Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biased accounts of intelligent design
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 16 of 150 (861181)
08-18-2019 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
08-18-2019 7:50 AM


ID proponentists swear up and down that the intelligent designer is not the god of the Bible.
YECs seem to be honest about what their beliefs are.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 7:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 10:19 AM Larni has replied
 Message 24 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 11:47 AM Larni has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 150 (861182)
08-18-2019 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Larni
08-18-2019 10:15 AM


I guess they could have an intelligent designer that ISN'T the God of the Bible but it's not clear what that is.
Beyond affirming that the God of the Bible is our starting point, and some of the information the Bible gives, most YECs focus on the physical evidence just as the IDers say they do. The Bible is the launching point but beyond that there's no way to talk about the world except through the facts we know ONLY through the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 08-18-2019 10:15 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 08-18-2019 10:27 AM Faith has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 18 of 150 (861183)
08-18-2019 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
08-18-2019 10:14 AM


Re: ID and creationism
Fair enough.
Reading through that link we come to the predictions of design.
What measurements of complexity are you using? I could not find it?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 10:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 19 of 150 (861184)
08-18-2019 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
08-18-2019 10:19 AM


I think that many people lump ID and YEC together because the approach they take is putting the cart before the horse.
The scientific method will seek evidence to attempt to disconfirm a hypothesis. What ID and YEC do is to seek evidence to confirm the hypothesis.
So from the position of someone adhering to the scientific method the method the ID and YEC use is not the scientific method.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 10:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 10:43 AM Larni has not replied
 Message 29 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:05 PM Larni has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 20 of 150 (861189)
08-18-2019 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
08-18-2019 10:27 AM


Yes of course but there's no place else to start. It's quite clear that if you just start by observing nature you can avoid God completely.
Actually many would say that's a self deception because the nature of the facts themselves demands a creator or an intelligent designer. If this is more or less the position of ID I think it's an argument that can be made, and I agree with it myself. But before I was a Christian I couldn't have made the case for it so I have to admit we're all subject to that particular self deception.
So no matter how complex and finely organized reality is most people persuade themselves all that really could have happened by chemicals just mindlessly bashing around.
Anyway, once you believe in the God of the Bible that's where you have to start, there's no other rational place to start. And then you have the job of showing that the observed world fits the outline the Bible gives.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 08-18-2019 10:27 AM Larni has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 150 (861195)
08-18-2019 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 10:07 AM


... I have nothing better to offer at the moment than the tests suggested in the article I have already indicated,
A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design | Evolution News
Just so you know, it is against forum policy to argue by posting a link. If you think the information in the link is viable (as apparently you do), then quote from it (see my prior Message 5 for how to do that) and then support the argument.
Again I looked at your link briefly and found it contained logical fallacies. Like equivocation. When I have some time to waste I might look at it in greater detail.
Also, I posted a link to another thread here I posted in 2004, Is ID properly pursued?, because my concern -- as a Deist -- is that ID is a weak form of Deism. Here is a quote from that thread:
quote:
Stated simply Intelligent Design ("ID") is the concept that the universe is designed by an [active \ creative] agent and that there are, perhaps, observable traces, evidence of such design in the product of that work.
This assumes a fair degree of development, capability, education and intelligence on the part of the observer. A "Poison Dart" Frog cannot look at a watch and discern that it is a designed object, and neither could a native person unschooled in the concepts of manufacturing such products ... yet he is capable and intelligent enough to discern the cause and effect (and how to make use of) the frog's venom. There are, in fact, historical documents recording where explorers showed watches and the like to such unschooled natives and the natives thought that they were magical objects rather than manufactured things.
Deism is a religion, and this pretty well shows that ID also is a religion, or at best a philosophical pursuit, rather than science.
So far you have offered nothing but distress at perceived bias, and this link. Surely there is more to your argument than this.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 10:07 AM Jedothek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 11:34 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Jedothek
Junior Member (Idle past 1300 days)
Posts: 18
From: Pittsburgh
Joined: 08-14-2019


