Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

Okay, so this sounds exciting, but then... ...we get yet more ToE misrepresentation and criticism. If the ToE is wrong then why keep referring to it?Can you give us an ID hypothesis backed by evidence without mentioning the ToE?

Of course you can be an IDist who believes in God, just as I can be (and am) an evolutionist who believes in God. But if ID is really about "the scientific evidence for a creative intelligence," why do you keep talking about God and evolution instead of evidence for ID? Whenever you're ready, go ahead and put your evidence for the designer on the table. The problem is, quoting here the rest of your paragraph: You seem to have no evidence for ID, just expressions of skepticism of evolutionary interpretations of natural history that are based upon highly skewed misinterpretations of evidence.As I said before, you need to uncover and analyze evidence for your IDer and put it into an interpretive framework that yields accurate predictions. It's called the scientific method.--Percy

Hi Beretta. I see our ID position as Biblical Creationists as non-compatible with what is considered science here at EvC and most of the science area for that matter.As it appears from the little I've read of you, your position is similar to mine as a Biblical literalist. Correct me if I'm mistaken here.Since the Biblical record states that mankind and all of the animals were created individually from the earth/dust. Thus unless we can show substantial evidence that the Biblical ID god, Jehovah does indeed exist and the Biblical record is his record of how he did it, so far as the folks go here, we have no scientific argument.All we can do is interpret the archaeological and other evidences as supportive of the Biblical record when indeed that is possible.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buzz, you get 9 out of 10 for this one.

quote:

---

I see our ID position as Biblical Creationists as non-compatible with what is considered science here at EvC and most of the science area for that matter.

---

I'd have given you 10 out of 10 if you'd said all of science.

quote:

---

All we can do is interpret the archaeological and other evidences as supportive of the Biblical record when indeed that is possible.

---

This, of course, illustrates quite cogently the difference between creos and science. Creos begin with a conclusion, then attempt to twist the evidence they see to comport with that conclusion. That approach is the antithesis of science, where the conclusion is based on the evidence.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

And when that is not possible, you must admit it.The "global" flood 4,350 years ago is a good example. Archaeology absolutely fails to support that event, yet few creationists "interpret the archaeological and other evidences" as contradicting scripture.Much the same with the "designer." Everything possible will be interpreted as supporting design, while nothing which suggests a natural origin will be accepted.Creation "science" at its best.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Buzsaw,
I suppose really all I'm trying to do is put forward the case for a creative intelligence required for design of complex biological systems. Specifically which God I believe is responsible is no doubt pretty obvious however I don't have any doubt that step 1 is to get the whole concept out on the table -does the evidence point more to evolution or to intelligent creation. What is the evidence for a creative intelligence? What is the evidence against evolution? and if they can tell me something more (without the philisophical assumptions that evolution had to have done it)what exactly is the evidence that proves that evolutiondidit.Like I said to Percy, you can be an ID proponent and know which God you believe is responsible or you can be an ID proponent on logic alone without necessarily having worked out exactly who is responsible for it. Id however is just supposed to stick to the science as their primary argument -sometimes I wander a little beyond that but I do try to stick to that primary method of argument.

Everybody has a worldview, we all believe that either godditit or nothingdidit. The thing is, which viewpoint is better supported by the evidence? Evolutionists have been fed nothing but evolution all the days of their lives or else if they had any Christian or other faith type input, their upbringing was overcome by mass media persuasion that evolution obviously did it and they weren't able to argue their point so they lost their faith or put the two together into an incomprehensible compromise position.
Actually evolutionists are the ones that will twist anything to fit their conclusion, they know there is no creator so they have to twist a story out of everything about how evolutiondidit one way or the other. Their conclusions are based on their interpretations of the evidence which are based on the all powerful explanatory filter of their worldview.

Yes, you've repeated this any number of times on this forum. The problem is that you provide no alternative framework! We're not talking about the so-called "explanatory filter" of the ToE, we're talking about evidence in support of ID. All you're doing is dodging the question at hand by reverting to ToE criticism.What positive evidence provides support for ID? What is the ID hypothesis? Every time this question arises you either dodge or ignore it.

Even we atheist evolutionists don't know that there is no creator, and some of the people you're arguing with on this thread are theists and agnostics. Gods could create universes like this one, obviously, so biological evolution is hardly incompatible with the idea of a created universe.Creationism/I.D. are about interventionist Gods, rather than smarter Gods who get things right in the first place, and don't have to tinker around.If I did believe in a God, it wouldn't change my view of evolution, which was built on the evidence and has changed significantly over the decades as new evidence comes in, which it's doing rapidly.The real science and the discoveries are fascinating, and the sad thing about the creationist cults is that their members build up mental blocks that prevent them from understanding what is not a dogma, but a changing voyage of discovery in which few things are 100% certain.One thing that's close to 100% certain is that we descended from a common ancestor with the chimps and our recent ancestors evolved mainly on your continent. It's either that, Beretta, or (getting back to the topic) your intelligent designer is trying to fool us.Before you dismiss us as having been brainwashed, think long and hard on that, and also, speaking of brainwashing, reflect also on why nearly all Hindus have Hindu grandparents, and nearly all Muslims have Muslim grandparents, and nearly all Christians have Christian grandparents, so can you be so sure where the cultural brainwashing lies?I didn't have atheist grandparents. Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

But atheists say there is no creator so that makes you an agnostic surely? Deism is about non-interventionist gods, they say a god may have created the universe but he's a hands-off type god. Theism is different which is why you can't really be a theist and believe in evolution because god isn't involved in the creation then. That's true, you could believe in a god and still have every confidence in evolution but it wouldn't be the Christian God because that God is involved in His creation. Why would 'smarter' gods not have to 'tinker' -what's the point of God if he just causes the universe to come into being and then steps back and leaves everything to carry on? would that be smarter or not? Which was built on an interpretation of the evidence while ignoring all those things that don't fit.Over the decades there have been a number of stories of what happened to the dinosaurs and every decade that changes and whatever becomes consensus next, gets taught as fact (according to the new evidence of course). Actually I'd call evolutionism a cult built on a false premise that material causes are the only possible causes...and it is dogma.(a belief or set of beliefs that a political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be true) ...in some people's interpretations of the facts. No, people fool themselves -the fossil record doesn't support gradualism; embryonic development doesn't support evolution and we can't see it happening now unless you limit it to variations and strike out the extrapolation to all of biology - so no God is not trying to fool anyone. Neither were mine Christians.

Must I submit a paper or can we just discuss points as they come up -you must be getting a fair idea of my alternative framework surely?! Well of course there's the evidence against evolution which, in a general sense in any case, is support for ID -apart from that -the fossils, the embryos, biological complexity ....we've been discussing these as we go along.

The classic "God In The Gaps" fallacy. Even if your "evidence against" the ToE wasn't based entirely on misrepresentation, it wouldn't suppport your position by default. There could be some other mechanism besides Evolution or God. In any case this is just more ToE criticism... How do fossils, embryos and biological complexity (assuming you can define "complexity" in this context) support ID when there is no ID hypothesis to support? How can any of these be said to provide positive evidence of ID when we have no definition of the design process?How does ID work?I could just as well argue that the existence of armadillos is evidence that I can fly. How am I able to fly? How do armadillos relate to this ability? So many questions.....Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

By "alternative framework" RickJB means something more detailed than just "the designer did it." He's referring to a framework of supporting evidence for ID. This is the evidence this thread is supposed to be discussing. You don't have to "submit a paper", but presenting some of your evidence for ID would be nice. Does this common fallacy even have to be explained anymore?--Percy

Well how about the'evolution in the gaps' fallacy represented by the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly many many complex forms appear fully formed and evolutionists have to imagine that somehow evolution happened before that anyway. They reserve the right to fill the gap with unfound fossils of which there is no evidence. Aah but of course, evolution is true so they must have been there -we just can't find them. There's more than enough reason to criticize -if gradualism is true -why can't we see it except in a few very questionable cases.Where are all the simpler forms leading up to the Cambrian complexity? It's one thing to say we can't find them, it's quite another to reserve the right to fill the gaps with your pet myth that evolution did happen -evolutiondidit, we just know it's true.

Again you jump straight into ToE criticism! We're talking about ID, not the ToE.So do you concede that there is no ID hypothesis?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.