Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Took these "geniuses" all this time to finally fess up to the false claims..

Quote from Teleologist:

James Bond 3rd:


Does this mean you recognize we are not the same person?

There is no contradiction here. One can accept the reality of random mutations and natural selection without believing that evolution is an entirely accidental/coincidental process. Random mutations and natural selection can indeed be incorporated into a teleological perspective. For contrary to Darwinian dogma, RM&NS can indeed be used to direct evolution towards a particular end. How? While it is a common opinion that RM&NS represent a truly random search, where all possible states can be tested and screened, this is not (IMO) really true. In reality, RM&NS are constrained by the initial state of the matrix upon which RM&NS are carried out. These initial states will serve as a channel for RM&NS searching out "paths of least resistance." And initial states that are complex will act as channels. Why? RM&NS will almost always redesign, tinker, exploit, and modify what pre-exists rather than invent something de novo. Thus, by beginning with complex states, you effectively rig evolution to favor certain trajectories over others.

 

[2cents]

Quote from Teleologist:

If ID is unscientific then the blind watchmaker hypothesis is also unscientific. One is just the flip-side of the other. Let's hear your argument that the evolutionary process is entirely non-teleological. Then we can evaluate how scientific it is.

thank u for your opinion my friend... happy to believe you are the flip side of yourself but see, not everything works like that, sooo... "evaluate" as you may... it's of little consequence to scientists anyway what you do / think etc... amen

 

[2cents]

Quote from traderNik:

That is the end result of this entire thread.

not so quick mate! i've got money on this if we take it above 100,000 views

 

[2cents]

Quote from 2cents:

mmmhhh... deep sleep hey?... well, to each his own, i don't want to belittle your interpretation, nor your attempt at rendering it in words, its no easy task... just one thing, if you stand by your above description, your tao seems to be deeply rooted in hinduism, not buddhism... buddhism and "soul(s)" don't mix well at all as you may know http://www.enotalone.com/article/4090.html ... and "god(s)" have fundamentally different statuses to what they have in hinduism, jainism etc... also there are subtle but fundamental differences between Moksha and Buddhist Nirvana

good effort nonetheless...

are you familiar with vibhajjavaada?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibhajjavada

let's expand a bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibhajjavada
Vibhajjavâda (Pâli) or Vibhajyavâda (Sanskrit), is an umbrella classification for Buddhist denominations that promote analysis as a primary tool for developing insight. The Vibhajjavadins are claimed to have seen themselves as orthodox Sthaviras. The word Vibhajjavâda can be broken into Vibhajja, loosely meaning "analysis", and vâda meaning "doctrine" or "teachings". Hence, the term "Vibhajjavâda" can mean "the doctrine of analysis". This doctrine says that the first step to insight has to be achieved by the aspirant's experience, critical investigation, and reasoning instead of by blind faith.

The Third Buddhist Council, under the leadership of Moggaliputta Tissa emphasized this analytical approach. Some sub-divisions of Sthavira School which adopted this approach were regrouped and termed as the followers of Vibhajjavâda. Those not included in the Vibhajjavâda group were the Mahâsânghikas, Sarvâstivâda and Sammitîya, who were regarded as having the ‘wrong view’ by the Vibhajjavâdins, according to the Kathavatthu, a work ascribed to Moggaliputta Tissa.

After the Third Council, the Vibhajjavâdins gradually evolve into four groups: the Mahîúâsaka, Kâúyapîya, Dharmaguptaka and the Tâmraparnîya. Theravada is descended from the Tâmraparnîya, which means 'the Sri Lankan lineage'. On the other hand, some sources suggest that Mahîúâsaka, Kâúyapîya and Dharmaguptaka did not evolve directly from the Vibhajjavâdins, although an original connection between these groups is posited due to the similarities of their respective Vinayas.

According to Sinhalese tradition, Buddhism under the name of Vibhajjavâda was brought to Sri Lanka by Mahinda, who is believed to be the son of Emperor Asoka, an event dated by modern scholars to 246 BCE.

The Theravâda descendants of this school claim that Vibhajjavâda represents doctrinal orthodoxy. However, proponents of this approach are frequently mentioned in the Sarvâstivâdin Mahâ-vibhâsa, where they are viewed as the type of heretics who "make objections, who uphold harmful doctrines and attack those who follow the authentic Dharma". This characterization was a response to the methodology and type of arguments recorded in the Kathavatthu, where part of Sarvâstivâdin doctrines is refuted. Only three questions in the Kathavatthu are directed against Sarvâstivâda, which probably means that the rest of the Sarvâstivâda doctrine did not differ much from the Vibhajjavâdins at the time of the Third Council.

 

[2cents]

Theravada => Sri Lanka, Thailand, ...

not that i am advocating this over say, zen buddhism, nichiren buddhism for instance...

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
It looks designed...and there is no evidence that it is not.

That is an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Yep, ignorant chance...fallacious arguments from ignorance, fallacious appeal to the prevailing opinions of scientists...

Yep, the whole package of indoctrination and dogma, and extreme resistance to even allowing children to hear a counter point of view.

Yep, a Christian God... faith-based arguments informed by indoctrination, fallacious appeal to the prevailing opinions of the proponents of ID/Creation .

