Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Artificial intelligence is considered a form of intelligence, and computers are not sentient beings.

Intelligence could be an eternal quality of an eternal Universe, and therefore a God external to the Universe could also exist and have nothing to do with intelligent designed aspects of life.

The proof you seek is self evident, much more self evident than the so called random ignorant chance which is an argument from ignorance.

People have never show the ability to produce something from nothing, nor have we seen expressed intelligence coming from a fountainhead of ignorance, nor has anyone come up with a reverse flashlight that shines darkness...yet some people grasp tightly to a concept of a Universe by accident...

If there is any order, creativity, intelligence to be found in the Universe,
it is logical to assume that it is there due to order, creativity, and intelligence as a predisposition to manifest order, creativity, and intelligence.

The point is, I have given an argument that demonstrates the God is not required for a theory of Intelligent Design.

I get such a kick out of people who say "prove to me that ultimately you aren't referring to something supernatural."

I never said ID is supernatural, nothing is more natural than the concept of ID. That it is beyond human comprehension wold not make it supernatural, just beyond the comprehension of human beings.

It makes more sense to say ID is natural, and human beings are of an inferior intelligence, in the same way a 5 year old and their intelligence is inferior to an Astro Physicist.

Quote from ddunbar:

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.

 

[I am...]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

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

If Creationism means that my Father created this universe, then this is a patently false point of view. The world was not ready for the truth 2000 years ago. Even now it is barely ready to hear that there is no world! So I never applied for a patent or copywrite except to say, "if you are not for me, you are against me". As such, this view point is anti-Christ, and so not "Christian".

Jesus

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


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!

Funny. I embrace evolution. Also support ID when it's not being masked as anything other than creationism and am a creationist. Oh, and I'm a theist too.

Ken Miller? Creationist. Sorry friend. Theistic evolution, which Miller, a Roman Catholic, embraces is creationism. It's just not young Earth creationism which he opposses. It's a form of old earth creationism. One which finds no conflict between God and evolution - God created through evolution. And his stance against ID is in contradiction with his own internal beliefs. But at least he picks specific point to take a stand against.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


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?

Right. Prove one and you prove the other. Hence, "prove both." But the problem is, ultimately to prove design in the manner in which we are talking about, you must prove that there is a designer. There is no other way to go about this since there is no other frame of reference for design on this scale.

We're not talking about finding a watch on a beach and concluding because it looks designed, given its complexity, it is therefore designed. We can conclude that because we have frames of reference to conclude that. One, it doesn't occur in nature. Two, there is no natural development that leads to the final product that the watch is.

At a minimum, to be scientific about this, we'd need access to another universe to conclude that this one is possibly designed. Some comparison to show that this order might be unique to this universe. But with this one universe, in the absence of knowledge of a designer, we can conclude nothing toward that end except that things appear to be designed.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


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

You're not talking about THAT guy again...

My point. Well, it's simple really. ID was started by creationists (the many forms of creationism) and is furthered by them. Denying that makes you look like either you live in a bubble or are trying to oddly remake what ID is while keeping the label.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what you want to bundle in with ID. It's fringe and you won't be taken seriously for doing it. I was trying to help you out but you just gotta find your own way I suppose.

It's sad that people can't simply believe in something. They need to be validated and go to great and often obtuse lengths to get that validation. Often, they'll corrupt language to do it. But rarely do they NOT look silly for doing it.

"Intelligent design is not creationism." Making a bold statement like that which goes against not only common sense, but against the facts that those who started the ID movement are in fact creationists and theists is quite comical.

Had you said something like, " Intelligent design is not just about creationism" or some such, you would havehad a more credible platform from which to proceed. Because everybody knows or can easily read up on the ID movement and see how messed up your thread title is. Regardless of Dembski's wordplay which amounts to nothing more than an attempt to distance ID from religion and thereby give it credibility in the scientific community's eyes. But it didn't work for him. What makes you think I'd work for you?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"Two, there is no natural development that leads to the final product that the watch is."

Lets compare finding that watch to finding a human being in all their complexity, then suggesting that it is all just a product of non design ignorant chance...

Cracks me up that a human being can have the intelligence to formulate theories of non design, thereby negating the entire concept of intelligence itself.

If it is all mindlessly produced, then there really is no such thing as intelligence...just more mindlessness of an intellectual process lacking any innate intelligence.

So darn silly...

Oh yeah, fat chance.

Quote from ddunbar:

Right. Prove one and you prove the other. Hence, "prove both." But the problem is, ultimately to prove design in the manner in which we are talking about, you must prove that there is a designer. There is no other way to go about this since there is no other frame of reference for design on this scale.

We're not talking about finding a watch on a beach and concluding because it looks designed, given its complexity, it is therefore designed. We can conclude that because we have frames of reference to conclude that. One, it doesn't occur in nature. Two, there is no natural development that leads to the final product that the watch is.

At a minimum, to be scientific about this, we'd need access to another universe to conclude that this one is possibly designed. Some comparison to show that this order might be unique to this universe. But with this one universe, in the absence of knowledge of a designer, we can conclude nothing toward that end except that things appear to be designed.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"ID was started by creationists (the many forms of creationism) and is furthered by them."

Design theory was around long before the current wave of creationism.

Besides, if ID is factual, it was never created by human beings, it was simply discovered by human beings.

Quote from ddunbar:

You're not talking about THAT guy again...

