Intelligent Design is not creationism

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

See anything religious there? Any mention of God?

No. What I saw in what you quoted was an overt reference to Space Aliens from Outer Space.

As I have stated maybe 50 times here, ID necessarily involves a Creator God or Space Aliens from Outer Space.

You seem to now be coming right out and saying that you believe the earth was 'seeded' (to quote the text you cited) and that the first beings on this planet were 'sophisticated entities'.

If these are your beliefs, why not just come out and say

"I think the origin of life on earth is that Space Aliens from Outer Space landed on earth and introduced life".

Have I missed the post where you say this?

All this pussy-footing around for 1598 posts seems to have been for nothing. You could have stated in the first post that you believed earth was seeded by Space Aliens from Outer Space, and we could have saved ourselves a lot of time.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

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.

Thank you, I just wanted it in the record. Belief in God is a faith-based belief. There is no proof for the existence of God, nor will there ever be. The only reason to believe in God is that you have faith that He exists.

ID/C is a similiarly faith-based belief system. That is the reason I wanted you to tell us whether you believed in God; I think it's circumstantial evidence that I can use to make my case.

As I said, I already knew you believed in God, I just wanted it in the record.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Stu:

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.

The philosophy behind it ... is not taught in science class. No double standard.

I am sure you are aware that naturalism, as philosophy, is the understanding that the world can be known about in scientific terms.
As philosophy, methodological naturalism must be so - in terms that can be verified with observable, falsifiable, repeatable science, ie: subject to the scientific method, for it to be taught in science class. Methodological naturalism fits those terms.

The philosophy of methodological naturalism as it corresponds directly to science and the scientific method is what is taught in science class. Anything else, whether it pertains to methodological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism as it might apply to science or not, you will (and should), have to go to philosophy class.

The latter of those two may appear the more attractive as the lessons are very short.

 

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

ID/C is a similiarly faith-based belief system. That is the reason I wanted you to tell us whether you believed in God; I think it's circumstantial evidence that I can use to make my case.

As I said, I already knew you believed in God, I just wanted it in the record.

Are you unaware that the majority of evolutionists believe in God? Ever hear of theistic evolutionists? That's what Darwin was. It will be interesting to see you build a case against ID that doesn't include theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller.

Why is it important for you to know what I BELIEVE? What's important in a scientific discussion is what one hypothesizes based on empirical data. I think the empirical data points to the first cells on this planet being products of advanced bioengineering. The scientific method can be used to investigate bioengineering. The scientific method can't help us determine whether the bioengineers were natural or supernatural.

I presented you with a testable ID hypothesis. Something you claimed couldn't be done. That I believe in God and that you don't believe in God is irrelevant as God isn't part of the hypothesis. The issue before us now is what evidence supports the hypothesis and what evidence counts against it.

The teleological hypothesis is that the first cells on this planet were exogenous, sophisticated entities that were products of advanced bioengieering. The non-teleological hypothesis is that the first cells were simple, sloppy entities that were spawned from geochemistry. Both these hypotheses have the potential to be strengthened or weakened by empirical data. I'm the one here trying to keep this debate in the realm of science while you keep trying to veer off into the metaphysical.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu:

The philosophy of methodological naturalism as it corresponds directly to science and the scientific method is what is taught in science class.

MN is philosophy not science. If you are going to have a flat rule that philosophy can't be taught in science class then that has to include MN. If you want to make an exception that philosophy can be taught in science class if it corresponds directly to science then that includes ID because ID is methodologically naturalistic.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

I presented you with a testable ID hypothesis.

You have done no such thing. That's why we're still here.

And we will be here for a long time because there is no possible 'test' for ID. ID is a faith-based belief which is neither provable or disprovable.

As I said, I think that at this point you should just come out and say what you are now hinting at.

 

[Teleologist]

You are evidently incapable of recognizing a testable hypothesis when one is right in front of your face.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

I presented you with a testable ID hypothesis.
...
The teleological hypothesis is that the first cells on this planet were exogenous, sophisticated entities that were products of advanced bioengieering.

1. How is this testable?
2. You're intentionally vague. Your hypothesis makes no logical sense once one tries to pin down exactly what is asserted (to see whether it can be tested). What are "sophisticated entities?" Single cell organisms? Algae or fungi? Why didn't "they" start from multicell organism (like, creatures with eyes and nerve cells)?

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

You are evidently incapable of recognizing a testable hypothesis when one is right in front of your face.

I notice that you are reluctant to state this supposedly testable hypothesis.

I am guessing that the hypothesis runs something life this

"Life on earth seems like it was designed to me. To prove it, buy a bunch of chemicals and throw them in a vat. See if life evolves spontaneously. If it does not, it is proof that life on earth was designed"

or something similar

As I said, you have recently admitted that you believe life on earth was seeded by intelligent, exogenous entities. There is no shame in admitting that you believe Space Aliens from Outer Space are the Creators of life on earth. I do not see why you have such trouble just saying it. You could then end your participation here and use the time for other things.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

You are evidently incapable of recognizing a testable hypothesis when one is right in front of your face.

Quote from Teleologist:

The teleological hypothesis is that the first cells on this planet were exogenous, sophisticated entities that were products of advanced bioengieering.

Hold on a minute, I just read jb's post. On my life, I cannot believe that you are referring to this statement when you make reference to a 'testable hypothesis' of ID. Please, tell me this isn't true. Are you seriously suggesting that this 'hypothesis' is testable? How in the hell would you test this??

No, I refuse to believe it. No one, not even you, could be this confused.