Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9077 total)
643 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Theodoric (3 members, 640 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,035 Year: 5,147/6,534 Month: 567/794 Week: 58/135 Day: 4/6 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 5 of 377 (612091)
04-13-2011 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
04-12-2011 5:24 PM


I'll give the short answer:

There is nothing in ID that compells someone to posit only one designer, and IDer could very well believe there are many designers.

Many IDers posit a single designer simply because most are monotheists.

It's as simple as that.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 5:24 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by frako, posted 04-13-2011 5:03 AM slevesque has taken no action

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 12 of 377 (612134)
04-13-2011 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by frako
04-13-2011 5:03 AM


Well using their logic there is a reason to believe there are more designers.

If you want to critic the intelligent design movement, I would suggest reading at least a book or two from an Ider explaining what ID is.

Because rarely do you show anything other then simple gross misunderstanding about it ...

"Everything complex has to be designed because we see that in the things humans make"

This is a perfect example of the gross misunderstanding I am talking about, and a rather obvious strawman of what the IDers say.

Yes, they sometimes use human designs as analogy, but their arguments do not rest on this analogy (contrary to what Ringo claims).

OK then everything complex must have multiple designers because we see that in everything we make.

Humans design complex things, simple things, random things, weird things, and they do all those either alone or with in collaboration with others.

If you would want to show that an IDer would have to logically believe in multiple designers, you would have to show that a designed thing absolutely requires multiple designers. Which would be quite an astonishing feat, considering all the counter-examples of things built by a single designer that I can think of ...

But what is really more interesting in this thread is how blatantly illogical the reasoning in the OP is, and yet no atheist/evolutionist here bothered to tell you you were wrong. Everything is fine as long as you can bash ID in the process it seems, and who cares about basic logic!

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by frako, posted 04-13-2011 5:03 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 04-13-2011 1:03 PM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 1:28 PM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 15 by Jon, posted 04-13-2011 1:33 PM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 04-13-2011 1:41 PM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 18 by frako, posted 04-13-2011 2:36 PM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2011 4:17 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 21 of 377 (612209)
04-13-2011 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
04-13-2011 4:17 PM


Really? What else have you got?

Dembski's claim that specified complexity is an indication of design has nothing to do with the 'human design things analogy'. He claims that it would be efficient to apply it to microwaves coming from space, for example.

The title of the OP is actually "Why Only One Designer", not "If There Was a Designer There Must Have Been More Than One".

It's a fair question. And you have in effect given the answer, which is that creationism is a branch of religious apologetics rather than a sincere attempt to discover the truth.

But the 'single designer' hypothesis does not come intrisincally from ID, it comes from other areas of the IDers life.

An IDer isn't strictly and IDer, he's a lot of other things too.

A guy like Berlinski, who thinks that ID makes lots of valid points, would have no problem saying that multiple designers is a possibility. As I said, nothing about ID compells anyone to think there was only one designer

(and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing)

PS Exam tomorrow, then I'll be able to get back to our GD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2011 4:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 04-13-2011 8:36 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 8:39 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 30 by ScientificBob, posted 04-14-2011 7:51 AM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 11:06 AM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2011 5:31 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 24 of 377 (612212)
04-13-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
04-13-2011 8:36 PM


Sorry but "we" do NOT know that ID and Creationism are not the same thing.

Yeah well I haven't showed the contrary a thousand times yet, but I'm getting close so can assume it's a PRATT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 04-13-2011 8:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 04-13-2011 8:50 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 26 of 377 (612214)
04-13-2011 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by arachnophilia
04-13-2011 8:39 PM


you might want to ask a creationist about that.

I'm a creationist, and the difference seems pretty clear.

It's a matter of all creationists are IDer, but not all IDers are creationist. This simple fact should be enough to show that the two aren't the same.

It's just like a square is a Rhomb, bu a Rhomb isn't necessarily a square (what a strange word. Rhomb, just looked it up lol)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 8:39 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 8:59 PM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 04-14-2011 6:23 AM slevesque has taken no action

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 42 of 377 (612265)
04-14-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
04-13-2011 8:50 PM


Hi Jar,

You would probably rethink that oft-repeated notion that ''Id is the same thing as creationism''.

The simple fact that Behe, one of the main proponents of ID, is a theistic evolutionist should be enough to at least make you consider that you may be wrong on this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 04-13-2011 8:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:06 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 48 of 377 (612275)
04-14-2011 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
04-14-2011 1:06 PM


Nonsense.

Even theistic evolution has NO place in any science class and the ID movement is nothing but another attempt to get Creationism in the classroom and to redefine science to be nothing but magic.

