Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?

[marksinvirginia]

In the infinite vastness of NOTHINGNESS, it has escaped the 'superior' minds of the atheists that where one [of anything] exists the most basic of logic dictates there are others. Our, so called, "laws of physic" apply only to the dimension we occupy. In cross-dimensional logic, each dimension has its own laws... none of which our pathetic occupants have the remotest clue.

Right now... all you have are your little theories. You have heard, and read, of God and His laws. But...looking in the mirror, you see a wretch who stands light years in departure from God's laws. So you, as if a player in Aesop's Fables, decide that all you have to do is deny God's existence, and His rules, which encumber you, will no longer apply.

But wait.... God still doesn't go away. So you, in turn, develop theories and conjecture to support your disbelief. But, even in so doing, you continue to wallow in the discontent of your hearts.

"The fool saith in his heart that there is no God." You wear your badges of foolishness around your necks like millstones.

You know damn well that only a complete and utter, freaking fool spends his life trying to prove that something does not exist.

But you have become so steeped in foolishness that you are willing to chance being consigned into hell... wherein you smugly think you will be able to plead ignorance. But you will spend your eternity in realization that the appeal process ended when you died. You will wish a zillion times that you had become master over your "laws of physics" rather than letting them become the master over you.

To deny God is to deny cross-dimensional logic.

Protect your dignity and defer your insults until you see if this sinks in.


~Mark

I appreciate your perspective Mark, but I don't think it is necessary to believe in God in order to believe in Intelligent Design as I have gone to some pains to illustrate. Whether or not it is rational to deny God is probably a different discussion, albeit it would be an interesting one.

And I am of the opinion, that you don't win many hearts for God by consigning folks to hell. I prefer to show them God's love and something of His eternal design.

My primary interest in this discussion at all is to illustrate how science can be taught and how even young people of faith can be encouraged to embrace it without compromising their personal beliefs at all but also not violating the establishment of religion clause of the Constitution. The JudeoChristian concepts of Creationism merit no place in Science Class any more than do the Hindu or Taoist or Islamic concepts of Creation.

And no form of I.D, even that embraced by scientists, can be taught as science. But For me it is criminal to allow science curriculum and/or teachers to not at least explain that I.D. is at least one means of explaining gaps in knowledge that science cannot answer, and that the concept is not irrational or without logic. The students should be told that I.D. will not be included in science class. But science should never be used to destroy their faith either.

*******************************************

The depths of science are devoid of substance when God is excluded. God is the alpha and the omega in all that exists. But God, by His own design, always remains a conscious choice. If you will re-read, in syntax, what I wrote... you will see that I consigned no one to hell. I was just a sign stating: 'Danger, The Bridge of Humanism is Washed Out; Detour While You Still Can.'

FoxFyre, I thank you for reading my thoughts, and for your insightful reply. It's always a pleasure to find dialog with another thoughtful explorer.


~Mark

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You might want to go back and take a look at your post. You called Foxfyre (who I do believe is a Christian?) ignorant, and in the same breath stated that it was ignorant people like him that attribute the sun to God.

Yes. Emphasis on the qualifier "ignorant" to describe him and "people like [him]". He has tried his darndest to keep his religion out of this thread, going to great lengths not to mention it and flat out claiming he hasn't spoken about it. So once again we find YOU making the assumption that ignorant people = Christianity. Actually I take that back. To reach that conclusion, you had to ASSUME he was Christian, THEN you had to ASSUME Christians were ignorant. In fact, I was simply pointing out ignorant people believe things they can't explain are proof of a deity. This is and has been factually accurate since the first time I've said it.

Your remarks on the matter are a desperate and pathetic attempt to prove something of mine incorrect. And since you can't actually poke a hole in the actual argument being made, you string together these poor assumptions and start whining about something completely tangential to the actual discussion in order to play victim in your usual fashion. In the end, it is YOU who makes the connection between "ignorant" and "Christian". Don't go blaming anyone else for your own moronic insecurities.

 

[antagon]

i couldn't speak for others, but i make this connection because God is the only identity I attribute the capacity which you lend to your IDer. i don't have a prejudice against God or a religious belief. i believe in God and have religious belief myself. i think i've made some specific indictments of ID. are you one of those who is incapable of answering to those, resorting instead to claims of persecution?

I have not made any assertion re persecution either. But I have been repeatedly told here by some that the ONLY theory of Intelligent Design that is reasonable to consider is the Big Boss (God/Creator) theory. And that has been explained to me by several, including you, in most unflattering terms; and, in my point of view, that is a very narrow minded and incomplete way of looking at it.

this is because you have taken it upon yourself to employ the term intelligent design in a manner beyond the scope which its progenitors have established it. i dont know what it is supposed to mean according to you or other folks on this thread that subscribe to it in this new abstraction. i posed a question about it, and you responded with what i described as a mindset which presents a mutually exclusive relationship between creation and science. rather than addressing that, you have claimed twice now that some kind of narrow mindedness or reticence to faith has prejudiced beliefs dissenting your own on the matter. this habit is the appeal to persecution which i'm criticizing for its persistent derailment of dialectic efforts to examine your idea of ID.

So again, what proof do you have that Einstein's (and to some degree Socrates', Plato's, Aristotles, some Buddhists' et al) teleological theory is wrong? What rationale do you have to dispute it that has any more credibility than the hypothesis they offered? Not one of those believed in/believes in a personal God or identifiable Being.

I'm looking for one rationale mind here who can at least comprehend such a concept without deciding I'm an idiot or religious fanatic for asking the question or offering the theory.

any idea of creation falls in the purview of faith. this is the basis which the idea was introduced to me and many others, and science holds no evidences for creation, nor benefits from the recognition of a creator or non-creator. your characterization of einstein's idiomatic references to god as teleological is a joke, and more of your co-opting of ID and now teleology to those who aren't alive to clarify their positions. the fact is that the majority of scientists have some background in faith, but a very very stark few in modern history have taken these belief systems to the extent of teleology or ID whereby they attempt to incorporate their belief in deity into their scientific conclusions. einstein never came close to doing that, whatsoever. it is dishonest to include einstein among those who have.

even as a philosophy, i dont think creation/non-creation could be argued to any end. it always seems to fall back to faith. my faith is accompanied by doctrine which precludes any validity of an IDer or an anonymous god expressly The God's commandments. God in the judeo-christian sense does have an identity and religion associated with Him such that what antiquity's philosophers or einstein or thomas jefferson believed about deity is not supported. this is where my faith is. without being militant toward folks with other faiths, i dont think there's any validity to what they believe about a god or IDer if it is not expressly God.

with no place to contribute or evidence derived from science, ID and teleology is not science. as a philosophy, it defers to theological philosophy, failing even to qualify as scientific philosophy for its moot if not disruptive contribution to the field. with the realm of faith left, i already have a God with a place central to creation, but one which doesn't necessarily project human-like involvement or thought into the nature which science explores, so i am not your 'rationale mind' beyond basic tolerance for what you believe. one of the ways which i judge rationalism is converse to yours, and involves the application of extra-rational matters of faith to rational matters of science.

this leaves your teleology or ID as an irrational belief set from my perspective.

 

[antagon]

i wonder why the extent of our knowledge in 2010 should constitute the end of scientific exploration into the physical origins, nature and history of the universe or where the biblical mandate against studying the physical world is derived.

Christianity has historically made such boundaries countless times. It is no coincidence that one of the founding stories involves looking down upon someone for wanting to explore and eating "forbidden fruit" from the tree of KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge seeking is bad! Claiming the earth revolves around the sun is criminal! Look at how many times Christianity has had to concede on blatant scientific evidence years if not decades after it has been accepted by researchers. The very establishment of "Christian science" is proof of the agenda that knowledge should only be analyzed and applied in specific ways. Evidence is evidence. Leave the bias out.

i'm agreeable with this from a scientific perspective, and i can see how both religion and science communities would care to insulate one from the other. where christianity is concerned, i think the traditions of christian communities often find the basis of faith in ignorance and the awe that accompanies it. where that seems more excusable to me as an archaic pre-enlightenment mechanism, modern application of this deference to ignorance is not acceptable. i could see how one might stretch the lessons of the bible to promote ignorance, but i dont think that is honest work of God. i think education to include science has facilitated the system of values associated with christianity, and that there is less bliss and more deceit in promoting it.

but then again, that is just self-righteousness. i would like to feel i'm a good person despite spending a lot of time and money on learning how things work instead of ignoring them.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

How can anyone not believe that information cannot come from nothing??

Thats a priceless sentence construct, light.

