Intelligent Design is not creationism

[I am...]

Quote from armoured saint:

quit trying to be so clever..

your loosing site of the trth

Ok let me cut to the chase...

THERE IS NO WORLD!

Cleverness, jokes, and flashy explanations won't change that.
We are talking heads, yapping prerecorded sentences in a long abandoned world. We are ghosts in a haunted house, believeing we are here. Words themselves are jokes, unreal symbols of what never was. No amount of talking will ever make this world more than absolutely nothing.

Allow me to quote from Shakespeare, The Tempest:

"Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted in to air, into thin air
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made of, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep. "


It's easy to lose sight of the truth.
Forgive me.

Jesus

 

[Teleologist]

What would happen if the creationists began to embrace the critic’s watered-down definition of creationism? One may attempt to define “Creationist” as anyone who believes Life was “created” rather than emerging from non-intelligent forces. If one waters down the definition in this way, they end up ensnaring various theistic evolutionists and proponents of directed panspermy (such as Francis Crick) in the category of “Creationist.”

Yet imagine the Institute for Creation Research put out a pamphlet stating, “Creationist Francis Crick (who helped discover the Double Helix nature of DNA) was so incredulous of abiogenesis that he proposed the first life forms were designed and deposited on this planet.” I think it obvious those previously proposing the watered down definition would now accuse the ICR of misrepresenting Crick as a creationist, indicating that they really don’t take their watered down definition seriously. Clearly, if the definition of “Creationist” can include a proponent of Darwinian evolution, then the definition adds smoke, not light, to the debate.

Let’s expand on this. Let’s say Answers In Genesis writes an article crediting Creationists for discovering the double helix and sequencing the human genome. Upon reading, we find that the creationists are Francis Crick and Francis Collins. How do you think the critics would respond? It would be interesting to then watch them come up with a tailor-made definition that works to exclude Crick, Collins, Miller and others from the creationist label, yet include people like Behe. I’m sure it could be done; but it would also be blatantly obvious that they were painting targets around arrows.

The ID thesis is very close in the neighborhood to such things as Crick and Orgel's hypothesis of Directed Panspermia and also SETI.

There is one intelligent designer that everyone accepts and that is man. Of course, we can confirm the existence of this designer and can, in most cases, determine how he designs and manufactures things. There are many objects on our world that we identify as "man-made" because we see them being made or because they are made of things such as steel that only man makes. We don't normally bother asking whether nature (excluding man) could make similar things. Man-made is the simple explanation; nature-made is a far less likely explanation.

SETI is a search for man-made-like objects found in places where man could never have made them. An example of such an object is a narrowband radio signal like those generated by man's radio transmitters but coming from another planet. So far as I know, the serious SETI people are not attempting to detect a god or some alien creature wildly different from man.

The ID approach is much like searching for man-made objects found in places where man could never had made them. But instead of radio technology, we're looking for traces of advanced biotechnology/nanotechnology.

On the other hand, the ID approach cannot distinguish between a natural and a supernatural designer (i.e., in what way would a cell designed by a natural designer look different from a cell designed by a supernatural designer?).

 

[dr. fill]

Quote from acronym:

I think you have successfully stumbled onto the landmines of the argument, via preposterous and ridiculous arguement, which simply cant be refuted due to its being so ridiculous.

You used the term "world" for creationism, yet oddly used "universe" to define id.
If it should be considered on it's own merit, wouldnt some differentiation be expected, or are they arguements for the same thing?

Even more suspiciously, you used the "scientists say" argument in effective favor of id, despite the fact no earth bound person would ever offer up such tosh as anything but complete speculation, i figure you were being sarcastic though, but words are strange things.

I use 'world' and 'universe' synonymously here as is common practice in philosophy and theosophy.

I'm not advocating either Creationism or ID, merely pointing out the difference, however seemingly silly, between the two.

M.I.T. professor of physics and cosmology A. H. Guth has put forward the idea that human scientists will eventually be able to generate universes in the lab that will occupy spaces other than those in which our own Universe exists.

I'm not being sarcastic, just pointing out what I perceive to be a subtle but meaningful difference between Creationism and ID. I don't subscribe to either concept.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Teleologist:

What would happen if the creationists began to embrace the critic’s watered-down definition of creationism? One may attempt to define “Creationist” as anyone who believes Life was “created” rather than emerging from non-intelligent forces. If one waters down the definition in this way, they end up ensnaring various theistic evolutionists and proponents of directed panspermy (such as Francis Crick) in the category of “Creationist.”

Yet imagine the Institute for Creation Research put out a pamphlet stating, “Creationist Francis Crick (who helped discover the Double Helix nature of DNA) was so incredulous of abiogenesis that he proposed the first life forms were designed and deposited on this planet.” I think it obvious those previously proposing the watered down definition would now accuse the ICR of misrepresenting Crick as a creationist, indicating that they really don’t take their watered down definition seriously. Clearly, if the definition of “Creationist” can include a proponent of Darwinian evolution, then the definition adds smoke, not light, to the debate.

