Bourgeoisie pseudo intellectual drivel presented in the fully self designated manner of totalitarian authoritarianism based foundation of course of nothing but personal opinion and bias from stu pid. Like an atomic clock...precisely radioactive to the core...and ever on the decay. Careful ddunbar, by the time you are done with stu pid you might too think babies are atheists.
Stu, I'd agree with you, slap myself (and the other cheek - Jesus said), and eat crow over the idea that I'm being hypocritical in respects to my seeming "crusade" for proper word/phrase use if I was actually falling under condemnation for having done the same myself with a word or phrase. Misspellings though, I'm certainly guilty of, so I won't dare call someone out on it. I have several criteria that I fall back on which I use to guide my understanding of a word. I'll list them in order of personal importance. 1. The accreditted definition. 2. The accreditted etymology. 3. The common usage. Usually, I don't have to go past #1. But there are cases when a phrase or word is a compound of other words. Or sometimes, a word is being used in a colloqial manner for the furthering of some agenda or when trying to bolster an argument. In those cases, I'll have to employ #2 & 3. When none of those 3 can concretely convey a word or phrase's meaning due to the sometimes rapid evolution of a language, hopefully the one using the word in an unorthodox manner will understand that a qualifier before or after the word or phrase is necessary so as not to confuse or obfuscate the root word or phrase's meaning. For example, Teleologist made the mistake of thinking that Miller is not a creationist because the prototypical creationist is a young earth creationist who believes in 6 literal days of creation and a young Earth. That is the common usage of the word creationist. However, there are qualifiers added to creationist to determine the exact type of creationists. Like Evolutionary creationist, or gap creationist, or progressive creationist, etc. But what they all have in common, is that they all embrace the worldview that God had a hand in creation. They only differ in their interpretation of the creation record as outlined in the bible. That's why they all fall under creationists. That's why it's somewhat funny that Miller fights against ID and doesn't consider himself a creationist. But what he fights against are the common understanding of ID (commonly, those who fight against evolution as a blind and random development) and Creationist (commonly, those who also fight against evolution.) The ones who coined the term ID were Young earth, anti-evolutionist creationists. See why qualifiers are important? That's why if you ask him (Miller), he'll admit that he's an evolutionary creationist/ Theistic evolutionist - as most Roman Catholics are given the Pope's embracing of evolution a few years back via some encyclical. Not the same with the atheist argument, since there are types of atheists that vary to two major and very distinct levels. Cognitive, those who embrace the worldview of atheism. And non-cognitive, those who simply have no cognition of gods. As per the definition of atheism, all definitions from accredited dictionaries have it as an active belief (or properly, disbelief), denial, and concious decision that there is no gods. The true etymology of the word as per the Greeks who first used it was used as a derogatory word to label those who did not embrace/acknowledge the state Gods of the day. (Godless, without God(s)). To fail to embrace/acknowledge the state Gods required an active and concisious decision which only a person cognitive enough can do. Non-cognitive atheism, which can apply to all babies or any humans who have stunted cognition to a degree that renders them as infants, is radically different from what a cognitive atheist is. There is no meaningful commonality between the two if you accept the accreditted definition of atheism or the actual etymology of the word and its former derogatory context. Therefore, there is no way one can accept babies as atheist, to be included with cognitive atheists, if one accepts the accreditted definition of atheist. One must reject the accreditted definition of atheist/atheism in favor of a new and unorthodox one. This is why it will take quite some time if at all for babies to be considered atheist. The proponents of this currently improper use of the word atheist as defined by acrreditted lexicons, are a minority to whom common usage will not be ascribed regardless if it is common usage in their community. Atheist is a word that belongs to both this minority sub-group of atheists who wish to ascribe it to babies, the atheist community at large, and the English speaking community at large. The grassroot effort to redefine atheism outside this sub-group of atheist will of course start within the atheist community who would be more apt to accept the new or amended definition because at the heart of atheism is a spirit of free thought and rebellion against establishment (which happens to be overrun by theists). But the English speaking community at large has no such spirit en masse nor any vested interest in redefining atheism. What is more, without common usage at large, which also helps to redefine a word and evolve language irrespective of etymology, labeling babies as atheist without any distinction from the worldview of atheism (which adults embrace) will never catch on - all things being equal (meaning, atheism remaining a minority, which by all measures, it most probably will in the decades ahead.) One last and quick example that comes to mind: The word "dope." I've heard it used like this: "Yo! That's dope!" Well, in the community in which this word was used, the context suggests that the word means "great, awesome, ... narly." But you will find no accreditted dictionary entry which defines the adjective dope in that manner. The minority group's improper use of the word failed to gain common usage which in turn failed to have it added to the English lexicon. Even though they may have been equating the object or idea with the same great feeling of euphoria one gets when high on dope.
Stu: More nonsense. That I think life at it's core looks like the product of advanced bioengineering has nothing to do with religion. In fact, it was empirical data published by an agnostic biochemist that first led me to this conclusion. As for what is taught in school you never seem to get it right. I do not advocate that ID be taught in school. For one thing, there are not enough teachers qualified to teach it correctly. My position is that ID is empirical not religious, therefore, there are no CONSTITUTIONAL grounds for banning it from the classroom.
