Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-21-2017 1:11 AM
386 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, ramoss (3 members, 383 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,740 Year: 27,346/21,208 Month: 1,259/1,714 Week: 102/365 Day: 6/52 Hour: 0/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
27NextFF
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19220
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1 of 396 (137666)
08-28-2004 4:38 PM


A form of faith
Who designed the ID designer(s)?

I would like to address the problem of "who designed the designer(s)" -- even though ID proponents adamantly argue that the question is not relevant to the science involved, because I feel it is very relevant to the issue of whether ID is a faith or not. As such, I suggest that it be put in the {Faith and Belief} forum rather than the ID forum.

I claim (here and elsewhere) that ID is de facto a form of faith.

Now, let us evaluate the alternatives to see the result:

(1) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they evolved naturally through totally natural processes. In this case ID defaults to natural laws and processes, including evolution, just as if we didn't assume a designer (so it would be irrelevant to pursue), and continued belief in ID is then based on faith, OR

(2) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they have always existed from the beginning of time. In which case they are god(s), being necessarily supernatural to have lived an immortal existence that must also have been non-material before particles coalesced from the cloud of plasma energy at the beginning of time. Belief in them is belief in god(s) and thus a form of faith, OR

(3) A god or gods designed the ID designer(s), and empowered them to do the designing. With this version the designers become "angels" or demi-gods doing god(s)’s bidding, and, because god(s) is\are now firmly included, ID again ends up being a form of faith, OR

(4) Other previous ID designer(s) designed the ID designer(s) to replace\assist them. Now move up to that level and repeat the sequence again (computer programmers will recognize this as a “DO LOOP”). If there is no other answer than an endless cycle of designers, then this too is a supernatural (see #2 above) cycle akin to the Hindu faith of infinitely recurring universes, all the designers are gods by default, and ID again ends up being a form of faith. (This is the "turtles all the way down" version).

Ergo, ID is de facto a form of faith.

Q.E.D.

Note that this is a logical construction and therefore is dependant on the inherent truth of the statements to be a valid proof of the conclusions.

Absent any refutation of the truth of these statements and the validity of the proof, this means that ID is a form of faith. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant to the validity of the logical proof.

Edited by RAZD, : removed {hide} per moose comment, and updated signature


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ID man, posted 08-29-2004 10:21 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 7 by ID man, posted 08-29-2004 11:27 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 9 by jar, posted 08-29-2004 11:40 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 53 by Modulous, posted 05-16-2005 10:47 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 153 by Peter, posted 05-09-2011 1:16 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 179 by Ryan, posted 05-19-2011 9:06 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 183 by intellen, posted 05-23-2011 9:04 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 257 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 10:56 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 310 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 2:16 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 373 by bob123, posted 07-12-2011 9:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 396 (137671)
08-28-2004 4:44 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 396 (137807)
08-29-2004 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-28-2004 4:38 PM


Re: A form of logic and reason
In another thread RAZD has stated that ID = deism:

From the Cambridge International dictionary:

deism [Show phonetics]
noun [U]
the belief in a single god who does not act to influence events, and whose existence has no connection with religions, religious buildings, or religious books, etc.

from Wikipedia (seeing that RAZD appears to like Wikipedia):

Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason rather than faith, distinguishing it from theism.

Moving on to why "Who designed the ID designer(s)? Is a strawman or a red herring:

This question is like reading the last page of a mystery novel first. In order to answer that question we must first determine who designed life on Earth, Earth, the Solar System and all we observe. The same type of questions can be asked of RAZD:

Where did nature come from? Where did matter come from? Where did energy come from? Where did the natural laws come from?

I can also construct absurd irrelevant alternatives as RAZD did. The end result will be just as his is- materialitic naturalism is just a faith. That would mean the the theory of evolution is just a faith based product.

The problem with RAZD is he (she?) does not understand that ID is based on logic and reason. ID is falifiable- just show that life can arise from non-living ingredients by nature acting alone. Show us that irreducible complexity is illusory. IOW instead of attacking ID on a nonsensicle, irrelevant flailing attempt at philosophical objections, actually show support for your faith.

(this first one is where I took my 'signature' from
“There’s a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years, the Moon will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5% of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view or solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.” Page 18 paragraph 4; The Privileged Planet: How our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery by G. Gonzalez Ph. D. astronomy & J. Richards Ph. D. philosophy & theology.

The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.

This is because the medium in which we live is, on the one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and to prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block any view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.” Hans Blumeberg

There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all… It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe… The impression of design is overwhelming.” Paul Davies

At issue here is to let the evidence lead us where it will. If it leads us to the metaphysical, no amount of philosophical flailing can change that. If we really want to find out how or why or when life started here on Earth (and the same for Earth itself) we must allow science to function in that manner- let the evidence lead.


"...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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2004 4:38 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 08-29-2004 2:09 PM ID man has responded
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2004 5:24 PM ID man has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 396 (137851)
08-29-2004 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ID man
08-29-2004 10:21 AM


Topic!
Almost all of your post is utterly off topic. Please refrain from that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ID man, posted 08-29-2004 10:21 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ID man, posted 08-29-2004 11:13 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19220
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 5 of 396 (137898)
08-29-2004 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ID man
08-29-2004 10:21 AM


A form of logic and reason - or just more shinola?
Point the first: Not one part of this whole post addresses the logical construction in the OT, thus leaving the logical conclusion of the OT intact and valid: ID is a form of faith is still a valid logical conclusion.

Point the second: I said that ID is a weakened, form of Deism, as it relies on more assumptions of active supernatural activity and the "he did it" explanation. A more accurate equation would be {ID < Deism}. Thus this argument from ID man is a typical strawman and logically invalid on that basis.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

His argument also does not address the point that Deism is a form of faith (rather he confirms it), so this bit is an argument of misdirection and hides the fact he has no second term and no conclusion from this argument. This is logically incomplete. A logically incomplete argument is just an assertion, and not a valid logical proof of the claim.

Point the third: ID man claims

I can also construct absurd irrelevant alternatives as RAZD did. The end result will be just as his is- materialitic naturalism is just a faith. That would mean the the theory of evolution is just a faith based product.

But in fact he fails to do so and thus fails to validate his claim in the manner that I did, thus this becomes an argument of ignorance, and is logically invalid.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm

Point the fourth: ID man goes on to claim

The problem with RAZD is he (she?) does not understand that ID is based on logic and reason. ID is falifiable- just show that life can arise from non-living ingredients by nature acting alone. Show us that irreducible complexity is illusory. IOW instead of attacking ID on a nonsensicle, irrelevant flailing attempt at philosophical objections, actually show support for your faith.

{“he” works – if you want to see, my picture is on the picture thread http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=328&m=29#29}

I have yet to see evidence of that logic, I have yet to see evidence that it is falsifiable. Every time an IC process has been raised by ID proponents there has been evidence provided that show it to be reducible, but beyond that, proving IC false does not prove ID false, so it is not a falsifiable test for ID. The only falsifiable test I can conceive for ID is to show that every single process is and has been through natural means, and though that is a tall order, I encourage the ID proponents to commence their work.

This is an unsubstantiated claim and therefore (again) logically incomplete. A logically incomplete argument is just an assertion, and not a valid logical proof of the claim.

Point the fifth: ID man goes on further to quote Paul Davies:

“There’s a final, even more bizarre twist … The impression of design is overwhelming.” Paul Davies

This is an appeal to authority and logically questionable. The validity of the authority has not been established, the source is a book and not anything subject to peer review or held to a strict adherence to factual evidence, thus it could just as easily be science fiction.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm

Further, the argument given by Davies is pure argument from incredulity (logically invalid), and the anthropic principle is a false argument, as it has not been confirmed as a necessary relationship rather than just a circumstantial one. This is a causal fallacy and logically invalid.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/causal.htm

Point the sixth: ID man goes on finally to claim

At issue here is to let the evidence lead us where it will. If it leads us to the metaphysical, no amount of philosophical flailing can change that. If we really want to find out how or why or when life started here on Earth (and the same for Earth itself) we must allow science to function in that manner- let the evidence lead.

Science does let the evidence lead us where it will. The problem with “metaphysical” elements is finding a way to determine them, measure them, quantify them. Science can only include evidence that can be determined, measured, quantified. This is true whether one posits a metaphysical agent tinkering with evidence or not. The problem here is affirming a metaphysical element must be included when there has been no evidence to support that. Another logically invalid argument.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/affirm.htm

Conclusion: the statements by ID man have been invalidated on the basis of logical requirements, not one of his points addressed the logical construct of the OT, and thus the conclusion of the OT stands unchallenged.

