Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2017 4:35 AM
386 online now:
frako, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 382 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,103 Year: 16,709/21,208 Month: 2,598/3,593 Week: 65/646 Day: 5/60 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 31 of 91 (689338)
01-29-2013 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2013 3:54 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
But you've changed it from what it originally was. People aren't just going forget about that creationist fiasco.

I have not changed the original meaning of intelligent design. There has never been a set definition of intelligent design other than the broad idea that teleology has, in some way or another, played a role in the origin of biological complexity. This has always been its meaning. The Discovery Institute adds its own baggage to the idea of intelligent design in biology, but that baggage is not a necessary part of ID.

And you're going to continue to be associated with them.

Only those unacquainted with the broader context of the ID debate would immediately jump to the conclusion that any ID proponent is a creationist. And, of course, since all of you here know I'm no creationist, there's precious little reason for you to associate me with creationists. Just sayin'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2013 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-30-2013 10:35 AM Genomicus has responded
 Message 42 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2013 11:05 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 32 of 91 (689353)
01-30-2013 12:11 AM


Randomness
Just a quick note I do not believe in "randomness". Determinist apply this word to signify indeterminacy. Indeterminacy is in the Universe because the Universe is aware. The same reason indeterminacy applies to quantum affects in our brain. There is no other way for us to be aware. Not sure I could "prove" all this. But I can make good arguments based on what we already know.

And yes I have observed the Universe being aware. I am not gone but you have given me a lot to think on. Remember I am picking of all your brains because I am a philosopher and I am fascinated with the members here. You are real thinkers. But I am also picking your brains for research. If I could prove all my theories not just as reasoned arguments based on current data but as a rival scientific theory I might be nominated for the Noble Prize. But I am not holding my breath on that. Einstein himself never produced a Unified Theory.

I am more of a Socrates than an Einstein. Or maybe I fall somewhere in the middle between the two. But if I do it is no credit to my self. I am just a very old soul way to aware to be in this Universe. And Awareness isn't intelligence. Awareness like mine allows me to be a visionary but unfortunately Visionaries don't have the mathematical aptitude to to construct a convincing model of reality.

As a philosopher I am not trying to build a model anyway. I am trying to observe the nature of reality directly. Unfortunately even if I am successful it could be lost in translation. I'm not making excuses. I will try. But I need to focus on my writing as well as having fun debating. So bear with me.

Ps you may want to read some of my original post on this subject on another philosophy message board. I go into much more detail on my view point then I have here. Unless you want me to go through the post on that board and post some of the main points here? But than you would miss the back and forth on there. If you do check it out don't bother past page 3 the debates break down into pure silliness after that

http://able2know.org/topic/152812-1


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 33 of 91 (689354)
01-30-2013 12:27 AM


My Research
Just to be clear I was just saying that anyone that could prove that Quantum Physics can be unified with the rest of Physics by showing awareness as a real Phenomena in the Universe ...would get a Noble Prize. I may joke about being a genius before my time but I'm not that arrogant. I wasn't claiming that I was working on such a theory.

Now my friend Fred Alan Wolf has worked on these types of theories and does provide the math and has a degree in Quantum Physics if your really that interested. (Yes he is a friend though we are not that close on contact since the Quantum Mind Group fiasco)

For a different perspective you can try the book I am reading now. "Why the World Doesn't Seem to Make Sense" by Steve Hagen

My research has nothing to do with trying to prove the theories I have been sharing with you. My research is related to unraveling the question of why Materialist or Creationist are so convinced that there is no need for Metaphysics ...because their Paradigm of Evolution or Creationism has already solved everything.

To me to think that religion or scientific materialism have already solved all the great mysteries of Life The Universe and Everything... and we are just counting up the casualties in that war to see who won... is delusional thinking.

But both sides are further delusional in thinking that their own position is self evident and all they have to do is work out the final details. It never occurs to either side that they are completely off the mark.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : typos missing point needed to be added

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Wanted to provide suggested reading outside what I can offer


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by AZPaul3, posted 01-30-2013 6:54 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 34 of 91 (689395)
01-30-2013 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Genomicus
01-29-2013 6:59 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
I have not changed the original meaning of intelligent design.

The meaning, yes you've changed it. Intelligent Design did not exist before the Discovery Institute created it. They created it to mean Christian Creationism.

