Intelligent Design is not creationism

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:
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.

Methodological naturalism is science, is philosophy. Its philosophical propositions can be observed/ tested/ falsified in science and are found to equate, and therefore represent the scientific method. So both from a philosophical and a scientific point of view, methodological naturalism stands up in both scrutinies, and the science of it is legitimately taught in science class.

ID/Creationism is nothing like anything which is methodologically naturalistic and furthermore, ID/Creationism has nothing to offer science that would not anyway be properly discerned through the scientific method of methodological naturalism. ID/Creationism brings nothing to either science or philosophy further than its unsupported inferences and unsubstantiated claims that it is something scientific.

In reality Star Wars has more testable science and inference than ID/Creationism. ID falls down in any philosophical rational investigation about knowledge or existence. As much as you try, you cannot make a silk purse out of a whore's pubes.

 

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

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.

Once again, what I believe is irrelevant. I presented a hypothesis. Deal with it. If you think it is untestable then explain why it's untestable. And don't invoke a standarrd of testability that you are not willing to hold abiogenesis research to.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The debate from the scientists is fully devoid of common sense and basic logic.

There is no test for design so they say. So if there is no test for design, why then must non design be accepted as a factual basis for subsequent theories? The only way to verify non design would be a proof of non design...and I have never seen such a proof. When you pin down the atheists on this issue, generally they go into "If God exists, he didn't do a very good job, yada, yada, yada."


If there is no way to confirm or deny design, then it logically follows that there is equally no way to confirm or deny non design. There isn't even no way to calculate the odds or probability of design versus non design. We are lead to believe that human life is simply an accidental random existence, with no method to falsify that claim, no way to evaluate the probability of that claim being true or false, nothing but a fallacious argument from ignorance and intentional avoidance of other important factors.

Oh, it looks design, but it isn't? Not a shred of proof that it isn't, only the mantra of "we can't test design without knowledge of a designer."

So why again is it that we are teaching non design to students in school?

Why is the argument from ignorance the "leading theory" on the foundations of life?

All biological organisms are fully dependent on their environment to live. The environment, and all of the laws of nature that are underlying the environment preceded life. Oh, and where did these laws of nature come from?

Here we see reliance on another argument from ignorance leading the thought process. All came from nothing, from non design of some supposed big bang which was just a random event, in which the entire universe and all the laws of nature emerged from nothing.

Oh, and if someone really stands back and thinks, I mean not swallow the party line of the scientists who are pushing non design, life itself follows patterns, which are not explained. Why does every living entity have a nature to survive? Why do all living beings require an external source of nourishment? Why do all living beings have a birth, life, then death? Are these essential natures of life by design or non design?

Why is this pattern of biological life eternal within the timespan of biological life? Have we ever seen a time when a living being was not born, did not live a temporary life (not permanent existence) and then does not die?

These important questions are glossed over and ignored...because science has no answer. So they take what they have, which is limited information and ignorance, and declare from limited observations, limited data, limited fossil records, limited instrumentation...that they have the correct theory of the development of life that should be taught as a science?

It is nonsense. It is nothing but a belief system, that has been dogmatically pushed so hard as to indoctrinate the masses into acceptance of a theory filled with flaws, gaping holes, and unexplained and untestable foundations.

Really, it is quite a trick of magic, an illusion, and speaks to the state of stupidity of the masses that they would have bought into such nonsense.

Throw out common sense, throw out logic, throw out reason, throw out direct observation, throw out all the factors...and then perhaps a person would entertain belief in non design as a truth.

Quote from Teleologist:

TraderNik:


Once again, what I believe is irrelevant. I presented a hypothesis. Deal with it. If you think it is untestable then explain why it's untestable. And don't invoke a standarrd of testability that you are not willing to hold abiogenesis research to.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

TraderNik:


Once again, what I believe is irrelevant. I presented a hypothesis. Deal with it. If you think it is untestable then explain why it's untestable. And don't invoke a standarrd of testability that you are not willing to hold abiogenesis research to.

I see you're having some trouble. I ask you again -

Is this the hypothesis to which you refer? Is this the hypothesis which you claim is testable?

