Emerging supporters of I.D. commonly use argument from ignorance, a method of debate or argument wherein any and all unknowns are exploited and
exaggerated so as to justify the repudiation of a viewpoint in its entirety. The unknowns in this case are currently unexplained or hypothetical
evidence for Evolution, the better known examples being gaps between ancestral species and their modern descendants, the scale and rate of Darwinian
random mutations and natural selection, the relatively imperceptible evidence of current evolution, and the intricate workings of cells.
An interesting (read: long-winded) take on the "God of the Gaps" argument. Why not just say ID = God did it... and that's all you need to know?
No examples, refs, nothing... nada? Common ancestry (ie, "gaps between ancestral species and their modern descendants") what does that have to do
with ID? What's "relatively imperceptible evidence of current evolution" exactly and how does it relate to ID?
In regard to the explanation offered for the actual act or process of creation, concepts generally fit somewhere among the following:
-The thing responsible is god, who started the entire process, not interfering after this.
-The thing responsible is god, who started the entire process, interfering anywhere from a few to innumerable times throughout.
-The thing responsible is an alien or aliens, who(m) either sent biological matter to earth, or came to earth and placed it here.
Deism, Theism, and um Raelism (?) respectively. Why is this relevant? How many
non IDers accept one of those three? My guess is the
overwhelming majority of people on this planet.
Advocates of I.D. focus intensely upon the complexity and esotericism of the human mind, insisting that the intricacies and faculties of it
could not have arisen in the way Evolution claims (by natural processes and from the brains of the higher primates). In this respect, Creationists
contend that the spirit or soul accounts for the properties of human minds, and being supernatural entities, cannot be studied, rationalized, or
perhaps even comprehended by humans.
Hasn't he/she moved off topic? We talking ID or creationism now? What kind of creationism is this? Also where is the support for this statement:
'ID is intensely focused on the complexity and esotericism of the human mind' C'mon guys I'm pretty sure that's just made up.
Critics abound in almost all academic and scholarly institutions and disciplines, as well as secularism. The main arguments against I.D. are
the inherent similarities shared by Creationism and Intelligent Design as well as in their audiences, the vagueness of its arguments and reasoning,
the irrational nature of both the alien and deity explanations, the totally untestable essence of such explanations, the contradictions and paradoxes
created by simultaneous denial of theistic, religious, or otherwise unscientific factors and promotion of a purely scientific, logically deductive
system, and the lack of evidence possessed by I.D. scholars.
Well I hope you've made the critics cringe now (hope ya'll have been with me all the way
) This was all (un-supported)opinion here and a
horrible conflation of ID with creationism and even theism...
bias anyone? Is the suggestion here that atheism is the only logical belief
(anybody else notice that?)
The general notion among I.D. opponents is that it is a less-than-halfway compromise between dogmatic Creationism and secular science, having
at its core the same approximate explanation: "God did it." Taken a step further, this opinion also implies that I.D. precludes analytical,
intelligent inquiry, implying that it is a facade painted over Creationism to slip religion into the public arena masked as reasonable
science.
Great
Well sourced, wholly objective... heck it's almost encyclopedic. Whose opinion are we talking about here? He/she's not supported, in
any way, shape or form, the conclusion (read: opinion) presented here... am I alone?
I know you guys are busy and can't proof read every thing that comes down the pike (honestly no hard feelings here.) I know most ATSers, so I assume
most of the editors/contributors too, don't like ID. Regardless, there's nothing here that can be learned or used by a critic or advocate of ID.
It's poorly researched and extremely biased imho. I hope this forum is where we discuss these things if not let me know the deelio.
Oh yeah the author only included one link for his article (Discovery Institute) I'd also recommend:
Pro ID
arn.org...
telicthoughts.com...
www.uncommondescent.com...
www.iscid.org...
The Essential ID Bibliography (books,
websites, theories, ideas etc. for both sides of the ID/evo debate.)
Hope this is helps... Like I said if this isn't how the ATS wiki works feel free to throw this bad boy into the O&C forum.
Regards
