It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

page: 18
1
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Rev Paine
Most ID supporters know that they are being dishonest, but they justify spreading ID because they feel it will help to spread the word of Jesus. The goal is to identify the Christian deity as the creator.


Thats a rather poor assesment. The basic idea behind ID is that design can be detected.


Are you claiming that I didn't say exactly that in my prior posts on this page?



Please explain why the only possible reason that a person could think that there is a difference that is detectable between things that have been considered and designed and things that are not designed can be that you're a lying jesus-freak.


I am not saying that all believers are frauds, as you assert. That would be the same as of saying that all of Jim Jones' followers are liars and frauds because they believed in a liar and fraud.


I am saying that the proponents of ID, the promoters and crafters and designers, are intentionally purportrating a fraud.




posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Baloney. All scientific theories have some 'assumptions' that go along with them. Evolution operates under the assumption that there is a naturalistic explanation for the origins of all species.


Wrong. You are incorrect. All scientific theories operate

That is incorrect.

An assumption is a supposition or a presumption, or the act of taking to or upon oneself. That is an accurate definition of what ID does. However, not one scientific theory makes assumptions.

Every scientific theory operates on a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

You see, with your ID cult, you do not seek the explanation of phenomena, you turn what you call science into an episode of Blue's Clues, and search for evidence to support your predetermined assumption, which is that life was created because the Bible says so.



ID: Certain aspects of the universe and biology in particular show the signs of having been created by a pre-existing intelligence.


Actually, no aspects of the universe or biology show any such thing. ID is the practice of going on a quest to find these things. You are in the same category as those who hunt for Noah's Arc and use the Grand Canyon to 'prove' that the Earth is 6000 years old or some other stupid thing.




Additionally, the theory isn't about how things are designed, only with the detection of design, and other issues relevant to design.


And that right there is where you prove that ID is not a theory. A theory a is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. A theory begins with the phenomena and then explains it using the phenomena its self. What ID does is assume that there is a creator and then goes on a arc-quest for anything that they can say was 'created.' Even if ID did find something that was created, which would be the phenomena aspect, it still would not form a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation as to how something was created.

By your own words, ID is not a theory.



I'm perfectly comfortable not calling ID a theory in the scientific sense of the word.
Then again, I think we better tell the String theory people, and pretty much the entire world of theoretical physics the same thing though


String theory is used to explain observable phenomena that do exist in our universe.

ID is a practice that is no different than questing for the fountain of youth.



Baloney. First of all, the DI isn't ID. While it may house many of the most prominent ID supporters, ID isn't encompassed by the DI...


That's like saying that Einstein didn't encompass Relativity in his day. The DI is the inventor of ID.



Hmmm... the two most prominent ID supporters on this site, myself and Rren don't support the teaching of ID in public schools.


Very commendable, and I respect that. May I ask why you have this opinion?

I wasn't speaking specifically of you, but of ID in general.



I ummm.... don't, never have, and never would support GWB. I know it's fun to make blanket assumptions about people, but it's just not true.


Ya, that was mean of me. I apologize for that comment. You are good people.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org... The creationists may say that ID does not require a creator, but the (very large) majority of them believe that this is the case. So maybe it's not a creator, maybe it's aliens (panspermia). Unfortunately the "evidence" for panspermia does not stand up to earthly born life theories. Even if this is the case, how does ID say these aliens originated? I can guarentee that it doesn't say they evolved (Implying a creator). Other than alien's or a god, what else could be responsible for intelligent design? Additionaly it seems that the ID movement's main goal is to replace the ideas of materialism with dualism (wikipedia article), which would not be neccessary if panspermia was implied by ID. Also, if this is case, why not just teach panspermia as an alternate theory alongside earlthy based evolution?

You seem to not be getting th point. The string theory is going to be able to be proved false or not with future technologies and greater understanding of it, which makes it a scientific theory. ID is unfalsifiable no matter what (unless your going with the whole aliens thing, which I disscuss in the first paragraph), thus it is not a scientific theory.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rev Paine
An assumption is a supposition or a presumption, or the act of taking to or upon oneself. That is an accurate definition of what ID does. However, not one scientific theory makes assumptions.