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

(By the way... is 'sophisticated' a scientific term?)

If this is it, and you are asking me to tell you why it's untestable, I am at a loss. I cannot conceive of a mindset that would ever believe that this was testable in any way. This is as testable as saying 'Santa Claus is the Creator of life on earth'. If I said that that was a testable hypothesis, how would you go about explaining to me that it isn't? Would you say that Santa Claus doesn't exist? I would tell you you're wrong.

I will wait until you confirm that this is the 'testable' hypothesis you're citing.

I then defy anyone here to post and explain to me how this hypothesis is testable in any way.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Not a shred of proof that it isn't designed

Tired old sophism. The Troll's staying power is legendary. Of course, Z has nothing else to do but post here.

We have already been all the way through this. There is not a shred of proof that the world wasn't created by Flying Spaghetti monsters either.

We don't take the delusions of mental patients and give them the status of scientific theory because we can't disprove them.

The entire foundation of ID/Creation is based on 'prove a negative' and 'you can't disprove this' arguments. This is not science. Science works the other way around. In science, we don't say 'We can't prove that it isn't true, so it must be true'.

This post by Z exemplifies the faith-based nature of ID/C.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu:

Methodological naturalism is science, is philosophy.

Wrong. MN is pure philosophy. You argue that because it is relevant to science that it's okay to teach it in science class. Thanks for making my point. I was challenging your assertion that anything philosophical be relegated to a philosophy class. I agree that it should be permissible to discuss in science class any philosophical principle that relates to science. MN is not science but it is a philosophical principle that guides science, therefore, it is appropriate to discuss it in science class. Likewise, ID can guide science and there is no good reason why a teacher should be censored from pointing that out.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Wrong. MN is pure philosophy. You argue that because it is relevant to science that it's okay to teach it in science class. Thanks for making my point. I was challenging your assertion that anything philosophical be relegated to a philosophy class. I agree that it should be permissible to discuss in science class any philosophical principle that relates to science. MN is not science but it is a philosophical principle that guides science, therefore, it is appropriate to discuss it in science class. Likewise, ID can guide science and there is no good reason why a teacher should be censored from pointing that out.

You may want to consider either doing some homework revision or give up the slippy word play.

To all intents and purposes the philosophy which -is methodological naturalism -is the scientific method in action..
Every philisophical idea belief and assumption within methodological naturalism is observable testable and falsifiable through the scientific method.. It is a philosophy scientifically confirmable. It is science explained within philosophy.
Get over it . You cannot separate them semantically in an attempt to wedge ID/Creationism between the two..
.
" ID can guide science" !!... ..don't make me laugh. TV eps of Lost in Space would make a better guide. ID can't even guide itself out of the toilet it lives in..

You would fool with children's proper learning , impel science to no longer perform scientifically , in order only to insist stuff "looks like" Goddidit , or alternatively, "looks like" space aliens may have, or perhaps, "looks like" both. Disgraceful.

 

[2cents]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The debate from the scientists is fully devoid of common sense and basic logic.

There is no test for design so they say. So if there is no test for design, why then must non design be accepted as a factual basis for subsequent theories? The only way to verify non design would be a proof of non design...and I have never seen such a proof. When you pin down the atheists on this issue, generally they go into "If God exists, he didn't do a very good job, yada, yada, yada."


If there is no way to confirm or deny design, then it logically follows that there is equally no way to confirm or deny non design. There isn't even no way to calculate the odds or probability of design versus non design. We are lead to believe that human life is simply an accidental random existence, with no method to falsify that claim, no way to evaluate the probability of that claim being true or false, nothing but a fallacious argument from ignorance and intentional avoidance of other important factors.

Oh, it looks design, but it isn't? Not a shred of proof that it isn't, only the mantra of "we can't test design without knowledge of a designer."

So why again is it that we are teaching non design to students in school?

Why is the argument from ignorance the "leading theory" on the foundations of life?

All biological organisms are fully dependent on their environment to live. The environment, and all of the laws of nature that are underlying the environment preceded life. Oh, and where did these laws of nature come from?