ID = faith

For more on logical fallacies please see;

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ID man, posted 08-29-2004 10:21 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ID man, posted 08-29-2004 11:39 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 20 by PecosGeorge, posted 08-30-2004 1:59 PM RAZD has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 396 (137970)
08-29-2004 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNosy
08-29-2004 2:09 PM


Re: Topic!
I am trying to show that ID is evidence driven and not faith based.


"...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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 08-29-2004 2:09 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 396 (137975)
08-29-2004 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-28-2004 4:38 PM


the only problem is the anti-IDists
quote:
RAZD:
I would like to address the problem of "who designed the designer(s)"

What problem is that? This sounds like the trappings of a strawman argument.

quote:
RAZD:
...even though ID proponents adamantly argue that the question is not relevant to the science involved, because I feel it is very relevant to the issue of whether ID is a faith or not.

We don't adamantly argue that question. We just tell it like it is. Then we sit back and watch the anti-IDists froth at the mouth as they tend to do when confronted by logic and reason.

So the whole issue boils down to your feeling. Just because you feel it is a relevant question makes it so?
Now I get it. Because you feel it is important, makes it so?

quote:
(2) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they have always existed from the beginning of time. In which case they are god(s), being necessarily supernatural to have lived an immortal existence that must also have been non-material before particles coalesced from the cloud of plasma energy at the beginning of time. Belief in them is belief in god(s) and thus a form of faith

OK wait. Why do you get to decide that is a form of faith? What if your alternative(s) are incorrect? ie just more strawmen? Is acknowledgement also a form of faith?

BTW in order to refute truth in statements there must first be some truth in those statements.

It's like this Mr. Moderator. I have shown ID is evidence driven. I have provided a list of books that substantiate that claim. I cannot make you or RAZD read those books. The good thing is your refusal to read doesn't make the evidence go away.

”Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components. …
… (…indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle)
I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
Mike Behe

Peer-reviewed journals aren’t comparing what is observed inside the cell to machines, the articles make it clear it is molecular machines and motors we are observing “under the magnifying glass”. Howard Berg of Harvard has called the bac flag the most efficient machine in the universe. Living cells are factories in miniature. And you’re telling me that I can’t infer ID from the evidence? The writings of Walter Bradley, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, along with the conclusions of Louis Pasteur, Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilee, Aristotle et al., make it clear that the positive evidence for ID extend beyond biology, is based on observation and is definitely a valid scientific endeavor.

“A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.


"...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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2004 4:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by bob_gray, posted 08-30-2004 12:41 AM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 18 by sidelined, posted 08-30-2004 1:39 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 396 (137980)
08-29-2004 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
08-29-2004 5:24 PM


more fluff from RAZD- no stuff
quote:
RAZD:
I have yet to see evidence of that logic, I have yet to see evidence that it is falsifiable.

I take it that is because you refuse to read or refuse to listen. The evidence has been given, in writing.

quote:
RAZD:
Every time an IC process has been raised by ID proponents there has been evidence provided that show it to be reducible, but beyond that, proving IC false does not prove ID false, so it is not a falsifiable test for ID.

Please substantiate that claim.

It is bad form not to read at least the first book in the list I provided:

[i][b]Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science[/i][/b] by Del Ratzsch.

Bottom line is that it doesn't require faith to infer ID. All that is necessary is an objective view of the evidence and a mind open to the reality of how we got here.

RAZD can't rant and rave that ID is a faith all he wants, it is not going to make the evidence go away or materialistic naturalism the only viable option.


"...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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2004 5:24 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 1:32 AM ID man has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29612
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 9 of 396 (137981)
08-29-2004 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-28-2004 4:38 PM


Re: A form of faith
If the life we see around us was designed, it was designed by someone totally incompetent.

Who designed the ID designer(s)?

So what does that say about the designer of the designer? What does it say about the Boss?

Well, someone who hires a totally incompetent designer and keeps him on the payroll is generally, a bad boss.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2004 4:38 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 12:02 AM jar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19220
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 10 of 396 (137988)
08-30-2004 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
08-29-2004 11:40 PM


Re: A form of faith
off topic, but stick around.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 08-29-2004 11:40 PM jar has not yet responded

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 2604 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 11 of 396 (137995)
08-30-2004 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ID man
08-29-2004 11:27 PM


Re: the only problem is the anti-IDists
ID man,

Thanks for your insights into the inner workings of ID. While I wish I had time to read the books you have presented, unfortunately I do not at this time so I was hoping you might be able to indulge me for a moment and clarify one point.

