Intelligent Design is not creationism

Then it could well be that coherence is being alludsive for reasons not apparent to you .

Are you are imagining that by fly posting a continuous flood of mumbo jumbo articles and snippets, you are producing a logical orderly and consistent relationship to an argument for ID?

The problem could be with your own understanding of what coherence is. May I suggest again you try reading those things properly before you post them.
Maybe then you can avoid apparently not being able to understand the meaninglessness contradictions you have displayed,when trying to defend ID/Creationism in which for one thing you (unwittingly?) propose no design equates to intelligent design ..

 

You are the one posting meaningless contradictions in trying to defend your blind watchmaker hypothesis.

 

I don't have a " blind watchmaker hypothesis." Whatever that is , it is someone else's.
So , what "meaningless contradictions". do you mean. Where which, when?

On the other hand , here is an actual contradiction of your own , which has the distinct affect of leaving all those ID/Creationist protestations that stuff is designed - completely undermined .

 

It is indeed sad when the faith mongers actually have to fabricate arguments, attribute them to their opponents and then deride their opponents for those arguments. Talk about running in circles. You would think they would just post and say 'You know what? It's true - there is no evidence for ID/Creation. ID/C is a religious belief system which has its basis in a faith in the Lord God the Creator. ID is in fact Creation rebranded'. Or, 'I believe that Space Aliens from Planet X9 seeded the earth with life. This is what I have thought all along but I felt reluctant to actually say it because I know how bizarre it sounds. However, I am thinking about starting a new religion based on this belief. I will call it Scientificology, and I will be making a hell of a lot of money from it'.

The universe shows evidence of design, but that wondrous soup of life, a mud puddle, shows no evidence of design.

(Yawn...)

By the way, did Teleologist ever post that 'empirical evidence' he claimed he had? Or did he try to disavow that howler? I bet he hasn't brought that up in a while, huh?

This mud puddle mess is just about as silly, though. I have him on ignore but I hope you guys are staying on him.

 

its the height of irony to see tradernik pretending to be rational yet completely ignoring experts in physics who say the universe does look designed.

I have quoted physicists greenstreet davies and hoyle on the subject multiple times (do a search --- and they are not christians.)

These noted physicists have found the evidence of design compelling enough to state the universe appears designed.

Now what will tradernik do...

He will completely ignore the arguments made by physicists and disingenuously state that somehow my argument was discredited. While that is bullshit - it is not my argument. We have quotes form leading physicists.

If tradernik does not address the points made by the physicists you will know who is leading the bullshit brigade.

These atheists have such faith they will not address and facts that counter their faith.

They seem to be a cult. A cult that will not acknowledge current science.

 

saying that sthg appears designed is science???

also, does asking the question make me seem like anything in particular to u mate? if yes, i know just the thread to discuss that!

 

actually it is excellent science. They are real scientists. They are not going to say it "is"designed --

because they realize they would have to have evidence of a designer with intent to design.


so they do the very scientific thing and say the universe appears designed -- leaving open the possibility that new science or new discoveries could leave evidence of design yet be a random process.

(which might be the argument that there are billions of universes or landscapes. if there are billions and billions of parallel universes the apparent design in our universe is not necessarily proof of a design as we could have just benefited from a lucky draw.)

Finally unless you are tradernik I do not understand the rest of your comment. I did not direct my statement to you.

 

the blindwatchmaker goes smthg like this: if you were a completely ignorant dumbsh*t when it came to mechanical watches, never saw one before never heard of one.. but one day walking along you stumble across one. Given your curious nature you pick it up and take it apart only to discover the intricate workings beneath that shiny shell of an exterior (iow, you RIP THE BACK OFF

Now comes the moment of truth, the perplexing and curious question.. do you assume a creator, solely due to its unusual complexity and seeming "out-of-placeness", OR are you content that it may have assembled itself given the right conditions and time?

"the blind watchmaker"

(this is what i recall of the argument if it ain't right someone correct me)

ps stu you rock!

 

I looked up design at dictionary.com and got the following:


To conceive or fashion in the mind, invent
To make or execute plans, devise
To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect
To have as a goal or purpose in mind, intend
The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts
A plan, a project.
A reasoned purpose; an intent
Deliberate intention

Also:
“Designed” as an adjective means “done, performed, or made with purpose and intent often despite an appearance of being accidental, spontaneous or natural ..... syn see DELIBERATE.”Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, (1993).

Now, let's compare that to how natural selection is defined by a prominent Darwinist:

"Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life....Natural selection has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."[Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1987), ix.]

So what we see here described is a process of non-intelligent design, unconscious design, design without foresight, design without intention or purpose. But the very notion of design cannot be thought of absent an intent, a scheme, a protocol, a plan, or an intellect. Non-intelligent arrangements of things can be complex; but if they are not purposefully and intentionally complex then the word "design" is incorrect. A design is a pattern of events arranged with intent for a purpose. A design reflects a choice made by a mind to affect the future in a particular way.

Here's a relevant quote: "The opposite of a design is an occurrence. An occurrence is something that just happens without intention.Occurrences are ultimately driven only by chemical and physical laws and chance. Lacking a mind, natural occurrences have no concept of the future and do not occur for a purpose in the future. Of course logic suggests that the laws, matter and energy themselves may have been ordered by a mind for a purpose, in which case all events may be intended in this sense. However, if a mind uses a random process like law and chance alone, without subsequent intervention to change an outcome for a future purpose, the results of that process will be an occurrence and not a design.

Some argue that an evolutionary process like the foregoing could have been used to frontload the universe with information so that it would all unfold in a way that would accommodate our existence. This is a deistic notion of a designer who pushes a button and lets everything unfold without intervention. However, as Stephen J. Gould and Kenneth Miller point out, such a process will necessarily produce unintended, purposeless and unpredictable results because the process is inherently random and therefore unpredictable. One cannot look at the forty different body plans that arose suddenly in the Cambrian Explosion and predict which would meet evolutionary success. If the clock was rewound and the very same button was pushed again, a different outcome would arise and we would not be here. This is because natural “selection” is driven by both hypothesized random mutations and random environmental
pressures. Hence, a deistic push of a button in the first instance could not logically intend our occurrence, assuming its use of a mechanism driven only by law and chance."

Designs have a future perspective, occurrences do not. Designs reflect purpose, occurrences do not. Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science, discusses this issue in his new book Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose? The apparent design of nature is a problem for a materialistic view of science. In this view nothing is actually designed. Everything just occurs, only from law and chance. We are all occurrences. The difficulty is that
this conclusion, which may work in physics and chemistry, is very counter intuitive in biology. Biological systems like eyes and ears have a future perspective, a function, and look designed. Hence many biologists use design terminology in describing them. According to Michael Ruse, that terminology is merely metaphorical because we “know” the systems are not designed. His problem is whether it is appropriate to use the metaphor or whether it should be discarded, because, in his view it may be misleading to call something designed, when it really isn’t. If we conclude that something is a design and not just an occurrence, then logic leads us to two important conclusions: (a) the thing has an inherent purpose and (b) that at some time in the past a mind existed to create it for that purpose. If on the other hand, we deem the thing to be an occurrence, then it has no inherent purpose. Also, we cannot use it to infer the prior existence of a mind. Of course, if all natural phenomena are occurrences, then none have a purpose and there is nothing we can observe in the natural world that would support belief in the existence of a mind other than our own and those of animals and other entities that our minds control.

Those who believe that life is an occurrence are materialists. Those who believe that life reflects design are teleologists. A teleologist is one step removed from a theist. A materialist is one step removed from an atheist.

 

Deleted.