Programming of Life - Intelligent Design

[bhsmte]

I thought ID supporters were supposed to pretend that it wasn't a religious concept.

They cant help it.

 

[Radrook]

They cant help it.

If you insist that it's religious why should I insist on keeping it non-religious?

 

[Radrook]

They cant help it.

If you insist that it's religious why should I insist on keeping it non-religious?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you insist that it's religious why should I insist on keeping it non-religious?

The only reason we insist on it being religious, is because you cdesign proponentsists can't help it but to tie it into religious beliefs.

The continued accusation that the "only reason we reject ID is cause of atheism", also doesn't help your case.

You're even going as far as to accuse christian scientists like Ken Miller, a devout catholic, and Francis Collins, an evangelical christian, of being atheist or having "atheistic agenda's" - simply because they don't buy into the ID nonsense.

Having said that... you are the one who's proposing the model.
Upto you to be consistent in your claims.

We..... we are just responding to your claims.

 

[Speedwell]

If you insist that it's religious why should I insist on keeping it non-religious?

If it isn't religious, or cover for religion, what would be the point?

To show that some unspecified entity or entities periodically interact causally in unspecified ways with developing biological structures without leaving direct evidence? Seems hardly worth the trouble

 

[Radrook]

If it isn't religious, or cover for religion, what would be the point?

To show that some unspecified entity or entities periodically interact causally in unspecified ways with developing biological structures without leaving direct evidence? Seems hardly worth the trouble

Can't see again? No surprise. That's standard modus operandi. Means absolutely NOTHIN! But what the hey? Deploy it anyway.

 

[bhsmte]

If you insist that it's religious why should I insist on keeping it non-religious?

Who is this designer, in your world?

 

[Loudmouth]

All the founders of science I know who were Christians never made such an atheistic declaration. Perhaops you can point out the ones whom you clainm did say that?

"It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."" — Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)

Theists at one time attacked the idea that planets moved about the Sun due to a naturally occurring force in a mechanistic fashion because it did not allow God to personally guide the planets in their orbit. They then rethought their position and accepted the atheist position, that the planets move about the sun due to natural forces.

 

[Speedwell]

Can't see again? No surprise. That's standard modus operandi. Means absolutely NOTHIN! But what the hey? Deploy it anyway.

Nothing to see. You never had anything to show us but the unjustifiable "leap" or "inference" or whatever you want to call it, between functional organisation and intentional organization.
But as much as it may hurt your feelings, you are going to have to face up to the fact that there is a big gulf between belief in God (or a "designer" if you like) and accepting your "arguments" for the same.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can't see again? No surprise. That's standard modus operandi. Means absolutely NOTHIN! But what the hey? Deploy it anyway.

See what, Radrook?

 

[bhsmte]

Can't see again? No surprise. That's standard modus operandi. Means absolutely NOTHIN! But what the hey? Deploy it anyway.

Cant see what you dont demonstrate. Want to convince someone, deliver more than personal opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can't see again? No surprise. That's standard modus operandi. Means absolutely NOTHIN! But what the hey? Deploy it anyway.

Instead of making such post that add zero value to the discussion, you could also just answer the question "If it isn't religious, or cover for religion, what would be the point?" by explaining what the point then is...

Just a suggestion.

 

[Chriliman]

I thought ID supporters were supposed to pretend that it wasn't a religious concept.

I support IR. Intentional Reproduction.

 

[Loudmouth]

I support IR. Intentional Reproduction.

Is that what two engineers call it when they are trying to have a baby?

 

[PsychoSarah]

All the founders of science I know who were Christians never made such an atheistic declaration. Perhaops you can point out the ones whom you clainm did say that?

Charles Darwin. Prior to his voyage that would lead to the start of his developing the theory of evolution, he was staunchly Christian, but by 1879 (this is a direct quote from him) "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind".

Which goes along well with the general (though incorrect) understanding that agnostics are more an undecided group, and atheists declare nonbelief.

There are also important scientists that refused to acknowledge observations because of their faith. Linnaeus, for whom we can thank for the start of how we categorize living things, denied that carnivorous plants existed, as "they would be an abomination, an affront to the natural order established by god" (not a direct quote, this is from memory).

 

[Radrook]

Do you think these questions are silly?

Why is human skin only come in shades of brown/tan? Why don't some people have blue skin, or green? The current colors evolved to protect against the sun, why hasn't it evolved as a camouflage or other possible advantages? • /r/AskReddit

ELI5: why don't human naturally have claws and fangs? • /r/explainlikeimfive

https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/humans-spots-stripes/

I don't consider any legitimate scientific question silly. What I consider silly is the unscientific mindset of avoiding to obvious cuz you don't like what it indicates.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't consider any legitimate scientific question silly. What I consider silly is the unscientific mindset of avoiding to obvious cuz you don't like what it indicates.

Projecting, much?

 

[Radrook]

Who is this designer, in your world?

I don't really have a world of 100% certainty except for the 100% certainty of intelligent design and an intelligent designer who is exceedingly intelligent and powerful. What the intelligent designer's personality is from a purely objective viewpoint is debatable. Most of us prefer to attribute a benevolent personality because it is comforting. Which of course requires that an explanation of the presence of evil, sickness, death, etcetera within that assumption's parameters be provided. But that is totally irrelevant to the issue of intelligent design.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't really have a world of 100% certainty except for the 100% certainty of intelligent design and an intelligent designer who is exceedingly intelligent and powerful.

That's a dead give-away fact about ID not being a scientific model.
In science, proposed models are never seen as certain. Not even if the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that denying it would be nothing short of pervers.

Even then absolute certainty is never expressed.

What the intelligent designer's personality is from a purely objective viewpoint is debatable

From a purely objective viewpoint, there is exactly zero evidence of such designers.

Most of us prefer to attribute a benevolent personality because it is comforting

Well, at least you realise the emotional implications of your position. I guess that's something.

Which of course requires that an explanation of the presence of evil, sickness, death, etcetera within that assumption's parameters be provided. But that is totally irrelevant to the issue of intelligent design.

ID itself seems pretty irrelevant.

 

[Radrook]

Nothing to see. You never had anything to show us but the unjustifiable "leap" or "inference" or whatever you want to call it, between functional organisation and intentional organization.
But as much as it may hurt your feelings, you are going to have to face up to the fact that there is a big gulf between belief in God (or a "designer" if you like) and accepting your "arguments" for the same.

Right on cue!