 

[Foxfyre]

i couldn't speak for others, but i make this connection because God is the only identity I attribute the capacity which you lend to your IDer. i don't have a prejudice against God or a religious belief. i believe in God and have religious belief myself. i think i've made some specific indictments of ID. are you one of those who is incapable of answering to those, resorting instead to claims of persecution?

I have not made any assertion re persecution either. But I have been repeatedly told here by some that the ONLY theory of Intelligent Design that is reasonable to consider is the Big Boss (God/Creator) theory. And that has been explained to me by several, including you, in most unflattering terms; and, in my point of view, that is a very narrow minded and incomplete way of looking at it.

this is because you have taken it upon yourself to employ the term intelligent design in a manner beyond the scope which its progenitors have established it. i dont know what it is supposed to mean according to you or other folks on this thread that subscribe to it in this new abstraction. i posed a question about it, and you responded with what i described as a mindset which presents a mutually exclusive relationship between creation and science. rather than addressing that, you have claimed twice now that some kind of narrow mindedness or reticence to faith has prejudiced beliefs dissenting your own on the matter. this habit is the appeal to persecution which i'm criticizing for its persistent derailment of dialectic efforts to examine your idea of ID.

So again, what proof do you have that Einstein's (and to some degree Socrates', Plato's, Aristotles, some Buddhists' et al) teleological theory is wrong? What rationale do you have to dispute it that has any more credibility than the hypothesis they offered? Not one of those believed in/believes in a personal God or identifiable Being.

I'm looking for one rationale mind here who can at least comprehend such a concept without deciding I'm an idiot or religious fanatic for asking the question or offering the theory.

any idea of creation falls in the purview of faith. this is the basis which the idea was introduced to me and many others, and science holds no evidences for creation, nor benefits from the recognition of a creator or non-creator. your characterization of einstein's idiomatic references to god as teleological is a joke, and more of your co-opting of ID and now teleology to those who aren't alive to clarify their positions. the fact is that the majority of scientists have some background in faith, but a very very stark few in modern history have taken these belief systems to the extent of teleology or ID whereby they attempt to incorporate their belief in deity into their scientific conclusions. einstein never came close to doing that, whatsoever. it is dishonest to include einstein among those who have.

even as a philosophy, i dont think creation/non-creation could be argued to any end. it always seems to fall back to faith. my faith is accompanied by doctrine which precludes any validity of an IDer or an anonymous god expressly The God's commandments. God in the judeo-christian sense does have an identity and religion associated with Him such that what antiquity's philosophers or einstein or thomas jefferson believed about deity is not supported. this is where my faith is. without being militant toward folks with other faiths, i dont think there's any validity to what they believe about a god or IDer if it is not expressly God.

with no place to contribute or evidence derived from science, ID and teleology is not science. as a philosophy, it defers to theological philosophy, failing even to qualify as scientific philosophy for its moot if not disruptive contribution to the field. with the realm of faith left, i already have a God with a place central to creation, but one which doesn't necessarily project human-like involvement or thought into the nature which science explores, so i am not your 'rationale mind' beyond basic tolerance for what you believe. one of the ways which i judge rationalism is converse to yours, and involves the application of extra-rational matters of faith to rational matters of science.

this leaves your teleology or ID as an irrational belief set from my perspective.

I have chosen to explain ID in a way that many believe it to be. The fact that it does not fit what appears to be YOUR definition or some religious people's definition can either be a stumbling block for a good discussion or a basis for one. Whenever one closes their mind to new concepts or ideas or ways of thinking, one cannot be very scientific, would you agree?

So long as you insist on confining I.D. to purely a matter of religious faith, you dismiss some pretty powerful scientists who consider it differently than you do and ignore the fact that they are not coming from a religious perspective. Some of our friends here want to go so far as to diiminish it as a 'creation' of religious faith and therefore in their eyes 'looney tunes'. That is their prerogative too, though I do not enjoy discussion with those who accuse or diminish people who think differently than themselves. I prefer to discuss concepts with people who are at least willing to explore their own prejudices and think outside the box a bit. That is not a 'persecution complex' either. It just fits with my personal choice to not engage in exercises of futility.

You seem to be hung up on the concept of I.D. = creationism. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, and at least one Buddhist sect did not include any concept of creation in their theories that cannot be defined as anything other than intelligent design.

As Einstein once wrote: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Einstein would elaborate on that thought that he does not believe man lives beyond this earthly existence, he did not accept an anthropomorphic god that is involved in the affairs of man and beast, and he did not accept a concept of a god who rewards and punishes in any way. But as Spinoza did, he was not opposed to a sense of intelligence being behind the intricate and improbable order of what exists.

