ID (Intelligent Design) = common ground for both TEs and Bible Creationists

[Resha Caner]

@BobRyan

I take it you don't plan to answer my question from post #56?

 

[Resha Caner]

The OP and title of this thread is an attempt at "giving" the TEs a leg to stand on ...

From my perspective it just comes off as condescending.

 

[stevevw]

ID is a silly god of the gaps argument. It’s saying the human ignorance is somehow God . Sorry not buying. But if you accept ID, There’s a nice bridge in Brooklyn that’s for sale, cheap!

to say that ID is a God of the gaps argument is an oxymoron. The basis of ID is to support design in nature through scientific investigation. It does not look to prove God or any supernatural being or event. That would contradict the very foundation of ID. I don't support ID as a whole and it does not matter if a person agrees with ID or not. But one cannot deny the basis that ID uses in its methods.

The Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents
An extensive look at the actual writings and arguments of those in the ID research community reveals that intelligent design is not an appeal to the supernatural, nor is it trying to "prove" the existence of God. The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.
Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"?

 

[BobRyan]

If it's possible to discern from a picture that they are different in the manner claimed, sure, that would work. It would be much easier to list the CGAT codes.

Listing codes is very different from encoding them... decoding them.. translating them into specific proteins "as needed" ... correcting sequences in them etc.

All the sorts of things that cannot be done with a chemistry set. Which is "odd" given that many evolutionists claim this is all just chemistry.

 

[BobRyan]

This got really side-tracked. I will note that the idea of common ground between creation and TE is something that interests me. It's worth a discussion.

The OP and title of this thread is an attempt at "giving" the TEs a leg to stand on .. "as if" they knew enough not to take the distinctively atheist tact that rejects the ID that we see in Romans 1.

It grants them the wisdom to not have unwittingly employed the atheist argument - that claims when God does something you would never know he had an ounce of intelligence by looking at what he did.

By contrast when we look at the art and invention of very intelligent members of mankind - WE DO expect to see irrefutable evidence of their skill and intelligence.

From my perspective it just comes off as condescending.

on the contrary - it was a concession.

There is a difference.

 

[BobRyan]

to say that ID is a God of the gaps argument is an oxymoron. The basis of ID is to support design in nature through scientific investigation. It does not look to prove God

bingo!

There you have it!

 

[BobRyan]

This got really side-tracked. I will note that the idea of common ground between creation and TE is something that interests me.

same here... it is a bit of a concession for the TE side of the discussion ... but highly useful to illustrate the underlying principles and world views in this field of differences.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Listing codes is very different from encoding them... decoding them.. translating them into specific proteins "as needed" ... correcting sequences in them etc.

All the sorts of things that cannot be done with a chemistry set. Which is "odd" given that many evolutionists claim this is all just chemistry.

If those things were not possible with a chemistry set, how do scientists even have a basis for believing there is such a thing as ID? The truth is no science subjects in the universe can exist without chemistry, so chemists have been encoding sets and decoding sets for centuries.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Not sure but they do try to fund politicians who’ll do things like restrict the rights of women,religious minorities and gays. They’ll try to Stop mainstream science from being taught in public schools . ID is actually part of their plan to actually change the USA government to become less secular. Google the Wedge Document. And of course, they spread propaganda like the USA being a Christian country when we’ve got no official religion and are forbidden to have one by the constitution.

This is itself is propaganda. There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the Wedge Document. Do you think the Humanist and atheist organizations are any different?

Have you read The Humanist Manifesto1? The American Humanists are quite clear that their agenda is to change the face of religion in America. Prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins are affiliated with this org. How about the Freedom From Religion Foundation? Again, strong affiliation with prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins (a member himself). You don't think they want to get rid of Christianity, or Abrahamic religion?

 

[Brightmoon]

This is itself is propaganda. There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the Wedge Document. Do you think the Humanist and atheist organizations are any different?

Have you read The Humanist Manifesto1? The American Humanists are quite clear that their agenda is to change the face of religion in America. Prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins are affiliated with this org. How about the Freedom From Religion Foundation? Again, strong affiliation with prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins (a member himself). You don't think they want to get rid of Christianity, or Abrahamic religion?

I really don’t give a rat’s behind about atheists and humanists opinions about religion. I’m Christian and I do care about having my life restricted by believers because I’m a woman . I do care about ignorant creationist pseudoscience being taught instead of science . I don’t want to see my gay or other alphabet soup neighbors, acquaintances and friends being mistreated or their lives restricted because of a Bronze Age social custom that shouldn’t be part of our modern society . I do care that my non Christian and atheist friends, neighbors, and acquaintances aren’t being mistreated or their lives restricted. No, I don’t want this secular USA country to become officially Christian as I think they’ll abuse people . The USA has a mainly Christian population but the government is officially secular and had been that way from the beginning. The Founding Father’s wanted it that way and we’re forbidden to have a government based religion anyway!

 

[Brightmoon]

I’ve read the humanist manifesto and much of it I agree with

 

[Brightmoon]

to say that ID is a God of the gaps argument is an oxymoron. The basis of ID is to support design in nature through scientific investigation. It does not look to prove God or any supernatural being or event. That would contradict the very foundation of ID. I don't support ID as a whole and it does not matter if a person agrees with ID or not. But one cannot deny the basis that ID uses in its methods.

The Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents
An extensive look at the actual writings and arguments of those in the ID research community reveals that intelligent design is not an appeal to the supernatural, nor is it trying to "prove" the existence of God. The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.
Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"?

. Intelligent Design was put on trial in 2005 in Dover . Maybe you ought to read the trial transcripts. The IDers didn’t want to charges with perjury so they had to tell the truth . ID is a not very sophisticated god- of-the- gaps argument that was designed to trick uneducated laymen into think that it was scientific.

The second problem with it is that you’d have to find “Design” in nature and determine how this is Design or not. You’ve got no parameters in place to determine that . So far all you’ve got is some wishy washy vague idea of its pretty or its kinda efficient so that’s Design. That kind of efficiency in living organisms can evolve so that isn’t what you mean .

 

[Roderick Spode]

I really don’t give a rat’s behind about atheists and humanists opinions about religion. I’m Christian and I do care about having my life restricted by believers because I’m a woman . I do care about ignorant creationist pseudoscience being taught instead of science . I don’t want to see my gay or other alphabet soup neighbors, acquaintances and friends being mistreated or their lives restricted because of a Bronze Age social custom that shouldn’t be part of our modern society . I do care that my non Christian and atheist friends, neighbors, and acquaintances aren’t being mistreated or their lives restricted. No, I don’t want this secular USA country to become officially Christian as I think they’ll abuse people . The USA has a mainly Christian population but the government is officially secular and had been that way from the beginning. The Founding Father’s wanted it that way and we’re forbidden to have a government based religion anyway!

I hope I don't go too far off topic. I could start another thread if that's the case.

You don't care about humanist and atheist orgs?

From the Humanist Manifesto 1


The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the
facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

Would you like to be told what/how to believe in your religion? I sure don't.

If I understand correctly, you claim that the ID proponents have an agenda to push Christianity into our government. I'm just showing you that there's another group that would to adjust our religion to their humanistic thinking. Many atheist orgs obviously want to see Christianity eventually eliminated. Do you want to be told that you can't congregate for worship?

You're worried about an official Christian nation? How is that going to happen being that the Body of Christ is divided into denominations? What I think you mean is a theocracy. So if you're worried about that, which denomination are you worried about? Which one do you think would take over our nation, forcing everyone into their denomination?

Concerned about the treatment of gays? If Christians historically as a whole were not tolerable, being that we have been a majority throughout history, don't you think it would be outlawed? It would appear Christians as a whole have been quite tolerant. I'm sure contemporary Christians are a lot more tolerant than our founding fathers.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I’ve read the humanist manifesto and much of it I agree with

I'm sure there are parts I agree with them as well. But not about telling us how to believe.

 

[Brightmoon]

I'm sure there are parts I agree with them as well. But not about telling us how to believe.

one of the things I’ve noticed about some fundies is that they’re quite willing to impose their views on others who don’t share them but it’s horrible if others want to express their own views . There are a lot of atheists who’d I absolutely agree with even to complaints about my faith . I’m willing to admit that there are some dogmas I don’t practice because they’re harmful and toxic

 

[Roderick Spode]

one of the things I’ve noticed about some fundies is that they’re quite willing to impose their views on others who don’t share them but it’s horrible if others want to express their own views . There are a lot of atheists who’d I absolutely agree with even to complaints about my faith . I’m willing to admit that there are some dogmas I don’t practice because they’re harmful and toxic

I think you're missing the point. There's nothing illegal about the humanist manifesto, as they are just giving their opinion. As long as it's just an opinion, fine. I have no problem with that. The point is that the humanist manifesto is not any less imposing than The Wedge Document. The WD is painted as a conspiracy theory. If the WD is a conspiracy to push religion into our government, then so is the humanist manifesto to adjust, or eliminate religion from society.

 

[The Barbarian]

Michael Denton is an IDer and a fellow of the Discovery Institute. Here's what he has to say about YE creationism:

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny (my emphasis)

 

[Roderick Spode]

Michael Denton is an IDer and a fellow of the Discovery Institute. Here's what he has to say about YE creationism:

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny (my emphasis)

This is interesting. But what exactly is the point you're making?

 

[The Barbarian]

While you see YE creationists like Philip Johnson touting ID, one of their own admits that ID is inconsistent with the Christian Creator in general, and the YE creationist creator specifically.

The reason is all the stuff about design is really a front for the governing goal of IDers:
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."

The movement is falling apart, largely due to the internal inconsistencies in this religious doctrine.

 

[Roderick Spode]

While you see YE creationists like Philip Johnson touting ID, one of their own admits that ID is inconsistent with the Christian Creator in general, and the YE creationist creator specifically.

The reason is all the stuff about design is really a front for the governing goal of IDers:
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."

The movement is falling apart, largely due to the internal inconsistencies in this religious doctrine.

I don't see Intelligent Design as a movement any more than the idea of Romans 1:20 being a movement.

Whether people accept Intelligent Design or not is an individual matter just like accepting the Gospel. I would go as far as to say ID may have been one of Richard Dawkins' portals to at least open up to the idea of a creator, and then the possibility of humans being accountable to a creator. He observed that nature gives the appearance of design. And not just that, but with purpose. Dawkins decided that in spite of this, he won't even consider a mere possibility (unless some aliens also subject to evolutionary change designed us).

And yes, I know a number of YECs are opposed to ID like Ken Hamm. But I would say the DI has nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, they should if anything be applauded (by Christians) for standing by the Gospel.