Intelligent Design is a Fact- Evolution is a Theory!

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are making what comes down to a semantic argument in the midst of a scientific discussion, as such ... it is worse than meaningless.

Not to mention the fact that there is no such thing as a "scientific fact."

^ Bingo.

 

[George-ananda]

No. Consciousness is, by most definitions, a highly complex phenomena. Since we do not know the origin of everyting, Positing a fundamental consciousness has two issues:

1. You are swimming upstream against parsimony to make an argument from ignorance.

The theories you consider more parsimonious I believe ignores/denies phenomena that does not fit the seemingly simple theories. Hence more complex theories are needed.

2. You are not identifying the origin of the fundamental consciousness, which, if you do will will trap you in a different parsimony destroying tautology.

What trap is caused by saying the fundamental consciousness always existed. And if you ask why, I would reply it is beyond my knowledge. I am not denying that existence is basically a mystery.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The title is a follow up on my other discussion about Intelligent design and why it is not creationism and required no God or Super Natural power.

There were many in those discussions that were still associating creationism with intelligent design to dismiss the idea so this is their chance to prove that Intelligent Design is not a fact if they can.

Once we establish that Intelligent Design is not creationism then we can look at how that could be applied to the formation of life on earth and other planets.

Why do you capitalize 'Intelligent Design'? You move it from adjective to noun, and in so doing undermine your own point.

 

[Dante Writer]

Why do you capitalize 'Intelligent Design'? You move it from adjective to noun, and in so doing undermine your own point.

Why are you debating how I posted something instead of responding to the discussion?

 

[Dante Writer]

What do you think of my belief that there are nature spirits/beings that fostered abiogenesis and evolution and life on earth?

Hmmmm? I believe energy is the basis of all life and is everywhere. I believe that the science laws are to well defined and universal to happen by coincidence.

That is as close as I can get to answering your question at this time?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why are you debating how I posted something instead of responding to the discussion?

Because you're making a semantic-based argument. Are you suggesting there is no difference between intelligent design as a noun or verb? If not, why do you refer to it as a proper noun?

 

[Dante Writer]

What about.

3. The universe is a production of the fundamental consciousness

I do take the simplest answer. No other simpler answers explain consciousness except by reducing it to materialism (which doesn't hold from the evidence I have seen).

"The universe is a production of the fundamental consciousness"

Ask him where the science laws came from with no intelligence or conscience?

 

[metis]

I believe energy is the basis of all life and is everywhere. I believe that the science laws are to well defined and universal to happen by coincidence.

Why do you believe they're "universal", and will you be specific as far as where they supposedly came from and what evidence do you have for that? For example, if it's from a deity, which one is it, and how do you know about this deity?

 

[George-ananda]

Hmmmm? I believe energy is the basis of all life and is everywhere. I believe that the science laws are to well defined and universal to happen by coincidence.

That is as close as I can get to answering your question at this time?

Yes, but would you agree that consciousness design would be required to turn energy into complex life-forms.

 

[Dante Writer]

Because you're making a semantic-based argument. Are you suggesting there is no difference between intelligent design as a noun or verb? If not, why do you refer to it as a proper noun?

in·tel·li·gent de·sign

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

No mention of God in that definition and creationism is not Intelligent Design.

cre·a·tion·ism

1. elief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

I made it clear that life can and is created by Intelligent design all the time.

It was not a semantic argument. It was showing that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same thing and should not be lumped together.

 

[Dante Writer]

Why do you believe they're "universal", and will you be specific as far as where they supposedly came from and what evidence do you have for that? For example, if it's from a deity, which one is it, and how do you know about this deity?

I started another discussion for that question:

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...om-and-why-do-they-exist-at-all.186219/unread

 

[Midnight Rain]

in·tel·li·gent de·sign

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

No mention of God in that definition and creationism is not Intelligent Design.

cre·a·tion·ism

1. elief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

I made it clear that life can and is created by Intelligent design all the time.

It was not a semantic argument. It was showing that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same thing and should not be lumped together.

ID as a "theory" is creationism. The same people who wrote it pushed Creationism. Its the same theory with the same people. They just got more advanced sounding vocabulary.

Do you honestly and seriously think for a second that this higher power or intelligent entity is anything other than god? For a second do you believe that?

 

[Dante Writer]

Intellegent design is in fact a fact. All of us are using electronic devices connected to a massive online web of information run across digital processes. All of which are intelligently designed.

What we don't have evidence of is intelligent design being used to start or shape life. Even the examples you gave of biologically enhanced evolution or artificially motivated evolution is still evolution. The "theory" of ID as presented in biological terms by creationists is utter nonsense. Its a hijacking of a word and perversion of logic.

Evolution is fact. We see it happen every day.

"What we don't have evidence of is intelligent design being used to start or shape life."

Yes we do have that evidence. Through cloning gene manipulation we can start completely new organisms with traits not present in either parent.

You are under the misunderstanding that Intelligent Design replaces evolution. It doesn't and evolution of an organism does not answer the question of where that organism came from to begin with.

 

[McBell]

iI made it clear that life can and is created by Intelligent design all the time.

No you haven't.
You have shown that evolution can be guided.
You have NOT shown how life began.

 

[Dante Writer]

This is true, but I'm going to disagree with you about the 'inference', that we would draw from the big question mark, in the equation. If we, pursue, that question mark, we have to consider Creationism. Off planet I.D., /or abiogenesis/, merely puts the problem 'off planet'', so to speak.
We don't have to guess at Creationism, but there is really no reason to avoid the issue, either. There are a couple other threads addressing this, in part, so I won't turn this thread into an off topic debate.

cheers

Stick around and read my other discussions. I am building up to that answer but first I must lay the ground work and get people past their phobia of Intelligent Design.

 

[Dante Writer]

ID as a "theory" is creationism. The same people who wrote it pushed Creationism. Its the same theory with the same people. They just got more advanced sounding vocabulary.

Do you honestly and seriously think for a second that this higher power or intelligent entity is anything other than god? For a second do you believe that?

No absolutely not!

Unless you want to think Crick and Dawkin's were creationists lol!

 

[Midnight Rain]

"What we don't have evidence of is intelligent design being used to start or shape life."

Yes we do have that evidence. Through cloning gene manipulation we can start completely new organisms with traits not present in either parent.

You are under the misunderstanding that Intelligent Design replaces evolution. It doesn't and evolution of an organism does not answer the question of where that organism came from to begin with.

Evolution as a theory doesn't address that question at all. ID as presented by the pseudo-scientific community rejects evolution for ID. If you are using a far more liberal usage of the term then perhaps it doesn't conflict but the only cases we have of ID is human made.

 

[Dante Writer]

Yes, but would you agree that consciousness design would be required to turn energy into complex life-forms.

Here again all I can say is the science laws exist and seem to exist for a reason. If that is consciousness or the result of consciousness I do not know.

 

[Midnight Rain]

No absolutely not!

Unless you want to think Crick and Dawkin's were creationists lol!

Links to support argument requested. Dawkins is a starkly against ID in all of its known psuedo scientific forms and I do not know Crick.

 

[Dante Writer]

Evolution as a theory doesn't address that question at all. ID as presented by the pseudo-scientific community rejects evolution for ID. If you are using a far more liberal usage of the term then perhaps it doesn't conflict but the only cases we have of ID is human made.

"but the only cases we have of ID is human made."

I thought I made that clear in my post. ID does not require a God or even a Genius.