Intelligent Design is not creationism

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

Thinking like an engineer is teleological thinking

I'm sure as hell glad that you're not engineering anything that my safety depends on. Here's how it would go.

Teleologist's Neighbour: Hey, Teleologist, I see you're doing the designing for your own house! Are you a draughtsman?

Teleologist: No.

Neighbour: Oh. So... are you sure about the structural integrity of the final product?

Teleologist: Well, it appears to me that it will be stable.

Neighbour: Oh. So aren't you going to do any testing or refer to any scientifically based engineering principles in order to determine whether or not your hypothesis is correct? After all, my kids are going to be walking in the space between the houses.

Teleologist: No. I have faith that this building will be stable. And furthermore, I have empirical data that show that this structure will be stable.

Neighbour: You do? Oh, well at least there's that. So what data is that?

Teleologist:

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

The process of finding out how the cell works represents the hard work of countless scientists who didn't take anything as given, never said cells were materialized out of pure potentiality. They developed hypotheses based on empirical data and then tested those hypotheses. If there was insufficient evidence to sustain those hypotheses, they were discarded.

ID/Creationists take the exact opposite approach.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:


Thinking like an engineer is teleological thinking

Huh??

Try Wikipedia

Teleology depends on the concept of a final cause or purpose inherent in all beings. There are two types of such causes, intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality.

* Extrinsic finality consists of a being realizing a purpose outside that being, for the utility and welfare of other beings. For instance, minerals are "designed" to be used by plants which are in turn "designed" to be used by animals.
* Intrinsic finality consists of a being realizing a purpose by means of a natural tendency directed toward the perfection of its own nature. In essence, it is what is "good for" a being. For example, physical masses obey universal gravitational tendencies that did not evolve, but are simply a cosmic "given." Similarly, life is intended to behave in certain ways so as to preserve itself from death, disease, and pain.

 

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

ID/Creationists take the exact opposite approach.

Nonsense. ID scientists think like engineers when doing research on the cell. The same approach recommended by Bruce Alberts, former president of the NAS.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

The same approach recommended by Bruce Alberts, former president of the NAS.

More appeal to authority?

Scientists whose personal belief system includes a faith in Creation are mostly still scientists. They utilize the scientific method. They share data, unlike you. If you ask a scientist to cite the data they offer in support of a hypothesis, they provide it. They don't whine like a little girl and say "If I give it to you you'll just tease me, so I'm not going to give it to you'.

Nor do they fabricate data in order to support their failed hypotheses, like you did.

Nor do they cite researchers whose work they haven't actually reviewed, as you did in this thread.

ID/Creation is a faith-based rebranding of traditional Creation theory. There is not now nor will there ever be any proof or evidence of any kind that ID is operant in the origin of life on earth.

 

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

There is not now nor will there ever be any proof or evidence of any kind that ID is operant in the origin of life on earth.

Well, you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support your belief in a non-teleological origin of life.

As for my not providing evidence of ID, the only thing you will accept as evidence of ID is seeing the designer designing. If there is any other kind of evidence you would accept let me know.

 

[neophyte321]

I don't remember much, but for some reason this is one of my most vivid memories. There was an interesting question posed to my high school calculus teacher. We were discussing the proposition that there are an infinite number of points between any two points. A fellow student realized and then suggested that that would mean during any movement made an infinite number of points is traveled... The funny thing was how that affected him, his brain went on an infinite loop, similar to the FemBots on that classic Star Trek episode,... "I always tell the truth, I am lying"... It's quite an amazing thing to ponder. Move an inch, and the most powerful supercomputer ever devised could sub-divide it until the universe collapses onto itself.

This was not a new question, of course, and the very question itself spawed it own kind of religion thousands of years ago.

Rather than demand proof of a "Designer", perhaps someone prove that moving an inch, and therefore an infitinite amount of space, is even possible.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Teleologist:

if there is any other kind of evidence you would accept let me know.

How about the evidence you said you had? Don't you think that would be good for starters?

How convenient for you that you already know what my response will be to seeing the 'empirical data' you claimed to have. It means that you don't ever have to cite it.

How convenient for you.

Don't bother with more justifications, your credibility is zero. You have done the seemingly impossible - made yourself as much of a laughingstock as ZTroll. You should have just quit when kjkent revealed you hadn't read the authors you (continue to) cite.

I guess it's true that the best lie is a big lie.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"Rather than demand proof of a "Designer"...

Sometimes this demand for proof of a designer---reminds me of a 4 year old who continually asks "but why" to every single answer given by their parents...

Eventually the parents catch on to the game, that it often really isn't about the whys that the that the child persists in asking "but why" but about the power felt in continually asking why repetitively without really evaluating the answer to the last "but why"....and putting the parents on the defense. Sort of boundary testing, if you will...

Quote from neophyte321:

I don't remember much, but for some reason this is one of my most vivid memories. There was an interesting question posed to my high school calculus teacher. We were discussing the proposition that there are an infinite number of points between any two points. A fellow student realized and then suggested that that would mean during any movement made an infinite number of points is traveled... The funny thing was how that affected him, his brain went on an infinite loop, similar to the FemBots on that classic Star Trek episode,... "I always tell the truth, I am lying"... It's quite an amazing thing to ponder. Move an inch, and the most powerful supercomputer ever devised could sub-divide it until the universe collapses onto itself.

This was not a new question, of course, and the very question itself spawed it own kind of religion thousands of years ago.

Rather than demand proof of a "Designer", perhaps someone prove that moving an inch, and therefore an infitinite amount of space, is even possible.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from neophyte321:

I don't remember much, but for some reason this is one of my most vivid memories. There was an interesting question posed to my high school calculus teacher. We were discussing the proposition that there are an infinite number of points between any two points. A fellow student realized and then suggested that that would mean during any movement made an infinite number of points is traveled... The funny thing was how that affected him, his brain went on an infinite loop, similar to the FemBots on that classic Star Trek episode,... "I always tell the truth, I am lying"... It's quite an amazing thing to ponder. Move an inch, and the most powerful supercomputer ever devised could sub-divide it until the universe collapses onto itself.

This was not a new question, of course, and the very question itself spawed it own kind of religion thousands of years ago.

Rather than demand proof of a "Designer", perhaps someone prove that moving an inch, and therefore an infitinite amount of space, is even possible.

Simple. Just move an inch. Empirical proof right there!

But no one has offered a similar proof of a designer.

 

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

How about the evidence you said you had? Don't you think that would be good for starters?

It wouldn't be good for you as the only evidence you will accept is seeing the designer designing. If there's some other kind of evidence you will accept let me know.