Intelligent Design and Creation revisted
Anti-IDists are truly clueless- another sign of their desparation. Why is it that IDists and Creationists understand that the two are NOT the same but the people who know the least about either always try to conflate the two?
Over on TelicThoughts Mike Gene offers some one-stop shopping for those interested in the ID = Creationism meme.
Read the essay and follow the links to the reveal agenda-driven lunacy of the anti-ID camp.
It is amazing what some people will do when their faith is challenged.
The reason for revisiting this topic is the raw spewage I read on Panda's Thumb:
Clueless anti-IDists
It is good for a laugh, poor clueless cupcakes...
Over on TelicThoughts Mike Gene offers some one-stop shopping for those interested in the ID = Creationism meme.
Read the essay and follow the links to the reveal agenda-driven lunacy of the anti-ID camp.
It is amazing what some people will do when their faith is challenged.
The reason for revisiting this topic is the raw spewage I read on Panda's Thumb:
Clueless anti-IDists
It is good for a laugh, poor clueless cupcakes...
posted by Joe G @ 8:39 AM
22 Comments:
At 1:03 PM,
Steve said…
How about because Intelligent Design is basically a synonym for creationism (note the small c). Even if you espouse the idea that it isn't some sort of divine creator (e.g. your a Raelian) the notion of ID means that some intelligence designed...created what you are inferring design from.
That is Behe's claim that the E. coli flagellum is designed is that it was created by some un-named intelligence. Something came along and put those parts together. That is the very definition of creation.
The philosopher of science also argues that with a few additional assumptions to the ID argument, the conclusion that the designer is divine is pretty strong. For example, Gonzalez' argument about design based on the Anthropic Principle (plus his notion of observability, etc.) strongly suggest that the designer has to be a transcendental being that is supernatural.
This conclusion is as whacky as you like to make it. It is actually quite reasonable. Especially when one considers that every single prominent IDCist (Dembski, Behe, Nelson, Wells, etc.) out there believes that the designer is God.
At 6:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Steve:
How about because Intelligent Design is basically a synonym for creationism (note the small c).
Only to those who know little to nothing about either. Why is that?
Steve:
Even if you espouse the idea that it isn't some sort of divine creator (e.g. your a Raelian) the notion of ID means that some intelligence designed...created what you are inferring design from.
By that broad brush stroke Charles Darwin was a Creationist, which makes the ToE a Creation theory and evolutionists are creationists (small c):
"On the Origins of Species..." 6th Edition:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Steve:
That is Behe's claim that the E. coli flagellum is designed is that it was created by some un-named intelligence. Something came along and put those parts together. That is the very definition of creation.
It is also Behe's claim that the bac flag could have been pre-programmed, as in front-end loading, to evolve. His premise is that unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes cannot account for it.
There are many IDists who do not say the designer is "God". By your illogic by what Dennett and Dawkins say the ToE is an atheistic theory.
And one more time- even the anti-ID position requires something outside of nature as natural processes only exist in nature and as such cannot account for its origins.
It is also very telling that you avoided all the arguments against the notion that ID=Creation.
Dr Behe:
"Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." "
"Not so, said Behe, during often heated exchanges with counsel for the plaintiffs during cross-examination. Creationism is "180 degrees different from intelligent design," he said. "Creationism is a theological concept. Intelligent design is a scientific theory that relies on physical, empirical, observable evidence in nature plus logical inferences."
Under direct examination, Behe said that intelligent design takes no position on key elements of creationism, such as an Earth age of less than 10,000 years believed by many creationists, and makes no reference to the Bible or a creator."
Then there are the Creationist orgs that denounce ID.
So again why is it the people that know the least about Creation or ID the people on an anti-ID agenda, the only people who attempt to conflate the two?
And the bottom line is science must follow the data. Even if that data leads to the true Creationists being correct.
At 6:43 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW, the reason the designer is un-named is because the ONLY way to make that determination in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by following the data. Only an imbecile (read anti-IDist) would insist the designer is of any relevance in light of that.
At 9:16 PM,
Joe G said…
For the record I am not a Christian- I was for much of my life but that has changed.
I do not hold that the designer has to be "God". Eternal salvation, personal redemption, a personal God, the Holy Bible, the Noble Qur'an, could all be falsified/ refuted/ nonsense I would be OK with it and ID would not be phased.
The IDists who claim the designer is "God" readily admit they do so out of faith, which is OK.
