Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 112 (179622)
01-22-2005 10:38 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3 of 112 (179625)
01-22-2005 10:42 AM


Setting the Ground Rules
I'd like to set one little ground rule up front. It will not be considered acceptable to argue, "The evidence for Intelligent Design is all around us," or, "You can tell just by looking at life that it is Intelligently Designed," or anything else of this form. Thanks!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Silent H, posted 01-23-2005 5:29 AM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 8 of 112 (179977)
01-23-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by CK
01-23-2005 3:45 PM


Re: Bump
Hi Charles,
Thanks for trying to kick things off. I wanted to respond to just this part in order to reclarify one thing:
Charles Knight writes:
The nearest thing I can find to an overview is this:
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/...HarrisCalvert.pdf
It states that:
quote:
The central claim of ID theory is that design is empirically detectable. For most people, design detection is an intuitive process that occurs without any thoughtful deliberation.
  —pg12
The ground rules I set in Message 3 rule out arguments for ID of this type because they are not based upon evidence.
I can understand that some might object to a priori ruling out arguments of this type as being inherently unscientific, but before I could make concessions on this the point would have to be made successfully in the [forum=-11] forum.
ID cannot point to any scientific field where the fundamental tenet was arrived at by "an intuitive process...without any thoughtful deliberation." ID must fulfill its claim to be science by the same standards used for all science, and not by making up special rules for itself.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by CK, posted 01-23-2005 3:45 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 01-23-2005 4:06 PM Admin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024