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

[Radrook]

I don't question God's hand in creation. I question the theory of creationism. 2 different things. If you want a neat label, I suppose you can call me a "theological evolutionist", although that, too, is a somewhat loaded term, and as such doesn't really represent my position.

What exactly concerning creationism do you disagree with?

 

[Armoured]

What exactly concerning creationism do you disagree with?

The parts that contradict observable objective evidence.

 

[Radrook]

The parts that contradict observable objective evidence.

Nothing wrong with that approach unless the evidence demands that we view Jesus as either delusional or a liar.

 

[Armoured]

Nothing wrong with that approach unless the evidence demands that view Jesus as either delusional or a liar.

I'm unaware of any such evidence.

 

[Radrook]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, though.

I never claimed that abiogenesis is synonymous with evolution.

 

[Armoured]

I never claimed that abiogenesis is synonymous with evolution.

The point is, arguments about abiogenesis do not support the "theory" of intelligent design.

 

[Radrook]

The point is, arguments about abiogenesis do not support the "theory" of intelligent design.

Some theistic evolutionists accept abiogenesis as being guided by an intelligent designer.

 

[Armoured]

Some theistic evolutionists accept abiogenesis as being guided by an intelligent designer.

Good for them. Is there any evidence of that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some theistic evolutionists accept abiogenesis as being guided by an intelligent designer.

Because their religious beliefs demand that.
Not because they have actual evidence indicating such.

 

[Radrook]

Good for them. Is there any evidence of that?

Since I don't make that claim you would need to ask them.

 

[Armoured]

What else would/could it be?

Indeed, I would suggest the ability to design and imbue life with those designed qualities from scratch is a fairly good qualifier for godhood.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since I don't make that claim you would need to ask them.

You don't make the claim that an intelligent designer had a hand in the origins of life?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Indeed, I would suggest the ability to design and imbue life with those designed qualities from scratch is a fairly good qualifier for godhood.

Really? We can already give life forms custom traits we desire, and we'll soon be able to design life forms from scratch with whatever traits we want - Craig Venter has already assembled a minimal bacterial genome and got it freely reproducing in the lab - it's only a question of adding in the genes we want. I don't think it'll make us 'gods' though.

 

[Radrook]

Indeed, I would suggest the ability to design and imbue life with those designed qualities from scratch is a fairly good qualifier for godhood.

Others might suggest extra-dimensional beings using extra dimensional technology.
Or alternate universe beings using their technology to tamper with other universes.
Or aliens who prepared the Earth and seeded our earth with life as in the film 2001 Space Odyssey. So the conclusion of God isn't necessary from the ID viewpoint as you seem to insist.
All ID proposes is intelligent design.

 

[Armoured]

Really? We can already give life forms custom traits we desire, and we'll soon be able to design life forms from scratch with whatever traits we want - Craig Venter has already assembled a minimal bacterial genome and got it freely reproducing in the lab - it's only a question of adding in the genes we want. I don't think it'll make us 'gods' though.

That cutting and pasting extant genes wasn't really what I had in mind.

 

[Armoured]

Others might suggest extra-dimensional beings using extra dimensional technology.
Or alternate universe beings using their technology to tamper with other universes.
Or aliens who prepared the Earth and seeded our earth with life as in the film 2001 Space Odyssey. So the conclusion of God isn't necessary from the ID viewpoint as you seem to insist.
All ID proposes is intelligent design.

What's the difference between those and gods?

Further, you think that abiogenesis is problematic because it can't be fully explained (yet) but you're fine with a theory that rests on "extra-dimensional beings using extra dimensional technology."?

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts have been removed for off topic discussion of each other.

 

[Radrook]

What's the difference between those and gods?

Further, you think that abiogenesis is problematic because it can't be fully explained (yet) but your fine with a theory that rests on "extra-dimensional beings using extra dimensional technology."?

I never claimed that ID postulates those beings. I clearly said that it postulates intelligent design. YOU asked what other than a God or god could ever be imagined as being an intelligent designer. I mentioned those as alternatives which non theists might imagine. I did not say that ID postulates them.

I never claimed that I find abiogenesis is problematic simply because it cannot be explained. I said that it isn't evident in nature and can't be made to happen in a lab. So why postulate it as happening to begin with?

 

[Armoured]

I never claimed that ID postulates those beings. I clearly said that it postulates intelligent design. YOU asked what other than a God or god could ever be imagined as being an intelligent designer. I mentioned those as alternatives which non theists might imagine. I did not say that ID postulates them.

I never claimed that I find abiogenesis is problematic simply because it cannot be explained. I said that it isn't evident in nature and can't be made to happen in a lab. So why postulate it as happening to begin with?

"Intelligent design" can't be replicated in a lab, either. So why postulate it as happening to begin with?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never claimed that ID postulates those beings. I clearly said that it postulates intelligent design. YOU asked what other than a God or god could ever be imagined as being an intelligent designer. I mentioned those as alternatives which non theists might imagine. I did not say that ID postulates them.

Hilarious. It posits an "intelligent designer", but really, it postis no "intelligent designer". Awesome.

I never claimed that I find abiogenesis is problematic simply because it cannot be explained. I said that it isn't evident in nature and can't be made to happen in a lab.

That's literally the same as saying that it is unexplained.

So why postulate it as happening to begin with?

Because it factually did. Once there was no life and then there was. So life DID originate one way or the other.