Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, the ID left themselves open for that by their dishonesty and it was their own term. "Evilutionist" is a term invented by rather dishonest creationists.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Kinda like "cdesign proponentsists"?
The complexity in our "design" doesn't always show intelligence.
Countless people including children die every year from simply choking on food because a supposed intelligent designer gave us the same orifice to both eat and breath from. Where is the intelligence in that?
Another issue is using an intelligent designer as a scapegoat because we cannot yet explain the origin of life. It doesn't give us any real answers, only more questions.
If the human body is that complex it requires a designer, then the logic follows that the designer if he is at least as complex as humans also requires a designer. A designer of a designer, and so on.
It is a rabbit hole with no satisfactory ending.
Hi JimmyD. Do you see a difference between the categories of intelligent design and Creationists (or are they they same in your understanding)?
I think probably one of my favorite examples of this kind of interpretation is the watchmaker analogy and the solar system. We have watches which are based on the movements of the solar system. We see intelligence in the watches but we do not see intelligence behind the solar system, and the only difference appears to be that humans have experience with watch-making while we do not have experience with solar system-making. In other words, if humans didn't make it, then it is not intelligently designed, but if you compare the complexity of a wrist watch to the complexity of Newtonian/quantum physics behind the solar system's existence and movements, there is no contest as to which is more complex and yet, still, it is not intelligently designed like the wrist watch.
To be quite frank, when people use worlds like "any" and "always" to describe their opinions, it really does sound like dogma. Have you finally found yourself, hunter?
It's not an opinion.
Look at the world today and at civilisations throughout history.
Extremism never turns out well.
Nazism, communism, facism, brutal theocracies,...
That's what you get when you take a dogmatic ideology/doctrine and go all radical in it.
These terms aren't always clearly defined though, if you were to say to me that your concept of ID or Creationism was something like a God sitting back and letting his Creation unfold through naturalistic means I wouldn't argue against it.
The idea of God at his drawing board in his heavenly workshop designing every plant, animal, sun, galaxy, etc seems crazy to me though. (I realize this is may be a strawman description but it's the image that comes to my mind when people talk of ID).
Hmm, I wonder. I'm a firm believer in intelligent design,
but I'm not so sure about creationism, if by creationism you mean a literal 7 day, 24 hours per day creation.
I believe God could do so, but I'm not convinced that he did do so. I am convinced that we didn't all come from a single cell. That just doesn't make sense to me.
There's just too much complexity in our design for such a simple explanation to possibly be reasonable, though I understand the appeal.
Kinda like "cdesign proponentsists"?
It's easy to knock others for doing what we can't do. If there's no intelligence in our ability to eat and breathe from the same orifice, then what does that say about your intelligence?
This is where interpretation becomes so important. You refer to an intelligent designer as a scapegoat, but isn't it really just an alternative explanation?
And evolution is an alternative to ID.
And why should you feel bothered by more questions? Isn't that how all learning happens? We ask questions and seek answers?
Not really. The designer designed time, space, and matter which means he's also able to exist outside these concepts.
Can you explain how you suppose a supreme being would be designed outside of time, space, matter?
You wouldn't even know where to start, yet you boldly declare it a rabbit hole with no satisfactory ending.
In essence, what your argument suggests is that if we can't understand who designed the designer then a designer makes no sense, but that argument depends on the arrogance that reality can only be defined based on our ability (or willingness, in some cases) to understand it.
Is that how science, curiosity, and truth work? We dismiss what we don't understand?
Isn't it extreme to only view "extremism" as negative?
Isn't it extreme to say that extreme behavior can never turn out for the good?
I understand that images like the guy with a long white beard in the clouds, or angels playing harps while sitting on clouds, or, as you suggest, God in his work shop come across as sounding a little ridiculous, but that's only because we choose to use such simplified imagery.
But aside from the imagery we use, why would you be ok with a God who "sits back" as opposed to a God who is hands-on?
"Evilutionist" is a term invented by rather dishonest creationists.
Your choice of words ("firm believer") speaks volumes.
I'm just talking about extremism in general.
I have yet to see a civilisation or society that I would want to live in, which is based on radicalism of a certain ideology.
Do you disagree with this?
No. Extremism is objectively dangerous. Again: just look at all the fundamentalist societies both past and present. From theocracies to north korea.
You refer to an intelligent designer as a scapegoat, but isn't it really just an alternative explanation?
Maybe sitting back was the wrong phrase. If God's been around for eternity then 14 billion years would surely be less than a blink of an eye. I obviously don't believe that anyway, I'm just saying it seems like a more sensible approach to creation than having to deny all the evidence from observations of the world about us.
Things that could be better thought-out even by a human level of intelligence.
If it's good God did it, if it isn't, then it's humanity's fault for sinning in a perfect Eden.
This isn't a refutation of the story or the theology, of course, but it's difficult to avoid noting how wonderfully, wonderfully convenient it is.
Does it suggest confidence? That would be nice. ^.^
Depends. The Kingdom of heaven is based on the principles of loving one another. In comparison to other systems (like the worldly system we have now) the KoH is very radical
, but to those who practice it's values and principles, it's normal
So much depends on how you choose to interpret what is or is not radical and then you'd still need to interpret the motives for why those behaviors are radical.
Sure, there's plenty of bad examples of people behaving in extreme or radical ways.
But aren't there any good examples, too? Not at all?
If it's just a difference of interpretation, how would you describe good examples of extreme behavior? What words would you substitute for extreme in those examples?
No, it wasn't.... and it was their own term.
Something from nothing doesn't seem sensible to me at all.
The key component of evolution is random mutation.
The mutations are not guided by anything at all and yet we end up with highly complex, inter-dependent systems which would require several different mutations to occur simultaneously in order to survive.
But aside from that, what happens in the DNA to cause the mutation? That they happen randomly does not answer why they happen.
Nothing can happen without some kind of information for why it should happen.
The information which causes DNA to mutate;
where does that come from?
And after the DNA mutates, does that mean new information is created as a result?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?