Why is it always Darwinism?

[inquiring mind]

And that's just Paley's opinion. Teleology is not the same thing as Intelligent Design.

Now, as the OP of this thread, I would like you to stop trying to take this thread off-topic and return back to the original point of this thread.

Maybe you'd better inform Wikipedia of your ruling:

Teleological argument
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world.”

 

[inquiring mind]

ID also gives us no clue how an intelligent designer proceeds, but it quite specifically rules out evolution without offering any alternatives.

Insofar as the specifics of what Intelligent Design advocates believe, that is where things get murky. ID advocates rarely get specific when it comes to the what, where, when and how portions of design.

Well, apparently that's because they're honest enough to just call it perceived evidence.

 

[pitabread]

Well, apparently that's because they're honest enough to just call it perceived evidence.

No, it's because they simply don't even try tackling those questions.

My experience with ID arguments/literature (and I've read a fair bit) is that they primarily just argue against biological evolution and then assume design as a null hypothesis. Naturally this is flawed since design is *not* the null hypothesis of evolution.

If ID advocates wanted to make a case for the evidence for intelligent design, they'd need to have some sort of ID mechanism/model/etc with which to frame the context of the evidence. But they don't.

And digging into the modern ID movement, it really is less about design so much as another way of promoting a form of Biblical creationism (esp. in schools). A lot of this came out during the Dover trial.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe you'd better inform Wikipedia of your ruling:

Teleological argument
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world.”

The argument from design is not the same thing as Intelligent Design.

Maybe you'd better work on your reading comprehension since I noted the difference three times before in this thread.

 

[pitabread]

Maybe you'd better inform Wikipedia of your ruling:

Indeed.

The most common modern use of the words "intelligent design" as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the United States Supreme Court ruled in June 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that it is unconstitutional for a state to require the teaching of creationism in public school science curricula.[11]​

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe you'd better inform Wikipedia of your ruling:

Teleological argument
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world.”

The problem that the teleological argument poses for you is that it does not necessarily rule out evolution nor provide any support for biblical creationism.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Indeed.

The most common modern use of the words "intelligent design" as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the United States Supreme Court ruled in June 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that it is unconstitutional for a state to require the teaching of creationism in public school science curricula.[11]​

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

Hence why I capitalize Intelligent Design.

 

[inquiring mind]

The argument from design is not the same thing as Intelligent Design.

Maybe you'd better work on your reading comprehension since I noted the difference three times before in this thread.

Thanks, but I'll go with Wikipedia.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks, but I'll go with Wikipedia.

The wikipedia article supports me. Not you.

But, as I've said, this is off-topic. And also quite telling that some people have focused on it instead of the OP.

 

[inquiring mind]

Indeed.

The most common modern use of the words "intelligent design" as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the United States Supreme Court ruled in June 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that it is unconstitutional for a state to require the teaching of creationism in public school science curricula.[11]​

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

Does it surprise you, that evolutionists redifine or change the name of something when they feel the heat? After all, what's this thread about?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Does it surprise you, that evolutionists redifine or change the name of something when they feel the heat? After all, what's this thread about?

WOW! Pot calling the kettle black!

 

[inquiring mind]

The problem that the teleological argument poses for you is that it does not necessarily rule out evolution nor provide any support for biblical creationism.

It's not a problem for me... you guys seem pretty defensive about it for some reason though.

 

[inquiring mind]

The wikipedia article supports me. Not you.

But, as I've said, this is off-topic. And also quite telling that some people have focused on it instead of the OP.

It must be after their opening statement then (referring to the Teleological argument definition in Wikipedia).

 

[Speedwell]

It's not a problem for me... you guys seem pretty defensive about it for some reason though.

Oh, so? You are the one who is trying to link the teleological argument, an ancient and respectable argument for the existence of God, to ID, a shabby defense of biblical creationism.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It must be after their opening statement then (referring to the Teleological argument definition in Wikipedia).

I like how you're adding absolutely nothing of value to this thread and are clearly just trying to flame because you really have no answer for the OP.

 

[inquiring mind]

Oh, so? You are the one who is trying to link the teleological argument, an ancient and respectable argument for the existence of God, to ID, a shabby defense of biblical creationism.

No, I was only pointing out a contrary reference to a comment one poster made to another poster. Good try though.

 

[inquiring mind]

I like how you're adding absolutely nothing of value to this thread and are clearly just trying to flame because you really have no answer for the OP.

I answered in post #27, thank you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I answered in post #27, thank you.

And it was a non-answer. All it did was show that you clearly do not understand science, specifically the science that you like to rant and rage against, which, along with your insipid claim that the theory of evolution is 'full of holes' (a serious PRATT if I ever saw one), really shows that you don't have a clear answer.

 

[Ophiolite]

How nice of you, good to know why you are here.

I'm disappointed you cannot accept a little gentle humour directed at you.
I'm probably more disappointed that you make a simplified judgement on my motives for being here. Annoying creationists ranks very, very low on my reasons for posting. Indeed, its not really a reason, just an occasional ancillary benefit. (Please do remember what you've just been told about humour.)

Oh don't worry, we will rail against all its forms in whatever name you decide to use.

What makes you comfortable railing against something that is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence and is accepted by the majority of Christians?

 

[Ophiolite]

Intelligent Design (note the capitals) is the pseudo-scientific and the pseudo-religious belief that the Bible is a scientific text book and should be taken as such.

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim 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." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

The 'argument for divine design in nature', the teleological argument, is different:
The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world.

Two different things entirely.

I disagree. If it is appropriate to refer to Darwin's work as "evolutionary theory" - and I think it is - then it is appropriate to call Paley's "watch on the heath" argument a form of intelligent design. The foundation for both arguments is identical: if something looks designed it is designed. ID seeks to do quantitatively and objectively what Paley attempted to do qualitatively and subjectively. (And thus far has failed.)

Aside: Darwin not only studied Paley's work at university, but took a copy of "Evidences" with him on the Beagle. He greatly admired the style and incorporated elements of the structure into On the Origin of Species.