The greatest scientists throughout history all accpted they were figuring out "God's" handiwork. Does that mean that Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Linne, Pasteur et al. were not conducting science? Or does that mean that IDists and Creationists can only have the scientific ability they possessed?
Yes they were conducting science and I am OK with being as scientifically knowledgeable as those guys. I would wish such a thing on all students. Any reasonable person would.
At 1:16 AM,
Steve said…
Only to those who know little to nothing about either. Why is that?
I can see my comment about the "small 'c'" went right over your head. Is a car designed? Yes. Was it created? Yes. Are intelligent design proponents "creationists" by this definition? Yes.
That is pretty much the end of it. All your handwaving wont change this basic bit of solid logical reasoning. But do carry on with multiple posts to my single comment. I have to admit watching your melt-downs is damn fun.
At 1:28 AM,
Steve said…
By that broad brush stroke Charles Darwin was a Creationist, which makes the ToE a Creation theory and evolutionists are creationists (small c):
Uhmmm...not unless you consider nature the designer, which then renders "intelligent design" completely null and void.
And yes, many who believe in God and evolution are creationists. Doesn't bother me in the least. Kenneth Miller is probably one of the best known examples of this. So what? This doesn't make IDC any more correct.
It is also Behe's claim that the bac flag could have been pre-programmed, as in front-end loading, to evolve. His premise is that unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes cannot account for it.
Irrelevant sophistry. Some intelligence had to create the "pre-programming/front loading".
There are many IDists who do not say the designer is "God". By your illogic by what Dennett and Dawkins say the ToE is an atheistic theory.
I never wrote anything of the sort. I dare you to lay out in clear terms how this follows from anything I've written. My guess is you cannot.
Then there are the Creationist orgs that denounce ID.
Big deal, religious in-fighting, probably as old as prostitution, which is damn old. This gets a big yawn from me.
Behe can protest his non-creationist views all he wants, but I know he is religious and hence I consider his statements to be untruthful. Admitting one believes in creation and evolutionary theory does not mean taking contradictory positions.
And the bottom line is science must follow the data. Even if that data leads to the true Creationists being correct.
Ha ha ha ha. Now that is precious. "ID isn't creationism! It just isn't cuz Behe says so, and dammit it ain't! But the data could lead to shoing that Creationism is true!" Ha ha ha ha. No that was funny.
BTW, the reason the designer is un-named is because the ONLY way to make that determination in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by following the data. Only an imbecile (read anti-IDist) would insist the designer is of any relevance in light of that.
No, all IDCists of major importance know precisely who the designer is. Now before you run off half-cocked (probably too late for that, but...) that doesn't mean that they all agree on what the designer is. My guess is that in the unlikely event that IDC "wins" (by political manuevering) then the IDCists will, in short order turn on each other. That always seems to be the way it is with religious types.
At 7:52 AM,
Joe G said…
By that broad brush stroke Charles Darwin was a Creationist, which makes the ToE a Creation theory and evolutionists are creationists (small c):
Steve:
Uhmmm...not unless you consider nature the designer, which then renders "intelligent design" completely null and void.
That is false as evidnced by Darwin's own words. Talk about dishonesty.
And btw, nature couldn't have created itself- duh.
Steve:
And yes, many who believe in God and evolution are creationists. Doesn't bother me in the least. Kenneth Miller is probably one of the best known examples of this.
Ken Miller disagrees with you. Go figure.
It is also Behe's claim that the bac flag could have been pre-programmed, as in front-end loading, to evolve. His premise is that unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes cannot account for it.
Steve:
Irrelevant sophistry.
Why? Because it refutes your nonsense? LoL!
Steve:
Some intelligence had to create the "pre-programming/front loading".
Most say there is a difference between creating and designing. THAT is the main sticking point for most Creationists. They don't like that God designed.
There are many IDists who do not say the designer is "God". By your illogic by what Dennett and Dawkins say the ToE is an atheistic theory.
Steve:
ever wrote anything of the sort. I dare you to lay out in clear terms how this follows from anything I've written. My guess is you cannot.
Easily done-> Ya see when you start saying things like "And yes, many who believe in God and evolution are creationists",that proves my point.
Then there are the Creationist orgs that denounce ID.
Steve:
Big deal, religious in-fighting, probably as old as prostitution, which is damn old. This gets a big yawn from me.
No religious infighting at all. ID has nothing to do with religion. It may have religious implications but only imbeciles conflate implications with the theory.
Steve:
Behe can protest his non-creationist views all he wants, but I know he is religious and hence I consider his statements to be untruthful.
I consider your statements to be untruthful. Not only do they not make sense but they are refuted by reality.
Steve:
Admitting one believes in creation and evolutionary theory does not mean taking contradictory positions.
They are contradictory. Ya see logic dicttates that is life did not arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process then there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose via those type of processes. And therefore the current ToE is contradicted.
And the bottom line is science must follow the data. Even if that data leads to the true Creationists being correct.
Steve:
Ha ha ha ha. Now that is precious. "ID isn't creationism! It just isn't cuz Behe says so, and dammit it ain't!
ID isn't Creation for the many reasons presented. The reasons you keep avoiding. That is prcious and demonstrates your intellectual cowardice.
Steve:
But the data could lead to shoing that Creationism is true!" Ha ha ha ha. No that was funny.
The Socratic Principle- "Follow the evidence to where ever it leads"- it is how science should be conducted. I knew you wouldn't understand.
BTW, the reason the designer is un-named is because the ONLY way to make that determination in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by following the data. Only an imbecile (read anti-IDist) would insist the designer is of any relevance in light of that.
Steve:
No, all IDCists of major importance know precisely who the designer is.
Already explained and also false. David Berlinski refutes your statement- a major player in ID and an agnostic.
BTW evolutionists turn on each other daily. So what?
At 8:02 AM,
Joe G said…
Only to those who know little to nothing about either. Why is that?
Steve:
I can see my comment about the "small 'c'" went right over your head.
Another false accusation- is that all you have left?
Steve:
Are intelligent design proponents "creationists" by this definition? Yes.
And by your broad brush stroke Darwin was a Creationist and his theary a theory of Creation.
Steve:
That is pretty much the end of it. All your handwaving wont change this basic bit of solid logical reasoning.
YOU have yet to provide any reasoning and you completely ignore the rerasoning which demonstrates you are FoS. Go figure...
By your reasonong everyone is a creationist because nature didn't create itself...
At 8:05 AM,
Joe G said…
for the objective reader:
Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
In reality, there are a variety of reasons why ID should not be confused with creationism:
1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.
Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.
2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.
Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)
3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.
The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation…." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.
4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.
Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.
5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.
Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)
Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) For a particularly egregious example of use of this term, see Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by Robert T. Pinnock (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
(2) Richard Ostling, AP Writer, March 14, 2002.
(3) For good introductions to intelligent design theory, see Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996); Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer, Science & Evidence For Design in the Universe (Ignatius, 2000); William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman and Littlefield, 2002); and Unlocking the Mystery of Life video documentary (Illustra Media, 2002).
(4) Carl Wieland, "AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement," August 30, 2002, available at http://www.answersingenesis.org.
(5) Henry M. Morris, "Design is not Enough!", Institute for Creation Research, July 1999, available at: http://www.icr.org/.
(6) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1996), 6.
(7) E.O. Wilson, Consilience (New York: Vintage Books, 1998).
(8) Eugenie Scott, interview with ColdWater Media, September 2002. Courtesy of ColdWater Media.
(9) Phina Borgeson, "Introduction to the Congregational Study Guide for Evolution," National Center for Science Education, 2001, available at www.ncseweb.org.
(10) Robert Wright, Time, March 11, 2002.
At 8:09 AM,
Joe G said…
Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis
Only losers try to redefine terms to suit their agenda. And guess what Steve is trying to do?
At 3:46 PM,
Steve said…
And by your broad brush stroke Darwin was a Creationist and his theary a theory of Creation.
Only losers redefine words right? Guess you're a loser too. Go on, keep it up with the contradictory posts. Watching you squirm and worm is amusing.
Most say there is a difference between creating and designing. THAT is the main sticking point for most Creationists. They don't like that God designed.
Semantical Bravo Sierra. You expect anyone to believe that the designs weren't implmented? Please.
There are many IDists who do not say the designer is "God". By your illogic by what Dennett and Dawkins say the ToE is an atheistic theory.
Uhhhmmmm no. Not unless Dennet and Dawkins make-up most of the people who believe in evolutionary theory. Another one of your statements is wrong.
Easily done-> Ya see when you start saying things like "And yes, many who believe in God and evolution are creationists",that proves my point.
No it doesn't. It says nothing about atheism and evolutionary theory. In fact, it says the opposite. That believing in both is possible.
