Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 8:52 PM
421 online now:
Aussie, edge, halibut, jar, JonF, Phat (AdminPhat), Porosity (7 members, 414 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,909 Year: 27,515/21,208 Month: 1,428/1,714 Week: 271/365 Day: 40/73 Hour: 4/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 46 of 91 (689576)
02-01-2013 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Genomicus
01-31-2013 11:13 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
The argument that teleology has played a role in biological history has been around for centuries. The modern argument is called intelligent design.

The major problem you will face, as you have experienced here, is that the moniker is poisoned by DI's constant drumbeat from the christian far-right. You need to get away from this poison if you have any hope of gathering support from the science/evolution/intellectual community. Directed Evolution? Guided Development? Enlightened Genome Finger Fiddling?


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 50 by Genomicus, posted 02-01-2013 1:32 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11816
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 47 of 91 (689592)
02-01-2013 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Genomicus
01-31-2013 11:13 PM


ID is Christian
The argument that teleology has played a role in biological history has been around for centuries. The modern argument is called intelligent design.

No, that's just not true. Sure ID is teleology, but not all teleology is ID. A portion of the modern arguments are called ID.

This is why, very simply, I fall into the intelligent design school of thought.

But you may very well hold teleological views that do not fall under the ID portions, and are even excluded from them. Further, if you're unfamiliar with its roots and are only aware of the latest popular representations of ID, you might even think that some of your teleological views are ID ones when they really are not. For example, if you're not secretly arguing for the Christian God, then the folks who invented and poularized ID aren't going to accept you.

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.

Words are defined by how people use them. Look up "intelligent design" on wikipedia. You're free to mean what you're saying here, but you're fighting the status quo and you're going to continue to be, reasonably, associated with Christian Creationists.

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.

Have you read the Wedge Document?

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.

Yeah, but you fell for the ruse. You've been hoodwinked.

By all means, look for design. My advice to you is to stop using the ID moniker if you don't want to be associated with Christian Creationists. Come up with something new that Christians haven't tainted. You may want to fight the status quo, if so have fun with that, but these are the conversations you can expect to be having.

Naturally, it is understandable that people would be inclined to label me a "creationist."

Well, its a simple question: was life created or not?

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.

You guys need to come up with your own club. Hell, I'd probably join. Just don't latch onto the popularized ID moniker, that ones got a secret history of lying for Jesus.


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 53 by Genomicus, posted 02-01-2013 11:51 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 48 of 91 (689597)
02-01-2013 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Genomicus
01-31-2013 11:13 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Genomicus, it's really pretty simple;

Are you a liar?

Are you a religious apologist seeking to promote one of the Abrahamic religions under a smokescreen of sciencyness?

Are you out to attack science on behalf of your faith?

Are you trying to push religion into school science classes?

Are you privately convinced that the designer is God (specifically your version of God)?

Are you a dupe or useful idiot who unwittingly promotes Christian apologetics for Evangelical Christians?

If your answer to these questions is "No" then you're not an IDist, becausethat's what ID is. At its heart, ID is a lie, a Christian apologetic dressed up in a cheap lab coat. In trying to rehabilitate the term "Intelligent design", all you're doing is acting as a useful idiot on behalf of the Discovery Institute and other crazy people.

I know you don't like it when I say this and I can appreciate why, but I can only tell you what I believe to be the truth. ID is a lie. To promote ID is to promote religious apologetics. Trying to salvage any genuine scientific endeavour from the ID movement is going to require that you distance yourself form the liars and zealots of the ID crowd as much as possible. Plus, it's all a waste of time anyway; life is not designed, intelligently or otherwise.

Mutate and Survive


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 55 by Genomicus, posted 02-02-2013 12:31 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 49 of 91 (689614)
02-01-2013 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Coyote
01-31-2013 11:16 PM


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

It is, of course, difficult to supply solid figures. By non-creationist, I assume you mean those who accept common descent. To be sure, the majority of the leading proponents of ID reject universal common ancestry of species (e.g., William Dembski, Paul Nelson, etc.) AFAIK, but then we do have individuals like Behe who do accept common descent. From my own personal experience (e.g., I used to belong to a major ID emailing list), I'd say that roughly a quarter of ID proponents accept common ancestry of some kind. But I really don't have any good idea of the actual percentage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 01-31-2013 11:16 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 50 of 91 (689615)
02-01-2013 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by AZPaul3
02-01-2013 7:11 AM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
The major problem you will face, as you have experienced here, is that the moniker is poisoned by DI's constant drumbeat from the christian far-right. You need to get away from this poison if you have any hope of gathering support from the science/evolution/intellectual community. Directed Evolution? Guided Development? Enlightened Genome Finger Fiddling?

When I do submit a design hypothesis to a science journal, I assure you that it won't be called "intelligent design." I am well aware of the baggage that that term comes with. But in circles like EvC forum, it is convenient to refer to myself as an ID proponent because "intelligent design" can mean (and often does mean) the general position that teleology has played a role in the history of life on earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 02-01-2013 7:11 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Panda, posted 02-01-2013 2:27 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 52 by AZPaul3, posted 02-01-2013 11:25 PM Genomicus has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1306 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 51 of 91 (689618)
02-01-2013 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Genomicus
02-01-2013 1:32 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Genomicus writes:

But in circles like EvC forum, it is convenient to refer to myself as an ID proponent...


Convenient, but unfair to you.
On a forum like EvC, you are more likely to be incorrectly tarred with the 'creationist' brush, which would be a reason to avoid the term 'ID'.

But I think we are all generally in agreement.
Hmm...that seems wrong.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Genomicus, posted 02-01-2013 1:32 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Genomicus, posted 02-02-2013 12:35 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 52 of 91 (689639)
02-01-2013 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Genomicus
02-01-2013 1:32 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
But in circles like EvC forum ...

I think this is an error. Here, there, everywhere, ID is fundamentalist christian creationism. In this circle, in any reasonably rational circle in which you may want a receptive airing of your ideas, ID is poison. You touch it, even as a seemingly innocent labeling convenience, you are poisoned by it.

Humans are by definition only human. (It made sense when I thought of it.) And ID conjures up specific images fair or not.

"intelligent design" can mean (and often does mean) the general position that teleology has played a role in the history of life on earth.

You may want it to mean that, but in reality it means "fundamentalist christian creationism" in the minds of all who are familiar. A DI YEC hearing ID will think "fundamentalist christian creationism." A biologist hearing ID will think "fundamentalist christian creationism." And every advocate religious or not from atheist to zoologist hearing ID will think "fundamentalist christian creationism."

If "fundamentalist christian creationism" is not what you mean then do not come within 18 feet of the term ID. No matter how hard you piss into the wind its gonna get on you.

I am a jaded individual, I know. I would not put it beyond some anti-evolution, anti-science, let-me-in-your-science-class religionist to walk in here wearing a lab coat saying,

"No. ID isn't about any One True Jahovah, Creator Of All The Universe, Breathing Fallen Mankind Into Existence Through His Holy Nostrils, Thus Requiring The Gift Of THE Love Of Jesus, Savior To All Sinners. It's merely the general position that teleology has played a role in the history of life on earth,"

trying to "de-religionate" ID so it slides easier under the class room door.

Is that you?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Genomicus, posted 02-01-2013 1:32 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Genomicus, posted 02-01-2013 11:57 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 53 of 91 (689640)
02-01-2013 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
02-01-2013 10:19 AM


Re: ID is Christian
The argument that teleology has played a role in biological history has been around for centuries. The modern argument is called intelligent design.

No, that's just not true. Sure ID is teleology, but not all teleology is ID. A portion of the modern arguments are called ID.

Yes, and quite a large portion at that.

But you may very well hold teleological views that do not fall under the ID portions, and are even excluded from them.

I think front-loading is generally thought to fall under the ID scope.

For example, if you're not secretly arguing for the Christian God, then the folks who invented and poularized ID aren't going to accept you.

I have no problem not being "accepted" by William Dembski et al. Some of my views on biological origins closely parallel those of Mike Gene, and it's not like Dembski is comfortable with Mike Gene's views.

