Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

quote:

---

Below is summary of the above points, comparing atheistic evolution, theistic evolution, and intelligent design.

---

Below is a corrected version.

quote:

---

Is nature designed/created by God (or other conscious intelligence)?
AE: No TE: Yes ID: Yes

---

Correction
AE: unknowable

quote:

---

Can nature's design by an intelligent being/beings be scientifically established?
AE: No TE: No ID: Yes

---

Questions begs its own conclusion, and relies on a Yes answer to question 1.

quote:

---

Are natural processes sufficient to produce the designs we see in nature?
AE: Yes TE: Yes ID: No

---

Uncontested

quote:

---

Should the role of an intelligent designer in nature's creation be taught in public schools as science?
AE: No TE: No ID: Yes

---

Correction
AE: Yes, if one could be demonstrated, as that would be the correct desciptive model

quote:

---

I disagree:
Correction AE: unknowable

​

The original poster was correct. It would take an agnostic to posit your answer.

---

You are mistaken; an agnostic only asserts that it is unkown WHETHER god exists. Atheism says it is unknowable, and must therefore not be considered.

Wrong; that is not necessary or implicit to the atheist position.This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-27-2004 08:13 AM

quote:

---

Wrong; it is. That being what 'atheist' means and all.

---

except that it does not. It says A- theist; not a theist. It does not say "disbeliever" or "infidel".This is a common theist slander of atheists, however. Theists have a tough time coming to grips with the fact that others simply don't believe, rather than disbelieve.

quote:

---

And hang on second, you and Contra already presupposed that you could tell me what atheists do or don't believe so get off you're high horse.

---

Actually, I corrected Rubystars, and you presumed to correct me.You may, if you wish, assert that you BELIEVE there are no invisible monkeys tap-dancing on your monitor.I, however, prefer to not even consider the proposition that there might be invisible tap-dancing monkeys, because I have no means to determine whether it is true or false.If you are confonted by a theist who claims that your belief is indistinguishable from theirs, you will have to admit this is so, because you cannot provide a rational explanation for your belief.If I am confronted by such a theist, however, I can offer a rational response, and decline to even consider the proposition until they can indicate a reason to do so.

[qupote] If you think the question of whether there is a god can be answered either way you are not an Atheist.[/quote]I agree with that; that would constitute agnosticism. Btu that was not my pointL the basis for that position is that there is no reason even to consider god in the first place other than some peoples claims.

quote:

---

Dodging the question makes your position no more rational.

---

Actually, I haven't dodged the quesrtion at all; I have increased the pressyure on the theist by asking for the prima facie case. I've never met a theist who can give a reason for considering god that did not first assume the existance of god.My opinion on god is exactly the same as my opinion of Martian Cactus. None.