ID as Religion

quote:

---

crashfrog:
You don't believe that your computer was constructed according to the laws of physics?

---

Where did the laws of physics come from? However my computer being constructed according to the laws of physics (if that is the case) does NOT equal nature acting alone bringing my computer into being. Even elementary school kids know the difference.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

holmes:
I don't understand your fixation with the court's 3 point test for religion.

---

In the absence of reason one must go with the authority. Seeing there isn't any reasoning with evolutionists the court ruling stands as testimony to their moving the goalposts.

quote:

---

holmes:
1) Tests can change with time. If the courts feel a religious message is getting through in spite of the criteria they can judge the criteria incomplete and devise new ones.

---

Not according to the judge I quoted.

quote:

---

holmes:
2) There is a definitional difference between teaching "a religion" and teaching "a pseudo-scientific program designed to support religion", but both would be problematic. As the ID movement creates a new niche for pushing religion into school (or good science out), it may be found to be invalid whether it is "a religion" or "supporting religion".

---

What is psdeudo-science? Especially in light of this: ID does not push religion into schools. ID is science so it isn't pushing science out either.

quote:

---

holmes:
In another thread you said they were asking how did we get here.

---

Your confusion is that what ID does is separate from what IDists do. You keep confusing the two. Just because IDists ponder such questions that has no bearing on ID. Does Dawkins' atheism have a bearing on the theory of evolution? Is that theory an atheistic theory?

quote:

---

holmes:
In this thread you not only have changed the purpose but also altered that of evolution. What does evolution have to do with asking about the "appearance of design"?

---

Ask Dawkins. He said the appearance of design was illusory. Even Crick commented that we must always keep in mind that what we are observing was not designed rather it evolved. (paraphrasing) IOW the appearance of design is obvious.

quote:

---

holmes:
If it is asking how did biological entities acquire the appearance of design, it is already waking away from science.

---

That is nothing but an unsupported assertion. You can say it all you want but it is still meaningless.

quote:

---

holmes:
This supports my point. So you are saying that evidence of design would inherently suggest the supernatural? Why would it not simply suggest design by some other material beings, or non supernatural anyway, designing specific parts?

---

IDists have already posited that aliens could be the designers of life on Earth. This supports my premise that you don't understand ID.

quote:

---

holmes:
This is true. However when they are designed not just to coincide with a religion, but attack alternative theories with much greater weight, because the alternative theories are thought not to coincide with religion... that is something else altogether.

---

It is only an opinion that the theory of evolution has greater weight than ID. Why is it that the vast majority of people in the USA are Creationists, IDists or theistic evolutionists? If the theory of evolution has such great weight then how do you explain biologists, genetists and other scientists saying the weight isn't so great and questioning its validity?as for IDIOTs, you fit that to a tee.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

crashfrog:
That's "nature".

---

That doesn't answer the question. Where did "nature" come from?

quote:

---

crashfrog:
The laws of physics govern natural phenomenon.

---

Can you suport that claim?

quote:

---

crashfrog:
If you don't believe that nature governed the creation of your computer, then you believe your computer was created in violation of the laws of physics.

---

Nature acting alone did not create my computer. Period, end of story. You can twist that fact all you want but it doesn't change the fact.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

We knew that the cause of Stonehenge was people.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do we know that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

shrafinator:
We inferred it from our knowledge of people making things out of stone, including religious structures.

​

Haven't I already said this?

---

That doesn't mean that people made Stonehenge. We can use the same logic with genetic engineering as our backdrop with respect to biological organisms. But how did the humans acquire the knowledge to do this? Maybe aliens designed and built Stonehenge and then humans came along and thought it was something to be worshipped.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what kind of expalnation is "nature did it"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:
Because, so far, that has been the only answer we have ever gotten when inquiry is allowed to progress.

---

Tell that to forensics and archeologists.

quote:

---

scrafinator:
That is where all of our positive evidence has ever led us.

---

OK what is the positive evidence from life arising from non-life by nature acting alone? What is the postive evidence that by nature acting alone metazoans can arise on a planet that didn't have metazoans?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why go against what we do know to posit something else?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

scrafinator:
But we don't actually know if an Intelligent Designer did anything.

---

No but according to you we can infer it from the evidence. That is what we did with Stonehenge.

quote:

---

scrafinator:
We only have gaps in our understanding, into which you inexplicably insert a Designer.

