Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

Darwin for one exudes purpose . It's just a purpose which you don't want and so avoid and will even deceive in order to avoid.

Most Darwinian scientists think the evolutionary process is devoid of purpose. Here is a sample.

Douglas Futuyma in his book Evolutionary Biology says:

The profound, unsettling, implication of this purely mechanical, material explanation for the existence and characteristics of diverse organisms is that we need not invoke, nor can we find any evidence for, any design, goal, or purpose anywhere in the natural world, except in human behavior.

Monroe W. Strickberger, of the University of Missouri-St. Louis, notes in his widely-used textbook Evolution:

The fear that Darwinism was an attempt to displace God in the sphere of creation was therefore quite justified. To the question, is there a special purpose for the creation of humans, evolution answered no. To the question, is there a special purpose for the creation of any living species, evolution answered no.

The book Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, says on page 152:

Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit.

George Gaylord Simpson, the leading neo-Darwinist a generation ago, claimed:

Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind.

According to the National Association of Biology Teachers, evolution has no direction or goal including the survival of a species:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
Natural selection...has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a species.

Cambridge Paleontologist Simon Conway Morris says:

Does evolution have a structure, an overall design, perhaps even a purpose? Orthodox opinion recoils from this prospect. Evolution, it is widely believed, is an effectively random process where almost any outcome is possible.

Richard Dawkins says:

Natural selection has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

Your argument that Darwin is trying to both assume no purpose and disprove no purpose is something called a teleologist's nonsensical contradiction. The 10 year old will explain it to you.

Do you deny that Darwinists use dysteleology arguments against design? Why are these arguments being invoked if it's not to prove that there is no evidence of purpose in nature?

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Complete dodge, no surprise...

stu, you got kudos from the King of Evasion. You should feel proud. I'm only surprised that he didn't post a picture of a pink bunny smelling its own finger, which used to be his standard response when he ran out of excuses.

 

[piezoe]

"Does evolution have a structure, an overall design, perhaps even a purpose? Orthodox opinion recoils from this prospect. Evolution, it is widely believed, is an effectively random process where almost any outcome is possible.

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

Actually, many current contributors to evolution hypotheses think it is likely that humans have affected the rate of their own evolution. There are bound to be many constraints, both chemical and thermodynamic in addition to natural selection, on evolutionary processes. So even though random occurrences may lead to an evolutionary event, many conceivable outcomes would be precluded by these constraints and would therefore have a very low, virtually zero, probability. The number of possible outcomes at each step would be quite limited, but over many steps there could wide variance.

Also, it is highly unlikely that there was a single origin of life on this planet. There is good evidence of multiple origins, possibly a very large number. This could explain speciation.

 

[2cents]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Survival is only for a higher purpose, as the struggle to survive must be motivated by a desire to live.

So explain why there is an innate desire to live for all biological organisms, what is the purpose of that?

Without knowing the purpose of life, the reason and purpose of living, then life is meaningless and purposeless.

Your argument is circular without something outside of that circle first initiating the mechanical process, and having a goal outside of that mechanical process itself.

Mechanical processes which run mindlessly are purposeless in and of themselves serve no purpose beyond perpetuation of the processes themselves, but when there is no explanation given for why the nature of life is the way it is, the result is mindless existentialism.

There is a huge difference between offering a possible explanation of an ignorant involuntary mechanical process and its mechanics, and saying that the process itself is purposeful and part of a purpose.

survival is for the purpose of the quest... the quest to know... to know what can be known for a practical end... and that can only be what is "causal"/"sequential" in some shape or form, although we are able to perceive the "non-causal" out there... and will attempt to tame it, shape it, get around it... for we are expressions of causality... questing itself is a causal mechanism, an attempt at connecting dots... causality is the essence of all life... mutations are random and survival of mutant species obey fitness rules but there will come a time when mutations are predominantly self-engineered from the macroscopic level (as well?)... we humans have already started that process around us 13,000 years ago or so by selecting and selectively improving a handful of crops, and similarly with a handful of mammals, as a prelude to re-engineering our selves... we may not be the first ones to do so, there is no reason to believe we are, i for one don't believe we are, although we may well be... but we know that our choice is either to be the engineers of this universe "around" us, or to be re-engineered, or de-engineered... to the extent there is a "choice"... but if only as a figure of speech...

and as for all principles causality will expand (grow) its realm in every imaginable dimension via knowing and shaping to its own image until it hits a wall if there is one... we simply are one of causality's vessels, fingers, an arm perhaps, or even causality itself... eternally probing and meant to do so... in the dark... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching

fear not, my friend...

peace

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Most Darwinian scientists think the evolutionary process is devoid of purpose. Here is a sample.

Douglas Futuyma in his book Evolutionary Biology says:

Monroe W. Strickberger, of the University of Missouri-St. Louis, notes in his widely-used textbook Evolution:

The book Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, says on page 152:

George Gaylord Simpson, the leading neo-Darwinist a generation ago, claimed:

According to the National Association of Biology Teachers, evolution has no direction or goal including the survival of a species:

Cambridge Paleontologist Simon Conway Morris says:

Richard Dawkins says:

Tele,

You have everything there from the acknowledgement of purpose, to talks of special purpose, to ID'erss in biologists' clothing shouting no purpose.

