Posted on 07/04/2009 3:39:53 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“”I answered your two questions in post 45. Why are you asking again?””
It might have something to do with him not getting the response he was seeking ;)
Tatt
No, see post 59.
And you may need a little practice in the “piercing insight” department.
“”Intelligent design” as propounded by the Discovery Institute is not about God being intelligent and designing the laws of nature accordingly. It’s about God designing laws of nature that are inadequate for life to form naturally and then violating those laws selectively to create life. And then dishonestly blowing smoke about what they are really claiming.”
I don’t accept you as an expert on the Discovery Institute. That you accuse them of lying damages your credibility as much as those who insist that Bush stole the 2000 election, or that he lied us into war.
The Discovery Institute is several people with several views. They are not hostile to religion, to science, or to considering the two together. Beyond that, they probably hold different views on religion and on various scientific topics.
If I understand you rightly, you consider any Godly intervention, after the initial creation, as evidence for an imperfect creation. That is an opinion; one that I do not share. Why shouldn’t God respond sometimes to prayers from those who recognize him and properly seek his aid?
“”Intelligent design” as propounded by the Discovery Institute is not about God being intelligent and designing the laws of nature accordingly. It’s about God designing laws of nature that are inadequate for life to form naturally and then violating those laws selectively to create life. And then dishonestly blowing smoke about what they are really claiming.”
I don’t accept you as an expert on the Discovery Institute. That you accuse them of lying damages your credibility as much as those who insist that Bush stole the 2000 election, or that he lied us into war.
The Discovery Institute is several people with several views. They are not hostile to religion, to science, or to considering the two together. Beyond that, they probably hold different views on religion and on various scientific topics.
If I understand you rightly, you consider any Godly intervention, after the initial creation, as evidence for an imperfect creation. That is an opinion; one that I do not share. Why shouldn’t God respond sometimes to prayers from those who recognize him and properly seek his aid?
Nah, I’m good :) but thank you for your observation, and for the opportunity for me to address my faux pas. I meant to post to you as well, and hit yonder send key too quickly.
Back to FReeping,
Tatt
No problem—see you around.
>>Looking for evidence of design is thus quite quite scientific and would be the first thing looked for.<<
As I said, people are not artifacts. Looking for a superhuman designer is the same as looking for God, unless there is scientific evidence that you could meet and discern the purpose and rules of such a designer.
Other than the Barbie lament of “It is too hard,” there is none.
“”Intelligent design” as propounded by the Discovery Institute is not about God being intelligent and designing the laws of nature accordingly. It’s about God designing laws of nature that are inadequate for life to form naturally and then violating those laws selectively to create life. And then dishonestly blowing smoke about what they are really claiming.”
I don’t accept you as an expert on the Discovery Institute. That you accuse them of lying damages your credibility as much as those who insist that Bush stole the 2000 election, or that he lied us into war.
Except that Salman is correct here.
IDers do very explicitly assert that they infer "design" because "natural law" alone is, they claim, inadequate to explain the features they attribute to design. Indeed this is the very essence and central aspect of all their arguments. You can't possible read any substantial quantity of ID literature and miss this point, so who is really being dishonest here?
BTW, Salman, independently of you (after you posted but before I noticed your post) I made much the same points in #58.
I do somewhat disagree with you that ID is about "violating those laws selectively to create life". Or maybe we're saying this same thing in different ways: That this (the appeal to miracle) is what IDers want their adherents to assume, but they aren't honest enough to openly assert it. Instead IDers adamantly refuse to assert, or even hypothesize, ANYTHING about how, or when, or where design events occur. This renders ID vacuous and scientifically useless, even if the ID arguments for "inferring" the presence of "design" were correct. It's useless to "infer" the presence of something, but then refuse to say, or even allow speculation, about what that something actually is.
>>In fact in the example I gave the archaeologist might never be able to find anything about the designer and yet still would perceive intelligent design in the pottery shard he found.<<
No, any architect or anthropologist worth his or her salt should be able to determine the source and use of the artifact with some work (maybe a lot).
That means nothing, other than anthropology is the study of humans. If you have a bowl, you know it held something.
It is meaningless when looked at in terms of how humans evolved from lower life forms. The picture is fairly clear and there is no “bowl” or similar artifact in the human genome that is analogous to your analogy (forgive my redundant redundancy).
We learn more all the time, but we have never seen any evidence that undermines TToE — rather the evidence clarifies the picture.
“Looking for evidence of design is thus quite quite scientific...”
That’s absurd. Science draws conclusions from the available evidence. The existence of a creator who is responsible for design is indepedent of scientific inquiry. ID is nothing more than poorly-veiled attempt to place creationism (or, more properly, creation rationalization) on the same logical footing as science.
“If you have a bowl, you know it held something.”
It might or might not have held something but that's beside the point:
How would you know it was a bowl and not just an odd formation that resembled a bowl?
To: count-your-change
“Are you really as dumb as you seem to be?” Buck W.
I have no time for your nonsense.
That’s fine, Forrest. I was prepared to start fresh, but I see that you are not. Once again, you should heed the advice of your own tag line.
Intelligent Design, capital I and D, is based on the idea that certain features of the natural world could not have arisen solely through natural processes. That's the whole idea behind the discussion of "irreducible complexity," of systems that could not have developed naturally from more primitive parts.
This version of ID is fundamentally opposed to all-natural evolution. Either the designer had to make the organism from scratch with irreducibly complex system in place, or He/She/It had to step in at some point to install the system in an existing organism.
Lowercase intelligent design, on the other hand, can easily embrace all-natural evolution, because it can include a designer who established rules that could produce everything in the natural world through natural processes. There are very few evolutionists who would argue against that possibility. But DI and its supporters have been trying to sell the latter--an easy sell--and then claim people are buying the former.
This effort is seen, for example, in the results of their bogus poll posted in other threads last week. And it's seen in this silly effort to portray Jefferson as believing in Intelligent Design by quoting him on intelligent design.
“Not exactly—reread question 1. I specifically asked about a more relevant example, not the heart in the sand.”
The heart in the sand was my example (post 29). You responded by asking two questions (post 31). I responded to your two questions in post 45. There is no good reason for me to change my example.
I think you are on to something.
My question, though, was not in regard to your example. I asked a probing question (two, actually) addressing any other example that you can conceive of that more closely reflects the spirit of ID with regard to origins. If you can’t or won’t, that’s fine.
You both try to force ID into your own categories and your own stereotypes, then accuse advocates of ID of dishonesty when they continue to express themselves in their own terms with their own words. Shame on you.
The general question, “How does one distinguish between what is natural, and what has been designed?” is a valid question. Attempting to establish criteria is valid. Applying these criteria to cases is valid. You can assert that none of this is science. I could hardly care less.
Are those who see design open to the idea that God may be the designer in a particular case? Many are. You may conclude such a reply to be invalid. That would be your opinion. You may insist that the only God acceptable to you would proceed in the way that you specify. Again, your opinion. Opinions differ. That you question their honesty reflects poorly upon you. That you continue to attempt to force their thoughts into your categories shows that you do not have an open mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.