My point. Well, it's simple really. ID was started by creationists (the many forms of creationism) and is furthered by them. Denying that makes you look like either you live in a bubble or are trying to oddly remake what ID is while keeping the label.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what you want to bundle in with ID. It's fringe and you won't be taken seriously for doing it. I was trying to help you out but you just gotta find your own way I suppose.

It's sad that people can't simply believe in something. They need to be validated and go to great and often obtuse lengths to get that validation. Often, they'll corrupt language to do it. But rarely do they NOT look silly for doing it.

"Intelligent design is not creationism." Making a bold statement like that which goes against not only common sense, but against the facts that those who started the ID movement are in fact creationists and theists is quite comical.

Had you said something like, " Intelligent design is not just about creationism" or some such, you would havehad a more credible platform from which to proceed. Because everybody knows or can easily read up on the ID movement and see how messed up your thread title is. Regardless of Dembski's wordplay which amounts to nothing more than an attempt to distance ID from religion and thereby give it credibility in the scientific community's eyes. But it didn't work for him. What makes you think I'd work for you?

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Artificial intelligence is considered a form of intelligence, and computers are not sentient beings.

Intelligence could be an eternal quality of an eternal Universe, and therefore a God external to the Universe could also exist and have nothing to do with intelligent designed aspects of life.

The proof you seek is self evident, much more self evident than the so called random ignorant chance which is an argument from ignorance.

People have never show the ability to produce something from nothing, nor have we seen expressed intelligence coming from a fountainhead of ignorance, nor has anyone come up with a reverse flashlight that shines darkness...yet some people grasp tightly to a concept of a Universe by accident...

If there is any order, creativity, intelligence to be found in the Universe,
it is logical to assume that it is there due to order, creativity, and intelligence as a predisposition to manifest order, creativity, and intelligence.

The point is, I have given an argument that demonstrates the God is not required for a theory of Intelligent Design.

I get such a kick out of people who say "prove to me that ultimately you aren't referring to something supernatural."

I never said ID is supernatural, nothing is more natural than the concept of ID. That it is beyond human comprehension wold not make it supernatural, just beyond the comprehension of human beings.

It makes more sense to say ID is natural, and human beings are of an inferior intelligence, in the same way a 5 year old and their intelligence is inferior to an Astro Physicist.

I don't know Z. I Don't know.

An order is an order. Agreed. But attaching intelligence to it makes it sentient. Artificial intelligence was designed by a sentient being. There may come a point when something artificially intelligent can be deemed sentient. I don't know. But the point is, your analogy does not apply here because something created the artifical intelligence. So what created the intelligence of the universe? You must come to a terminus when the question to the next level stops. There are only two ways to do that. God or the full elimination of God in favor of a never ending natural process. And by natural it is implied, unthinking, non-sentient.

Intelligence, on some level, invariably implies sentience. Just think about that a while and you'll see it is so. The very definition of intelligence has as it requisite, sentience.

Let's say that there is some great big unimaginable alien intelligence out there responsible for all the order and life in the universe. And we won't call it God either. What created the alien and where did it come from? You want to say that this alien intelligence just always was. Well guess what, that sort of fits the definition of a God.

It's not that I don't appreciate your view. It's just that it leaves me asking the begged question. Doesn't that question enter your mind when you ponder it?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Something programmed the computer, which we call artificial intelligence. Once programmed, the program could create its own program, on its own.

Why can't you fathom the possibility of an eternal program?

There are eastern schools of thought that the Universe is eternal and programmed for the intelligent design of life by its very nature, not due to some intervention of an outside source nor a creator.

Being eternal, the Universe was never created, therefore the Universe didn't have a creator.

It is your time bound, causation bound argument that is restricting your ability to understand ID does not necessarily require a creator.

Many western based material logic driven thinkers stumble in the same way with advance concepts such as we see in eastern thought.

Quote from ddunbar:

I don't know Z. I Don't know.

An order is an order. Agreed. But attaching intelligence to it makes it sentient. Artificial intelligence was designed by a sentient being. There may come a point when something artificially intelligent can be deemed sentient. I don't know. But the point is, your analogy does not apply here because something created the artifical intelligence. So what created the intelligence of the universe? You must come to a terminus when the question to the next level stops. There are only two ways to do that. God or the full elimination of God in favor of a never ending natural process. And by natural it is implied, unthinking, non-sentient.

Intelligence, on some level, invariably implies sentience. Just think about that a while and you'll see it is so. The very definition of intelligence has as it requisite, sentience.

Let's say that there is some great big unimaginable alien intelligence out there responsible for all the order and life in the universe. And we won't call it God either. What created the alien and where did it come from? You want to say that this alien intelligence just always was. Well guess what, that sort of fits the definition of a God.

It's not that I don't appreciate your view. It's just that it leaves me asking the begged question. Doesn't that question enter your mind when you ponder it?

 

[ddunbar]

BTW Z, I wish you would stop arguing as if I don't support ID. It's almost as if you aren't reading what I post but detect a few dissenting keywords and move into defend mode.

I do support ID and things definitely looked designed to me. Difference is, I don't pretend that my personal view and obsevation are science. My views are born of my faith. It is why I see the universe and life on earth as designed.

All this tomfoolery and wordplay...

All I can say is sheesh man. Sheesh.

Anyway, I bow out because I have no real agenda other than seeing words and terms be respected and for the display of intellectual honesty. If common terms cannot be accepted, nor their rightful etymolgies, then no common ground can be achieved.

Peace. Until the next subject that mutaully piques our interests.