'Intelligent Design' is just Cloaked Creationism.

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
7,956
Reaction score
2,768
Points
315
Is just Cloaked Creationism dictated by legal rulings.
Creationism lost standing/rights in schools, so they had to make it sound more science/less religious.
But it too has now lost standing/got outed for the Same reason.


""Intelligent design (ID) is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim 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."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was Substituted into drafts of the book, directly Replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was Not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [15]

ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.
[....]


Intelligent design - Wikipedia

`
 
Last edited:
It's just word wriggling because Cultists dimly realise that there is no sense in their Cultish beliefs .

Usually they just use "Faith" to try and get out of linguistic difficulties .
Plus the fear of punishment if they transgress ------ eternal damnation when they put the screws on the weak and Gullible.
 
It's just word wriggling because Cultists dimly realise that there is no sense in their Cultish beliefs .

Usually they just use "Faith" to try and get out of linguistic difficulties .
Plus the fear of punishment if they transgress ------ eternal damnation when they put the screws on the weak and Gullible.
Or getting burnt at the stake by the witch patrol, which is kind of like being thrown off a building by the Taliban.
 
not really christian so no...it is not cloaked creationism.

Were the originators really trying to point to a creator God or were they actually just secularists looking for a way to align themselves to Christianity for certain reason...sorta like Pelosi does when she says God is fine with Abortion. So.. some form of .justification perhaps?
 
Is just Cloaked Creationism dictated by legal rulings.
Creationism lost standing/rights in schools, so they had to make it sound more science/less religious.
But it too has now lost standing/got outed for the Same reason.


""Intelligent design (ID) is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim 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."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was Substituted into drafts of the book, directly Replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was Not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [15]

ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.
[....]


Intelligent design - Wikipedia

`
Only to creationists. Spinoza and Einstein who did not believe in a personal God as creationists do, but they saw a symmetry, beauty, and order to the Earth and universe that they concluded was much above the probability of accident or chance or even natural selection. They saw in it some kind of intelligence guiding the process. The closest thing to describe it in fiction/mythology would be George Lucas's conception of 'THE FORCE' that was an integral component of his Star Wars trilogy.
 
It's just word wriggling because Cultists dimly realise that there is no sense in their Cultish beliefs .

Usually they just use "Faith" to try and get out of linguistic difficulties .
Plus the fear of punishment if they transgress ------ eternal damnation when they put the screws on the weak and Gullible.
Takes a lot more faith to believe it just happened over billions of yrs and nobody can say where all the matter can from
 
Not even really religious myself, but God by every account would be the most brilliant scientist to create the cosmos and would use Evolution as a tool to bring about life from a collection of simple particles.
His flowing white robes are actually a lab coat.
Many scientists including physicists don't automatically get a card stating they are Atheists, and many hold religious beliefs or can see patterns in the Universe that seem to point to Intelligence.

We are still a primitive and relatively new species that is grasping for answers and frankly don't have a clue either way.

If human intelligence is the pinnacle of our Universe, then evolution failed.

Even a higher evolved species a billion years more advanced, that would appear godlike to our puny minds may not have the answer.
 
Is just Cloaked Creationism dictated by legal rulings.
Creationism lost standing/rights in schools, so they had to make it sound more science/less religious.
But it too has now lost standing/got outed for the Same reason.


""Intelligent design (ID) is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim 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."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was Substituted into drafts of the book, directly Replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was Not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [15]

ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.
[....]


Intelligent design - Wikipedia

`
1734223105516.webp
 
Votto
Further clarification on Einstein Religion/God. (Letter to Gutkind 1954. Sold at Christie's 2018)

"...""‘The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,"" Einstein wrote to Gutkind,
"‘the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends.
No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.’"

Despite Einstein’s open identification with Judaism, his feelings on it were the same:
""‘For me the unadulterated Jewish religion is, like all other religions, an incarnation of primitive superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and in whose mentality I feel profoundly anchored, still for me does not have any different kind of dignity from all other peoples. As far as my experience goes, they are in fact no better than other human groups, even if they are protected from the worst excesses by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot perceive anything “chosen” about them.’"



`
 
Last edited:
I see it.

It doesn't negate post #16.
I will repeat what I said in the other thread.

A capricious whimsical God does not arbitrarily change the laws that He himself created.

There is no poofing.

Everything that exists obeys physical laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom