Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are theistic evolutionists really IDers?
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 75 of 91 (468788)
06-01-2008 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Granny Magda
06-01-2008 3:53 PM


Re: Where I stand
Granny Magda makes a good point above.
A theistic evolutionary biologist can (and many probably do) think that the ideas put forward by ID'ists are not supported by the evidence and are unfounded, while simultaneously still holding a personal belief in a "God" that began the universe.
My biggest problem with the ID'ists is that they make a "leap of faith" before doing any work... they have decided that things are so complex that they must have a designer, and then they work backwards with evidence, trying to find things that support that notion and disregarding things that might refute it.
The proper scientific method does not assume a designer, but if evidence for one was there, it would and should be considered. However, the impetus is on the ID'ist to demonstrate that a naturalistic process could not produce the same result, and they have not been able to do that.
I think the only way you're ever going to "prove" a designer (at least to me) is when you find a microscopic barcode on a cell with "copyright Jehova, 2008" stamped on it.
I don't actually see that happening... meanwhile, scientists can still hold personal opinions that allow for a creator without necessarily signing on to some of the ludicrous notions put forward by ID'ists.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Granny Magda, posted 06-01-2008 3:53 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 4:17 PM Briterican has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 77 of 91 (468793)
06-01-2008 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
06-01-2008 4:17 PM


Re: Where I stand
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience.[12][13][14][15] 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.[16]
if you want to follow the footnotes, that's off wikipedia...
you say...
why would you reject the idea that the universe can best be understood as the result of an Intelligent Cause rather than originating from nothing at all, by itself, with no cause whatsoever.
I do NOT reject the idea that the universe could have been the result of an "Intelligent Cause", I simply state that no evidence has come forth to support the notion. So, until said evidence is presented, I choose not to make the leap to the supernatural.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 4:17 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 4:59 PM Briterican has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 78 of 91 (468797)
06-01-2008 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
06-01-2008 4:17 PM


Re: Where I stand
I referenced the US National Academy of Science's take on ID above... here's Europe...
In June 2007 the Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education" issued a report, The dangers of creationism in education, which states "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes".[201] In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-science" and involving "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual deception" that "blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science" and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism.
Not a lot of support out there for ID.
But to stay on the topic of the OP, I once again state my opinion that "theistic evolutionists" are NOT really ID'ers, and undoubtedly do not subscribe to the concepts put forward by ID'ers.
You can argue semantics and say that "if they believe in a God, then they must consider him intelligent, and so it's intelligent design"... but I am using the term "intelligent design" to refer specifically to the works of the likes of Michael Behe. I think it is misleading to use the term Intelligent Design (especially in caps as the OP did) in reference to anything other than the very specific works to which the term has been associated with.
The OP might as well have said "I think that theistic evolutionists believe in God..." well, of course they do, that's why they are theistic. Does that mean they agree with Michael Behe and irreducible complexity? Probably not.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 4:17 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 4:57 PM Briterican has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 81 of 91 (468806)
06-01-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
06-01-2008 4:57 PM


Re: Where I stand
You can call it "bashing" if you want... but if the ideas can't stand up to rigorous examination, then they are no better than palmreading, soothsaying and astrology. Pseudoscience. No bashing, just standards that aren't being met.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 4:57 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 5:07 PM Briterican has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 82 of 91 (468807)
06-01-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by randman
06-01-2008 4:59 PM


Re: Where I stand
Ahaaaaaa.... this is the one I really like...
"The evidence is all around you!!!"
Indeed it is... evidence that something caused all this stuff to be here... which is not the same thing as evidence of a designer.
"Wow, it surely couldn't have been an accident could it?"
You know what... I'd love to find out that it was all designed by a grand creator, but I'm not willing to go that extra step and say "okay then, since science can't explain it perfectly, I'm going to decide that there must be an intelligent deity behind it all, despite any specific evidence".
Seems such an arbitrary leap in logic.... "since I can't explain this, I will attribute it to some supernatural entity".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 4:59 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 5:08 PM Briterican has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 85 of 91 (468810)
06-01-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by randman
06-01-2008 5:07 PM


Re: Where I stand
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia
During the above court case there were numerous attempts to "understand" the pseudoscience of ID, and it's proponents were given adequate opportunity to put forward ID's scientific merits.
As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred",[17] and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[18]
The court ultimately ruled...
We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."
This... from a conservative state judicial system.
It isn't that "ID haters hate ID" as you seem to keep trying to say, it is that ID does not live up to the rigorous standards of science and therefore cannot be taken seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 5:07 PM randman has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 86 of 91 (468811)
06-01-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by randman
06-01-2008 5:08 PM


Re: Where I stand
Randman said...
Yep, fact that things we see have causes is indeed a fact which should trouble you in terms of maintaining the opposite stance, as you do.
The fact that things have causes has no impact on my "stance", which you have somehow figured out even though I haven't fully ststed it.
If I must put it in a simple phrase for you, my stance is this... "just because the universe exists, is not undeniable evidence that it was intelligently designed". You seem to want me to accept that the existence of the universe is enough evidence in and of itself for a creator, and I simply won't do that.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 5:08 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024