Intelligent Design is not creationism

Stu wrote:
If that were the case, don't you think someone and someone's intelligence would likewise be needed to design the creator?

That someone would too need someone and someone's intelligence to design Itself. Those ID infinite regress turtles are forever showing up.
More...


There is no good reason to doubt that a 1000 years from now human scientists will be able to seed distant planets with microbes designed to evolve. Later when these microbes have evolved into intelligent beings there will be among them those like Stu that will insist life originated via geo-chemical processes and they will invoke infinite regress to thwart any design inferences. Others will be investigating whether life originated via bioengineering. Which group will be on the right track to discover the truth?
 
And there will be those on that planet like Tele, who will never deal with the blindingly obvious which ID consistently ignores. Still working with the simplistic impression that because intelligence can undertake bio-engineering, then all life will be bio-engineered. So microbes which do not need any seeding from scientists to form, develop or evolve, suddenly require intelligent design for no reason at all to form, develop and evolve. Then ID would rather conduct a pretence to be looking for truth, by feigning a way it says would start to solve a question, but which only re-introduces the same question in its proposed solution. Then there is no desire to understand or ever accept the mountains of evidence that exists for the Creator which Tele wants to search for so much. Evidence which is there all the time, right under his nose. But it's known as Nature not God. And therin lies the rub.
 
Stu wrote:
And there will be those on that planet like Tele, who will never deal with the blindingly obvious which ID consistently ignores.
More...

What are you talking about? Those on this planet like me would be investigating the possibility that life on the planet was seeded by bioengineers. Your group would be investigating a geo-chemical origin of life. Since life on this hypothetical planet originated via bioengineering it is obvious which group has the best chance of discovering the truth. The best you can do is posit a scenario wherin life orginated via geo-chemical processes in which case those looking for a bioengineering answer would be on the wrong track. But either scenario is possible. You can't rule out a design scenario like I presented without denying that humans in the future will be able to seed distant planets with life. If it can happen in the future it could have happened in the past right here on earth.
 
what was it you couldn't understand about this...?

  • Still working with the simplistic impression that because intelligence can undertake bio-engineering, then all life will be bio-engineered. So microbes which do not need any seeding from scientists to form, develop or evolve, suddenly require intelligent design for no reason at all to form, develop and evolve.

The scientists who seeded the planet you are on. How were they able to do so. By learning how to replicate naturally occurring biological processes?
In other words, copying what nature did to "seed" them in the first place?

But what would have ID'd the scientists anyway? What then ID'd the ID that ID'd the scientists? More ID or another natural process?
Just like the here and now , you won't be investigating anything. You'll still be pontificating on matters which hold no information, have no evidence, are not scientific and which only shuffle ID's big infinite regress problem around from place to place and planet to planet.
 
Stu wrote:
The scientists who seeded the planet you are on. How were they able to do so. By learning how to replicate naturally occurring biological processes?
More...

Irrelevant. All that matters is who would be able to discover the true history of how life got started on the planet in question. Persons like you would be searching forever for a geo-chemical answer. Only the IDers would stand a chance of discovering the truth.
 
Quote from Teleologist:
Irrelevant. All that matters is who would be able to discover the true history of how life got started on the planet in question. Persons like you would be searching forever for a geo-chemical answer. Only the IDers would stand a chance of discovering the truth.
More...
In your 1st scenario you have conditions where "teleological causation" fails 100% of the time. strike1.
So you shifted to a 2nd scenario where you have conditions of "teleological causation" unconditionally stated as being categorically correct .

' Who would be able to discover the true history of how life got started on the planet in question' .....?
Well it won't be anything that cannot provide information or evidence. So that rules out ID and your "teleological causation". For we have seen, under very ordinary circumstances it is found to start with a conclusion and then stall with nowhere else to go at 100% wrong.

So in your simplistic hypothetical, the true history of life on planet ID doesn't conveniently stop right there. As ID doctrine has again stalled and is now content with a notion of "teleological causation" , proper scientific investigation continues to push real enquiry onwards and establishes the origins to be back on Earth, Whereupon it is confirmed life did get started by completely naturally occurring biological processes. strike2.

So how did the IDer get any closer to what you call truth ? By fooling himself into ignoring the fact that the initial problem ID claims to deal with recurs infinitely within its own answer to it.

duh Tele, DUH.
 
Stu wrote:
So how did the IDer get any closer to what you call truth ? By fooling himself into ignoring the fact that the initial problem ID claims to deal with recurs infinitely within its own answer to it.
More...

ID is investigating whether geo-chemical processes or bioengineering best accounts for the origin of life on earth. If it could be determined that bioengineering best accounts for the origin of life on earth that would be a huge achievement. The magnitude of this achievement would not be diminished by the fact it doesn't account for the ultimate orgin of life in the universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top