ID or ToE?

[Deaver]

The atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Because I am one, I understand that Christians supporting Creationism generally use as a starting point the Book of Genesis in the Bible and postulate some kind of a supernatural or divine creator.

At the same time evolutionists always want to argue that evolution is not about the “origins” of life. I wonder what the Evolutionists starting point is.

So then let’s get down to the question of how it all began.

I see where the theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

What are your thoughts on ID or ToE?

 

[Greg1234]

The number of people here who believe in Darwinism far outnumber those who acknowledge the actual data on Darwinism (IDists) so the responses here should be rather lopsided in favor if materialism.

Overall though, I find Darwinism to be just materialism with a plethora of data against it. The forecast doesn't look good for it.

ID is the best theory out there and oppositions are generally philosophically based.

 

[Non sequitur]

The number of people here who believe in Darwinism far outnumber those who acknowledge the actual data on Darwinism (IDists) so the responses here should be rather lopsided in favor if materialism.

Overall though, I find Darwinism to be just materialism with a plethora of data against it. The forecast doesn't look good for it.

ID is the best theory out there and oppositions are generally philosophically based.

I sometimes see you posting sarcastically, in other threads.

Was the "ID is the best theory out there" supposed to be a joke?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

The atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Because I am one, I understand that Christians supporting Creationism generally use as a starting point the Book of Genesis in the Bible and postulate some kind of a supernatural or divine creator.

At the same time evolutionists always want to argue that evolution is not about the “origins” of life. I wonder what the Evolutionists starting point is.

So then let’s get down to the question of how it all began.

I see where the theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

What are your thoughts on ID or ToE?

How did it all begin? We don't know. And neither do you.

 

[Blayz]

ID or ToE is like asking astrology or astronomy.

Just because we don't know (yet) doesn't mean we should shoe horn in goddidit.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I have a rock in my backyard. This rock is smooth.

This is the information I have available, I know of no means nature can smooth a rock so it must be designed that way, I know of no means nature can move a rock.

I conclude the best explaination is an intelligent agency made it and put it there. by ways that are unknown to me, for reasons unknown to me, the idenity of this agency is unknown to me. With no way to test if I am correct in concluding it is a intelligent agency unless somebody comes up with a foolproof explaination of how else that rock came to be and ended up in my backyard.

Note how I concluded all that by NOT KNOWING anything about how the rock got there. And have no evidence at all for it other then my own ignorance. No reason to suppose there is such an agency, no explaination for this agency.

Or.. I could admit that I do not know how the rock became smooth, and do not know how it came to be in my back yard. And try to find out rather then make something up that I cannot explain either.

If I later find out that rocks are smoothed on the bottem of rivers and moved about by the water. Then discover there used to be river where my backyard is now. Then that would seem a reasonable explaination.
Perhaps I find out there is a company of profesional stone polishers that make garden rocks who look nice and smooth and find a bill adress to the previous owner of my house detailing his order and delivery of garden rocks, then I have evidence pointing to an inteligent agency making and transeporting the rock to my backyard.

Thats basically ID, You have something you know nothing about and proceed to pretend you know it can only be by intelligent agency even though you know nothing about this agency, know nothing about the process it used, and in fact gain no new information at all by assuming this agency exists.

While all you really had to do was say "I do not know how that rock got there." Then later you can propose the intelligent agency was behind it when you have some actual evidence pointing into that direction other then "I cant imagine how this formed. Something smarter then me musta dun it"

 

[Insane_Duck]

At the same time evolutionists always want to argue that evolution is not about the “origins” of life. I wonder what the Evolutionists starting point is.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. - Carl Sagan

He has a point. Most atheists accept evolution. When you combine those two, it is fairly reasonable to ask where the first cell came from. (an appropriate answer to which would be to either demonstrate our knowledge of abiogenesis or simply say "I don't know")

But "where did it all come from" is not an appropriate argument against evolution itself.