Completely and utterly untrue. Specifically, evolutionary theory makes the assumption that there is a naturalistic explanation for biological complexity, the origin of the species, etc. It's an inescapable fact that this particular assumption is made. That's what the whole science is based on finding the evidence that fufills that criteria.

When you propose a homologous structure, gene, whatever, you are assuming common descent is true. When you construct a phylogenetic tree, you also assume this.


Every scientific theory operates on a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

Okay... So? This doesn't change the fact that at their core all experiments make assumptions. This doesn't somehow remove that particular factor.

And in fact I've described here in this thread how ID can operate perfectly comfortably within that framework you've described above.


You see, with your ID cult, you do not seek the explanation of phenomena, you turn what you call science into an episode of Blue's Clues, and search for evidence to support your predetermined assumption, which is that life was created because the Bible says so.

Completely and utterly untrue once again. In fact, that's what ID is about... an explanation for observed phenomena. Design isn't a predetermined assumption it is a hypothesis based on observed phenomena. In fact, it's the most parsimonious assumption in many cases.

The Bible has nothing to do with ID. You're thinking of Creationism.



Actually, no aspects of the universe or biology show any such thing.

This is a matter of opinion only.


ID is the practice of going on a quest to find these things.

Nope. It's an origins theory. Like any origins theory, it attempts to explain observed phenomena in the most parsimonious manner.



What ID does is assume that there is a creator and then goes on a arc-quest for anything that they can say was 'created.'

Totally untrue. The idea arose specifically from observed phenomena. In fact, what ID does is exactly this. Mike Behe was an evolutionist for years before becoming an IDist. Why did this happen? What did he somehow lose knowledge re: origins theories? In fact, this is the story in many cases. Often times supporters of the ID movement were in fact once ardent evolutionists, myself included. The science is what brought many people to ID in the first place.

Furthermore, ID based experiments are completely capable of yielding results that have the potential to be interpreted mechanistically. It's the nature of science in general. New mechanisms are often postulated in light of new data; and new types of data are often generated not only by new techniques, but new bases of hypothesis formation.

ID doesn't 'assume there was a creator' it hypothesizes design based on the observed evidence. The principles on which ID is based, whether or not you agree with their validity, are observed in living systems, and design is hypothesized as a result of this, not the other way around. Though that is probably the most effective way to spin it.

In fact, Michael Denton sums this perspective up quite nicely in Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

“The inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions.”




String theory is used to explain observable phenomena that do exist in our universe.

And in this sense so is ID. But we certainly have not observed Planck Length strings, open or closed in any type of laboratory setting. They are an explanation of observed phenomena, decidedly. But their not supported via observation any more than we can see something biological being 'designed' today.



Baloney. First of all, the DI isn't ID. While it may house many of the most prominent ID supporters, ID isn't encompassed by the DI...

That's like saying that Einstein didn't encompass Relativity in his day. The DI is the inventor of ID.

Please. Design theory has existed in one form or another since at least the Greeks. The concept of design isn't new or foreign.

And you're assertion about the DI inventing ID is patently false. The DI was founded in 1990, and the CSC, the branch housing ID related scholars was founded in 1996.

Journalist Larry Witham traced the roots of the modern ID movement to biologists from the 1950's and '60's, and the movement as an organized entity to the 1970's, in his book By Design.

Others would claim that the scientific roots of the movement go even further back. Some claim it's roots really begin in 1967, with Michael Polanyi, a physical chemist who stated that

“machines are irreducible to physics and chemistry” and that “mechanistic structures of living beings appear to be likewise irreducible.”
Please see Chem and Eng. News 45(35):54 1967.

Other notable books that predate both the DI and CSC were Thaxton, et al., with The mystery of Life's Origin, 1984, and the previously mentioned Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Denton in 1985.

Dean Kenyon, who would go on to co-author the controversial ID sympathetic Biology Book Of Panda's and People, authored the following in the epilogue of Thaxton's book back in 1984.



"We have observational evidence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical pathways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?"


So, no... you're wrong. The DI didn't invent ID.



Very commendable, and I respect that. May I ask why you have this opinion?

Well, I can't speak for Rren, but personally I think if Design Theory wants a place in the biology texts, it needs to firstly establish itself as a scientific pursuit, and not just a scientific idea; secondly it needs to demonstrate its tenets experimentally, and win over a significantly greater portion of the science community than it has as of now.

While I don't believe that science should be a consensus pursuit, science books represent consensus scientific opinion. IOW, the reason I support the ID movement is a matter of scientific freedom, but I believe science texts should not be politicized, and I don't support any effort to strong arm anything into the science classrooms.

Furthermore, I don't think origins biology is necessarily an appropriate topic for anything below maybe an honors level high school course. Science education at these levels should be about teaching students the way science is done, and teaching them about the scientific method, etc. I really don't think origins topics are relevant until students have a better understanding of science as a whole.


I wasn't speaking specifically of you, but of ID in general.

Okay... but I still don't agree with you. Most of the supporters down here in the trenches on this forum, and other forums don't support the legislating of ID into public schools.



Ya, that was mean of me. I apologize for that comment. You are good people.


Careful... you'll ruin my rep around here as an arrogant !&?$%


[edit on 25-8-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Evolutionary biology is a scientific theory... ID is a theolistic theory, theology is not science and has no place in a classroom; unless its a sunday school classroom. if you want to take that crock and make it an elective then be my guest, but i will not have my children be mandated to learn religion in the same room that actual science is taut. Pushing a theoloistic agenda through gov't channels is illegal and unconstitutional as per seperation of church and state. This has been ruled on before and when creationism got shut down by the courts the crazies came back and just called the same theory intelligent design. My father is a biology teacher and showed me editorial transcripts from a book that the creationists were trying to push into educational curriculum. After that book was ruled upon, the authors just went back and litterally crossed out creationism wrote in intelligent design and brought the book back to the publishers to be re-published and distributed. Ill ask him the name of the book and authors later tonight when i get off work and ill come back and edit my post with some more information.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
maybe it's aliens (panspermia). Unfortunately the "evidence" for panspermia does not stand up to earthly born life theories.

Gosh, Someone better tell OOL researcher Leslie Orgel this. It's too bad Nobel Prize Winner and co-author of the famous 'double helix' structure of DNA, Francis Crick went to his grave believing this. Now that I think about it Fred Hoyle (of Big Bang disdain) went to his grave believing the same thing. If you hurry up, I think you you can catch Chandra Wickramasinghe and let him know that his ideas, based on years of work as a scientist are false.


Even if this is the case, how does ID say these aliens originated? I can guarentee that it doesn't say they evolved (Implying a creator).

Okay for the billionth time: It doesn't say anything about 'em.


Other than alien's or a god, what else could be responsible for intelligent design?

Irrelevant as a science question.


Additionaly it seems that the ID movement's main goal is to replace the ideas of materialism with dualism (wikipedia article), which would not be neccessary if panspermia was implied by ID. Also, if this is case, why not just teach panspermia as an alternate theory alongside earlthy based evolution?

Oh Gosh... it's written in Wikipedia... well then it must be true


I mean it's not like just any yahoo with an internet connection can post something on wiki.

I have bolded the portion of your quote above that demonstrates such flagrant hipocrisy that I am almost surprised you posted it. But I do have to remember where I am: Just repeat to myself O&C at ATS, O&C at ATS, O&C at ATS....

You do of course realize that you just advocated teaching one idea, panspermia, that is not backed by the majority of the science community, is not testable to the degree that Design theory is, and is highly controversal in lieu of teaching another alternative simply because it is distasteful to you? You do realize you did this.

Of course, there is no restiction on mentioning panspermia. It certainly isn't even 10 minutes worth of lecture material, but the Panspermists(?) certainly are free to espouse their ideas in public schools.