---

I insert a designer because I see the evidence for one.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By your logic when an archeologist comes upon an inscription in the wall he should assume it was put there by nature acting alone. We don't want him to commit a "scribe-of-gaps" fallacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:
What?

​

Archaeologists don't study natural events, they study human cultures through their artifacts.

---

But how do they know what is a natural event and what is an artifact? That is the point.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not need to know who designed my car to know it was
designed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:
That's right. That is because we know, through voluminous positive evidence, that humans design cars.

---

Just because human design cars now does not mean they always did. Humans make paper now, but if it wasn't for the observance of wasps we may not have been doing so. Or at least it would have taken us longer to figure it out.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK the evidence is the bacterial flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

scrafinator:
So does a stone arch.

---

Please explain.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a multi-part system that functions because of the parts that make it up. We can be assured of its design as we can with any other multi-part system that a;so exhibits IC- getting seperate components together in such a way to achieve a function that depends on the components.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:
How do you know that these IC systems cannot evolve naturally?

---

Never say never. However there isn't any evidence that shows it could or did. The evidence points to a designer. We have knowledge of designers designing IC. To falsify ID just show how the BF arose from nature acting alone. Period, end of story.Science works from our current level of understanding. Science does not work by waiting what may or may not come in the future.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

holmes:
None of those are living organisms. So we see living organisms creating complex nonliving organisms. Your point?

---

Living organisms are far more complex than the aforementioned non-living components. My point was to show MrHambre was again wrong in what he posted.

quote:

---

holmes:
Hahahahahahaha. You realize this contradicts itself right?

---

The only thing I realize is that you don't know what you are talking about.

quote:

---

holmes:
You are correct in saying only life comes from life, but only from sexual or asexual reproduction. Have you evidence of anything created? And no, one not completely explained flagellum does not count. At BEST that says that one feature may have been programmed in for some temporal purpose. It does not begin to suggest the entire organism (life) was programmed.

---

Do YOU have ANY evidence that nature acting alone can bring life from non-life?

quote:

---

holmes:
In addition we do know about things like viruses and prions that straddle "life" and could be precursors. We simply don't have the requisite knowledge about complex or selfduplicating chemical systems to make statements about what COULD NOT be.

---

Both viruses and prions require life to already be in existence.

quote:

---

holmes:
This is completely against what Ratzsch wrote.

---

I no longer believe what you post. Show me where Del says otherwise. I will send him an email to see if he consurs.

quote:

---

holmes:
You have said that you agree with Ratzsch. Do you or don't you?

---

I don't have to agree with someone 100%. That is not how it works.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Since when was that the question? We're discussing computers and their construction, not the origin of nature.

---

Again I see that you can't even follow along. The question was where did the laws of physics come from and you said "nature". Does this ring a bell?

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Nature is that which proceeds according to physical law, by definition. If you don't believe that your computer was contructed naturally, you believe it was constructed supernaturally, that is, contrary to the laws of physics.

---

Again nature acting alone did not create my computer. That IS the point. Your continued twisting of this is a sure sign of desperation.

quote:

---

crashfrog:
By definition, it is true. Nature is that which is governed by the laws of physics.

---

Then "nature" couldn't have given rise to those laws. That contradicts what you posted earlier.So where did the laws of physics come from?

quote:

---

crashfrog:
You believe that your computer was not constructed according to the laws of physics? You believe that your computer was constructed supernaturally? How can that possibly be the case, and why would any reasonable person believe you?

---

I know no reasonable person would believe you. You are a typical evolutionist- twist and spin. Misrepresent and lie. Oh well....

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

crashfrog:
Well, prions don't, exactly - they just need a steady source of polypeptides of a certain sequence. Certainly living things are currently the most prolific source of those but they are by no means the only possible source.

---

Show us one prion that arose outside of life by nature acting alone.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

jar:
Why?

---

Viruses need a host. Henry Gee reporting in Nature

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

jar:
Why?

---

Viruses need a host. Henry Gee reporting in Nature

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

There is nothing left for me to do. So go play with yourself. But Doesn't Intelligent Design Refer to Something Supernatural?IOW it doesn't matter if I disagree or agree with the definition given. It is irrelevant. Whay can't you understand that?This message has been edited by ID man, 09-30-2004 06:11 PM

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"