Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ddunbar]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"You say teach kids how to think and not what to think...

That could possibly undermine the very fabric of society."

Continue then with the propagation of your shabby fabric of society...

What a tremendous lack of vision you have displayed...

Too much...too much.

LOL. Make your case then. How do you propose we teach kids how to think without first laying down a foundation which necessitates first teaching them what to think. You know, like reading, writing, arithmetic.

Just like when programming neural nets, you must first start with an expert system - that is, telling the system what to think before you can program it how to think.

There has be be some standard of accepted knowledge. The process which lead to evolution theory must be taught along side the outcrop of that process. That is perhaps one of the best ways to expose kids how to learn and expand their mind. Not some radical notion that they should simply be taught to question. Abject questioning does not strengthen a society. Take liberal lawyers for instance who are constantly questioning both the letter and spirit of the law. Are you happy with those results? America has become one of the most if not the most litigious society on earth. Like the little old lady who burned herself from spilled coffee and sued under the grounds that the hot coffee was a few degrees too hot. Well, how's that for teaching people to question everything.

Besides children do not have the proper background nor foundation to question properly. Do you want your children questioning you about your decisions concerning their well being? Don't you think them unqualified to do so?

So what good is it to have children question evolution when they don't have the scientific background sufficient to do so? If they are brought up in a religious household, believe me, they have doubts about evolution and its implications for the origins of humanity. Must even the atheist's child be taught to question evolution even when the parents embrace it? For who's benefit?

Anyway, I just wanted to respond to test out my new linux (Ubuntu 6.06) setup. finally got the wifi to work - but only in WEP mode. Need WPA to work. Looks like hours of work ahead of me.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I have never stood in opposition to teaching math, language, hard sciences, basic biological processes which don't rely on fanciful theories to be understood, etc.

The lack for equal time for training children how to think, how to reason, how to make sound decisions, how to spot logical fallacies...essentially teaching them how to think to arrive at their own conclusions. We have a society full of folks who make political decisions at the voting booth on the basis of fallacious arguments, and that is a good thing?

Again, if you don't know the difference between what I have outlined above and indoctrination, I can't help you...

What I stand in opposition to is teaching and promoting theories as some type of fact to be accepted as a working truth, when a child is not advanced enough to understand how to critically challenge these theories.

People accept Darwinism and crap like the big bang simply because some scientists think that those theories may be true?

No, that is dumbing down of a society and indoctrination.

That simply is not advancement of a society.

Any scientist who relinquishes doubt when fact is not present is not a real scientist, IMO. Doubt for a good scientist is like the grain of sand in an oyster that creates the pearl.

Seriously, have you read the comments of the supporters of science and evolutionary there, and come to the conclusion that these people are genuinely open minded, full of wonder, humble at the stature of mankind and the weaknesses that humans are often forced to deal with?

Quote from ddunbar:

LOL. Make your case then. How do you propose we teach kids how to think without first laying down a foundation which necessitates first teaching them what to think. You know, like reading, writing, arithmetic.

Just like when programming neural nets, you must first start with an expert system - that is, telling the system what to think before you can program it how to think.

There has be be some standard of accepted knowledge. The process which lead to evolution theory must be taught along side the outcrop of that process. That is perhaps one of the best ways to expose kids how to learn and expand their mind. Not some radical notion that they should simply be taught to question. Abject questioning does not strengthen a society. Take liberal lawyers for instance who are constantly questioning both the letter and spirit of the law. Are you happy with those results? America has become one of the most if not the most litigious society on earth. Like the little old lady who burned herself from spilled coffee and sued under the grounds that the hot coffee was a few degrees too hot. Well, how's that for teaching people to question everything.

Besides children do not have the proper background nor foundation to question properly. Do you want your children questioning you about your decisions concerning their well being? Don't you think them unqualified to do so?

So what good is it to have children question evolution when they don't have the scientific background sufficient to do so? If they are brought up in a religious household, believe me, they have doubts about evolution and its implications for the origins of humanity. Must even the atheist's child be taught to question evolution even when the parents embrace it? For who's benefit?

Anyway, I just wanted to respond to test out my new linux (Ubuntu 6.06) setup. finally got the wifi to work - but only in WEP mode. Need WPA to work. Looks like hours of work ahead of me.

