So, what is Intelligent Design?

[Iacchus]

It seems unlikely that the theory of evolution is going to be upended by evidence.

I've been around long enough to know how to make up my own mind on the matter, Thanks!

As matter-of-fact this has pretty much been my postition from the getgo.

As evidence in support of evolutionary theory continues to mount, you can see a corresponding "evolution" of theistic thought on the subject.

So let me asky you this, Do you believe that God exists? ... Obviously you don't.

First, there is a hostile, flat out rejection of any non-god/bible centered idea. Whenever possible, proponents of the new theory are persecuted and forced to recant (e.g., Galileo).

Naturally, people are resistant to change, and I don't care what side of the fence you're sitting on, be it science or religion.

Next comes a long struggle where efforts are made to supress any work which would strengthen the non-churchsanctioned theory. This usually has the effect of slowing down the accumulation of knowledge. Thankfully, this tactic is never completely successful.

And yet you can't just throw out a whole body of knowledge just because of an emerging trend which, is what science was at the time.

Finally, as the knowledge base grows, and it becomes increasingly obvious that the theological position is flat out wrong, a need to save face and to preserve the faith develops. The best way to do this seems to be to finally accept the theory, and simply append the notion "because God designed it that way". Further face saving seems to involve distancing onesself from the previously held hardline stance- for example:

Ever hear the expression, "The pendulum swings in the opposite direction?" Be careful what you say, you may wind up eating your own words.

The idea seems to be that theists want to demonstrate that they were in the evidence based camp all along, yet at the same time preserve their belief system. The "I think there is merit in theory X, just like God planned it" approach seems to fit the bill nicely. You get the benefit of appearing capable of rational discourse in regards to theory X, without really having to defend the glib arguement of intelligent design.

Your mistake is that you've lumped me in the same category with everybody else.

Intelligent Design is such an easy stance to take in regards to evolution. You don't even have to provide evidence to support it-you just have to say "that's just the beauty of God's design" to whatever evidence is presented.

Yeah, that would be the easy way out now wouldn't it?

People will question the Intelligent Design stance, but if you hold this stance, no one will really force the issue with you. No one expects you to actually provide evidence to support this position, because no one believes you can support the position. Instead, the arguement gets deflected or derailed somehow, and the topic gets dropped. This will give you some sense of satisfaction in that no one was able to disprove your view point, and as long as you don't really do some critical thinking about your own position, you can keep your belief system relatively intact.

And what's to keep me from thrusting the door wide open then? A "non-truth?" Exposure to such truths can be very dangerous, especially when you're not ready for it.

 

[Tricky]

No, we have to be able to ascertain whether God exists or not, before we can question whether we were created in His image.

Aye, there's the rub. I am quite certain that you have been able to satisfy yourself that God exists, but that does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that you have ascertained it. If you had, you should be able to easily convince any of us of that fact. The fact that you cannot do so is not rooted in my inability to see the obvious, but rather in your inability to make it obvious. Any argument for God that you give (or at least any that you have given so far) can eventually be boiled down to the essence: It feels right to you. There is no evidence, only interpretation. There is no truth, only trust. There is no fact, only faith.

There are millions of people in the world with faith. Their faiths are as unalike as apples and warthogs (oranges are in many ways very like apples). I cannot let faith equal truth, because then there is no truth, just competing faiths. Truth has to be testable and repeatable. If you cannot do that, then it is not truth, but just conjecture.

At the age of 16, I freed myself of living by other people's conjectures. The liberation of having my own ideas was wonderful. Everyone should try it.

 

[Iacchus]

Forgive me, but I didn't read any post in this thread that made that argument. Perhaps I overlooked it.

Yeah, I wasn't so sure how clear I was here either and figured I would have to reiterate.

Well, not that I hold sway over what you or anyone on this board does, but I would advise you that if you are going to argue in favor of the existence of god---and again maybe I've read too much into your posts---but if you are, it's a good idea to define what you mean by "God" up front.

An ontological argument is an argument for the existence of God based upon the meaning of the term "God", and generally those arguments cause discussions to devolve into philosophical nonsense, and no conclusions can be drawn.

But if you define what you mean by "God" at the outset, we can proceed more smoothly.

That sounds reasonable enough to me, unfortunately it covers a lot of territory and I'm not sure where to begin? Perhaps we can begin again with this tomorrow?

 

[BillyJoe]

Iacchus,

I discovered it because I was forced up against the wall with it, and am afraid I'm going to have to leave it at that for now.

Yes, this was one of my great experiences of life as well, but unfortunately I wasn't ready for the discovery I made next (in reference to above).

Yes, I said the same thing when the Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door (i.e., early on), "That if God does exists, there's no way I'm going to accept it upon these people's say so and, He would have to reveal Himself to me personally or, in a way that I can understand." And that's essentially the way it happened.

Well, I know I'm wasting my time but anyway.....

Can you please, PLEASE, PLEASE puncture the suspense and just SIMPLY tell us as STRAIGHTFORWARDLY as you can WHAT it is that happened to you that FORCED the issue for you and MADE you accept that GOD EXISTS.

PLEASE.

BillyJoe

 

[Iacchus]

Aye, there's the rub. I am quite certain that you have been able to satisfy yourself that God exists, but that does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that you have ascertained it.

Yes, but that does not by any stretch of the imagination make you correct either.

If you had, you should be able to easily convince any of us of that fact. The fact that you cannot do so is not rooted in my inability to see the obvious, but rather in your inability to make it obvious.

Why, because the whole weight of scientific evidence can't be proven wrong? Guess again ...

Any argument for God that you give (or at least any that you have given so far) can eventually be boiled down to the essence: It feels right to you. There is no evidence, only interpretation. There is no truth, only trust. There is no fact, only faith.

Nope.

There are millions of people in the world with faith. Their faiths are as unalike as apples and warthogs (oranges are in many ways very like apples). I cannot let faith equal truth, because then there is no truth, just competing faiths. Truth has to be testable and repeatable. If you cannot do that, then it is not truth, but just conjecture.

And yet the truth exists in everything (remember I said the evidence is all around us?), although "relative" from one thing to next. Whereas more often than not, it's a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff ... although truth is found in the chaff as well.

At the age of 16, I freed myself of living by other people's conjectures. The liberation of having my own ideas was wonderful. Everyone should try it.

Yes, this is something we all owe to ourselves.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Tautological Creationism

It's the kind of "creation" where the universe was suddenly created at some point (it doesn't matter when) looking like it's been around for about 15 billion years, and then after this point of creation it's let run itself with exactly zero outside interference.

Or the Big Bang is local, just one of many Big Bangs. Or there are many universes and ours is just one. Or other dimensions. Or time is cyclical. Or...

1) There is no creator
2) The creator has is either maliciously misleading or has a cosmic sense of humor.

Or there are several creators. Or there is a creator but it is not a personified thing. Or...

 

[T'ai Chi]

I politely disagree. You can detect patterns, in a snowflake or a fractal, but it doesn't require any design. It is simply the way things fit together.

"the way things fit together" is sometimes designed. Sometimes it is not. Design inference is a method to help decide if it is or not.

To require that patterns be created by "designer" is an emotional inability on the part of the investigator to admit that there are simply some things he cannot (yet) explain.

Not necessarily. If you found an arrowhead, without knowing what arrowheads were, there is no emotion involved in you rationally concluding, based on the evidence and reasoning, that it was designed.

Look at all the things that used to be explained by "goddidit", ...

Sorry, I'm not going to let this drift into a science vs. the Bible discussion. The Design Inference is a mathematical and statistical work, and details methods for discriminating designed from undesigned objects. The designer, its purposes, etc., are not an issue, at least in this book.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus,

Well, I know I'm wasting my time but anyway.....

Can you please, PLEASE, PLEASE puncture the suspense and just SIMPLY tell us as STRAIGHTFORWARDLY as you can WHAT it is that happened to you that FORCED the issue for you and MADE you accept that GOD EXISTS.

PLEASE.

BillyJoe

I was going to refer you to a link on my website but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to go into quite so much depth as I thought it did? However, here's the link to Chapter 11 anyway ... http://www.dionysus.org/x1101.html (up to the part about the Church of Smyrna).