Here we see reliance on another argument from ignorance leading the thought process. All came from nothing, from non design of some supposed big bang which was just a random event, in which the entire universe and all the laws of nature emerged from nothing.

Oh, and if someone really stands back and thinks, I mean not swallow the party line of the scientists who are pushing non design, life itself follows patterns, which are not explained. Why does every living entity have a nature to survive? Why do all living beings require an external source of nourishment? Why do all living beings have a birth, life, then death? Are these essential natures of life by design or non design?

Why is this pattern of biological life eternal within the timespan of biological life? Have we ever seen a time when a living being was not born, did not live a temporary life (not permanent existence) and then does not die?

These important questions are glossed over and ignored...because science has no answer. So they take what they have, which is limited information and ignorance, and declare from limited observations, limited data, limited fossil records, limited instrumentation...that they have the correct theory of the development of life that should be taught as a science?

It is nonsense. It is nothing but a belief system, that has been dogmatically pushed so hard as to indoctrinate the masses into acceptance of a theory filled with flaws, gaping holes, and unexplained and untestable foundations.

Really, it is quite a trick of magic, an illusion, and speaks to the state of stupidity of the masses that they would have bought into such nonsense.

Throw out common sense, throw out logic, throw out reason, throw out direct observation, throw out all the factors...and then perhaps a person would entertain belief in non design as a truth.

just start reading from page 1 for answers, and when you get back to THIS POINT, go back to page 1 again... hope this helps... not holding my breath ;-)

 

[I am...]

Good news!

This world is causeless, as is every dream that anyone has dreamed within the world. No plans are possible, and no design exists that could be found and understood.

Miracles establish that you dream a dream. You can bend just so many laws before all the "laws" become suspect.

Miracles do not awaken you, but merely show you who the dreamer is. They are the dream's alternative, the choice to be the dreamer, rather than deny the active role in making up the dream. This way, the mind is free to make another choice instead. This is the dream of separations final step, with which salvation, which proceeds to go the other way, begins.

Jesus

 

[Teleologist]

Stu:

You would fool with children's proper learning , impel science to no longer perform scientifically...

Let's clear away all the various misconceptions that often lie behind such claims.

First of all, I'm not advocating that teachers be forced to teach ID in the public schools. My position is:

ID is not a religious concept, therefore, there is no constitutional basis for not allowing a teacher to discuss ID in a science class.

Let's keep our perspective accurate and make sure no one is of the false opinion that all of biological research is being driven by Darwinan evolution. On the contrary, Darwinian evolution is relevant only to a small subset of biological research. That is, the vast majority of research that is going on would continue to proceed unchanged if we found out Darwinian evolution was not true. This perspective is important because we should not expect ID to completely change the scientific landscape.

Let's distinguish between the questions, "Can ID guide research?" vs. "Is ID needed to guide research?" The simple fact is that ID would guide much of the research that is being done today. For example, since ID theorists strongly suspect ID behind the origin of life, they are very much interested in every new microbial genome that gets sequenced. This is one area of research that ID would indeed embark on if it was not currently being done. Thus, this simple example shows ID can guide research even if it is not needed.

Let's keep our expectations realistic. ID has no obligation to come up with razzle-dazzle experimental programs. ID need only do what every other research program does, namely, guide research that often seems narrowly focused and even trivial. ID does not have to come up with an experiment to settle the issue once and for all. ID need only come up with lots of little experiments that result in enlightenment and steady, gradual progress.

Bottom line. No need to come up with something that will transform all of science into something new. No need to come up with a program that could only possibly exist from an ID perspective. No need to come up with any razzle-dazzle.

Darwinian evolution is not at the core of science's progress. There are essentially three types of questions asked and explored by biologists:

1. Structural - describing what something looks like, mapping it, categorizing it.

2. Functional - describing what something does and how it works

3. Origins - describing how something came to be

Science has done very well with #1 and #2, but the progress with #3 is not nearly as impressive in comparison. For example, we still have no evidence that life arose from non-life through purely non-teleological means and we still have no evidence that any major evolutionary feature came into existence by random variations with or without natural selection.