A proof against ID and Creationism

In other words humans are the product of bad, incomplete, incompetent design? And this just proves that ID - when you do this - is faith.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

In message 22 of this thread, in response to your statements about how faith is good, I stated: This is a direct result of religious "FAITH." I refresh this question and request that you respond rather than ignore it.

Come on. That's a really stupid question. Would it make you feel better if the nuke was exploded by a Godless atheist?Extreme and horrendous actions are taken by many people.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

it is OT(off topic) which is why I ignored itanyway, I didn't even say faith was good. I do think that it can be good, and i think it can't all be good.here's the message: In response to "how unsupported beliefs?" i said that faith was potent and can give you strength(not that it was good), enough to do something crazy (like blow yourself up) so simply having an unsupported belief shouldn't be that hard to believe. The same as it is now. Faith can be good and it can be bad. No. No.happy now?This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 09-27-2005 06:19 PM

I though ID was suppose to keep the designer ambiguous, maybe I'm mistaken. But if you start labeling the designer then it leads people to conclusions.For example, if the designer is an alien biological species, then I would immediately ask who designed them. However, if the designer is an eternal omipotent being, then I don't think we can ask who designed it.This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 09-27-2005 06:11 PM

I'm not trying to support ID. I'm trying to show how, in the OP, the Wonderful Theory shouldn't be applied to God.

Hi bkelly, Hey. That's fine. While I might like to see creationism taught in school...I'm not so sure I would. One question that immediately pops into my mind is: whose version of creationism will be taught?But when I asked: You responded with: I appreciate your honesty in your answer. So, instead of the "ah-ha" attitude I began with (which I should probably apologize for)...let me ask why should abiogenesis be treated as anything other than the interesting speculations of scientists. Put THAT deep in the appendices.I had NO problem with most of the chapter detailing how DNA works...or the chapter explaining what ATP is and how it works. Sprinkled everywhere in these chapters are, of course, evolutionary speculations about how this or that process may have come about...yet NONE of those speculations increases understanding of the actual processes which can be understood WITHOUT having evolutionary speculations mixed in.Children of all religions and non-religions are forced to attend highschool. Why not leave ALL the speculations out of highschool science textbooks?--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-27-2005 04:22 PM

Hi Crash, Does the theory directly state or even imply that intelligence is the same as information? (AbE: this is an actual question...I've not actually read any official ID literature..I just have a general impression of what it is stating).I can see information being the result of intelligence, and I can see intelligence using information, but I'm not so sure that intelligence can be said to be information.Or, am I barking up the wrong tree?--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-27-2005 06:37 PM

However, they are not required to attend a state school. They are permitted to attent a religious school. The speculations are often on questions that the students consider of high interest, perhaps questions that have motivated them to study science. You cannot simply ignore these issues. If the teacher does not raise them, the students will.Textbooks and teachers should be honest. Where they are presenting speculation, they ought to be clear that it is speculation.

Hi bkelly,I wanted to come at your opening post from a different angle, too. I know a lot of groups now use ID as a support for biblical beliefs. But ID theory purposely doesn't identify the designer. According to the theory the designer could be advanced aliens or God or Zeus or the CIA (okay, not the CIA).The Bible is clear that life was created (designed), but ID theory is not the Bible. A theory is an attempt to explain observed phenomena...theories can be and usually are adjusted. A theory is the result of men applying their minds to a subject. A theory is NOT the truth...but is an attempt to approximate the truth based on current knowledge.The Bible, OTOH, claims to be the word of God. The Bible claims to BE the truth -- not a theory of any kind. The Bible also makes it clear that God is the Designer...and not anything or anybody else.I really think you are confusing ID theory with the Bible itself.--Jason

This thread illustrates the primary weakness of both creationism and ID: they are both so muddled that neither the creationists nor the IDists know what they believe. They only know what they don't believe: evolution.That's why there really is no difference between creationism and ID.(By the way, I agree with you that ID is not the Bible. Neither is creationism.)

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

It didn't seem too ambiguous when you tried to defend him against ID's obvious flaw. Then we have to conclude that some complex entities can exist without being designed, which falsifies the inital premise of ID. ID is self-refuting.

I think the relevant question is if ID considers intelligence to be complex; I don't myself know for sure but I find it rather unlikely that anybody would describe intelligence as simple.

Aye, there's the rub...the rub that exposes the ID agenda. The ambiguity is deliberate and dissembling. One wonders if lies can profitably be told in the service of truth.If the designer is a deity, then ID is merely Creationism in a stolen lab coat; if the designer is not a deity, then ID answers nothing.We can narrow the ID implications further. Not all gods are described as eternal: only the God of the Book can put a stopper in the infinite regression of designers; a god could be a Younger God, a Lesser God, an elevated mortal, all subject to queries about their designers.The ID ambiguity is a Trojan Horse. I wonder if God is pleased with their deception. Is this how Yahweh conquers? Tarted up like a...theory.

That's because the OP defined the designer, it wasn't ambiguous enough, that's pretty much the problem I had with it. If you're gonna call the designer god then it screws up the 'who designed the designer' part. My conclusion was that if a complex entity has always existed then it can exist without being designed (and still not falsify ID's initial premise). ID's initial premise requires creation, IIRC, and if a complex being was not created then its complexity doesn't suggest design. No argument here.