The ID movement is just Biblical Creationism in old worned out clothes.

This is such an obvious red herring ...

All I'm saying is that ID and biblical creationism isn't the same thing, if theistic evolution is scientific or not is totally irrelevant.

I brought it up to show that ID and creationism wasn't the same thing.

Repeating the same old PRATTs doesn't make them true, jar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:27 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 1:46 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 68 by Granny Magda, posted 04-14-2011 3:07 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 50 of 377 (612277)
04-14-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
04-14-2011 1:27 PM


And Behe is just another Biblical Creationist. He may not be a YEC, but he's still just a creationist.

AbE:

Honestly, there seems to be no honor among any of that crowd, they will change names or try different definitions, whatever they seem to think will squeeze by the courts.

And now your just lying (unknowingly, I hope), because Behe is very clearly a theistic evolutionist and always has been.

And theistic evolutionism is, by definition, not creationism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 1:48 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 54 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:55 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 53 of 377 (612283)
04-14-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Taq
04-14-2011 1:48 PM


Behe argues that the differences between species can not be explain by evolutionary mechanisms. That is not what theistic evolution is.

Behe believes in the fact of evolution (nested hierarchy, fossil record, etc.) but not on the Neo-Darwinian mechanism.

He instead proposes directed evolution as the mechanism through which things evolved.

You don,t get any more theist evolutionist then that ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 1:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 2:12 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2011 2:42 PM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 4:15 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 55 of 377 (612285)
04-14-2011 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taq
04-14-2011 1:46 PM


Do you, or do you not, agree that they are not the same thing ?

Sure, they have similarities, and they have the same sort of connection as a rhombus and a square, but at the end of the day, this does not justify claiming that they are the same thing, because they clearly aren't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 1:46 PM Taq has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2011 5:48 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 56 of 377 (612286)
04-14-2011 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
04-14-2011 1:55 PM


Sorry but no. As soon as you bring in some magic outside agency that meddles in the process it stops being science and becomes Creationism.

And as I said, the Creationists will call themselves anything that they think will get around the SCOTUS.

You really are the kind of all humpty-dumpties, playing with definition and words as to fit your needs.

Sorry, but putting in some 'outside magic' does not make someone automatically a creationist. It may make an idea none-scientific, but to actually be a creationist you have to think God poofed things out of nothing, not simply changed things incrementally over time.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 2:48 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 58 of 377 (612289)
04-14-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ringo
04-14-2011 2:12 PM


Every creationist accepts evolution to some degree (though I'm old enough to remember when they rejected "microevolution" too). You can't use that as a criterion for separating evolutionist from creationist.

Depends on how you define evolution, but in any case Behe goes far beyond any limit a creationist accepts about the ToE.

For example, he believes that apes and humans share a common ancestor who lived 5 or so millions years ago. This is what I mean when I say he accepts the fact of evolution

What separates creationism from science is postulating a creator/director/designer.

I agree creationism isn't science. But that's the red herring in question here, because that is not what we are talking about.

All I'm saying is that ID and creationism isn't the same thing. You can't interchangebly use both words to talk about the two.

ID is one thing, creationism is another. Having common similarities doesn't make them the same thing.

God it's so hard to pass such an easily understable point around here sometimes. I probably feel like you do when you talk to a creationist who keeps repeating the same PRATT ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 2:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 2:34 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 4:22 PM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 109 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2011 6:11 AM slevesque has taken no action

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 64 of 377 (612296)
04-14-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ringo
04-14-2011 2:34 PM


It has already been pointed out that the cdesign proponentsists disagree with you.

I don't understand this. ''cdesign proponentsists'' ??

Your point has been refuted a thousand times.

Well my point is simply pointing to the dictionary and saying words already have definitions, and that these definitions very clearly disagree with what you are saying here ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 2:34 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 3:07 PM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 3:11 PM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 73 by Granny Magda, posted 04-14-2011 4:53 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 65 of 377 (612297)
04-14-2011 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
04-14-2011 2:48 PM


The point isn't if they both involve magic or not, the piont is they aren't the same thing.

In all honesty, you are particularly looking pathetic right now, just repeating the same things and hoping each time they'll become true. Plugging you fingers in your ears about everything else.

I'll take one final example and hopefully it'll pass: Francis Collins. He accepts absolutely everything about evolution, and all other origins-related scientific theories (big bang, etc.)

But he also believes in magic, particularly Jesus's ressurection. Does that make him a creationist ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 2:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 4:22 PM slevesque has taken no action
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 4:26 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022