Posted on 11/03/2003 12:05:39 PM PST by Heartlander
Microchiroptera.
VR, intelligent design theory and creationist theory are not -- let me repeat that, NOT -- the same theory. You continually conflate the two as if they were identical. This is not so. ID does not specify the creator.
Insofar as ID invokes a creator, it is not inaccurate, I think, to describe it as a creationist theory - failing to specify who the creator might be does not obviate the fact that ID requires a creator of some sort. ID is, in that case, a specific example under the general heading of "creationist theory". Of course, there are other theories besides ID that invoke a creator, and might also be fairly described as "creationist" theories.
But it certainly requires a creator. There are, of course, different flavors of ID, some of which accept the same historical record of biology as evolutionists, just denying natural selection as the cause of diversity.
Panspermia and creative universal consciousness (both of which fall under intelligent design theory) neither require the person of a single creator.
Conversely, conventional science itself (without a hint of creationism or intelligent design) points more directly to a single Creator in that it has concluded the universe (or multi-verse) had a beginning.
With all due respect, this is disingenous.
I have never seen any IDer posit any Creator other than God. I suppose one could post a God-like being, say a sub-deity or a vastly advanced non-human, but it still begs the question and passes the ball - at some point ID has to rely on God.
At any rate, I don't suppose fundamentalist Christians would be happy to see their children taught that man was created by a sub-deity or a vastly advanced non-human.
ID theory is not at all consistent with theology that requires Adam to be the first mortal man and thus supporting ID fully would be a heresy to that particular interpretation of Genesis. As I recall, there was an article on one of the YEC sites warning not to support ID.
|
DU's #1 Enemy |
Where have you seen ID specifically invoke a creator? Certainly to speak of intelligence implies mind, consciousness. But ID does not specify any particular mind. It looks at the design, not the designer. Period.
Anyone with eyes and a willingness to look can see that nature is replete with symmetries, patterning effects, regularities that it appears would have been impossible to generate randomly. Even if it could be shown that such arose from a random chain of development (which I strongly doubt) within a given biological organism, one would still have to explain the pervasiveness of their distribution across unrelated species, and through all the kingdoms of nature -- biological, botanical, mineral -- for that matter.
Consciousness, mind, intelligence, learning can be seen operating throughout nature. Even amoebae have been observed to display a type of intelligent behavior that implies the ability to learn. There is some degree of intelligence in all inanimate life. And in general it expresses as an innate ability of the organism to self-organize functional behaviors that sustain its life.
The other day on "bug watch," I observed the Death Struggle of a moth, which had fallen into the clutches of a spider. My take-away from that experience is: Spiders are a whole lot "smarter" than moths. :^)
I'm interested to hear how there is "design" in the absence of a "designer" ;)
So? My point is that it requires a mind of some sort. This is undeniably true.
It looks at the design, not the designer. Period.
Ah, I could have rolled this together with A-G's post if only I had been quicker. ;)
How exactly does one have "design" in the absence of a "designer"?
In a vacuum, it isn't the same theory. As a practical matter, it's the same old quote salads and strawmanning of evolution. The supposed guru of the movement, Philip Johnson, in particular is impressed by all YEC arguments that are not on the face of them identifiably YEC. (You can tell because he stole a bunch of them to write Darwin on Trial. Dumb-dumbing on the fossil record, transitional forms, Nebraska Man f'gosh sake!) He recommended the absurdist creationist geologist "John Woodmorappe" (not even his real name) to David Berlinski, who cited him in a paper.
I was moved to poetry, alas!
Dave Berlinski's reading trendThe sequence even looks funny. For decades, creationists fight to get creation into the schools and where possible outlaw the teaching of evolution. The US Supreme Court declares that states may not mandate the teaching of creationism, as such practice amounts to the establishment of religion by the state. So along comes this allegedly secular movement within science, ID. What are they doing? Addressing school boards, state by state. What the heck kind of secular, fledgling movement in science ever did that?
Is Philip Johnson's recommend,
Who gets his crap from Woodmorappe,
Who'll be a YECcie to the end.
Four years ago I argued with a particular freeper for a month before I realized he was a YEC. He had superficially appeared to be a Michael Denton groupie, as he had read everything which that ID-er had written to that point, especially Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. I've had parallel experiences many times since. Lots of YECs don't really like to defend YECism. It's very hard unless you're comfortable publicly exhibiting psychotic levels of reality-denial.
2. If biological life on earth was seeded by other civilizations in the cosmos (panspermia).
Know who you mean. He even used to flat-out deny it early on, say back in 2001. But before he'd been posting very long he'd attacked every possible support for an old earth. Radiometric dating, the geologic column, paleontology, even Big Bang cosmology. You can tell by the evidence they don't accept what they're fighting to retain.
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.