Message 22 of 150 (861196)
08-18-2019 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
08-18-2019 10:14 AM


Re: ID and creationism
I would like to thank Faith for his/her intelligent comments and questions. For the designer, as you say, all I can think of is extraterrestrials, gods or God; but note that an ID proponent is not required fully to describe the designer or to say where it came from. William Lane Craig explains that in order for an explanation to be good, we don’t need an explanation for the explanation; see
Richard Dawkins’ Argument for Atheism in The God Delusion | Reasonable Faith
But even if God made the world, we still have many options. Does God make species as a person makes a pot ? — which is what Genesis suggests; or does God dream the world?
The creator God does not imply religion. Emil Durkheim defined a religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden — beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church [French glise, admittedly an odd word ], all those who adhere to them.
Here I want to stress the word "practices." A religion must include some form of worship, however broadly defined. God has long been discussed in philosophy without religious connotations. When the atheist philosopher Antony Flew came to believe in God, he became a deist ( which is different from theist) and , as far as I know, did not become religious. ID convinced him of a designer, not that worship was required or beneficial.
As I suggested , an ID proponent might think that God only planned life in the beginning, or he might believe that God also guides the process. For example, can natural selection explain the huge growth of the capabilities of the human brain? Some have said that we are way smarter than is required for survival.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 10:14 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2019 12:17 PM Jedothek has not replied

  
Jedothek
Junior Member (Idle past 1300 days)
Posts: 18
From: Pittsburgh
Joined: 08-14-2019


(1)
Message 23 of 150 (861197)
08-18-2019 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
08-18-2019 11:19 AM


I want to mention that when I posted at 11:21 AM today I was not ignoring the link rule: I hadn't seen it yet.
My posts contain much more than cries of distress; they contain arguments, however compressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2019 11:19 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Jedothek
Junior Member (Idle past 1300 days)
Posts: 18
From: Pittsburgh
Joined: 08-14-2019


Message 24 of 150 (861198)
08-18-2019 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Larni
08-18-2019 10:15 AM


The ID proponents I have read say rather that the God of the Bible is not part of the hypothesis they are proposing. I am sure that many of them, in conversations with friends, express the belief that Jehovah designed the world. That's not hypocrisy, it's a sort of compartmentalization that is also found in the principle of separation of
church and state. A historian who describes how Rome was unique in Italy need not express the difficult thesis that the Romans' ancestors came from Troy, even though that might be what he believes .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 08-18-2019 10:15 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by JonF, posted 08-18-2019 12:09 PM Jedothek has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 25 of 150 (861199)
08-18-2019 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 10:02 AM


Re: ID and creationism
The religious affiliations of proponents are as logically irrelevant ...
Except we have the history of cdesign proponentsists.
We know intelligent design is religious creationism dressed up in lab coat with black horn rimmed glasses and a fake beard in an attempt to appear as science in a vain attempt to circumvent the Constitution and push their religious indoctrination into the public schools.
We have the transcripts from the Dover Trial where the revealed truth of ID’s religious subterfuge was put on display. The Wedge Document has not been forgotten nor Discovery Institutes continued attempts to infiltrate public schools with religious creationism.
The OP is nothing more than a shill for Discovery Institute and this submission is yet another attempt to further the wedge strategy.
Intelligent design is religious creationism regardless of the cdesign proponentsists protests to the contrary.
This thread is nothing more than religious SPAM.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 10:02 AM Jedothek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:15 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 26 of 150 (861200)
08-18-2019 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 10:07 AM


The first two are compatible with mainstream science. The third is falsified; genes and functional parts are not shared between unrelated organisms. The fourth has not been established, and requires an assumption about the motives of the designer. Why should a being that powerful care about efficiency?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 10:07 AM Jedothek has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 27 of 150 (861201)
08-18-2019 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 11:47 AM


