Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So whoever first coined the word gives them ownership over it, and nobody can use the same word with a different meaning?

R^R!

Beyond stupid, genuinely beyond stupid...

I do see that you are going for multiple swear tactic, another indicator of junior status...

Bottom line is anyone is free to use the term ID or intelligent design any way they wish, and when they explain why their usage is not the same as what the Creationists use the term for, then to a reasonable mind, it makes sense...

Yes, you are a junior league type, no question...

Quote from D2.0:

Yeah, I'm a junior. Weeee. Wooohooo. Happy? Yes, no, maybe?

Anyway, coinage means what? Act of inventing a word of phrase maybe? So your request for trademark and registration won't be addressed since such terminology doesn't apply. American Christians coined the term unless you can offer up evidence to the contrary. I'm all eyes.

Now to get a little gruff.

You're full of shizzle. I made the effort to prove my assertion which has yet to be trumped. Doesn't mean it can't. But given most widely known info on the subject, it will be difficult to do so.

You on the other hand offered what? Shizzle. Fo' shizzle to be on the money. First, you f*cked up with attempting to point out an argumentum ad populus. Then you f*ck up again by asking for a trademark or regi for the term ID when I said it is coined by, well, you know. Ideological terms aren't marketable you boob. Hence no trademark or regi. Gee whiz. What you should have asked for is the origin of the word. But I gave you that even though you didn't know what to properly ask for.

F*ck up again, which you probably will, and you'll just end up looking like a troll just out for a fight for fight's sake. I don't play that game. When you've got something worthwhile, and I mean that objectively, we'll chat. Until then...

Piss off, little man.

 

[D2.0]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So whoever first coined the word gives them ownership over it, and nobody can use the same word with a different meaning?

R^R!

Beyond stupid, genuinely beyond stupid...

I do see that you are going for multiple swear tactic, another indicator of junior status...

Bottom line is anyone is free to use the term ID or intelligent design any way they wish, and when they explain why their usage is not the same as what the Creationists use the term for, then to a reasonable mind, it makes sense...

Yes, you are a junior league type, no question...

Indeed you're a troll. Why's that? It was you who suggested giving ID some qualifiers to differentiate your, whatever view, of it. Like adding a "C" before it. Or adding "NC" before it.

Then you pick a fight over it when I agree with you.

Troll.

Then it was you who first start with disparaging terms but have the audacity to point out retaliation as an offensible act.

Troll.

And the funny thing is, I'm not the only one who noticed.

Bye-bye now.

 

[D2.0]

Quote from jem:

You should read up on physics, the cosmological constant and string theory as it is being applied - before you draw that conclusion.

Susskind, huh? Yeah. Know all about it. Yeah and the oft misquoting by ID proponents of some of the things he has said that appear to add some legitimacy to the idea of design.

Good thing Susskind addresses these misquotings.

Gotta love this book of his. Title says it all: The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I find that last piece of advice from Stu pretty funny.
Do you think acknowledge there is a debate in the scientific community about whether the universe appears designed?

It was supposed to read - Stu - do you acknowledge...

Philosophical debates occur in all sorts of communities jem, So?

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Pure bunk. ID has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism. ID is not based on the Bible, does not invoke the supernatural, and is not anti-evolution.

You cannot dictate to the Central Wingnut Command of the Discovery Institute, what ID will be to do with.
Central control and headquarters for the Intelligent Design movement IS the Discovery Institute. They do not agree with your definition.

The Discovery Institute , the center for ID, directly, categorically , and decisively associates Intelligent Design with Creationism, bases ID on the Bible, invokes the supernatural, and states it is anti-evolution. It has has already been shown to you how and where.

Your own personal version of ID may well be different, but nevertheless it is not that of the mainstream ID movement. Which is it..Either in denial of that or have obviously decided to just try and lie your way past it.

Quote from Teleologist:

While ID critics continually conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism for rhetorical and political reasons, the creationists themselves do not consider ID proponents to be fellow creationists. No less than John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research, comments as follows:

The "Institute for Creation Research" is a biblical so called research institute for christ sakes . Who are you trying to fool.
Nothing to do with ID critics. Both yours and John Morris's argument for what ID might be, is with the Discovery Institute.
They, being the axis of ID, have already declared that Intelligent Design IS creationism.

 

[D2.0]

Quote from stu:

Central control and headquarters for the Intelligent Design movement IS the Discovery Institute. They do not agree with your definition.

BINGO!

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"The Discovery Institute , the center for ID."

Quite a difference between saying the center for ID, and a center for ID.

This is the same type of argument that is used continually by the atheists. They want to frame any debate by their perspective of what ID is, not what other people who disagree with them claim that ID is.

Just like the foolish arguments about God. Atheists continually frame God as the God of Judeo Christian thought and the Western view of God, completely ignoring other ideas of God from Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, and other Eastern religions, as well as a Deist's view of life.

I disagree with the Creationist Christian view of ID, but I still am a supporter of ID, and there is no logical inconsistency in having a different opinion of what ID really is.

No ownership of the concept of ID belongs to any group.

It is just as easy to say that the Creationists have hijacked the concept of intelligent design, which has been around much longer than Christianity, and somehow have convinced the masses of atheists and Darwinists that ID is now, and can be nothing but Creationism.

