Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ddunbar]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Why don't you hold science to the same standards?

I don't get it?

Science can make outrageous claims all it wants on the basis of "theory" so what is the difference in speculating on some design agent without knowing the "ultimate" source?

Do you know of any big bang theory that knows the ultimate source of the proposed big bang? Apparently, not knowing what caused the suggested big bang, does not stop scientists from speculating about it a big bang, or believing in it.

Show me where the lack of knowledge of an ultimate understanding of the cause and workings of the universe prohibits scientists from speculating on limited aspects of the universe?

Isn't the rationalization of many evolutionists exactly that which you are condemning about the idea that life here was the product of non God? Speculation without knowing the ultimates. That they can claim it doesn't matter if God exists or not, that they are only observing processes and commenting on those processes, and if God exists, or if God does not exist that would not negate their observations and speculations.

I can't hold science to the EXACt same standard because, the basis of the claims is different.

And hey, I never said you couldn't speculate on design w/o speculating on the designer. I said you WILL speculate on the designer once you come to a conclusion of design, invariably. Who wouldn't? It's natural. It's inevitable. Even you did so.

As I said, I see things as designed. I look at the order of things and think to myself that something is responsible for it. Given my theism, I fill in that gap of knowledge with "God did it."

See? Simple sweet honesty.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"AKA, circular reasoning. And we all know that religion is an endless loop of circular reasoning. That's why it requires faith."

If you think about it, then science is endless circular reasoning on the basis of an argument from ignorance, namely that since we don't know of a designer, it must not be by design.

Not at all. It's the fact that a designer can't be detected is why science doesn't bother postulating a designer. There's no presupposition which must be validated, which is validated by evidence which is validated by the presupposition.

Let's take gravity for instance.

Hold an apple in your hand then let it go. It falls.

Now let's say the presupposition was, invisible space aliens attempt to pull everything down that's not secured properly.

If the subsequent experiment was to now let the apple fall from your hand to prove that, well that's circular reasoning. Yes you proved it. But you didn't prove the existence of the invisible space aliens as the actors on that apple.

But let's say the presupposition was, I let things out of my hand and they fall. And you tried an apple and various other objects and they all do the same thing to one degree or another. The only scientific conclusion is, objects let out of my hand invariably fall to the ground. Now we investigate why. But to this day we still don't know exactly what gravity is. Each postulation must be tested, falsified and be able to make predictions.

Similiarly, ID can never be scientific because the presupposition is not merely design(order) but intelligence as the causation of that design(order). The presupposition must be proven in order to validate design or any evidence of it. Design inference depends wholeheartedly on it. And that's why it is circular reasoning and evolutionary theory, if you recall its beginnings, is not. Evolutionary theory has allowed for predictions. Many of those predictions have come to fruition. What predictions can be made using intelligent design theory other than things will be intelliegently designed in the future? Science is about coming up with theories or laws and using them to not just understand the world we live in, but to make predictions.

Just like a good trading system. You wouldn't want to start off with the presupposition that this system is the holy grail. Real world use will soundly end that notion.

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

It's easy to ascertain the definition of intelligent design. Just because YOU personally don't like what the accepted and... would you believe, common definition of the intelligent design as defined by the intelligent design movement does mean that everyone's common and accepted understanding is wrong. Frankly, yours is.

Nonsense. It is easy to ascertain the definition of intelligent design. I just gave it to you. You don't like it so you make up your own definition. What a joke.


ddunbar:

And your definition comes from a man who is in either purposeful denial of his own theism ...

Dembski has never denied his theism.

ddunbar:

It's complete and utter BS given the origins of the movement to which he subscribes and his own personal beliefs. Do you honestly think Dembski is so openminded as to embrace the possibility that ET is responsible for life on Earth and yet come to the conclusion that there is no God responsible on any level?

I can't believe you are this dense. It is irrelevant what Dembski believes! Theologically he believes God is the creator of the universe. So what? What's that got to do with ID?

ddunbar:

IDer's are premoninately creationist. Get over yourself and deal with that fact.

Yes, IDers are not atheists. You are so insightful.

ddunbar:

stop trying to redefine the definition of a movement and it's associated terms that are much larger than yourself.

I'm not defining the definition of a movement. I'm defining the definition of a concept.

ddbubar:

And yeah, I'll reiterate, ID can encompass more than just creationists, but it is predominately a creationist ideal and movement.

Is this suppose to convey anything more substantial than the fact that ID is not an atheistic movement?

 

[ddunbar]

T,

You win.

Sheesh. I should have known better. I have no one to blame except myself.

Edit: parting gift, though wikipedia is by no means as authority, it's a great starting point for further research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Dembski, doesn't get to singlehandedly define what ID is since he did not create the concept, nor is he the only proponent of it.

