Creationism vs Intelligent Design?

[Foxfyre]

Well the exception would be you of course who almost certainly is better educated, more intelligent, and has a better understanding of logic and reason than Plato or Aristotle had.

Appeal to authority

Only if you consider Proletarian to be the authority on this subject.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Well the exception would be you of course who almost certainly is better educated, more intelligent, and has a better understanding of logic and reason than Plato or Aristotle had.

Appeal to authority

Only if you consider Proletarian to be the authority on this subject.

Fail
​

 

[Foxfyre]

Appeal to authority

Only if you consider Proletarian to be the authority on this subject.

Fail
​

Who failed? Them or you?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

At least fox is good for amusement.

 

[Father Time]

Only if you consider Proletarian to be the authority on this subject.

Fail
​

Who failed? Them or you?

In the offchance that you seriously don't get it you did.

You used appeal to authority because your argument boiled down to

Plato and Aristotle believed it and they were wise, therefore it's probably right.

This is appeal to authority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not all appeals to authority fail. If I am weighing comments about why the Civil War began for instance, I certainly will consider Alexander Stephens or Abraham Lincoln's comments far more valid that those of Kevin Kennedy or Proletarian based solely on the credibility of the person making the statement.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fail
​

Who failed? Them or you?

In the offchance that you seriously don't get it you did.

You used appeal to authority because your argument boiled down to

Plato and Aristotle believed it and they were wise, therefore it's probably right.

This is appeal to authority.

Sir, I know what appeal to authority is. And I did not appeal to authority by evoking Aristotle and Plato. I had previously used Plato and Aristotle (as well as others) as examples of how a concept of ID can be developed from logic and reason apart from any religious convictions. Our friend seemed to think that the idea of logic and reason coupled with ID is absurd. And I used sarcasm to agree with him. That's it.

Appeal to authority would be naming Plato and Aristotle as evidence or confirmation that ID is a valid concept which I did not do. I have other ways of doing that.

 

[manifold]

Not all appeals to authority fail. If I am weighing comments about why the Civil War began for instance, I certainly will consider Alexander Stephens or Abraham Lincoln's comments far more valid that those of Kevin Kennedy or Proletarian based solely on the credibility of the person making the statement.

This sounds pretty reasonable at least.

But considering the credibility of the person who wrote it, it's validity remains highly in question.

 

[ProudTwoofer]

Whether or not the "creator" wants to be worshiped through a certain dogma or at all is up for debate, but intelligent design is very logical. Even Albert Einstein at one point in his career stated for the record he believes there must have been a creator. NOT speaking "poetically". Note: I did not say he was a Christian, only that he was at a time a theist.

There had to have been a cause.
Existence beginning by nothing and from nothing really makes no sense. Even Stephen Hawking himself makes the assertion that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by 1 part in a hundred thousand million million it would have collapsed in on itself. Not a coincidence that the expansion wasn't too much.

 

[rdean]

Creationism means Gawd did it.
That creatures were "shimmered" into being.

Intelligent Design means it could really have happened by ET. But some biological systems are so complicated, they couldn't have "evolved", they had to be created whole and "finished".

Of course, they both have equal data backing up their less than "scientific" theories.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Intelligent Design means it could really have happened by ET.

So IDiots are basically Sumerians?

 

[Father Time]

Whether or not the "creator" wants to be worshiped through a certain dogma or at all is up for debate, but intelligent design is very logical. Even Albert Einstein at one point in his career stated for the record he believes there must have been a creator. NOT speaking "poetically". Note: I did not say he was a Christian, only that he was at a time a theist.

There had to have been a cause.
Existence beginning by nothing and from nothing really makes no sense. Even Stephen Hawking himself makes the assertion that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by 1 part in a hundred thousand million million it would have collapsed in on itself. Not a coincidence that the expansion wasn't too much.

A. Saying 'but Albert Einstein believed it' is appeal to authority
B. Evolution says absolutely nothing about how the universe began or even how life began, nor does it say anything about the existence of a god.

 

[ProudTwoofer]

B. Evolution says absolutely nothing about how the universe began or even how life began, nor does it say anything about the existence of a god.

I suppose you're right. My apologies, I just approached this from a "bigger picture" stance.

As for Einstein, I didn't appeal to authority, I just used him as an example because it's a common misconception that the only "God" he ever referred to was in poetic metaphor.

 

[Foxfyre]

Creationism means Gawd did it.
That creatures were "shimmered" into being.

Intelligent Design means it could really have happened by ET. But some biological systems are so complicated, they couldn't have "evolved", they had to be created whole and "finished".

Of course, they both have equal data backing up their less than "scientific" theories.

