Intelligent Design is not creationism

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ddunbar:

And indeed I am. The difference is, I only support it conceptually and philosophically as it is in accord with my beliefs. But I don't attempt to support it scientifically. How could I?

What's that wheezing sound?

Ah yes... it's Zeleologist drawing his final ragged breaths here.

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

The difference is, I only support it conceptually and philosophically as it is in accord with my beliefs. But I don't attempt to support it scientifically. How could I?

Are you saying that the only reason you think life is designed is because the Bible tells you so?

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:
Are you saying that the only reason you think life is designed is because the Bible tells you so?

Thrashing about for any foothold now, are we?

What is it about "I only support it conceptually and philosophically as it is in accord with my beliefs" that you don't understand? He has been totally forthcoming about the fact that his are faith-based beliefs. Something which you don't have the strength of mind to do.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


I answered the question two weeks ago. Sorry you missed it. At that time I explained why I thought the question was irrelevant and that's been my position since then. I will continue to not answer questions about what I believe. They are irrelevant whether you think they are or not. What's relevant is what I hypothesize based on empirical evidence not what I believe theologically. If you had your way we would be bogged down in theological debates from now on. Not interested.

LOL. Bogged down in theological debates. LOL.

It was obvious to me that you were presupposing a designer. That's why I asked if you were either a theists or an alien conspiracist. I knew eventually either I'd out you or you'd out yourself.

Suspecting you were a theist or what have you, I was trying to get you to understand the POWER of INFLUENCE and near unshakable grip a presupposition can have. But you're so deep under the murk of an thinly veiled agenda, you wouldn't see it if it ran you over thrice while blaring its 500 decible horns at you each time before it ground you up.

Basing it on emipirical evidence... LOL.

Man, just when this was really getting fun I gotta go. Booo- hooo.

Say you'll miss me. Say it!

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

And with that we can conclude that you haven't a clue about the scientific method. Not surprising. Else, how could you adamantly and promiscuously be a proponent of ID?

And if you think that ID theorists don't employ the scientific method then you are clueless about ID.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from Teleologist:

ddunbar:


And if you think that ID theorists don't employ the scientific method then you are clueless about ID.

Uh-huh. I'm certain I know a great deal more than you about ID. But in the end it doesn't matter. You're obviously young. My guess is that you're in your twenties. When you get on in years you can sense these things to some degree. Not always but more often than not. Not that I'm a right geezer or anything.

Do they employ the scientific method? Yep. But they instantly violate it with that darned presupposition of a designer. They've gone ahead and proved the ultimate negative to themselves. Now it's just mop up operations for the lesser details like design.

 

[Teleologist]

ddundar:

It was obvious to me that you were presupposing a designer. That's why I asked if you were either a theists or an alien conspiracist. I knew eventually either I'd out you or you'd out yourself.

I've never kept my theism a secret on this forum. Did you think I was an atheist IDer? And I've never denied that design implies a designer. This isn't your first visit here. We've debated before.

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar, do you only think life is designed because the Bible tells you so?

 

[Teleologist]

ddunbar:

You never said to me when asked that you are a theist. Not once.

When did you ask me if I was a theist?


ddunbar:

You never said you "believe" things are designed when discussing with ME! I have no idea what you may have said a few hundred posts back. Your painstaking plotting to attempt to distance ID from theology implies that you do not simply believe things are designed but rather accept as evidence what appears as design. That's what prompted me to question you on your beliefs which you dogded repeatedly. The record will show.

Back on page 373 I said to you:

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

And if I was hiding the fact that I'm a theist to distance ID from theology then why did I tell you today that I'm a theist? And why have I never hid this fact on this forum? And I'm still at a loss as to why you think my being a theist is behind my thinking certain things in nature look designed when even atheists admit this.

 

[FanOfFridays]

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

I infer the first cell was designed. Based not on religious revelation but on empirical data.

The Rest of Us: Okay, that sounds reasonable. So what exactly is the 'empirical data' which supports the theory of intelligently designed cells?

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

Here's evasion V 1.0

Teleologist: Don't you know a hypothesis when you see one?

V 2.0

Teleologist: The empirical datum is that life looks designed to me.

V 3.0

Teleologist: The empirical data is that I found this quote at wikipedia.com that says so

V 4.0

Teleologist:Can you prove that the first cell was not designed? No? Then that is the proof that it was designed.

V 5.0

Teleologist:







(crickets chirping)