An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[KCfromNC]

I am not questioning your honesty concerning what was said. I am questioning the premise that it represents what ID stands for simply because that individual made that statement which is now being given a meaning way far beyond what he originally intended it to mean.

Why are you questioning that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's what we all see. I would like to point out that none of that denies the existence of God or rules out His creative involvement with the universe. Those who attempt to "see" something different have another agenda, beyond that of asserting a creator god's existence

I agree that there's nothing to contradict the - I guess, pantheist - idea that the relatively simple rules that appear to underlie the development and behaviour of the universe are the result of the ongoing activities of a supernatural entity; but it seems redundant if we can instead accept that these rules are simply determined by the physical nature of the universe.

There's also nothing to contradict the idea that a deity created the whole thing - we don't know how it came about; but it's not an idea that has any utility beyond the psychological - it has no explanatory or predictive power, and raises more questions than it answers, which invalidates it as a scientific explanation.

That people are habituated to thinking in these terms is not a good reason to think they're realistic. They may provide useful or important psychological support - people have a long history of creating ideas and concepts that help give organization, structure, and meaning to their lives.

 

[Speedwell]

There's also nothing to contradict the idea that a deity created the whole thing - we don't know how it came about; but it's not an idea that has any utility beyond the psychological...

Is it supposed to?-

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is it supposed to?-

You tell me - if you're content that it is just a psychological prop, without other relevance or meaning, I'd be rather surprised - but you can believe whatever you like.

 

[Speedwell]

You tell me - if you're content that it is just a psychological prop, without other relevance or meaning, I'd be rather surprised - but you can believe whatever you like.

Not "just." That demeans it. In Christian theology, God sent Jesus to tell us of our salvation. He could have "saved" us without telling us about it. No, you summed it up quite nicely--the purpose of religion, whether created by God, or created by man--or a bit of both--is to make us feel better about the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

 

[Radrook]

Why are you questioning that?

It makes it seem as if that warped interpretation stands for the official ID view.

 

[evoeth]

Why do you deny that there is a "mind" behind all we see and know...?

Why do you assume? Beyond claims of "it's obvious" where's the proof?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not "just." That demeans it.

Sorry; is 'no more than' better (because that's what I meant) ?

In Christian theology, God sent Jesus to tell us of our salvation. He could have "saved" us without telling us about it. No, you summed it up quite nicely--the purpose of religion, whether created by God, or created by man--or a bit of both--is to make us feel better about the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

That's fine, as long as it doesn't impinge on the interests of those who don't find it useful that way.

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry; is 'no more than' better (because that's what I meant) ?

That's fine, as long as it doesn't impinge on the interests of those who don't find it useful that way.

Of course. The only way to spread the Gospel is to witness. If you like a guy's act well enough to ask him why he's that way then maybe he will have a chance to convert you.
I don't like the idea of being able to "prove" theism or Christianity using science. In the first place, I think that it is impossible. But more importantly, it smacks of an attempt at coercion. ID is a particularly egregious example of this--The Discovery Institute has made no secret of their political ambitions.

 

[KCfromNC]

It makes it seem as if that warped interpretation stands for the official ID view.

If not the people who made it up, where should I go to find the "official ID view"?

 

[Radrook]

If not the people who made it up, where should I go to find the "official ID view"?

Warping the meaning of what was said is the issue.

 

[KCfromNC]

Warping the meaning of what was said is the issue.

Still not seeing where we should go to get the "official ID view". Are you saying that the people who made it up were lying about it under oath?

 

[Larniavc]

It need not be and isn't for those approaching it properly:

What is the criteria to determine whether something is designed?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not questioning your honesty concerning what was said. I am questioning the premise that it represents what ID stands for simply because that individual made that statement which is now being given a meaning way far beyond what he originally intended it to mean.

Intelligent Design and Astrology - Randal Rauser

Dude.... what he "intended" to mean, was pretty straightforward.

If ID qualifies as science, then so does astrology.

See, what qualifies as a scientific hypothesis, is subject to pretty strict criteria. For ID to qualify as science, they have to change those criteria.
Under those revised criteria, astrology also qualifies as science.

From the horse's mouth.
You talk about "that individual" as if what Behe says doesn't really matter or something. You appear to not be a aware that ID is his model.

The "arguments" you bring here (argument from complexity, irreducible complexity, specified complexity, etc) are all his arguments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It makes it seem as if that warped interpretation stands for the official ID view.

LOL!

Dude... as I said.... that IS the "official ID view".
Every single argument you have given here, is word-for-word the nonsense that those people have come up with.

You don't seem to understand this.

Behe is to ID what Newton is to the laws of motion.
Behe is to ID what Einstein is to relativity.
Behe is to ID what Darwin is to natural selection.
Behe is to ID what Farraday is to electro-magnetism.

Again, just to be extra clear: every single argument you have given here, is a word-for-word repeat of Behe's ideas. For all intents and purposes, it is his model and his ideas that you keep repeating.

If that isn't the "official ID view", then I don't know what is.
And neither do you, apparantly, since every argument you keep repeating here is a word-for-word repeat of what those people are saying....

 

[Radrook]

Dude.... what he "intended" to mean, was pretty straightforward.

If ID qualifies as science, then so does astrology.

See, what qualifies as a scientific hypothesis, is subject to pretty strict criteria. For ID to qualify as science, they have to change those criteria.
Under those revised criteria, astrology also qualifies as science.

From the horse's mouth.
You talk about "that individual" as if what Behe says doesn't really matter or something. You appear to not be a aware that ID is his model.

The "arguments" you bring here (argument from complexity, irreducible complexity, specified complexity, etc) are all his arguments.

In other words the link I provided with the explanation of what what Behe meant you reject as non-evidence.
That is the reason why your repeated requests for evidence are ignored.

 

[Radrook]

LOL!

Dude... as I said.... that IS the "official ID view".
Every single argument you have given here, is word-for-word the nonsense that those people have come up with.

You don't seem to understand this.

Behe is to ID what Newton is to the laws of motion.
Behe is to ID what Einstein is to relativity.
Behe is to ID what Darwin is to natural selection.
Behe is to ID what Farraday is to electro-magnetism.

Again, just to be extra clear: every single argument you have given here, is a word-for-word repeat of Behe's ideas. For all intents and purposes, it is his model and his ideas that you keep repeating.

If that isn't the "official ID view", then I don't know what is.
And neither do you, apparantly, since every argument you keep repeating here is a word-for-word repeat of what those people are saying....

Sorry but I find your view of the origin of life totally irrational. So I will choose the logical alternative.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In other words the link I provided with the explanation of what what Behe meant you reject as non-evidence.
That is the reason why your repeated requests for evidence are ignored.

Your link doesn't change what the guy declared under oath.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry but I find your view of the origin of life totally irrational. So I will choose the logical alternative.

1. You don't know what my view is concerning the origins of life, because I never told you and neither have you ever asked me.

2. Finding view A irrational is not a proper or rational justification to then just go for B instead.

3. This statement has literally NO RELEVANCE to the post you are replying to.

 

[Armoured]

An intelligent design would require an intelligent designer.

But then, show us a biological phenomenon that is demonstrably the product of intelligent design?