ID man writes:

quote:
(2) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they have always existed from the beginning of time. In which case they are god(s), being necessarily supernatural to have lived an immortal existence that must also have been non-material before particles coalesced from the cloud of plasma energy at the beginning of time. Belief in them is belief in god(s) and thus a form of faith

OK wait. Why do you get to decide that is a form of faith? What if your alternative(s) are incorrect? ie just more strawmen? Is acknowledgement also a form of faith?

In this quote you are questioning what is faith. This is an excellent point. The definition one has of faith will clearly define what they feel falls into that category. My question to you is how would you define "faith" as it relates to religious maters? And as a follow up does ID say anything about it?

For example: I would say that for me if you are going to believe in a being who exists outside the system (known/observable universe) then this must be a form of faith. Deism would be classified as form of faith under my view and so would proposition (2).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ID man, posted 08-29-2004 11:27 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19220
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 12 of 396 (138008)
08-30-2004 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ID man
08-29-2004 11:39 PM


more inconsequential lack of argument ...
I see that ID man has gone back to the OT in another attempt to discredit it, and then proceeded to dismiss my rebuttal of his first post. In the interest of conservation of attention I will combine both in my answers here.

ID man writes:

What problem is that? This sounds like the trappings of a strawman argument.

Nope, that would apply if I said that ID asked the question. I specifically stated that they don’t ask it, that in fact they try to avoid it. The problem is that Idists won’t address the question, and the question is inherent in the concept. It is part of the scientific curiosity approach to things: when a new artifact is discovered and somebody says “this didn’t happen naturally, it was made” somebody else is going to ask “who made it?” - the question just comes … naturally. Nothing shown here against the OT.

We don't adamantly argue that question.

And yet, here you are arguing just that once more. And not for the first time on this forum. Your actions prove otherwise, sorry. And, btw, the actual statement was “that the question is not relevant to the science involved” and when you shorten it to “that question” the meaning changes (see strawman … ).

watch the anti-IDists froth at the mouth as they tend to do when confronted by logic and reason.

ooo now we have ad hominum … (and still absent any logic argument … ).

So the whole issue boils down to your feeling. Just because you feel it is a relevant question makes it so?
Now I get it. Because you feel it is important, makes it so?

No. It is a relevant question because of the rulings of the Supreme Court in relation to teachings based on faith in public school science classes, and it goes to the core of why Idist try to avoid the question. It is relevant because many people think that ID is just “creationism lite” designed to get a faithful foot in the door into those classes.

This is also arguing style over substance, another logical fallacy that does not challenge the validity of the question or the argument of the OT.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/style.htm

OK wait. Why do you get to decide that is a form of faith? What if your alternative(s) are incorrect? ie just more strawmen? Is acknowledgement also a form of faith?

Misuse of strawman again, and more style over substance. Add argument from incredulity to the list. I get to conclude that it is a form of faith because it necessarily involves belief in supernatural beings, part of the common dictionary definition of religion (“Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.”). To argue otherwise you need to show that it is false. You haven’t, therefore the argument in the OT is still valid.

BTW in order to refute truth in statements there must first be some truth in those statements.

No, the truth of the statements relies on logic, to challenge them you have to show that either they are false or that the logical construction is false. You still haven’t done that, so the OT is still valid.

It's like this Mr. Moderator. I have shown ID is evidence driven. I have provided a list of books that substantiate that claim. I cannot make you or RAZD read those books. The good thing is your refusal to read doesn't make the evidence go away.

Sounds like an appeal to pity (another logical fallacy), plus repeated appeal to authority (addressed before as a logical fallacy).

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/ap.htm
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm

Fact is that you have not “shown ID is evidence driven” just made that claim several times. I could also claim that you have not read every book on evolution and thus are in no position to argue against it. An obvious fallacy.

The quoted passage from Behe is all argument from incredulity, as logically invalid as the previous one quoted from Davies. And the cilium has been shown to be reducible into parts used for other purposes, especially as a gradation of similar structures are found in other organisms.

Nor does the issue of ID evidence, IC systems etcetera bear on the question of ID being a faith, making this a diversion from the argument and not a challenge to it. The validity of the OT is still unchallenged.

Peer-reviewed journals aren’t comparing what is observed inside the cell to machines, the articles make it clear it is molecular machines and motors we are observing “under the magnifying glass”. Howard Berg of Harvard has called the bac flag the most efficient machine in the universe. Living cells are factories in miniature. And you’re telling me that I can’t infer ID from the evidence? The writings of Walter Bradley, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, along with the conclusions of Louis Pasteur, Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilee, Aristotle et al., make it clear that the positive evidence for ID extend beyond biology, is based on observation and is definitely a valid scientific endeavor.