I consider your statements to be untruthful. Not only do they not make sense but they are refuted by reality.
You mean Behe isn't a Catholic? So was he lying that he's a Catholic then or is he lying that he isn't a Creationist (i.e. believes God had a role in creating the world/universe)? Which one is the lie because they both can't be true.
Oh...another contradictory comment from you.
By your reasonong everyone is a creationist because nature didn't create itself...
Atheists would disagree with you.
And this is really way outside the bounds of evolutionary theory as evolutionary theory is not a theory of origins of the universe. Not that I expect you to understand.
Now, I'll wait for you to contradict yourself again.
At 8:10 AM,
Joe G said…
And by your broad brush stroke Darwin was a Creationist and his theary a theory of Creation.
Steve:
Only losers redefine words right?
Yes- once again DARWIN's own words:
"...having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;"
There is no doubt that Darwin was a Creationist by YOUR standard.
There are many IDists who do not say the designer is "God". By your illogic by what Dennett and Dawkins say the ToE is an atheistic theory.
Steve:
Uhhhmmmm no. Not unless Dennet and Dawkins make-up most of the people who believe in evolutionary theory.
It would be safe to say that most evolutionists are atheists. And given your standard of what makes a evolutionist you have to agree.
By your reasonong everyone is a creationist because nature didn't create itself...
Steve:
Atheists would disagree with you.
I don't know of any atheists who say nature created itself and even if they did it is obvious they don't have any data to support that premise. Talk about logical impossibilities.
Steve:
And this is really way outside the bounds of evolutionary theory as evolutionary theory is not a theory of origins of the universe. Not that I expect you to understand.
Actually it is all conected. Only the completely dishonest would try to disconnect the obvious.
At 9:28 AM,
Joe G said…
RH:
I understand where Steve is coming from with the small 'c' and I can see that you Joe have difficulty grasping this basic principle.
I understood the small 'c' and I think it is hillarious that some people think I didn't. It really shows the extent of their inference skills- very limited.
RH:
I don't know of any ID supporters who say that the designer created himself/herself and even if they did it is obvious they don't have any data to support that premise.
Umm ID is NOT about the designer and therefore your statement is irrelevant.
However my statement- that nature could not create itself" is relevant because it is the anti-IDists who try to get ID kicked out of science because of its supernatural implications. Yet those same people face the SAME supernatural implications.
For example natural processes cannot account for the origins of nature as natural processes only exist in nature. Therefore all scenarios boil down to something outside of nature, ie the supernatural. It cannot be avoided. THAT is the point.
Who designed the designer?
Ya see ID does NOT care about the designer, just the design. As I have posted many times the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer in the absemce of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design. And yes science and other investigative fields have processes in place that aid us in differentiating between intentional design and what nature, acting alone, can do.
So what is it that prevents tried and true design detection methodology from being used in biology?
At 1:16 PM,
Joe G said…
to recap:
I post that ID does not equal Creation, note the cap. C, as the basic majority of anti-IDists try to claim. Even Steve posted IDC, note the cap. C, in another thread.
Steve responds with:
How about because Intelligent Design is basically a synonym for creationism (note the small c).
I should have just ended it right there as Steve is clearly moving the goalpost to some agenda-driven field.
Do anti-IDists bother to make this distinction when speaking? How can one tell a cap. C from a small c during a conversation?
IOW Steve employs the "weasel" tactic.
There is only one word, that I know of, that when the first letter is capitalized that the meaning and pronounciation, are changed. (HINTs: think of a six letter word- first letter p)
All further responses will be restricted to the OP, which deals with ID being equated to Creation(ism).
Your whining distractions from the topic, although typical & entertaining, are no longer welcome here. But they do serve to demonstrate the decptive tactics anti-IDists have to use to further their anti-science agenda.
At 9:44 AM,
Joe G said…
RH:
Joe - "who designed the designer" is key to the whole argument of ID and Evolution.
Only to those who do not understand logic and reasoning. Ya see Richard the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question.
Richard:
By arguing that evolution is not possible and then stating that the origin of the designer, which ultimately must have been through a natural process of some kind, is irrelevant, is the most stupid thing I have read on ID since I have been researching it.
Umm natural process only exist in nature. Therefore if the designer arsoe via natural process then nature already existed. Yet how can nature exist if natural processes could not account for it?
And IF evolutionists actually provided some substantiating data, as opposed to the diatribe we get, perhaps ID would go away. However that does not seem likely, for reasons provided in other threads.
