Excellent Letter To School Board On Intellegent Design Teachings

postcynical

OP - I wouldn't describe that letter as 'excellent'. Silly, childish, tired and clichéd maybe.

If schools are really and seriously mixing this stuff into science lessons then this kind of idiotic response will only offer the idiotic school boards a sense of vindication IMO.

postcynical

I wouldn't claim that ID is a branch of science. But how would other posters classify string theory? Does it have a similar scientific status to ID? (despite being much more plausible IMO, and this from a poster who believes that God created the universe)

Turtwig

postcynical wrote: »

I wouldn't claim that ID is a branch of science. But how would other posters classify string theory? Does it have a similar scientific status to ID? (despite being much more plausible IMO, and this from a poster who believes that God created the universe)

Strictly speaking String theory and it's successors are NOT science. Even the evangelical string theorists admit this!

However that being said String theory should NEVER be compared to ID.

Reason being is that String theory tries to unify GR and QM. It does this by explaining both GR and QM and then going one step further.
ID on the other had criticises evolution but doesn't explain that which evolution has already explained!

An excellent layman's introduction into String Theory for anyone interested :
The Elegant Universe (Recommend the book, but this docu is Good)

Edit Edit : Chapter 7, Hour 3 discusses whether ST is science or not

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

ID on the other had criticises evolution but doesn't explain that which evolution has already explained!

While some proponents of ID may criticise evolution, ID itself does not do so. ID simply argues that some features of the universe appear to require a designer - there is no implication as to who the designer might be or whether he/she/it guided evolution or used some other method.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

While some proponents of ID may criticise evolution, ID itself does not do so. ID simply argues that some features of the universe appear to require a designer - there is no implication as to who the designer might be or whether he/she/it guided evolution or used some other method.

I think you're confusing ID, with something else, seriously? ID, as far I am aware, stems from believe that all life is 'designed'. Evolution directly contradicts that and there is an abundance of evidence to support it.
Also, if the universe was 'designed' then its designer was definitely on dope or something:P
Look, I cannot argue and say for certain that the universe wasn't designed, but presently I see no reason for it being so;it's chaotic at best. This isn't an argument against God as he could just have taken a more 'hands off' approach knowing that everything would work out ok.
The ID proponents claim that the universe is fine-tuned. If so it is badly fined tuned, but more likely it just changes its tune slowly.
None of these take away arguments from theists, the 'golden' argument I think, is along way from being truly resolved. What we must not do is let one line of thought that sounds nice be followed, we must follow the evidence where ever it leads : The string theorists admit that their theory could all be for nothing, do the ID proponents admit the same??


ID is still philosophy, imo, until we can test it experimentally.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

I think you're confusing ID, with something else, seriously? ID, as far I am aware, stems from believe that all life is 'designed'. Evolution directly contradicts that and there is an abundance of evidence to support it.

No, I don't think I'm confusing it with anything at all. I've read a good bit of stuff both pro and anti ID. ID asserts that certain features in certain organisms are best explained by proposing a designer. It does not assert that all life is designed (although some proponents may take it to that next step).

As far as i am aware evolution does not contradict the thesis that the universe, or certain elements of organisms, were designed (if it did then that would be an untestable and unfalsifiable assertion and so would mean evolution is a philosophy not science). Evolution simply argues that complex life forms have evolved from simpler organisms etc. Evolution does not address the question of design at all.

The ID proponents claim that the universe is fine-tuned. If so it is badly fined tuned, but more likely it just changes its tune slowly.

No. ID argues that certain features in the universe appear to be fine-tuned. It makes no claim about the entire universe since we are unable to observe most of the universe, therefore any overall argument about the universe being fine-tuned or badly-tuned are faith propositions and not based on evidence.

It is perfectly possible to accept the argument of ID and to believe that the universe is flawed and imperfect. There is no contradiction between the two.

To be honest, I think you are presenting a strawman in which you ascribe features of creationism to ID.

monosharp

Biro wrote: »

Actually neither Evolution nor Gravity are "fact". They are scientific theorys. That's what Science is about.

