I previously said I don't have proof of ID. I previously said I don't have a test for ID. Likewise, you have no proof and no test for abiogenesis. Leaders in the field admit they are baffled. Let's compare apples to apples. I can present an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life which is all you can present for a non-teleological origin of life.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Quote from Teleologist:
I can present an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life which is all you can present for a non-teleological origin of life.
I have seen you repeat this claim numerous times, but you have not backed it up with anything concrete. Please present your case and let us analyse it. Otherwise admit you don't have a case and give it up.
Teleologist, you say you have no "proof," yet you simultaneously state that you can make a circumstantial case. I've already defined proof and circumstantial inference earlier in this thread, and I've stated that a sufficiently compelling circumstantial inference can be proof, and that proof itself is just evidence which tends to make a material fact more or less likely.
You seem to be equivocating all over the map. What "is" your case for ID? That's what we're all waiting to read.
You seem to be equivocating all over the map. What "is" your case for ID? That's what we're all waiting to read.
kjkent1 wrote:
Why? You previously said:
Well, I told you I don't have a test for ID. What I have is an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life. You seem to want something that approaches certainty. An investigation does not need to deliver infallible conclusions or make infallible inferences. That is, in identifying the first life forms as the product of design, ID theorists may very well be correct. And that they cannot be sure they are correct, with anything approaching certainty, doesnât mean they are not correct. This is an ambiguous topic. ID theorists have made a certain peace with this ambiguity, and instead of struggling and fighting for a way to exorcise ambiguity (to bring about the brotherhood of universal agreement), they are more interested in working with our ambiguous world, trying out neglected ideas and approaches to see what they can deliver in terms of understanding biotic reality.
What "is" your case for ID? That's what we're all waiting to read.
Why? You previously said:
However, if your proof is not based on any verifiable test, then it's not scientific, so it's not proof.
Well, I told you I don't have a test for ID. What I have is an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life. You seem to want something that approaches certainty. An investigation does not need to deliver infallible conclusions or make infallible inferences. That is, in identifying the first life forms as the product of design, ID theorists may very well be correct. And that they cannot be sure they are correct, with anything approaching certainty, doesnât mean they are not correct. This is an ambiguous topic. ID theorists have made a certain peace with this ambiguity, and instead of struggling and fighting for a way to exorcise ambiguity (to bring about the brotherhood of universal agreement), they are more interested in working with our ambiguous world, trying out neglected ideas and approaches to see what they can deliver in terms of understanding biotic reality.
Quote from kjkent1:
OK, what is your "intuitive, circumstantial case..."
His case is 'Things look to me as if they must be designed, because how else could life have come about? It is self evident to me that life on earth was created by an intellegent entity of some sort'.
I guarantee you, 100% for sure, that there will be a lot of talky-talk about science and epistemology and proving a negative, but when all is said and done, this is what it will come down to. It will come down to 'My faith tells me that this is true, therefore it is true'.
Quote from Teleologist:
Well, I told you I don't have a test for ID.
The case presented for a non-teleological origin of life is essentially an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case.
Not true. There are tests for a "non-teleological origin of life". A great deal of demonstrable substantial evidence in addition to guesses and gut feelings. It means of course there is much more than only a "looks like" pointing toward no requirement for intelligent design.
Organic compounds can be constituted from inanimate materials. That produces what "looks like" a mighty big hurdle for a non-testable teleological origin of life to overcome when it can only intuitively, cumulatively and circumstantially talk to itself.
Quote from Teleologist:
Likewise, the case presented for a teleological origin of life is essentially an intuitive, cumulative circumstantial case.
Amounting to guessing or a gut feeling, with no other substantive information in support.
There is no test for a teleological origin of life, you say so. Therefore nothing further can be established which goes past guess or feeling, whilst at the same time tests do suggest a 'non telelogical' outcome most likely.
"Looks like" is all you have offered for intelligent design. Even so on that basis, it actually "looks like" you would be wrong.
A good read:
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html
So even the defense (proponents of the ID) admitted in the court that ID is in fact creationism.
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html
That's the plaintiff side. Now take a look at the defense side:I had two tasks: to demonstrate to Judge Jones (1) that ID is creationism, thus a religious belief, and (2) that Of Pandas and People is a creationist textbook. As part of the evidence for my first task I included the words of two leading ID proponents, Phillip E. Johnson and William Dembski. Under direct examination by Eric Rothschild, I related Johnsonâs definition of ID as âtheistic realismâ or âmere creation,â by which he means âthat we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology.â [27] To that I added Dembskiâs definition: âIntelligent design is just the Logos theology of Johnâs Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.â [28]
The combined testimony of the plaintiffsâ expert witnesses presented a formidable obstacle for the defenseâas did the testimony of defense witnesses themselves. Nord and Carpenter were withdrawn without testifying, leaving only Behe, Fuller, and Minnich [41]. Behe and TMLC attorney Robert Muise escorted the judge through a long explanation of irreducible complexity using Beheâs stock example, the bacterial flagellum. During Rothschildâs cross-examination, however, Behe admitted that under his own definition of a scientific theory (which he has conveniently loosened in order to classify ID as science), astrology also qualifies [42]. Most unhelpfully, Fuller had affirmed in his depositionâ under oathâ that ID is creationism. Presented by ACLU attorney Vic Walczak with the relevant statements, he had no choice but to admit this: â[Walczak] And then your answer beginning on Line 24, It [ID] is a kind of creationism, it is a kind of creationism. I didnât read the same passage twice. Itâs actually twice on there. Did I read that accurately? [Fuller] Well, it looks like that is what the sentences say.â [43] Fuller also described his role in the trial as that of an advocate for âdisadvantaged theoriesâ needing an âaffirmative action strategy.â [44] By the time Minnich, the last witness, was asked to offer still more testimony about bacterial flagella, he understood fully the position in which he found himself: âI kind of feel like Zsa Zsaâs fifth husband, you know? . . . I know what to do but I just canât make it exciting. Iâll try.â [45]
So even the defense (proponents of the ID) admitted in the court that ID is in fact creationism.
The only way one can pin the "creationist" label on ID proponents is to define creationism so broadly that anyone that disputes that evolution is undirected and devoid of purpose is a creationist. So to the ID critics here that claim ID is creationism I say let's hear your definition of creationism.