The major difference between creationism and intelligent design

[dust1n]

Thanks for qualifying your statement for me. We have slightly different views on this matter, but I'd rather not argue them at the moment.

And let me clarify once more, because I felt like I missed something there. I don't think that God automatically conflicts with science. I think the belief in God automatically conflicts with science. A subtle, but important, distinction.

 

[George-ananda]

I wasn't comparing the teapot or the fairies to evolution. I was comparing the teapot or the fairies to the ID.

Er..I was aware of that. And I said my views on the existence of intelligent nature entities being involved in evolution has more evidence going for it than that teapot. So I was saying they are not equal for comparison.

 

[dust1n]

Er..I was aware of that. And I said my views on the existence of intelligent nature entities being involved in evolution has more evidence going for it than that teapot. So I was saying they are not equal for comparison.

Can your belief into the nature of these entities and their existence be falsified?

 

[Parsimony]

I think the belief in God automatically conflicts with science.

Conflicts with existing scientific knowledge, conflicts with the scientific method, or what?

 

[George-ananda]

Can your belief into the nature of these entities and their existence be falsified?

No, so it is not something that science can address at this time, I agree. But I as a person, fairly consider all things from all sides in forming my personal views.

The consideration of much evidence makes me think these entities exist. The consideration of evidence for the teapot leaves me to believe it does not exist. There is the difference.

 

[dust1n]

Conflicts with existing scientific knowledge, conflicts with the scientific method, or what?

On an epistemological level. "God" isn't a natural object. How do you observe, test, and repeat something that can't even be given attributes and whose existence is entirely outside all that we will know preceding our death?

 

[dust1n]

No, so it is not something that science can address at this time, I agree.

Right... unscientific. That's not to say it's either true or false, just that it isn't science.

But I as a person, fairly consider all things from all sides in forming my personal views.

The consideration of much evidence makes me think these entities exist. The consideration of evidence for the teapot leaves me to believe it does not exist. There is the difference.

Nothing wrong with that.

This is precisely the problem Russell's teapot illustrates. How can you disprove (or prove) anything that is posited to exist outside the ability for anyone to disprove it?

It doesn't really matter what humans believe, because humans can believe anything. Human belief doesn't alter the truth value of the claims.

 

[George-ananda]

Right... unscientific. That's not to say it's either true or false, just that it isn't science.

It's not 'unscientific'. It is outside of science's domain at this time to prove/disprove.

Nothing wrong with that.

This is precisely the problem Russell's teapot illustrates. How can you disprove (or prove) anything that is posited to exist outside the ability for anyone to disprove it?

But I am not claiming proof! I claim only the most reasonable analysis of all evidence and argumentation. Like what people do in a murder case. The verdict is not claimed to be 'proof'.

It doesn't really matter what humans believe, because humans can believe anything. Human, belief doesn't alter the truth value of the claims.

Of course, people believing something doesn't make it true. But evidence can make it the most reasonable position (as in a murder case).

 

[Scuba Pete]

Right, well when you can convince me that "elegance" is the creator carefully and purposefully allowing thousands of children to die at early ages due to common and well known genetic mutations, and in an unnecessarily painful way, perhaps I would consider such a creator as elegant.

It's a shame that people can't appreciate the Rocky Mountains and not realize the destruction that they caused when they were formed? You don't get something from nothing. There's always a price to be paid for improvement. Beauty comes at a high cost. Pain is transitory. Death is universal. Suffering is relative. We're all going to die, and in a cosmic version of Ground Hog Day, we keep improving a bit with each repetition. Elegant? You bet. Perfect? Ain't nothing better. Glad to be sacrificing my life to evolutionary excellence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you think there is a difference, or not? If so, what are the differences?

Depends on the context intelligent design is being used. There is no difference if the intelligent designers happen to be living micro-organisms.

 

[dust1n]

It's not 'unscientific'. It is outside of science's domain at this time to prove/disprove.

IF it is entirely outside of science's domain, then it what sense is it scientific. I mean, if we had a Godoscope that got invented the situation might be different...

But I am not claiming proof! I claim only the most reasonable analysis of all evidence and argumentation. Like what people do in a murder case. The verdict is not claimed to be 'proof'.

Sure, there is no proof in science. We are pretty much, more or less, limited to disproving things, and having stuff that hasn't been disproven. But if it can't disproven, then there is much reason examining the evidence. What would evidence to the contrary look like?

Of course, people believing something doesn't make it true. But evidence can make it the most reasonable position (as in a murder case).

I don't disagree. It's possible a murder case convicts the wrong person on entirely reasonable pretenses. But anyone can take what they deem as evidence and draw entirely false conclusions from it. If there is no means for me to attempt to disprove, because there is no means to disprove, then why I consider it a matter of inquiry?

 

[dust1n]

It's a shame that people can't appreciate the Rocky Mountains and not realize the destruction that they caused when they were formed? You don't get something from nothing. There's always a price to be paid for improvement. Beauty comes at a high cost. Pain is transitory. Death is universal. Suffering is relative. We're all going to die, and in a cosmic version of Ground Hog Day, we keep improving a bit with each repetition. Elegant? You bet. Perfect? Ain't nothing better. Glad to be sacrificing my life to evolutionary excellence.

Right. It's easy to say when you aren't under the rock slide or in the earthquake.

Of course, I don't disagree you don't get something from nothing and death is universal, etc. etc. The problem is mixing it up with a supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God who created life to not be so lonely. It also calls into question the point of worshiping or revering such an entity given such conditions. Honestly, never impressed myself with a deity who has to make malaria to make a sunset happen.

