Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

The ID/C proponents in this thread have gradually sought to distance themselves from religion..

There was nothing gradual about it. It was sudden. Right at the beginning of the opening post in this thread I cited this statement by William Dembski:

ID is not an interventionist theory. It's only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation.

TraderNik:

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.

Wrong. It is the ID critics that have brought proving a negative into this debate. When I asked them what would cause them to suspect that something in nature was intelligently designed they said: "Show me something that couldn't have evolved".

TraderNik:

"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.

No one here has submitted that argument as proof of ID. It has only been presented to ID critics that were asking IDers to prove evolution impossible.

TraderNik:

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?

You got it backwards. It's the ID critics that employ circular logic, appeal to authority and request proof that God exists and that prompts sarcasm from the ID side.

TraderNik:

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.

No one disputes that design entails a designer but that designer doesn't have to be a supernatural entity. Once again read Dembski's statement:

ID is not an interventionist theory. It's only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation.

TraderNik:

Recently some ID/C proponents have started to back off their original claims and suggest that ID means 'bioengineering'.

What ID proponents? What original claims are being backed off? Every ID theorist I know infers bioengineering at the origin of life.

TraderNik:

This new catchword is necessary because there is no proof for any other form of ID/C.

It's necessary because life looks like it was bioengineered.

TraderNik:

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...Religious belief should be kept within the privacy of one's home or place of worship.

Only one of these propositions is religious.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

1. You got it backwards, it's the....

2. Once again read Dembski's statement:

3. It's necessary because life looks like it was bioengineered.

I'm not sure if this occurred to you but you just proved all three of my points in one post. I said that the arguments for ID were based on

1. Taking legitimate questions, flipping them around semantically, and throwing them back in the face of the questioner. (See #1 above).

2. Appeal to authority (See #2 above) and

3. Pure assertion (see #3 above)

This post provides a nicely encapsulated description of the ID/Creationist technique.

We should essentially see the sudden and unexpected insertion of the term 'bioengineering' into the debate as essentially a capitulation. It is much the same as when ZTroll starts posting images of pink bunnyrabbits sniffing their fingers and saying 'You stink'. It means "I am feeling uncomfortable with the way this is going and I want to stop now".

________________________________________

Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

iustus ignarus troll

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

The only one bringing God into this debate is you and other ID critics.

I notice you were unable to state openly that you do not believe in God. That is all right. As an ID/Creationist, your belief in a Creator God is a given.

Please understand I have nothing against people who believe that we were created by 'God'. I simply don't want Creation, rebranded as ID, shoved down my throat or the throats of my kids. If you believe that God created life on earth, please either keep it to yourself or dicsuss it and revel in it with your co-religionists. Do not attempt to suggest that it is a scientifically provable theory or that it belongs in the public classroom alongside evolution, posing as 'ID'.

There are plenty of really smart people who believe in God. More power to them. I welcome the debate with them about the existence of God. My position is that it is a faith-based belief system and that there is not now, nor can there ever be any proof of His existence. I do not believe that life on earth was 'designed' by anything metaphysical. The idea that ID is plausible because things on earth 'look' designed is the most inane things have ever heard.

 

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

We should essentially see the sudden and unexpected insertion of the term 'bioengineering' into the debate as essentially a capitulation.

As usual you don't know what you are talking about. I wrote the following back on 11-22-2006:

Modern design hypotheses posit that life is the product of advanced bioengineering and that evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:
Modern design hypotheses posit that life is the product of advanced bioengineering and that evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled.

Do they indeed? Sounds like something only an intelligent entity could accomplish.

Yes, channeling fits in with this discussion nicely.

I may have read you wrong. Perhaps you're simply a believer in the idea that extraterrestrials seeded the earth with life and are observing us in some type of grand experiment. As we have established, ID/C and it's claims of design lead inexorably to either a Creator God or an extraterrestrial seeding of the young planet earth with life.

You said above that only the God theory is religious. I guess that's a separate argument.

 

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

I notice you were unable to state openly that you do not believe in God. That is all right. As an ID/Creationist, your belief in a Creator God is a given.

Yes, William Dembski and I both believe in God. So what? What we believe is irrelevant to ID. What is relevant to ID is what is hypothesized within the ID paradigm.

Once again:

ID is not an interventionist theory. It's only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation.

 

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

As we have established, ID/C and it's claims of design lead inexorably to either a Creator God or an extraterrestrial seeding of the young planet earth with life.

ID theorists have proposed the following hypothesis:

The first life forms on this planet were a heterogeneous consortium of unicellular organisms that were products of advanced bioengineering and were used to seed the planet (Exogenous Seeding). Such seeding also front-loaded evolution, meaning that certain evolutionary trajectories were rigged.

This ID hypothesis posits that the first life forms on this planet were exogenous and rather sophisticated entities in contrast to the non-teleological hypothesis that posits simple, sloppy, quasi-life forms that were spawned from geochemistry.

See anything religious there? Any mention of God? Any appeal to the supernatural? Anything anti-evolution? Anything that is anymore beyond the reach of empirical investigation than are the speculations involving a non-teleological origin of life?

 

[neophyte321]

For the record ...... I was merely suggesting that it is possible for people to idolize anything; a method say ... a scientific method even.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Checking every belief at the door leads someone to conclude that they don't know if life is by design or by non design...

All that science is supposed to know is through empiricism. The guesswork of evolutionary theory is just that....speculative guesswork, not empiricism.

Why not leave it at the door too?

Teach process that we know, can observe, and can measure, not prognostications based on arguments from ignorance.

