID at the origin of life I would ask the following questions instead:

a. If X is designed, is anything else designed?

b. Does some coherent pattern emerge when scoring things as designed?

c. Does this pattern suggest further insights into the workings and evolution of life?

Only once questions a-c have been sufficiently answered can we seriously turn to "who?" That is, we need to get a fairly solid grip on the extent of design before we can even begin to seriously speculate.

 

[Teleologist]

ZZZ wrote:

Do we really need to know about the programmer, to see that a program is in play?

Good point. Reminds me of something William Dembski once said:

The proper question is not how often or at what places a designing intelligence intervenes but rather at what points do signs of intelligence first become evident. Intelligent design therefore makes an epistemological rather than ontological point. To understand the difference, imagine a computer program that outputs alphanumeric characters on a computer screen. The program runs for a long time and throughout that time outputs what look like random characters. Then abruptly the output changes and the program outputs the most sublime poetry. Now, at what point did a designing intelligence intervene in the output of the program? Clearly, this question misses the mark because the program is deterministic and simply outputs whatever the program dictates.

There was no intervention at all that changed the output of the program from random gibberish to sublime poetry. And yet, the point at which the program starts to output sublime poetry is the point at which we realize that the output is designed and not random. Moreover, it is at that point that we realize that the program itself is designed. But when and where was design introduced into the program? Although this is an interesting question, it is ultimately irrelevant to the more fundamental question whether there was design in the program and its output in the first place. We can tell whether there was design (this is ID's epistemological point) without introducing any doctrine of intervention (ID refuses to speculate about the ontology of design)

 

[FanOfFridays]

The whole idea that life on earth is 'designed' is based in religious faith. There is no reason to suspect that life on earth is designed, unless one believes in God, in which case it is a fait accompli. The ID/Creationists, in attempting to portray themselves as objective observers, considering life on earth and then positing a designer as the originator of that life, are employing faulty reasoning. If you ask them 'Why is it that you think that life on earth is designed?', they will say 'Because it seems to me to be designed'. If you then ask 'Why does it seem to you to be designed?', they say 'Because I cannot conceive of any other way that life could have originated'. The problem is, this non-belief in any other origin of life is... yes, you guessed it... informed strictly by their faith in God. The whole thing is based on this premise - that there exists a Creator entity.

Since this can never ever be tested or verified in any way, ID/Creationism will always remain within the realm of faith.

Scientists do not approach the problem of the origin of life on earth from a position of pre-existing faith-based beliefs. Scientists observe what can be seen and measured and then try to formulate theories which account for what they see. The fact that they are constantly being proved wrong is the best part of the scientific process.

ID/Creationism can never be proved wrong. Therefore it is not a theory, but a religious faith.

ID/Creationism is a rebranding of the Creation theory. Those who conceived it have stated explicitly that their goal is the remaking of Western society in a manner 'more consonant with theistic ideals'.

Religious faith is a private matter. Please practice your religion in private and among your co-religionists. And get over the fact that ours is a secular society in its public face. It is shameful that at a time when the West is under attack by religious fundamentalists, ID/Creationists would have us crawl backwards into the dark ages of superstition and belief in ghosts and goblins, by advocating the mixing of religion and public administrative policy.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

Totally false! No one has attacked the scientific method

Do we need any more proof for the mindset of these people than this? The scientific method has been hammered in this thread and others by the devotees of ID/Creationism. The fact that Zeleologist now outrageously denies something that is written in black and white a few pages back shows what happens when the faithmongers are faced with the contradictory, self-referential nature of their position.

Thread Closed.

 

[neophyte321]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Too bad you haven't really learned anything from your (public) college courses. You don't even know what a scientific method is for Christ's sake!

And BTW, there are certainly more compelling arguments in favor of multiple "Designers" than in favor of a single "Designer." You don't even know what you're talking about.

excuse me? you give yourself far too much credit. you lack much in the way of the reasoning skills. You regularly draw incorrect and to be blunt idiotic conclusions.

for instance you conclude, "I don't even know what a scientific method is" .... why should anything you say be taken seriously after that?

 

[neophyte321]

very good read ....... A better explanation than anyone here can provide.

I suggest the vocal critics contact the cited researchers and ask them how they can believe in "flying unicorns" and "speghetti monsters"


http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html


Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991


This is the second part of a two-part lecture given by Dr. Schaefer. Part 1 of this lecture appeared in The Real Issue, November/December, 1994.

We shall begin with the philosophical aspects of A Brief History of Time, which really explains why it has sold so many copies. Stephen Hawking has stated, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."

When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions.

A Brief History of Time makes wonderfully ambiguous statements such as, "Even if there is only one possible unified theory [here he's talking about the unification of quantum mechanics with an understanding of gravity], it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"(p. 174). I love that statement.

Hawking pokes fun at Albert Einstein for not believing in quantum mechanics. When asked why he didn't believe in quantum mechanics, Einstein would say things like, "Well, God doesn't play dice with human beings"(p. 56). Hawking's response is that God not only plays with dice, He sometimes throws them where they can't be seen.

The first time I read A Brief History of Time, for the first 122 pages I thought, "This is a great book; Hawking is building a splendid case for creation by an intelligent being." But then everything changes and this magnificent cosmological epic becomes adulterated by poor philosophy and theology.

For example, he writes, "These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it" (p. 122). The grounds on which Hawking claims "it appears" are unstated and what happens is that a straw God is set up that is certainly not the God of Biblical history. What follows is a curious mixture of deism and the ubiquitous God of the gaps.

Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.

One of the most famous and quoted statements in the book is, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator [the cosmological argument]. But if the universe is really completely self- contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"(pp. 140- 1).

So Hawking is uncertain about his belief in a god of his own creation. I cannot resist the conclusion that Stephen Hawking's god is too small.


At the end of the book he states, "However, if we do discover a complete theory. . . then we would know the mind of God"(p. 175). I'm sympathetic to this statement but I think he's claiming a bit much. I would modify it to say that if we had a unified, complete theory, we would know a lot more about the mind of God.

The Anthropic Principle
I must say something here about the anthropic principle: there are a number of scientific parameters or constants, any one of which, if changed just a little bit would make the earth uninhabitable by human beings. A book that I strongly recommend is by Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos. He has a substantial discussion of the anthropic principle and demonstrates why many physicists and astronomers have considered the possibility that the universe not only was divinely caused, but in fact divinely designed.