Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Seriously Tele just what the hell are you talking about now?
You are trying to assert origins by something you call intelligent design, for which you have no explanations whatsoever other than to assert it must be because Evolution as demonstrated by Darwin can't account for "machines". All in denial of the way scientific evidence and facts involved show how Evolution can and does account for those "machines".
First cells first need rRna. rRna is not a Behe "machine" as he incorrectly describes certain other complex biochemical systems. Although not to do with origin of life, Darwin's Evolution however does nevertheless reflect the evolutionary origins of cells from rRna, if it's origins you mean. No necessisity for your first cells to be plopped on Earth when they could develop without those "machines".
There is voluminous scientific information and explanation to show what Behe says about complex biochemical "machines" is plain wrong. He lost any scientific credibility a long time ago due to his pseudoscientific approach and his groundless claims.
The Behe ID idea denies the Evolutionary process as it is observed. That is the definition for a Creationist and Creationism which you earlier agreed upon. Behe fits the role to a T.
No it does not logically follow at all. It logically follows that those first cells developed from the chemicals which they all contain which had already evolved.
There is all the difference in the world.
How many times does it take for you to grasp something based on reality rather than swallowing everything to do with ID fiction?
Crick and Orgel have stated their idea was not scientific and Crick made it clear what biologists observe is evolution, not design.
Why don't you have Behe take that same position on ID?
The critics, who find it important to label Behe a creationist, are in the awkward position of looking for ways to explain why it is that someone who accepts human evolution is a creationist. And it is at this point that we should consult the wisdom of George Orwell:
Whenever you seek to label someone, you are trying to communicate something about that person. The act of labeling people is typically a political and/or sociological act, and thus we are rationally obligated to consider how the average person will interpret that label. If a critic labels Behe a creationist, what is he trying to communicate about that person? Does the critic convey the information that Behe accepts that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish? No. On the contrary, the critic is communicating the exact opposite. Given that denial of human evolution is a central tenet of creationism, it would be wrong to label Behe as a creationist because most people, upon hearing the label, will think it means that Behe denies human evolution.
In reality, it is more accurate to label Behe a theistic evolutionist, as this label would accurately communicate that a) Behe is an evolutionist and b) believes God was involved in the process of evolution. And in fact, this is how most people interpret theistic evolution, as some sort of God-guided process. How most people interpret a label is the most important point.
Consider this report (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp)that is actually hosted by the NCSE. Here it becomes obvious that Beheâs position is much better described as theistic evolution than creationism:
To make their political word stick, the critics typically have to water down the definition of âcreationistâ and employ guilt-by-association. What they never do is factor the way the term âcreationistâ is commonly understood. And this, according to Orwell, is dishonest.
Whenever you seek to label someone, you are trying to communicate something about that person. The act of labeling people is typically a political and/or sociological act, and thus we are rationally obligated to consider how the average person will interpret that label. If a critic labels Behe a creationist, what is he trying to communicate about that person? Does the critic convey the information that Behe accepts that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish? No. On the contrary, the critic is communicating the exact opposite. Given that denial of human evolution is a central tenet of creationism, it would be wrong to label Behe as a creationist because most people, upon hearing the label, will think it means that Behe denies human evolution.
In reality, it is more accurate to label Behe a theistic evolutionist, as this label would accurately communicate that a) Behe is an evolutionist and b) believes God was involved in the process of evolution. And in fact, this is how most people interpret theistic evolution, as some sort of God-guided process. How most people interpret a label is the most important point.
Consider this report (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp)that is actually hosted by the NCSE. Here it becomes obvious that Beheâs position is much better described as theistic evolution than creationism:
So as you can see, the belief that God creates through evolution is theistic evolution. Of course, just as there may be different types of creationism, so too are there different types of theistic evolution, where the nature and frequency of interventions differ (even to the point where there is no intervention). Thus, if we label Behe a theistic evolutionist, we tap into this common understanding and more accurately communicate.