I see where the theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian evolution is not the modern day ToE.
Neither Darwinian evolution or the modern ToE are chance based.

 

[Hespera]

The atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Because I am one, I understand that Christians supporting Creationism generally use as a starting point the Book of Genesis in the Bible and postulate some kind of a supernatural or divine creator.

At the same time evolutionists always want to argue that evolution is not about the “origins” of life. I wonder what the Evolutionists starting point is.

So then let’s get down to the question of how it all began.

I see where the theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

What are your thoughts on ID or ToE?

We think that you dont know what the ToE is. We'd be glad to teach you if you are willing to learn.

We did get you to understand its no big revelation that a theory cannot be proven.

Maybe we can teach you some more. Then you'd at least know what it is that you dont believe.



Try this one.

The ToE is not about the origin of life.

if its not too much to add, try this one:

ID is not a theory because a theory needs data and ID has no data.

 

[Blayz]

It would be interesting to add up all the times creationists have quoted or mentioned Dawkins or even Darwin versus evolutionists. I bet the former would greatly outweigh the latter.

 

[Deaver]

How did it all begin? We don't know. And neither do you.

Thanks for your candor. I completely agree. However, if someone is searching for that answer, where do they look? As I have stated elsewhere the "historical default" was creationism. The "big bang" theory falls apart on many levels. I was asking in the OP what are opinions of the CF members on ID. It is too bad that this topic seems to raise the passions of some to the point there are sarcastic or ad hominem.

 

[Deaver]

We think that you dont know what the ToE is. We'd be glad to teach you if you are willing to learn.

We did get you to understand its no big revelation that a theory cannot be proven.

Maybe we can teach you some more. Then you'd at least know what it is that you dont believe.

Try this one.

The ToE is not about the origin of life.

if its not too much to add, try this one:

ID is not a theory because a theory needs data and ID has no data.

Thanks, but I think I can research this topic on my own. By the way, just wondering, which ToE would you propose to teach on?

1. “macro-evolution”—the non-intelligent, non-teleological mechanism of random variation, adaptation, and natural selection, whereby new and increasingly complex organisms gradually emerge from a simple ancient life form

2. “micro-evolution”—the in-built process of genetic variation and inheritance that enables species to adapt, within pre-defined limitations, to changing environmental pressures. Micro-evolution explains why dogs, for example, come in all sizes, shapes, colors, and abilities, yet are forever distinguishable from other life forms by their unique gene pool.

3. theistic evolution, where the complexity and diversity of life is neither the result of a single creative act, nor of an unconscious, natural process; but of small, gradual changes accumulated over time that are guided, or front-loaded, by God.

 

[Blayz]

Thanks, but I think I can research this topic on my own. By the way, just wondering, which ToE would you propose to teach on?

1. “macro-evolution”—the non-intelligent, non-teleological mechanism of random variation, adaptation, and natural selection, whereby new and increasingly complex organisms gradually emerge from a simple ancient life form

2. “micro-evolution”—the in-built process of genetic variation and inheritance that enables species to adapt, within pre-defined limitations, to changing environmental pressures. Micro-evolution explains why dogs, for example, come in all sizes, shapes, colors, and abilities, yet are forever distinguishable from other life forms by their unique gene pool.

3. theistic evolution, where the complexity and diversity of life is neither the result of a single creative act, nor of an unconscious, natural process; but of small, gradual changes accumulated over time that are guided, or front-loaded, by God.

Well, I vote none of the above. Instead, I propose we teach on
1. Evolution, the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Thanks, but I think I can research this topic on my own. By the way, just wondering, which ToE would you propose to teach on?

1. “macro-evolution”—the non-intelligent, non-teleological mechanism of random variation, adaptation, and natural selection, whereby new and increasingly complex organisms gradually emerge from a simple ancient life form

2. “micro-evolution”—the in-built process of genetic variation and inheritance that enables species to adapt, within pre-defined limitations, to changing environmental pressures. Micro-evolution explains why dogs, for example, come in all sizes, shapes, colors, and abilities, yet are forever distinguishable from other life forms by their unique gene pool.

