Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9034 total)
83 online now:
(83 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,545 Year: 3,191/14,102 Month: 132/724 Week: 74/96 Day: 3/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 22 of 204 (445272)
01-01-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:42 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
I meant the intelligent designer need be no more divine than the laws of nature.

Wrong.

No matter what sort of intelligent designer is proposed, you end of with an infinite regression in trying to explain the origins of the designer.

Unless, of course, the intelligent designer is divine. Which is of course, what the IDiots think.

Hence "cdesign proponentsists".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:42 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 23 of 204 (445273)
01-01-2008 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:30 PM


Re: Theological arguments
Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution.

As others have already pointed out, no one (and I mean no one) in the field of evolutionary biology is avoiding the challenging questions.

ID is not worth discussing for a whole host of scientific reasons; however, the most compelling reason to toss it on the trash heap of history without a backward glance is this:

Cdesign proponentsists.

In case you are unfamiliar with the term:

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html

Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose. --Gertrude Stein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:30 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 27 of 204 (445279)
01-01-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Branching Off
But what about "teaching the controversy"? Shouldn't we?

I'm a smidge confused, Org.

In your OP, you admit that ID is creationism in disguise.

Now you contend there is a controversy.

What gives?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 5:40 PM Organicmachination has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 6:42 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 34 of 204 (445328)
01-01-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 6:55 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
...and promote the misuse of the term "intelligent design" to shoehorn into creationism, other theories involving design.

Nope.

It's the IDiots who have defined ID as supernatural.

Dembski recently admitted that ID is creationism:

I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 6:55 PM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:40 AM molbiogirl has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 35 of 204 (445331)
01-01-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taz
01-01-2008 7:29 PM


Re: Teleological arguments

sinequanon writes:

I think some scientists welcome the confusion in the terminology as it makes their task of rejecting some awkward questions that much easier.

Ok, who designed the designer?

Yeah, Sin.

Why don't you clear up that whole infinite regression problem I mentioned earlier?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 7:29 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 39 of 204 (445387)
01-02-2008 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
01-01-2008 10:37 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
OK, Buzz, let's assume that creationism ... oops I mean cdesign proponentistsism ... oops I mean ID ... is not "religion".

Howzabout "religious"? Or is creationism not religious?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2008 10:37 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2008 10:22 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 49 of 204 (445462)
01-02-2008 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 4:40 AM


Re: Teleological arguments
... and paint as creationism theories which are not.

For the third time, ID = creationism. The cdesign proponentists have admitted that ID = creationism.

You can't deny the facts, Sin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:40 AM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:41 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 54 of 204 (445505)
01-02-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 4:41 PM


Re: Teleological arguments
With that stance you've got an uphill struggle persuading a lot of people about the impartiality of your scientific methods.

As NWR has pointed out, the scientific method has nothing to do with creationism nor ID.

wiki writes:

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Unlike evolution, which has from its beginnings been science, ID is derived from creationism.

wiki writes:

"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state.

wiki writes:

Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.

Of Pandas and People is the source of the term "cdesign proponentistsism".

Perhaps you'd like to explain how, a term cooked up after creos lost a court battle, a term first used in a creo textbook, somehow has scientific credibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:41 PM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 6:21 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Beretta, posted 01-11-2008 6:36 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 55 of 204 (445506)
01-02-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
01-02-2008 5:07 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
ID also includes Direct Panspermia, which does not suppose ANY God whatsoever.

And, as it has been mentioned over half a dozen times in this thread, panspermia is no explanation whatsoever. Panspermia just pushes the question back: "How did the creator get created?"

This leads to an infinite regression problem.

Have you an answer for infinite regression?

Not to mention the fact that ID was cooked up in response to the creos losing a court battle.

Not to mention the fact that ID was quite literally cut and pasted into a creo textbook, thus "cdesign proponentistsism".

Not to mention the fact that the leading cdesign proponentists admitted, either on the stand on Dover or in subsequent interviews, that the intelligent designer is god!

While it may be true that many, if not most creationists latched on to the idea if ID, one does not necessitate the other.

Wrong, Juggs. The creos came up with the idea with the express intent of circumventing the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard.

This systematic suppression of ID is nothing less than coercion.

Ah, you xians jes love to cry persecution, doncha?

ID is not science. That's a fact.

If you think ID is a science, then perhaps you'd like to offer:

1. A method by which ID can be tested.
2. A prediction that ID has made.
3. A new hypothesis proposed by ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-02-2008 5:07 PM Hyroglyphx 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