Can you point to any of your sweeping statements below that are factual, and not just your opinion?
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
Stu:
Don't have to. MN is taught in science classes all the time and school boards have no problem with it. There are no ACLU lawsuits being filed. This is a double standard pure and simple.
You want to discuss the philosophy behind it through methodological naturalism, or presuppositions which might be raised by such discussions..?.... then go to philosophy class.
Don't have to. MN is taught in science classes all the time and school boards have no problem with it. There are no ACLU lawsuits being filed. This is a double standard pure and simple.
ID is compatible with naturalism. ID infers intelligent causes not supernatural causes. As Geoscientist Marcus R. Ross correctly explained in a presentation before the Geological Society of America:
Therefore, unless naturalists are prepared to admit that intelligent causes are necessarily supernatural (wave goodbye to naturalism), naturalists cannot accuse ID of requiring supernatural explanations without contradicting themselves. After all, one would need to appeal to intelligence to explain their critique. In this sense, ID is methodologically naturalistic.
On the other hand, if you decide to define âscienceâ so that it excludes explaining anything with reference to intelligence, then of course ID isnât âscienceâ in that sense of the term. But then, neither is forensic science, archaeology, psychology, cryptography, or fraud detection. The definitional critics of ID fail to define âscienceâ in such a way as to exclude ID while including claims that even they admit are scientific. Either both are in, or numerous things that even IDâs critics accept are scientific are out. As ID critic and philosopher of science Bradley Monton argues:
ID is classified as a philosophically minimalistic position, asserting that real design exists in nature and is empirically detectable by the methods of science.
Therefore, unless naturalists are prepared to admit that intelligent causes are necessarily supernatural (wave goodbye to naturalism), naturalists cannot accuse ID of requiring supernatural explanations without contradicting themselves. After all, one would need to appeal to intelligence to explain their critique. In this sense, ID is methodologically naturalistic.
On the other hand, if you decide to define âscienceâ so that it excludes explaining anything with reference to intelligence, then of course ID isnât âscienceâ in that sense of the term. But then, neither is forensic science, archaeology, psychology, cryptography, or fraud detection. The definitional critics of ID fail to define âscienceâ in such a way as to exclude ID while including claims that even they admit are scientific. Either both are in, or numerous things that even IDâs critics accept are scientific are out. As ID critic and philosopher of science Bradley Monton argues:
ID should not be dismissed on the grounds that it is unscientific.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Can you point to any of your sweeping statements below that are factual, and not just your opinion?
Why should he? Opinion is all that has been offered by the defenders of ID/Creation in this thread. There hasn't been one shred of proof. The only proof for ID that has been offered here is
"Can you prove that Evolution does not have a teleological underpinning? No? You can't? Oh, okay. That means life on earth was created by a Creator God".
Quote from Teleologist:
ID infers intelligent causes not supernatural causes.
ID by definition infers supernatural causes, or extraterrestrial causes. Creation implies a Creator, and the only actor that could have 'created' life on earth is either God or an alien species which seeded the earth with life.
neophyte321
Guest
As I mentioned before,
One of the major, and perhaps the most signficant, contributor to the scientific method and scientifc tradition proposed his own version of "Intelligent Design"
........ In fact, it's quite possible that the very scientific method you use to masturbate optimally was a direct result of Aristotle first noticing that everything appeared to function as if it were designed, giving him a basis by which to conclude that results must be reproducible to be significant.
The VERY THING you most rely on in your feeble and iditioic arguments, is in fact, one the strongest arguments aginst your feeble and non-existenct beliefs.
Aristotelian science and empiricism
Aristotle provided yet another of the ingredients of scientific tradition: empiricism. For Aristotle, universal truths can be known from particular things via induction. To some extent then, Aristotle reconciles abstract thought with observation, although it would be misleading to imply that Aristotelian science is empirical in form. Indeed, Aristotle did not accept that knowledge acquired by induction could rightly be counted as scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, induction was a necessary preliminary to the main business of scientific enquiry, providing the primary premises required for scientific demonstrations.
Aristotle largely ignored inductive reasoning in his treatment of scientific enquiry. To make it clear why this is so, consider his statement in Posterior Analytics,
"We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and, further, that the fact could not be other than it is."
Empiricism
In philosophy generally, empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas.
In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.
The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word åìðåéñéóìüò, the Latin translation of which is experientia, from which we derive the word experience. It also derives from a more specific classical Greek and Roman usage of empiric, referring to a physician whose skill derives from practical experience as opposed to instruction in theory.
Aristotle (c. 384â322 BCE) also put forth the idea of a first cause, often referred to as the "Prime Mover" or "Unmoved Mover" (the ðñῶôïà êéÃïῦà ἀêÃÃçôïà or primus motor) in his work Metaphysics. For Aristotle too, as for Plato, the underlying "stuff" of the universe always was in existence and always would be (which in turn follows Parmenides' famous statement that "nothing can come from nothing"). Aristotle posited an underlying ousia (an essence or substance) of which the universe is composed, and it is the ousia which the Prime Mover organized and set into motion. The Prime Mover did not organize matter physically, but is instead a Being who constantly thinks about thinking itself, and who organized the cosmos by making matter the object of "aspiration or desire".[2] The Prime Mover was, to Aristotle, a "thinking on thinking," an eternal process of pure thought.
Ibn Sina also created a variation of this argument.
One of the major, and perhaps the most signficant, contributor to the scientific method and scientifc tradition proposed his own version of "Intelligent Design"
........ In fact, it's quite possible that the very scientific method you use to masturbate optimally was a direct result of Aristotle first noticing that everything appeared to function as if it were designed, giving him a basis by which to conclude that results must be reproducible to be significant.