Have a nice sleep.

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

All well and good. But once you tentatively determine that something is designed, you invariably will tentatively postulate the designer. There is no way out or around that my friend. NONE.

Okay, you find an object on Mars. You tentatively determine that it is designed. You have no idea who the designer is. Now what?

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


Okay, you find an object on Mars. You tentatively determine that it is designed. You have no idea who the designer is. Now what?

LOL.

You, the IDer, examine it in order to attempt a postulation about the designer. Else why bother tentatively determining that it is designed? You're presupposing design. Else how one Earth (pun intended) would you even recognize design unless you presuppose it? (Kind of like that old tootsie roll commercial jingle. "where ever I go or think I see, becomes a tootsie roll to me!") You know, like the face on Mars thing years back. The possibility that it might be by design came to some (fringe, conspiracy theorists, ET believers, et al), but since there is no concrete evidence nor proof of ET's, it was therefore assumed, deemed, determined that it was a naturally occuring surface feature by their more rational counterparts.

I mean, like, come on now.

But that's the difference between science, and pseudo-science.

Psuedo science is presupposing that there is a designer and then going out and looking for evidence to support that view.

You might mistakenly think evolution does the same. But it doesn't. From evolutionary theory, you can make predictions then go out and test to see if they are correct.

How can you do that with ID theory?

OK time's up. And I'm all out of quarters. Ride's over.

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

ET believers, et al), but since there is no concrete evidence nor proof of ET's, it was therefore assumed, deemed, determined that it was a naturally occuring surface feature by their more rational counterparts. I mean, like, come on now.

No, you come on now. It wasn't the lack of evidence for ET's that was the determining factor here. If something as detailed as Mount Rushmore was discovered on Mars only an idiot would think it wasn't designed. No need to know who designed it.

 

[2cents]

Quote from ddunbar:

Not the same with the atheist argument, since there are types of atheists that vary to two major and very distinct levels. Cognitive, those who embrace the worldview of atheism. And non-cognitive, those who simply have no cognition of gods. As per the definition of atheism, all definitions from accredited dictionaries have it as an active belief (or properly, disbelief), denial, and concious decision that there is no gods. The true etymology of the word as per the Greeks who first used it was used as a derogatory word to label those who did not embrace/acknowledge the state Gods of the day. (Godless, without God(s)). To fail to embrace/acknowledge the state Gods required an active and concisious decision which only a person cognitive enough can do.

Non-cognitive atheism, which can apply to all babies or any humans who have stunted cognition to a degree that renders them as infants, is radically different from what a cognitive atheist is. There is no meaningful commonality between the two if you accept the accreditted definition of atheism or the actual etymology of the word and its former derogatory context. Therefore, there is no way one can accept babies as atheist, to be included with cognitive atheists, if one accepts the accreditted definition of atheist. One must reject the accreditted definition of atheist/atheism in favor of a new and unorthodox one.

This is why it will take quite some time if at all for babies to be considered atheist. The proponents of this currently improper use of the word atheist as defined by acrreditted lexicons, are a minority to whom common usage will not be ascribed regardless if it is common usage in their community. Atheist is a word that belongs to both this minority sub-group of atheists who wish to ascribe it to babies, the atheist community at large, and the English speaking community at large. The grassroot effort to redefine atheism outside this sub-group of atheist will of course start within the atheist community who would be more apt to accept the new or amended definition because at the heart of atheism is a spirit of free thought and rebellion against establishment (which happens to be overrun by theists). But the English speaking community at large has no such spirit en masse nor any vested interest in redefining atheism. What is more, without common usage at large, which also helps to redefine a word and evolve language irrespective of etymology, labeling babies as atheist without any distinction from the worldview of atheism (which adults embrace) will never catch on - all things being equal (meaning, atheism remaining a minority, which by all measures, it most probably will in the decades ahead.)

One last and quick example that comes to mind:

The word "dope."

I've heard it used like this: "Yo! That's dope!"

Well, in the community in which this word was used, the context suggests that the word means "great, awesome, ... narly."

But you will find no accreditted dictionary entry which defines the adjective dope in that manner. The minority group's improper use of the word failed to gain common usage which in turn failed to have it added to the English lexicon. Even though they may have been equating the object or idea with the same great feeling of euphoria one gets when high on dope.

wow, you have a lot of patience... i mean, the original, cognitive definition is all we need, isn't it?... => babies are NOT a-theist, nor are they theist...

i can see that ppl who would insist that babies are a-theist, are simply on a crusade of their own... but then again, only america has such a brand of aggressive televangelists... pretty sad, selling religion like lettuce...

 

[2cents]

ddunbar mate, could i bother you to comment on this? the simple point of 1st order predicate logic that: "making an assumption of non-sthg*" does by no means equate "not making an assumption of sthg"

*: assuming this non-sthg is actually definable for the purpose of discussion, eg what's a non-apple, in the absence of proper context?

see, initially i thought zizzz was just being malicious with his assumptions of non-Darwinism and non-randomness, then i made a broader assumption of non-good faith from him, but now i fear its much much worse than that...

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

There is an assumption of non design being Darwinism, and that assumption is derived on the basis of a lack of data of a creator, but a lack of data of a creator is not evidence of non design, it is simply an assumption on the basis of ignorance of all the facts. When/if science could say "we have fact that ID does not exist" then it would not be circular reasoning.

That is not what happens. An assumption of non design is made first, then the theories are generated on the basis of that first assumption in order to arrive at a conclusion of non design...all without the ability to prove non design, apart from fallacy filled argument from ignorance constituting knowledge.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from 2cents:

ddunbar mate, could i bother you to comment on this? the simple point of 1st order predicate logic that: "making an assumption of non-sthg*" does by no means equate "not making an assumption of sthg"

*: assuming this non-sthg is actually definable for the purpose of discussion, eg what's a non-apple, in the absence of proper context?

see, initially i thought zizzz was just being malicious with his assumptions of non-Darwinism and non-randomness, then i made a broader assumption of non-good faith from him, but now i fear its much much worse than that...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

There is an assumption of non design being Darwinism, and that assumption is derived on the basis of a lack of data of a creator, but a lack of data of a creator is not evidence of non design, it is simply an assumption on the basis of ignorance of all the facts. When/if science could say "we have fact that ID does not exist" then it would not be circular reasoning.

That is not what happens. An assumption of non design is made first, then the theories are generated on the basis of that first assumption in order to arrive at a conclusion of non design...all without the ability to prove non design, apart from fallacy filled argument from ignorance constituting knowledge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah. Why not. It's a pointless attempt at equivocation. The problem with this line of reasoning is that Zx10 fails to understand or is deliberately obfuscating the fact that scientists do not claim complete knowledge about anything but only proceed on what is observed, tested and falsified. What Zx10 is trying to say is that scientists, by denying a creator due to lack of evidence of a creator, are presupposing non-design. But of course that makes zero sense. Is the onus on scientists to prove a negative in order to rule out a creator? Scientists are thus locked into the SUPPOSITION that there is no designer and hence no design. But they can't presuppose an untestable assertion.

IDer's on the otherhand invariably presuppose a designer. They have no alternative. Regardless of their doubletalk and gainsay. Else how does one suppose design? How does one even recognize design? What frame of reference is there concerning life and matter that one can tell the difference between what is designed and what isn't? Is a singular protein marco-molecule evidence of design? Or is it only when the macro-molecules are in a chain that resembles a code of sorts that it becomes evidence of design? Is a quark evidence of design or how about a Neutrino? Or is it only their interaction or function evidence of design? Is teh formation of a crystal evidence of design? Is the covalent bonds of atoms evidence of design? How can one truly tell without first having a frame of reference? How can one test it - namely, with a counter example? This is why ID is "junk" science.

Secondly, Zx10 claims that evolution (which he terms Darwinianism in an attempt to deride evolutionary theory as nothing more than a dogma) exists due to a lack of all the facts. Well, sure. But here Zx10 is presupposing that there are more facts and facts once uncovered will turn Evolution on its ear. Well Zx10, tell us all about the missing facts. Especially in light of the FACT that using evolutionary theory, scientist were able to predict that certain types of fossils would be found or certain species would be found because of a certain aspect of nature that would be conducive to that species.

Not to get nuts and beat up on Zx10, but I personally presuppose a designer. It can't be helped. I'm a theist after all. A creationist. I also presuppose that there are more facts yet to be uncovered and that the existence of the designer will be manifested one day. But I don't believe it will contradict evolutionary theory - only complete it.

But here I am though, not in denial of the fact that my presuppositions are untestable. They're just my beliefs. I see design because, well, I believe there's a designer. Circular, I know.

Evolution though, is based on observation that species evolve over time. What's all the fuss about? Oh, that evolutionists won't acknowledge that this process is a function of intelligent design? Oh. Ok. Is that it? So then someone prove the evolutionary process is a function of design, pardon, intelligent design.

Many thanks.

One other thing, Teleologist made a comment about if something similiar to Mt. rushmore was found on Mars, only an idiot would think it wasn't designed. And He's completely correct. That's because we have a frame of reference. Mt Rushmore itself. We know for a fact it was designed. So anything that resembles it must...

So again, where's the frame of reference for life or the matter that makes up the universe so that we can compare this one with one we know to be designed?