by cofty 195 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
this is one of the reasons wiki is not such a good place to go for info to back up one's perspective. - s&g
I didn't ever use Wiki I used years of reading about ID backed up by 53 million google results
ID also has an existence apart from creationism, a non religious one
No it doesn't. ID is a religious position that is successfully pretending to be science - at least its fooling you and binadub
cofty - I was referring to your post on pg7 post 4461. it seems to me that somehow your readings on ID backed up by 53 million google results coalse in the wiki definition there nontheless. so in other words in all of your research you did not come across any of the quotes binadub supplies?
S&G---is it your position that ID is NOT creationism? It certainly was the goal--to try and hide the fact that it is creationism--but that is because creationism cannot be taught in school science classes. It was an effort to disguise creationism and try and slip it past sleepy board members. Have you read the leaked Wedge Document? Do you see what is motivating the Discovery Institute?
ID is creationism. That is a fact. As an atheist, I must look at the facts. I can't change them because I want to tell myself something different. I have to accept them for what they are. ID was developed to destroy confidence in the scientific method, to claim that there is some valid controversy, to pretend to be science, and to prepare students to accept creationism over evolution.
ID decides where science should just stop and ask no more questions. "Oh, that is so complex and it looks like it was designed, therefore it was. Our job is done, let us continue in comfortable ignorance." That is what it is all about. Why bother asking anymore questions, we already have the answer! Design. No need to figure out how all these complex elements came together to be the organism it is today.
This is one area where we just may need to agree to disagree. Some people bought the ID story. Some people see right through it---including the courts. And in the end, that is what matters. That we keep it out of the schools.
NC
Yes you're right I did quote Wiki when my twenty eighth attempt to explain it in my own words was once again greeted with yet another dictionary definition. I also invited binadib to check out 53 million other results. I confess I did not check out all of them but the first few pages seem to establish my point.
In my OP I defined ID to separate it from TE.
ID is a hypothesis that certain features of living systems show hallmarks of design by an intelligent agent - This is creationism.
binadub doesn't want to be associated with Ken Ham et al so he/she wants to define ID in a way that is so vague and general that it loses all useful meaning.
If all a person wants to say is that there is probably an intelligence that explains why there is something rather than nothing then it is willfully misleading to adopt the ID label. They are only making a simple philosophical point that strictly is outside the realm of science and is not in conflict with it.
If somebody wants to assert that the blood clotting cascade, or the wing, or the eye, or the flagellum, or DNA or anything else is so complex, or is complex in a particular way, that it must have had a designer then they are making a psuedo-scientific point and they are wrong for the same reasons Dr Dino is wrong.
binadub refuses to tell us which of these two camps they are in.
NC I need to read up more on the ID being taught in schools situation in the US. Is it taught as a separate science subject or is it taught in ordinary science classes?
regarding my position on whether or not ID is not creationism I want to say that I understand binadub's position and was trying for myself to see where her disagreement with ID as creationism lay. She makes valid points about randomness and these coincide with some of my own feelings about it (randomness that is). I also have a strong objection to meaninglessness. Whether or not ID is or isn't creationism is irrelevant to me.
cofty thanks for being honest.
S&G what do you mean by "randomness" in this context?
Is it taught as a separate science subject or is it taught in ordinary science classes?
It isn't taught at all, it is religion masquerading as science. It was ruled illegal in Kitzmiller v Dover, a decision that has never been challenged.
Is it taught as a separate science subject or is it taught in ordinary science classes?
It is not taught in schools, because the courts are onto them. It would NEVER be taught as science, because it is not science. They tried to argue that it was in Dover, PA, and a creationist judge that was appoint by Dubya ruled that it was not science, that ID had a religious agenda, and that it could not be taught in the schools there in Dover. That's a pretty weighty assessment from a judge that probably agrees with most of what ID wishes to pass on. An honest judge, at least. A dishonest movement.
NC
Sorry Cofty---I don't know why I didn't bother to read your response before putting mine in. But now we have TWO witnesses! LOL
S&G, you can watch the documentary on the trial in Dover on youtube. It's titled, Judgement Day: Intellegent Design on Trial. Here is the link to the entire thing.
binadub: I do tend to believe that there is a mathematical point of probability at which coincidence enters the realm of impossible, therefore it must have been "designed." But that's not what I'm arguing in this thread.
Well, in that case i wont refute the idea but only state it is wrong.
I do tend to believe that there is a mathematical point of probability at which coincidence enters the realm of impossible,
?? If there is a probability, it can't be impossible. It can be more unlikely, but not impossible. I won't pretend to be a genius at math, but I think I understand this much. Over the expanse of deep time, the improbable becomes more probable---someone that knows more about math, please correct me if I'm wrong.
NC