Let’s expand on this. Let’s say Answers In Genesis writes an article crediting Creationists for discovering the double helix and sequencing the human genome. Upon reading, we find that the creationists are Francis Crick and Francis Collins. How do you think the critics would respond? It would be interesting to then watch them come up with a tailor-made definition that works to exclude Crick, Collins, Miller and others from the creationist label, yet include people like Behe. I’m sure it could be done; but it would also be blatantly obvious that they were painting targets around arrows.

The ID thesis is very close in the neighborhood to such things as Crick and Orgel's hypothesis of Directed Panspermia and also SETI.

There is one intelligent designer that everyone accepts and that is man. Of course, we can confirm the existence of this designer and can, in most cases, determine how he designs and manufactures things. There are many objects on our world that we identify as "man-made" because we see them being made or because they are made of things such as steel that only man makes. We don't normally bother asking whether nature (excluding man) could make similar things. Man-made is the simple explanation; nature-made is a far less likely explanation.

SETI is a search for man-made-like objects found in places where man could never have made them. An example of such an object is a narrowband radio signal like those generated by man's radio transmitters but coming from another planet. So far as I know, the serious SETI people are not attempting to detect a god or some alien creature wildly different from man.

The ID approach is much like searching for man-made objects found in places where man could never had made them. But instead of radio technology, we're looking for traces of advanced biotechnology/nanotechnology.

On the other hand, the ID approach cannot distinguish between a natural and a supernatural designer (i.e., in what way would a cell designed by a natural designer look different from a cell designed by a supernatural designer?).

Someone like Crick is not "ensnared" into being tagged as a creationist, because he doesn't bring his belief system into the laboratory. The difference is simple: the Discovery Institute wants to teach the controversy that macroevolution occurs by divine will, rather than by random mutation. But, there's no controversy, because no matter how hard one scientifically examines a random event, there will be no evidence of God in it. It's just a statistical event.

Whereas Crick, or Miller, etc, may believe that God is somewhere in the gaps, but they don't expend research dollars trying to measure it, because they know that there's nothing to measure except randomness.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Your comments remind me of a man who goes looking for the cause of darkness at midnight outdoors with a flashlight in hand, and whenever he thinks he finds the source of darkness he points the flashlight to that place and says "nope, don't see any source of darkness there."

Quote from kjkent1:

Someone like Crick is not "ensnared" into being tagged as a creationist, because he doesn't bring his belief system into the laboratory. The difference is simple: the Discovery Institute wants to teach the controversy that macroevolution occurs by divine will, rather than by random mutation. But, there's no controversy, because no matter how hard one scientifically examines a random event, there will be no evidence of God in it. It's just a statistical event.

Whereas Crick, or Miller, etc, may believe that God is somewhere in the gaps, but they don't expend research dollars trying to measure it, because they know that there's nothing to measure except randomness.

 

[I am...]

Quote from Teleologist:

There is one intelligent designer that everyone accepts and that is man. Of course, we can confirm the existence of this designer and can, in most cases, determine how he designs and manufactures things.

Like the annual migration patterns of swallows, man's thoughts are directed remotely from a level of mind far removed from the vicinity of his brain.
The brain simply acts as a transformer of the signals it recieves. The body automatically responds. It does nothing else, but respond to signals.

The personality-brain-body package does not make any decisions of it's own.
Oh yes, it is designed to appear autonymous, but the design hides the actual source of control.
It must, or man would revolt.
Find this link and trace it back.
There you will find the illusive 'intelligent designer', hiding behind a curtain like the Wizard of Oz.
If you think man is intelligent, you ought to see this thing. It's outrageous, clever, ingenious, logical...but mostly insane.

Whenever I call upon you to make a decision, I am appealing to a level of mind that is capable.
That level is not really the personality-brain-body package.
I appeal to a deep repressed level of mind.
I attempt to stimulate it by jogging your memory.

Jesus

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Your comments remind me of a man who goes looking for the cause of darkness at midnight outdoors with a flashlight in hand, and whenever he thinks he finds the source of darkness he points the flashlight to that place and says "nope, don't see any source of darkness there."

Darkness is the absense of light. The man whom you analogize searches for that which does not exists.

I am not that man.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

There is no known force of random.

There is simply ignorance of pattern.

You are that man, in spades.

Quote from kjkent1:

Darkness is the absense of light. The man whom you analogize searches for that which does not exists.

I am not that man.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from kjkent1:

Darkness is the absense of light. The man whom you analogize searches for that which does not exists.

I am not that man.

--------===============
Good points & LOL.

Interesting clip on Daystar TV Network, Ben Stein is scheduled to be on a movie exsposing the royal battle against creation scientists.

Let there be light in the movie business.

Think its supposed to show this April;
Ben Stein is cool.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

There is no known force of random.

There is simply ignorance of pattern.

You are that man, in spades.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle demonstrates the existence of randomness as both a mathematical and empirical fact.

That you choose to pronounce judgment to the contrary based solely on your unsupported personal opinion, does not change the fact that your pronouncement is false.