Intelligent Design is not creationism

[I am...]

Quote from neophyte321:

....


the question becomes who is more likely to encounter it ... those who believe in it ... or those who refuse to believe in it

"Thy will be done!" is the law of the land, in Heaven and on earth. This means you are likely to encounter whatever you believe in because will precedes belief. But belief is only employed in realms of illusion...represented by the word "earth".
What each has encountered so far has been according to this law: "Thy will be done!".

Perfection is beyond illusions...beyond the god-of-this-world.
Believe in it to encounter it.
Once encountered, belief is obsolete.
For doubt, ignorance, and uncertainty are not attributes of perfection and total knowledge.

Jesus

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

But Behe doesn't argue that species don't evolve which is what you say defines a creationist. Behe applies IC not to species but to molecular machines which go back to the origin of life.

Oh come on now Tele. Don't start denying Behe is a creationist again. Trying to defend Behe is futile. He has already condemned himself to creationism in everything he says and particularly by his book "Darwin’s Black Box / The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"

The whole of Behe's tiresome argument, is founded on his notion that Darwin's Evolution cannot provide for what he calls 'irreducibly complex' biochemical systems and from that unsupported conjecture, his best guess is the presence and workings of organic life must be by the hand of an Intelligent Designer.
Those "machines" are complex biochemical systems. Behe denies they are the result of Evolution.

Behe is a creationist. ID is creationism whether you or Behe like it or not.

Quote from Teleologist:

But that's another issue. The fact remains that Crick and Orgel are not considered to be creationists for proposing an intelligent design theory. Arguing that Behe is a creationist while Crick and Orgel are not is to employ a double standard.

I repeat, Crick and Orgel were not creationists because they did not pretend their idea was scientific, they did not deny Evolution and they made statements like this one...

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

Quote from Teleologist:

Sure, but if the evidence supported directed panspermia then scientists would have to accept it and look for the source of the direction. Following your logic, scientists should reject the SETI program because finding evidence of ETI would pose the problem of where the ETI came from. Better to not discover their existence than be confronted with a possible regress issue, right?

Wrong.
If there ever were anything that resembled directed panspermia it would be explained by science and scientists. Not by some pontificating crackpot evangelist hiding in a lab coat as Behe does.

The scientific position is to ask and explore the next and all other questions wherever substantive evidence can be found. Extra terrestrial intelligence, ET leprechauns or ID hold no such evidence. There is no supporting evidence for any of them whatsoever.
Your position is to ignore questions which are raised by one or other of ID's vague ideas. You know, questions like infinite regress.
There is however more information and evidence in regard to Hansell's Santa than there is for ID. Perhaps therefore you might make a better argument for SC than ID

 

[stu]

Quote from I am...:

" belief is only employed in realms of illusion "

Quote from I am...:

" Once encountered, belief is obsolete "

erm, your belief that belieef is obsolete... "is only employed in realms of illusion"
jeez jesus, you are still the hippiest of hippies dude.

 

[Teleologist]

Quote from Teleologist:

But Behe doesn't argue that species don't evolve which is what you say defines a creationist. Behe applies IC not to species but to molecular machines which go back to the origin of life.

Stu replies:
Oh come on now Tele. Don't start denying Behe is a creationist again. Trying to defend Behe is futile. He has already condemned himself to creationism in everything he says and particularly by his book 'Darwin’s Black Box / The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'.

Response from Teleologist:

Stu, you already gave your definition of a creationist as one who denies that species evolve. By that criterion, Behe is not a creationist because he doesn't deny that species evolve. Behe doesn't deny common descent. ID doesn't deny common descent.

Even Richard Dawkins recognizes that Behe is not a creationist. In a review of Behe's new book, Dawkins says:

Behe correctly dissects the Darwinian theory into three parts: descent with modification, natural selection and mutation. Descent with modification gives him no problems, nor does natural selection. They are "trivial" and "modest" notions, respectively. Do his creationist fans know that Behe accepts as "trivial" the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish?

So there you have it. Dawkins says Behe has no problem with descent with modification. He says that Behe accepts that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish. So Behe obviously doesn't fit your previous definition of a creationist nor does he fit any definition of a creationist I've ever heard of.

Stu wrote:

I repeat, Crick and Orgel were not creationists because they did not pretend their idea was scientific, they did not deny Evolution and they made statements like this one...