OK, I'll grant you that. But you must understand that the qeustion that is BEGGED is, "who is the bioengineer?" Do you not understand that as a necessary question? I don't care who or what you ascribe as the bioengineer. But if the bioengineer is anything less than an ultimate entity, the line of questioning will continue until you get to that ultimate bioengineer. And if you wish to make this science and not simply philosophy, you run into the problem of having to address this issue. Isn't teleology the study of final causes? So ultimately the teleologist is determined to at least postulate the final (read ultimate) bioengineer. Sidebar: It's kind of funny that teleology is the study of the EVIDENCE of design. Without a frame of reference as to what the design of life and matter actually is, how does one actually determine what evidence is? Figure an inspector at a crime scene who has no frame of reference as to what constitutes evidence in a murder case. The neighbors cat who took a crap near the crime scene could be considered evidence of murder. How is he truly to know that there is no correlation between the cat turd and the murder? Hence, because it looks designed or shows a possible correlation does not necessarily constitute evidence of design. So the teleologist ultimately has "faith" in the correlations he deems as evidence with no truly empirically concrete notion as to what actually constitutes evidence of design. AKA, circular reasoning. And we all know that religion is an endless loop of circular reasoning. That's why it requires faith. Anyway, this has been said numerous times in different ways I'm sure. So have fun in your endeavors and study on this subject. Keep it real though. Peace.
ddunbar: But none of the above applies to ID. ID is not about God or the Bible. The problem here is that you refuse to accept the definition of ID as IDers define it. Once more, here it is: That's what ID is to an ID'er. But for some reason you won't accept the definition of ID that IDer's subscribe to. ID has only two tenets. Intelligent causes exist, and intelligent causes can be detected empirically. The theological beliefs of individual ID'ers are irrelevant.
Why don't you hold science to the same standards? I don't get it? Science can make outrageous claims all it wants on the basis of "theory" so what is the difference in speculating on some design agent without knowing the "ultimate" source? Do you know of any big bang theory that knows the ultimate source of the proposed big bang? Apparently, not knowing what caused the suggested big bang, does not stop scientists from speculating about it a big bang, or believing in it. Show me where the lack of knowledge of an ultimate understanding of the cause and workings of the universe prohibits scientists from speculating on limited aspects of the universe? Isn't the rationalization of many evolutionists exactly that which you are condemning about the idea that life here was the product of non God? Speculation without knowing the ultimates. That they can claim it doesn't matter if God exists or not, that they are only observing processes and commenting on those processes, and if God exists, or if God does not exist that would not negate their observations and speculations.
ddunbar: I think the design inference stands on its own. Before we go looking for designers we have to determine (at least tentatively) that something is designed. If scientists found what looked to be an artifact on Mars they would infer it was designed. They wouldn't defer their design inference till they determined who the designer was or worse yet till they determined who designed the designer and on and on.
"AKA, circular reasoning. And we all know that religion is an endless loop of circular reasoning. That's why it requires faith." If you think about it, then science is endless circular reasoning on the basis of an argument from ignorance, namely that since we don't know of a designer, it must not be by design. There is an assumption of non design being Darwinism, and that assumption is derived on the basis of a lack of data of a creator, but a lack of data of a creator is not evidence of non design, it is simply an assumption on the basis of ignorance of all the facts. When/if science could say "we have fact that ID does not exist" then it would not be circular reasoning. That is not what happens. An assumption of non design is made first, then the theories are generated on the basis of that first assumption in order to arrive at a conclusion of non design...all without the ability to prove non design, apart from fallacy filled argument from ignorance constituting knowledge. Now, in addition, as the primary tool of the scientist is his own human mind, which is known to be limited and faulty, anything produced from that mind is subject to doubt, but that is not what we see. We see eurekas based on the basis of the ultimate circular reasoning, as there is no check outside of the human mind to confirm or deny the true validity of the true calibration of the human mind to that which is outside of the human mind. Don't let anyone confuse you, faith is the cornerstone of any belief system, even science... That faith may be in empiricism and a scientific methodology, but the tool in question itself that is always in use, i.e. the human mind is calibrated to what external scale such that we know it is producing accurate and truthful representations of what lay outside of the human mind?
As I don't accept a prostitute's definition of prostition as sex therapy. No one's fooled. It's easy to ascertain the definition of intelligent design. Just because YOU personally don't like what the accepted and... would you believe, common definition of the intelligent design as defined by the intelligent design movement does mean that everyone's common and accepted understanding is wrong. Frankly, yours is. And your definition comes from a man who is in either purposeful denial of his own theism in an attempt to lend credibility to the ID cause (i.e. attempt to place it in the realm of science and not religion or philosophy) or is amending what is known about ID to be more inclusive in an attempt to attract more minds or perhaps solicit more credentials. Bottomline: It's complete and utter BS given the origins of the movement to which he subscribes and his own personal beliefs. Do you honestly think Dembski is so openminded as to embrace the possibility that ET is responsible for life on Earth and yet come to the conclusion that there is no God responsible on any level? Please. Grow up. and stop playing games. That's the definition of a teleologist. IDer's are premoninately creationist. Get over yourself and deal with that fact. Then tread in teleology appriately and stop trying to redefine the definition of a movement and it's associated terms that are much larger than yourself. And yeah, I'll reiterate, ID can emcompass more than just creationists, but it is predominately a creationist ideal and movement. Let the fringe add qualifiers before the term. Sorry if you can't accept history and facts.
All well and good. But once you tentatively determine that something is designed, you invariably will tentatively postulate the designer. There is no way out or around that my friend. NONE. And since IDers already have concluded that things are designed, and they have and you know it, they've instantly implied a designer. Else, there'd be no discipline labeled "ID" theory. It would be labeled something along the lines of "unintelliegent design theory." IDer's aren't saying, "well, we see an order, a design if you will, but do not attribute an intelligence or intelligent entity to it. No way. Uh-uh." There's presuppositions at work, I tell ya. Presuppositions. It's that simple. Who are you trying to fool here my friend? Who? I just can't seem to get away from this because it's just so bizarre. It's like how I almost involuntarily most stop to satiate some deep seated macbre lust and stare at a accident scene. What is going on? LOL.