- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
The same question applies: if you're an OEC, why do you support ID? OECism is a perfectly respectable theological position; what to you need with a politically motivated fraud?
Originally, when the Discovery Institute first floated it, ID meant something more specific. Many IDists still conform to the original doctrine, so when someone claims to be an IDist the default response is generally to that particular doctrine.Do you even realize that God is a form of ID? Clearly you do not. This is why I never tout myself an expert because as sure as we do, it backfires. Here ya' go:
in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun
noun: intelligent design
Can't wait to hear sciences alternate definition you evidently have for us but seem to be afraid to back up your comment and tell us what it is....let's have it.
- the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
When your posts are no more than an underlying attempt to demean your adversary, I can only take it you have no intelligent reply.
we cant calculate the exact chance to get that mountain by a natural process but we know for sure that this chance is extremely low.
Did you read the links?
“They were all formed out of something that was ID'd.”
Wind was “ID’d”, water was “ID’d”, sediment layed down and lithified was “ID’d”? Lol.
Originally, when the Discovery Institute first floated it, ID meant something more specific. Many IDists still conform to the original doctrine, so when someone claims to be an IDist the default response is generally to that particular doctrine.
However, many biblical creationists liked the anti-evolution propaganda created by the Discovery Institute and started talking about ID as if it was a synonym for divine authorship of the universe--hence the definition you posted.
Sooner or later biblical creationists will have to face the theological difficulties that association with the Discovery Institute's version of ID poses for them, and will reject it the term in favor of more traditional terms for God's creative action. I'm sure they will still use ID's anti-evolutionary propaganda.
The Definition of Intelligent DesignDid any of that contain the definition I've now asked for 3 times?
The Definition of Intelligent Design
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
I realize that these responses aren't exactly by what you'd call competent exponents of ID, let alone science in general, but they signify that either:
Why?
A) Most laymen supporting ID don't actually know what it is.
B) ID is a sciency sounding way of "goddidit".
C) ID is a simply a synonym for for natural forces.
It appears that ID is completely useless at explaining anything.
How disappointing.
In fact, it is the other way around. Your definition of ID is much broader, and the "official" definition fits within it. But your definition also encompasses other views which were not traditionally called "ID."Thanks, then unless Jimmy can explain how my definition didn't fit somewhere within the boundaries of the "official" definition of ID,
Every 'turtle' (on the way down) has to be questioned.
Do you even realize that God is a form of ID? Clearly you do not. This is why I never tout myself an expert because as sure as we do, it backfires. Here ya' go:
in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun
noun: intelligent design
Can't wait to hear sciences alternate definition you evidently have for us but seem to be afraid to back up your comment and tell us what it is....let's have it.
- the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
When your posts are no more than an underlying attempt to demean your adversary, I can only take it you have no intelligent reply.
I think you entirely missed the point of the OP
All processes are designed, and operate according to physical laws, including sedimentation. God designed gravity to keep the stuff he designed from flying all over the place (and to do other neat things as well).
All processes are designed, and operate according to physical laws, including sedimentation. God designed gravity to keep the stuff he designed from flying all over the place (and to do other neat things as well).
Please, Jimmy pay attention, that whole last post of yours is wasting your time and mine. Didn't I tell you to post your definition here? You know I don't do links, I want it here so everyone can see what I'm scrutinizing, and anyone who wants can join in. You can even copy from where ever so, I know I'm not asking too much
Your doing it again...not paying attention, I already told you what I said and even quoted myself so you could see for yourself with little effort on your part. My original comment meant everything that happens is a result of ID, not ID itself. No, I didn't put it in those exact words (very close though) but I figured most anyone would know what I was saying as i still do, but evidently I was wrong and am now making it easier for you to understand. Do you understand now?
None of that is intended as condescending, but I really did think you were more on the ball than I'm seeing here, unless you're simply misunderstanding things by choice?
Please, Jimmy pay attention, that whole last post of yours is wasting your time and mine. Didn't I tell you to post your definition here? You know I don't do links, I want it here so everyone can see what I'm scrutinizing, and anyone who wants can join in. You can even copy from where ever so, I know I'm not asking too much
Your doing it again...not paying attention, I already told you what I said and even quoted myself so you could see for yourself with little effort on your part. My original comment meant everything that happens is a result of ID, not ID itself. No, I didn't put it in those exact words (very close though) but I figured most anyone would know what I was saying as i still do, but evidently I was wrong and am now making it easier for you to understand. Do you understand now?
None of that is intended as condescending, but I really did think you were more on the ball than I'm seeing here, unless you're simply misunderstanding things by choice?
Thanks, then unless Jimmy can explain how my definition didn't fit somewhere within the boundaries of the "official" definition of ID, all I can figure is he had nothing to disagree with so he purposely misunderstood a few posts and hoped he could get it by us that we were wrong when we were not.
I know/knew what it was from the start, how do you get that comment from my post?
This thread is not asking for religious declarations.
This is asking for a demonstration of practical application of the so-called scientific theory of ID.
If you are not a proponent of this "theory", promoted by the likes of Dembski and Behe, then this thread is not meant for you.
cdesign propenentsists, consider this post me begging you on my naked knees to PLEASE demonstrate a practical application of this so-called scientific theory.
I think you have devised an 'unanswerable' question.
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?