Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,785 Year: 4,042/9,624 Month: 913/974 Week: 240/286 Day: 1/46 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 735 of 1273 (543859)
01-21-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 730 by Straggler
01-21-2010 8:33 AM


Re: Creationism and ID
Straggler writes:
Almost certainly in reality. In almost all cases. But are the two necessarily the same thing in principle?
When Dembski's the one talking about them? Yes.
Is it possible to argue in favour of Intelligent Design whilst also saying the the bible is obvioulsy a ridiculous fantasy if taken literally?
Of course, anything's possible. But we're talking about Dembski here, not just a random ID'er. And you're not gonna tell me he thinks this is the case.
I would say yes. In fact I would go so far as to say that there are people who do make the distinction. Isn't Behe and his molecular level irreducible complexity such an example. It is my understanding that he accepts most of evolution as per standard scientific consensus. He just invokes ID at the molecular level to achieve it.
But we're not talking about Behe, we're talking about Dembski.
I am trying to distinguish between the creationist beliefs of these guys (e.g. Adam and Eve actually existed) and what they are claiming as evidence of ID (e.g. irreducible complexity at the molecular level, conservation of information theories etc. etc.)
There is no distinction. For what Dembski actually means when he says "he has evidence for ID", is that "he has evidence for creation".
Whilst I agree with you that the two will be inevitably conflated in practise I don't think this need necessarily be the case in principle.
Of course. in Dembski's view however (and he is the one being discussed here), they are.
I think ID can stand apart from creationism as a belief system.
Sure it can. It can only lead to three things though:
Infinite regression (Aliens making aliens making aliens making...)
Admitting the designer arose by evolution (thus making their point moot)
Saying god is the designer (proving it's creationism)

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 8:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 740 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 3:13 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 832 of 1273 (544289)
01-25-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 740 by Straggler
01-21-2010 3:13 PM


Re: Creationism and ID
Straggler writes:
Dembski has said he believes in creationsim. The quotes make this abundantly clear.
But has he said that he considers the stories of Genesis (for example) to be physically evidenced?
Well, he has said that he considers Adam and Eve literal people. So, I would venture a guess and say yes, he does think there is evidence for it.
All I have seen him claim physical evidence for is ID.
Which I am prety sure he also considers evidence for creationism.
If he is claiming that biblical literalism is physically evidenced then I will shut up. But if he hasn't made that claim and has only claimed ID is evidenced I think that distinction is being overlooked by you guys.
There is the Adam and Eve quote. And can you honestly say Dembski thinks the evidence he cites for ID is not also evidence for creationism?

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 740 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 3:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 849 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 1:38 PM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 1250 of 1273 (621466)
06-26-2011 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1249 by Chuck77
06-26-2011 5:55 AM


Chuck77 writes:
When you walk down the beach and see a sand castle( not a pile of sand with a few holes in it but a structure that you can identify with) what are your observations that lead you to believe that it wasn't the wind that slung that castle together?
No observations, my knowledge of how sandcastles are made, combined with the fact that (and this is a very important bit) it looks different from its natural surroundings, make me think that someone designed it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1249 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 5:55 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024