There has never been a set definition of intelligent design other than the broad idea that teleology has, in some way or another, played a role in the origin of biological complexity.

Of course they hid their meaning behind a more sophisticated definition, because they had just been caught violating the constitution. They had to make up something that wasn't obviously religious.

This has always been its meaning. The Discovery Institute adds its own baggage to the idea of intelligent design in biology,...

No, the DI build it from the ground up, they didn't just add baggage to it. It has always meant creationism, they just dressed it up to hide the religious aspects.

but that baggage is not a necessary part of ID.

Not since we now have guys like you that aren't religious but still want to look into the possibility of life being created. But I do think you should realize that ID wasn't something that the DI just added baggage to, they outright invented it to hide the religious aspects of creationism.

Only those unacquainted with the broader contex t of the ID debate would immediately jump to the conclusion that any ID proponent is a creationist. And, of course, since all of you here know I'm no creationist, there's precious little reason for you to associate me with creationists. Just sayin'.

This came up because the new guy was associating ID with creationism and you interjected that they didn't have to be related. I'm trying to point out that associating them is reasonable, though I agree it isn't necessary.

Also, if you don't want to continue to be associted with creationism, then back away from the whole ID thing. Come up with something else. Ancient Genetic Engineering, or something, I dunno. Hey alright, that one spells AGE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Genomicus, posted 01-29-2013 6:59 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Genomicus, posted 01-31-2013 11:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 35 of 91 (689445)
01-30-2013 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-30-2013 12:27 AM


Re: My Research
... because their Paradigm of Evolution or Creationism has already solved everything.

Be careful how you characterize the paradigm of evolution. We are most certainly aware that we have not solved anything close to everything. Such a characterization is bogus. If you really believe this then you have not studied enough, read enough, talked enough and thought enough.

What we have is a model that fits exceptionally well with the data as we know them today and that makes viable verifiable predictions.

No one has presented a more accurate and effective model. If they did then that would be our present scientific model.

It never occurs to either side that they are completely off the mark

Then someone has to show us convincingly where this mark is. Do you know? You have not presented any model that is as good, let alone better, than what we are presently using. You have shown us nothing but some flowery prose about quantum this and metaphysical that just as any charlatan might do.

Be careful fighting the present paradigm. What you need to show, with the facts, a model, the math and everything else science always expects of its own, is something much more explanatory and predictive than our present model.

Fail to do so and both you and your speculations are outta here.

I have to tell you, SA, right now you look like nothing more the usual woo merchant out to sell a future book to gullible idiots. If in the future you come up with something you think fits the requirements then do not put out some book. Submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. Any thing short of that will mark you as a charlatan only out to make a buck.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-30-2013 12:27 AM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-30-2013 7:46 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 36 of 91 (689449)
01-30-2013 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by AZPaul3
01-30-2013 6:54 PM


Re: My Research
I have to tell you, SA, right now you look like nothing more the usual woo merchant out to sell a future book to gullible idiots. If in the future you come up with something you think fits the requirements then do not put out some book. Submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. Any thing short of that will mark you as a charlatan only out to make a buck.

Really? Who do you think you are? I knew some ahole would throw this at me when I mention a book. I didn't mention the book until this whole debate was pretty much wrapped up. I post 90% of my messages before even mentioning a book. And if you listened to anything besides your own ego you would see that I said I was Researching a book not selling one. Give me a break. I also said that I wasn't trying to prove a theory but pick peoples brains on the subject. I am not a scientist. I am a philosopher so I do not have to submit to peer reviewed journals.

And Fred Alan Wolf IS a Quantum Physicist and has backed this up with math and science. So why should I do that work all over again? My writing is about the debate and how closed minded and egotistical people are. Thanks for proving my point!

By the way Metaphysics and Quantum Physics are not prose they are actual disciplines moron so get out of my face. I didn't begin this discussion offering a model of anything.

My point in starting this discussion was simply to ask IF ID was open to Pantheism or if it was completely a CHRISTIAN/CREATIONISTmovement.

Tell me why I need a model of anything to pose this basic question?

I certainly wasn't asked for a model before I mentioned I was researching a book nor was I called a charlatan.