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

Teleologist replies:

Behe accepts we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish. He certainly doesn't deny evolution. Behe accepts as much evolution as does Crick and Orgel but like Crick and Orgel he is skeptical of a non-telic origin of life and like them has presented a telic alternative. You previously defined a creationist as one who denies that species evolve. That obviously doesn't apply to Behe. Behe is a theistic evolutionist.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Stu, you already gave your definition of a creationist as one who denies that species evolve. By that criterion, Behe is not a creationist because he doesn't deny that species evolve. Behe doesn't deny common descent. ID doesn't deny common descent.

Even Richard Dawkins recognizes that Behe is not a creationist. In a review of Behe's new book, Dawkins says:

Alright Tele, let's look a little closer at what Dawkins is saying ......

" Behe correctly dissects the Darwinian theory into three parts: descent with modification, natural selection and mutation. Descent with modification gives him no problems, nor does natural selection
.......
But let's follow Behe down his solitary garden path and see where his
overrating of random mutation leads him. He thinks there are not enough
mutations to allow the full range of evolution we observe. There is an
'edge,' beyond which God must step in to help"

Dawkins says there are three parts to Darwin, only one of which Behe says he will accept.. Dawkins shows how Behe rejects Evolution in its entirety which leaves Behe in denial of the Theory as a whole.

Creationism denies the Theory of the Evolution of Species. That is a definition you earlier accepted.
The Evolution of Species is about mutation. You cannot accept some mutation as it is observed and for no real reason, reject the rest of mutation, as it is observed. That is where Behe tries to pull the wool.
In the whole Evolution as it is observed is rejects by Behe.
Behe denies the Theory of the Evolution of Species as it stands and is observed.

Behe is a creationist, just he always was and ID is Creationism just as it always will be..

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

In the whole Evolution as it is observed is rejected by Behe. Behe denies the Theory of the Evolution of Species as it stands and is observed.

Behe doesn't reject any observable feature of evolution. Behe accepts that species evolve, therefore, Behe is an evolutionist not a creationist. ID accepts that species evolve, therefore, ID is not creationism. You gave the definition of a creationist as one that denies species evolve. Now you are changing your definition.

 

[stu]

QUOTE by Teleologist:
"Behe applies IC not to species but to molecular machines"

QUOTE by Teleologist:
"Behe doesn't reject any observable feature of evolution"

You may have missed this...

Those "machines" are complex biochemical systems.
They are observable features of the Evolution of species.
He states (wrongly) they are IC (irreducibly complex) so have to be the result of design by
an intelligent designer. Not evolution.
Not the biochemical processes being observed in direct relationship to the Evolution of
Species.

His best guess (God) not the biochemical features of evolution build "machines"
Behe rejects they are the features of Evolution...
That is a direct denial of the Theory of the Evolution of Species
Creationism denies the Theory of the Evolution of Species. That is a definition you earlier accepted.

Just one reason why Behe is a Creationist.and ID is Creationism

Your best argument for Behe appears in a nutshell to be, Behe says he accepts the Theory of Evolution of the Species as it is scientifically observed, but doesn't accept the Theory of Evolution of the Species as it is scientifically observed in operation..
Behe being his usual deceptive self..

 

[acronym]

Ok, a relevant question.
Would it actually make any difference whatsoever, to anyone, to know the true secrets of the universe? Would it effect your daily lives?
Do you actually give a crap, seriously, or would such stark reality conflict with your "beleifs" to the extent, that you could not, and would not accept it, no matter what the cosmic, godly dice roll dealt out?

I already know the answer, maybe some of you you should consider the question, and what it means.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

Those "machines" are complex biochemical systems. They are observable features of the Evolution of species.

You are confusing the origin of life with the evolution of species. Molecular machines were part of the first cells. They pre-date plant and animal species by a couple of billion years. Crick and Orgel's hypothesis of Directed Panspermia claims that the first cells on earth were the product of intelligent design. It logically follows that the molecular machines that were part of those cells were also intelligently designed. There is no difference between Crick and Orgel's Directed Panspermia hypothesis and Behe's hypothesis when it comes to the origin of molecular machines. Both posit a telic origin for them.

Stu wrote:

That is a direct denial of the Theory of the Evolution of Species.

No it isn't. Behe is skeptical of a non-telic orgin of life just as Crick and Orgel were. And like Crick and Orgel he accepts that species evolve. There is simply no logical reason why one can't be skeptical of a non-telic origin of life and at the same time accept that species evolve.

 

[I am...]

Quote from acronym:


I already know the answer, maybe some of you you should consider the question, and what it means.