You seem to not be getting th point. The string theory is going to be able to be proved false or not with future technologies and greater understanding of it, which makes it a scientific theory. ID is unfalsifiable no matter what (unless your going with the whole aliens thing, which I disscuss in the first paragraph), thus it is not a scientific theory.

No actually its YOU who don't seem to get the point. Stop talking about string theory being falsifiable. I don't claim it's unfalsifiable.

However I do claim that ID is falsifiable using experimental technologies we have today. We don't have to wait to falsify Design, it can be done now.

If it couldn't, people like Russ Doolittle and Ken Miller wouldn't spend their time trying to falsify the idea of Irreducible complexity. You can't falsify something that isn't falsifiable... see how that works?

In fact, I might refer you to this post where I very briefly outline an experiment that could be used to falsify or support a design hypothesis. ID is just as falsifiable as ToE, perhaps more so.

BTW, perhaps you can tell me how you would falsify "the whole aliens thing." Thanks.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokinsmowl
theology is not science and has no place in a classroom; unless its a sunday school classroom. if you want to take that crock and make it an elective then be my guest, but i will not have my children be mandated to learn religion in the same room that actual science is taut.

Ummm... okay.... so...

No one in this thread is advocating teaching theology in schools. Heck, no one in this thread is talking about teaching ID in schools.

Did you have something to discuss that was in the context of this conversation, or are you just going to inject random bits and pieces?


the crazies came back and just called the same theory intelligent design.

Please see my above post re: the history of the ID movement here.


My father is a biology teacher and showed me editorial transcripts from a book that the creationists were trying to push into educational curriculum. After that book was ruled upon, the authors just went back and litterally crossed out creationism wrote in intelligent design and brought the book back to the publishers to be re-published and distributed. Ill ask him the name of the book and authors later tonight when i get off work

Yes, Please do, because ID and Creationism are such vastly different ideas that this sounds like a complete load of bull.

I'm a biology teacher, I've been following this stuff for practically 15 years, and I've never heard such a story.

Until you come back with the title of a book where "the authors just went back and litterally crossed out creationism wrote in intelligent design and brought the book back to the publishers to be re-published and distributed," I'm saying you're full of it.

In fact, we'd need the titles of two books: the Creationism Version, and the ID version. Make sure you get them both from your Dad.


and ill come back and edit my post with some more information.

Please do. Somehow though I imagine this book where "the authors just went back and litterally crossed out creationism wrote in intelligent design and brought the book back to the publishers to be re-published and distributed," will be a big no-show...

I would imagine your Dad can't remember the title now.... or something.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   



Please do. Somehow though I imagine this book where "the authors just went back and litterally crossed out creationism wrote in intelligent design and brought the book back to the publishers to be re-published and distributed," will be a big no-show...

I would imagine your Dad can't remember the title now.... or something.


your a biology teacher and you havent heard about this?????????????
wow, see you make me bother my dad at work. the name of the book is Of Pandas and People by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon and its a textbook published by FTE Publishers. it has two editions the first being based on creationism and the second being re-edited as intelligent design.

Amazon book link

heres a link to some excerpts from the court transcripts from one of the hearings re-edit court transcripts

theres much on the interent about this case if you do some digging.

Wiki: Of Pandas and People

and as i promised later tonight i will head to my parents house and try and get some scans of the editorial transcripts, ya know, unless my dad cant remember the name of the book. pfffffffffffft, nextime dont be so smug.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokinsmowl
your a biology teacher and you havent heard about this?????????????
wow, see you make me bother my dad at work. the name of the book is Of Pandas and People by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon and its a textbook published by FTE Publishers. it has two editions the first being based on creationism and the second being re-edited as intelligent design.

Oh... I've heard about OPP, in fact, I mentioned it in this thread. Problem is it's not written from a Creationist Perspective at all. Kenyon isn't a creationist. Not sure about Davis, but in any case, OPP was never, and to the best of my knowledged isn't going to be marketed as a Creationist Text.


