Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from ddunbar:

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

No, do you?

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

Are there really "plain old atheists?"

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.

An idea can certainly be presented for discussion without any hopes that someone would believe the idea should be believed by others.


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.

The word Creationism best defines the Christian point of view relating to Biblical belief systems.

The term Intelligent Design is generic, as show previously.

That most people think ID necessarily is Creationism has been show to be inaccurate many times in this thread.

So, people need to be educated about what ID really is as a broad non denominational concept...okay.

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

When you boil it down to what opinion is, so is big bang theory, neo Darwinism, and much of the exotic theories of physics right now.

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

Most of the ID folks I have seen in this thread have taken the time to explain that their opinion on ID is not the same as creationism.

A theory that the universe and life itself is by design is not new, and I don't recall reading about too many in the past who took the point of view of ignorant design, except the whiny Atheists who argue from ignorance that if there was a creator or intelligence behind a designed universe, that they know better how life "should" have been designed.

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

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

I can't prove that life is designed. Never said I could. All I can do is cite evidence that I think warrants a design inference and then over time further evidence will either strengthen or weaken the inference. But the ID critics don't like this approach. They seek to thwart any design inference with infinite regress. So presenting evidence for ID is a waste of time with these individuals.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


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.

Knock, knock. Theist here - not ID critic.

Well my good friend, if the inference of design is there, the inference of a designer goes along with it. Deal with it. It's inescapable. Proving design necessitates proving a designer. There's no way around it.

Otherwise, we simply don't speak of design. Can't be designed w/o a designer. Sorry.

But, I do not agree with infinite regression. The only way to stop that is to state an ultimate first cause to which has no beginning and no end. It stops the ridiculous logical fallacy of "well then, who or what created God, huh? huh? huh?"

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


I can't prove that life is designed. Never said I could. All I can do is cite evidence that I think warrants a design inference and then over time further evidence will either strengthen or weaken the inference. But the ID critics don't like this approach. They seek to thwart any design inference with infinite regress. So presenting evidence for ID is a waste of time with these individuals.

Yes, that true. Because the inference of design necessiates the inference of a designer. Any evidence that pint to design, points to a designer. Gotta prove both now.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Pure ad hominem to think that an argument of the type he is making relies on his personal credibility to make the argument logically valid or not.

You are confusing judgment of the messenger with the nature of the message.

"ID MUST INVARIABLY point to God taken to its logical conclusion."

This is patently and logically false.

An eternal condition of the universe would not require God, but could be eternally and intelligently programmed to produce design looking things.

I think you are missing a vital point here, that the concept of God is not required for a theory of intelligent design over ignorant chance.

I know people struggle with the concept of a Universe that is eternal, but it means just that, at no time did the Universe not exist.

Now, before time what was there? Many possibilities, none of which will make much sense to those who have thinking limited and bound to the limits of time and space.

Quote from ddunbar:

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.)

 

[ddunbar]

Zx10,

Yes, intelligent design can be a generic term. Much as the example you gave of a computer program being evidence of intelligent design. But that evidence is not in a vacuum. No need to go into why.

ID, when refering to life, the universe, and its origins is in no means generic. And you know it. The major supporters of ID are whom?

Theists. All of whom embrace some form of creationism.

Are there atheists who support ID? Possibly. I know of none personally. Perhaps some of the Alien progeny crowd. I really don't know. But their voice is so minor as to be unheard.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Pure ad hominem to think that an argument of the type he is making relies on his personal credibility to make the argument logically valid or not.

You are confusing judgment of the messenger with the nature of the message.

"ID MUST INVARIABLY point to God taken to its logical conclusion."

This is patently and logically false.

An eternal condition of the universe would not require God, but could be eternally and intelligently programmed to produce design looking things.

I think you are missing a vital point here, that the concept of God is not required for a theory of intelligent design over ignorant chance.

I know people struggle with the concept of a Universe that is eternal, but it means just that, at no time did the Universe not exist.

Now, before time what was there? Many possibilities, none of which will make much sense to those who have thinking limited and bound to the limits of time and space.

Multiverse? Sure. But don't introduce an intelligence. An intelligence, and an active ine at that denotes sentience. In this case a god. An intelliegence that is eternal most closely indentifies with a god.

But let's say it doesn't.

Define this intelligence. Then prove that this intelligence exists and had an influence on the order of the universe and life on earth or beyond other than to simply suggest that things looked designed.

Show me the science, baby! And prove to me that ultimately you aren't refeing to something supernatural.


Oh, and I never inferred that the argument relies on his personal credibility. I argued that he might feel that revealing his beliefs might kill his credibility. And thought that might be why he's kept it mum. I think that by not revealing his faith weakens his arguement because everyone can see through the vail and he's trying to pass something off as if it were truly other than creationism ultimately. As if he can better gain the attention of atheists by pretending to be one the "same page" they are on - scientifically speaking.

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

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).

Of course Dembski is a theist. One can be a theist and an evolutionist. Ever hear of Kenneth Miller? He's a theist, a Darwinist and an ID critic. Do you consider him to be a creationist? He would certainly take issue with that!

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

Yes, that true. Because the inference of design necessiates the inference of a designer. Any evidence that points to design, points to a designer. Gotta prove both now.

Why the need to prove both? If evidence that points to design, points to a designer, then all one needs to do is find evidence that supports design. Once that is accomplished one automatically has evidence of a designer. Isn't that what you are saying?

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

Are there atheists who support ID? Possibly. I know of none personally.

I know of one promient one but what's your point? That creationism is anything other than atheism?