Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ddunbar]

Oh no, that's easy Stu.

The crux of the matter is what constitutes a valid definition of Atheism and by extention, atheist.

We discussed the state of babies and agreed that they are without both atheism and of course, theism. No problems.

But you insist that atheist also means being in a state without God.

Of all the accreditted dictionaries I know, none make allowance for that definiton, neither do respected and accreditted etymologists see the orignal use of the word as such that would allow for the conceptualization you supported.

In any event, you know that I'm not adverse to babies being labeled atheist. In fact, it was I who first suggested they be labelled as non-cognitive atheists. Sure, it doesn't say much towards atheism. But its the best that can be done using intellectual honesty and official definitions.

Now, I'm not unmindful of how some atheists define atheism as simply being without God(s). But that definition is not official. It amounts presently to nothing more than a colloquialism yet to be added to the English lexicon.

I know, I sound like a broken record. But there has to be a standard, no? Shouldn't official meanings of words as recorded by accreditted institutions be the ultimate reference standard? Am I to be "villainized" for defering to them?

Would you take offense to someone saying that Atheism is a religion given the official definition of religion? I would. I do. Yet they try to redefine the word religion by conceptualizing religion in order to apply it to atheism.

 

[I am...]

Quote from ddunbar:

I am.

Umm. Are you Taoist or something?

I can't engage you because, honestly, I haven't a clue about what you're trying to say. It's not as straightforward as I'm used to dealing. I just don't get it.

And why the jesus thing when you routinely contradict...

Nevermind.

There are bits and pieces of my thought system in most disciplines, and even in this thread. But mine is wholistic. This world is about fragmentation of the whole. This is first the fragmentation of mind, as symbolized by a "big bang". And what you see and call the universe/multiverse is devastation of true design. There are remnants of design among the fragments. And fragmented minds are looking at them.

There is need of a wholistic viewpoint in order to "overcome the world" as I have done. I speak much about what came before the "big bang" so that, discovering the beginning, you can seek the end.

That is why you will find in the Gospel of Thomas this saying:

"The followers said to Jesus, 'Tell us how our end will be.' He said, "Have you discovered the beginning, then, so that you are seeking the end? For where the beginning is, the end will be. Fortunate is the one who stands at the beginning: That one will know the end and will not taste death."

As a rule of thumb, you can discover that there was Oneness in the beginning, and so Oneness is your end. You are the Oneness, and fragmentation symbolizes the denial of your Self and it's fallout.

In scientific jargon, this might be called a "theory". Depending on what you are seeking, you will examine the "evidence" and see if it fits. How you seek will determine your ability to find. I assure you, the evidence is everywhere, but proof is nowhere. Fragmentation cannot be proven, and it's purpose is to disprove Oneness.

I stand at the beginning, uncovering the seed thoughts that gave way to fragmentation. I do this because the end requires that you correct these seed thoughts. Otherwise there can be no healing, and no end to fragmentation.

The seed thought behind the "big bang" is that you are separated from your Creator. Since you are one with your Creator, this is a self-denial. Since you are equal with your Creator, the fallout is fantastic. By that I mean it can only be a fantasy, and it's fallout: fearsome...but not awesome.

Imagine the whole power of God invested in self-deception and you've got the "universe" you seem to be looking at. The very idea of separation is so fearsome to you that a whole new level of mind is made up to deal with it: the "universe". Below this universe is a seething cauldron of hellish, chaotic thought. And upon it's "laws" is built this universe: an attempt to bring order out of chaos.

The result is that all of the "order" appears to be designed. But when the design is examined, you find chaos. The "order" is preferred to the chaos behind it. As such, it acts as a "buffer" from the hellish heat below. The feelings of separation, guilt and anger are not as acute at this level...making "hell" tolerable. Thus, all physicality - form - including bodies, is a buffer interposed between self-accusation and what must be it's inevitable "just punishment".

Relative to what's below, form is a "paradise". Yet, like Hawaii, it is built on hot magma from below, and experiences periodic eruptions that occasionally burn down your houses. Thus, your paradise would not exist were it not for the chaos, and yet the chaos still haunts you.

The universal solution is to not look at the chaos below, so the mind is split again between "conscious" and "subconscious". After all, what can you expect when all creativity is in the mind, and the mind is fragmented and denied?

All surface "behavior" is relative to the conditions I have just described. If bodies behave insanely, it is because form is built on insanity. If they behave orderly, it's because form is an attempt to bring order out of insanity.

continued...

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


I'm not the one that made the comparison. Scientists did. They see molecular machines as literal machines. And as far as I know a molecular machine is not alive.

Micheal Behe. As refering to irreducible complexity.

This will get long in the tooth...

Hey, here's a gem (if you're going to sound bite Behe.)

"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

Gasp! One of the heroes of ID understands that the presupposition of a designer is paramount to embracing ID and that it guides the "research."

But common sense fleshes that out even without it being said. AKA, it goes without saying.


Anyway, here's a fuller excerpt of the quote T sound bit:

"With parts that resemble pistons and a drive shaft, the enzyme F1- ATPase looks suspiciously like a tiny engine. Indeed, a new study demonstrates that's exactly what it is. A movie of a single enzyme molecule in action shows that it spins like a motor to crank out ATP, the ubiquitous molecule that provides energy for biochemical processes in cells.......[The investigators] anchored molecules of F1-ATPase to a glass slide and - like putting a flag on top of a pole - attached a long, fluorescent filament of actin to the end of the drive shaft. By bathing the enzyme in ATP, the researchers made F1-ATPase break down the energy molecule and watched as it whirled the fluorescent filament around like a propeller. The enzyme puts out a very large torque, considering that the actin filament is more than 100 times the length of the enzyme itself, Yoshida [one of the investigators] says. "Can a man rotate a 150-meter rod?" The enzyme can spin such a long filament because it ratchets down the rotation rate when it carries a heavy load, he explains, suggesting that F1-ATPase can change gears - as a good motor should."

And that lends credence to the ID theory, how? Careful how you answer.

 

[I am...]

...continued from above...

Thus, if you are seeking the "end", keep this in mind: "All form is emptiness, and emptiness is form". That is what my brother Buddha discovered, and what I learned as well. Yet, form is not the "beginning" that I point you toward. In the interest of wholistic thought, I tell you that all form is an outpicturing of mind. This is to say: There is only creative mind, and form is nothing. The form indicates what is going on in the mind. And what you'll find is that the mind is both "intelligent" and schizophrenically "insane"....split, fragmented, confused, frightened, changing, suspicious, paranoid, guilty, mad, angry...all evidenced in form and it's behaviors. Evolution is evidence of the changing of this mind as it attempts to adapt to insane conditions. Change is about learning, and learning is an activity of a mind that has denied knowledge...denied itself.

But this too is not the "beginning". Before the mind splits, fragments and denies the parts of itself, it must have been whole and sane. I present to you the seed thoughts that make such a mind seem to change, split, and take on attributes of chaos and insanity. Once again, the seminal thought was that you were separated from your Creator. The antidote to this train of thought is simply to state the truth: "I and my Father are one". This begins the healing. Thoughts that are true and sympathetic will be drawn to this thought like a magnet, gradually reassembling your true identity.

It seems that I contradict a concept called "Christianity". But like Peter who denied me three times when faced with fear, Christ is repeatedly denied by the fearful. Because Christ is who you are, this is in keeping with the inception of this universe: the denial of Self...and it is fearful indeed. It both causes fear, and fear perpetuates it.

The "gates of hell" are heavily guarded by the idea of separation from God, and so from each other. The idea of Oneness prevails against these gated ideas, such that there is no time or place when apartheid can exist. That is why I repeatedly deny the existence of this universe: a gated community in the middle of nowhere.

In this gated community, no body is willing to recognize anyone else for who they are: the Son of God. Such an attitude is really "ghetto". So when Peter correctly recognized me as the Son of God, I immediately turned around and recognized him as the same. This is reality, and reality is like a "rock" compared to the "sand" that this universe/gated community/ghetto is built upon. The Kingdom of God - "my church" - is literally built upon the mutual recognition of equality...with one another, and with our Creator.

But as you can see, what is called "Christianity" is not built on equality, nor the recognition of the Son of God in every brother and sister sans form. So yes, I contradict it only because it contradicts reality, just as I contradict this entire universe. Like the universe, "Christianity" is hell bent on making form real, socially acceptable, authoritative, and God's Will. But it is not God's Will, and so the Son remains as he was Created: Spirit....perfect, free, whole, healthy, alive, innocent, sinless, sane, united...with all power in Heaven and in earth.

To accomplish it's goals of self-denial in the face of fear, "Christianity" makes me special. Yet, specialness is just another ingenious way to mask the idea of separation, thereby keeping the gates of hell sealed shut: keeping me out, and you in. Within, you find the guilt churning deep in the subconscious mind rising to the surface. And because of self-denying apartheid, it is never dealt with in a way that ends it. Rather, it is dealt with in a way that guarantees it's perpetuation. That is the purpose of this universe, and that is the purpose of "Christianity" as you know it. Like the mind behind this universe, it's guilt is projected out of it's mind into form. Christianity directs all of that guilt onto one body and then disposes of the body in hopes of disposing it's guilt. This is not possible because there is no guilt in reality! So it must be a continuation of mental illness.

