The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[Dimensio]

Your statement did not say anything... what is my false premise??? What is my strawman???

Actually, your initial posting was founded upon several. You made a claim regarding the odds of "just one protein forming", but you failed to provide any justification for the odds. Moreover, evolution does not deal with "just one protein folding", thus the claim is meaningless in the context of evolution. You have also introduced claims of the God of the Bible, but the discussion was specifically regarding evolution and Intelligent Design. You have wrongly assumed that your specific religious beliefs were a topic of discussion. You also introduce a false dichotomy, in suggesting that the choice is specifically between evolution without any religious beliefs or acceptance of Biblical creationism. In this way, you fail to acknowledge both religious individuals who accept evolution and people who reject evolution but follow different religious beliefs. You end with a claim regarding "we will exist forever". Not only is this claim unsupported, but it is another false dichotomy -- there are many who accept evolution who do believe in an afterlife. It appears as though you have created a false dichotomy, yet you cling to it despite a number of people pointing out that it is false.

Evolution has not been proven in any lab... It has not been proven in the fossil record.

You are now demonstrating that you are ignorant of the scientific method. Theories in science are never "proven". Theories can only be disproven, or further supported -- but not proven -- by additional physical evidence. Thus far, physical evidence has continued to strengthen evolution, and it has not been disproven.

It does not have the numbers in the laws of probability.

You have not demonstrated any justified odds to support this claim.

Evolution is pure unadulterated speculation with specious scientific sounding jargon.

Making this claim does not demonstrate it to be factual.

Nothing as been proven other than there is limited adaptability within species.

What is your evidence that this adaptability is "limited"?

Do I believe in the old earth concept??? Yes, there is proof! However, the actual age is open for speculation; but, even at the outside (13 billion years) that time is a drop in the ocean compared to the time needed for such complexity to evolve without intelligent hands-on manipulation.

The age of the earth is estimated at 4.6 billion years, not 13. Also, please support the claim that 4.6 -- or even 13 -- billion ears is insufficient for evolution.

Incidentally, in 13 billion years uranium would no longer be radio-active based on "scientific" evidence of half-life decay.

This is a meaningless claim. No one claims that all uranium in the universe has existed for the last 13 billion years.

Evolutionist keep up the mantra that evolution is scientific. If this is the case, then they should bring out the scientific evidence... lab records and fossil records!

This has been done, extensively. Your lack of knowledge regarding this evidence has not negated it.

[aNYCguy]

Attributing the Bible as mere myth and folklore is at variance with a wide body of scholarly study and research to the contrary.

Here, in your own words, is the false dichotomy which is the basis for your rejection of science and rational inquiry.

You have provided no justification for ruling out the possibility that the bible is composed of both historical fact and myth. Perhaps you've never considered this possibility.

[microgood]

What has changed is the armory of symbols and ideas being used. Proponents of Intelligent Design now appeal to notions that are far more a part of the lexicon of science than religion, notably openness to criticism, fair play, and respect for the contingent nature of truth.

These concepts proved successful in helping our civilization to thrive, not only in science, but markets, democracy and a myriad other modern processes. Indeed, they have been incorporated into the moral foundations held by average citizens, of all parties and creeds. Hence, the New Creationists have adapted and learned to base their arguments upon these same principles.

What a steaming pile. This idiot's version of history is nothing short of psychotic. I will admit though that a respect for the contingent nature of truth is one things that makes Darwinism in lock step with Communism and Liberalism. Relativism is critical to their dismantling of Western Civilization.

[balrog666]

What a steaming pile. This idiot's version of history is nothing short of psychotic. I will admit though that a respect for the contingent nature of truth is one things that makes Darwinism in lock step with Communism and Liberalism. Relativism is critical to their dismantling of Western Civilization.

What a steaming pile. Your idiotic argument is nothing short of psychotic. But I guess that's a consequence of equating your religion with "Western Civilization".

[microgood]

But I guess that's a consequence of equating your religion with "Western Civilization".

Which is historically accurate, unlike his claim that we got our openness to criticism and sense of fair play from science, no doubt during the Enlightenment period (which you all long for again).

They must send all you evos to the same history reeducation course as your distorted version of history seems to be identical. And rewriting of history is definitely a common liberal tactic.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

Here, in your own words, is the false dichotomy which is the basis for your rejection of science and rational inquiry.