Why is it so difficult for scientists to simply say:

"We don't know. It could be design, we can't rule it out. It could be chance, the fact is that we don't know, and we don't need to know to continue our scientific exploration. We really have no way to calculate the odds of design versus non design. So unless we are promoting a theory to make us feel better about the unknown, and unknowable, maybe we should just focus on what we can actually know, which is the observation of biological processes."

All scientific discoveries ultimately begin with "I don't know."

When science can actually raise the level of morality, consciousness, generate inner happiness and satisfaction, then perhaps I will your your bandwagon.

Until that time, man is essentially unchanged in thousands of years when it comes to emotional development, and the emotional world of human beings is where most people actually live, despite their attempts to be completely "rational."

Common sense is entirely lacking from this discussion, and common sense suggests life if by design.

If anyone takes a look at other species, even the most "evolved species" we do not see the range of differences in those species in behavior that we see in humans.

I mean, seriously think about the entire human race, the range from Shakespeare to a serial killer, from Gandhi to a dictator.

Think of how advanced and intelligent the founding fathers were, then look at today's politicians.

The theory of evolution just doesn't wash when common sense is applied to the analysis of human beings and their varied behavior, intelligence, emotional makeup, etc.

The clones here think I am against science, which is completely false. I wish science to return to its rightful agnostic position, not atheistic nor theistic in its motives.

The resistance seen here by the so called "scientific community" wishing to prevent children from broadening their thinking and awareness by being exposed to different points of view and then allowing them to decide for themselves is so downright fundamentalist, dogmatic and extremist in nature as to be utterly shocking.

It reminds me of any group that is losing their grip over the masses, and is fighting tooth and nail to retain the type of control they once had.

The problem with ID is its history as being presented by Christians who were fundamentalists.

It is easy to dismiss them, as it is easy to dismiss any fundamentalists who are denominational in nature.

However, times are changing. People are presenting ideas of design who are not Christian, and not fundamentalists.

When arguments begin to be presented that are of a broader nature and appeal to common sense, when people begin to understand the nature of control that is being applied, when science loses its stature as the new "God" we will once again turn back, hopefully to a more enlightened point of view that is more all inclusive and seeking commonality, not division.

To even suggest that the anti ID crowd is not driven by their atheistic agenda, that they are frightened by the thought of religion having any impact on science is bloody obvious.

I don't know about you, but I really believe closed minded dogmatic scientists are a walking talking oxymoron.

Quote from drtomaso:

I never said you couldnt be both. Most scientists in history have believed very strongly in God. But they checked that belief at the door when it was time to go about the business of science- which when you get down to it is the business of proving things empirically to other people.

Our economy, health, well being, almost everything we enjoy in the modern world arises from this ability to 'multitask' and the realization that non-materialistic explanations have no explanatory power in science.

Believe what you want. I wont fault you for it. Hell, I'd even pick up a rifle and fight to defend your right to do so. But understand that science is our way forward, and these non-naturalistic explanations have been around for hundreds of years. They have been discarded by scientists when they act as scientists, because, while you may enjoy them, they have no explanatory power.

 

[stu]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Can you point to any of your sweeping statements below that are factual, and not just your opinion?

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Checking every belief at the door leads someone to conclude that they don't know if life is by design or by non design...

All that science is supposed to know is through empiricism. The guesswork of evolutionary theory is just that....speculative guesswork, not empiricism.

Why not leave it at the door too?

Teach process that we know, can observe, and can measure, not prognostications based on arguments from ignorance.

Why is it so difficult for scientists to simply say:

"We don't know. It could be design, we can't rule it out. It could be chance, the fact is that we don't know, and we don't need to know to continue our scientific exploration. We really have no way to calculate the odds of design versus non design. So unless we are promoting a theory to make us feel better about the unknown, and unknowable, maybe we should just focus on what we can actually know, which is the observation of biological processes."

All scientific discoveries ultimately begin with "I don't know."

When science can actually raise the level of morality, consciousness, generate inner happiness and satisfaction, then perhaps I will your your bandwagon.

Until that time, man is essentially unchanged in thousands of years when it comes to emotional development, and the emotional world of human beings is where most people actually live, despite their attempts to be completely "rational."

Common sense is entirely lacking from this discussion, and common sense suggests life if by design.

If anyone takes a look at other species, even the most "evolved species" we do not see the range of differences in those species in behavior that we see in humans.

I mean, seriously think about the entire human race, the range from Shakespeare to a serial killer, from Gandhi to a dictator.

Think of how advanced and intelligent the founding fathers were, then look at today's politicians.

The theory of evolution just doesn't wash when common sense is applied to the analysis of human beings and their varied behavior, intelligence, emotional makeup, etc.

The clones here think I am against science, which is completely false. I wish science to return to its rightful agnostic position, not atheistic nor theistic in its motives.

The resistance seen here by the so called "scientific community" wishing to prevent children from broadening their thinking and awareness by being exposed to different points of view and then allowing them to decide for themselves is so downright fundamentalist, dogmatic and extremist in nature as to be utterly shocking.

It reminds me of any group that is losing their grip over the masses, and is fighting tooth and nail to retain the type of control they once had.

The problem with ID is its history as being presented by Christians who were fundamentalists.

It is easy to dismiss them, as it is easy to dismiss any fundamentalists who are denominational in nature.

However, times are changing. People are presenting ideas of design who are not Christian, and not fundamentalists.

When arguments begin to be presented that are of a broader nature and appeal to common sense, when people begin to understand the nature of control that is being applied, when science loses its stature as the new "God" we will once again turn back, hopefully to a more enlightened point of view that is more all inclusive and seeking commonality, not division.

To even suggest that the anti ID crowd is not driven by their atheistic agenda, that they are frightened by the thought of religion having any impact on science is bloody obvious.

I don't know about you, but I really believe closed minded dogmatic scientists are a walking talking oxymoron.