What is the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design? (page 3)

rem

That's called special pleading and is a logical fallacy.

rem

From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the Principle of Relevant Difference. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them.

Using your logic, then, Evolution is in the same predicament.

rem

Thi Chi,

What is the relevant difference? ID states that complexity requires an intelligent designer. An intelligent designer would at least have to be complex and probably would have to be more complex than what it designs - therefore a intelligent designer would also require another intelligent designer ad infinitum. To suggest otherwise is special pleading.

If a complex thing such as an intelligent designer does not have to be intelligently designed, then it is logically possible that the equivelently or less complex "designed" thing does not have to be intelligently designed.

Evolution makes no claims about complexity and intelligent design, thus avoiding an infinite regress and special pleading.

rem

Farkel

somebodylovesme,

: I'm having a hard time figuring out the distinction between Creationism and Intelligent Design

It's a distinction without a difference as has already been pointed out. One implies the other. Think about it: Could there be stupid Creation without intelligent design, or stupid design with smart Creation?

Doh! Sorry, but your question begged this simple response.

Farkel

XQsThaiPoes

Creation is bad science and evolution is bad math. IMO

Jokes aside. Evolution is logically broken to me. You can't determine natural selection from unatural selection. You can't determine intelligence from ignorence. You can't determine random from planed.

It is also more likely God is less complexe than his "creations" this prevents infinite regession. For God can be the least complexe entity able to exist.

AlanF

Technically, "creationism" covers all beliefs that some sort of supernatural being or superintelligent beings created life and/or the physical universe. In practical usage, though, the term mostly applies to young-earth Christian creationists. Most writers since about 1980 have conceded the term to the YECs since they've long been the most vocal by far. Other creationists tend to distinguish themselves by using longer descriptive terms such as "intelligent design creationist" or "old-earth creationist".

A month ago I presented a criticism of ID to a YEC audience at a small Christian conference. Anyone interested can find the text here: http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/essays/debate.htm

AlanF

ThiChi

"...therefore a intelligent designer would also require another intelligent designer ad infinitum."

You have only presented a False Dilemma here, and as such have violated your own claims.

If God is a being that is unlimited in time, and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question. The problem is like asking a student to draw a four-sided triangle. The terminology is self-contradictory.

It is easy to make an argument for God??s existence from a cosmological standpoint. As the years have gone by, a growing amount of scientific data has accumulated which negates atheistic assumptions about how matter and the cosmos came into existence and how it has arrived at its present condition. I have been impressed with an increasing awareness on the part of many scientists and theologians that science and religion are symbiotic disciplines.

If God created matter/energy, and designed the systems that have propelled matter into its present arrangement, who or what accomplished that for God? Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always ""been"" than it is to say that matter has always ""been""? As Carl Sagan has said, ""If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?""From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature.

The problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God??s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to common sense.

AlanF

ThiChi, your 'reasoning' is typical of the bad argumentation coming from creationists. You fail to connect the simplest of dots and don't even know it.

AlanF

ThiChi

Alan F:

Thanks for your viewpoint. However, it does not address the reasons for your claims.....

Too bad your site did not include Dr. Kindall's reply.........I wonder why?

frenchbabyface

Rem : If a complex thing such as an intelligent designer does not have to be intelligently designed, then it is logically possible that the equivelently or less complex "designed" thing does not have to be intelligently designed.

it makes so much sense to me ...

What is the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design?

Share this