Yep, the whole package of indoctrination and dogma, and extreme fear of a secular culture.

Yep, an initial claim that ID/Creation is a scientifically provable theory and then a mewling reversal as it becomes clear that no evidence for the theory could ever exist, and that faith is the only basis upon which to believe in it.

Yep, an admission that 'design' necessarily implies a designer and that the designer implied by ID/Creation could only be God or an alien race.

 

[Teleologist]

Intelligence
By Scott Adams

I wonder how you can tell if an alien is “intelligent life.” Is there a test that fits all situations? For example, suppose we found a blob on Mars that moved under its own power and wasn’t a carbon-based life form. How could we tell if it was intelligent?

One way we could tell is if it did something that you associate with intelligent creatures. If it started a conversation with you (and passed the Turing test), that would seem intelligent. But there’s no reason to think that all intelligent beings use language. You’d need more tests of intelligence than just the ability to hold a conversation with a human.

Suppose the blob on Mars beat you at chess. That would tell you that the blob can “compute,” but it wouldn’t tell you if the blob was intelligent “life.” A computer can beat you at chess if it’s so programmed, and no one thinks your computer is intelligent life.

What if the blob authored a book?

Don’t answer too quickly because it’s a trick question. Remember, a trillion monkeys with typewriters can write a book if you wait long enough. So let’s up the ante and say that the blob on Mars writes lots of different books. And let’s say it composes some music, designs some evening gowns, and paints some lovely pictures too. Now do you conclude that the blob is intelligent?

It’s a trick question because atheists believe that the Big Bang did all of those things and more. The Big Bang caused the sequence of events that culminated in the Bible, the Koran, and most important – Dilbert comics. If the blob on Mars created literature, we would surely consider it intelligent.

I suppose some of you will argue that the Big Bang started a natural series of events that led to a chance development of intelligent life. And then the life did all of the intelligent stuff. But what is the logic behind arbitrarily picking a tiny slice of time and acting as if it’s the only important part of a process that requires many steps?

Consider the simple act of picking up a pencil. It requires your brain and your muscles, but it also requires you to exist in the first place. And that means that your mother and father are part of the process, as well as their parents, etc. Once you existed, and within your body, there was a vast sequence of cause and effect between your brain and your muscles to make it all happen. You might say that “you” picked up the pencil, but I look at the big picture and say the Big Bang picked up that pencil – with or without the existence of free will – because without the Big Bang, none of it would happen.

If you reject the Big Bang as being intelligent – after acknowledging that it created so many books and other works of art, it leaves you with no test for intelligence.

I take the practical approach – that something is intelligent if it unambiguously performs tasks that require intelligence. Writing Moby Dick required intelligence. The Big Bang wrote Moby Dick. Therefore, the Big Bang is intelligent, and you and I are created by that same intelligence. Therefore, we are created by an intelligent entity.

I don’t see how an atheist can think otherwise.

 

[acronym]

Quote from Teleologist:

Intelligence
By Scott Adams

I wonder how you can tell if an alien is “intelligent life.” Is there a test that fits all situations? For example, suppose we found a blob on Mars that moved under its own power and wasn’t a carbon-based life form. How could we tell if it was intelligent ?

I don’t see how an atheist can think otherwise.

What a load of crap, teleoligist.

Absolute shit.

If it were intelligent, it wouldnt set foot in this cess-pit solarsystem, lest it be bombarded with shit, from crap propaganda such as you posted.

Secondly, their is no measure by which something may be deemed intelligent, because some military force, somewhere, would blow the sucker to kingdom come, before it had an opportunity to establish diplomatic relations, of any sort.



You dont actually have an argument, you have a big steaming pile of crap, masquerading as something potentially worthwhile, such as actual insight to the evolutionary process, or actual knowledge of quantum mechanics.




Piffle.

 

[Turok]

SA:
>If you reject the Big Bang as being intelligent – after
>acknowledging that it created so many books and other
>works of art, it leaves you with no test for intelligence.

I believe Scott to be a very bright guy, but that logic is so flawed it surprises me he wrote it.

JB

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

Intelligence
By Scott Adams
...
Consider the simple act of picking up a pencil. It requires your brain and your muscles, but it also requires you to exist in the first place. And that means that your mother and father are part of the process, as well as their parents, etc. Once you existed, and within your body, there was a vast sequence of cause and effect between your brain and your muscles to make it all happen. You might say that “you” picked up the pencil, but I look at the big picture and say the Big Bang picked up that pencil – with or without the existence of free will – because without the Big Bang, none of it would happen.

If you reject the Big Bang as being intelligent – after acknowledging that it created so many books and other works of art, it leaves you with no test for intelligence.

I take the practical approach – that something is intelligent if it unambiguously performs tasks that require intelligence. Writing Moby Dick required intelligence. The Big Bang wrote Moby Dick. Therefore, the Big Bang is intelligent, and you and I are created by that same intelligence. Therefore, we are created by an intelligent entity.

I don’t see how an atheist can think otherwise.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Edit: In case some idiots still don't understand. Look at this example. Was Jeffrey Dahmer's mother responsible for his murders? How about his grandmothers? How about his great grandmothers? Surely if his great grandmothers didn't give birth to any children, none of Dahmer's murders would have happened. Therefore his great grandmothers were criminals.