Amazon book link

This link gives no indication of describing this a creationist text, and in fact very clearly describes it as a pro-ID text. There is no mention here of a new text coming out from a Creationist perspective.


heres a link to some excerpts from the court transcripts from one of the hearings re-edit court transcripts

These transcripts don't prove that the book was written as creation, the remarketed as ID. If anything, it proves that there can be some overlap between creationist and ID perspectives, but so what. There is overlap between all origins models, creation, evolution, and ID. This one piece of selective quoting from this text does nothing to demonstrate the multiple versions of the book you've stated here.


theres much on the interent about this case if you do some digging.

Gosh.... Really there's information on the internet? I had no idea. Is that why they call it the "Information Superhighway?" You learn something new everyday.


Wiki: Of Pandas and People

And did you bother reading this link? This link says nothing about two versions of this text, and specifically qualifies it as an ID text.


and as i promised later tonight i will head to my parents house and try and get some scans of the editorial transcripts, ya know, unless my dad cant remember the name of the book. pfffffffffffft, nextime dont be so smug.

Ummm... you were supposed to be getting the name of a book where " the authors just went back and litterally crossed out creationism wrote in intelligent design and brought the book back to the publishers to be re-published and distributed." I couldn't care less about editorial transcripts. What is in dispute is that a creationist book existed, was 'rejected' prompting " the authors [to go] back and litterally [cross] out creationism [write] in intelligent design and [bring] the book back to the publishers to be re-published and distributed," that's the unsubstantiated claim in question. I certainly don't need you to post trial transcripts that I probably already have anyway.

Sorry, but smug is the best you'll ever get out of me here. Most of the time smug is the better end of the spectrum for me.

So do you know of a book where "the authors just went back and litterally crossed out creationism wrote in intelligent design and brought the book back to the publishers to be re-published and distributed"?

[edit on 25-8-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
thats the book, and those links were for those people who havent heard about it, not to support my case. the supporting evidence of my case will come later tonight when i get off from work and stop by my rents place.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

In fact, a comparison of an early draft of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy showed how in several instances the word "creationism" had been replaced by "intelligent design", and "creationist" simply replaced by "intelligent design proponent". [2]

From Wiki link provided.

This looks to me like the original copy was a creationist text.

BTW, what's the difference between Creationism and intelligent design?

Creationism implies a creator
Intelligent design implies an intelligent designor.

Is a creator not an intelligent designor, and vice versa?



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
From what I understand from earlier in the topic, creationism deals specifically with WHAT the creator is (i.e. deals with creation via god.)

Intelligent design, alledgedly, deals only with finding evidence of a creators design, and does not deal with what created the universe.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
[I have yet to see any evidence that life can occur without a creator or higher power who initially started the process. Going back to the Windows program analogy, all the conjecture about life occuring per chance is based within the already created software program -- not outside the PC.


This is when you get to a "chicken and egg" type arguement. If the Intelligent Design theory is correct for life on Earth, what created the being or intelligence that did it?



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
From what I understand from earlier in the topic, creationism deals specifically with WHAT the creator is (i.e. deals with creation via god.)

Intelligent design, alledgedly, deals only with finding evidence of a creators design, and does not deal with what created the universe.


But that seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. If one enters the situatioon assuming that there is a creator, then any evidence found will be subject to a bias that a creator does exist. Not very logical if you ask me.

Besides, who else would the designer have been if not some form of deity?



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

In fact, a comparison of an early draft of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy showed how in several instances the word "creationism" had been replaced by "intelligent design", and "creationist" simply replaced by "intelligent design proponent". [2]

From Wiki link provided.

This looks to me like the original copy was a creationist text.


No... if you look at the history of ID, the age of this text, and what the authors of the text very clearly stated, they simply used this term until they decided upon the term intelligent design. The term intelligent design was simply decided upon to distinguish them from Creationists, that is their beliefs are not biblically based.. The text is clearly not a Creationist text in the formal sense of the word Creationist. The text was never used to support the notion of biblical creationism.

If you look, it's almost universally described as an Intelligent Design text. It just happens to have written at a time before the idea was known as intelligent design, and the before the ID movement existed as an organized entity.


