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 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!Since when does "goddidit" pass for "cogent reasoning?"
lol
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.
ID introduces the god/s. Otherwise it wouldn't be called "intelligent design."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!
Maybe you should tell them to come to me before they attempt to take a seat at the table.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.
"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"?
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
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.
Yep, Dembski is a dishonest moron attempting to smuggle god into science.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!
Science or creation?Yep, Dembski is a dishonest moron attempting to smuggle god into science.
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.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.
Yep, Dembski is a dishonest moron attempting to smuggle god into science.
Yep, Dembski is a dishonest moron attempting to smuggle god into science.
[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"?
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."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..
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.
Is that how Pluto was demoted?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.
If you believe they're not trying to smuggle god into science with the whole ID canard, you're simply unaware of the facts.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.
I am not in any position to demote anyone from being a Christian since I am not the judge of people.Is that how Pluto was demoted?
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?