 

[Scuba Pete]

]\

Right. It's easy to say when you aren't under the rock slide or in the earthquake.

Of course, I don't disagree you don't get something from nothing and death is universal, etc. etc. The problem is mixing it up with a supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God who created life to not be so lonely. It also calls into question the point of worshiping or revering such an entity given such conditions. Honestly, never impressed myself with a deity who has to make malaria to make a sunset happen.

Such a grumpy Gus. Actually, I was under a small collapse in a cave I was diving in this past Saturday. Took a timber to the arm and had the good sense to get out of there pronto. The pain in my arm alerted me to the problem developing above me. You don't see a good side to pain, but it's often how we learn and it often alerts to our need to escape. You only have to touch a hot stove once to figure out to do something a bit differently next time. That said, I'll be diving in caves again before the year is out.

 

[Valjean]

The only way I can think of that a God might be involved in manipulating evolution or anything else would be by magic, ie: altering the laws of Nature -- the same laws God, presumably, decreed.

Were a creationist to deny magic, that would leave only the natural laws of physics and chemistry to explain evolution and complexity -- laws already in place and operating. Without magical intervention God becomes irrelevant.
So what is it, magic or mechanism? These are the only two alternatives I can see.

Er..I was aware of that. And I said my views on the existence of intelligent nature entities being involved in evolution has more evidence going for it than that teapot. So I was saying they are not equal for comparison.

The consideration of much evidence makes me think these entities exist. The consideration of evidence for the teapot leaves me to believe it does not exist. There is the difference.

So what is this evidence for the existence of entities? What mechanisms of involvement in evolution are they using, and what evidence of their involvement is there?

 

[Ponder This]

Do you think there is a difference, or not? If so, what are the differences?

Considering that many Creationists are just happy to jump onto the Intelligent Design Wagon because they think it preserves their religious beliefs makes an honest examination of Intelligent Design Theory impossible and just turns it into puppet for them to challenge Evolution Theory with. At least, that is the only way I've seen it used in popular media.

The belief that there is a directed process can be found to have influenced the use of the word "evolution" whose etymology is from the latin meaning the unrolling of a scroll. Darwin himself preferred "descent with modification" which just wasn't catchy enough for the general populace.

 

[Neo Deist]

How are these different?
- theist who believes in evolution
- theist who believes in theistic evolution
- theist who believes in intelligent design
(assume the theist believes in a creator god)

I think they are all the same. Jews, Christians, and Muslims cannot claim to believe in evolution. There was no guarantee that humans would evolve or that anything as intelligent as humans would evolve. God can't take credit for creating humans unless he took an active role to ensure that humans (or some equivalent) evolved. Evolution doesn't allow God to be active in the process.

Then there is deistic evolution. God created the universe and the laws of nature that govern it, then set it all in motion. Evolution happens per His design, over the course of billions of years, as intended.

 

[Parsimony]

On an epistemological level. "God" isn't a natural object. How do you observe, test, and repeat something that can't even be given attributes and whose existence is entirely outside all that we will know preceding our death?

So you can't use science to directly test for God's existence. I agree with that. The only way a person could know for sure that God exists (if He does) is if He chose to reveal His existence to them in some way.

 

[George-ananda]

IF it is entirely outside of science's domain, then it what sense is it scientific. I mean, if we had a Godoscope that got invented the situation might be different...

The scientific process does include collecting data and an analyzing data in a objective manner. I would call that 'scientific'.

Sure, there is no proof in science. We are pretty much, more or less, limited to disproving things, and having stuff that hasn't been disproven. But if it can't disproven, then there is much reason examining the evidence. What would evidence to the contrary look like?

I think you missed some words in your typing here. Please clarify what you mean and I will respond. Just guessing; I would say to accept the most reasonable theory and call it the 'most reasonable theory' and not proof. That's how logic rolls to me.

I don't disagree. It's possible a murder case convicts the wrong person on entirely reasonable pretenses. But anyone can take what they deem as evidence and draw entirely false conclusions from it.

Agreed. but in murder cases and the real world isn't reason the best thing we got (even if not perfect). How do you judge contested issues?

If there is no means for me to attempt to disprove, because there is no means to disprove, then why I consider it a matter of inquiry?

Perhaps curiosity about the nature of reality?

 

[George-ananda]

So what is this evidence for the existence of entities? What mechanisms of involvement in evolution are they using, and what evidence of their involvement is there?

My opinions are based on cumulative evidence so it can't be covered fully in a reply post. Basically, it includes the views of those that claim insight beyond the physical (that I have come to respect after full consideration). And the mindboggling complexity in abiogenesis, DNA and the millions of processes involved in complex life. The mechanism is their experimentation with the building blocks of life accomplished through control of the elements.

 

[Valjean]

Mindboggling complexity in abiogenesis? We don't even know exactly what mechanisms were involved, but they're more likely to have been a series of small, simple steps rather than one or two mind bogglingly complex cascades leading to fully formed life.

You're correct that many of the life forms we see today are, in fact, extraordinarily complex. But that complexity arose from small, explainable, self perpetuating steps over aeons.
There are mutations with every round of reproduction. Those conferring useful traits tend to be passed on, they self perpetuate. As time passes these can accumulate and the organisms become more complex. No miraculous poofing of modern, complex physiology needed.

Complexity can arise from just a few, simple rules or algorithms. The Mandelbrot set comes to mind, or this well known little video of blind watchmaking: