Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]

{deleted double post}This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-17-2004 08:43 AM

As I have said before there are fundamental contradictions between what ID claims and the faith based hypothesis of strict literal biblical intrepretation christian creationism as well as with other forms of creationism. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not looked at the full implications of IDism.This still does not answer whether or not IDism is a faith. There are several threads where I have argued this, and you have yet to show a valid response to the arguments. As an example you have yet to state whether or not the definition of supernatural is correct. The list of unanswered posts on where you have been asked this subtopic alone is:
http://EvC Forum: ID as Religion
http://EvC Forum: ID as Religion
http://EvC Forum: ID as Religion
http://EvC Forum: ID as ReligionI expect to see a followup on that topic (not here, heaven forfend that I would take your thread off topic the way you continually do mine)Enjoy.ps -- you still have not asked Mr Hambre what he considers to be creationism. I think he has a valid point that you are missing. If that is so, then this post amounts to a hissyfit.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I agree holmes that the problem is within the definitions of the words.If you look at the Wikipedia article
Creationism - WikipediaYou will see reference to several forms of creationism, ID and Deism. I think it is important enough that when a specific form of creationism is discussed that it be modified to make your statements more accurate: YE Creationism or literal biblical creationism, for instance.Wonder if he will be back, though ...

so you are saying that the original post that purports to draw a line between IDism and YECreationism is too narrow and is not taking into account the broader spectrum of creationism, but that discussion of the semantics involved is just amusing?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I am not trying to be snide (though I was tired), just trying to point out that you and IDman are shouting past each other using different definitions of the words.I agree that functionally IDism is a form of creationism in that it is assuming a {supernatural of some kind but unknown hand} in ostensibly making {some} things come to be.IDman is stuck in the paradigm that {ID=answer to science and to do that it cannot be faith, most specifically it cannot afford to be associated with YECreationism}. That does not keep it from being a different kind of creationism.ID{creation of intelligent designed features} does NOT equal YEC{creation according to strict literal interpretation of the bible}

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and yet none is provided, again. just a bald assertion, again.notice that until a method has been provided to ensure that anyone can distinguish actual external design (AED) from the accidental appearance of design (AAD) that any claims of evidence are premature (what are they evidence of? AAD?).IC purports to be such a system, but IC systems have been shown to evolve naturally, thus it cannot distinguish AED from AAD. As such it is not evidence of either.until IDists can show a definite eperimentally validated filter that is 100% effective in distinguishing AED from AAD there is no evidence.you keep claiming that there is evidence and yet none is provided. I can't help but wonder if all your references are unable to provide you with one example -- why should anyone read a one of them if one simple piece of evidence cannot be produced?avoiding the issues raised on other topics does not make them go away.Your record on {ID as Religion}
http://EvC Forum: ID as Religionis incomplete -- you have yet to take a baby step on this issue: is the definition of supernatural correct or not?You have also left unfinished the discussion on {Who designed the ID designer(s)?}
http://EvC Forum: ID as ReligionWith no evidence to the contrary it would appear that ID as practiced is in fact a religious faith as both these sites argue. Perhaps you feel overgunned on this issue, in which case why not ask for some reinforcements from one of your pet insulated sites? I'm still waiting to be laughed at.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Let's skip over the tautology involved with using mathematical formulas developed to show how things work the way they do as evidence of order because things then behave according to the mathematical formulas, because simple minds are impressed by simple things like that.And let's just skip over the fact that those orderly universes have been corrected, by Einstein and others, by little corrections to little corrections ... because the math didn’t work out perfectly ... and that the universe as a whole is far from orderly when you see whole galaxies colliding with other whole galaxies ... and other massive accidents of destruction shown by the pictures from the Hubble.And of course, let’s also skip over the fact that the opinions of early scientists are not evidence of anything other than their opinions. No, you have denied the evidence with lame excuses that Behe refuted it when he came nowhere near close to doing so.From http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html NOTE that he then proceeds to discuss Behe’s response and dissect it to show where it fails to refute the critical point of this experiment -- that an IC system was observed to evolve: And once a single IC system has been produce by natural evolutionary methods then IC cannot be used as evidence that something cannot happen by natural evolutionary methods. That is about as blunt as you can get: IC is not evidence anymore, it is just another example of the argument from incredulity and lack of imagination. A true scientist would say okay, IC is invalidated as a test of differentiating intentional design from accidental design, what’s next? rather than bluster on that IC is okay (very much like all the creatortionistas do whenever confronted by invalidating evidence). You have not posted a court ruling but the opinion of ID lawyers on what the ruling would be. No you cannot waste your time on it any more because you do not know how to deal with it. You cannot break the logic of the argument, so you walk off from it.I also gave my interpretation of the same court standard and you failed to make any comment on that.When you leave an argument you do NOT win the argument, but admit defeat in being able to deal with it. And the fact that you have been totally incapable of refuting the argument shows that it does show that ID is a faith, no matter how you squirm and post other references that claim otherwise: claims do not make themselves true, logic and evidence does that. You’re 0 for 2 on that issue, and haven’t even attempted to discuss the question of the {is ID properly pursued?} topic:
http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued? and in particular the argument there that ID is a form of faith. Perhaps you would like to take a crack at the last section of the topic?Until one of these arguments is refuted the observation is that Idism is a faith. Observations? Or just more opinions? The observation that the moon is receding due to the interaction of the gravity of the tides around the globe is nothing more than referencing a known result of the forces of gravity, and it amounts to evidence for gravity and nothing else. To make anything else out of that is just pure incredulity of un-imagination. To conflate that with any other incidents such as the solar eclipses means you have to show that eclipses are significant for some reason. And note that the small window is irrelevant — as long as the apparent size of the sun is less than the apparent size of the moon the effect will be (in the very small area of totality) the same: darkness. That makes the window exist from the moment of formation of the solar system until the arbitrary time datum when the moon recedes until a ring is visible. And when that happens IT will be viewed as an incredible coincidence that MUST show design.Incredulity is like that. Science it isn’t. I could point out which logical fallacy this involves, but it appears that you are incapable of dealing with or understanding that side of the issue even though you claim that ID is based on logic. Certainly past experience has shown a rather systematic lack of comprehension on this aspect. And still you have not shown any observation worth writing a book about, or at least a book of science: it seems to have worked for fiction so far. Laughing? I’m sure that idiots still laugh at the moon, but that does not increase their intelligence or their ability to answer questions based on logic and real evidence. Laugh away. But when you are done, please supply some evidence? Some argument that I am wrong? Perhaps starting with the definition of supernatural to show that it is okay or what adjustments need to be made to it.........Until that happens I will be ready. But don’t worry, I won’t wait on tenterhooks.Enjoy.This message has been edited by Admin, 09-21-2004 09:57 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

What evidence? Again you speak of evidence as if it was readily apparent without any given to show that it is. Your standard of evidence must be quite different from the normal, scientific standard. The opinion that the sun goes around the earth was based on the observation that it rose in the east, traversed the sky and set in the west, and that this held no matter where on earth you were situated. The evidence obtained when you remove the observer from the system is that the earth goes around the sun and spins while it is doing so, thus causing the appearance of sun motion. Evidence is impartial, opinion is not. So far I have yet to see a single iota of evidence that says here there be design in such a manner that is impartial and devoid of opinion to be evidence and not interpretation of evidence. OPINIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Irrelevant. The other two genes were not used by the new system, and all three parts evolved to make the new system work, and yet the loss of any one of them renders the system inoperable: The result is an IC system that evolved. That is the evidence. Which logical fallacy is that? Perhaps you can list it from the pages I keep sending you to with no avail? Spend some time (and effort?) and enlighten me: Forbidden.Sorry, but the scientific approach says otherwise:theory: IC systems cannot evolve on their own
invalidation test: evolve an IC system
evaluation: IC has failed
result: discard IC and move on to another theory.Let me put it this way and see if you understand:

• IF an IC system can be either (a) evolved or (b) designed, and
• IF it is not possible to determine whether the system is either (a) evolved or (b) designed,
• THEN the existence of any IC system cannot determine whether (a) evolution or (b) design occurred, and (furthermore)
• THUS it is not possible to say positively and irrefutably that design has occurred in the making of the IC system, and
• THEREFORE IC cannot be used as any evidence of any design.

Again: this is a logical construction that must be true if the precepts are true. For someone who claims to use logic and rational evaluation of the evidence it seems that you do not understand when logic and rational evaluation refute a position. What you posted was from a book. I saw no reference to any actual court case or citation of the court opinion. Until you have that evidence I will stand on this just being opinion — but HEY here is your first real chance to provide real evidence for your position (NOT that it will make it any more TRUE). Thanks for another ad hominem bit of slander that doesn’t address the issue of the coincidence being a coincidence, and that without it being so that another one would replace it, of equal incredulity. In point of fact there is a stage of a total eclipse known as Baily’s Beads and if the moon were just a smidgeon smaller these would be visible around the whole moon and make a truly spectacular sight, much more impressive than just the corona.Eclipse - Bailey's Beads Your standard of evidence is also duly noted.EnjoyThis message has been edited by Admin, 09-27-2004 12:08 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

interesting that both appear to work on my machine. I will correct my ways to use americanlish rather than the real english ()

(gray for percy)sounds like Deism to me ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

? that would be a difference yes? What I believe Joe was saying (and Deism also holds) is that there was no "Divine Intervention in human history"

Please help me out here: I have no idea what your point is. As far as I could see Joe was talking about a basic theism that I said sounded a lot like Deism -- NEITHER having anything to do with christianity as far as I can see, so your comments are non-sequiturs...

I would take that up with Joe instead of arguing with me about what you think Joe might or might not believe and building ... what 4? 5? POINTLESS posts on that issue?sheeshmountain out of anthill ya ask me.what Joe said sounded like Deism to me, and I commented to HIM on that, and I have not seen anything from HIM to change my opinion.got that? I'll let Joe talk for Joe.

Am I mad that "it was shot down" ??? hardly, for I have not heard from JOE on this, and he would be the only one I can think of that can tell me what JOE believesWhat I find so incongruous is that you are so willing to go so far off on a long extemporaneous limb to posit what amounts to a HYPOTHETICAL issue as if it was valid to this argument.Your points are valid about the differences of beliefs from Deism, but are NOT valid in telling me what someone else specifically believes -- The ONLY way that would have any validity is if you say that you know what Joe believes based on previous conversations with him: you have not done that or even implied it.I also cannot see what this has to do with the topic at hand here and will henceforth stop wasting bandwidth on your petty problem.Joe's statement is consistent with Deism. Stating that point does not make me determined to turn Joe into a Deist, and the point of the question was to see where JOE draws the line between his beliefs and Deism, not where you or anyone else draws that line for Joe.enjoy.

what I seemed to be getting (and still am to some extent) is an answer from left field from someone else and not from Joe. If he has said elsewhere that he is a christian, then that is information I do not have (not having been here all that long, and only able to go on what I have seen).I think we can agree that the answer to this issue has to come from Joe and no one else, k?