Miscovery Destitute's ID/Creationism Archives must be so full of confused out of context text snippets and disconnected articles, snatched out of any one's comments, that their own purpose is now illusrating both no purpose and purpose, along with "looks like" no design (in mud puddles) but "looks like" (intelligent) design in everything. Muddled and dishonest shenanigans , that's all it is.

So it's really all to do with your insistence to refuse any other understanding of purpose, other than one coming about via a separate intent.
Your argument swivels around a notion that things cannot have any purpose unless that purpose is a pre-planned intended one, by an outside agent.

That is in straight contradiction and denial of all Natural events.

Nature's purpose is on nature's terms, not yours.
Where there is any serious meaningful examination taken of nature, Her purpose, in the biololgical process, is survival via nature's own means. Evolution.

Bolting intelligent design onto everything and anything for no other reason than the groundless claim "it looks like" , against what has been found and confirmed time after time , generation after generation since Darwin, to be pupose by Nature's own means, is nothing more than a display of of human conceited arrogance on the part of ID'ers trying to palm the God card.


The Natural Universe as revealed by modern science, contains more magnificent wonder, far more reason for reverence, than relious faith or any ID/Creationist has ever reached into.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Do you deny that Darwinists use dysteleology arguments against design? Why are these arguments being invoked if it's not to prove that there is no evidence of purpose in nature?

Yes I refute that remark entirely and I don't believe you are being honest when you say "Darwinists" use it.

You are totally discredited at this stage. It is seen how you make up any statement yourself and then attribute it to "Darwinists" or scientists. You take partitial text which actually says the opposite to what you state it does , but you still stand there declaring it doesn't.

This is in the same league. Arguing no purpose = no design or conversely purpose = design, is no argument at all. It's just more ID/Creationist baseless conjecture.

 

[stu]

Quote from traderNik:

stu, you got kudos from the King of Evasion. You should feel proud. I'm only surprised that he didn't post a picture of a pink bunny smelling its own finger, which used to be his standard response when he ran out of excuses.

Nik,
Not sure its pride I feel. Kudos from EvaZzzer I imagine would be like the double whammy of being handed a 3 dollar bill by a counterfeiter.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"The Natural Universe as revealed by modern science, contains more magnificent wonder, far more reason for reverence, than relious faith or any ID/Creationist has ever reached into."

Must be love...stupid has reverence for random ignorant chance which serves no purpose...

Yes, oh yes, so gooey is that love, so much reverence for non designed lifeless mechanistic driven function...stupid should be writing sonnets of Shakespearean love to Ms. Natural Universe.

Of course, this is the same bozo who when there is talk of God, he bitches about the pain and suffering of human life...love is blind.

Oh well, now we know stupid has a purpose in life, to clinically observe a mindless "Natural Universe" (I would like very much to hear about the Unnatural Universe) and feel reverence for it.

"Nature's purpose is on nature's terms, not yours.
Where there is any serious meaningful examination taken of nature, Her purpose, in the biololgical process, is survival via nature's own means. Evolution."

Of course, stupid has no clue what "Nature's" purpose is. Then he reveals his real position by this line:

"Her purpose, in the biololgical process, is survival via nature's own means."

Did anyone but me notice that nature is suddenly described by stupid as "Her?" Not it, but "Her" with a capital letter used to reference "Her."

Is that love or what?

Nature is a "Her" and not an it? Not a Him, not a Them, not God, but "Her"?

Mother Nature? Mother Nature's son is stupid?

Sounds to me like stupid worships Mother Nature...

Quote from stu:

Tele,

You have everything there from the acknowledgement of purpose, to talks of special purpose, to ID'erss in biologists' clothing shouting no purpose.

Miscovery Destitute's ID/Creationism Archives must be so full of confused out of context text snippets and disconnected articles, snatched out of any one's comments, that their own purpose is now illusrating both no purpose and purpose, along with "looks like" no design (in mud puddles) but "looks like" (intelligent) design in everything. Muddled and dishonest shenanigans , that's all it is.

So it's really all to do with your insistence to refuse any other understanding of purpose, other than one coming about via a separate intent.
Your argument swivels around a notion that things cannot have any purpose unless that purpose is a pre-planned intended one, by an outside agent.

That is in straight contradiction and denial of all Natural events.

Nature's purpose is on nature's terms, not yours.
Where there is any serious meaningful examination taken of nature, Her purpose, in the biololgical process, is survival via nature's own means. Evolution.

Bolting intelligent design onto everything and anything for no other reason than the groundless claim "it looks like" , against what has been found and confirmed time after time , generation after generation since Darwin, to be pupose by Nature's own means, is nothing more than a display of of human conceited arrogance on the part of ID'ers trying to palm the God card.


The Natural Universe as revealed by modern science, contains more magnificent wonder, far more reason for reverence, than relious faith or any ID/Creationist has ever reached into.

 

[stu]

geezZzz that is bad dude even for you
check your meds