Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 61 of 377 (612293)
04-14-2011 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
04-14-2011 1:55 PM


jar writes:
And as I said, the Creationists will call themselves anything that they think will get around the SCOTUS.
let me play devil's advocate here for a second.
ID has already been ruled as "the same as creationism". why stick to the name "ID"?
Edited by arachnophilia, : typos, even in short messages!

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 2:49 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 62 of 377 (612294)
04-14-2011 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:01 PM


slevesque writes:
Sorry but no. As soon as you bring in some magic outside agency that meddles in the process it stops being science and becomes Creationism.
And as I said, the Creationists will call themselves anything that they think will get around the SCOTUS.
You really are the kind of all humpty-dumpties, playing with definition and words as to fit your needs.
Sorry, but putting in some 'outside magic' does not make someone automatically a creationist. It may make an idea none-scientific, but to actually be a creationist you have to think God poofed things out of nothing, not simply changed things incrementally over time.
Creationism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
If God changed things over time it is still magic until you present the testable model and mechanism for God to intervene and influence.
Sorry, it's still just Creationism is old worned out clothes.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:01 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:58 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 377 (612295)
04-14-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by arachnophilia
04-14-2011 2:45 PM


arachnophilia writes:
jar writes:
And as I said, the Creationists will call themselves anything that they think will get around the SCOTUS.
let me play devil's advocate here for a second.
ID has already been ruled as "the same as creationism". why stick to the name "ID"?
In the hope that no one will notice and they can sneak it past the SCOTUS.
ID is just another con game, nothing more.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2011 2:45 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 64 of 377 (612296)
04-14-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ringo
04-14-2011 2:34 PM


It has already been pointed out that the cdesign proponentsists disagree with you.
I don't understand this. ''cdesign proponentsists'' ??
Your point has been refuted a thousand times.
Well my point is simply pointing to the dictionary and saying words already have definitions, and that these definitions very clearly disagree with what you are saying here ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 2:34 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 3:07 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 3:11 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 73 by Granny Magda, posted 04-14-2011 4:53 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 65 of 377 (612297)
04-14-2011 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
04-14-2011 2:48 PM


The point isn't if they both involve magic or not, the piont is they aren't the same thing.
In all honesty, you are particularly looking pathetic right now, just repeating the same things and hoping each time they'll become true. Plugging you fingers in your ears about everything else.
I'll take one final example and hopefully it'll pass: Francis Collins. He accepts absolutely everything about evolution, and all other origins-related scientific theories (big bang, etc.)
But he also believes in magic, particularly Jesus's ressurection. Does that make him a creationist ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 2:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 4:22 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 4:26 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 66 of 377 (612298)
04-14-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:52 PM


slevesque writes:
I don't understand this. ''cdesign proponentsists'' ??
Google it. "Creationist" and "design proponent" are completely interchangeable. They have been used interchangeably - i.e. a whole book had "creationist" edited to "design proponent" and if it hadn't been for that one pesky typo, nobody would have noticed the difference.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:52 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 67 of 377 (612299)
04-14-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:52 PM


Double post.
Edited by ringo, : Removed double post.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:52 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 68 of 377 (612300)
04-14-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:24 PM


