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.
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?
Thank you for your reply!
No. Your logic is a fallacy in this form:
1. Intelligent Design has no basis in theology.
2. Panspermia has no basis in theology.
3. Therefore, panspermia is intelligent design.
A not B; C not B; therefore C=A. Wrong. Er, that was not my assertion nor could that be deduced from it. Again, with emphasis:
Intelligent Design has no basis in theology at all. It does not specify the designer.
(ipso facto) The designer could be God, collective consciousness, or aliens.
Your statement is “begging the question” as I understand the term because you have presumed your conclusion, i.e. that an alien designer is not a candidate designer under the Intelligent Design hypothesis. Continuing…
So, what we need to do is identify our questions. We've evidently agreed to at least the following:
1. Is the hypothesis of panspermia an Intelligent Design hypothesis?
2. Is the hypothesis of "collective consciousness" an Intelligent Design hypothesis?
Again, please allow me to refocus the inquiry. The question at hand is whether an hypothesis that speciation is the result of aliens or collective consciousness would meet the criteria of an intelligent design hypothesis. To put it another way, since the intelligent design hypothesis does not stipulate a designer at all – there would be no hypotheses which characterize the designer beyond "intelligent".
Then we need to define our terms; the terms that require definition are the following:
1. Intelligent Design
2. Panspermia
3. "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.
The project of determining whether hypotheses of “panspermia/cosmic ancestry” or “collective consciousness” include both characteristics – design and intelligence – is a very useful endeavor on its own! I’m “in”.
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?
Intelligent Design holds 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.” Evidently you wish to narrow the scope to biological life which is fine with me as well.
An hypothesis is an intelligent design hypothesis (for the purpose of our discussion here) if it holds that certain features of life v non-life/death in nature are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
More simply stated, an intelligent design hypothesis is one which holds that certain features of life v non-life/death in nature are directed by intelligent cause.
Notably, such an hypothesis will neither raise nor dispute the age of the universe, mutations – even random mutations or natural selection. It will rather assert that such explanations are incomplete or inadequate to explain certain features of life v non-life/death in nature.
To summarize, these are the properties of an intelligent design hypothesis:
identifies certain features of life v non-life/death in nature which cannot be explained by undirected processes
speculates that such features are the effect of a cause
speculates that such features were intended or directed
does not dispute the age of the universe (or geologic ages)
does not dispute that mutations occur, even random mutations
does not dispute that natural selection occurs