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

Since the antithesis to ID is ToE isn't it on topic and in fact, paramount for Beretta to criticize ToE in order to argue for ID?

---

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

Since Biblical IDists go with the sudden creation and design of all of the species from earth dust, it appears that Hell will freeze over before Biblicalist IDers will ever pass the scientific method test.

---

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

quote:

---

Since Biblical IDists go with the sudden creation and design of all of the species from earth dust, it appears that Hell will freeze over before Biblicalist IDers will ever pass the scientific method test.

---

Just curious.You do understand, don't you, that the problem isn't with the conclusions that IDers arrive at that scientists object to? It's the methods. That's why Percy said that ID must practice the scientific method to be scientific.

---

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

.......Or better yet, that tens of thousands of scientists suddenly become aware that there is a higher dimension of intelligence in the universe than what we observe physically on this little speck in the universe we call Planet Earth.According to Biblical prophecy that time will come. Until then, well, itsy bitsy planet earth's eency weency human creatures believe what they see with their beady little eyes and are capable of assimilating into their pea brains is all that exists in this immeasurable wonderfully complex universe.

---

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

No. ID, as it is being pushed currently, is clearly religion lite. It is not science.It is an old, discarded idea that was dusted off and sent into battle again after the U.S. Supreme Court's Edwards decision in the 1980s in an effort to sneak creation "science" back into the classrooms under a new name. (Much like ID is being snuck into classrooms under the "critical analysis" cover following the Kitzmiller decision.)If the Dover decision isn't enough for you, google "cdesign proponentsists" or check this link.Edited by Coyote, : Spelling

---

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

Perhaps then you could help us out by suggesting a scientific method for testing sudden intelligently designed creation of all of the species from earth's dust.

---

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

Nonetheless, the majority of intelligent Americans of sound mind, including many scientists still believe it is factual and logical.

---

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

quote:

---

Perhaps then you could help us out by suggesting a scientific method for testing sudden intelligently designed creation of all of the species from earth's dust.

---

Well, a necessary first step would be to abandon the assumption of a creator. As you yourself mentioned in a different thread, the IDist approach is to try to interpret all evidence based on the assumption of a creator. As I explained, this is the antithesis of the scientific method.

---

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

Well now, isn't that an intelligent option? Just, for the sake of compatibility with secularism, try to erase from one's mind and thinking what one knows to be true; that no creator god, Jehovah of the Bible exists. Surely, Subbie, you can't be serious. Edited by Buzsaw, : Correct punctuation

---

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

What you seem to have forgotten, or perhaps never knew in the first place, is that creationism was the prevailing paradigm in the study of natural history at the time that Darwin conceived of the ToE. The problem was that as more and more was learned about the natural world, it became obvious to everyone who studied the natural world that this paradigm could not account for what was observed.Despite what creos like to say, scientists did not accept the ToE because of a wave of secular antagonism towards religion. The scientists who accepted the ToE were virtually all men of faith, the christian faith to be exact. However, they were also men of science, and it was apparent to them that the ToE explained many, many things in nature, but the belief in a creator god explained none.Creationism had its day. But it lost in the field of science. And, barring a series of remarkable new discoveries, there's no going back to it, no matter what most intelligent people of sound mind or a miniscule percentage of scientists believe.

---

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

I can appreciate what you're saying from a secularist POV, Subbie. The problem is that so many of us apply the logic relative to observed complex systems/organisms, the evidence we experience and observe relative to the existence of the Biblical god Jehovah, fulfilled prophecy, etc to the equation and conclude that the ID via Bibical Jehovah is the preferential and factual POV.We see the prevailing ID paradigm as apostate to what was considered scientific when creationism had it's day. In fact, I see it as the apostacia (Greek) which the apostle Paul prophesied about in II Thessalonians 2:2 relative to the latter days.

---

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

quote:

---

The problem is that so many of us apply the logic relative to observed complex systems/organisms, the evidence we experience and observe relative to the existence of the Biblical god Jehovah, fulfilled prophecy, etc to the equation and conclude that the ID via Bibical Jehovah is the preferential and factual POV.

---

Well, assuming I accurately suss the meaning of what you are saying, it sounds to me like nothing more than, "I don't understand what scientists are saying about how all of this could have come about naturally, so I conclude it must have been god."{AbE}As far as the rest of your post

quote:

---

We see the prevailing ID paradigm as apostate to what was considered scientific when creationism had it's day. In fact, I see it as the apostacia (Greek) which the apostle Paul prophesied about in II Thessalonians 2:2 relative to the latter days.

---

I don't understand a word of it, but it certainly doesn't seem to have anything to do with science.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

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

No.Firstly, though ID can be viewed as being antithetical to the ToE, there could, hypothetically, be other mechanisms besides design or evolution, so arguing against the ToE does not automatically mean that design is demonstrated by default.Secondly, without any positive evidence for design Beretta has nothing to argue for. He is limited to pointing out what he believes are flaws in the ToE. If the ToE is so flawed, however, why refer to it at all?

RickJB proposed this thread to discuss the nature of the designer, and his opening post quotes Beretta saying, "We don't need to see the painter to know that there is one."There's a lot we can know about a painter from just one of his paintings. Visual analysis of the painting itself reveals a great deal of the artist's skill with composition and color, and the brush strokes reveal much about his style, even whether he was right or left handed. X-ray analysis can tell us the order of the various layers of the painting and even give us a history of the painting's growth, even of changes and corrected mistakes. Analysis of the paint itself can often tell us when the artist painted and even where he lived.So to the IDists out there, what does the universe tell us about the nature of our designer and how he designed?--Percy

Well from the complexity and diversity of biological organisms from the Cambrian onwards without any evidence that anything of note led up to those organisms, it would seem that He designed ex nihilo and perfect first time. Everything that appears, appears fully formed and functional without any half baked ideas. Since we have no idea how to make life even despite knowing a certain amount about how things operate, I'd say the creator must be somewhat brighter and more capable than any of us by a long shot.
It is only philosophy that allows people to believe that no creator is necessary to make living things alive.