The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments. The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. Misuse and misunderstanding of these terms have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a fact (Organisms change over time) and a theory (How/Why -> natural selection/adaptation).

Gravity is a fact (stuff falls) and a theory (How/Why -> relativity etc)

Thats what science is about.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

.

PDN wrote:

ID asserts that certain features in certain organisms are best explained by proposing a designer. It does not assert that all life is designed (although some proponents may take it to that next step).

That's why evolutions 'kicks it in the butt' all evidence points towards evolution : no design anywhere! One or two organisms isn't going to cut it to make it science.

Evolution doesn't rule out the grand designer but we are all mutations from something ...not designs. Whether a designer 'designed' that something is another question.ID automatically assumes an answer, evolution leaves us with the honest one : "We don't know"

PDN wrote:

No. ID argues that certain features in the universe appear to be fine-tuned. It makes no claim about the entire universe since we are unable to observe most of the universe, therefore any overall argument about the universe being fine-tuned or badly-tuned are faith propositions and not based on evidence.

It is perfectly possible to accept the argument of ID and to believe that the universe is flawed and imperfect. There is no contradiction between the two.

ID argues that the physical constants are fine tuned for life to exist. These constants are universal to this known universe, so please explain to me how it is possible for the universe to be both flawed and imperfect when the laws of physics are the same in all of this known universe?
Either it is flawed, or it isn't.
One simple question : would you accept a flawed designer/flawed design?

Ok, granted, I'll accept that the laws may not be universal, however that begs the question whether the universe is perfect or it isn't : partly perfect isn't perfect.Eitherway, we do not know, saying there is/isn't a designer answers nothing and is actually irrelevant as far as science is concerned. Evolution is a model of how life developed on earth, whether it was predesigned or not is not for us to answer - we just know how it evolved.

PDN wrote:

Evolution simply argues that complex life forms have evolved from simpler organisms etc. Evolution does not address the question of design at all.

PDN wrote:

therefore any overall argument about the universe being fine-tuned or badly-tuned are faith propositions and not based on evidence.

Not entirely, alot of research is being done into the physical constants to see whether they really are 'constant' or what would be the case if they were different. It's an exciting area (though every physicist says that about theirs:P) but it also leads to some startling questions most of them counter intuitive. Life may yet still exist, just not as we know that's only speculation, however there is evidence to suggest that the finestructure Alpha was different now on earth than it was several million years ago : the presence of a natural nuclear reactor supports this among other things.
Conclusion: this universe is class

Ickle Magoo

Does the way those traditionally supporting the idea of ID have to keep taking steps backwards & cramming more science into their ID philosophy so it can encompass more and more accepted scientific models & seem more credible, ultimately make the whole concept of ID less credible?

For all but a die-hard few, ironically, ID philosophy seems to have evolved. Theists and atheists are left debating what, if anything, happened before the big bang & was a God present/doing it. That's a long way from a 10,000 yo world made in 6 days & from 2 people.

I think the letter is both silly and pointless. The author would be better served rationally arguing against the teaching of ID in schools, instead of taking a badly disguised side-swipe by demanding Pastafarianism get equal footing on the curriculum.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

I think you're confusing ID, with something else, seriously? ID, as far I am aware, stems from believe that all life is 'designed'. Evolution directly contradicts that and there is an abundance of evidence to support it.
Also, if the universe was 'designed' then its designer was definitely on dope or something:P
Look, I cannot argue and say for certain that the universe wasn't designed, but presently I see no reason for it being so;it's chaotic at best. This isn't an argument against God as he could just have taken a more 'hands off' approach knowing that everything would work out ok.
The ID proponents claim that the universe is fine-tuned. If so it is badly fined tuned, but more likely it just changes its tune slowly.
None of these take away arguments from theists, the 'golden' argument I think, is along way from being truly resolved. What we must not do is let one line of thought that sounds nice be followed, we must follow the evidence where ever it leads : The string theorists admit that their theory could all be for nothing, do the ID proponents admit the same??


ID is still philosophy, imo, until we can test it experimentally.