BTW, what's the difference between Creationism and intelligent design?
Creationism seeks to reconcile the biblical account of creation with scientific data. I know you know this though, and don't know why you're asking.


Creationism implies a creator
Intelligent design implies an intelligent designor.

Is a creator not an intelligent designor, and vice versa?

In that sense, ID is a form of creationism, in that it suggests something was created. But a Creationist as it's popularly used means something entirely different. For that matter Darwin wasn't an atheist, and believed God set natural laws into motion. So in this sense of the word, even Darwin was a creationist.

But this isn't what people mean when they use creationist... they mean trying to reconcile the biblical account of creation with science, which is not something ID does.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
But that seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. If one enters the situatioon assuming that there is a creator, then any evidence found will be subject to a bias that a creator does exist. Not very logical if you ask me.

Well despite that it doesn't seem logical to you, lots of scientists who subscribed to a belief in God somehow managed to make significant contributions to science. People like Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Faraday, Boyle, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, all managed to make significant contributions to science, while maintaining a belief in God, that is they assumed a creator. Imagine that.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
1. The Universe is very complex.
2. An individual makes the comment that the Universe is too complex for life to have come into being with out a Divine Creator (I.E. God.).
3. Therefore the God of Christendom HAS to exist.

Oh yeah, this sound VERY scientific to me.

I heard of another “Theory” the purports to challenge I.D. And I have to tell you, I think it is every bit as plausible as I.D.

PLEASE go to the site below for the MOST plausible alternative to Evolution that exists to mankind at this point in time:

www.venganza.org...



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Mattison, let me clarify.

The belief in God is not what is in question. What I am questioning is the logic in entering a problem in which all of the variables have not been identified, with the assumption that the answer involves the direct hand of a deity. ID begins looking at the problem of not knowing exactly how we came to be, with the assumption that there was a designer (deity).

If I believed the Moon was made of cheese, then went looking for evidence that it is made of cheese, I could prove it to be so by excluding all other evidence, rather than taking evidence to the contrary, and adapting my original hypothosis.

As it is, it seems that ID makes no attempt to be objective in it's hypothosis. It comes right out and says "Yes, there is a designer, and this evidence 'could' prove it".



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Mattison, let me clarify.

The belief in God is not what is in question. What I am questioning is the logic in entering a problem in which all of the variables have not been identified, with the assumption that the answer involves the direct hand of a deity. ID begins looking at the problem of not knowing exactly how we came to be, with the assumption that there was a designer (deity).

If I believed the Moon was made of cheese, then went looking for evidence that it is made of cheese, I could prove it to be so by excluding all other evidence, rather than taking evidence to the contrary, and adapting my original hypothosis.

As it is, it seems that ID makes no attempt to be objective in it's hypothosis. It comes right out and says "Yes, there is a designer, and this evidence 'could' prove it".


No. Still wrong. There is no logical difficulty with a creator, as it's not part of the ID hypothesis. And you're still mistaken re: the text I've bolded in your quote above. Design theory doesn't start with a creator and work backwards. It infers design based on the existing evidence. I'll quote Denton again on this issue:

“The inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy."

IOW Denton, like other IDist's draws his inference of design through empirical observation, that is Denton believes the scientific evidence suggests design. Denton doesn't start with a creator and work backwards as you'd have as believe; neither do Behe or most other prominent design theorists.

It is distinctly not saying "I believe in a creator, so I must pursue intelligent design." In fact it's quite the opposite. It's more akin to "The existing evidence points to the hallmarks of pre-existing intelligence, thus I've adopted a 'design' perspective.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hlesterjerome

1. The Universe is very complex.
2. An individual makes the comment that the Universe is too complex for life to have come into being with out a Divine Creator (I.E. God.).
3. Therefore the God of Christendom HAS to exist.

Oh yeah, this sound VERY scientific to me.

I heard of another “Theory” the purports to challenge I.D. And I have to tell you, I think it is every bit as plausible as I.D.


You don't understand it. Not even close.




top topics



 
1
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join