You have provided no justification for ruling out the possibility that the bible is composed of both historical fact and myth. Perhaps you've never considered this possibility.

=============================================================================

To the contrary. The context of my statement was a true dichotomy, i.e. that the Bible is a historically reliable document, or it is not. If the Bible is myth combined in historic fact, then it is a fiction, possibly based on historic fact. If it is a historically reliable document, that does not make it definitive, i.e. it does not rule out other rational inquiry, but it does merit more consideration than evolutionists allow.

Again, at issue is the view of what "truth" is. I maintain that relative truth represents no truth at all.

The whole context of my original statement which was challenged, was that both Biblical creation and evolution are BOTH based on claims from HISTORY. Evolution is not a repeatable science. Evolution is based on evidence and history. So is Biblical Christianity, and the Christian's understanding of Creation.

I maintain that Evolution and atheists begin with the non-sequitur, there is no divinity, or if there is, it's impossible to rationally or empirically arrive at an understanding of such divinity. Then the Bible is weighed against that logical fallacy. Obviously, if there is no such thing as divinity, or the divine is outside the domain of "scientific" or rational discussion, then any consideration of "Creation" as science is ludicrous. From that perspective, at LEAST the account of creation must be myth. But Evolution is based upon the same standard, i.e. history and evidence, as the claim of "Creation Science", yet evolutionist exclude the Biblical account as "unscientific".

I could write volumes in defense of Christianity's factual basis in history, but that has already been done. Nothing I write will overcome the original bias against the supernatural or divinity of the honest atheist or dishonest agnostic. I would add the "theistic evolutionist" to that heap, because whatever god he may attribute evolution to, it is not the God as revealed in the Bible.

SFS

[Rock N Jones]

"This idiot's version of history is nothing short of psychotic."

What do you think the world would be like had Hitler and his genetically superior Arian race had won World War ll?

[Dimensio]

Perhaps you could actually offer an argument to support the claim of truth of Genesis, rather than simply asserting that evidence exists.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

Are you disputing my claim? Do you claim that age enhances the truth value of a statement?

Nothing I've written or say could be so construed.

This is false. Truth is that which conforms to reality.

Whose reality? How do you define it?

This is false. I do not understand the source of your claims.

No it is not. You are unwilling to deal with the argument I provided.

To discount the Biblical account of creationism, the Bible itself must be determined to be a non-historical, or at the very least, an unreliable historical document.

Actually, all that need be done is demonstrate that observations of physical evidence contradict the Biblical account of creationism. Other historical claims in the Bible may still be accurate.

Do you recall my original statement that you challenged, before you started this intellectual little game?

" I'm willing to admit that there are elements of both history and faith in my support for Biblical Creationism. If only the Darwinian secularists were as honest."

I certainly don't dispute the fact that ANY history (which is based upon evidence) that contradicts the Bible invalidates the Biblical view of creation. However, the Bible is not simply about creation, or good morals, or evil, or Israel, or Jesus Christ, or the first century Christian church. It is in context about all of the above. The Bible makes claims for itself as divine revelation. If it is not historically reliable in context, then neither is it from the God as described by the document. Your charity that "Other historical claims in the Bible may still be accurate" is a farce. After you've ripped the guts from the Bible (without documentation), you allow Christians that the balance of their fairy tale may be in some parts accurate.

Yet, evolutionists maintain a farce of historicity and evidence for their religion that cannot be supported, though of course, you will contest this.

As I said before, go play this dishonest game of "honest inquiry" with someone else. You knew your answers before you ever opened your first Biology text.

I will note that you have not, in any of your statements above, provided any evidence that the Genesis account of creationism is accurate. It appears as though you are trying to claim that if any one part of the Bible is accurate, then the entire collection of writings must be accurate. This is not true.

I never made that claim. I will note that you are not honest about your biases.

My question was not rhetorical. When you claimed the existence of historical evidence, I was under the impression that you believed that physical historical evidence existed supporting the creation account of Genesis. I was asking for you to elaborate on such evidence, if that is in fact what you meant.

Archeology and the antiquities count as "historical evidence".

