Question for believers in ID.

[Balerion]

And yet not everyone makes the same projections.

Who is "everyone?" Has there been someone else who didn't think you were defending ID?

And since when does "everyone" have to agree upon something for it to be true? Not everyone thinks Earth orbits the sun.

Apparently not, as long as a bully can beat a nerd.

It's less of a bully beating a nerd, and more of a snake invading a backyard. But it's interesting that you perceive superiority only as which belief is more popular. You completely ignore my point about how science actually impacts your life and improves it in tangible, measurable ways, whereas religion doesn't. Why is that? More evasion.

Misrepresenting again, huh?

Let's review.

I would think that someone who truly is superior, would either not be affected by opponents, or would be strong enough to annihilate them.

there are districts in this country that actually teach Creationism in biology class.

This just goes to show that your presumed superiority isn't an actual one.

Science is superior to superstition.

Apparently not, as long as a bully can beat a nerd.

If you want to call a handful of districts which are headed by fundamentalist nutbags "being superior to science," then you need to check your perspective.

Misrepresenting again, huh?

:bugeye: What exactly am I misrepresenting?

This just goes to show that your presumed superiority isn't an actual one.

Apparently not, as long as a bully can beat a nerd.

:shrug:

These are your words, Wynn. Tell me what conclusion I'm supposed to draw from them, if not what I just said.

 

[SciWriter]

Apparently not, as long as a bully can beat a nerd.

You are trying to take something known, such as happens in school, in a lame attempt to apply it as if it is the same as here, of Science/Courts vs Superstition, as well as supplying no meat in your posts, as usual. What a court decides about the Constitution is not a 'bully' over claims of 'unknown' as true. The word "bully", as used here, does not apply. Poor attempt.

It was once thought by the Church that physical illness was caused by evil spirits, yet science showed bacteria and viruses to be responsible, which not only damaged the superstition but ended it, and so some may posit science as the enemy to belief. Science findings are not 'bullying' either, but are the continuing opening of the box of truth that the superstitious try to keep a lid on.

The Church still thinks that mental ills called 'sins' are caused by evil spirits…

So it is that science is not superior to superstition?

 

[Jan Ardena]

ID isn't religious? Do explain.

It's simple, they see design in the universe.
Modern atheists project religion into the idea, because they cannot intelligent design.
And putting ''religion'' into the mix, ensures a lack of scientific credibility.

It's all about them pesky modern atheists (modaths) wanting to presentl their nude emporer as a well dressed person.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

It's simple, they see design in the universe.
Modern atheists project religion into the idea, because they cannot refute intelligent design.
And putting ''religion'' into the mix, ensures a lack of scientific credibility.

It's all about them pesky modern atheists (modaths) wanting to present their nude emporer as a well dressed person.

jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

It's simple, they see design in the universe.
Modern atheists project religion into the idea, because they cannot intelligent design.

Why is it, Jan, that all the major proponents of Intelligent Design are strongly religious, with many of them being previously or currently associated with Young Earth Creationism in addition? Is this more "modern atheists" projecting a religious motive?

There has been at least one recent, very prominent court case in which it was found that Intelligent Design is basically the New Creationism.

You can call it "Modern Creationism" if you like.

And putting ''religion'' into the mix, ensures a lack of scientific credibility.

It's mostly the complete lack of evidence for ID and the complete vacuity of the theory as it is presented by its proponents that ensures its lack of scientific credibility. Having said that, the lies and deceptive tactics of its main defenders don't give it a good look, either. Creationists masquerading as scientists is never a good way to give a theory scientific credibility.

 

[wynn]

It's simple, they see design in the universe.
Modern atheists project religion into the idea, because they cannot refute intelligent design.
And putting ''religion'' into the mix, ensures a lack of scientific credibility.

It's all about them pesky modern atheists (modaths) wanting to present their nude emporer as a well dressed person.

Intelligent design usually is proposed and defended by people who claim to be theists/religious.

Earlier, you said ID wasn't religious. Can you explain why you think ID isn't religious?

 

[SciWriter]

It's simple, they see design in the universe.

Is it a design without a designer (such as it has forms)? If not, would you say that they have a higher alien race in mind? If so, could be, since life is a known happening.

 

[James R]

IDers are always very coy when asked "So, if there is an Intelligent Designer, what would that be?"

