Intelligent Design is not creationism

[I am...]

Quote from stu:

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

Newtonian physics held that objects were real and outside of you with a separate existence.

Quantum physics demonstrates this is not true.

Everything that appears to exist is inseparable thought.

You can't even observe something without causing a change in it on the sub-atomic level.

Now, imagine a single mind completely outside the illusion of time and space exerting it's influence upon everything depending on how it observes.

Everything is in it's mind, including your own body.

So there is a oneness, or interconnectivity between all the components that go to make up this complex universe. This is evidenced by all manner of synchronicity.

Astonishingly, the mind that makes this universe is itself an illusion. And it's synchronistic capabilities are an imitation of oneness.

Even so, it must have had a damn good reason for building what it built out of subatomic components.

This begs the question, "What is the goal?" or, "What for?"

A scientist who starts from this premise will make better progress than one who won't think as freely in order to make free associations.

Anyone interested in truth would wonder what value such a mind saw in making this up in the first place.

Anyone interested in freedom would wonder what is an appropriate response now.

If you understand that the illusory mind that makes the world is ultimately yours, you can begin to change it if you understand how it thinks.

If you are adept, this can result in changes at the sub-atomic level.

Again, the mind that makes the world organizes it by observation.

Actually, it is observing reality in it's own way. It selects from infinite possibilities what it wants to see.

So it's not a creation at all. It's just a re-arrangment of creation in a way that does not resemble it at all.

The human eye is designed to see this mind's observations only...unable to look past them to the reality beyond. And this is because your thinking package is designed to likewise observe reality your own way.

If you decide to see reality as it is, you will be astonished. It will become clear that the world is a cover up.

Perceiving-observing differently, you have influence at the sub-atomic level.

The phenomenon of the placebo effect can be attributed to this basis in perception. And from there, you can go on to explain many other phenomenon.

Once you are willing to see past the illusion, you can see clearly that You are really the reality behind it...you are the creation.

The world, then, is simply a way of looking at yourself, and rather harshly at that.

This is how the world is the incorrect answer to the question, "Who am I?".

What you see with eyeballs is a harsh self-judgment giving way to condemnation and punishment.

This indicates that the mind that makes this world - the mind that observes You - imay be intelligent and logical, but may not exactly be sane.

Jesus

 

[Teleologist]

Teleologist:

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

Stu replied:

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.

There is data from the natural world that design proponents count as evidence for ID. If you want to claim that evidence for ID doesn't exist then you need to have determined what counts as evidence for ID and after examining ALL the data from the natural world, failed to find it. You haven't done that. So, the best you can logically claim is that from the data you've examined, you have found nothing that YOU would count as evidence for ID.


Stu wrote:

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.

I am not aware that Behe ever claimed to have anything in common with Francis Crick. That's is my contention because both of them claim that intelligence was behind the origin of life on earth. And Behe has never even mentioned God in any of his hypotheses.


Stu wrote:

Behe needs to produce equally persuasive evidence for ID which he already has stated his God brought about.

Show me where Behe has ever invoked God in any of his hypotheses.


Stu wrote:

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?

Well, Crick's ‘Directed Panspermia’ hypothesis begs the same question for those seeking the ultimate cause behind life in the universe but we need to distinguish between proximate and ultimate causes. For example, no one claims that attributing the Jupiter Symphony to the artistry [design] of Mozart begs the question of who designed Mozart. No one claims that there is no explanatory value in attributing the origin of the Jupiter Symphony to Mozart because it sets up an infinite regress.


If a detective finds a dead body with a knife stuck it its back the detective is going to infer a design event. In other words, the person died because someone intented it. This is teleological causation. This is the proximate cause and there is nothing supernatural about it. But what if the detective's boss on reading the detective's report says: "I can't accept your conclusion of teleology (i.e.murder) in this case unless I can determine the ultimate source of teleology in the universe. Unless you can prove that no uncaused being was behind the ultimate origin of teleology then your conclusion of murder in this case is tantamount to invoking the supernatural and is unacceptable."

Behe's hypotheses are based on empirical evidence. They are not anti-evolution and they don't invoke the supernatural.

 

[2cents]

Quote from Teleologist:

Behe's hypotheses are based on empirical evidence. They are not anti-evolution and they don't invoke the supernatural.

Behe's soft in the head and if u can't see why, that says sthg about u too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity = irreducible to Behe )))

 

[2cents]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cosmic_Cockroaches_999.html

"Cosmic Cockroaches

Supernova remnant N132D. Contours trace hot gas observed by the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Colors denote IR radiation mapped by the Spitzer Space Telescope. Image credit: Achim Tappe and colleagues.
by Dr. Tony Phillips
Boston MA (SPX) Sep 07, 2007
Starved. Stomped. Radiated. Poisoned. It's all in a day's work for the common household cockroach. The abuse these creatures can withstand is amazing. But astronomers have found something even tougher-"polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons," says Achim Tappe of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics. "They can survive a supernova."
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs for short) are ring-shaped molecules made of carbon and hydrogen. They're about as well loved as roaches: PAHs are a widespread organic pollutant, appearing in auto exhaust, oil spills and cigarette smoke. The EPA has classified seven PAH compounds as human carcinogens. But even PAHs have their virtues: Ring-shaped molecules similar to PAHs are found in DNA, and there's a growing consensus among biologists that PAHs were present on Earth 4.5 billion years ago when life began. By serving as building blocks for larger molecules of life, PAHs may have played an essential role in the chemical process of genesis.

That's why Tappe's recent discovery may be so important.

The story begins 3000 years ago when a massive star in the Large Magellanic Cloud exploded. It was, in most respects, a typical supernova explosion, releasing in a just few days the energy our sun produces in about 10 billion years. Hot gas and deadly radiation blasted through nearby star systems, while the exploding star itself was mostly (and perhaps completely) destroyed.

The supernova's expanding shell, catalogued by astronomers as "N132D", remains visible from Earth after all these years. It spans 80 light years and has swept up some 600 Suns worth of mass. Images from the Chandra X-ray Observatory reveal the still-hot outlines--see the diagram below.

Last year "we scanned N132D using the Spitzer Space Telescope," says Tappe. Spitzer is an infrared (IR) telescope, and it has a spectrometer onboard sensitive to the IR emissions of PAHs. One look at N132D revealed "PAHs all around the supernova's expanding shell. They appear to be swept up by a shock wave of 8 million degree gas. This is causing some damage to the molecules, but many of the PAHs are surviving."

Below: Supernova remnant N132D. Contours trace hot gas observed by the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Colors denote IR radiation mapped by the Spitzer Space Telescope. Image credit: Achim Tappe and colleagues.

Astronomers have long known that PAHs are abundant not only on Earth but throughout the cosmos-they've been found in comet dust, meteorites and many cold interstellar clouds-but who knew they were so tough? "This is our first evidence that PAHs can withstand a supernova blast," he says.

Their ability to survive may be key to life on Earth. Many astronomers are convinced that a supernova exploded in our corner of the galaxy 4-to-5 billion years ago just as the solar system was coalescing from primitive interstellar gas. In one scenario of life's origins, PAHs survived and made their way to our planet. It turns out that stacks of PAHs can form in water-think, primordial seas-and provide a scaffold for nucleic acids with architectural properties akin to RNA and DNA.

"It's an exciting and promising theory," says Tappe. "But more experiments and observations are needed to decide its ultimate success or failure." Tappe is doing his part with a new round of Spitzer observations: "We're mapping the distribution of PAHs around N132D, comparing the locations of the molecules to the arc of shock waves revealed by Chandra," he explains. From this "we hope to learn how PAHs are 'processed' by the blast, and how many survive."

In the end, PAHs may prove tough enough for genesis itself. Cockroaches, eat your hearts out."

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:


There is data from the natural world that design proponents count as evidence for ID.

Design proponents count as evidence ?? You are saying that (intelligent) design supporters count as evidence for ID??
There is no data in the natural world that confirms design by itself is evidence for ID. There is overwhelming evidence in the natural world that design occurs naturally.
One reason why its called the natural world..

Quote from Teleologist:

If you want to claim that evidence for ID doesn't exist then you need to have determined what counts as evidence for ID and after examining ALL the data from the natural world, failed to find it. You haven't done that. So, the best you can logically claim is that from the data you've examined, you have found nothing that YOU would count as evidence for ID.

You make a claim of ID - you determine what it is that you will bring to count as evidence in support of it.
If it were the case someone only need make a claim then everyone else had to establish what evidence supported that claim, then I'll make a claim of Fairy Design (FD).

As FD was antecedent to ID, without FD, ID could never have even been thought of.
Forget ID Tele, FD designed ID.
Now... you tell me what counts as evidence for FD! There isn't any?. I thought not.. (Are you sure you looked at ALL the data in the natural world?)
Your argument really is that silly..

Quote from Teleologist:

I am not aware that Behe ever claimed to have anything in common with Francis Crick. That's is my
contention because both of them claim that intelligence was behind the origin of life on earth.And Behe has never even mentioned God in any of his hypotheses.

So your contention is you are not aware Behe claimed to have anything in common with Francis Crick whilst in the
same breath your assertion says they both had something in common.... "intelligence was behind the origin of life on earth"

Are you also not aware how duplicitous that appears ?
Contradicting your own contention in a sentence immediately following, and trying to make Francis Crick
sound like they supported mad-alex claims in the cavalier and dishonest way Behe does ,I suggest hardly helps your argument

Quote from Teleologist:

Show me where Behe has ever invoked God in any of his hypotheses.

Behe has no hypothesis. He has an unsupported claim called ID. In affirmation of that claim, he signed up to a
recorded mandated agenda invoking 'God into Science'..

Quote from Teleologist:

Well, Crick's ‘Directed Panspermia’ hypothesis begs the same question for those seeking the ultimate cause behind life in the universe but we need to distinguish between proximate and ultimate causes.

So you agree. That begs the question.

Quote from Teleologist:

For example, no one claims that attributing the Jupiter Symphony to the artistry [design] of Mozart begs the question of who designed Mozart. No one claims that there is no explanatory value in attributing the origin of the Jupiter Symphony to Mozart because it sets up an infinite regress.

So you agree that does not beg the question.

You cannot see how ID is not resembling Mozart but is resembling Panspermia. How strange that is.

Quote from Teleologist:

If a detective finds a dead body with a knife stuck it its back the detective is going to infer a design event. In other words, the person died because someone intented it. This is teleological causation.

But it was an accident. It was later discovered he fell on it. There was no Teleological causation No teleology explained the phenomena by its ends or purpose. Teleology jumped the gun (or knife in this case) Teleological causation made a wrong conclusion by incorrect assumption..

Quote from Teleologist:

This is the proximate cause and there is nothing supernatural about it. But what if the detective's boss on reading the detective's report says: "I can't accept your conclusion of teleology (i.e.murder) in this case unless I can determine the ultimate source of teleology in the universe. Unless you can prove that no uncaused being was behind the ultimate origin of teleology then your conclusion of murder in this case is tantamount to invoking the supernatural and is unacceptable."

Erm Tele , teleology is a philosophy in the form of doctrine, attempting to explain phenomena, often rather inelegantly and inaccurately, by their (usually assumed) ends or purposes.
When applied to things that already have provable or supportable evidence that come about or occur by those evidential means, teleology is of no importance nor assistance. (As if it ever were.)

Quote from Teleologist:

Behe's hypotheses are based on empirical evidence. They are not anti-evolution and they don't invoke the supernatural.

Behe is a joke.He has no hypothesis. If he did, then so do I . A hypothesis - and more empirical evidence in just a few words for Fairy Design than Behe has managed in the whole of his nutty evangelical snake in a lab coat career.

Fairy-ring mushroom dude..
And it has all the Teleological proximate causation you can handle.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

If it were the case someone only need make a claim then everyone else had to establish what evidence supported that claim, then I'll make a claim of Fairy Design (FD).

As FD was antecedent to ID, without FD, ID could never have even been thought of.

Forget ID Tele, FD designed ID.

Now... you tell me what counts as evidence for FD! There isn't any?. I thought not.. (Are you sure you looked at ALL the data in the natural world?) Your argument really is that silly..

No, it's your argument that is silly. If someone observes things in nature that they think warrants a design inference, but then wants to argue that the Designer is either "God, aliens, a powerful demigod" or "the tooth fairy" they can. But then they've moved beyond the scope of ID which merely infers design from empirical evidence and makes no claim as to the nature of the designer.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

So your contention is you are not aware Behe claimed to have anything in common with Francis Crick whilst in the
same breath your assertion says they both had something in common.... "intelligence was behind the origin of life on earth"

Are you also not aware how duplicitous that appears ?
Contradicting your own contention in a sentence immediately following...

It is my contention that Crick and Behe have something in common. I'm sure Behe would agree. That I'm not aware of Behe commenting directly on this particular matter doesn't make my contention contradictory.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

Behe has no hypothesis. He has an unsupported claim called ID. In affirmation of that claim, he signed up to a
recorded mandated agenda invoking 'God into Science'..

More nonsense. Unless you can show where Behe has invoked God in a scientific hypothesis, your claim that he has an agenda of bringing God into science is nothing but hot air.

 

[Strutter]

'creationism' is not intelligent design..

it's reverse engineering doh :|

 

[Teleologist]

Teleologist wrote:

If a detective finds a dead body with a knife stuck it its back the detective is going to infer a design event. In other words, the person died because someone intented it. This is teleological causation.

Stu replied:

But it was an accident. It was later discovered he fell on it. There was no Teleological causation No teleology explained the phenomena by its ends or purpose. Teleology jumped the gun (or knife in this case) Teleological causation made a wrong conclusion by incorrect assumption..

Teleology didn't jump the gun or come to the wrong conclusion. In your scenario the detective's initial inference was wrong. But 99.9% of the time when a dead body is found with a knife stuck in the back the inference to murder would be correct. So it was perfectly logical for the detective to initially suspect a murder had occurred. And the way to overturn this suspicion is with evidence of an accident. What no one in their right mind would do is attempt to thwart an inference to murder by invoking infinite regress! That's the point that sailed right over your head.