The VERY THING you most rely on in your feeble and iditioic arguments, is in fact, one the strongest arguments aginst your feeble and non-existenct beliefs.
Aristotelian science and empiricism
Aristotle provided yet another of the ingredients of scientific tradition: empiricism. For Aristotle, universal truths can be known from particular things via induction. To some extent then, Aristotle reconciles abstract thought with observation, although it would be misleading to imply that Aristotelian science is empirical in form. Indeed, Aristotle did not accept that knowledge acquired by induction could rightly be counted as scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, induction was a necessary preliminary to the main business of scientific enquiry, providing the primary premises required for scientific demonstrations.
Aristotle largely ignored inductive reasoning in his treatment of scientific enquiry. To make it clear why this is so, consider his statement in Posterior Analytics,
"We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and, further, that the fact could not be other than it is."
Empiricism
In philosophy generally, empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas.
In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.
The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word åìðåéñéóìüò, the Latin translation of which is experientia, from which we derive the word experience. It also derives from a more specific classical Greek and Roman usage of empiric, referring to a physician whose skill derives from practical experience as opposed to instruction in theory.
Aristotle (c. 384â322 BCE) also put forth the idea of a first cause, often referred to as the "Prime Mover" or "Unmoved Mover" (the ðñῶôïà êéÃïῦà ἀêÃÃçôïà or primus motor) in his work Metaphysics. For Aristotle too, as for Plato, the underlying "stuff" of the universe always was in existence and always would be (which in turn follows Parmenides' famous statement that "nothing can come from nothing"). Aristotle posited an underlying ousia (an essence or substance) of which the universe is composed, and it is the ousia which the Prime Mover organized and set into motion. The Prime Mover did not organize matter physically, but is instead a Being who constantly thinks about thinking itself, and who organized the cosmos by making matter the object of "aspiration or desire".[2] The Prime Mover was, to Aristotle, a "thinking on thinking," an eternal process of pure thought.
Ibn Sina also created a variation of this argument.
TraderNik:
ID infers that bioengineering was behind the origin of life on earth. It has no methodology for distinguishing natural bioengineering from supernatural bioengineering.
ID by definition infers supernatural causes, or extraterrestrial causes. Creation implies a Creator, and the only actor that could have 'created' life on earth is either God or an alien species which seeded the earth with life.
ID infers that bioengineering was behind the origin of life on earth. It has no methodology for distinguishing natural bioengineering from supernatural bioengineering.
TraderNik:
The only one bringing God into this debate is you and other ID critics.
The challenge put to ID critics to prove that "evolution does not have a teleological underpinning" is directed at those ID critics that demand ID proponents prove that non-teleological evolution is impossible.
The only proof for ID that has been offered here is:
"Can you prove that Evolution does not have a teleological underpinning? No? You can't? Oh, okay. That means life on earth was created by a Creator God".
The only one bringing God into this debate is you and other ID critics.
The challenge put to ID critics to prove that "evolution does not have a teleological underpinning" is directed at those ID critics that demand ID proponents prove that non-teleological evolution is impossible.
Quote from Teleologist:
TraderNik:
The only one bringing God into this debate is you and other ID critics.
The challenge put to ID critics to prove that "evolution does not have a teleological underpinning" is directed at those ID critics that demand ID proponents prove that non-teleological evolution is impossible.
Any ID/C critics' sarcastic request to ID/C proponents to prove that non-teleological evolution is impossible comes solely as a response to the request by ID/C proponents of ID/C critics to prove that "evolution does not have a teleological underpinning". The request to prove a negative is solely the domain of the faithful.
"Prove that it's impossible that God created life on earth. What? You can't prove it? Well, there you go! The fact that you can't prove it's not true makes it true!"
So goes the argument of the believers. Is it any wonder that non-believers occasionally employ sarcasm against the opposite side in this debate, when all that we get is circular logic, appeal to authority and requests to prove that God does not exist?
We don't prove something to be true by proving that its opposite is impossible. This is not proof.
With regard to 'bringing God into this', I am not bringing God into this. I am bringing the logical necessity of a designer into the theory of Intelligent Design. If something is designed, it must have had a designer. Something cannot be designed without a designer. If you claim that something is designed but there is no designer, the thing is not designed. Design in this context is a verb, which implies action; to imply action is to imply an actor (Z's ridiculous contortions notwithstanding). It's either that or admit you're saying there is action but nothing is acting. If the Designer in Intelligent Design is supposed to be nature, then we have evolution. Recently some ID/C proponents have started to back off their original claims and suggest that ID means 'bioengineering'. This new catchword is necessary because there is no proof for any other form of ID/C. The argument has been diluted down to the point where 'bioengineering' is a euphemism for non-teleological evolution. Of course life on earth is 'bioengineered', in the same way that an anthill or a bird's nest is.
ID/C posits a designer of life on earth. There can only be two possible designers. Either there is a Creator God or life on earth was 'designed' by aliens from outer space. ID/C is creation rebranded. ID/C proponents are religious mystics who seek to reshape Western society "in a manner more consistent with theistic ideals". This intrusion is unwanted and unwarranted. Western society is secular in its public face. Religious belief should be kept within the privacy of one's home or place of worship.
The ID/C proponents in this thread have gradually sought to distance themselves from religion, as it becomes clear that theirs is a religious belief. It is a religious belief because it is held without need or want of proof. It is based in faith.