The ID proponents I have read say rather that the God of the Bible is not part of the hypothesis they are proposing.
In public, at least. Nudge, nudge, wink wink. But there's few honest ones.
quote:
"We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.".
Phillip Johnson quoted, Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator, The LA Times, 3/25/2001.
quote:
The world is a mirror representing the divine lifeIntelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August 1999
Lots more at http://web.archive.org/...xtr/download/HorsesMouth-BP007.pdf
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 11:47 AM Jedothek has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 28 of 150 (861202)
08-18-2019 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 11:21 AM


Re: ID and creationism
... but note that an ID proponent is not required fully to describe the designer or to say where it came from. ...
Correct, but one thing that is required for science is to describe how the design is implemented. A design sitting on the shelf serves no purpose until it is implemented. How is this done? What is the process?
You said in Message 13:
ID is the doctrine that the world (e.g., the genetic code or the values of physical constants) exhibits signs of having been designed by intelligence. ...
So how is/was the design of the genetic code implemented? What is the process?
When were the designs of the physical constants done -- at the creation of the universe? What was the process that made the whole universe comply?
As I suggested , an ID proponent might think that God only planned life in the beginning, or he might believe that God also guides the process. ...
You are describing Deism and Theism, not ID. Let's stick to ID.
... For example, can natural selection explain the huge growth of the capabilities of the human brain? Some have said that we are way smarter than is required for survival.
Not alone, but then you are committing an error common to YECs and other theists (as well as an argument from incredulity). Evolution contains two basic elements, not one:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next.
This gets back to my argument in Is ID properly pursued? that the IDologist must have a thorough understanding of all sciences in order to be able to discern design rather than natural system processes. If you are going to make claims that evolution cannot explain certain things then behooves you to become thoroughly familiar with the science of evolution.
Mutation and selection explain the growth and development of the human brain quite adequately. Here for example is a set of skulls:
quote:
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
This clearly shows the increase in brain size. When we talk about brain ability we can note that the Chimpanzee has many abilities comparable to humans, and that the differences between these two species is more a difference in degree than in kind. They are also comparable to the differences seen between chimps and monkeys.
Now if you want to know what caused this growth, my explanation is sexual selection.
What else do you have?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 11:21 AM Jedothek has not replied

  
Jedothek
Junior Member (Idle past 1300 days)
Posts: 18
From: Pittsburgh
Joined: 08-14-2019


Message 29 of 150 (861205)
08-18-2019 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
08-18-2019 10:27 AM


The scientific method will seek evidence to attempt to disconfirm a hypothesis. What ID and YEC do is to seek evidence to confirm the hypothesis.
So from the position of someone adhering to the scientific method the method the ID and YEC use is not the scientific method.
I appreciate this; I think you have read Karl Popper; but recall that Popper said also ,
The proper answer to my question ‘How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?’ is, I believe, ‘By criticizing the theories or guesses of others and if we can train ourselves to do so by criticizing our own theories or guesses.’ (The latter point is highly desirable, but not indispensable; for if we fail to criticize our own theories, there may be others to do it for us.)
So though an individual may lack the self-discipline to criticize his own theory , the scientific community as a whole will act to address the proposal critically. In the case of the ID proponents, surrounded by a mob howling that they are not only mistaken but irrational, it is not human to suggest that they should be seeking evidence against their own theories. The ID opponents, when they take a break from throwing mud, make sufficient attempts to present evidence to disconfirm the hypothesis. ( Lest there be misunderstanding, I acknowledge that RAZD makes a rational case in the article to which he, in violation of his own imperious precept, links.) It is natural and expected for a scholar to seek and present evidence that buttresses his case. I do not recall that Newton in the Principia made an effort to present evidence against his own theories; that was the task of the larger scientific community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 08-18-2019 10:27 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by JonF, posted 08-18-2019 1:12 PM Jedothek has not replied
 Message 31 by JonF, posted 08-18-2019 1:14 PM Jedothek has replied
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 08-18-2019 1:33 PM Jedothek has not replied
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2019 1:44 PM Jedothek has not replied
 Message 39 by Larni, posted 08-18-2019 2:42 PM Jedothek has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 30 of 150 (861207)
08-18-2019 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:05 PM


A sufficient number of the scientific community has examined ID and found it wanting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:05 PM Jedothek 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