Are theistic evolutionists really IDers?

What basis do you have for saying this? It amazes me you guys keep saying stuff like this but many IDers only came to ID after previously being evos and finding it didn't work. In other words, they empirically abandoned Darwinism not due a leap of faith but empirical reasoning. So ID is theoritically acceptable? Hmmm....why the hostility towards ID scientists presenting material in order to do that? So you have an unreasonable standard for evidence and are prejudiced against the concept based on your belief system?Otherwise, why would you reject the idea that the universe can best be understood as the result of an Intelligent Cause rather than originating from nothing at all, by itself, with no cause whatsoever.

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience.[12][13][14][15] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[16]if you want to follow the footnotes, that's off wikipedia...you say... I do NOT reject the idea that the universe could have been the result of an "Intelligent Cause", I simply state that no evidence has come forth to support the notion. So, until said evidence is presented, I choose not to make the leap to the supernatural.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link.

I referenced the US National Academy of Science's take on ID above... here's Europe... Not a lot of support out there for ID.But to stay on the topic of the OP, I once again state my opinion that "theistic evolutionists" are NOT really ID'ers, and undoubtedly do not subscribe to the concepts put forward by ID'ers.You can argue semantics and say that "if they believe in a God, then they must consider him intelligent, and so it's intelligent design"... but I am using the term "intelligent design" to refer specifically to the works of the likes of Michael Behe. I think it is misleading to use the term Intelligent Design (especially in caps as the OP did) in reference to anything other than the very specific works to which the term has been associated with.The OP might as well have said "I think that theistic evolutionists believe in God..." well, of course they do, that's why they are theistic. Does that mean they agree with Michael Behe and irreducible complexity? Probably not.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

Uh huh....so a bunch of evos bash creationism and ID? what else is new?

There is plenty of evidence, namely the universe itself, but you choose to reject it. Certainly, the idea the universe began without cause and without intelligent cause is irrational.

You can call it "bashing" if you want... but if the ideas can't stand up to rigorous examination, then they are no better than palmreading, soothsaying and astrology. Pseudoscience. No bashing, just standards that aren't being met.

Ahaaaaaa.... this is the one I really like..."The evidence is all around you!!!"Indeed it is... evidence that something caused all this stuff to be here... which is not the same thing as evidence of a designer."Wow, it surely couldn't have been an accident could it?"You know what... I'd love to find out that it was all designed by a grand creator, but I'm not willing to go that extra step and say "okay then, since science can't explain it perfectly, I'm going to decide that there must be an intelligent deity behind it all, despite any specific evidence".Seems such an arbitrary leap in logic.... "since I can't explain this, I will attribute it to some supernatural entity".

There is no rigorous examination of ID by it's detractors. That is most clearly seen by their numerous misrepresentations of it. Heck, they don't even understand it, much less can claim to have rigorously considered ID papers and claims.Moreover, an appeal to authority is a very weak argument. Mere;y showing a bunch of ID haters hate ID doesn't say much at all.

Yep, fact that things we see have causes is indeed a fact which should trouble you in terms of maintaining the opposite stance, as you do.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - WikipediaDuring the above court case there were numerous attempts to "understand" the pseudoscience of ID, and it's proponents were given adequate opportunity to put forward ID's scientific merits. The court ultimately ruled... This... from a conservative state judicial system.It isn't that "ID haters hate ID" as you seem to keep trying to say, it is that ID does not live up to the rigorous standards of science and therefore cannot be taken seriously.

Randman said...The fact that things have causes has no impact on my "stance", which you have somehow figured out even though I haven't fully ststed it.If I must put it in a simple phrase for you, my stance is this... "just because the universe exists, is not undeniable evidence that it was intelligently designed". You seem to want me to accept that the existence of the universe is enough evidence in and of itself for a creator, and I simply won't do that.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

Randman, I think Briterican has given you some very reasonable responses, such as the portion below the off-topic quote in message 78: You responded with: Things seem to have gone downhill from there.Closing down in 10 minutes.Adminnemooseus

Now let's try to keep closer to the topic theme, as presented in message 1 and the topic title. Do even the proponents of ID give it a "rigorous examination"?I doubt you really understand what "ID theory" is. As fuzzy as it is, I wonder if any ID proponent does. Perhaps you can propose a new topic to clarify what "ID theory" is? Such does not belong in this topic.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID (not not that ID).

double post.see Message 90Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I maintain faith in God in the face of the absence of empirical evidence for gods' existences. I see no evidence indicating that there isn't a god.I do feel like a have a soul, which leads me to believe that there is something else to this world that science isn't detecting. This makes it "easier" to believe in god.I think that RAZD is right that you have the wrong impression of TEists.