 

[Teleologist]

Teleologist asked, "why is it important to know what I believe?"

ddunbar replied:

Well, because you're making an extraordinary claim without any empirical evidence to back it up. So, we... I'd like to know what prompts this "hunch" that life on Earth is designed.

I already explained what prompts my "hunch". Life at its core looks like bioengineering to me.


ddunbar:

You try to mask this "hunch" as a scientific hypothesis. But you've gone further than a mere hypothesis. A mere scientific hypothesis would be, "life appears to be a function of design."

My hypothesis is that the first life forms on this planet appear to be products of advanced bioengineeing.


ddunbar:

You've gone way past that and state that life not only appears designed but was designed by an alien intelligence.

The ID critics claim that if life is designed it must be designed by an alien intelligence. I don't disagree.


ddunbar:

And that begs the question: Something appears to have designed the Alien Intelligence that is responsible for the design for life on Earth.

Which of course begs the question, "who is the ultimate designer?"

I don't need to know who the ultimate designer is in order to propose an hypothesis concerning how life on earth may have originated. There is explanatory value in attributing the Jupiter Symphony to the artistry [design] of mozart, and that explanation suffers nothing by not knowing who designed Mozart.


ddunbar:

Anyway, it's patently obvious that you have some cultish religious views which guide your so called "hypothesis."

It's irrelevant what inspires me to propose my hypothesis. The only thing that matters is what evidence supports it and what evidence counts against it. It's interesting that the ID critics keep trying to drag this debate into the realm of religion.

 

[ddunbar]

You might feel a little silly when you realize that I'm not an ID critic but actually a supporter. I'm simply a critic of improper word or phrase use. ID is not creationism? LOL. How stupid do you think people are? Of course it is. If you're trying to add to the definition of ID, do so in a respectable manner. A simple word added to ID would suffice to properly differentiate your view with the common and therefore proper view of ID. Alien Intelligent Design. And viola! Problem solved.

Anyway, it's too dificult to play in a shifting sand box.

Your evasions, specifically in this instance, your evasion to the question of your beliefs which in NO uncertain terms guides your views only serves to weaken your position. Your parallel to music and it composer makes litttle sense because we know for a fact that the music was designed and who or what designed it. There is no mystery there. There is no question as to whether or not the music was designed or "naturally occuring." Can you appreciate a song to which you do not know the composer? Sure. But that's not at all what we're talking about. Are you content not to know who composed it? No. not really. You will either assume a certain person or will dig to find out. Why? Because the fact that the score exists begs the question, who created it?

Anyway, you presented ZERO evidence that life is designed other than that it appears to be or challenges to prove it isn't.

I view life and the universe as that it appears to be designed also. But I'm not "dumb" enough to pretend there is empirical evidence that it is. I simply believe it and am content with that belief - at least for the time being.

And if anyone wonders why I view the universe and its contents as designed, I'll happily tell them where the view is derived from. My faith in the bible. I'm not ashamed even though some would like to ridicule that belief. That's what being an adult is all about.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Your need to know the personal beliefs of a presenter of an argument is essentially ad hominem, as the argument presented is under evaluation, not the personal belief system of the person presenting it.

The argument either stands on its own regardless of the person who presents it, or it doesn't. If an atheist who believes in ignorant chance presented the exact same argument, what would be the difference? Attorneys present arguments all day long that they may not believe in on a personal level.

Personal belief has nothing to do with the argument.

Save your fishing expedition for perhaps another trip...

Oh, and who defines the proper use of the term ID? Who owns it? What keeps it from being interpreted differently as to not reflect creationism?

Thinking people evaluate the arguments, not the use of the concept of Intelligent Design.

It would be better served to call Creationist thought Creationism, and to present the idea of Intelligent Design as devoid of any particular denomination or specific belief in the entity or phenomena that is the source of Intelligent Design.

A well designed computer program free of bugs is an example of an intelligent design....for goodness sake.

Quote from ddunbar:

You might feel a little silly when you realize that I'm not an ID critic but actually a supporter. I'm simply a critic of improper word or phrase use. ID is not creationism? LOL. How stupid do you think people are? Of course it is. If you're trying to add to the definition of ID, do so in a respectable manner. A simple word added to ID would suffice to properly differentiate your view with the common and therefore proper view of ID. Alien Intelligent Design. And viola! Problem solved.

Anyway, it's too dificult to play in a shifting sand box.

Your evasions, specifically in this instance, your evasion to the question of your beliefs which in NO uncertain terms guides your views only serves to weaken your position. Your parallel to music and it composer makes litttle sense because we know for a fact that the music was designed and who or what designed it. There is no mystery there. There is no question as to whether or not the music was designed or "naturally occuring." Can you appreciate a song to which you do not know the composer? Sure. But that's not at all what we're talking about. Are you content not to know who composed it? No. not really. You will either assume a certain person or will dig to find out. Why? Because the fact that the score exists begs the question, who created it?

Anyway, you presented ZERO evidence that life is designed other than that it appears to be or challenges to prove it isn't.

I view life and the universe as that it appears to be designed also. But I'm not "dumb" enough to pretend there is empirical evidence that it is. I simply believe it and am content with that belief - at least for the time being.

And if anyone wonders why I view the universe and its contents as designed, I'll happily tell them where the view is derived from. My faith in the bible. I'm not ashamed even though some would like to ridicule that belief. That's what being an adult is all about.

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

Teleologist theorizes that some intermediary entity is responsible for life on earth. It's an intermediary entity because Teleologist never suggests that the entity he gives responsibility to possesses any ultimate qualities.

It's you ID critics that want to focus on who the designer is.
Before we go looking for designers we need to infer if anything in nature might be designed . You guys want to skip the first step, then invoke infinite regress against any potential designer and use that to thwart an initial design inference. That whole strategy is backwards.

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

ID is not creationism? LOL. How stupid do you think people are? Of course it is. If you're trying to add to the definition of ID, do so in a respectable manner. A simple word added to ID would suffice to properly differentiate your view with the common and therefore proper view of ID. Alien Intelligent Design. And viola! Problem solved.

I'm not adding anything to the definition of ID. This so-called problem you refer to was solved in the opening post of this thread when I quoted William Dembski. Here it is 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.

Intelligent design does not require organisms to emerge suddenly or be specially created from scratch by the intervention of a designing intelligence. To be sure, intelligent design is compatible with the creationist idea of organisms being suddenly created from scratch. But it is also perfectly compatible with the evolutionist idea of new organisms arising from old by a process of generation. What separates intelligent design from naturalistic evolution is not whether organisms evolved or the extent to which they evolved but what was responsible for their evolution.

You call that creationism?

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I have never stood in opposition to teaching math, language, hard sciences, basic biological processes which don't rely on fanciful theories to be understood, etc.

All science is theory. Fanciful, of course, is a matter of perspective.

The lack for equal time for training children how to think, how to reason, how to make sound decisions, how to spot logical fallacies...essentially teaching them how to think to arrive at their own conclusions. We have a society full of folks who make political decisions at the voting booth on the basis of fallacious arguments, and that is a good thing?

And so you think you can change human nature? Not everyone desires to think for themselves. Most people don't. They want to be told what to do or follow along. I get your point ultimately, but its implementation is impossible. Point is, you don't agree with evolution, so YOU want it out. Well, I don't agree with Islam, but I couldn't care less who likes it. I don't agree with "mainstream" fundamentalist Christianity. And the list goes on with what I don't agree with and I can articulate why I don't agree with it. But evolution is the best theory men can come up with using the same methods they arrived at the so called "hard" sciences.

Again, if you don't know the difference between what I have outlined above and indoctrination, I can't help you...

It's not indoctrination is the derogatory sense you're using. But it is teaching based on the scientfic method regardless of the present flaws and unanswerables in the theory. To throw in ID would actually serve to undermine scientific and critical thought because while something may appear to be this or that, there's nothing other than unquantifiable means to determine and state it is this or that. (ie, designed.) Best suited for philosophy class.

What I stand in opposition to is teaching and promoting theories as some type of fact to be accepted as a working truth, when a child is not advanced enough to understand how to critically challenge these theories.

People accept Darwinism and crap like the big bang simply because some scientists think that those theories may be true?

Ummm.... yeah? Because they can't go out and readily challenge or test these things. Do you go to a doctor and challenge his assessment not being a doctor yourself? His assessment is a working truth about your condition that will/might change as your condition progresses.

No, that is dumbing down of a society and indoctrination.

That simply is not advancement of a society.

I can't fully disagree, but dumbing down really amounts to simplification and sound bites. Colleges though, are where students can explore things further. I can't expect a child to break down the theory of anything. They're not equipt yet. Though, just giving them sound bites like "we evolved from primates: while not giving the reason why that is assumed is a poor way to teach. If that is what you are refering to then we agree. But at the same time, there just isn't enough time in school to devote to this singualr subject in biology class. So I can't get upset or concerned about it. Parents, who know more about evolution or who reject it can spur the child to think along different lines or to investigate it further.

Any scientist who relinquishes doubt when fact is not present is not a real scientist, IMO. Doubt for a good scientist is like the grain of sand in an oyster that creates the pearl.

Agreed. But what should spur on this doubt? Religion?

Seriously, have you read the comments of the supporters of science and evolutionary there, and come to the conclusion that these people are genuinely open minded, full of wonder, humble at the stature of mankind and the weaknesses that humans are often forced to deal with?

No, they are not genuinely openminded. Not at all. But if they devote their lives to facts, that means everything must be based on empirical notions. There's nothing empirical about design other than it looks like it might be designed. They need to have access to the designer. That puts design in empirical perspective.

Imagine scientists say to themselves that the universe and all that is in it is designed. Ok. Without knowing the designer, that notion will be called into doubt. The only meanigful proof of design is proof of a designer. Not simply that it looks designed.

As an example, as a child, I dug up some rocks that appeared to be indian spearheads. They appeared designed to me. So my dad took me to see the curator at the natural history museum in NY. The curator, after summoning some of his colleagues, concluded that the stones were shaped by a process of nature and not by indians and they showed me how they came to that conclusion. But they had for comparision, similiar objects they knew were designed to compare it to. In other words, they had access to the designer or knowledge of the designer. Without that, they may have concluded wrongly - like I did.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Your need to know the personal beliefs of a presenter of an argument is essentially ad hominem, as the argument presented is under evaluation, not the personal belief system of the person presenting it.

The argument either stands on its own regardless of the person who presents it, or it doesn't. If an atheist who believes in ignorant chance presented the exact same argument, what would be the difference? Attorneys present arguments all day long that they may not believe in on a personal level.

Personal belief has nothing to do with the argument.

Save your fishing expedition for perhaps another trip...

Oh, and who defines the proper use of the term ID? Who owns it? What keeps it from being interpreted differently as to not reflect creationism?

Thinking people evaluate the arguments, not the use of the concept of Intelligent Design.

It would be better served to call Creationist thought Creationism, and to present the idea of Intelligent Design as devoid of any particular denomination or specific belief in the entity or phenomena that is the source of Intelligent Design.

A well designed computer program free of bugs is an example of an intelligent design....for goodness sake.

Oh so you now agree with Stu that babies are atheist then?

Just plain old atheists with no qualifing word before the term atheist.

Anyway, it's not ad hominen because I'm not looking to denigrate Teleologist for his belief. But when someone presents something to which they cannot prove the question is why someone would want to believe or advance it.

Like, in political discussions, someone's political viewpoint will eventually show through in the argument and helps to explain why this person sees things the way they do. Especially when they cannot quantify or qualify their opinion.

Well, ID is an opinion, currently. I'd like to know what guides T's opinion.

And it's not who owns the term ID. It's who the term is properly accredited to.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


I'm not adding anything to the definition of ID. This so-called problem you refer to was solved in the opening post of this thread when I quoted William Dembski. Here it is again:



You call that creationism?

LOL! YES! I mean really now. Dembski is a theist - just like creationists - just like me. A professor of philosophy at a southern baptist seminary. A fellow at the discovery institute (a creationist's joint as evidence by their wedge strategy). The fact that he includes what appears to be leeway for other than god is a smoke screen because even this erudite fellow knows that at some point ID MUST INVARIABLY point to God taken to its logical conclusion. Otherwise, the universe is simply a naturally occuring entity devoid of any intelligence at any stage. If you have intelligence at one stage, you must account for intelligence at an ultimate stage.

What are you trying so hard to hide? Are you ashamed to say that God did it? Why? Touting ID is no better.

What do you personally believe that makes ID a viable notion for you? What?

Do you believe in God?

Do you believe in Aliens?

What?

Agh, it doesn't matter anymore. You're entitled to remain mum if that's your choice. It just smacks of deception in an attempt to gain credibility to your argument not unlike Dembski is trying to pull even though it's patently obvious he's a theist.

Happy day and good trading to you. (If you do indeed trade, I don't know.)