That was my only point. That's it. I'm not selling anything. I do NOT have anything to sell. I am Researching. There is a difference.

Finally you say

Be careful how you characterize the paradigm of evolution. We are most certainly aware that we have not solved anything close to everything. Such a characterization is bogus. If you really believe this then you have not studied enough, read enough, talked enough and thought enough.

You are quoting me out of context. I didn't say that there were claims to solving everything. My point was that Evolutionist in this debate believe that Evolution as it is solves how we got here and what we are etc. And the only thing that an Evolutionist or ID proponent hasn't claimed to solve is All the details.

That is Evolutionist say the answer to spirituality morality and biological origins are all solved by a materialist paradigm within the framework of Evolution.

There is still much research to be done in evolution to see exactly how it works. But Evolution is the only framework to ask any serious questions about life period according to Evolutionist.

ID or Christians believe that evolution is Guided by God who just happens to be the God of the Bible so to them Evolution solves all the same problems but they believe that we will never know exactly how Evolution works because it was Designed by God. They claim out of one side of their mouth this is all incomprehensible because God is incomprehensible but out of the other side of their mouth they claim the Bible explains it all.

Both views are delusional.

I think I can prove that Metaphysics IS still relevant to questions about the nature of our reality and therefore has direct bearing on this debate.

And I believe Quantum Physics and the Hard Problem of Consciousness have a bearing on this debate. And I DO have the right to my opinion and to express my opinion.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AZPaul3, posted 01-30-2013 6:54 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by AZPaul3, posted 01-30-2013 8:10 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 37 of 91 (689452)
01-30-2013 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-30-2013 7:46 PM


Re: My Research
Really? Who do you think you are? ... some ahole ...

You are very correct in this observation.

You are quoting me out of context. I didn't say that there were claims to solving everything.

quote:
My research is related to unraveling the question of why Materialist or Creationist are so convinced that there is no need for Metaphysics ...because their Paradigm of Evolution or Creationism has already solved everything.

Verbatim. If this is out of context then you made it so.

And I DO have the right to my opinion and to express my opinion.

So do I. I stand by my message. All of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-30-2013 7:46 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-30-2013 8:36 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 38 of 91 (689457)
01-30-2013 8:27 PM


God?
Just to be clear.

An Atheist talks about God by referring to A God or Gods and is referring to Mythological Constructs that both apply to Mythology and Religion equally. To the Atheist there is no difference between the two.

A Theist talks about God as The God and refers to all other Gods or God Concepts besides their own as Mythological Constructs

When Einstein used the term God he was not referring to a Mythological Construct. He was referring to the Universe. I do not ask anyone to agree with me about Pantheism but please understand that as a Pantheist I do not mean by God what you do.

I do not mean a person. I do not mean a deity. And I am not referring to something supernatural. I do not belong to a religion. To me Buddhism is a form of Metaphysics. I am not a Theist or Materialist or Nihilist. Nor am I a Supernaturalist or New Age Guru or Follower.

The Following is my understanding of God so far ...

The Nature of God

IS The Nature of Reality

The delusion that you are not God creates the desire to be God.

Since you cannot be what you are not you are left with the delusion of a God that rewards you for believing and obedience.

Atheist, Agnostics, Mystics and Pantheist are dancing around the edge of the same truth.

Part of the hard problem of consciousness is the overwhelming improbabibility of consciousness becoming as self aware as a human being.

Human beings are capable of achieving states of God consciousnesses by turning their awareness inward.
The religious grasp so tightly to conceptual reality and their egos that they see this as a threat to their egocentric world where they can project God outside themselves.

Atheist see the problem in reverse where they correctly see the God project (Projecting God outside yourself) as unreal but when shown Einsteins God they jump to the unwarranted conclusion that Einstein had not perceived anything beyond his own consciousness.

Hence to quote Richard Dawkins Pantheism is sexed up Atheism. Which brings me back to my original point.
The interaction between probability and possibility is what creates reality.

Reality is the present interacting
with presence or awareness.
What we call the past is the sum of all probabilities or Universes.

What we call the future is the unknown potential of all things being equally
probable therefore possible.

In the future anything is possible.

In the past probabilities are continuously generated and collapse into the present.

Every moment in the past happens simultaneously creating probable "Nows"

which awareness observes thereby creating time as presence(Awareness) continuously creates the present.

