Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists

Just wanted to ask the opinions of evolutionists here. Obviously evolutionists generally believe the ID movement is creationism, however I was just wondering, can you appreciate that there is the classic argument of ID, since Paley, which didn't really refer to creation or Christianity, but is basically the argument of recognising design? Or can you recognise it is possible to form a syllogism which contains no premise pertaining to God or creationism, within it?While I acknowledge that you might not accept the present form of ID as anything other than a watered down form of creationism, can you accept that if a syllogism contains no premises that mention creation or God, then strictly speaking, technically, the syllogism itself is not creationist?The reason I ask this is my own intelligent design argument was never intended to be similar to an ID movement, it is just a syllogism that takes us to the conclusion that life is intelligently designed.I am not asking anyone to agree with my argument, all I am requesting is that you can acknowledge that strictly speaking, if I only argue one ID argument, and it really isn't part of any creationist movement to get ID in a classroom, but really is just my own ID argument, then can't that ID argument be regarded as having little to do with creationism, if there is no words or premises in the argument that refer to or depend on creationism, and the argument still stands even if creationism is false?The syllogism I have used for ID, was never meant to be used as a creationist argument, but only as a way to ASCERTAIN if an object or thing, is designed;If something has the elements of design it is designed. (X is X, Law of identity)
Life has the elements of design
Therefore life is designed.Now I am not arguing this argument here and now, I know you don't accept it, but can you accept the conclusion only says whether something is designed? It is not meant to say who or what the designer is, and has nothing to do with who or what the designer is. If I were to argue MORE, like for example, "and God is the designer, clearly", then obviously that would have to be ADDED into the argument, or I would have to create a second argument.For example we could use the argument like this;If something has the elements of design it is designed. (X is X, Law of identity)
Pottery has the elements of design
Therefore pottery is designed.Thus you could use the argument to pertain to any designed thing, without it pertaining to any designer, because the only purpose of the argument, is literally to conclude if something is designed. If the object is a living thing or a piece of stone or whatever the object is, the object-in-question itself is not religious. For example if we use the syllogism for a rabbit, obviously a rabbit is not supernatural or religious, the same as a piece of clay.I just fail to see how it isn't a generalisation, to say that my argument would be creationism because of the modern ID movement, the conclusion, "it is intelligently designed" also makes no mention of by who or what, just that there is a recognition that the object FEATURES hallmarks of intelligence.(again, I am not trying to cause a fight, I literally just wondered if you can see my point, because you could even argue that evolution is the designer if you wanted to. Yes, personally I would see that as a contradiction, but my point is, I think the more classical ID argument is much more BASIC than creationism, and is about recognising design, ONLY. It seems to me, if I mention ID, I am tarred with the brush of the modern ID movement, and people will say, "ID is religion. ID is creationism", but does that mean I am not able, according to logical rules, to formulate a syllogism that is NOT religious but is ID?

Where did I mention, "science" remind me?I am asking if you believe a syllogism can be formed for ID, that does not contain any premise of creation of theism. I have no issue or interest in, "science", in asking that. It's a terrible way to detect design by seeing if an object has the features of design? In that case is it a terrible way to check if someone is human if they have the usual identifying characteristics such as human dna/consciousness/anatomy? LOL!And that's a statement called a, "bare assertion". Myself, I formulate complete arguments, and give thorough reasonings that have to be faulted, I don't just state something is, "nonsense" by use of a question-begging-epithet. If you would like to read my reasonings about the issue of appearance, since it has nothing to do with this topic, then you can read them here, but they are much cleverer than a bare assertion that my writings are nonsense, so if you want me to take you seriously, you're going to have to know what you are talking about, and a sure sign you don't know much about logical reasoning, is use of epithets and bare assertions about my arguments, of which your ignorance is rather large;(your comment about evolution is also to MUDDY-THE-WATER, why would examining any object to test if it is designed, be hindered by what a theory hypothesizes? For example, is a particular pottery NOT designed because there is a theory that hypothesizes a piece of pottery can LOOK designed?)Creation and evolution views But this is my point - even if my motives are the most creationist, religious motives in history, why would that change the fact we could use my syllogism to infer pottery was created. How can the syllogism be wrong, for reasons and motives SEPARATE from it?That's like saying that someone that argues that a cyanide cake is tasty, wants to kill people, therefore that cake is not tasty. But obviously it can be tasty.So then, basically this reveals that you would reject a sound argument, based on my motives, and you would not heed the logic within the argument.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

But the point is there are even agnostics that argue intelligent design. I have known a couple of them online and read a few of them.We are only addressing the question in this thread of; "can I formulate a syllogism without it being creationist".My syllogism, doesn't contain any creationist or theist premises, sure you can SAY/CLAIM that it is really creationism, but obviously you can't say that logically you can prove my motives according to cynicism. It is 100% SPECULATION to say that the syllogism is creationist.Think about it - even if I did form it to defend creation, as obviously I do that all the time, why does my motive change a true argument? Could I not argue the same for evolution? I could say evolution is atheism, but it's begging-the-question because evolution theory contains no premises about God. Even so, this doesn't mean that his syllogism is wrong. For in reality, if the world is atheist or theist, then there will be both atheists and theists that invent arguments for the purposes of preaching their type of beliefs, but would it then follow that we can dismiss all theist/atheist arguments, because someone has an ulterior motive?Obviously, all or most arguments will naturally FAVOUR one or the other, if we are going to discuss the origins of things, but obviously an argument, even if it is created with motive X, is not going to be an unsound argument because of that motive.Imagine if we all found out when we died, that Darwin had a 100% motive of atheism BUT we did evolve. Can you see my point yet? The argument of evolution would not be unsound because of his motives, and it wouldn't matter if it was implicitly atheist.Finally, I have no "wish" or motive to get creation into science class, for why would I want apologetics in a science class given rules of science don't allow for God-of-the-gaps reasoning? I have reasoned for fifteen years, that creationism is not science.I really don't see what science has to do with this issue, this issue is to do with whether a syllogism can be created that is sound, and is an intelligent design syllogism, that contains not premises about God or creation. Are you saying it is not possible according to logical notation, to formulate a sound ID-argument because it will automatically be theist and creationist, even if it only infers something is designed?You could use my syllogism if you found an alien object, and you could conclude it was designed technology, like with the antikythera mechanism, because it has the features of design. The designer CAN be natural because my syllogism doesn't forbid it, just like you CAN be theistic evolutionist because evolution doesn't forbid it.

