Intelligent Design is not creationism

[stu]

Non of the above helps matters for behe one jot. Behe nor anyone else, has ever provided one single scrap of empirical evidence which supports, infers, or suggests scientifically that intelligent design is anything to do with science.

Quote
"Of course Behe does believe that the designer is God"

He will have to as an ID'er, because intelligent design IS creationism.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

Non of the above helps matters for behe one jot. Behe nor anyone else, has ever provided one single scrap of empirical evidence which supports, infers, or suggests scientifically that intelligent design is anything to do with science.

Depends on what you would count as evidence for intelligent design. For a materialistic atheist there can be no evidence for ID because it is metaphysically unacceptable.

Stu wrote:

..intelligent design IS creationism.

Really? So Behe is promoting creationism? Here is a comment by Richard Dawkins concerning Behe:

Descent with modification gives him no problems, nor does natural selection. They are "trivial" and "modest" notions, respectively. Do his creationist fans know that Behe accepts as "trivial" the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish?

Okay, let's see your definition of creationism. It will be interesting to see you come up with a definition so broad that it encompasses the views of someone like Behe that accepts that humans are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish and yet excludes the views of someone like Francis Crick.

 

[stu]

Depends on what you would count as evidence for intelligent design. [/B][/QUOTE]Scientific evidence will do just fine - definable, testable, falsifiable, empirical, repeatable . You know, like that which Darwin and biological science provides, and is thereby able to support and prove evolution as fact.

Quote from Teleologist:

For a materialistic atheist there can beno evidence for ID because it is metaphysically unacceptable.

ID is not unacceptable metaphysically, it is metaphysically moribund.

Philosophical arguments are not scientific evidence. ID will need scientific evidence for ID to be scientific. It never has had any of its own therefore it is not scientific.
Simple really.

Quote from Teleologist:

Really? So Behe is promoting creationism?

Yes, really.

Quote from Teleologist:

Okay, let's see your definition of creationism. It will be interesting to see you come up with a definition so broad that it encompasses the views of someone like Behe that accepts that humans are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish and yet excludes the views of someone like Francis Crick.

You tell me.

Behe it seems, now says he accepts the evolutionary development of species, but believes something like space aliens may have put the process on earth, as he asserts it could not have occurred naturally. Nevertheless, he says God kick starts the universe and everything in it anyway. Not as in Genesis but from some pre non defined place of Behe beginning.

You choose.
Creationist or creationist pretender. Both apply.

 

[2cents]

just killing time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile#Extremophiles_and_astrobiology

http://www.livescience.com/animals/050207_extremophiles.html

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

Behe it seems, now says he accepts the evolutionary development of species, but believes something like space aliens may have put the process on earth...

Similar to Francis Crick, right? Was Francis Crick a creationist?

Stu wrote:

Creationist or creationist pretender. Both apply. You choose.

Let's see your definition of creationist.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

ID will need scientific evidence for ID to be scientific. It never has had any of its own therefore it is not scientific.

How do you know that of all the data biologists have uncovered, none of it is evidence for ID (without first assuming ID is false)? You demand "evidence for ID," but won't tell us what you want. You need to first tell us what the evidence would be before you can assure us it doesn't exist.

Apparently, you don't want anyone to have the ability to address your skepticism. That's why you "hide the goal posts."

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Similar to Francis Crick, right? Was Francis Crick a creationist?

At best Behe arguments have only ever been based on pseudo-science, therefore I don't actually believe he does accept the evolutionary development of species in the first place

Nevertheless, is it now to become the creationists' reasoning that Behe - the self-professed creationist , who has signed up to an agenda for getting 'God into Science', only has to say he agrees similarly with Francis Crick on one issue, to claim an inference that Francis Crick was a creationist?

That means according to Behe , he need only agree with an atheist that science shows the earth is not flat, and he can then ask..."ahh!! so is the atheist a creationist?"

So conversely, is Behe an atheist or does he think the earth is flat!?

Dear me Tele , come on. With all his fancy footwork, its similar argument which has made Behe an embarrassment even to some of his own worshippers.

Quote from Teleologist:

Let's see your definition of creationist.

Behe.

Quote from Teleologist:

How do you know that of all the data biologists have uncovered, none of it is evidence for ID (without first assuming ID is false)? You demand "evidence for ID," but won't tell us what you want. You need to first tell us what the evidence would be before you can assure us it doesn't exist.

Apparently, you don't want anyone to have the ability to address your skepticism. That's why you "hide the goal posts."

How do I know it is not evidence for ID?
Because there is no evidence for ID.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

How do I know it is not evidence for ID?
Because there is no evidence for ID.

That's not very convincing coming from someone that has yet to tell us what they would count as evidence for design.

Stu wrote:

Behe ...only has to say he agrees similarly with Francis Crick on one issue, to claim an inference that Francis Crick was a creationist?

No one is claiming Crick was a creationist. I'm simply pointing out that in regard to the origin of life on earth, Behe's hypotheses are not anymore creationist than Crick's.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

That's not very convincing coming from someone that has yet to tell us what they would count as evidence for design

Seeing how no evidence of intelligent design convinces you there is intelligent design, then I suggest the meaning of the word convince may be lost on you.

Quote from Teleologist:

No one is claiming Crick was a creationist. I'm simply pointing out that in regard to the origin of life on earth, Behe's hypotheses are not anymore creationist than Crick's.

And I was simply pointing out that Behe pretending to have something in common with Francis Crick, does not make Behe’s declared intentions to get 'God into science' by using his so called hypothesis, which have no basis in science to support them , any more scientific or any less creationist..

To support ID, Behe does not need to just say he agrees with existing biological science or the hypothesis based upon scientific information which Francis Crick has already provided.
Behe needs to produce equally persuasive evidence for ID which he already has stated his God brought about

No scientific evidence for ID does not mean there is scientific evidence for ID
In any case Behe’s "hypothesis" only begs the essential question a creationist and creationism raises.

If ID is required, what ID ID’d the ID’er?

 

[I am...]

Quote from stu:


If ID is required, what ID ID’d the ID’er?

Good point.

It continues to point back.

Perhaps that is beyond science. However, if a scientist uses it as a hypotheses to run tests, to make progress, to answer questions, to find solutions that other hypotheses could not produce...why should that concern you? Wouldn't you be grateful?

The way it works is simple:

The universe is a wish that exists dependant upon a mind that uses faith to make what it wants to believe "real".

By observing the effects of this wish, you can infer what the wish is about, and reverse engineer the toy it has set up.

You would not be much of a scientist if you did not allow your mind the freedom to consider a bigger picture. Would you?

Simply, let what is true be true...even if it is a wish that nothing be true.




Jesus