Those who limit their view to
one lifetime can only observe the
probabilities based on their own past.

If you limit your view to one Universe
you further limit the probabilities.

The possibilities of the future are
filtered down to only possibilities
based on your limited lifespan and
limited view.

If you are 20 you can only imagine technology or society advancing up to 20 years and only at the speed you have observed for the past 20 years.

To be a true creator you must open your mind to infinite possibilities where all is equally probable.

Then you must create your own reality.

When you have lived enough lives you will start to remember more than one life and you will become more creative more open.

Infinite openness can only come from
perfect trust in the universe.

Perfect trust in the Universe can only come from becoming the Universe.

To do this you must be willing to sacrifice all of who you think you are
to become infinitely open.

This is the mind of God and explains why God is also experienced as unconditional LOVE.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Typos


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 39 of 91 (689458)
01-30-2013 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by AZPaul3
01-30-2013 8:10 PM


Re: My Research
You Ignored everything I said in response to you except when I called you an ahole which you freely admit. So I am just going to ignore you. I made clear I was doing research not selling anything. And that I am a philosopher so I do not have to publish to peer reviewed journals. I made a lot of other points but you responded to none of them except to try to prove you didn't quote me out of context.

But since your point was that I tried to say that ID and Evolution claimed that Everything was solved and I was only claiming that they had everything but the details which is a different claim... you quoted me out of context again and ignored my points and clarification.

In other words you are obtuse and just like to argue about nothing. You stand by what you said but you said nothing. So you stand by nothing.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AZPaul3, posted 01-30-2013 8:10 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by AZPaul3, posted 01-30-2013 8:39 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 40 of 91 (689460)
01-30-2013 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Spiritual Anarchist
01-30-2013 8:36 PM


Re: My Research
OK.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 01-30-2013 8:36 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 41 of 91 (689467)
01-30-2013 9:33 PM


To Clarify My Research Intentions
I have been watch all the Debates on youtube on ID . With Dawkins Dennett, William Craig, Alvin Plantinga...etc and all I saw was the same points over and over.

And what I noticed was that all the ID proponents were Apologist/Theologians for Christianity and argued moralism as a key point in ID. This is absurd on the face of it. If in fact Evolution is true which it is this has little or nothing to do with morality.

The real Debate is between Super-naturalism and Materialism and this is a False Dichotomy.

Materialism is obviously false but so is Supernaturlism. And neither have anything to do with morality. Or the meaning of life for that matter.

If the Christians were right we would have exactly the same society we have now except for the fact that if their deity were real and as they describe him we would have all gone insane or destroyed ourselves by now. So what I mean to say is Christians would exist whether Materialism is true or not.

Which brings me to my next point. If Evolution/Materialism is right this would not change who or what we are as humans. We would still be biological machines. Some machines would be Christian in their thinking and some would not.

The debate is not about reality but about beliefs and agendas.

The Christians are worried about society becoming completely amoral without Belief in God.

The Atheist make the case that belief in God has not improved the moral imperative in society and if anything has held us back in superstitious nonsense. And that religion does not have a good record in either pursuing truth or justice.

This is my understanding of the debate of Intelligent Design.

So I came on here hoping to hear other viewpoints besides the ones expressed on youtube by the New Atheist and the ID Theologians.

I do think both have a secret agenda and that this whole thing is staged and political. I believe that The Discovery Institute has a Right Wing Agenda and it is stated on their website quite bluntly

"Discovery Institute is an inter-disciplinary community of scholars and policy advocates dedicated to the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and institutions and the worldview from which they issued. Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West."

The New Atheist are obviously the opposing Left Wing Agenda and I notice that even though groups like The Union of Concerned Scientists which back them up are actually more concerned about public policy in relation to Global Warming then Evolution as they claim when supporting The New Atheist in this debate.

Their position on ID is this

"
The Union of Concerned Scientists is an independent, nonprofit alliance of more than 200,000 citizens and scientists. We base our research and outreach on rigorous scientific analysis and the maintenance of scientific integrity in decision making among the public and policy makers.

We are gravely concerned about current attempts to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design” and other non-scientific accounts of the origins of species and biological diversity in our nation’s science classrooms. We are also troubled by the misleading interpretations of scientific principles being used to discredit and misrepresent the science of evolution. This misuse of science and education could have significant negative long-term consequences for American competitiveness and world leadership on scientific matters. "

But I think their real agenda is in relation to Global Warming and Public Policy that will make a whole lot of money off our Environmental Fears

Now I must Qualify this when I looked on their website it did not seem to left leaning. They did have a position on Nuclear Power that wasn't Left leaning so maybe they are legit.

But regardless how far to the left or right extremes these groups both lean The Discovery Institute and The Union of Concerned Scientists do have agendas and it seems to me this debate has nothing to do with morals God or even Evolution as much as it does to do with Changing Public Policy and generating revenue.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2301
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 42 of 91 (689507)
01-31-2013 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Genomicus
01-29-2013 6:59 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Hi Genomicus,

Just wanted to echo most of what CS had to say.

I have not changed the original meaning of intelligent design. There has never been a set definition of intelligent design other than the broad idea that teleology has, in some way or another, played a role in the origin of biological complexity. This has always been its meaning. The Discovery Institute adds its own baggage to the idea of intelligent design in biology, but that baggage is not a necessary part of ID.

The DI invented ID. Don't they get to define their own terminology?

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. - Of Pandas and People

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. - Of Pandas and People

It's not our fault if the people who invented the ID consider it to be synonymous with creation.

Only those unacquainted with the broader context of the ID debate would immediately jump to the conclusion that any ID proponent is a creationist.

No. Those acquainted with the debate would assume exactly that and with good reason.

Well over 99.9% of ID proponents are religious apologists, either explicit or otherwise. I can count the non-apologist ID proponents on one hand and half of them are anonymous internet posters. It still seems like a fairly safe assumption to me.

If you choose to look like a duck and quack like a duck, well... it's just about possible that you might merely be a very small goose. But don't get too surprised if people mistake you for a duck.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Genomicus, posted 01-29-2013 6:59 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13194
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 43 of 91 (689510)
01-31-2013 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Genomicus
01-29-2013 3:31 PM


Allow me to subtly Godwinize the thread....
Genomicus writes:

The reason I use the ID moniker is because it's a phrase that accurately describes my general position.


If "National Socialist" accurately described my general position, I probably still wouldn't use it to describe myself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Genomicus, posted 01-29-2013 3:31 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 44 of 91 (689541)
01-31-2013 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
01-30-2013 10:35 AM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
The meaning, yes you've changed it. Intelligent Design did not exist before the Discovery Institute created it. They created it to mean Christian Creationism.

The argument that teleology has played a role in biological history has been around for centuries. The modern argument is called intelligent design. This is why, very simply, I fall into the intelligent design school of thought. Did the Discovery Institute create intelligent design such that it would be creationism in disguise? This may very well be the case (and probably is, as the evidence indicates), but that would not affect the meaning of the term "intelligent design," as currently defined. I am a relative late-comer to the intelligent design debate. I was not involved with intelligent design in any way until several years after Dover. Thus, at the time I approached the subject, intelligent design was defined as the thesis that the origin of certain features of the biological world were better explained by intelligent planning. And so I adopt this meaning of intelligent design. Naturally, it is understandable that people would be inclined to label me a "creationist."

Not since we now have guys like you that aren't religious but still want to look into the possibility of life being created. But I do think you should realize that ID wasn't something that the DI just added baggage to, they outright invented it to hide the religious aspects of creationism.

Fair point. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the modern meaning of intelligent design is a bit different than what it meant in the late 80s and early 90s. Put differently, in the late 80s and early 90s, you had almost only creationists who were arguing in favor of intelligent design (Behe being an exception), but in this post-2000 era, you have a lot more non-creationists who are interested in the possibility that terrestrial life was intelligently designed.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-30-2013 10:35 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 01-31-2013 11:16 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 02-01-2013 7:11 AM Genomicus has responded
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-01-2013 10:19 AM Genomicus has responded
 Message 48 by Granny Magda, posted 02-01-2013 11:14 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5863
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 45 of 91 (689544)
01-31-2013 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Genomicus
01-31-2013 11:13 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Can you estimate what percentage of IDers are non-creationists?

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

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

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Genomicus, posted 01-31-2013 11:13 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Genomicus, posted 02-01-2013 1:18 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017