Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2017 4:47 PM
396 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,910 Year: 13,516/21,208 Month: 2,998/3,605 Week: 340/933 Day: 82/154 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


(2)
Message 1 of 91 (689055)
01-27-2013 7:17 PM


I would like to see a thread on here that will encourage more discussion on what the current proponents of Intelligent Design are open to. In other words many opponents rightly point out that most advocates of ID are Christian. And even further damning is the history of the ID movement being originated in Creationism.

It seems to me this whole debate is between Christians and Atheist on what is and isn't real science. I think the sticking point here is the word Design.

Design implies a total lack of creativity and to me is just as cold as Richard Dawkins summary of natural selection...

""Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

When a Penn and Teller episode of BullSh* Penn ask Teller what is the Creationist response to Dawkins Teller hits him with a Bible.

The Intelligent Design movement claims to be different.But given the history of the Discovery Institute and the famous Wedge Document many are justifiably skeptical.

The truth is Design is cold to me anyway whether it is by a God with a predetermined outcome that ignores all the suffering involved until the end ...or simply nature selecting for survival traits.

I do not believe we live in a cold Godless Universe. But I have concluded instead that the Universe is alive and as more awareness manifest the Universe becomes more creative. The suffering in this process is attributed to the fact that to eliminate suffering that the Universe must become self reflective and aware of itself through us and other sentient beings.

Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity?

I feel like I must choose a false Dichotomy in this debate between a meaningless Universe with no room for souls,freewill etc
or belief in some Tribal Deity of the Canaanites.

Are other viewpoints besides the Christian and the Atheist welcome or given consideration? Or is the debate of ID just a battle of Christian values versus Nihilism/Materialism?

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Typo. The last sentence did not render a complete thought. So I expanded the last sentence for clarity.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2013 8:52 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2013 1:30 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 8 by AZPaul3, posted 01-28-2013 6:48 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 01-28-2013 12:15 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded
 Message 11 by Stile, posted 01-28-2013 3:10 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded
 Message 16 by Genomicus, posted 01-28-2013 7:13 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12503
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 2 of 91 (689057)
01-27-2013 8:48 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18455
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 3 of 91 (689058)
01-27-2013 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-27-2013 7:17 PM


Welcome to the fray

See Is ID properly pursued? Message 78.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-27-2013 7:17 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-27-2013 10:23 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 4 of 91 (689062)
01-27-2013 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
01-27-2013 8:52 PM


Properly Pursued?
I probably shouldn't reply yet to this post because I have not yet read the thread you have suggested. But Is ID properly pursued sounds like the question "Is ID proper science?" I will now go read this thread to see if I am wrong. A little backwards I know but I wanted to keep this thread going if possible and I wanted to thank you for the welcome. I will be back to this thread after I read the is ID properly pursued thread either with an apology if my question is already covered or if it is not covered I will request to keep this thread open. And hopefully encourage replies. I will also post my thoughts on the thread you suggested here if I do not think that thread addresses my questions I proposed here. Thank you again for listening.

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2013 8:52 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-27-2013 10:35 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 5 of 91 (689064)
01-27-2013 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-27-2013 10:23 PM


Re: Properly Pursued?
Ok I see my post on the thread you suggested but it is a quote on message 78 on the last page. Not sure how this forum works. I see my original post here on this thread but I can not find it on is ID properly pursued thread. So I am hoping to keep this thread open so people will post to my questions specifically. Now that I read message 78 I am going to go back and read this rest of the Properly Pursued thread to see if I missed anything.

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-27-2013 10:23 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 01-28-2013 8:36 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5783
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 6 of 91 (689066)
01-27-2013 11:06 PM


ID as science?
From what I have seen, ID is the exact opposite of science.

Science relies on the scientific method, starting with data and working through hypotheses, testing of those hypotheses, etc. all the way to theory for the single best explanation that 1) explains all the relevant data, 2) survives rigorous testing, and 3) allows successful predictions to be made. Science is conducted in peer-reviewed scientific journals and appropriate symposia.

ID is the opposite; it starts with an idea and seeks anything that can support that idea, while ignoring anything that contradicts that idea. It employs misrepresentation, denial, populism, and ultimately its results must be in accord with religious dogma and scripture. It avoids peer-reviewed journals in favor of popular audiences, and avoids subjecting its data to testing. Much of its efforts are aimed at lay or religious audiences using PR techniques. It lacks scientific rigor.

Further, ID was schemed up to get around the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the US Supreme Court which determined that creation science was actually creationism in disguise. The book, Of Pandas and People is good evidence. After the court's decision the term "creationists" was globally replaced by "design proponents" -- but they made a mistake. They ended up with "cdesign proponentsists" in one place. That was a clear giveaway that "creationists" and "design proponents" were considered the same.

Based on all of this, and the famous Wedge Document, I see no scientific merit in ID. It is just one more dishonest attempt to fool school boards and other people who don't know any better.

Edited by Coyote, : spelling


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12686
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 7 of 91 (689073)
01-28-2013 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-27-2013 7:17 PM


I don't think that ID is an open movement, even if there is little visible formal organisation. I know of at least one ID supporter who said that he had been invited to leave the movement because his views were considered unacceptable (although Behe hasn't been asked to leave despite straying a long way from orthodoxy).

And whether there is a formal movement or not the term ID is so strongly associated with the Discovery Institute crowd that I think it would be foolish for anyone who did not follow the party line to claim to support ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-27-2013 7:17 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 8 of 91 (689104)
01-28-2013 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-27-2013 7:17 PM


Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity?

That would defeat the purpose of inventing ID. The whole doctrine was devised as a subterfuge to skirt the court's decisions keeping proselytizing out of the public schools. The only goal is to openly preach christian doctrine, and a specific sect's brand of doctrine at that, in the schools. Gotta catch 'em early before they get away.

It would dilute their fundamentalist christian purpose to be open to any other non-christian philosophy's treatment of ID.

That has not kept others from trying to coopt the scheme for their own purposes. I keep close watch on the skeptics movement and what we are seeing at conferences is a lot more ID advocates of the moslem variety. There appears to be a growing fundamentalist/creationist cult in Islam for whom ID is appealing.

I do not know of any "new wave" cults adoption of ID. Maybe you could provide one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-27-2013 7:17 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12503
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 9 of 91 (689115)
01-28-2013 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-27-2013 10:35 PM


Re: Properly Pursued?
Hi Spiritual Anarchist - welcome!

Spiritual Anarchist writes:

Not sure how this forum works.

This forum works the same way most other forums work, except maybe for the thread proposal process. RAZD apparently couldn't wait for your thread to be promoted (proposed topics are visible to all, but only moderators and the proposer can post to them), so he posted a reply over at that other thread, Is ID properly pursued?.

You can participate in any threads you like here, but I think you're right that this thread has the best chance of addressing your questions.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-27-2013 10:35 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13023
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 10 of 91 (689133)
01-28-2013 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-27-2013 7:17 PM


Spiritual Anarchist writes:

Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity?


There are some people (including one or two members of EvC) who propose that the idea of Intelligent Design can be approached scientifically. But scientific inquiry is the last thing that the Intelligent Design movement wants. The Intelligent Design movement is not open to anything but its own dogma.

Spiritual Anarchist writes:

I feel like I must choose a false Dichotomy in this debate between a meaningless Universe with no room for souls,freewill etc or belief in some Tribal Deity of the Canaanites.


Accepting science - e.g. accepting that evolution did happen - does not require a "meaningless universe". In fact, many of us believe that "meaning" is more meaningful if we decide for ourselves what it is instead of having it spoonfed to us by some spook.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-27-2013 7:17 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-28-2013 7:06 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 11 of 91 (689152)
01-28-2013 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-27-2013 7:17 PM


Intelligent Design, Atheism and beyond
I don't think Intelligent Design is a very open movement. But I think that what you consider as an alternative (what you think of as "atheism") doesn't exist. So maybe it's okay that Intelligent Design isn't very open, because the alternative is much better anyway.