Einstein never suggested that the 'intelligence' created what we have, but through logic and reason could accept that there was an intelligence within the whole of it.

The JudeoChristian advocate would then likely go one step further and make that a matter of religion--the intelligence within the whole of it is the Creator God. Einstein did not go that additional step and did not believe in the "Creator God" even though he did study Judaism and eventually rejected it as 'unbelievable'.

And if you say that it requires a measure of faith to believe that there is an order and purpose in the universe that seems unlikely had it all been left purely to chance, that is true though I would not label that 'religious faith'. It requires a measure of faith to accept all scientific theory for which we have not yet discovered means to verify, falsify, or explain.

 

[JBeukema]

You seem to be hung up on the concept of I.D. = creationism

It is. Unless you think your 'intelligent designer' came about after that which you credit it for designing.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I have chosen to explain ID in a way that many believe it to be. The fact that it does not fit what appears to be YOUR definition or some religious people's definition can either be a stumbling block for a good discussion or a basis for one.

Oh do gravity next. I want to hear you explain it in the way you believe. After that I'm interested in hearing your beliefs on how microwaves work. It's fun to make things up in complete distinction to the actual underlying definitions!

Whenever one closes their mind to new concepts or ideas or ways of thinking, one cannot be very scientific, would you agree?

You're missing the second part of that. You need to be open to new ideas, AND have the evidence that support such ideas. Jumping to conclusions with NO evidence goes against every scientific teaching out there.

So long as you insist on confining I.D. to purely a matter of religious faith, you dismiss some pretty powerful scientists who consider it differently than you do and ignore the fact that they are not coming from a religious perspective.

Except, it IS purely confined to matters of religious faith. The very concept of ID was started by those from a purely religious perspective, without science whatsoever. Pointing out long gone scientists or philosophers and trying to project an isolated quote onto "proving" their belief of a concept THAT DIDN'T EXIST during their time is foolish. But let's face it, you do that because you have absolutely no modern evidence or argument to make. You HAVE TO retreat to such ancient stretches of the imagination.

Some of our friends here want to go so far as to diiminish it as a 'creation' of religious faith and therefore in their eyes 'looney tunes'. That is their prerogative too, though I do not enjoy discussion with those who accuse or diminish people who think differently than themselves.

Make no mistake: I diminish your argument because it has absolutely no underlying evidence. You avoid entering such logical discussion with me because you can't face such truths, and your ignorance demands it to maintain your unsupported ideas.

You seem to be hung up on the concept of I.D. = creationism. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, and at least one Buddhist sect did not include any concept of creation in their theories that cannot be defined as anything other than intelligent design.

Defined by you. Interpreted by you to mean they really believed in ID. When they didn't. The fact that you need to stretch their quotes AND stretch the boundaries of ID should demonstrate that.

Einstein never suggested that the 'intelligence' created what we have, but through logic and reason could accept that there was an intelligence within the whole of it.

Which again comes back to a point you can't seem to understand: order in nature does not necessitate some deity placed it there. Order can just exist. ID by definition requires that the intelligence was specifically designed by some being and put in place. You appear to be confusing admiration for the order of the universe with ID. Most scientists admire the order of their fields. That doesn't make your argument.

 

[JBeukema]

order in nature does not necessitate some deity placed it there. Order can just exist. ID by definition requires that the intelligence was specifically designed by some being and put in place.

see: emergence

 

[Foxfyre]

You seem to be hung up on the concept of I.D. = creationism

It is. Unless you think your 'intelligent designer' came about after that which you credit it for designing.

In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about. I have been very careful not to do that.

But I'll ask you the same question others have refused to answer.

Where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from? What was the origin. Did it all appear from nothing? Does something coming from nothing not fly in the face of all scientific theory?

However, if the religious can believe in a God that has no beginning and no end, it seems reasonable that science can believe in matter that has no beginning and no end. And Spinoza, Einstein, et al, are not unreasonable in discerning a system, pattern, and purpose in nature that just doesn't mesh with it all occurring due to pure chance.

 

[JBeukema]

In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about.

'


To design, your designer must exist before it designs, yet along before its design is realized. This necessarily places it outside the universe you assume your 'unmoved mover' or 'uncaused causation' designed. This places it squarely in the realm of the supernatural, in the real of deity.