The theory of evolution was arrived at through the disbelief in a creator/designer by the one who first postulated the theory - Darwin. If ID can be expelled from the classroom because of an un-provable assumption – ‘it was designed’ - made on the part of the one who thought it up because it stems from a theistic worldview, then surely the same must hold true for the theory of evolution. This theory was based on trying to show the world that we don't need to appeal to a creator in order to explain the intricate workings of nature. Which means that this is a theory which stems from an atheistic world view, which means that by your own standard it too is not science.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

The theory of evolution was arrived at through the disbelief in a creator/designer by the one who first postulated the theory - Darwin. If ID can be expelled from the classroom because of an un-provable assumption – ‘it was designed’ - made on the part of the one who thought it up because it stems from a theistic worldview, then surely the same must hold true for the theory of evolution. This theory was based on trying to show the world that we don't need to appeal to a creator in order to explain the intricate workings of nature. Which means that this is a theory which stems from an atheistic world view, which means that by your own standard it too is not science.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine:

IF ID is actually proven wrong will you accept it is as being so?

DeVore

Sorry. I think I have a question awaiting answering first...


What organs or organisism require a designer?


DeV.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

I'll answer your question when you answer mine:

IF ID is actually proven wrong will you accept it is as being so?

The question rather answers itself. If something is proven to be either true or false then it is only logical to accept the findings.

PDN

DeVore wrote: »

Sorry. I think I have a question awaiting answering first...

What organs or organisism require a designer?

It's probably not been answered because it's raising a different subject. We've been discussing whether ID is a scientific theory or a faith proposition (irrespective of whether it is actually true or not). You appear to want to discuss the actual scientific merits of ID (in other words, is it true or not).

I'm much more at home with philosophy than with science, so I would not see myself as qualified to enter into a debate about the details of ID theory. I personally find the arguments about blood coagulation and clotting to be fairly persuasive - but I'm speaking as a layman with a limited understanding of science (my father, a biologist, is disappointed in me ).

As for whether ID can be classed as science or not, Richard Dawkins has on at least one occasion argued that it is, in theory, very possible to ascertain, on a scientific basis, that a living organism, due to its complexity, can show unmistakable evidence of a designer. In his 'River Out of Eden' Dawkins tells a fictional story that should be possible in the not too distant future. A kidnapped biochemist inserts a string of prime numbers into the DNA of a strain of influenza so that his colleagues, when examining the influenza strain, will realise that a hidden message is, in Dawkins' words, being "sneezed around the world". This leads to greater analysis of the obviously designed DNA and, when decoded, leads to the rescue of the ingenious biochemist.

Now, illustrations and analogies are, by their very nature, extreme, so let's state the obvious - the arguments of ID proponents are nowhere near as clear cut as a string of prime numbers in a DNA sequence. But that is the separate argument of whether ID theory is good or bad science, not whether it is science at all. Such an argument would belong in a Science forum rather than the Christianity forum.

However, from a philosophical standpoint, it appears to me that Dawkins' little story skewers the objections about ID not being science. Dawkins, who presumably does understand evolution and science fairly well, is describing a scenario where a living organism displays a feature that cannot be adequately explained scientifically without positing a designer. That is Intelligent Design in its most basic form.

Now, you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either Dawkins is spouting a load of mumbo-jumbo faith propositions and pseudo-science, or else the basic principle behind ID theory can be examined as a scientific theory.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

IF ID is actually proven wrong will you accept it is as being so?

Of course. I would be very happy to see proof that ID is wrong. That would be very welcome and much better than ad hominem attacks that think you can discredit a theory by using the word 'creationism' enough times.

BTW, I do not advocate teaching ID in the classroom. I think that it should be assessed scientifically (not ideologically) and should only make it into the classroom if there is sufficient support from the scientific community. In other words, if ID is bad science then junk it, but make sure the junking is done on scientific grounds alone.

So yes, if ID is proven wrong I will accept it as so - even though some, in their eagerness to rubbish it, claim it is non-testable and non-falsifiable.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

While some proponents of ID may criticise evolution, ID itself does not do so. ID simply argues that some features of the universe appear to require a designer - there is no implication as to who the designer might be or whether he/she/it guided evolution or used some other method.

Well actually it does, ID says that certain things such as life could not have evolved.

This is the justification in the first place for the argument that there must have been a designer, that is what they mean when they say things look designed. The term Irreducibly Complex is thrown around a lot in ID, which says that some functioning part of complex systems such as life cannot be reduced to a simpler design and still function and therefore cannot have evolved, they must have been designed and created in one go.

Anyone who knows anything about evolution will see the major flaw in that argument, but discussion of that is probably left for the Creationism thread.

My point is merely that Intelligent Design is not compatible with evolution and that is in fact the ID proponents main argument.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well actually it does, ID says that certain things such as life could not have evolved.

No, that is not what ID says.

ID says that certain things could not have evolved without some kind of guidance. (I'm not sure what you mean by life evolving. Isn't that abiogenesis rather than evolution?)

Think of it this way. Imagine there is a one in a million chance that mutation A occurs in a hypothetical organism. There is also one in a million chance that mutation B occurs in the same organism. Fair enough - one in a million occurences happen all the time. But what if a mutation A would kill the organism unless mutation B occurred with it simultaneously? The odds necessary for the mutation to occur successfully have now multiplied to an astronomical figure.

Dawkins himself, in the story I cited earlier, says that the odds against prime numbers occurring regularly in a DNA sequence are so high as to render it impossible without positing a designer.

So, ID does not say that anything could not have evolved. It says that the odds against such evolution occurring unassisted beggars belief.

Ickle Magoo

Presumably the bio-chemist would be able to prove how they inserted prime-numbers into DNA & that would be verifiable and could therefor be called science?

Some things in the world are complex & why some people think ID was involved - that much is understandable to most; Dawkins included. That's not to be confused with being too complex or having evidence for ID, however.

PDN

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Presumably the bio-chemist would be able to prove how they inserted prime-numbers into DNA & that would be verifiable and could therefor be called science?

Hmmm, this is getting interesting.

So, let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. The inference of a designer is only scientific if you can prove how the designed feature was put there?

However, let's assume that the biochemist who inserted the code is a whole lot smarter than the comparative dunces who are decoding his message. They have no idea how he went about putting the message into the DNA, nor can they replicate his feat. However, they can clearly read the message encoded in the DNA, "Help! This is Dr X. I've been kidnapped by an evil git and need to be rescued ASAP." Are you seriously arguing that it would be unscientific of them to conclude that the message was designed and had not occurred through random mutation?

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

Actually neither Evolution nor Gravity are "fact". They are scientific theorys. That's what Science is about.

Well if we are getting pedantic evolution is a theory and gravity is an observed phenomena. :P

The gravitational theory parts of General Relativity (which model gravity as a warp in space time) are the current theories explaining gravitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

Complex life would be the observed phenomena that Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory explains.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

I'll answer your question when you answer mine:

IF ID is actually proven wrong will you accept it is as being so?

Like PDN has elegantly pointed out (and forgive me for my lack of such elegance) the issue is not about whether ID is true or not, the issue here is whether it passes the test of being scientific or not. The basis that you and others gave for it being non-scientific was grounded on the fact that ID was based on un-provable assumptions, and all I said was that the same can be said for the theory of evolution simply because the originator of that theory based his theory on the assumption that there is no creator/designer which is also an improvable assumption. So if ID is to be shown the door, then so should the theory of evolution.

But to answer your question: Yes, I would accept ID as being wrong if it were proven to be so by the proper channels.

And even if it were proven wrong by those methods I would accept it was wrong based on those criteria, but it wouldn’t make me look at the world any different. I’d still look around me and stay amazed at the intricacies of nature and marvel at the wondrous power of the creator. Because at the end of the day Science should not be used as a vehicle to undermine anybody’s religious faith in order to establish atheism as the only right way to view the world. As soon as that happens it stops being science and becomes scientism, and we couldn't have that now could we?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Think of it this way. Imagine there is a one in a million chance that mutation A occurs in a hypothetical organism. There is also one in a million chance that mutation B occurs in the same organism. Fair enough - one in a million occurences happen all the time. But what if a mutation A would kill the organism unless mutation B occurred with it simultaneously? The odds necessary for the mutation to occur successfully have now multiplied to an astronomical figure.

Ok, but that is theistic evolution not Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design states that features of life could not evolve, guidance or no guidance, because they are irreducibly complex.

If you are talking about a designer nudging evolution in the right direction you are talking about theistic evolution (or a particular strand of theistic evolution).

The central argument being Intelligent Design is that evolution cannot produce the features of complex life because you cannot reduce them to simpler designs and still have them perform a valid function, thus they could not have evolved from one simpler state to a more complex state because the simpler state could not do anything. They had to be produced whole in the complex state doing the function they are doing.

As Mr Intelligent Design Michael Behe says

"a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Irreducible_complexity

Ickle Magoo

PDN wrote: »

Hmmm, this is getting interesting.

So, let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. The inference of a designer is only scientific if you can prove how the designed feature was put there?

However, let's assume that the biochemist who inserted the code is a whole lot smarter than the comparative dunces who are decoding his message. They have no idea how he went about putting the message into the DNA, nor can they replicate his feat. However, they can clearly read the message encoded in the DNA, "Help! This is Dr X. I've been kidnapped by an evil git and need to be rescued ASAP." Are you seriously arguing that it would be unscientific of them to conclude that the message was designed and had not occurred through random mutation?

Well, personally, the inference of a designer can only claim to be scientific under testable conditions; which the scenario above would be. Even without the biochemists ability to create the message in the DNA, presumably we know the biochemist exists, we know what DNA looks like without the message or we wouldn't know there was a message - and it's written in a language that we can all speak. The message is written by a human with a specific purpose in mind: rescue. So, we have a human claiming to have written a message in DNA, we have visible evidence of that message, we have a biochemist who can repeat the feat at will. I'm still not seeing the similarities to ID in terms of creationism.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, but that is theistic evolution not Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design states that features of life could not evolve, guidance or no guidance, because they are irreducibly complex.

If you are talking about a designer nudging evolution in the right direction you are talking about theistic evolution (or a particular strand of theistic evolution).

The central argument being Intelligent Design is that evolution cannot produce the features of complex life because you cannot reduce them to simpler designs and still have them perform a valid function, thus they could not have evolved from one simpler state to a more complex state because the simpler state could not do anything. They had to be produced whole in the complex state doing the function they are doing.

As Mr Intelligent Design Michael Behe says

"a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Irreducible_complexity

You appear not to be reading, or rather misinterpreting, your own links. Methinks you're suffering from a case of confirmation bias.

The wiki link on Irreducible Complexity states: "Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled."

ID allows for evolution, but argues that it is so statistically improbable as to be practically impossible for certain features to have evolved by natural selection alone. In other words, too complicated a watch for a blind watchmaker!

Again, to quote your own wiki link, ID is arguing 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." There is no implication as to whether the intelligent cause has utilised evolution or not.

Let me help you out of your muddling of ID and theistic evolution:
Theistic evolution is the belief that God created more complex life forms by shaping their evolution from simpler life forms. However, theistic evolution is a faith proposition and does not claim to offer scientific evidence in support of its view.
ID is the belief that more complex life forms are best explained by positing a designer.

Many theistic evolutionists reject ID, for example Alister McGrath. However, many ID proponents accept theistic evolution.

I am not a proponent of ID, and I have no interesting in arguing its merits from a scientific standpoint - I am simply trying to correct the misrepresentations and strawmen that are wandering through this thread.

PDN

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm still not seeing the similarities to ID in terms of creationism.

And as long as you keep trying to introduce creationism into the discussion of ID you won't see very much. Bit of a waste of time really.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like PDN has elegantly pointed out (and forgive me for my lack of such elegance) the issue is not about whether ID is true or not

Yeah that is an issue for the other thread. Discussion of the accuracy or truth of ID will probably just get this thread closed down.

I think this is a good opportunity to discuss the scientific validity of ID in relation to teaching it, independently of the truth of it, as that discussion was some what swamped in the Creationist thread by argument back and forth over whether it is true or not.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The basis that you and others gave for it being non-scientific was grounded on the fact that ID was based on un-provable assumptions

Un-testable assumptions. Nothing in science is proven.

