Intelligent Design (ID) Creationist(s) - (Michael Behe, the prime example)

Re: small reminder Buz -- creo not equal to IDer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------NN writes:
Buz, you use ID creo together a lot. This is another reminder that as the words are commonly used they are NOT the same thing.
As a default the creos are young earth, no evolution biblical literalists who, among other things do not think we are evolved animals.Buz response: I find it necessary to designate ID creo from creo. Everyone from Percy and Jar to YECs have referred to themselves as creationists in that they believe in a supreme god who somehow have been involved in the process of creation. At least that's how I have understood them. That term creationist is just too broad a term to designate one's ideology, imo.NN writes:
As an official positions the ID movement does not argue with the age of the earth, agrees with most of evolution and that we are evolved animals.Buz Response: No that's just not correct. Jehovah is an intelligent designer who intelligently designed everyting in the universe as per my hypothesis and as well as per all YECs. How can you say intelligent design had anything to do with the early stages of NS and RM?NN writes:
These are hardly compatible positions. You might want to stop trying to be wishy washy and trying to avoid appearing to disagree with any of them. You can't have it both ways.Buz response: It appears that you the one who's wishy washy and trying to have things both ways.NOTE: Thanks Moose for opening this thread. I agree it needs to be spun off from the other topic, It began as an on topic reason for creationist persistence but it progressed to where it needed it's own topic. You're soooo efficient. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....And that will never change, no matter what Behe or anyone else says. Evos work to exclude us from everything and now from intelligent design. With Buzsaw and the BH (Buzsaw Hypothesis) it aintagona happen.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

What's wrong with the term, Intelligent Design Creationist? How does Creationist Intelligent Designer change anything? Imo, it's Jar and you people who muddy the waters, doing your best to rob our ligitimate and logically proper logo and applying it to your secularist NS & RM model. We are a great deal more intelligently design oriented than NS/RM evo creos are.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

If I've said it once I've said it a hundred times or more on these forums. BUZSAW IS NOT A YEC AND NEVER EVER ARGUED ANYTHING FROM A YEC POSITION. My position has always been that the Biblical account does not give any indication as to how old the earth is. As for the universe, the Biblical record clearly implies that it is eternal as is God who has always existed in it. Like everything else in the universe, whenever the earth was created it was God who did it. That is how I read Genesis 1:1. This position is both Biblically compatible and thermodynamically compatible and is the only creo position which accomodates the existence of an eternal god since the others are temporal hypotheses. So far as I am aware it is the only position existing which is (abe: all three). Very likely there are others which I am not aware of. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Ringo, YEC is young earth creationist. I am a YCC (Young creature creationist) but not a YEC. No way can you spin that into YEC.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Repeating a falsehood does not make it so.

Thanks Moose. Sometimes Ringo seems to have the need for the last word no matter what sense he makes so I'll leave off arguing frivolity. I don't want to spread myself into more threads than I can manage responses to.

Moose in the OP of your thread you began thus:Moose's OP opener: NN and I got into this debate which was leading the other thread off topic. My understanding was that you opened this thread at least partially so as for NN and I to be able to try and resolve our differences on our problem with the semantics of ID/DI et al that we were getting into.Assuming that to be the case, NN and I had this exchange of arguments relative to what I assumed was one purpose for your opening the topic.
EvC Forum: Intelligent Design (ID) Creationist(s) - (Michael Behe, the prime example)Now you are trying to say that we Biblicalists think that somehow intelligence and design are part of the creation process when in fact intelligence and design are the primary factor/drive/absolutes of Biblical creationism and "to some degree" grossly undermines our position regarding ID.What gives? Do we need yet another thread for our input to be considered on topic?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Below I've changed some wording/revised Moose's statement to put as the Biblical Creationist sees it:I presume that most (evolutionists) in some variety of (humanistic secularism) think that, to some degree, intelligence and design were part of the (NS/RM evolutionary) process.

Hi Moose. Being the logical sort, I look at the definition of intelligence and the definition of design and go figure. The Biblical record attributes creation by design via a supreme hyper-intelligent being who as the record puts it, deliberately designed and formed all that exists, inclusive of all of the biological living things to the cosmos by wisdom, knowledge and understanding, et al. This, imo is the epitome of intelligent design.On the other hand I see intelligence and deliberate design via natural processes as having a lesser role in that natural processes are just that, natural, including NS and RM (natural selection and random mutation.)As I understand Behe, he is trying to ascribe what rightfully should be the primary factor of Biblical creationism to secularistic humanistic ideology.I regard my Biblical model as more intelligent design oriented than that of Behe. I believe my model has been articulated so as to be understood If not, I can repeat it or cite where it has been.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Thanks Paul. No way am I a YEC.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Moose, how does all this negate my claim to Intelligent Design relative to my hypothesis of God, creation and the universe given the definition of intelligence and design? Or do you think it does?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Hi again Moose. I'm not arguing upon empirical data on most counts. I understand that that is also the case with the BB and evo argument. It's all hypothesis and theory based upon evidence, some which may be regarded as empirical and some not. For one thing I can argue empirically that my hypothesis satisfies 1LoT if it is true. Of course nothing needs be empirical to have terms like ID attached to the hypothesis. The hypothesis is either ID or not regardless of how substantial the hypothesis is, imo.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Hi Dr. Certainly I'm not claiming empirical evidence for God. Where did you get that I did? My claim is that my eternal universe hypothesis is empirically 1LoT compatable as stated if true.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

When the hypothesis has all existing energy through and by one source and being eternally managed by that intelligent designing entity why do you need testing outside of 1LoT to determine whether it is compatible with that science law?1. No energy has ever been created. It all has eternally existed through and by one entity.2. No energy is ever destroyed, being existent in by and through one ID entity and eternally managed by same. 1LoT is the observable and testable science law that all the energy from this hypothetical source has never been created or destroyed.3. The BB hypothesis/theory has no explanation for where all the existing energy came from, implying that it suddenly began to exist. This imo, is less compatible and testable than my eternal energy hypothesis which accounts for no energy ever having been created. You people are bankrupt as to any explanation of where all the energy originated from. You are the ones who sweep it all under the rug with the answer, "we don't know." Imo, according to the observable and testable science of 1LoT all energy had to have somehow existed eternally. My hypothesis at least offers a hypothetical answer to that question.Your BB hypothesis fails the 1LoT test, IMO, whereas mine passes it.To summarize my point, one test for my ID eternal energy Buzsaw Hypothesis is that it is compatible with observable and testable scientific law, i.e. 1LoT. ABE: Please understand that I'm not claiming my hypothesis to be empirical. It is hypothetical. What I am claiming to be empirical is that my ID/energy hypothesis passes the 1LoT test. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : Added "ID" to last sentence.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW