I previously said I don't have proof of ID. I previously said I don't have a test for ID. Likewise, you have no proof and no test for abiogenesis. Leaders in the field admit they are baffled. Let's compare apples to apples. I can present an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life which is all you can present for a non-teleological origin of life.
I have seen you repeat this claim numerous times, but you have not backed it up with anything concrete. Please present your case and let us analyse it. Otherwise admit you don't have a case and give it up.
Teleologist, you say you have no "proof," yet you simultaneously state that you can make a circumstantial case. I've already defined proof and circumstantial inference earlier in this thread, and I've stated that a sufficiently compelling circumstantial inference can be proof, and that proof itself is just evidence which tends to make a material fact more or less likely. You seem to be equivocating all over the map. What "is" your case for ID? That's what we're all waiting to read.
i'm not... pls s.o. pm me if anything remotely interesting to demolish... not holding my breath {unsubscribe}
kjkent1 wrote: Why? You previously said: Well, I told you I don't have a test for ID. What I have is an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life. You seem to want something that approaches certainty. An investigation does not need to deliver infallible conclusions or make infallible inferences. That is, in identifying the first life forms as the product of design, ID theorists may very well be correct. And that they cannot be sure they are correct, with anything approaching certainty, doesnât mean they are not correct. This is an ambiguous topic. ID theorists have made a certain peace with this ambiguity, and instead of struggling and fighting for a way to exorcise ambiguity (to bring about the brotherhood of universal agreement), they are more interested in working with our ambiguous world, trying out neglected ideas and approaches to see what they can deliver in terms of understanding biotic reality.
His case is 'Things look to me as if they must be designed, because how else could life have come about? It is self evident to me that life on earth was created by an intellegent entity of some sort'. I guarantee you, 100% for sure, that there will be a lot of talky-talk about science and epistemology and proving a negative, but when all is said and done, this is what it will come down to. It will come down to 'My faith tells me that this is true, therefore it is true'.
Not true. There are tests for a "non-teleological origin of life". A great deal of demonstrable substantial evidence in addition to guesses and gut feelings. It means of course there is much more than only a "looks like" pointing toward no requirement for intelligent design. Organic compounds can be constituted from inanimate materials. That produces what "looks like" a mighty big hurdle for a non-testable teleological origin of life to overcome when it can only intuitively, cumulatively and circumstantially talk to itself. Amounting to guessing or a gut feeling, with no other substantive information in support. There is no test for a teleological origin of life, you say so. Therefore nothing further can be established which goes past guess or feeling, whilst at the same time tests do suggest a 'non telelogical' outcome most likely. "Looks like" is all you have offered for intelligent design. Even so on that basis, it actually "looks like" you would be wrong.
A good read: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html That's the plaintiff side. Now take a look at the defense side: So even the defense (proponents of the ID) admitted in the court that ID is in fact creationism.
The only way one can pin the "creationist" label on ID proponents is to define creationism so broadly that anyone that disputes that evolution is undirected and devoid of purpose is a creationist. So to the ID critics here that claim ID is creationism I say let's hear your definition of creationism.