I am not attempting to make pejorative statements. …. Then you are simply wrong. I am not attempting to "evangelize".

But of course you are. You've invested a lot of time to do so. You're just intellectually dishonest about your goal.

SFS: What level of evidence would be required for you to believe in the God of the Bible, that he created man with a specific purpose, or to overthrow entirely the notion that man is merely a genetic variance, an accident of fate, an evolved species?

Evolutionist: "This is a false dichotomy".

False choice? Of course it is not, and I'll note that you refused to address your standards of evidence. By implication, some evidence is more "special" than other evidence.

I will note that you have still not supported any of your previous claims with evidence.

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

I do not understand why you have gone to such trouble to avoid actually demonstrating that your claim of "historical fact" is in fact true.

And I do not understand why it is so important to you to deny that both evolution and creationism have elements of both history (i.e. evidence) and faith. Your faith in evolution is already on open display.

As I said originally, go play with someone else. You've just wasted a few hours of my time. You obviously do not work for a living, or have your living funded by an academic or government institution.

Gee, what was the article in this thread all about anyway. In countering your religious zeal, I seem to have forgotten.

[balrog666]

They must send all you evos to the same history reeducation course as your distorted version of history seems to be identical.

Perhaps getting an education that includes history helps.

And rewriting of history is definitely a common liberal tactic.

And a fundamentalist one as well.

[Dimensio]

Whose reality? How do you define it?

Reality is not owned by anyone. Reality is that which does not cease to exist when you stop acknowledging it.

No it is not. You are unwilling to deal with the argument I provided.

I do not see that you have provided an argument.

To discount the Biblical account of creationism, the Bible itself must be determined to be a non-historical, or at the very least, an unreliable historical document.

As I have said, this argument implies a false dichotomy. The Bible is a collection of numerous writings created over many centuries. Demonstrating the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of one part of the Bible does not demonstrate the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of another. In other words, showing that the Bible accurately documents the history of political events occuring in a specific region in 3000BC does not demonstrate, in any way, the validity of the Genesis creation account.

Do you recall my original statement that you challenged, before you started this intellectual little game?

Yes. Your original statement was the cause of my inquiry.

I certainly don't dispute the fact that ANY history (which is based upon evidence) that contradicts the Bible invalidates the Biblical view of creation.

So what, then, is your response to evidence showing that diverse species emerged over a period of billions of years, rather than coming to exist at a single point in history?

However, the Bible is not simply about creation, or good morals, or evil, or Israel, or Jesus Christ, or the first century Christian church. It is in context about all of the above. The Bible makes claims for itself as divine revelation. If it is not historically reliable in context, then neither is it from the God as described by the document.

Are you saying, then, that if the Genesis account is not a literally accurate accounting for the origin and diversity of all life on Earth, that nothing in the Bible can be divine revelation? I believe that you have created another false dichotomy.

Your charity that "Other historical claims in the Bible may still be accurate" is a farce.

I am attempting no farce. I am merely explaining that historical accuracy of some claims in an accounting of events is not evidence that all claims in the account are historically accurate. Each claim must stand or fall on its own merits.

After you've ripped the guts from the Bible (without documentation), you allow Christians that the balance of their fairy tale may be in some parts accurate.

Again, I have specifically asked that you support your claims regarding the validity of Genesis. I do not understand why you have thus far gone out of your way to avoid providing evidence of your claims.

Yet, evolutionists maintain a farce of historicity and evidence for their religion that cannot be supported, though of course, you will contest this.

To what "farce" and "religion" do you refer? There is no single religion to which people who accept evolution adhere universally.

I never made that claim.

That is why I said that it "appears" that you have made that claim. It is the impression that I received from your statements. I apologize for my misunderstanding, but I did phrase my statement to avoid making a direct accusation.

Archeology and the antiquities count as "historical evidence".

Then please reference archeology and antiquities that support the Genesis creation account.

But of course you are. You've invested a lot of time to do so. You're just intellectually dishonest about your goal.

What, specifically, am I attempting to "evangelize"?

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

What claims, specifically, have I made that you would like to see supported with evidence?

And I do not understand why it is so important to you to deny that both evolution and creationism have elements of both history (i.e. evidence) and faith.

On the contrary, I have denied nothing. I have merely asked you to explain what history supports the Genesis creation account and for you to explain what "faith" is involved in accepting evolution as valid.