This may be the only time you and I are almost on the same page rdean, but you have hit on other theories that belong in the ID category. Einstein's "God" was as he said: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." In other words God was not necessarily a 'being' to Spinoza or Einstein, but was rather a sort of unseen cosmic intelligence because it was beyond reason, as they saw it, for such order as we see in the universe to have developed from chaotic happenstance.

Visitations from some super highly developed alien visitors from other worlds is another theory put forth by many.

For some Buddhists, the Creator is as Plato believed - the force of our own minds converts the cosmic intelligence or 'idea' into the recognizable components of our universe.

Aristotle's "God" was a concept derived from his understanding of physics. Because the universe as we know it is in perpetual motion, he reasoned that because everything is moved by something and movement is eternal, there must have been something that imparts motion without itself being moved - the unmoved mover.

So in the world of ID, it does not necessarily have to be a personal, identifiable God as beieved, perceived, and/or experienced by billions on the Earth, but does involve some form of intelligence guiding the process.

We could call the personal God concept the 'Big Boss' or even an unseen cosmic intelligence could fill that role.

There indeed may have been a 'big bang' but something had to pack the explosives and light the fuse.

Or there's the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner in a sack and shook the sack, given unlimited resources of energy and time, at some point all those parts would come together as a working vacuum cleaner. Thus all the components of the universe have always existed and came together in the form as we know it at this time.

Plato, Aristotle, Einstein et al rejected that apart from the "Big Boss" though. They all thought something would be necessary to shake the sack.

All this to say is that ID has every bit as much place in our education as does Darwin's theory of evolution. It is the only way to stretch our imagination and learning capacity to seek what we don't yet know.

 

[Anguille]

Whether or not the "creator" wants to be worshiped through a certain dogma or at all is up for debate, but intelligent design is very logical. Even Albert Einstein at one point in his career stated for the record he believes there must have been a creator. NOT speaking "poetically". Note: I did not say he was a Christian, only that he was at a time a theist.

There had to have been a cause.
Existence beginning by nothing and from nothing really makes no sense. Even Stephen Hawking himself makes the assertion that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by 1 part in a hundred thousand million million it would have collapsed in on itself. Not a coincidence that the expansion wasn't too much.

That the universe has no beginning and no end is no less true simply because the human mind cannot comprehend it.

 

[manifold]

Whether or not the "creator" wants to be worshiped through a certain dogma or at all is up for debate, but intelligent design is very logical. Even Albert Einstein at one point in his career stated for the record he believes there must have been a creator. NOT speaking "poetically". Note: I did not say he was a Christian, only that he was at a time a theist.

There had to have been a cause.
Existence beginning by nothing and from nothing really makes no sense. Even Stephen Hawking himself makes the assertion that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by 1 part in a hundred thousand million million it would have collapsed in on itself. Not a coincidence that the expansion wasn't too much.

That the universe has no beginning and no end is no less true simply because the human mind cannot comprehend it.

Yep, and no less false either.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The difference is really very "simple".

ID says that complex biological systems could not have "evolved" because they are "complex" so they must have been "designed and made".

The science of evolution proves how those same complex biological systems evolved. ...

Huh... so showing the mechanism by which systems evolve, falsifies the existence of an intelligent designer...

Oh that's fascinatin'...

How does that work exactly...

 

[manifold]

The difference is really very "simple".

ID says that complex biological systems could not have "evolved" because they are "complex" so they must have been "designed and made".

The science of evolution proves how those same complex biological systems evolved. ...

Huh... so showing the mechanism by which systems evolve, falsifies the existence of an intelligent designer...

Oh that's fascinatin'...

How does that work exactly...

Where did he say that... exactly?

 

[Foxfyre]

Whether or not the "creator" wants to be worshiped through a certain dogma or at all is up for debate, but intelligent design is very logical. Even Albert Einstein at one point in his career stated for the record he believes there must have been a creator. NOT speaking "poetically". Note: I did not say he was a Christian, only that he was at a time a theist.

There had to have been a cause.
Existence beginning by nothing and from nothing really makes no sense. Even Stephen Hawking himself makes the assertion that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by 1 part in a hundred thousand million million it would have collapsed in on itself. Not a coincidence that the expansion wasn't too much.

That the universe has no beginning and no end is no less true simply because the human mind cannot comprehend it.

Yep, and no less false either.

That is true. But how do you get your mind around a concept that the substance of the universe just appeared at some point in time and at some point of time it will no longer exist? Isn't there a 'why' or a 'how' in there somewhere?

 

[manifold]

That is true. But how do you get your mind around a concept that the substance of the universe just appeared at some point in time and at some point of time it will no longer exist?

I don't.

Isn't there a 'why' or a 'how' in there somewhere?

That would make sense.