Words are defined by how people use them. Look up "intelligent design" on wikipedia. You're free to mean what you're saying here, but you're fighting the status quo and you're going to continue to be, reasonably, associated with Christian Creationists.

I understand that. I've often been associated with creationists merely for being an ID proponent, but even if I argued for teleology without calling myself an ID proponent, I bet a lot of people would still associate me with creationism.

Have you read the Wedge Document?

Yes.

Yeah, but you fell for the ruse. You've been hoodwinked.

By all means, look for design. My advice to you is to stop using the ID moniker if you don't want to be associated with Christian Creationists. Come up with something new that Christians haven't tainted. You may want to fight the status quo, if so have fun with that, but these are the conversations you can expect to be having.

I don't mind fighting the status quo. I also don't mind trying to make the leading ID proponents to realize that they're doing it wrong.

Well, its a simple question: was life created or not?

By "created," do you mean a term synonymous with engineering? Or do you mean something more similar to a magic-poofing-mechanism?

Again, I understand where you're coming from. I don't blame people who would jump to the conclusion that I'm a creationist, but when I say "intelligent design," I'm using the definition that states that intelligent design is the view that life was designed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-01-2013 10:19 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 02-02-2013 11:28 AM Genomicus has responded
 Message 72 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 10:33 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 54 of 91 (689641)
02-01-2013 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by AZPaul3
02-01-2013 11:25 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
You may want it to mean that, but in reality it means "fundamentalist christian creationism" in the minds of all who are familiar.

No, it does not always mean that. To a number of people, intelligent design is not synonymous with creationism. Biologist Albert de Roos comes to mind, and there are others.

A DI YEC hearing ID will think "fundamentalist christian creationism."

Yea, and what will a DI non-YEC, non-OEC think? You're basically saying that Michael Behe is either (a) not an ID proponent, or (b) a creationist. Choice (b) is obviously false, since Michael Behe is no creationist. And if you say Michael Behe is not an ID proponent, then I'd have to say that you have a pretty narrow view of what ID encompasses.

I am a jaded individual, I know. I would not put it beyond some anti-evolution, anti-science, let-me-in-your-science-class religionist to walk in here wearing a lab coat saying,

"No. ID isn't about any One True Jahovah, Creator Of All The Universe, Breathing Fallen Mankind Into Existence Through His Holy Nostrils, Thus Requiring The Gift Of THE Love Of Jesus, Savior To All Sinners. It's merely the general position that teleology has played a role in the history of life on earth,"

trying to "de-religionate" ID so it slides easier under the class room door.

Is that you?

Obviously not, since I strongly disagree with those who wish to put ID into the classroom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by AZPaul3, posted 02-01-2013 11:25 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 02-02-2013 3:07 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 55 of 91 (689645)
02-02-2013 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Granny Magda
02-01-2013 11:14 AM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
If your answer to these questions is "No" then you're not an IDist, becausethat's what ID is.

That all depends how you're defining ID. You're definition of ID is more like a definition of the ID movement, not a definition of intelligent design as a view on how biological life and biological complexity on Earth arose.

In trying to rehabilitate the term "Intelligent design", all you're doing is acting as a useful idiot on behalf of the Discovery Institute and other crazy people.

Hey, if you think "intelligent design" necessarily means Christian creationism, then by all means consider me not an ID proponent.

I know you don't like it when I say this and I can appreciate why, but I can only tell you what I believe to be the truth. ID is a lie.

Okay, wait. Are you saying that the view that life was engineered is a lie, or are you saying that creationism is a lie?

Trying to salvage any genuine scientific endeavour from the ID movement is going to require that you distance yourself form the liars and zealots of the ID crowd as much as possible.

I've done my fair share of distancing myself from the ID movement, ya know. When I first got involved with ID, I was eager to investigate the possibility that life was intelligently designed. Thanks to William Dembski, I was allowed to be part of a special emailing list, where ideas were actively exchanged. I was in the midst of the leading lights of the ID movement. I defected precisely because I realized that the main thrust of the ID movement was more concerned with critiquing Darwinian theory than with advancing biological research through ID hypotheses. Instead of exchanging ideas about how we could test ID proposals, I found that the more vocal members seemed to be primarily interested in discussing theology. So it's not like I'm ignorant of how the ID movement works, and it's not like I haven't distanced myself from that movement.

Plus, it's all a waste of time anyway; life is not designed, intelligently or otherwise.

You so cavalierly proclaim that it's all a waste of time, because life is not intelligently designed. To me, this smacks of unscientific arrogance. It is as if you know life is not intelligently designed. Let's keep an objective mindset here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Granny Magda, posted 02-01-2013 11:14 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Granny Magda, posted 02-02-2013 7:08 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 56 of 91 (689646)
02-02-2013 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Panda
02-01-2013 2:27 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Convenient, but unfair to you.
On a forum like EvC, you are more likely to be incorrectly tarred with the 'creationist' brush, which would be a reason to avoid the term 'ID'.

True, and if you have a better term than "ID" to describe my overall position, then I'd be glad to adopt that term. But on EvC forum, I feel like you all pretty much know what my position is, so I see little harm in adopting the phrase "ID proponent."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Panda, posted 02-01-2013 2:27 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1142 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 57 of 91 (689652)
02-02-2013 2:11 AM


Question For Members on this board
I am curious to know what everyone's individual position is on the topic of ID, Evolution, Pantheism, Atheism etc Is everyone here either a follower of Dawkins type thinking of Evolution "As Is" with no room for anything outside materialism (What you see is what you get naive realism ) or the opposite side Christian "Design" ?

In other words all the Proponents of ID on here for "Guided" Evolution by the "person" called God ? Are all the skeptics of ID here only skeptical of ID as a movement of The Discovery Institute? Or does it go deeper with the Skeptics on here where as in any theory outside of materialism is scoffed at?

How Polarized is this debate?

Is it an "Us" vs "Them" mentality. One political movement against another? Or are there Apolitical Non Partisan people on here that have an actual interest in Philosophy and who might take Metaphysics seriously? Is this just religion vs science?

Does one side believe that the Nature of reality is in a test tube or will be decided on experimental data and mathematical models and the other side believe the nature of reality is spelled out in Holy Books like the Bible who grudgingly accept science when it advances their agenda of spreading "godly moralism?

I guess I want to dig deeper into what I started this thread for. Not just to see if ID is an open movement but more importantly if there are people outside of this debate... looking in... searching for some truth even if it doesn't necessarily align with the status quo of science or religion. Just truth for truth sake?

Yes I know about the Logical Positivist that claimed that Empiricism is all we need. We have our 5 senses and math and all else is nonsensical or bullshit.

I also know the opposition in Theology who use our fear of moral nihilism to motivate philosophers to run screaming from scientific materialism into the arms of whatever religion is prevailing at the time.

Which right now is conveniently Christianity...Not because this religion has any self evident truths or is any more compelling then any other mythological construct... but simply because of their domination through terrorist tactics... Such as inquisitions and crusades and their perfection of brainwashing techniques coupled with their ability to revise history.

What if Science has been co-opted for political agendas no less insidious then religions need to dominate with disinformation and behavior modification? Does this concern anyone here ? Or has the truth already decided?

Is it the rational against the emotional? Or is there anyone here with enough curiosity to pursue actual inquiry no matter where that inquiry leads? Does the truth have to make you "comfortable"?

Can you describe your position without sounding like Dembski or Dawkins?

As I said before I am just curious how Polarized this debate actually is. I came to this forum specifically because I have already watched the debates between the New Atheist and The ID proponents and wondered if anyone here has anything NEW to add?

It was once said that God is a comedian whose audience is afraid to laugh.

As a Pantheist I am slowly coming to the conclusion that even if Pantheism were right the joke might be on God ...because we may be in a stage of our spiritual evolution where ironically people are so stubbornly asleep that God may not even have an audience at all.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

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


Message 58 of 91 (689654)
02-02-2013 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Genomicus
02-01-2013 11:57 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
To a number of people, intelligent design is not synonymous with creationism. Biologist Albert de Roos comes to mind, and there are others.