You've just wasted a few hours of my time. You obviously do not work for a living, or have your living funded by an academic or government institution.

Your assessment of me is incorrect. I am only typing this as I wait for a Symantec Ghost server to complete reading of a hard drive image for future deployment.

[donh]

Your assessment of me is incorrect. I am only typing this as I wait for a Symantec Ghost server to complete reading of a hard drive image for future deployment.

AHA! So you do believe in whole-y ghosts.

[donh]

I could write volumes in defense of Christianity's factual basis in history

Well, that's obvious. Sufis can write volumes about the transcendental truth's revealed to them by spinning around until they get dizzy and pass out. More power to all of you, so long as the 1st Amendment is still in force.

[donh]

Which is historically accurate, unlike his claim that we got our openness to criticism and sense of fair play from science, no doubt during the Enlightenment period (which you all long for again).

Oh, shucks. Maybe we got our openness to criticism and sense of fair play from the christians who imprisoned Galileo, and burned Geordono Bruno, jews anabaptists, and pretty much anyone else with whom they had philosophical disagreements.

[microgood]

Oh, shucks. Maybe we got our openness to criticism and sense of fair play from the christians who imprisoned Galileo, and burned Geordono Bruno, jews anabaptists, and pretty much anyone else with whom they had philosophical disagreements.

Well, I might want to point out that even your heroes of the Enlightenment period were devout Christians, and to say the few who were Deists singlehandedly changed the course of 2000 years of Western Civilization history and brought us civility and a sense of fair play is ridiculous to say the least.

Apparently science and history do not mix, because scientists seem unable to grasp any understanding of the history of civilizations and cultures. It must be that pesky postmodern reductionism that prevents them from seeing how mankind has slowly culturally evolved over time. For them it is all darkness before Enlightenment, and all darkness since.

That is evidence that science, though good for many endevours, is worthless when trying to analyze things that cannot be broken into little pieces and still have meaning.

[yeff]

Defying the law of gravity can kill you.

Actually, obeying the law of gravity is more likely to kill you :-Þ

[donh]

Well, I might want to point out that even your heroes of the Enlightenment period were devout Christians, and to say the few who were Deists singlehandedly changed the course of 2000 years of Western Civilization history and brought us civility and a sense of fair play is ridiculous to say the least.

Fine, as long as we agree that it probably was the attitudes of the devout christians who ran the christian world of the Reformation that can be credited with brutally suppressing the scientific/philosophical thought of such as Galileo, Spinoza, Bruno, and any number of old female alchemists/chemists.

Apparently science and history do not mix, because scientists seem unable to grasp any understanding of the history of civilizations and cultures. It must be that pesky postmodern reductionism that prevents them from seeing how mankind has slowly culturally evolved over time. For them it is all darkness before Enlightenment, and all darkness since.

Your rude arrogance on this subject is only matched by your ignorance. Most scientists have a pretty refined sense of history, and since their educations generally include a history of science and technology series, virtually none of them are of the opinion that "all is darkness" before the enlightenment. Probably with a great deal more demonstrable precision than your average creationist can argue the point.

That is evidence that science, though good for many endevours, is worthless when trying to analyze things that cannot be broken into little pieces and still have meaning.

No doubt. However, concerning those things which can be piecewise analyzed, science has no peer.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You should note that your continued repetition of this claim does not change the fact that this claim is false.

On the contrary, you should note that your continued repetition of the claim of "false" does not change the fact that the claims of ID, insofar as they attribute the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions to intelligent design, are reasonable and within the bounds of scientific inquiry. BINGO!

[Dimensio]

On the contrary, you should note that your continued repetition of the claim of "false" does not change the fact that the claims of ID, insofar as they attribute the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions to intelligent design, are reasonable and within the bounds of scientific inquiry.

What observations lead you to claim that ID is reasonable and within the bounds of scientific inquiry? How might I test your claim that ID is responsible for all organized matter performing specific functions?

[Fester Chugabrew]

How might I test . . .

The same way you test your own inferences that an intelligible universe may be a product of non-intelligent non-design. Do you not realize that all science begins with untestable assumptions? If not, then you have adopted an untestable assumption of your own.