Argument from incredulity and appeal to authority again … yawn. Yes I would say that the evidence does not need an assumed designer to explain it and therefore you cannot insist that ID is the explanation (assuming that is begging the question, another logical fallacy),if that were related to the topic presented in the OT: it isn't, so this is more misdirection that does not challenge the OT.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm

NEXT POST:

I take it that is because you refuse to read or refuse to listen. The evidence has been given, in writing.

More ad hominum that does not address either (1) the OT or (2) the rebuttal to your first response. I repeat: “I have yet to see evidence that it is falsifiable.”

Feel free to provide that evidence here instead of complaining. NOTE: not IC or any of those other subcategories, but evidence of a test for ID that would make it falsifiable, that would prove there is no designer, no intelligence in the design.

Please substantiate that claim.

Which one?

On the IC processes, it now appears you are the ill-read one . Do yourself a favour and google each IC process and see what comes up for rebuttals. There are several websites that destruct these IC arguments. Take your time.

As far as IC being a falsifiable test for ID, just consider that there are no IC systems in the whole of the universe, and then argue that there is no evidence for design, say in the orbit of the earth and moon system (seeing as you seem to like the anthropic principle) …

If falsifying IC does not falsify ID then it is not a falsification test for ID, just as I claimed.

It is bad form not to read at least the first book in the list I provided:

More appeal to authority … yawn.

Bottom line is that it doesn't require faith to infer ID. All that is necessary is an objective view of the evidence and a mind open to the reality of how we got here.

Strawman – that is not the point of the OT, the point of the OT is that ID is necessarily a form of faith. The argument is based on logic and has not been challenged on that basis. Not one of the statements yet made by ID man has rebutted a single point made in the OT, and thus far the conclusion in the OT remains valid.

RAZD can't rant and rave that ID is a faith all he wants, it is not going to make the evidence go away or materialistic naturalism the only viable option.

More ad hominum that does not address the OT, plus a little strawman again: the OT does not argue that “materialistic naturalism the only viable option” just that ID is a form of faith.

For someone who is supposedly steeped in logic and rational approach to the issues, it looks like your presentations are no match for the OT yet. You have failed in 3 posts to address the logical construction of the OT argument and have not challenged a single premise of the argument I made there.

The only valid rational logical conclusion to date is that the OT argument stil remains a valid logical construction and, therefore, that ID is a form of faith.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ID man, posted 08-29-2004 11:39 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 11:23 AM RAZD has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 396 (138074)
08-30-2004 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
08-30-2004 1:32 AM


RAZD you don't have an argument
quote:
RAZD:
Nope, that would apply if I said that ID asked the question. I specifically stated that they don’t ask it, that in fact they try to avoid it.

And I am saying that we don't try to unvoid it. We accept the fact that it has no relevance to what ID is about.

quote:
RAZD:
The problem is that Idists won’t address the question, and the question is inherent in the concept.

The problem is yours. IDists understand what they are trying to do with ID. You are trying to force it to do something it was never intended to do.

quote:
RAZD:
It is part of the scientific curiosity approach to things: when a new artifact is discovered and somebody says “this didn’t happen naturally, it was made” somebody else is going to ask “who made it?” - the question just comes … naturally. Nothing shown here against the OT.

IDists are not saying you can't ask that question. If we can't answer the "who made it?" question about the artifact does that mean it becomes a product of nature acting alone? No. It is still an artifact. We didn't have to see the agent making it. We didn't have to know anything about that agent.

It's like this RAZD. It is not a belief if it is based on evidence. And because Del Ratzsch has already trumped your flailing attempts, you would lose in court.

One more thing:

quote:
RAZD:
On the IC processes, it now appears you are the ill-read one . Do yourself a favour and google each IC process and see what comes up for rebuttals. There are several websites that destruct these IC arguments. Take your time.

YOU made the claim. I HAVE read most websites and if you had read Behe's responses you would see those rebuttals have been refuted. Also websites are not peer-reviewed. That IS the point Behe was making. Miller wasn't peer-reviewed and has been refuted. There is one guy who isn't even a biologist that claims to have done something biologists can't do, refute IC. He to has been shown to be incorrect. If you can't substantiate your claim don't make one.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

ID man writes:
No, we can explain it and that explanation is a designer was involved.

quote:
RAZD:
As I said, "In other words, if you can't explain it then it must be due to something intelligent" -- thanks for the demonstration.

