In court, that might be called creating reasonable doubt. Lay out your ideas and don't worry about the detractors. You aren't obligated to address every post or rebuttal. I'd be interested in seeing another point of view on the ID subject.
Point taken. But wouldn't the question of "how did the alien progenator come into being" come into play? Like how evolution is suppose to stop at merely the study of the change in species but instead goes into the speculative concept of abiogenesis. My point in stating that alien progenation (not sure if that's a word) is a problem is that it addresses an intermediate question which begs a subsequent ultimate question* at some point. * ultimate question - basically what was the first cause.
Thank you for this explanation of your position. Dembski's rationale seems to me to be an attempt to obfuscate the ultimate point. Which is, that if evolution is the product of a designer who existed prior to the formation of this universe and created biological evolution as a means of promoting life, then from our perspective, our scientific observations would reveal nothing more than a confirmation of natural evolution, because evolution is what the designer, designed, and he/she/it designed it so as to require no further intervention from the designer. In short, based on Dembski's proposition, ID is irrelevant, because whether or not it is true, it is entirely undetectable.
Irrelevant?! Much Scientific Research is and has been conducted on the premise that processes act as if they are/were designed. Major scientific breakthroughs throughout history have been made by men attempting to "read god's mind". GOD GOOD, a MONK founded the field of genetics! http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/Gregor_Mendel.html As smart as you people appear, you really are quite blind and clueless. Just continue to grip onto the silly notion you are the supreme beings! .... http://www.library.eb.com/nobelprize/article-256585 Einstein also clarified his religious views, stating that he believed there was an âold oneâ who was the ultimate lawgiver. He wrote that he did not believe in a personal God that intervened in human affairs but instead believed in the God of the 17th-century Dutch Jewish philosopher Benedict de Spinozaâthe God of harmony and beauty. His task, he believed, was to formulate a master theory that would allow him to âread the mind of God.â He would write, "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages.â¦The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
my apologies, no intention to offend with the "blind and clueless" remark. I meant "no less blind and clueless" than anyone who sees value in approaching the world with the idea of a "designer". (in reality, I actually meant "you are more blind and clueless" than anyone who sees value in ID ....) I'd agree that any argument attempting to prove or disprove the theory is irrelevant though.
Ok, Let's quote William Dembski then: His full essay is here: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_theologn.htm Your authority on ID has stated clearly in this essay that ID is firmly on the creationist side of the creation-evolution debate. What do you say?
Disagree of course. A stranger who has never seen a football game observes the game. He records all the movements, time frames, etc. A football fan who grew up watching football, playing football, and then coaching football watches the same game. Do they see the same thing visually? Absolutely. They watch the very same game. Do they both get the same experience out of watching the game? Nope...not even close. You may think that observation of biological processes without context of why there are biological processes doesn't matter....or you may be having a belief that there is no larger purpose in biological process beyond the mechanics and process of change, or you may even disbelieve that biological processes are part of a grander scheme, and as a result you come to quite a different conclusion about the nature of life than does a person who believes there is purpose behind the process beyond the process itself...and this will in turn impact decision making both personally and politically of that individual, and the nature of their life. Meaning is not revealed by sterile observation as it is limited to mechanics of biological processes...personal relationship between an observed processes and the observer is not generated by a purely intellectual observation devoid of how those observations fit into a world view... It does matter if the process is by design, or by chance... People know this to be true, for if they did not, the atheist would not care much if we assumed design or chance, but they care very much that we assume chance...and not design. We are after all, by design or by chance, more than just intellectual creatures...
Your comments are relevant to a public policy discussion, but not to a scientific one. I'm not advocating any particular public policy. Scientifically, if design is undetectable, then it is irrelevant, because all that measurable is evolution. Thus, it serves no scientific purpose to expend resources in search of what is definitionally impossible to discover. Your point that for people to derive meaning from their existence, a view from the design "side" may be very important. I don't dispute this at all. I only dispute the relevancy of conducting a scientifically methodical search for nothing. If someone produces some material evidence of extrinsic design, then that means that there is something which can be measured, and suddenly design becomes relevant. Certainly evidence of an extra-terrestrial designer would be an unbelievably important find. However, attempting to scientifically prove God is frivolous. God will not suffer any natural explanation.
James Bond: My Dembski quote is from 2002. Your Dembski quote is from 1996. Looks like Dembski's view has evolved. In any event, the 2002 quote best describes my ID perspective.
Always able to find a silver lining, aren't you? Here is the time stamp of file for the essay I quoted: [TXT] wd_theologn.htm 10-Sep-2006 07:45 42k He put it up there last Sept. It doesn't look like he is giving up on the idea. You'd better find another authority to appeal to. This one doesn't work for you.