Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Radrook]

Since when does "goddidit" pass for "cogent reasoning?"

lol

The ones introducing god, goddesses, gods, or God into the discussion each time I discus an ID with one of them are the atheists not me. LOL!

 

[Radrook]

Cogent reasoning? You argued that point pretty thoroughly here a few months ago, and your "cogent reasoning" turned out to be nothing but painfully obvious sophistical reasoning, an attempt to conflate two different meanings of the word "design" which fooled no one.

The feeing and opinion is mutual.

BTW
Atheists always approach the subject of an ID with the presumption that they are opposing someone who is trying to fool them. The sad part about it is that they have already been duped and don't even realize it. Also, I don't have two meanings for the word "design". That cunningly nebulous attitude towards the word "design" is typical of atheists not people who believe in an ID and have absolutely no need to employ multiple meanings in order to weasel their way out of having to admit the obvious..

 

[HitchSlap]

The ones introducing god, goddesses, gods, or God into the discussion each time I discus an ID with one of them are the atheists not me. LOL!

ID introduces the god/s. Otherwise it wouldn't be called "intelligent design."

I think you need to bone up on ID/Creo/cdesign proponentsists/wedge document/Henry Morris, etc. before you take a seat at the table.

 

[Radrook]

ID introduces the god/s. Otherwise it wouldn't be called "intelligent design."

I think you need to bone up on ID/Creo/cdesign proponentsists/wedge document/Henry Morris, etc. before you take a seat at the table.

Maybe you should tell them to come to me before they attempt to take a seat at the table.
ID stands for intelligent design and intelligent design need not involve a god, goddess, God, or a deity of any kind.

"The most obvious difference is that scientific creationism has prior religious commitments whereas intelligent design does not. ... Intelligent design ... has no prior religious commitments and interprets the data of science on generally accepted scientific principles. In particular, intelligent design does not depend on the biblical account of creation." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 40)
Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you should tell them to come to me before they attempt to take a seat at the table.
ID stands for intelligent design and intelligent design need not involve a god, goddess, God, or a deity of any kind.

Then what was the designer?

 

[HitchSlap]

Maybe you should tell them to come to me before they attempt to take a seat at the table.
ID stands for intelligent design and intelligent design need not involve a god, goddess, God, or a deity of any kind.

uh huh

 

[Radrook]

uh huh

Yep!

"The most obvious difference is that scientific creationism has prior religious commitments whereas intelligent design does not. ... Intelligent design ... has no prior religious commitments and interprets the data of science on generally accepted scientific principles. In particular, intelligent design does not depend on the biblical account of creation." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 40)

Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"?

Ignorance is bliss!

 

[SteveB28]

Maybe you should tell them to come to me before they attempt to take a seat at the table.
ID stands for intelligent design and intelligent design need not involve a god, goddess, God, or a deity of any kind.

What is the source of the 'intelligence'?


.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yep!

"The most obvious difference is that scientific creationism has prior religious commitments whereas intelligent design does not. ... Intelligent design ... has no prior religious commitments and interprets the data of science on generally accepted scientific principles. In particular, intelligent design does not depend on the biblical account of creation." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 40)

Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"?

Ignorance is bliss!

Yep, Dembski is a dishonest moron attempting to smuggle god into science.

 

[Neatz]

If there is a God, wouldn't He have to be the source of His own intelligence?
He wouldn't nor couldn't need an outside 'source' for intelligence.

On the other hand, if there is no God, what is the source of your intelligence, and why are you even here?

(Btw, there IS a God, He's all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present, He loves you, and you can get to know Him personally through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.)

Whoever comes to God must first believe that He IS, and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him. You can believe on the Lord Jesus today and be saved.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, Dembski is a dishonest moron attempting to smuggle god into science.

Science or creation?

If you meant science, then I have to ask what's wrong with that?

If you meant creation, then Dembski is in error, in my opinion.

 

[Speedwell]

The feeing and opinion is mutual.

BTW
Atheists always approach the subject of an ID with the presumption that they are opposing someone who is trying to fool them.

So do many of us Christians, because there is ample evidence for such a presumption. ID is part of the "Wedge Strategy" to advance the Dominionist political agenda of the Discovery Institute. And no, I am not imagining some secret conspiracy. The Discovery Institute are quite open about their intentions, publishing numerous books and papers describing it. So when someone promotes ID and claims not to be promoting the "God of the Bible" it's a pretty safe bet that they are either trying to fool or have been fooled themselves.

 

[Radrook]

Yep, Dembski is a dishonest moron attempting to smuggle god into science.

Yep, Dembski is a dishonest moron attempting to smuggle god into science.

Dembsi isn't striving to introduce God into ID. You are cunningly twisting the whole meaning of what he said. Furthermore, the article cites others besides him who are leading proponents of ID and makes it clear that they are NOT proposing a deity as you claim.

[The Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents

An extensive look at the actual writings and arguments of those in the ID research community reveals that intelligent design is not an appeal to the supernatural, nor is it trying to "prove" the existence of God. The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.

Here are some excerpts from ID literature making it clear that ID is not an appeal to God or the supernatural: "If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist. This is no different, really, than if we discovered life did result from natural causes. We still would not know, from science, if the natural cause was all that was involved, or if the ultimate explanation was beyond nature, and using the natural cause." (Of Pandas and People (2nd ed, 1993), pg. 7, emphasis added)

Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"?

 

[Speedwell]

Also, I don't have two meanings for the word "design". That cunningly nebulous attitude towards the word "design" is typical of atheists not people who believe in an ID and have absolutely no need to employ multiple meanings in order to weasel their way out of having to admit the obvious..

That there are multiple meanings is a matter of fact. Functional organization (which can be observed directly) is not the same thing as intentional organization (which cannot). That you attempt to conflate the two is pretty obvious "weaseling."

No doubt you will respond with your usual snide comments about my faith. Go right ahead, but I am telling you that you are doing Christianity no good whatever with your bootless arguments.

 

[Neatz]

What is the source of your information?

 

[Speedwell]

[staff edited]
I do not oppose the existence of creator--as you well know. Countering your lame and discreditable arguments for the existence of God is not the same as opposing the existence of a creator. Or are you, in your arrogance, unable to see that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dembsi isn't striving to introduce God into ID. Yu are twisting the whole meaning of what he said. Furthermore, the article cites others besides him who are leading proponents of ID and makes it clear that they are NOT proposing a deity as you claim.

If these supporters of ID are anything but ignorant or dishonest clowns then why can't they support their ideas properly? In science the proper way to support one's ideas is to write a paper that can pass peer review and is then analyzed and debated by those that understand the issue best. I don't see any of the suporters of ID doing this.

 

[AV1611VET]

In science the proper way to support one's ideas is to write a paper that can pass peer review and is then analyzed and debated by those that understand the issue best.

Is that how Pluto was demoted?

 

[HitchSlap]

Dembsi isn't striving to introduce God into ID. Yu are twisting the whole meaning of what he said. Furthermore, the article cites others besides him who are leading proponents of ID and makes it clear that they are NOT proposing a deity as you claim.

If you believe they're not trying to smuggle god into science with the whole ID canard, you're simply unaware of the facts.

Your statements betray your level of understanding regarding the creo/ID movement. With the Dover trial and the the "textbook" "Of Pandas and People," you can literally see the evolution of "creationism > cdesign proponentsists > Intelligent Design. And every person to a man over at the "Discovery Institute" is a God of the bible believing Christian with the exception of just a couple.


Critique: "Of Pandas and People" | NCSE
Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia
A Review of Of Pandas and People as a Textbook Supplement | NCSE
Of Pandas and People - RationalWiki

 

[Radrook]

Is that how Pluto was demoted?

I am not in any position to demote anyone from being a Christian since I am not the judge of people.
Would you demote an atheist from being an atheist if the professed atheist supported the existence of a creator? Or if the professed atheist vehemently contradicted every single thing you said in support of atheism?