Soul Winner wrote: »

and all I said was that the same can be said for the theory of evolution simply because the originator of that theory based his theory on the assumption that there is no creator/designer which is also an improvable assumption.

Firstly Neo-Darwinian evolution can be tested.

Secondly the accuracy of the theory does not require proving (or even demonstrating) there is no God, any more than the accuracy of General Relativity requires demonstrating God isn't pushing you down to Earth.

There is no issue with assuming something isn't doing something in science, the only issue is assuming something is doing something. There is an infinite number of things that Neo-Darwinian evolution "assumes" isn't effecting the development of life, your god is just one of them. It is not stating that these things aren't doing anything it is simply ignoring them until it can demonstrate they are doing something.

A scientific theory attempts to model what is happening, not what isn't happening.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes, I would accept ID as being wrong if it were proven to be so by the proper channels.

Before that happens proponents of ID have to come up with a test where it is possible the theory's predictions can fail to match observation. They haven't done that yet, and as such it is not science.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And even if it were proven wrong by those methods I would accept it was wrong based on those criteria, but it wouldn’t make me look at the world any different. I’d still look around me and stay amazed at the intricacies of nature and marvel at the wondrous power of the creator.

That doesn't make much sense. Are you saying that even if it was some how demonstrated that nature was not created (no idea how anyone would do this BTW), you would still choose to believe that there is a creator?

Does that not speak to your own biases, and need to believe in a creator?

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

Hmmm, this is getting interesting.

So, let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. The inference of a designer is only scientific if you can prove how the designed feature was put there?

However, let's assume that the biochemist who inserted the code is a whole lot smarter than the comparative dunces who are decoding his message. They have no idea how he went about putting the message into the DNA, nor can they replicate his feat. However, they can clearly read the message encoded in the DNA, "Help! This is Dr X. I've been kidnapped by an evil git and need to be rescued ASAP." Are you seriously arguing that it would be unscientific of them to conclude that the message was designed and had not occurred through random mutation?

Even if the dummies found that the code wasn't really that well compiled but still legible as a piece of code, that is still no basis for saying that it wasn't put their deliberately. The argument that the universe exhibits bad design in certain respects is not a good reason for saying that it wasn't designed. When ID proponents look at the universe in the only way they can, through their own senses, and conclude that it must have been designed, the atheist evolutionist will argue that that conclusion is only drawn because of the way the proponents of ID view the universe, which means that it mightn’t have any baring in the way the universe actually is, they (the ID-ers) are simply appealing to their own anthropomorphic nature of how they see things. But when the atheist evolutionist says that certain things are badly designed and therefore not designed this is obviously true even though that conclusion is based on their very own anthropomorphic view of things. So it boils down to how you view the world, so if ID is to be expelled then so should the theory of evolution.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense. Are you saying that even if it was some how demonstrated that nature was not created (no idea how anyone would do this BTW), you would still choose to believe that there is a creator?

Does that not speak to your own biases, and need to believe in a creator?

Not so, all that says is that my faith in God is not based on science, it is based on a good understanding of the Bible, so it doesn't really matter what science comes up with in relation to religion, that is not its territory anyway. If my faith was based on science then it would be akin to me building on sand which Jesus said not to do.

Ickle Magoo

PDN wrote: »

And as long as you keep trying to introduce creationism into the discussion of ID you won't see very much. Bit of a waste of time really.

So what is the point of arguing ID if not ultimately to argue in favour of creationism at some level & try to establish teleological arguments to support theistic belief?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense. Are you saying that even if it was some how demonstrated that nature was not created (no idea how anyone would do this BTW), you would still choose to believe that there is a creator?

Does that not speak to your own biases, and need to believe in a creator?

You're muddling yourself up again. Soulwinner made no mention as to it being demonstrated that nature was not created. He addressed the question of ID being disproved - ie as to whether certain features within nature, from a scientific standpoint, point to a designer. A designer can be there whethere scioentific evidence points to him or not, there is no need for you to twist his words or to change the subject as you did.

This debate will go a lot more smoother, with much more mutual understanding, if we try to think clearly and avoid conflating entirely separate arguments and issues.