While ID critics continually conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism for rhetorical and political reasons, the creationists themselves do not consider ID proponents to be fellow creationists. No less than John Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, comments as follows:
Of course, the critics still confuse themselves and others by trying to have it both ways. I was reading Beheâs Amazon blog and noted the following assertion from Jerry Coyne:
Okay, but Richard Dawkins tells us differently:
Combine the logic of the two scientists and we find that acceptance of the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish is transparent creationism.
QUOTE by Teleologist:
While ID critics continually conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism for rhetorical and political reasons
Projecting your own tacticts onto others doesn't wash.
QUOTE by Teleologist:
Thus, if we label Behe a theistic evolutionist, we tap into this common understanding and more accurately communicate.
Why stop there. In the quest for common understanding and more accurate communication . You are selling Behe cheap. Why don't "we" label Behe with the following while "we" are at it...
Behe the pseudo scientist, Behe the junk scientist, Behe the pseudo evolutionist, Behe the theistic evolutionist.
What was it again you were saying ID critics were doing!...?
To label Behe theistic evolutionist would be to continually onflate Evolution with unscientific religious guesswork for rhetorical and political reasons.
The purpose of which is for nothing more than the introduction of religion into science where it will never belong.
While ID critics continually conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism for rhetorical and political reasons
Projecting your own tacticts onto others doesn't wash.
QUOTE by Teleologist:
Thus, if we label Behe a theistic evolutionist, we tap into this common understanding and more accurately communicate.
Why stop there. In the quest for common understanding and more accurate communication . You are selling Behe cheap. Why don't "we" label Behe with the following while "we" are at it...
Behe the pseudo scientist, Behe the junk scientist, Behe the pseudo evolutionist, Behe the theistic evolutionist.
What was it again you were saying ID critics were doing!...?
To label Behe theistic evolutionist would be to continually onflate Evolution with unscientific religious guesswork for rhetorical and political reasons.
The purpose of which is for nothing more than the introduction of religion into science where it will never belong.
=========================
Scenic & notable point,Teleo;
like a Joshua tree.
Ben Stein movie starts tommorrow,friday,18th;
''Expelled'' Amazing picture about the Darwin crowd calling for tolerance , but is intolerant/hateful/mean spirited about any disagreement.
B-b- bad to the bone
Quote from murray t turtle:
=========================
Scenic & notable point,Teleo;
like a Joshua tree.
Ben Stein movie starts tommorrow,friday,18th;
''Expelled'' Amazing picture about the Darwin crowd calling for tolerance , but is intolerant/hateful/mean spirited about any disagreement.
B-b- bad to the bone
You might check out this site by the National Center For Science Education - http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Basically, this movie is full of outright fabrications and already discredited lies.
Biblical creationists like Morris do not agree with the ID movement's general disinterest in the authority of the Bible. Simply put, many in the ID movement reject the fundamentalism of Morris, Gish, and other creationists.
Both the ID movement and biblical creationists believe in an intelligent designer, however. They disagree on the identity of that designer. ICR and Ken Ham's organization "Answers in Genesis" would consider the "designer" to be the God (they believed is) revealed in the Bible. Those in the ID movement generally frown on biblical creationists, because they are well aware that the group has little to no scientific credibility.
Nevertheless, the combined efforts of biblical creationists and the ID movement have not been enough (not even close) to dismantle evolutionary theory. Their battle, at least in terms of science and the search for truth, appears in vain.
Now may we close this thread down, finally.
Both the ID movement and biblical creationists believe in an intelligent designer, however. They disagree on the identity of that designer. ICR and Ken Ham's organization "Answers in Genesis" would consider the "designer" to be the God (they believed is) revealed in the Bible. Those in the ID movement generally frown on biblical creationists, because they are well aware that the group has little to no scientific credibility.
Nevertheless, the combined efforts of biblical creationists and the ID movement have not been enough (not even close) to dismantle evolutionary theory. Their battle, at least in terms of science and the search for truth, appears in vain.
Now may we close this thread down, finally.
To keep you company.
Don't make ridiculous arguments about matters of which you clearly have absolutely no understanding, not even in mere layman's terms as some of us here at least do. But if you really want to know the answer to your question, then you will find it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Really.
Unless, of course:
For the same reason why Virginia still exists even though West Virginia broke away from it in 1863.