kjkent1 wrote: Dembski says right at the beginning of his quote that: ID's "only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable." This might help clarify where Dembski is coming from: Intelligent design is not a theory about the frequency or locality at which a designing intelligence intervenes in the material world. Indeed, intelligent design is perfectly compatible with all the design in the world being front-loaded in the sense that all design was introduced at the beginning (say at the origin of life on earth) and then came to expression subsequently over the course of natural history much as a computer program's output becomes evident only when the program is run.
Dembski says ID is creationism. Why shouldn't people believe one of the founders of the ID theory, instead believe an anonymous poster on ET?
Actually, I think my comments are quite relevant to a scientific discussion, as science does not exist in a vacuum separate from other areas of life. We have seen over the past 500 years science shift from the majority of scientists who were theists to now perhaps the majority being atheists. There is no reasonable way to say that such a shift is irrelevant to our society, or that scientists are magically above a bias in their work due to their belief systems. If you think that a dominance of theism or atheism does not impact science on a working level, then I think you are really not thinking this through reality thoroughly. If it doesn't matter, if we really don't know if chance or design is behind what we observe, then just assume design...as it doesn't matter to science, if it is chance or design, right? It does matter to the scientists who have atheistic agendas...just as much as if scientists had a theistic agenda. I would like to see science as 100% agnostic, not the current agenda driven situation... Science impacts public policy decisions, which of course makes science and the agenda of scientists extremely relevant...
James Bond: Irrelevant. There is no appeal to authority here. The 2002 Dembski quote happens to describe my ID perspective, that's why I posted it. Do you grant that I'm an authority on my own views?
Perhaps an adjective is needed before teleologist's use of the term ID. Such as "Limited." Limited ID would fit teleologist's description because it limits the scope of ID to just the origins of life on Earth.
Your view matters as much as mine. Why should anyone care? As I stated, if one of the founders of the ID theory says it's creationism, shouldn't people believe him rather than someone who can't even get their quotes straight?
I see. Just like a "limited" gravity theory which applies only to rocks, or "limited" quantum theory which applies only to positively charged particles. How can such theories be scientific (and not a joke)?
You are far too smart to not recognize that you are confusing a public policy argument about how scientists should resolve inconclusive findings when publishing their conclusions, vis-a-vis the technical objectives of the scientific method and the limits of scientific investigation. I have no argument with you about scientists who manipulate facts to obtain a conclusion which is not warranted by the facts. I can think of a particularly onerous example of a peer-reviewed and published scientific paper, which is currently being used by another well-known scientist to support evolution, even though the original author of the paper has published a subsequent paper in the same scientific periodical rejecting his prior findings. Thus, I see no purpose in misleading others to maintain a false proof because it accomplishes nothing of scientific value. And, while such a ruse might have a temporary political benefit, the risk of long-term fallout from the misrepresentation will be more detrimental than the benefit received. My argument is only that a scientific search for a supernatural designer is impossible to accomplish, and therefore a waste of precious resources.
I see them as philosophical and/or theological rather than scientific while almagamating actual scientific observations into a sort of curve fit package. Any predictions made would most likely amount to prophecy. Besides, even if a designer showed up, how would we know that the designer isn't using some sort of advanced technology to fool us into thinking it was/is responsible for the design? There can never be 100% proof of design other than to see the designer at work. Anyway, the universe appears to follow an unchanging order. Why this order exists the way it does is perhaps best left to those attempting to formulate a super grand unifying theory.
I am not accusing anyone of intentionally manipulating facts, though it probably does happen. Much of the problem, I believe, either comes from the scientists who are strongly atheist subconsciously or because there is a bias against even thinking along the lines of design...the mind is not even open to the concept of design...so there is no focus or creative thought in this direction. There is no problem solving or exploration into the concept of design with the same focus and intensity as there is into non design. Were science truly agnostic, which I believe it should be, scientists would be pushing neither design nor non design. My view is I see the pushing of non design by scientists, and I think to a great extent this influence comes from their personal bias rooted in strong atheism. Is this really any different than thinking that 5 Catholic SC jurists on the bench are going to put away their theistic belief systems 100% and only blindly agnostically follow the law when making their rulings? I also continue to see it as illogical to say there is no case for design, when you cannot even say what would be needed to "scientifically" convince you of design... Again, I will repeat, if the biological processes observed stay the same and are wholly unaffected with an of either assumption or design or chance, what difference does it make if we first assume design?