Replies

Thank you so much for your reply! I very much prefer an organized discussion, too.

What precisely are we debating? So far as I can tell, we are debating two topics:

1) Whether panspermia is a version of "intelligent design"..
2) Whether "collective consciousness" is a version of "intelligent design"..

So, is this correct? That we're debating these two topics?

Looking back at my original post at 1144 forward, it appears you were objecting to those two examples I used in my definition of Intelligent Design vis-a-vis creationism as follows:

Intelligent Design – unlike creationism – has no basis in theology at all. It does not specify the designer. The designer could be God, collective consciousness, or aliens.

Seems to me we ought to be debating the first sentence because, if we agree that Intelligent Design has no basis in theology at all, then we ought to be able to also agree to the rest of it since "no theology" means the designer is not stipulated.

I'm unclear on whether we've added a third:

3) Whether evidence exists of an "intelligent designer"..

Are we also debating this? And, is there anything else?

Perhaps the quandary is in reference to my counter offer to your challenge as follows?:

you: But I have no problem moving along with that: show me evidence of your uncharacterized intelligence.

me: That’s a tall order for a reply post and has been addressed already on myriad threads. In a general category, I would call it geometric physics (dimensionality, forms, etc.). More specific to life v. non-life/death in nature: information (successful communication), autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence. If you care to specify which area interests you the most, I’ll be glad to gather up information and post it later this evening. I have to be gone this afternoon again.

So it's entirely up to you. We've been all over this subject with lots of other correspondents and I'm "up" for another round if you want to go there.

It can be a wide-ranging conversation and most likely will result in a lot of links and excerpts posted to the thread, so if you do want to discuss it we can move things along better if you narrow in on the subjects of interest.

Intelligent Design – unlike creationism – has no basis in theology at all. It does not specify the designer. The designer could be God, collective consciousness, or aliens.

No. Your logic is a fallacy in this form:

Intelligent Design has no basis in theology.
Panspermia has no basis in theology.
Therefore, panspermia is intelligent design.

A not B; C not B; therefore C=A.

Wrong.

So, what we need to do is identify our questions. We've evidently agreed to at least the following:

Is the hypothesis of panspermia an Intelligent Design hypothesis?
Is the hypothesis of "collective consciousness" an Intelligent Design hypothesis?

Then we need to define our terms; the terms that require definition are the following:

Intelligent Design
Panspermia
"collective consciousness"

Whether or not Intelligent Design has a basis in theology is part of the definition. More importantly, in order for panspermia or "collective consciousness" to be Intelligent Design hypotheses, then they must at minimum have design, and the design must also be intelligent.

That is the juncture of our disagreement.

If we resolve these, then we can move on to the third question (we can postpone the framing of it until that point in time).

So, the current step is to define our terms. Let's start with:

What is Intelligent Design? In other words, what makes a hypothesis an Intelligent Design hypothesis?

I will start by stating what is insufficient: Any proposed solution to any given objection to the modern synthesis theory of genetic evolution.

So, let's proceed from there. What is it that you think qualifies a hypothesis to be an Intelligent Design hypothesis?