Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity?
That would defeat the purpose of inventing ID. The whole doctrine was devised as a subterfuge to skirt the court's decisions keeping proselytizing out of the public schools. The only goal is to openly preach christian doctrine, and a specific sect's brand of doctrine at that, in the schools. Gotta catch 'em early before they get away.
It would dilute their fundamentalist christian purpose to be open to any other non-christian philosophy's treatment of ID.
That has not kept others from trying to coopt the scheme for their own purposes. I keep close watch on the skeptics movement and what we are seeing at conferences is a lot more ID advocates of the moslem variety. There appears to be a growing fundamentalist/creationist cult in Islam for whom ID is appealing.
I do not know of any "new wave" cults adoption of ID. Maybe you could provide one.
... because their Paradigm of Evolution or Creationism has already solved everything.
Be careful how you characterize the paradigm of evolution. We are most certainly aware that we have not solved anything close to everything. Such a characterization is bogus. If you really believe this then you have not studied enough, read enough, talked enough and thought enough.
What we have is a model that fits exceptionally well with the data as we know them today and that makes viable verifiable predictions.
No one has presented a more accurate and effective model. If they did then that would be our present scientific model.
It never occurs to either side that they are completely off the mark
Then someone has to show us convincingly where this mark is. Do you know? You have not presented any model that is as good, let alone better, than what we are presently using. You have shown us nothing but some flowery prose about quantum this and metaphysical that just as any charlatan might do.
Be careful fighting the present paradigm. What you need to show, with the facts, a model, the math and everything else science always expects of its own, is something much more explanatory and predictive than our present model.
Fail to do so and both you and your speculations are outta here.
I have to tell you, SA, right now you look like nothing more the usual woo merchant out to sell a future book to gullible idiots. If in the future you come up with something you think fits the requirements then do not put out some book. Submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. Any thing short of that will mark you as a charlatan only out to make a buck.
Really? Who do you think you are? ... some ahole ...
You are very correct in this observation.
You are quoting me out of context. I didn't say that there were claims to solving everything.
quote:My research is related to unraveling the question of why Materialist or Creationist are so convinced that there is no need for Metaphysics ...because their Paradigm of Evolution or Creationism has already solved everything.
Verbatim. If this is out of context then you made it so.
And I DO have the right to my opinion and to express my opinion.
The argument that teleology has played a role in biological history has been around for centuries. The modern argument is called intelligent design.
The major problem you will face, as you have experienced here, is that the moniker is poisoned by DI's constant drumbeat from the christian far-right. You need to get away from this poison if you have any hope of gathering support from the science/evolution/intellectual community. Directed Evolution? Guided Development? Enlightened Genome Finger Fiddling?
I think this is an error. Here, there, everywhere, ID is fundamentalist christian creationism. In this circle, in any reasonably rational circle in which you may want a receptive airing of your ideas, ID is poison. You touch it, even as a seemingly innocent labeling convenience, you are poisoned by it.
Humans are by definition only human. (It made sense when I thought of it.) And ID conjures up specific images fair or not.
"intelligent design" can mean (and often does mean) the general position that teleology has played a role in the history of life on earth.
You may want it to mean that, but in reality it means "fundamentalist christian creationism" in the minds of all who are familiar. A DI YEC hearing ID will think "fundamentalist christian creationism." A biologist hearing ID will think "fundamentalist christian creationism." And every advocate religious or not from atheist to zoologist hearing ID will think "fundamentalist christian creationism."
If "fundamentalist christian creationism" is not what you mean then do not come within 18 feet of the term ID. No matter how hard you piss into the wind its gonna get on you.
I am a jaded individual, I know. I would not put it beyond some anti-evolution, anti-science, let-me-in-your-science-class religionist to walk in here wearing a lab coat saying,
"No. ID isn't about any One True Jahovah, Creator Of All The Universe, Breathing Fallen Mankind Into Existence Through His Holy Nostrils, Thus Requiring The Gift Of THE Love Of Jesus, Savior To All Sinners. It's merely the general position that teleology has played a role in the history of life on earth,"
trying to "de-religionate" ID so it slides easier under the class room door.
To a number of people, intelligent design is not synonymous with creationism. Biologist Albert de Roos comes to mind, and there are others.
I'm sure you can find hundreds of people who think the same as you. They came onto the scene without the "ID=fundamentalist christian creationist" mantra already pre-loaded into their thinking. And I'm sure there are many more, like Behe, who fought to mentally overcome the equality. That still leaves the rest of the world ... by the hundreds of millions.
Right or wrong doesn't matter. If you insist on staying with the "ID" name, you, Behe, de Roos, whoever are going to have to fight the preconceived notion in front of every audience you go for many many years and you still will not reach the majority.
You know the score. However you want to play the tune is up to you.
Is that you?
Obviously not ...
I don't know why I asked that question. I wouldn't have expected any other answer. No, I'm not accusing you of anything.