No, it is not as you said. Thank you for demonstrating your ability to twist reality. ID is based on positive evidence gathered through observation. Sir Isaac Newton came to that conclusion, as did Louis Pasteur after him and Aristotle before them, based on their observations.

[quote]RAZD:
. I explain it by saying that we don't know the answer, so we need to keep looking.

You mean keep looking at only an answer to the question ;“How did nature acting alone produce life?”

quote:
RAZD:
The options are open, but the gaps in our knowledge of the ability of life to begin are closing.

How is eliminating one of two possibilities on “where did life come from?”, in any way keeping the options open? This is a pre-emptive elimination based on flailing attempts at philosophical criticisms and personal bias.

Just how is inferring ID a gap in the knowledge? The “ability of life to begin”? So non-living matter has a dis-ability?

quote:
RAZD:
…your attitude in this and the first paragraph is that you no longer need to look because you have the answer. This amply demonstrates the intellectually stultifying effect of making an a priori assumption of an explanation.

Your inference on my attitude is based on your ID ignorance. ID doesn’t say to stop all research because an intelligent agency at one time had a hand in the design of the universe and life. Many questions are still left unanswered. Some have been asked by ID critics. Others are real and deal with practical applications.

If that (ID) is where the evidence leads and becomes the logical and reasonable conclusion, I am OK with that.

to which the wizard responds:

quote:
RAZD:
That the actions of the {designer within the concept of ID} are no different than the attributed supernatural actions of the {gods of various pantheons within the concept of many early religions}.

Allowing for ID this is how it is: Scientific investigation of the evidence says there was a designer. Religions try to tell you who that designer was. You have faith that the designer of your religion is THE designer.

Some scientists may want to try to figure out what those actions were. We may find out that those actions were carried out in the physical plane and were bound by physical laws. We may find out what gives life its “ability”.
Others will want to figure out what we now have to deal with and how best to deal with it.

quote:
RazD:
Deism is a religion, therefore your conditions given do not preclude ID from being a religion; Deism can involve fewer assumptions about the level of supernatural activity of the "Causal Agent" than ID does, therefore ID is a weaked form of Deism (it relies more on "he did it" to explain things). It is very simple logic:
A (Deism) = Religion
B (ID) is a weak subset of A
Therefore B = Religion
(Q.E.D.)
This is not a matter of redefining religion but of recognizing it. If you don't want any of it I can understand that ... after all it invalidates your real interest in ID, eh?

OK. Your first statement is false. Deism is not a religion. So even IF we grant B (that ID is weak form of A [deism]); therefore ID is not a religion (in weakened form).
A (Deism) is not a religion
B (ID) is a weakened form of A
Therefore B is a weakened form of not being a religion.

(to the Tune of J. Giles’ “centerfold”) Nah, nah, nahnahnahnah, nahnahnah nahnahnanah….

I also understand your agenda on IC. IC falsifies Darwinism/ gradualism. You HAVE to try to smear it or down play it. And yes it is in the details. Materialistic gradualism for all too long has enjoyed the luxury of riding vague generalizations under the guise of scientific explanations.

This message has been edited by ID man, 08-30-2004 10:28 AM


"...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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 1:32 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 12:54 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 08-30-2004 1:16 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 16 by bob_gray, posted 08-30-2004 1:37 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 17 by MrHambre, posted 08-30-2004 1:38 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 1:52 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Loudmouth, posted 08-30-2004 2:09 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 396 (138113)
08-30-2004 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ID man
08-30-2004 11:23 AM


playing silly (RAZD) word games
Deism is reason based, therefore your conditions given do not preclude ID from being reason based; ID demands more than Deism, therefore ID is a Deism substantiated:

A (Deism) is reason based
B (ID) is a A with substance
Therefore B is the logical inference
(Q.E.D.)


"...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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 11:23 AM ID man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 2:44 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 11:32 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5295
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 15 of 396 (138119)
08-30-2004 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ID man
08-30-2004 11:23 AM


Re: RAZD you don't have an argument
IDists understand what they are trying to do with ID.

And I understand it, too: they're trying to sneak their brand of creationism into public schools. "Cultural renewal," I think one of the buzzwords is.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 11:23 AM ID man has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
27NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017