Who designed the ID designer(s)?

The philosophical implications of ID are strong. IMHO, they serve to counter-balance the philosophical implications of Darwinism.Both should be addressed in a philosophical setting in schools.

quote:

---

What are "the philosophical implications of Darwinism" that need to be counterbalanced?

---

Im glad you asked that. Lets discuss a few of the implications.According to Darwinism, the universe as now known is an accident, life is an accident, and man is an accident.Implication 1: By stressing the accidental nature of origins, Darwinism can find no basis for meaning in the cosmos nor in man's very existence, other than what man might, on the basis of chance, be able to find for himself.Implication 2: If living organisms survived only on the basis of mindless natural selection, then it inescapably followed that human reason was also the product of natural selection. As such, the conclusions of human reason could never be known to be true, but only valuable in accord with their contribution to the survival of the human species. So truth could only be defined as what works, and not necessarily as what is true.Implication 3: If Mankind is nothing more than the product of a natural universe consisting only of matter and energy, a universe in which all things are produced by chance, then human dignity, any meaningful concept of ethics, and free will die as well.

quote:

---

The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do....

​

For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation ... from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever. -Aldous Huxley. 1937. Ends and means. Chatto & Windus, London, pp. 272, 273.

---

quote:

---

Darwinism neither addresses the origins of the universe or life.

---

Oh, ok. Then what does Darwinism address?

I submit that to be a Darwinist leads to Nihilism.I submit that Darwinists are not concerned with finding the truth of our existance, but with destroying meaning.I submit that ID serves to suggest meaning, which is why Darwinists are so against it.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 12:38 PM

If you disagree thats fine, but could you explain why Im wrong? I say judge a philosophy by its fruit. The darwinist philosophy is devoid of fruitful meaning. Can you show otherwise?This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 12:47 PM

quote:

---

Let's settle you under the actual terms before we try and link them together!

---

Fair enough! 1) Nihilism: Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.2) you mean this?

quote:

---

Essentially Dariwnism is about explaining the diversity and distribution of life on Earth, as it is distributed through space and time. It can be - and is - extrapolated to apply to other forms of replicator. It may play a role in the origin of life but (as discussed on another thread) that requires that non-living replicators already exist (and requires that we do not consider them life, although they would seem to have a better claim than viruses).

---

I consider this a dodge, double-talk, an effort to disguise/confuse the philosophical implications of Darwinism.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 01:01 PM

Love to

I read that article...very interesting. I wonder what approach their scientists take. Would it be considered "proper" science by American mainstream science standards?My guess is that due to the articles seemingly metaphysical implications, it would be dismissed out of hand by our ever objective, open-minded scientific community.Just a guess.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 02:52 PM

This might help shed light on possible designers: Found here: Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer

Agree? Not at all. I merely present the info, and let people decide for themselves. Its mundane, unoriginal, political thinking that leads one to conclude that if there is a designer, it MUST be the Christian God.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 05:55 PM

Why shouldnt I? I believe in freedom of information, I hide nothing. People should be presented with all the information from BOTH sides so they can decide for themselves what they want to believe, unlike Darwinists who seems to think its their job is to manipulate information and opinion to suit their agenda.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 07:31 PM

yeah, lets wait for the philosophy thread i started for that.

I did, its in the proposed new topic area.

There are many supernatural beings and their powers vary, just as the powers of natural beings vary.Supernatural beings can a) can manifest in the natural and/or supernatural worlds to a degree, and b) exercize some measure of control over one or both realms.There are three types of supernatural beings other than God. There are angels, fallen angels, and human/fallen-angel hybrids.The hybrids varied a lot, and they probably account for many monster myths. Their powers varied alot as well. Most got wiped out in the flood I think.Fallen angels are still around, disguised as UFO's and aliens and such, but thats another thread Since God is outside of physical reality as we know it, he is not subject to laws such as cause-and-effect, so he doesn't need a creator.