Intelligent Design is not creationism

Hansel H · Dec 7, 2007

Quote from lkh:

Your whole premise is falsified by this false statement. Evolution has purpose and direction. Survival.

In the absence of a Designer evolution would only appear to have purpose; in the absence of a purposeful entity there can be no purpose.

stu · Dec 7, 2007

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You among other have confused belief in random events due primarily to ignorance of a pattern or inability to predict behavior with proof of randomness as you have not logically excluded the possibility of a pattern, and have no real knowledge with certainty that the so called randomness is not following a pattern that is beyond the ability of scientists to observe and measure.

[....]

Something that is proved objectively random is ..well just not objectively random...because you can imagine it might not be .
Brilliant.
That's what this country needs
Mind numbing Zzidiocy. . And let's make sure it gets into science class. It will put this great nation back where it belongs in no time . Move over Einstein.

Hansel H · Dec 7, 2007

Quote from stu:

That was not the problem I was alluding to,...neverthless

You say the Designer need not be defined, then you go straight ahead and define It.
That hurdle is not going to be overcome by stepping around it.

Then on top of that there is the "Designer problem"

I'm not defining the Designer except as that which has ( or may have ) a relationship with us similar to the relationship we have with our creations. If this is a definition of the Designer it's about as minimal as a definition can get while still making a point.

So go ahead - what is this "Designer problem" you were alluding to?

murray t turtle · Dec 7, 2007

Quote from Teleologist:

Intelligent design is often equated with creationism. They are not the same, not even close. ID is not based on the Biblical account of creation, it doesn't invoke the supernatural, and it isn't anti-evolution.

The ID perspective allows one to investigate these evolutionary possibilities:

1. Evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled.

2. Evolution was designed such that it could acquire new information over time.

3. Permutations of 1 and 2.

Here is a comparison of ID with creationism:

Creationism posits a supernatural creator. ID doesn't

Creationism claims the earthâs geology can be explained primarily by a worldwide flood. ID doesn't.

Creationism claims that "Created kinds" of plants and animals can vary only within fixed limits. ID doesn't make this claim.

Creationism rejects common ancestry. ID doesn't.

Creationism is anti-evolution. ID isn't.

The reason ID critics insist on equating ID with creationism is because they want to discredit ID with the public by associating it with the controversial tenets of creationism.

Don't be duped by the ID critics. ID is not creationism.

=====================
Excellant points Teleo,
watch how the word ''prepared ''is used next ;
& we are studing as of 12-2-2007, in sunday school-Genesis 1;1

In the beginning God created the heavens & the earth-King James Version

In the beginning God created [prepared , formed, fashioned ]the heavens & the earth-Amplified Bible. Genesis 1;1

Amplified Bible amplifies the Hebrew.

stu · Dec 7, 2007

Quote from Hansel H:

In the absence of a Designer evolution would only appear to have purpose; in the absence of a purposeful entity there can be no purpose.

A purposeful entity is not absent. It's name is Evolution.

stu · Dec 7, 2007

Quote from Hansel H:

I'm not defining the Designer except as that which has ( or may have ) a relationship with us similar to the relationship we have with our creations. If this is a definition of the Designer it's about as minimal as a definition can get while still making a point.

So go ahead - what is this "Designer problem" you were alluding to?

Please go back to your post , and read again... where you defined the designer.

Hansel H · Dec 7, 2007

Quote from stu:

Something that is proved objectively random is ..well just not objectively random...

I'd comment here, but you and Z appear to have a nasty relationship going and I have no desire to appear to be siding against you.

stu · Dec 7, 2007

Quote from Hansel H:

I'd comment here, but you and Z appear to have a nasty relationship going and I have no desire to appear to be siding against you.

You misunderstand. ZZzz is a troll. Jerking a Troll's chain now and then is neither here nor there.

As you put it previously Hansel , I await your response.

Hansel H · Dec 7, 2007

Quote from stu:

Please go back to your post , and read again... where you defined the designer.

I define the Designer as existing on a higher plane; this definition is an unavoidable product of the analogy. Other than that I'm merely including The Designer in the class of designers and 'designers' is a word that exists by way of its definition.

It's impossible to discuss any entity without indirectly defining it.

How about "Other than defining the Designer as existing on a higher plane, there's no need for the ID proponent to define the Designer."? Do you see this as a significant concession?

Or do you think that I'm still missing your point?

Hansel H · Dec 7, 2007

Quote from stu:

A purposeful entity is not absent. It's name is Evolution.

I missed this on my last visit. It's too juicy to pass up. A purposeful entity must have mind and will; evolution is just a process and has neither of these.