Spiritual Anarchist writes:

I do not believe we live in a cold Godless Universe.

Me neither.

But I have concluded instead that the Universe is alive and as more awareness manifest the Universe becomes more creative.

I see.
I simply concluded that we live in a warm Godless Universe.

The suffering in this process is attributed to the fact that to eliminate suffering that the Universe must become self reflective and aware of itself through us and other sentient beings.

I do not think what you claim to be a fact is actually a fact.

In order to eliminate suffering, we simply need to deal with how sentient beings treat other sentient beings.
The Universe itself does not need to become self reflective. Which is good, 'cause that might not even be possible.

Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity?

I think it should be, but no... I don't think that it is. Probably because it was invented by Christianity in order to promote Christianity.

I feel like I must choose a false Dichotomy in this debate between a meaningless Universe with no room for souls,freewill etc
or belief in some Tribal Deity of the Canaanites.

That is indeed a false dichotomy.
You can have a very meaningful universe, with all that was ever available to "souls", freewill etc... and just not have a God in it.
It looks very much like the universe we live in right now, even.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-27-2013 7:17 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-28-2013 9:10 PM Stile has responded

    
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 12 of 91 (689171)
01-28-2013 4:33 PM


Cult?
From what I am reading there is little hope for ID as a Science. I was listening to a debate with William Craig and he tried to claim without God there was no Objective meaning to life. To me this is the wrong use of the word "Objective".

Ironically if all meaning is given to the Universe as part of a Design then we are nothing but machines. So to me he is saying there are values or meaning in life because it is all pre-designed and that means there are values that are objective.

This is absurd.

He wants absolute values and absolutism is the other face of nihilism. You simply cant scientifically analyze "values". So you can not apply the word objective to values the same way you do to reality itself. Values are a smoke screen for a religious agenda. We do not need values at all except maybe as guidelines. We are conscious aware beings that are tuned into suffering. This will automatically lead to compassion if we let it. So where is the need for values?

I don't need a law giver because I do not need laws. Laws are for prosecuting the guilty. They have no deterrent value in themselves. Maybe the punishments have some deterrent value but values based on punishment and reward do not create any spiritual growth. My point is the idea of Sovereignty of Kings and Divine Laws have nothing to do with the origin of the Universe.

So to me the whole idea of ID based on Christian Morality is a nonsequitar and certainly isn't science. If Pantheism is true as I believe it is then I am not sure what sort of science could prove this level of reality.

Quantum Physics comes close but Physicist doubt the reality they are observing. To me physics is currently more about doubt than observation. After all observation directly affects reality yet most scientist observe and deny the consequences of the new Metaphysics that the Quantum world opens up.This Quantum level is not the Supernatural as Theist insist because it is not magic.

But this level of reality transcends what we have known as natural reality up until Einstein.Yet some Physicist are so close minded to change they will go as far as saying that Quantum Physics do not even describe reality. But instead QM is seen as just another branch of statistics.

Until this changes Metaphysics and Science will never be Unified and reality will simply be described in terms of the illusions we accept versus the illusions we reject.

Thoughts?

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Missing word


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by 1.61803, posted 01-29-2013 4:43 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 13 of 91 (689186)
01-28-2013 5:10 PM


Designer Genes
I would like to post an part of an article from my Blog that I wrote about Design where I challenge the idea that there is a difference between A "Watchmaker" (God) or a "Blind" Watchmaker (Natural Selection) . To me the outcome is the same and neither is proven. And they are both pushed with political agendas behind them to keep the Sheeple in line.

Designer Genes

Theological determinism is the idea that there is a god who determines all that humans will do, either by knowing their actions in advance, via some form of omniscience[5] or by decreeing their actions in advance.[6] The problem of free will, in this context, is the problem of how our actions can be free if there is a being who has determined them for us in advance.

