Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
More delusion from the "rational" side of life...
Stu wrote:
It is your contention that Behe is a creationist. It is my contention that Behe and Crick both posit that intelligence was behind the origin of life on earth. If positing that intelligence was behind the origin of life on earth makes one a creatioist then Crick was a creationist. So one more time: let's see your definition of creationist.
It is your contention that Behe is a creationist. It is my contention that Behe and Crick both posit that intelligence was behind the origin of life on earth. If positing that intelligence was behind the origin of life on earth makes one a creatioist then Crick was a creationist. So one more time: let's see your definition of creationist.
Yes, and notice that Stu refuses to give us his definition of creationist.
Stu wrote:
You're confusing your scenario with mine. In my scenario the detective makes an initial inference to teleological causation which 99.9% of the time would be correct. But this is not the final conclusion. This is the beginning of an investigation. I never said a design inference is alway 100% accurate. The point of the illustration was that in certain cases a design inference is warranted and worth investigating. No one is saying that an investigation couldn't uncover evidence that would prove an initial design inference wrong.
You're confusing your scenario with mine. In my scenario the detective makes an initial inference to teleological causation which 99.9% of the time would be correct. But this is not the final conclusion. This is the beginning of an investigation. I never said a design inference is alway 100% accurate. The point of the illustration was that in certain cases a design inference is warranted and worth investigating. No one is saying that an investigation couldn't uncover evidence that would prove an initial design inference wrong.
Stu wrote:
No, your argument is silly. Design is design. How does fairy design differ from human-like design? While there is an obvious connection between intelligent engineers and things like machines, I donât see the connection between fairies and machines. Unless of course, you want to envision such entities as intelligent engineers, in which case, their fairyishness is irrelevant.
No, your argument is silly. Design is design. How does fairy design differ from human-like design? While there is an obvious connection between intelligent engineers and things like machines, I donât see the connection between fairies and machines. Unless of course, you want to envision such entities as intelligent engineers, in which case, their fairyishness is irrelevant.
Stu wrote:
So you can never infer design in any case? You don't think this post is the result of a teleological process? I guess you think it best to stop the regress of explanation at the computer screen itself.
So you can never infer design in any case? You don't think this post is the result of a teleological process? I guess you think it best to stop the regress of explanation at the computer screen itself.