ddunbar: Nonsense. Most persons don't consider someone a creationist simply because they are a theist. And you know darn well that the ID critics don't pin the label "creationist" on ID proponents just to out them as theists. IDers that are theists don't attempt to hide the fact that they are theists. ID critics call IDers creationists because of the derogatory connotations the term carries. The derogatory connotations have nothing to do with theism. It's the derogatory connotations that IDers want to distance themselves from because they don't apply to ID. Your broad definition of creationism is not the definition the ID critics go by. They go by a much narrower definition of creationism and it's this version of creationism they pin on ID. I point this out on the first page of this thread.
Hi Teleologist This is a repost because you seem to be back after a couple of days away and may have missed my last post. You mentioned that you had empirical data to support your inference that the first cells were designed. Can you provide a link to the research? Thanks Nik
ddunbar: Your broad definition of creationist includes just about everyone but atheists. So your statement above translates to this:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Scientists_Build_A_World_In_A_Grain_Of_Silicon_999.html Scientists Build A World In A Grain Of Silicon by Chad Boutin Princeton NJ (SPX) Feb 09, 2007 Ever since Charles Darwin proposed that animals adapt to their environment, scientists have dreamed of experimenting with this theory in a real-world landscape. Holding them back was the difficulty of creating a complex ecosystem that could be manipulated and controlled without placing wildlife at risk. Now, Princeton scientists have found a way around this problem by fashioning a living, changeable ecosystem out of a tiny chip of silicon. Their creation is one of the strangest and smallest environments ever seen, but it could provide a valuable model to help researchers better understand how organisms survive in the natural world. ...
Now that is irony. ..... MORE evidence, from the least likely source, of a "Designer", "Creator", "God" .... or whatever else you'd like to call him/her/it/them/us/we/
i never said we can't engineer life... i pretty much believe we can actually... and that we as a genus will be replaced sooner or later... and that when the "replacement" comes, from within or from outerspace, the theists will be the first to go... in the form of shoes, handbags for the new predator perhaps, although that's just an inference i am making based on empirical evidence
ddunbar: More nonsense. Just 40 years ago scientists viewed the cell as no more complicated than a blob of Jell-O. Scientists are now describing the cell thusly: Explain how the blind watchmaker perspective was any help at all in guiding scientists away from the simplistic view of the cell as a bag of goo to recognizing it as a technological marvel? If anything it was a hinderance. And I would be interested to know of any useful predictions the blind watchmaker perspective led scientists to make regarding the cell. The fact is that scientists often employ teleological thinking when seeking to understand the function of biological systems. In many cases these systems are treated as if they were actually designed; assembled to perform a function. This is discussed in a book by Michael Ruse:
It's scientific inquiry in general that guided scientists to that recognition, as opposed to faith-based conjecture like "Life on earth is designed because it appears to me and my congregation to be designed" or metaphysics like "Magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality" or canards like "Can you prove that life wasn't designed? You can't? Well then! That means that life was designed, doesn't it." which is all we've had from the ID/Creationists in this thread. Still on and on with the appeals to authority, huh? I would have thought that after the humiliation of having your lack of familiarity with the works you cite revealed by kjkent, you would try a different tack. Oh yes, that's right. You did try a different tack. You claimed to have empirical evidence for the assertion that the first cells were designed. Then when asked to cite the data in question, you... disappeared. ID/Creation is a faith-based rebranding of traditional Creationism. It belongs in churches and at Scientology gatherings.
It's your blind watchmaker perspective that is faith-based and it is useless to science. Scientists learned nothing useful by viewing the cell as the product of accidental / coincidental processes. What helped unlock the secrets of the cell was reverse-engineering it. That's why Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences proposes that biologists should think more like engineers to better understand the workings of the cell. Thinking like an engineer is teleological thinking. Reverse-engineering assumes engineering and engineering assumes design. Thus, scientists employ teleological thinking while doing research on the cell even if they are not aware of it.