Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9023 total)
48 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 45 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,679 Year: 325/14,102 Month: 325/294 Week: 81/136 Day: 0/33 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID properly pursued?
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 71 of 94 (623081)
07-08-2011 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:36 PM


Well, I understand your post is what you think it should and shouldn't be, but ID classifies itself a little different and is trying to distance itself from being classified as "religion" or philosophy.

Philosophy is not evidence or the Scientific method, but having an already established faith(for some) can lead one to be a proponent of ID. Maybe it should be classified differently. Faith can "take" you there atleast, and by looking at life ( i.e. the perfect circle of the sun, our anatomy, etc) make the conclusion it/we was/were designed, without using the Scientific method to get there. A designers fingerprints can be left on Creation while looking thru the glassses of ID, just not the blueprints.

I suppose using all the evidence for existing theorys as evidence for a desinger is just not going to happen. It's an alternative, competing theory (kind of). If those other theorys all went thru the Scientific method to get to where they are now, ID will just have to stand on it's own, maybe in a philosophy class as you suggested.

Maybe ID will be able to develop itself in the future more so, according to the process Science demands. It's already pegged as a religious concept and will need to start over (if it wants to be recognized in the same light as the BB for example). Once you mention God in a theory it's lights out( they don't in the strict definition of the term- but the cats already out of the bag-so to speak). The BB didn't, and is accepted. Some choose to think God/gods is responbible for the BB, but not till AFTER it was established. Well, maybe ID can go thru the Scientific process eventually(not in it's current state) THEN people can aasociate God with it. Which I suppose we already have in the BB or TOE (theistic evolutionist).

Like I said, ID needs to start over. Pos

***NOTE*** Im adding this *NOTE* AFTER Taq made His comment. I just noticed the "Pos" on the end of my post, as I was going to say "Possibly" and start a new sentance(when I was originally writing the comment above) but decided against adding anything else. Well obviously I didn't erase it all and it left "Pos". I just want to clearify that it's not the phrase that sometimes accompanies "Pos" when referenced. I'll leave it so it doesn't look like im making any changes after Taq responded. This is probably unnecessary but just wanted to make sure no one takes it the wrong way, mainly RAZD. Nothing else was changed.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 07-08-2011 2:23 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 07-08-2011 7:38 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021