3. theistic evolution, where the complexity and diversity of life is neither the result of a single creative act, nor of an unconscious, natural process; but of small, gradual changes accumulated over time that are guided, or front-loaded, by God.

Again, define "macro".

Keep in mind that "species" isn't a term that will work in your answer, as we are all technically all transitional forms, and there are no hard lines between species.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Thanks for your candor. I completely agree. However, if someone is searching for that answer, where do they look? As I have stated elsewhere the "historical default" was creationism. The "big bang" theory falls apart on many levels. I was asking in the OP what are opinions of the CF members on ID. It is too bad that this topic seems to raise the passions of some to the point there are sarcastic or ad hominem.

So was the flat earth theory.

"A scientist admits that he knows nothing, and therefor knows something. A theist claims to know everything, and by extension, knows nothing."

Even if the big bang theory and evolution weren't adequately supported. (not close to the truth) Appealing to the man in the sky (the one who cares about you and watches your every move) isn't an adequate explanation. (although the Great Toasted One is always ready to accept you) God of the Gaps.

 

[Greg1234]

So was the flat earth theory.

"A scientist admits that he knows nothing, and therefor knows something. A theist claims to know everything, and by extension, knows nothing."

Even if the big bang theory and evolution weren't adequately supported. (not close to the truth) Appealing to the man in the sky (the one who cares about you and watches your every move) isn't an adequate explanation. (although the Great Toasted One is always ready to accept you) God of the Gaps.

In methodological earthism, we don't bring in the outer space of the gaps. We just say that there is no gap. The Great toasted one contains the planets, and the stars.

 

[Incariol]

Thanks, but I think I can research this topic on my own. By the way, just wondering, which ToE would you propose to teach on?

1. “macro-evolution”—the non-intelligent, non-teleological mechanism of random variation, adaptation, and natural selection, whereby new and increasingly complex organisms gradually emerge from a simple ancient life form

2. “micro-evolution”—the in-built process of genetic variation and inheritance that enables species to adapt, within pre-defined limitations, to changing environmental pressures. Micro-evolution explains why dogs, for example, come in all sizes, shapes, colors, and abilities, yet are forever distinguishable from other life forms by their unique gene pool.

We all know that is a false dichotomy made up by creationists for reasons that nobody actually understands. There is no difference in mechanism, there are no proposed mechanisms for "pre-defined limitations".

3. theistic evolution, where the complexity and diversity of life is neither the result of a single creative act, nor of an unconscious, natural process; but of small, gradual changes accumulated over time that are guided, or front-loaded, by God.

This has nothing to do with science. "Theistic Evolution" is a purely theological point for those of us who adhere to a religion. Scientifically, it is identical to anything an atheist would believe.

 

[Insane_Duck]

We just say that there is no gap.

Well that's all well and good, but that defeats any attempt to use lack of evidence for scientific theories as evidence for theism.

The Great toasted one contains the planets, and the stars.

A believer! You renounce your Christianity then?

 

[Incariol]

Is the "Great toasted one" Azathoth?

"Outside the ordered universe is that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes."

 

[Greg1234]

Well that's all well and good, but that defeats any attempt to use lack of evidence for scientific theories as evidence for theism.

A lack of evidence for earthism is completely in line with evidence for outer space.

A believer! You renounce your Christianity then?

The belief in the Great toasted one (called outer space, cosmos etc in astronomical texts) does not require the disbelief in "outer space."

 

[Insane_Duck]

A lack of evidence for earthism is completely in line with evidence for outer space.

In line yes. But the lack of evidence for "earthism" doesn't create evidence for outer space. It's independent.

The belief in the Great toasted one (called outer space, cosmos etc in astronomical texts) does not require the disbelief in "outer space."

But it does require a disbelief in "Christ".