I'm sure you can find hundreds of people who think the same as you. They came onto the scene without the "ID=fundamentalist christian creationist" mantra already pre-loaded into their thinking. And I'm sure there are many more, like Behe, who fought to mentally overcome the equality. That still leaves the rest of the world ... by the hundreds of millions.

Right or wrong doesn't matter. If you insist on staying with the "ID" name, you, Behe, de Roos, whoever are going to have to fight the preconceived notion in front of every audience you go for many many years and you still will not reach the majority.

You know the score. However you want to play the tune is up to you.

Is that you?

Obviously not ...

I don't know why I asked that question. I wouldn't have expected any other answer. No, I'm not accusing you of anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Genomicus, posted 02-01-2013 11:57 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Genomicus, posted 02-02-2013 7:05 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 59 of 91 (689663)
02-02-2013 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Genomicus
02-02-2013 12:31 AM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
That all depends how you're defining ID. You're definition of ID is more like a definition of the ID movement, not a definition of intelligent design as a view on how biological life and biological complexity on Earth arose.

But the latter is just teleology. You don't need to call it ID. You don't need to taint it with that soiled moniker.

Hey, if you think "intelligent design" necessarily means Christian creationism, then by all means consider me not an ID proponent.

Not necessarily Christian. You could be a Muslim IDist.

But seriously, if you keep promoting ID you are doing the work of Christian fundamentalists who want to destroy science and replace it with crazy dogma. By the time we get to that point it scarcely matters whether you are an apologist or not. You are doing harm, end of story. You are acting like a disease carrier immune to the plague you spread, but culpable in passing the contagion on to others.

Okay, wait. Are you saying that the view that life was engineered is a lie, or are you saying that creationism is a lie?

I'm saying that ID, in all its incarnations thus far, has been a lie. And that includes Behe, who is convinced that his designer is the Christian god and who took place in the attack on science education that was Of Pandas and People. Behe stood up in court and tried to defend the indefensible. Behe is is nice guy, I can't help but like him (where I despise Dembski) but he is a creationist in a sense. He believes that human life is dependant on direct intervention from his personal deity. I would call that a form of creationism, albeit a weak creationism.

I've done my fair share of distancing myself from the ID movement, ya know.

Not enough to remove suspicion. Not enough to be taken seriously, although no amount of distancing might be enough for that, since your "ID" thesis is just so darn silly.

You so cavalierly proclaim that it's all a waste of time, because life is not intelligently designed. To me, this smacks of unscientific arrogance. It is as if you know life is not intelligently designed. Let's keep an objective mindset here.

You so cavalierly proclaim that my research into leprechauns is a waste of time, because there's no such thing as leprechauns. To me this smacks of arrogance. It's as if you know there's no such thing as leprechauns. Let's keep an objective mindset here.

That's how you sound to me. Your charming ideas about taking the central thesis of ID seriously just come across as silly. Even explicit creationism doesn't sound as silly as this. You are essentially suggesting that life was engineered by aliens (and there really are no other candidates, however much you whine about keeping an open mind). That's silly. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence for life evolving through natural process and none whatsoever for alien interference. The idea belongs in a bad episode of Star Trek, not in a serious scientific publication. Feel free to pursue it if you like, but don't expect anyone else to take you much more seriously than we do circle squarers or perpetual motion enthusiasts.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Genomicus, posted 02-02-2013 12:31 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Genomicus, posted 02-04-2013 12:40 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13885
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 60 of 91 (689668)
02-02-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Genomicus
02-01-2013 11:51 PM


Re: ID is Christian
Genomicus writes:

By "created," do you mean a term synonymous with engineering? Or do you mean something more similar to a magic-poofing-mechanism?


To me, "created" implies "creator" and "intelligent design" implies "superior intelligence". Whether that creator/intelligence used a wrench or a magic wand is not particularly relevant.

My own personal objection to the idea of "intelligent design" is the fact that intelligence only works with existing processes. If your "designer" is just using as-yet-unknown technology to manipulate those processes, then you're talking science fiction. If he's also creating the processes, you're talking religion. Neither alternative is scientific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Genomicus, posted 02-01-2013 11:51 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Genomicus, posted 02-02-2013 12:04 PM ringo has responded

  
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017