 

[Foxfyre]

In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about.

'


To design, your designer must exist before it designs, yet along before its design is realized. This necessarily places it outside the universe you assume your 'unmoved mover' or 'uncaused causation' designed. This places it squarely in the realm of the supernatural, in the real of deity.

Not necessarily. Plato's concept was that it has all always been here. The "idea" of rock. The "idea" of dog. The "idea" of tree. A cosmic 'mind' or intelligence for lack of a better word to describe it. And though he never fully developed his concept of I.D., I think that's pretty much how Einstein most likely perceived it too.

Again let's look at my post in its full context:

In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about. I have been very careful not to do that.

But I'll ask you the same question others have refused to answer.

Where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from? What was the origin. Did it all appear from nothing? Does something coming from nothing not fly in the face of all scientific theory?

However, if the religious can believe in a God that has no beginning and no end, it seems reasonable that science can believe in matter that has no beginning and no end. And Spinoza, Einstein, et al, are not unreasonable in discerning a system, pattern, and purpose in nature that just doesn't mesh with it all occurring due to pure chance.

So again I ask, where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from? What was the origin? Did it all appear from nothing? And what force set it all into motion to produce the universe that we now have?

I'm hoping that if I ask the question of enough people, somebody will finally have the guts to say they don't know. And because they don't know, that leaves the door open for all sorts of possibilities.

 

[JBeukema]

In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about.

'


To design, your designer must exist before it designs, yet along before its design is realized. This necessarily places it outside the universe you assume your 'unmoved mover' or 'uncaused causation' designed. This places it squarely in the realm of the supernatural, in the real of deity.

Not necessarily. Plato's concept was that it has all always been here. The "idea" of rock. The "idea" of dog. The "idea" of tree.

Who or what held this idea?

A cosmic 'mind' or intelligence for lack of a better word to describe it

A supernatural intelligence beyond human comprehension... we're back to deity again.

. And though he never fully developed his concept of I.D

His concept was nothing like the ID you're equating it with, although it was equally moronic.

Where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from

I already answered that. Twice in this very thread.

Does something coming from nothing not fly in the face of all scientific theory?

No. Even TFLOTD only can be affirmed as applying within this universe. Id M-Theory or any other multi-universe model is correct, then we cannot know what laws apply within the greater medium itself, outside of our own universe.


Also, under Lambda-Colt, the total value of the universe is actually... nothing.


And phantom particles do appear to pop in and out of existence all the time on the quantum scale- and both TBB and Lambda-Colt trace the universe's beginnings to the quantum level.

However, if the religious can believe in a God that has no beginning and no end, it seems reasonable that science can believe in matter that has no beginning and no end.

You mean TFLOTD? Congrats. the rest of us learned about that back in middle school.

So again I ask, where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from? What was the origin? Did it all appear from nothing? And what force set it all into motion to produce the universe that we now have?

I've now addressed that three times. If you still don't get it, you're either willfully stupid or just plain stupid.

I'm hoping that if I ask the question of enough people, somebody will finally have the guts to say they don't know. And because they don't know, that leaves the door open for all sorts of possibilities.

Fail. Just because I don't know who took the last Coke doesn't mean we give any merit to the crazy notion that robot Dick Cheney and Batboy snuck in, stole it, and sold it to the Annunaki so they could use it as a superweapon to kill Thor, summon the Sword of Akasha, and record the season finale of Code Geass season 3.

 

[antagon]

I have chosen to explain ID in a way that many believe it to be. The fact that it does not fit what appears to be YOUR definition or some religious people's definition can either be a stumbling block for a good discussion or a basis for one. Whenever one closes their mind to new concepts or ideas or ways of thinking, one cannot be very scientific, would you agree?

i think science is also predicated on a level of precision with terminology. by employing the term intelligent design you are specifically making a reference to a movement and a tradition which maintains presumptions which you contradict. while you put forward that i'm hung up on the idea that ID = creation, i offer that this is because creation is inherent in ID, except that you have taken a different tack with the same term. if i put a lump of iron foward in an argument and referred to it as gold, how scientific would that discussion be, no matter how open-minded the parties try to be? if you deny the magnetic properties associable with the iron, that doesnt change the facts of iron any more than your attempt to employ an established term to encompass meanings which you establish in a piecemeal way now changes the likelihood that people would seek the implications of design and creation from ID.

what is your point in associating einstein, determinists, and stoics, etc with ID? while there are ways which most all philosophies are communicable, co-opting their progenitors or adherents to a new concept with teleological aims is some kind of malpractice. if you adhere to ID and to spinoza's deism at the same time, that is one matter, that does not, however, empower an association with spinoza or einstein with intelligent design. that's ridiculous to me, yet this is the basis of your argument. in so arguing, you superimpose greater meaning than ID was constructed with, and ignore the teleological implications associated with that, which einstein never advocated. make it stop.

inform your perspective:

The theory of 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.

The Discovery Institute

the proposal which i've emphasized is a corrosive scientific philosophy which holds that satisfactory explanations to the subjects of physical scientific exploration might constitute as simple as a reference to this IDer, while putting forward that what we know about natural selection, or the evolution of chemicals are inferior descriptions to this 'best' description.

is this what you are advocating and expect for me to believe that einstein would advocate, or are you using terminology which is not fitting to your perspective, while claiming that others don't understand you or are not open minded?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about. I have been very careful not to do that.

And yet it still doesn't matter. As long as there is some DESIGNER outside of the universe, it is a deity. By definition. You can try to backpedal all you'd like to claim you really aren't talking about God, but you are. What else designed it in your mind then? I've asked you this question countless times, and you've had to avoid it every step along the way. So much so that you had to completely stop responding to my posts because you have absolutely no manner in which to address this point. And that's why you were negged: not for disagreement, but for blind avoidance, so please stop whining on my wall.

Where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from? What was the origin. Did it all appear from nothing? Does something coming from nothing not fly in the face of all scientific theory?

Several people have answered this question throughout the thread. Another fact you seem to continue to ignore. But if you did take the time to read the explanations offered to you, you would clearly see that it is NOT "something coming from nothing". You have a poor understanding of the concept, with the inability to learn. But all of that aside, the fact still remains that IT DOESNT MATTER. Science is allowed to say "don't care" or "don't know", and neither invalidates any other scientific theory.

Plato's concept was that it has all always been here. The "idea" of rock. The "idea" of dog. The "idea" of tree. A cosmic 'mind' or intelligence for lack of a better word to describe it. And though he never fully developed his concept of I.D., I think that's pretty much how Einstein most likely perceived it too.

Except these things do NOT describe ID. ID has two parts to it: ordered intelligence AND a designer who created that ordered intelligence. The things you are referencing ONLY speak to the former and in no way support the latter.

As I've said previously, which you also ignored: scientists in just about every field marvel at the order of their research. In fact the very purpose of research is generally to discover the underlying order of the world. But that in no way means the order was intelligently created by a designer.

So now that we've taken the time to explore your misconceptions about ancient philosophers because you are still incapable of providing recent evidence to support your claim, even THAT seems be shot down.

Fail. Just because I don't know who took the last Coke doesn't mean we give any merit to the crazy notion that robot Dick Cheney and Batboy snuck in, stole it, and sold it to the Annunaki so they could use it as a superweapon to kill Thor, summon the Sword of Akasha, and record the season finale of Code Geass season 3.

That was epic.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have chosen to explain ID in a way that many believe it to be. The fact that it does not fit what appears to be YOUR definition or some religious people's definition can either be a stumbling block for a good discussion or a basis for one. Whenever one closes their mind to new concepts or ideas or ways of thinking, one cannot be very scientific, would you agree?

i think science is also predicated on a level of precision with terminology. by employing the term intelligent design you are specifically making a reference to a movement and a tradition which maintains presumptions which you contradict. while you put forward that i'm hung up on the idea that ID = creation, i offer that this is because creation is inherent in ID, except that you have taken a different tack with the same term. if i put a lump of iron foward in an argument and referred to it as gold, how scientific would that discussion be, no matter how open-minded the parties try to be? if you deny the magnetic properties associable with the iron, that doesnt change the facts of iron any more than your attempt to employ an established term to encompass meanings which you establish in a piecemeal way now changes the likelihood that people would seek the implications of design and creation from ID.

No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community. You have to understand that I am an avid anti-political correctness type and refuse to allow anybody to make an incorrect assumption about what I mean when I use any term or dictate to me what the definition of an ambiguous term must be. It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious', as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition. We might also mean different things when we use terms like 'recism' or 'religious' or 'fanatical' too.

But we don't have to disrespect each other when we disagree on the definition.

what is your point in associating einstein, determinists, and stoics, etc with ID? while there are ways which most all philosophies are communicable, co-opting their progenitors or adherents to a new concept with teleological aims is some kind of malpractice. if you adhere to ID and to spinoza's deism at the same time, that is one matter, that does not, however, empower an association with spinoza or einstein with intelligent design. that's ridiculous to me, yet this is the basis of your argument. in so arguing, you superimpose greater meaning than ID was constructed with, and ignore the teleological implications associated with that, which einstein never advocated. make it stop.

You must not be reading my posts very carefully as I have gone into some detail to explain my point. My point is that I.D. is not science and should not be included in the science curriculum. But neither is there any basis to dismiss it as a reasonable explanation for how things are the way they are.

And going further beyond my point to my purpose in makiing it: I object to any science curriculum that presumes to discount I.D. as a reasonable explanation and thereby presume to attack or destroy the faith of children. Science can quite competently be taught without doing that.

inform your perspective:

The theory of 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.

The Discovery Institute

And I reject that as I and millions of others accept I.D. AND natural selection. One is not exclusive of the other.

the proposal which i've emphasized is a corrosive scientific philosophy which holds that satisfactory explanations to the subjects of physical scientific exploration might constitute as simple as a reference to this IDer, while putting forward that what we know about natural selection, or the evolution of chemicals are inferior descriptions to this 'best' description.

is this what you are advocating and expect for me to believe that einstein would advocate, or are you using terminology which is not fitting to your perspective, while claiming that others don't understand you or are not open minded?

I think anybody who has his/her mind made up and his/her mind closed and is unwilling to even consider a different point of view is indeed closed minded. I think those who make unsupportable accusations and unflattering conclusions about where another person is coming from are even more close minded as well as bigots. Disclaimer: I am NOT accusing you of either of these things.

My opinion that if there is indeed a "Creator" behind intelligent design, such Creator would also be the author of science and therefore the author of natural selection. Again I have no quarrel with natural selection as a scientific theory. I have taught the concept myself in the classroom. I have written and can write a pretty darn good paper on the concept from memory. And, in my opinion, it has no quarrel whatsoever with intelligent design.

 

[JBeukema]

My opinion that if there is indeed a "Creator" behind intelligent design, such Creator would also be the author of science and therefore the author of natural selection. Again I have no quarrel with natural selection as a scientific theory.

Congratulations. The Pope made that announcement some time ago.

We've heard it from a number of other liberal religious figures.

 

[Foxfyre]

My opinion that if there is indeed a "Creator" behind intelligent design, such Creator would also be the author of science and therefore the author of natural selection. Again I have no quarrel with natural selection as a scientific theory.

Congratulations. The Pope made that announcement some time ago.

We've heard it from a number of other liberal religious figures.

Are you going to continue to avoid the direct question(s) I asked of you?

Good for the Pope. He obviously doesn't confine science to some preconceived box. And he shares some scientific views spanning well over two millenia now as well as theory embraced by a lot of people re natural selection.

 

[JBeukema]

Your stupid question was answered thrice by myself and several times by others. If you can't read, that's your problem.

 

[THE LIGHT]

You might want to go back and take a look at your post. You called Foxfyre (who I do believe is a Christian?) ignorant, and in the same breath stated that it was ignorant people like him that attribute the sun to God.

Yes. Emphasis on the qualifier "ignorant" to describe him and "people like [him]". He has tried his darndest to keep his religion out of this thread, going to great lengths not to mention it and flat out claiming he hasn't spoken about it. So once again we find YOU making the assumption that ignorant people = Christianity. Actually I take that back. To reach that conclusion, you had to ASSUME he was Christian, THEN you had to ASSUME Christians were ignorant. In fact, I was simply pointing out ignorant people believe things they can't explain are proof of a deity. This is and has been factually accurate since the first time I've said it.

So there are athiests who believe in a "Creator"?

I'm not denying that. It's just that I didn't think that you thought there were. I could be wrong though.

Your remarks on the matter are a desperate and pathetic attempt to prove something of mine incorrect. And since you can't actually poke a hole in the actual argument being made, you string together these poor assumptions and start whining about something completely tangential to the actual discussion in order to play victim in your usual fashion. In the end, it is YOU who makes the connection between "ignorant" and "Christian". Don't go blaming anyone else for your own moronic insecurities.

Just asking you to go back and look is all. And reminding you that if you use the word God with a capital 'G' with your nonsense I will no longer take it as an innocent little mistake.