Completely daft, but that is generally what goes on in these word game end games when atheists are involved in trying to define to win a meaningless point.

I will frequently use the phrase ignorant chance to describe the opposite of intelligent design as to explain what intelligent design is. It is not ignorant chance. That's simple enough for most with a working brain to comprehend. Not ignorant chance is what ID really is. A suggestion of non ignorant chance is within the realm of science, and can be as easily studied, tested, and refuted as the claims that are perpetuated "in the name of science" that life is the product of ignorant chance.

Quote from stu:

You cannot dictate to the Central Wingnut Command of the Discovery Institute, what ID will be to do with.
Central control and headquarters for the Intelligent Design movement IS the Discovery Institute. They do not agree with your definition.

The Discovery Institute , the center for ID, directly, categorically , and decisively associates Intelligent Design with Creationism, bases ID on the Bible, invokes the supernatural, and states it is anti-evolution. It has has already been shown to you how and where.

Your own personal version of ID may well be different, but nevertheless it is not that of the mainstream ID movement. Which is it..Either in denial of that or have obviously decided to just try and lie your way past it.
The "Institute for Creation Research" is a biblical so called research institute for christ sakes . Who are you trying to fool.
Nothing to do with ID critics. Both yours and John Morris's argument for what ID might be, is with the Discovery Institute.
They, being the axis of ID, have already declared that Intelligent Design IS creationism.

 

[D2.0]

Havin' fallen asleep (zzzzzz) says, "not ignorant chance" is ID.

Therefore its contrapositive is also ID; "informed chance."

Senselessness. Which just goes to show how far away you are from the concept of intelligent design. The two words which frame the concept describe a design who is what? Intelligent.

There is no chance involved if there's:

1. A designer.
2. The designer is intelligent.

An Intelligent Designer is not an accidental tourist.

So what do you think? A cosmic force with intelligence designed things? Aliens? What? Who cares? Form a group, get some followers, write a manifesto, then come back.

And the gods of Hinduism, Jainism, etc etc are equally as imaginery as the Judeo-Christian god you refered to. All atheist argument apply with only slight modification to the others. Just as they do with all the defunct religions of the world. So once again your arguments hold little water.

Instead of pontificating, slap some links up to back up whatever the hell nonsense your blabbering on about. It might not be nonsense after all if there's someone out there who shares your views but knows how to string it together coherently.

I hate in when people with off-shoot minority viewpoints try to act as if their exception to the rule should somehow trump mainstream arguments. Stinkin' fringe. Wait your turn. We'll get to you when and if you start to matter.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Is a computer program the product of an intelligent designer?

Is a computer program that designs other computer programs the intelligent designer? Is AI, which is produced by an intelligent designer still intelligence? Natural intelligence is different from artificial intelligence?

The Universe is pretty damned intelligent, but it is just an accident? Accidental intelligence?

The point is really pretty simple for those who can think in uncomplicated logical ways.

The universe appears programmed, even programmed for randomness at times in the midst of ordinary programming. The universe works, it doesn't break down, it doesn't grind to a halt, it doesn't lack for energy, it does just fine all by itself according to its programmed nature.

It is not necessary to know who wrote a computer program to know that programming is underlying programmed operations, and without doubt the laws of nature of the physical world do indeed program the events in the physical world.

The events are not "unprogrammed" as they all happen within the realm of, and under the control of the laws of nature. I don't see either side saying that there are not laws of nature that govern the natural world, so we have laws of nature programming and influencing the physical world.

These laws are ignorant and by chance and fully random? How is that in any way a known?

The simplest explanation (Occam's razor) is that these laws that govern behavior in the natural world, which are intelligent enough to produce the entire world, produce intelligence itself as seen in the world, are a product of some programming, that of course is intelligent and by design.

That there is no way to find the programmer yet available to "modern" science is not sufficient to properly explain away all the design quality and programming that is so bloody obvious...

If you need links to know about other religions and their beliefs of origin of life and the universe, just learn how to use Google...

Quote from D2.0:

Havin' fallen asleep (zzzzzz) says, "not ignorant chance" is ID.

Therefore its contrapositive is also ID; "informed chance."

Senselessness. Which just goes to show how far away you are from the concept of intelligent design. The two words which frame the concept describe a design who is what? Intelligent.

There is no chance involved if there's:

1. A designer.
2. The designer is intelligent.

An Intelligent Designer is not an accidental tourist.

And the gods of Hinduism, Jainism, etc etc are equally as imaginery as the Judeo-Christian god you refered to. All atheist argument apply with only slight modification to the others. Just as they do with all the defunct religions of the world. So once again your arguments hold little water.

Instead of pontificating, slap some links up to back up whatever the hell nonsense your blabbering on about. It might not be nonsense after all if there's someone out there who shares your views but knows how to string it together coherently.

I hate in when people with off-shoot minority viewpoints try to act as if their exception to the rule should somehow trump mainstream arguments. Stinkin' fringe. Wait your turn. We'll get to you when you start to matter.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Nobody would make these kinds of "poor design" arguments about a mud puddle since it doesn't seem designed in the first place.

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,

• 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Douglas Adams