did you bother read mine? i said where it is heading and i gave indication that i personally am a what i would call religious person. but the intelligent design discussion has bee hijacked at best in my humble opinion. by groups that truly, truly frighten me. sorry, if you feel offended. was not intended.
MAN wrote: I agree that there are groups that are attempting to hijack ID but it's still possible to identify the real deal. Just takes a little effort and common sense.
Exactly, could be -- might not need to be. There may be no need for a precursor if time is just a property of existing in our universe.
Stu wrote: The origin of life on earth and the origin of the universe are two separate issues. I don't have to explain the origin of sculptors in order to infer Mt. Rushmore was sculpted. Neo-Darwinists are in the same boat with design theorists on this issue. When they posit the theory of evolution they face the question âHow did the first living thing arise?â, this question is brushed to one side with declarations of the difference between the origin of life and the theory of evolution. Just as one can focus on the theory of evolution without bothering about abiogenesis, one can focus on the design of the cell without worrying about who designed the universe. Here are two explanations that avoid the "infinite regress problem" as it relates to the origin of life on earth: 1. Abiogenesis did occur on another planet, intelligence evolved, and this intelligence seeded this planet. 2. The ETI that seeded the earth with life owes its origin to some supernatural intervention at some point in its history. But it's unclear to me why infinte regress is a problem. There's some respected theorists who posit multiple universes - even an infinite number. Therefore, the intelligence that designed life on earth may itself have been designed earlier by an intelligence that came from one of those "multiple universes." It in turn may have been designed by another intelligence, ad infinitum. If there are an infinite number of universes, why think intelligence or life must have an ultimate beginning? Here is another way to look at it: If one thinks that in the future humans will have the ability to design life forms and use them to seed distant planets then it would be reasonable for them to conclude that the intelligent design of life forms may have possibly occurred in the past, here or elsewhere. If we will be able to do it, then itâs at least logically possible that somebody or something else could have done it too. Now, I'm not arguing for ETI as the designers nor am I ruling out God as the designer. I'm merely pointing out the possibilites that exist within the ID paradigm.
Teleologist ....but ID is not necessary. Why curve fit it to the universe? Equal grounds exist for unintelligent designer gnomes. It's easily explained away. As humans we've simply gotten accustomed to recognizing their handiwork that's all. Let's imagine some other universes where the gnomes and Gods are much cleverer, but please pass the weed first. Occams razor dude
Stu wrote: I'm discussing ID as it relates to the origin of life on earth not the origin of the universe. Most ID theorists don't argue that a Designer is necessary. They initially infer design from empirical data. Over the course of time additional empirical data is investigated that either works to strengthen or weaken the initial design inference. The purpose of this thread is to dispute the claim that ID is creationism. How about everyone staying on topic. Seems like we are veering off in many different directions.
ID is undeniably creationism. I would encourage anyone interested in this subject to read up on the history of the ID movement- it is a direct descendent (pun intended) of Creation Science which evolved (pun intended) into ID in response to the Supreme Court's decision in 1987 which declared its instruction in public schools to be unconstitutional. ID is fallacy. The problem with empirically inferring design in nature is that we have no examples of complex biological systems that we know to be designed. All genetically engineered organisms started as existing organism that we then tinkered with- if anything, this argues more forcefully for the viability of natural selection as a theory. Comparing organisms to statues or machines or other creations of human kind is just allegory. Its a useful tool for understanding the systems- but it isnt empirical evidence of anything.