Hi Slevesque,
All I'm saying is that ID and biblical creationism isn't the same thing,
If that is true, then why were the terms "creationists" and "design proponents" used interchangeably by the Discovery Institute in their text Of Pandas and People?
Judging by the actions of the DI (pretty much the heart of the ID movement), the terms are so interchangeable that they were able use a word program to replace "creationists" with "design proponents" automatically, without changing the surrounding text. (Of course they screwed it up, leaving some drafts reading "cdesign proponentsists". The DI is not very good at covering its tracks.) If the two philosophies are so radically different, why would the very organisation that promotes ID use the term as interchangeable with creationism in its own propaganda?
And theistic evolutionism is, by definition, not creationism.
I disagree. Theistic evolutionism is a form of creationism. Sure, it's a less extreme form than Young Earth creationism, but it still depends upon the actions of God to explain the presence and variety of life. That leaves it with far more in common, from a philosophical standpoint, with creationism than science.
The only difference between TE and YEC is the quantity of scientific knowledge that they dispute. The alternative answers that they offer instead are identical; God did it.
Behe believes in the fact of evolution (nested hierarchy, fossil record, etc.) but not on the Neo-Darwinian mechanism.
He instead proposes directed evolution as the mechanism through which things evolved.
You don,t get any more theist evolutionist then that ...
You most certainly can.
It is common for TEs to believe that the "Neo-Darwinian mechanism" is entirely sufficient to explain the variety of species. Such TEs simply believe that Neo Darwinian mechanisms are the means[ that God chose to utilise in creating variety in living things. They need not believe that God is required to intervene at any point in the process. They need not believe that God has taken any active role in the process (after he originally kick-started it that is).
Behe does believe that God has to intervene. He believes that certain instances of Neo-Darwinian cannot function by themselves. he believes that a designer (that he just happens to think is his favoured version of God...) is needed during the ongoing process of evolution. There are plenty of TEs who do not believe any such thing.
Whether you call Behe a creationist or a theistic evolutionist doesn't matter much to me. the key point, as far as I can see, is that the kind of TE ideology offered by Behe and others is simply a watered down form of creationism. Surely you can see the similarities? Both camps use God as their primary explanation for the origins and variety of life.
Sorry, but putting in some 'outside magic' does not make someone automatically a creationist. It may make an idea none-scientific, but to actually be a creationist you have to think God poofed things out of nothing, not simply changed things incrementally over time.
Sure there are distinctions that can be made between ID and other forms of creationism. But scratch the surface and the creationist roots show through. As they admit in the Wedge Document, the DI's goals are "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God". That sure sounds like creationism to me. Compare and contrast that last bit with the (somewhat narrow) definition of creationism that you cite from Merriam-Webster;
quote:
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis
Is there really that much difference between these two positions? ID is merely - to use the DI's own metaphor - the thin end of the creationist wedge. It is a public veneer designed for political and marketing reasons and what is has to sell is distinctly creationist in tone.
You can't interchangebly use both words to talk about the two.
Please tell that to the editors of Pandas and People, who did exactly that.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:24 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 69 of 377 (612301)
04-14-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:55 PM


Behe believes in the fact of evolution (nested hierarchy, fossil record, etc.) but not on the Neo-Darwinian mechanism.
Theistic evolutionists do accept the modern theory of evolution, so I guess Behe is not a theistic evolutionist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:55 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 70 of 377 (612302)
04-14-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:18 PM


Depends on how you define evolution, but in any case Behe goes far beyond any limit a creationist accepts about the ToE.
In another post you say that Behe does not accept the theory of evolution. In message 53 you state:
"Behe believes in the fact of evolution (nested hierarchy, fossil record, etc.) but not on the Neo-Darwinian mechanism."
The Neo-Darwinian mechanism IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
All I'm saying is that ID and creationism isn't the same thing.
How are they different? It is the same supernatural mechanism in both cases, isn't it?
God it's so hard to pass such an easily understable point around here sometimes. I probably feel like you do when you talk to a creationist who keeps repeating the same PRATT ...
It would help if you would actually explain the differences instead of just saying that they are different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:18 PM slevesque has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 71 of 377 (612303)
04-14-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:58 PM


ID is still Creationism
slevesque writes:
The point isn't if they both involve magic or not, the piont is they aren't the same thing.
In all honesty, you are particularly looking pathetic right now, just repeating the same things and hoping each time they'll become true. Plugging you fingers in your ears about everything else.
I'll take one final example and hopefully it'll pass: Francis Collins. He accepts absolutely everything about evolution, and all other origins-related scientific theories (big bang, etc.)
But he also believes in magic, particularly Jesus's ressurection. Does that make him a creationist ?
No.
But if he said that Evolution of some critter was the result of God interfering or of Design or was an intended outcome, then YES he becomes a creationist.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:58 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 72 of 377 (612304)
04-14-2011 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:58 PM


The point isn't if they both involve magic or not,
That is exactly our point, so it would behoove you to actually address it.
just repeating the same things and hoping each time they'll become true. Plugging you fingers in your ears about everything else.
Physician, heal thyself.
He accepts absolutely everything about evolution, and all other origins-related scientific theories (big bang, etc.)
But he also believes in magic, particularly Jesus's ressurection. Does that make him a creationist ?
It makes your argument a red herring. We are not talking about Jesus' resurrection. We are talking about change in species over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:58 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 73 of 377 (612308)
04-14-2011 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:52 PM


I don't understand this. ''cdesign proponentsists'' ??
In the late Eighties a creationist text aimed at schoolchildren was drafted by a Christian group called the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. It was a straightforward creationist text. Here is a sample;
quote:
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
Unfortunately for the FTE, the 1987 Edwards vs Aguillard case had made clear that the teaching of creationism in public schools was illegal. This left their text unsuitable for any public school.
Also in 1987, by an astonishing non-coincidence, Creation Biology (which by now had gone through several drafts, all creationist in character) got a facelift. It was no longer a creationist book, it was an intelligent design book! Here is a sample that will seem rather familiar;
quote:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.
They just rewrote it. A creationist text magically became an ID text.
This all came to light during the Kitzmiller vs Dover case. And the 1993 edition boasted material from none other than Michael Behe, effectively giving the Discovery institute seal of approval to the project. Surely, if anyone knows what ID is, it's Behe and he seems to have been fine with contributing to a rehashed creationist screed.
The "cdesign proponentsists" thing is explained here;
"Cdesign Proponentsists" | National Center for Science Education
Basically, they tried to use a word processor program to systematically change "creation" to "intelligent design", but they screwed it up and left a few letters attached. Thus "cdesign proponentsists". It's kind of like a transitional fossil between the creationist version and the ID version.
Seriously Slevesque, have you read any of the Wedge Strategy document? It is an open admission (not intended for public eyes) that that DI are using intelligent design as part of a creationist agenda. It's all just a front, a shell game. Don't fall for it.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:52 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 377 (612314)
04-14-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
04-13-2011 8:33 PM


Dembski's claim that specified complexity is an indication of design has nothing to do with the 'human design things analogy'. He claims that it would be efficient to apply it to microwaves coming from space, for example.
I don't see that specified complexity is well-defined.
But leaving that aside, what reason other than analogy would we have to suppose that a message from space aliens was a message from space aliens? If one comes we should recognize it as such only because it'll resemble the sort of thing that we'd send to them.
And what if, in a fit of egotism, they decided to broadcast a description of their genome? We should be right to identify the signal as having an intelligent origin, but for you to identify the information in the same way would be the usual creationist petitio principii.
But the 'single designer' hypothesis does not come intrisincally from ID, it comes from other areas of the IDers life.
Well, quite.
(and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing)
And yet it is possible to write a textbook on "Intelligent Design" by going through a textbook on "creation science" and replacing the word "creator" with "designer"; "creationists" with "design proponents"; "creation" with "Intelligent Design" and so forth.
PS Exam tomorrow, then I'll be able to get back to our GD
Au revoir.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:33 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 377 (612317)
04-14-2011 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:57 PM


Sure, they have similarities, and they have the same sort of connection as a rhombus and a square ...
* coughs gently *
A square is in fact a rhombus.
... but at the end of the day, this does not justify claiming that they are the same thing, because they clearly aren't.
The modern use of the words "intelligent design", as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. A Discovery Institute report says that Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term". In drafts of the book over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creation science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design",[17] while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists". [...]
Of Pandas and People was published in 1989, and was the first book to make frequent use of the phrases "intelligent design," "design proponents," and "design theory", thus representing the beginning of the modern "intelligent design" movement. "Intelligent design was the most prominent of around fifteen new terms it introduced as a new lexicon of creationist terminology to oppose evolution without using religious language. It was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon Buell, and by William A. Dembski in his expert witness report.
Now I will grant you that it's a subset of creationism --- the fewer claims that are made, the more unfalsifiable the hypothesis becomes, which is probably the best thing creationists can hope for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:57 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024