Biological determinism is the idea that all behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by our genetic endowment and our biochemical makeup, the latter of which is affected by both genes and environment.

Compatibilism tries to reconcile Determinism with Moralism.

In order to evaluate the truth of this statement you must choose a starting point. The difficulty of this is very telling. If you are an atheist perhaps you read the writings of Daniel C Dennet on Compatibilism. Then you might question how Determinism can possibly lead to Moralism. It is true that without Compatibilism it is not possible to get to Moralism from Determinism. That is there is no direct link between Moralism and Determinism.

But the science of Behaviorism and religion of Theology both have the same goal of Social Engineering.

And not surprisingly they both posit Determinism as the cornerstone of their ideologies. But if determinism is accepted as true then even though both Science and Theology have achieved half of their goal of getting rid of our pesky belief in freewill they are left with the paradox of no possibility for morality. The worse fear of Behaviorist and Theologians is a society where justice can not be established with punishment and reward.

Theology starts with a God which is all powerful. If this is our starting point then Freewill is not possible.

The only difference between Theology and Behaviorism is a debate on what is the First Cause. Everything has a cause in physics. So being mere machines we must behave in relation to external causes that can be traced back to the beginning of the Universe. The moment the Universe began there was a chain reaction that led directly to the formation of planets and ultimately to life on Earth.

This whole chain was predetermined by the initial cause which science postulates as The Big Bang and theologians postulate as God.

Leaving aside the question of whether there was a first cause or not we are still left with a big problem.

That is the problem of how a Determined Universe can manifest conscious beings with freewill. The answer is simple. Determinism and Freewill are incompatible.

So you must choose between one view or the other. If you choose determinism you must give up moralism and most moral philosophy. This would not be a problem except that the Punishment/Reward Ideologies of both Theology and Behaviorism are undermined .

The goal of both theology and behaviorism is control. The first step in instituting this control is to get rid of the idea of freewill as being possible.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 14 of 91 (689197)
01-28-2013 6:04 PM


Creation Metaphysics
Here is my proposal. Creation Science is silly on the face of it because whether there is a God or not is not only a religious question but creation stories are obviously mythological in nature. To find a science to prove that any given Mythology is actually description of reality is doomed to fail.

So my proposal is to create a branch of Philosophy known as Creation Metaphysics.

Obviously this will not be taught as a Science Program. It will instead be taught as part of a Humanities Course. o

Of course this brings up the problem of why science is taught in schools with little regard for the Humanities. Considering the fact that most courses in the Humanities are secular and liberal it is curious why there isn't more emphasis on the Humanities in school anyway.

Creation Metaphysics will cover the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the relationship between that and the Observer Problem in QM. This will lead to postulating an alternative to The Big Bang in Cosmology.

ID Challenges Evolution by Natural Selection. Why not skip Biology and go straight to Cosmology?

The Point is the Scientific community are purist and do not play well with others. So mixing Religion and Science is frowned upon as it should be. After all religion for most its history was a Bully using Inquisitions and Crusades then claims credit for laying the groundwork for science . At least so says William Craig.I mean to say that Craig wants religion to get credit for beginning of science not that he thinks religion should take responsibility for it's opposition to progress scientific or otherwise. Yep I got an axe to grind with him.

Philosophy on the other hand is neutral ground. Because philosophy can be very Scientifically based but at the same time can open doors that science wont touch and often has to catch up to even consider.

We know we are alive and sentient beings. And we know that there is no explanation for consciousness in matter. Let us explore our biases that say Humans are definitely aware and animals maybe but only certain animals. And certainly not plants. How do we draw these lines?

Because we are looking for "Intelligence" in animals. We can not even properly measure Intelligence in ourselves. According to scientific reasoning what you can not accurately measure doesn't exist.

This brings us to the Quantum Reality problem known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The physicist Werner Heisenberg developed the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says that when measuring the physical state of a quantum system there's a fundamental limit to the amount of precision that can be achieved.