Could it be aliens? Err... um... maybe... er....
Could it be God? Oh, we don't speculate on who the Designer is, because ID is a real, scientific theory and all, but the theory does admit the possibility that it might just be the Born Again Christian God that I personally believe in. Don't tell anybody, though. That's just between us, ok?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Intelligent design usually is proposed and defended by people who claim to be theists/religious.

Earlier, you said ID wasn't religious. Can you explain why you think ID isn't religious?

I thought I already explained it.

Explain my response to me, and let's see if you properly understood what I meant.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is it a design without a designer (such as it has forms)? If not, would you say that they have a higher alien race in mind? If so, could be, since life is a known happening.

It's hard to imagine how actual information can come about by chance.
And this is one of the convincing arguments for ID'ists regarding the information contained within the cell,


jan.

 

[gmilam]

It's hard to imagine how actual information can come about by chance.

Except, of course, God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

IDers are always very coy when asked "So, if there is an Intelligent Designer, what would that be?"

Because they know, as you cannot refute them in argument, that is your only line of attack. And when they explain that although they may believe in God, or even be religious, it doesn't take anything away from the science, it falls on deaf ears. You want them to be operating from a religious perspective so much, you accuse them of being so in their work. Very dishonest and underhanded tactics. That alone, amongst other things, casts doubt on your whole campaign, AFAIC.

Most if not all evangelical evolutionist, darwinists, neo-darwinists, and naturalists, are atheist. Thus you are in exactly the same position as they. Even though you wouldn't think it the way you talk.

Could it be aliens? Err... um... maybe... er....

Irrelevant.

Could it be God?

Irrelevant.

Oh, we don't speculate on who the Designer is, because ID is a real, scientific theory and all, but the theory does admit the possibility that it might just be the Born Again Christian God that I personally believe in. Don't tell anybody, though. That's just between us, ok?

What does any of this have to do with Intelligent Design?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Except, of course, God.

No. Intelligence.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

It's hard to imagine how actual information can come about by chance.
And this is one of the convincing arguments for ID'ists regarding the information contained within the cell,


jan.

The information argument is a non-starter. Genes seem to create information (a problematic concept, but I'm leave that for now) through several mechanisms- duplication, transcribing with errors, borrowing from other organisms, etc. (I'm not a scientist so the list is incomplete). All of these are filtered through the mechanism of natural selection until they describe beneficial changes (possibly additions) to the organism.

 

[wynn]

I thought I already explained it.

Explain my response to me, and let's see if you properly understood what I meant.

You'll have to say more, because I am not sure I understand what you mean, and I'm not sure I understand your first reply either. You'll need to add more steps to your reasoning.

So let's try again:

It's simple, they see design in the universe.
Modern atheists project religion into the idea, because they cannot refute intelligent design.
And putting ''religion'' into the mix, ensures a lack of scientific credibility.

So you're saying that there are people who look at the Universe, and consider it designed. (And for this, they don't necessarily need to be theists nor religious.)

Modern atheists, however, are baffled by the notion that the Universe could be intelligently designed. But they also cannot refute this. Not being able to refute it, they are upset. In order to deal with that upset, they look for ways to discredit the idea of intelligent design, so that there'd be nothing to be upset about. Since in their view, "religion" has a history of being woo-woo and lacking scientific credibility, they connect "religion" and intelligent design, so that along with dismissing "religion," they can also dismiss intelligent design, and thus be rid of the upset.

(I brought in the notion of "upset" here, because there has to be some way of accounting for why modern atheists would want to discredit religion or intelligent design.)

?

 

[wynn]

The information argument is a non-starter. Genes seem to create information (a problematic concept, but I'm leave that for now) through several mechanisms- duplication, transcribing with errors, borrowing from other organisms, etc. (I'm not a scientist so the list is incomplete). All of these are filtered through the mechanism of natural selection until they describe beneficial changes (possibly additions) to the organism.

The moment you use a term like "beneficial," you're actually in the domain of intelligent design.
Using qualifiers like "beneficial" or "detrimental" suggests you are working with the idea of teleological determination, and that puts you right into the middle of intelligent design.

 

[spidergoat]

Beneficial in terms of the ability of genes to create an organism that projects those genes into the future. That has nothing to do with ID.

 

[SciWriter]

It's hard to imagine how actual information can come about by chance.

'Chance' is not the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design. Can you say what is?

 

[SciWriter]

I thought I already explained it.

Failure to answer.

 

[SciWriter]

No. Intelligence.

Well, that removes any notion of a God-type Being from the picture. So then, some more highly evolved aliens could have made life on Earth.