There is but one sacrifice: The denial of who you are within your mind's eye. Mercy is the opposite: the acceptance of who you are in your mind's eye. Because you are me, and I am you, if you deny this, you are merciless. And you will love your neighbor - mercilessly - as you love yourself. This is the legacy of "Christianity" in denial.

Thus, I call for mercy, and not sacrifice. Sacrifice leads to death. Resurrection happens in the mind when you put all thoughts of sacrifice and death to death by denying their denial. They are non-existent. There is evidence for this, and if you believe it you will prove it.

Jesus

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ddunbar:
Hey, here's a gem (if you're going to sound bite Behe.)

"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

Gasp! One of the heroes of ID understands that the presupposition of a designer is paramount to embracing ID and that it guides the "research."

LMAO!!!!

Teleologist shoots himself in the foot AGAIN with an appeal to the wrong authority. ddunbar, not sure if you were around here when kjkent showed the Teleologist hadn't even read the authors he was citing and was just pulling isolated quotes off the internet.

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

Hey, here's a gem (if you're going to sound bite Behe.)

Where did I sound bite Behe?

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

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.

So, if you were a scientist would you use your insight that life on earth was designed as a guide for scientific research? Or would you rely on the blind watchmaker perspective to guide you?

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


Where did I sound bite Behe?

Amigo, you're talking to a creationist. Don't you think I would know all the usual defenses and sources?

It was Behe who cited it as "evidence" of design and you who are parroting his parroting.

Anyway, let's play this game.

Imagine we didn't invent an engine yet. I know, I know. But just imagine. However, we invented instruments of observation that allowed us to see F1-ATPase in action. What would we think of it then? Would we think it was designed or a natural process?

Ho-de-do.

Similiarly, man has looked at birds for millenia wishing they could do the same. One day, we figured out how to fly. Do we look at the birds as designed or the plane?

Right. So then, as you see, having a proper frame of reference is tantamount to being able to realistically deduce design from non-design.

Dr. Noji and the scientists who wrote that piece used allegorical language as a parallel for the sake of a broader audience. They make no claims on design whatsoever. Naturally.

Anyway, this entire conversation is so silly I'm slapping myself. You're not on the forefront of any type of research - that's obvious. So you're just a team player who's determined to cheer your team on at all costs. Never once did I see you simply say, "well, yes I believe it's designed." That's what makes this whole thing laughable. And you also swear that your beliefs have no bearing on the validity of ID. Also laughable. Then you make appeals to authority (not that there's anything wholly wrong with that ) - but authorities who have been properly rebutted by the scientific community whose acceptance they're trying to gain.

I say all that to say this: Gimme somethin' new. Gimme somethin' neigther side (evo/ID) has been exposed to. Gimme somethin' to actually think about.

Otherwise, it appears that you're just posting in hopes that someone naive will come along who hasn't read up on both sides of the argument and will take interest and validate your views.

And yes, that sounds arrogant of me. I admit. As if I'm one to demand such a thing of you. But I say it in the hopes of perhaps prompting you to re-evalute your position or to dig deeper into ID and understand its actual merit where your faith is concerned. The faith in whatever you obviously guard dearly.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


So, if you were a scientist would you use your insight that life on earth was designed as a guide for scientific research? Or would you rely on the blind watchmaker perspective to guide you?

Great question. If I were a scientist, while still a theist, I would for my own personal benefit, guide my research towards my worldview. However, and here is the important part, I would only present things which would stand up to peer review - that is to say, conclusions that are testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and from which predictions can be made.

And that is the dividing line between faith (ID) and science (evolution).

p.s. I like how you loaded the question.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from traderNik:

LMAO!!!!

Teleologist shoots himself in the foot AGAIN with an appeal to the wrong authority. ddunbar, not sure if you were around here when kjkent showed the Teleologist hadn't even read the authors he was citing and was just pulling isolated quotes off the internet.

I wasn't keenly following the deabte back then. I sort of came in somewhere in the middle. But I do recall something along those lines. I also remember trying to mitigate that use of appeals to authority and the stigma attached to one using it.

Say, where's KJkent anyway? Hope all is well.

But, Yep. I noticed that he was pulling them from ID friendly sites or from ID wikis. And all the folks he cited in the past that I recall, are theists. Yet he won't fess up to his own theism. Made me think he was a Scientologist. Now I'm back to thinking he's a theist but wants to hide that fact in an attempt to lend credibility to ID.

I don't know why that bothers me, but it does.