Saying the origin of the designer ultimately must have been through a natural process of some kind, is purely idiotic.
Richard:
The link you provided is limited also as we are not talking about the design of an object by a human being we are talking about the design of life itself and/or the universe and the origins of life.
What is it that prevents tried and true design detection methodology from being used in biology?
Richard:
I agree with you that ID and Creationism are not linked.
Thank you.
Richard:
But to say that you can argue we are designed because it is impossible for us to have evolved,...
I never said nor implied that. I have made it clear in this blog that we infer design (ID) from the data we have, not for the lack of data for evolutionism. BTW ID is OK with common descent, ie evolution.
Richard:
...and then say that the designer is irrelevant because by definition somewhere in history the first designer must have evolved is a way of sticking your head in the sand.
Why must the the first designer have to have evolved? The designer is irrelevant to ID because ID is about the design. Also there isn't any sound reasoning behind your claim that the designer had to have evolved.
Why is it that nature and/ or natural processes and/or evolution can be around forever but a designer cannot?
It could be that the designer always was. But we cannot make that determination until we get to that part of the investigation. That is just a fact of life.
At 6:34 PM,
Steve said…
It could be that the designer always was. But we cannot make that determination until we get to that part of the investigation. That is just a fact of life.
But IDCists don't want to "get to that part of the investigation". Here is William Dembski on that point.
As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
In other words, trying to learn about the designer, the where, when, how, and why of it all are not even allowed, at least by Dembski.
The real irony here is that one the one hand IDCists complain about the lack of detail on the part of evolutionary theory, but on the other hand deny that they even have to try and clear this hurdle. For them, the get special dispensation when it comes to data, evidence and so forth. Yet Joe G. keeps telling us, "Its the data...the data that points to design." In reality, there is no evidence for design.
At 8:13 AM,
Joe G said…
Richard:
OK let's try this a different way....the universe as we know it is nature,
And science tells us the universe as we know it, ie nature, had a beginning, an origin. That which has (had) a beginning had (has) a cause. And it is obvious that nature could not have originated via natural processes as natural processes ONLY exist in nature.
Richard:
So how did the designer come to exist in that environment, within which he/she/it was able to design and create our universe?
As Dr. Behe stated, that may be inaccessible to science. It is also irrelevant to know anythiung about the designer in order to detect and understand the design.
Richard:
The reason this is extremely relevant to the ID debate is that the key argument is that there is insufficient evidence that intelligence could have come about via pure natural processes.
And nature could not have originated via natural processes. That is just a fact.
So what is it about the following that you don't understand?
It could be that the designer always was. But we cannot make that determination until we get to that part of the investigation. That is just a fact of life.
People who want all the answers before the investigation just are not interested in science. And it figures that anti-IDists always want all the answers from ID. Tis is puzzling because they don't have any answers to offer, except for sheer dumb luck.
At 8:26 AM,
Joe G said…
It could be that the designer always was. But we cannot make that determination until we get to that part of the investigation. That is just a fact of life.
Steve:
But IDCists don't want to "get to that part of the investigation".
IDCists only exist in the minds of the mantally retarded. So that is the first hurdle.
Also it is that ID does not care about the designer. IDists may. And ID doesn't care for the many reasons already provided in this blog.
Steve:
In other words, trying to learn about the designer, the where, when, how, and why of it all are not even allowed, at least by Dembski.
It may not be allowed by ID. But that is the same as abiogenesis being separate from any theory of evolution.
Steve:
Yet Joe G. keeps telling us, "Its the data...the data that points to design." In reality, there is no evidence for design.
Then I guess we don't exist because there certainly isn't any data that supports the anti-ID position. If there is it is funny that neither you nor anyone else has presented it.
Identifying the Designer
"Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?"
So again Steve demonstrates how little he understands about ID. And it appears Richard is with him. Oh well...
At 1:49 PM,
Steve said…
IDCists only exist in the minds of the mantally retarded. So that is the first hurdle.
Also it is that ID does not care about the designer. IDists may. And ID doesn't care for the many reasons already provided in this blog.
But this is the true "science stopper" here. Without discussing the designer, the designer's methods, etc. there is no way to evluate the ID hypothesis. For ID to be anything remotely close to science and to get away from Creationism (in the big 'C' religious sense) is to put forward some information about the designer and the design process.