Why? Do we need an approach so as to determine whether a cake was baked or whether the theory it baked itself, done it?You are muddying-the-water. When we examine whether something is intelligently designed, we can 100% know the features of design because we can examine things we already know to be designed. That's the first step.Secondly, we can also tangibly examine the object-in-question to see if it has those features.HOW CAN WHAT A THEORY SAYS ABOUT THE OBJECT, AFFECT WHETHER IT HAS THOSE FEATURES OR NOT?According to the law-of-the-excluded-middle, either the object in question qualifies as having the features of intelligent design, or it does not. Because we can DIRECTLY examine it, why would indirect conjecture of a theory, have any weight?Think about it properly instead of desiring to refute me, as thus far you have shown good honesty.If someone came up to you and placed a football at your foot, and said, "please tell me is this a football" and you went to examine it and they clicked their fingers and said, "oh hang on a minute, we have a theory this isn't a football, it's brilliant and most people accept the theory by neurotic agreement so forget the examination"Would that be an intelligent way to proceed, when you have the football in front of you and can simply test whether it is one?In the same way, I don't need the speculation of evolution-theory to tell me if a rabbit has the features of design, I simply examine it's make-up and see that it does;- specified complexity
- information
- contingency planning
- correct materials (not metal or enamel for a stomach)
- aesthetics and symmetry
- goals and subgoals
- congruency/integration of systems in union of the overall goal. (eyes, ears used for balance, don't get in each others way, etc..car wheels don't get in the way of the carburetor, etc..it is all a union of corresponding integration).
- information storage density
- directed energy(Obviously I didn't want to argue intelligent design in this thread but if unfair assertions about my arguments are made, obviously this gives me some leeway, but I would rather not explain it all again, and again and again, coming across the same mistakes by evolutionists, the same mistaken objections that OCCUR to them, and which I already know of, having dealt with those objections for a long, long time).

Non-sequiturs can be true in their conclusions, but this argument is either the undistributed middle term, fallacy or affirmation of the consequent, depending on what you meant by "a dog has 4 legs"(in a logical sense),.. so your example is of a fallacious syllogism in support of your argument that syllogisms don't prove anything.. Again, it is not correct because this time it is the fallacy of the undistributed middle term in which it happens to be a false conclusion.You still commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle term if your conclusion is false, both your examples are not examples of a sound syllogism, and you claim syllogisms aren't proof but you only give examples of unsound ones.You gave an example of two syllogisms whereby the form was not valid.If you want to give an example of a SOUND syllogism, the form has to be valid, and obey the ponen/tollens rules, and the premises have to be true.So then I disagree with your argument that syllogisms don't prove anything because sound ones can indeed deductively prove things;All biological pigs are animals.
My pet is a biological pig
Therefore my pet is an animal.So you have to understand that the form of a syllogism can be wrong even if it's conclusion is accidentally true. A non-sequitur can have a true conclusion but the conclusion still does not follow from the premises.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Genomicus, your comment, "appear" is a question-begging-epithet. I could also say, "why then do Ferraris appear to be designed".You have yet to understand the technical logic behind my argument. The point is, if we take life out of the equation, nothing exists that looks designed and isn't, that also has the features of design.A natural land bridge looks designed but when we investigate we will see the material is loose and crumbly and the path is not straight or meant for walking on, etc...there is no contingency planning or any of the true elements of design.So the induction so far is that 100% of things that looks designed but aren't, can be shown to not be designed because they won't have the true features of design.So then a human body or a ferrari car, don't appear to be designed. If you say a human appears to be designed you also have to say a ferrari appears to be designed, because they both equally have all of the features of design. To use the question-begging-epithet, "appearance" while discussing anatomy and genetics, is therefore the special-pleading fallacy, because you would not use the term, "appearance" while describing a car's design, you would just use the term, "design".The features of specified complexity, contingency planning, are really in the anatomy, like they are really in a car, so your argument is SPECIAL PLEADING - you are asking me to treat actual intelligent design as appearance, in lifeforms, but as design in a car, even though in both the car and the eyeball, the specified complexity is present, meaning an eyeball is constructed to give vision, OVERTLY upon investigation, and a car is constructed to drive, OVERTLY, by investigation. If an eyeball and a car is not constructed to drive then we could DESTROY the arrangement of parts in both and they would still function.I appreciate your honesty, but be careful to be more objective, because the features of design in life don't only "appear". Remember, there is no argument for the "appearance" argument other than the words, "it's appearance" meaning the appearance-argument is not an argument, it is a WORD.Think about it - can you formulate a strong argument for, "appearance"? No - for it is just a WORD you use.