Also, the whole idea gets pretty juicy in the last half of Chapter 13 ... http://www.dionysus.org/x1302.html

 

[Iacchus]

Sorry, I'm not going to let this drift into a science vs. the Bible discussion. The Design Inference is a mathematical and statistical work, and details methods for discriminating designed from undesigned objects. The designer, its purposes, etc., are not an issue, at least in this book.

Yes, I followed the link you were referring to here, and it looks like it might be a very good book.

http://www.designinference.com/

 

[BillyJoe]

I was going to refer you to a link on my website but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to go into quite so much depth as I thought it did? However, here's the link to Chapter 11 anyway ... http://www.dionysus.org/x1101.html (up to the part about the Church of Smyrna).

Also, the whole idea gets pretty juicy in the last half of Chapter 13 ... http://www.dionysus.org/x1302.html

I have followed a couple of links to your online book already but, I'm sorry, my brain starts going numb after a few lines.
I blame myself though.

Couldn't you just SUMMARIZE it for me?

BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Not necessarily. If you found an arrowhead, without knowing what arrowheads were, there is no emotion involved in you rationally concluding, based on the evidence and reasoning, that it was designed.

No, but it would still be a category error wouldn't it?

 

[Iacchus]

I have followed a couple of links to your online book already but, I'm sorry, my brain starts going numb after a few lines.
I blame myself though.

Couldn't you just SUMMARIZE it for me?

BillyJoe

It has something to do with my discovering the world of spririts exist and, the fact that God's counterpart, Evil, existed as well. While it was something I continued to struggle with for the next twelve or so years.

 

[BillyJoe]

Iacchus

It has something to do with my discovering the world of spririts exist and, the fact that God's counterpart, Evil, existed as well. While it was something I continued to struggle with for the next twelve or so years.

Okay, I give up. I can't seem to get a straight answer from you.

BillyJoe.

 

[lifegazer]

The base-energy of our existence progresses from its base- indeterminism towards the classical order and law seen within our perception.
One must ask oneself how existence becomes progressively self-ordered, as perceived, without ID.

 

[BillyJoe]

lifegazer,

One must ask oneself how existence becomes progressively self-ordered, as perceived, without ID.

One must ask oneself how ID comes into existence without a Creator
(or, alternatively, how this Creator comes into existence )

BillyJoe.

 

[lifegazer]

lifegazer,

One must ask oneself how ID comes into existence without a Creator
(or, alternatively, how this Creator comes into existence )

BillyJoe.

BJ, a primal-cause is eternal (timeless), by default. There is no cause for something considered the primal-cause of creation.

 

[pupdog]

There are a lot of workers in the field of evolution who are christians, but not IDers. ID appears to be part of a group of Creationists' end run around prohibitions of teaching Creationism in public schools (see the works of Phillip Johnson, especially where he talks of the "Wedge Strategy").

The best discussions I've seen can be found in "Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics" edited Robert T. Pennock, which includes contributions from both sides of the debate, and "Tower of Babel" by Pennock, which describes the history and philosophy of the debate.

When advocates of teaching ID in public schools claim it is a valid alternative scientific theory, and not an effort to bring religion into the schools, it is almost impossible to miss the "wink-wink, nod" that follows. As I've said elsewhere, when the student asks who is this Designer, is the teacher [sic] going to say "Homer Simpson" or "Sammy Sosa"?

 

[BillyJoe]

lifegazer,

BJ, a primal-cause is eternal (timeless), by default. There is no cause for something considered the primal-cause of creation.

Yeah, the primal cause uncaused. Well, let's call it.....hmmm....let me see.....oh yes.....God! Sound good to you?
God the Intelligent Designer.
Now maybe you can explain how this adds to the some total of our knowledge.

BillyJoe.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

T'ai said:
The book The Design Inference, by Dembski is great!

Dembski is an idiot. And I don't say that lightly.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
The base-energy of our existence progresses from its base- indeterminism towards the classical order and law seen within our perception.

As Stimpy would say: I detect some syntax here, but no meaning.

~~ Paul