It may not be allowed by ID. But that is the same as abiogenesis being separate from any theory of evolution.
This is load of misleading pap. While evolutionary theory draws a distinction between the process of evolution and the processes of abiogenesis nothing is stopping researchers from looking at the processes of both.
When it comes to ID we have Joe G. posting screeds about how things like the design process are irrelevant, about who designed the designer and so forth are beside the point. The double standard and blatant hypocrisy is all too obvious.
Then I guess we don't exist because there certainly isn't any data that supports the anti-ID position. If there is it is funny that neither you nor anyone else has presented it.
Really? You deny that there is fossil evidence suggesting that early hominids evolved into later hominids? You deny random mutation, gene flow, and natural selection? You deny speciation? These are all processes in the "anti-ID position". There is evidence supporting each one, unlike ID. There are experiments on all of these processes, unlike ID.
At 9:58 AM,
Joe G said…
IDCists only exist in the minds of the mentally retarded. So that is the first hurdle.
Also it is that ID does not care about the designer. IDists may. And ID doesn't care for the many reasons already provided in this blog.
Steve:
But this is the true "science stopper" here.
Only to those who don’t understand reality.
Steve:
Without discussing the designer, the designer's methods, etc. there is no way to evluate the ID hypothesis.
But the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the methods, in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question. THAT is how it is done in the real world.
Steve:
For ID to be anything remotely close to science and to get away from Creationism (in the big 'C' religious sense) is to put forward some information about the designer and the design process.
That is only a “requirement” for those not interested in reality.
It may not be allowed by ID. But that is the same as abiogenesis being separate from any theory of evolution.
Steve:
This is load of misleading pap.
Only to a moron.
Steve:
While evolutionary theory draws a distinction between the process of evolution and the processes of abiogenesis nothing is stopping researchers from looking at the processes of both.
Abiogenesis and evolution are directly linked. If life did not arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes.
And nothing is stopping researchers from looking into the identity of the designer or the methods used. Again those are separate questions.
Steve:
When it comes to ID we have Joe G. posting screeds about how things like the design process are irrelevant, about who designed the designer and so forth are beside the point. The double standard and blatant hypocrisy is all too obvious.
Reality refutes Steve yet again. In reality we do NOT have to know the designer or the process in order to determine intentional design. We can learn about both but only by studying the design (that is in the absence of direct observation or designer input).
Then I guess we don't exist because there certainly isn't any data that supports the anti-ID position. If there is it is funny that neither you nor anyone else has presented it.
Steve:
Really? You deny that there is fossil evidence suggesting that early hominids evolved into later hominids?
Mechanism butthead. It’s ALL about the mechanism and fossils cannot help. And then there is the lack of experimental data that would confirm the premise.
Steve:
You deny random mutation, gene flow, and natural selection?
Nope. There just isn’t any data that demonstrates they can do what evolutionitwits claim they can and did.
Steve:
You deny speciation?
Nope, even in all its ambiguity.
Steve:
These are all processes in the "anti-ID position".
They are also processes in the ID, Creation and theistic evo positions.
Steve:
There is evidence supporting each one, unlike ID.
There isn’t any evidence those processes can do anything except to slightly alter an already existing population.
Steve:
There are experiments on all of these processes, unlike ID.
But the experiments do NOT substantiate the claims.
At 1:43 PM,
Joe G said…
Steve:
In other words, trying to learn about the designer, the where, when, how, and why of it all are not even allowed, at least by Dembski.
Dishonest nonsense. Dembski makes it clear in "No Free Lunch" that thsoe are separate questions and anyone is free to try to answer them. However reality makes it clear that one need not know the designer, the method, where or when in order to first detect and then attempt to understand the design.
Reality demonstrates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the ONLY possible way to make any determination on those unanswered questions is by studying the design in question.
And anyone familiar with ID knows that ID was formualted to cover the "detect and understanding" part.
Wm Dembski:
"Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?"
At 9:04 AM,
Joe G said…
RH:
So how did the designer come to exist in that environment, within which he/she/it was able to design and create our universe?.
How is that relevant to the detection and understanding of the design? It isn't.
Ya see Richard only that which has a beginning requires a cause. We know, via scientific investigation, that our universe had a beginning. And until we can study the designer we cannot determine if the designer had a beginning.
The designer and the process are separate questions. That you and others keep trying to conflate the designer with ID just further exposes your imbecilic anti-ID agenda.
Post a Comment
<< Home