For example, the more precisely you measure the momentum of a particle the less precise your measurement of its position. Again, in Heisenberg's interpretation this wasn't just a measurement error or technological limitation, but an actual physical limit.

Now if you can not measure Intelligence you certainly can not measure Awareness. This is what creates the hard problem in Consciousness.

Creation Metaphysics would address all this and avoid all the problems that ID has because unlike ID it is not repackaged Creationism.

We would not assume that one of the Mythological Tribal Deities of The Canaanites which were in anyway responsible for creation of the Universe.

In fact in Creation Metaphysics I do not propose any form of Creationism at all. Because I do not believe the Universe was "Created".

I am talking about a Creative Universe. I am talking about an Quantum Organism. And we are the result. Not planned but a natural consequence of an Aware Universe trying to WAKE UP!

"I speak of none other than the computer that is to come after me," intoned Deep Thought, his voice regaining its accustomed declamatory tones.

"A computer whose merest operational parameters I am not worthy to calculate{ and yet I will design it for you. A computer which can calculate the Question to the Ultimate Answer, a computer of such in nite and subtle complexity that organic life itself shall form part of its operational matrix.

And you yourselves shall take on new forms and go down into the computer to navigate its ten-million-year program! Yes! I shall design this computer for you. And I shall name it also unto you. And it shall be called . . . The Earth." Douglas Adams

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Wrong word in my proposal used. I meant to say philosophy not mythology. My mind wandered and almost ruined my post. Luckily I caught it.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 15 of 91 (689209)
01-28-2013 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
01-28-2013 12:15 PM


New Movement
This is why I propose a new movement. I just came up with Creation Metaphysics as an example.

Its not that I want to get around science.

But ID is speaking out of both sides of its mouth when claiming that Evolution is wrong but suggesting Guided Evolution. To them God is the Biblical God thereby a person like you and but smarter. Much smarter. etc If you take any human being and give them infinite power you have the Christian God. They would get jealous and angry and make rules about hygiene,sex, etc. And of course they would want to be worshiped. This is "human" nature. This is why Paley's argument of the Watchmaker is so appealing to them. To a Christian God is personal or human like.

To me God is Transpersonal. Even though I am more Pantheist than Deist I will give you some definitions to clarify "Transpersonal".

Modern Deism is that God is transpersonal - God transcends the personal/impersonal duality and moves beyond such human term

"Many Theists view an transpersonal God as one that is pointless but for the Deist the opposite is true. This relationship transcends notion of personal and impersonal and is not pointless because God does not just have a relationship with humanity but with all of nature (creation) and man is a part of it. "
Deism Defined http://moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html
Classical Deism is that God is impersonal - she doesn't bother with us mere mortals.

And the ID proponents description of "Guidance" has nothing to do with seeing intelligence in nature or design. Design and Guidance are 2 different things anyway. It's all a mess compared to the real science behind Evolution.

If a scientist were to challenge Evolution as a theory and propose a new theory that just involved natural selection then admitted that his new theory was just a different form of evolution called Mutation Evolution people would think he was mad. This would be so even if even if natural selection hadn't been discovered yet.

To clarify this is what ID proponents do when they propose we get rid of natural selection and replace Evolution with "Guided" Evolution. Then worse yet call the Process Design.

Am I looking for evidence of design in evolution or guidance?

This ambiguity gives ID away as a subterfuge if nothing else did. But even though I have been an atheist all of my life up to becoming a Pantheist I can not accept the nihilist explanation atheist give. And I agree that Atheism is not a proper framework for science. Neither is Christianity. To me Christianity is a mythological construct politically motivated in it's construction. Atheism simply denies that mythological constructs have any basis for framing scientific questions.

But Metaphysics is not a Mythological Construct.

Naive Realism Denies Metaphysics but Quantum Physics has already demolished Naive Realism.

Since Atheist affirm Naive Realism as a better frame work for science than Mythological Constructs I have to part from Atheism even though I agree with 90% of what they say.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Typo

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 01-28-2013 12:15 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 01-29-2013 11:29 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
1
234567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017