You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
"Appearances can be very deceptive"
True, that which appears to be random could just as easily be by design and programming...
This is acceptable because this is a belief. Yep, it could very well be.
As most of what happens in the natural world is following the programming of nature, to assume non programming for lack of knowledge of a specific programmer or programming force makes little sense...
This is an assertion. Now prove it. Otherwise these are the logical fallacies you end up burdened with:
Proof by assertion.
Appeal to authority.
Appeal to belief.
Argumentum ad nausem.
Argumentum ad lapidem.
argument from ignorance.
argument from personal belief (since you don't perfectly adhere to Christian ID but some kind of fringe pantheistic one.)
And that's just off the top of my head.
The assumption of non design is without proof.
Lack of evidence of a design factor is not proof of non design.
Pure 100% appeal to ignorance, and then fitting the "facts" to support the belief system.
Ignorance of programming at work is not evidence of non programming.
So simple, so obvious, and so much work to select and continually defend the unnatural conclusion of non design...
"since you don't perfectly adhere to Christian ID but some kind of fringe pantheistic one."
Clueless guessing...
LMAO...
Lack of evidence of a design factor is not proof of non design.
Pure 100% appeal to ignorance, and then fitting the "facts" to support the belief system.
Ignorance of programming at work is not evidence of non programming.
So simple, so obvious, and so much work to select and continually defend the unnatural conclusion of non design...
"since you don't perfectly adhere to Christian ID but some kind of fringe pantheistic one."
Clueless guessing...
LMAO...
Quote from D2.0:
This is acceptable because this is a belief. Yep, it could very well be.
This is an assertion. Now prove it. Otherwise these are the logical fallacies you end up burdened with:
Proof by assertion.
Appeal to authority.
Appeal to belief.
Argumentum ad nausem.
Argumentum ad lapidem.
argument from ignorance.
argument from personal belief (since you don't perfectly adhere to Christian ID but some kind of fringe pantheistic one.)
And that's just off the top of my head. [/B]
That is the declared modus operandi of ID /creationism. Create controversy and then argue it. Create strawmen hoping the wizard of Oz may show. Tele uses it, then deceitfully pretends he represents a different kind of ID.Quote from D2.0:
OMG. LOL. Well done Stu. I was going to take the time to draw out why a criterion was important but figured, rrrggg.
All they seem to have is quotes from real scientists that they can play around with, but nothing worthwhile from their own camp.
After that, TrollZzz will only serve to purposely muddy the puddle.
stuey has a new buddy, oh how cute...
Quote from stu:
That is the declared modus operandi of ID /creationism. Create controversy and then argue it. Create strawmen hoping the wizard of Oz may show. Tele uses it, then deceitfully pretends he represents a different kind of ID.
After that, TrollZzz will only serve to purposely muddy the puddle.
Quote from D2.0:
Because "appears to be designed" isn't all that useful until some objective criteria is drawn up that allows one to distinguish between what constitutes design and what doesn't.
What counts as useful? Proving design? Science has provided no methodology that can distinguish between design and non-design in an experimentally testable fashion. Perhaps you can enlighten me about the tests you use to distinguish between design and non-design. Or do you actually infer non-design without any tests??
There is no experiment that proves non-design but that has not stopped scientists from speculating about and testing for non-teleological causes has it? Likewise, ID doesn't need to discover a way to distinguish design from non-design but can prove its usefulness by helping us better understand biotic reality.
Quote from Teleologist:
What counts as useful? Proving design? Science has provided no methodology that can distinguish between design and non-design in an experimentally testable fashion. Perhaps you can enlighten me about the tests you use to distinguish between design and non-design. Or do you actually infer non-design without any tests??
There is no experiment that proves non-design but that has not stopped scientists from speculating about and testing for non-teleological causes has it? Likewise, ID doesn't need to discover a way to distinguish design from non-design but can prove its usefulness by helping us better understand biotic reality.
See what I mean about your interpretation skills? I didn't state that you should prove design. I stated that you should come up with a means to distinguish design from non-design since you assert design. Evolutionists don't assert design. They don't even think in such terms as non-design. Non-design only becomes an issue once you assert design.
And then the strawman of what tests I use to prove design from non-design. Actually, you're asking me to do something I didn't assert. I do not assert design because I can't seem to recognize it. But you do seem to recognize it so the burden is on you to supply to the world with how to recognize it in an objective manner.
Then you have the problem of asking me to prove a negative. There's nothing in my mind that objectively leads me to suspect design by a metaphysical force. But there is something that leads me to believe that things evolve according to their environment. So in that respect, you could say that things are "designed" by their environment. And I can prove that.
And I bet we could agree on that. But the trouble comes when you assert that the environment which "designed" was itself designed. And that environment designed, and so on as so forth until you reach a point where you can't see what designed the highest level of this postulation. Then you'll assert an intelligent designer. But now we have to go back and see if the intelligent designer only designed the original landscape from which all other lesser landscapes and domains were designed or did this intelligent designer designed them all. And then you have to prove it.
Anyway, it seems to me that all you want is an admission of the possibility of design. OK. imagine you get that. Are you satisfied? And what does that mean going forward? Nothing. Because you'll never be able to prove design unless the designer proves it designed.
So what the hell's the real ultimate point of ID? Tell me that.
Quote from Stu:
Appearances can be very deceptive.
Yes, and they can also lead us to the truth. Your attitude, if applied consistently throughout science, would be the end of the whole enterprise. All our evidence for the existence of physical laws, for instance, ultimately boils down to our intuition that things look like they were caused in a lawlike manner. Someone who refused to allow that as positive evidence could insist that physics was just one big "negative argument" against things looking that way by chance, and that there was no positive evidence for laws at all.