Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]

RAZD,

quote:

---

the problem is within the definitions of the words.

---

I disagree. You're free to amuse yourself with semantics, and no one's saying there aren't subtle or not-so-subtle differences in the way creationist ideology describes itself. However, as Percy pointed out here, the common denominator in all the creationisms we see is their insistence that natural law is not inviolable, that the universe is not self sufficient. By asserting that intelligent intervention was not only possible but necessary, ID creationism is being just as anti-scientific as YEC. The IDC camp can't define exactly what the weakness of naturalism is (and why it doesn't invalidate all other scientific inquiry), but they say it's an outmoded paradigm.Empirical evidential inquiry is predicated on the assumption that the universe is self-sufficient. Regardless of your personal philosophy, the philosophy of science disqualifies miracles and divine fiddling as valid answers to scientific mysteries. The reason ID is a form of creationism, and that creationism is faith and not science, is because both denigrate methodological naturalism as some sort of atheistic loophole instead of recognizing that it's the very basis of scientific endeavor itself.reagrds,
Esteban Hambre

RAZD,Don't be snide. Where did I bring up the "broader spectrum of creationism"? If you want to debate these angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin niceties with your buddy ID man, knock yourself out. Whether ID is a kind of creationism or creationism is a subset of ID is neither here nor there in my estimation. The funding sources and media outlets enjoyed by IDC are the same as mainstream creationism. The target audience for both is the same. Their tactics involve the same sort of misrepresentation and appeals to "fairness" instead of objectivity. And they both deny the legitimacy of the basis of scientific endeavor.regards,
Esteban Hambre

ID man says with a straight face:

quote:

---

Like a typical evolutionist you jump to the incorrect conclusion. We measure the aspect of an external agency with our knowledge of what nature can and cannot do and/ or would or would not do. Couple that with our knowledge of what external agencies can do and that would answer your question.

---

ID creationists are the greatest long-jumpers in the world, then, since they conclude that the design work in a biological system (or in the laws of nature) couldn't conceivably have been done by nature, since they know what nature is and isn't capable of. No, the design in bacteria or in the universe itself is much more likely to have been done by a disembodied, omnipotent design entity about which we know nothing more than its capability of designing lots of things that are currently scientific mysteries. ID creationists want us to swallow that assumption and call it a conclusion? No thanks.regards,
Esteban Hambre

ID man,Just what are you claiming was designed by your intelligent agent?1) The bacterial flagellum2) The first living organisms on Earth3) The first prokaryotes4) The laws of physics themselves5) All of the above and everything elseJust so we can work our way forward here.regards,
Esteban Hambre

I wasn't just being facetious, either. I mean, humans have done enough gene-splicing to make it possible (though not particularly plausible) that someone could have 'designed' the original replicator molecule. But let's be honest, saying the same 'external agent' was responsible for fashioning the physical properties of our universe is attributing far more profound capabilities to this entity than we can rationally excuse.regards,
Esteban Hambre

ID man claims:

quote:

---

A fact is a fact and the fact is biological ID just cares about life on Earth.

---

So now it's "biological ID"? Since you always make such a big deal out of the emergence of prokaryotes, and have asked quite a few times where the "laws of physics" come from, we should be excused for thinking that you're moving the goalposts wherever you want them.It's only hurting your case, as I've mentioned before. When you talk about an "external agent" splicing genetic material into a bacterium's genome to produce a flagellum, you're talking about a being with much more limited capabilities than one that can create and calibrate the physical properties of the universe itself. So are the laws of physics evidence for design? If so, then you're talking about a very God-like designer, and ID is looking more and more like religion.regards,
Esteban Hambre

ID man asks rhetorically

quote:

---

Do we know the intentions or capabilities of those who designed Stonehenge? No.

---

Well, actually, we do know that human were around at the time, as well as fully capable of building such sites. This is the only reason we can conclude that humans did build it (since eyewitness evidence seems lacking). You're asserting that life on Earth and the laws of physics were designed by an intelligence, without giving us positive evidence that any intelligent agent has ever existed which can be credited with such creative capabilities.regards,
Esteban Hambre

ID man says:

quote:

---

The reasoning is that in order for NS to have something to act on is that, the bac flag, has to be there. NS does not have a plan. It cannot build something the organism may use in the future.

---

The reasoning, such as it is, ignores the fact that plenty of biological structures serve purposes quite different from the ones they once served. Loudmouth himself started a thread to show that jawbones we inherited from our reptilian ancestors are now the three little bones in the mammalian middle ear. NS can build a structure for the organism's immediate survival needs, and co-opt the structure for a new purpose in the future.Creationists like to denigrate the Darwinian mutation-selection machine, ignoring the power and ingenuity of the process. As I've asked before, though, aren't IC systems the only ones that RMNS didn't design? In that case, aren't hands and antennae and small ear bones all impressive testimony to the design capability of the Darwinian mechanism?regards,
Esteban Hambre