Interesting report on debate between ID/Evolution

I blew my cool a little bit, sorry.

Monahorns, the "internally consistant" line was honestly meant as a compliment. You have a robust belief system and your defense of it is consistent. You state your beliefs as they are, and I respect that.

Mop, my line about being "about you" was a huge overstatement, please accept my apology. What I meant to say was I don't have a problem with your arguments individually, but rather how you choose to use them. Your arguments change depending on the point you are making. Monahorns states his beliefs, you are clearly NOT stating your beliefs, but throwing any piece of information which attacks the stance of the person you happen to be talking to. If it is in your interests, you throw out that ID proponents sometimes include evolution, if it isn't, you throw out that it is hopelessly flawed. If it is in your interests for ID to be cutting edge, that is how you position it, but if it isn't, then ID predates the mountains. No matter how level you try to keep your tone, it is clear that this isn't a discussion, so much as you just stating whatever attacks your opponents position the best, regardless of whether or not it has any sort of consistency with the last thing you said. This is why I'm frustrated, and this is why I need to leave this "conversation". You aren't reasoning you aren't discussing, you are proselytizing and I'm tired of it.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Mia states-[quote}The problem is not the designer, or even creationism. Science has no problem with either concept in principal. The problem is invoking a designer without any supporting observation of any kind.
 
Monahorns, I figured as much. That said, I pulled you into a separate argument when I was over heated. It is something I usually try not to do. I wanted to be clear for all why I did it.
 
mia, i will try to respond to you in full in a while, but in short, thanks. i appreciate it and your apology is accepted. i think you are nonetheless misrepresenting me, but i could be mistaken. at the very least that is NOT my intention, but i want to explore why you could possibly see that as my methods nonetheless.

summer, that is a load. this is not at all what ID is. your caricature of it is why you are very difficult to take serious. ID does not say that anything that is unexplainable must have been God. far from it. that is so embarrassing of a representation as to be absurd.

ID is based upon the notion that SOME things can be best explained by intelligence. there are PLENTY of things that are merely the way the world works and different people will have different opinions. but there appear to be certain features of nature (the anthropic principle for instance) which seem to strongly suggest or even demand intelligence. this is what ID is pointing to. there are plenty of things we don't yet understand that will be nonetheless understood without invoking intelligence at all.
 
summer, Dembski's explanatory filter runs a system through a rigorous filter to determine whether or not it was designed. it is not merely complexity or improbability that determines design. it is specified complexity. which is carefully defined by him in his books.

as for scientific evidence, the evidence is the same that is being looked at by evolutionists, it is a matter of how to interpret it. going back to my repeated use of a crime scene....you may come upon a crime scene and look at the evidence and come up with a "naturalistic" explanation of the evidence. forensic scientists come along and look at the same evidence and recognize design. both explanations have the same evidence so the question becomes one of interpretation.

one thing this thread has done for me, and i appreciate it, is to have me think about how to understand ID as a theory. at this point, i think i may see it as a different interpretation of the same evidence. but i am not sure how rigorous that rendering of the subject is or whether it can stand up to scrutiny. intelligent challenges will be appreciated.

in that sense it is a philosophical overlay onto science. some choose a naturalistic set of assumptions which a priori preclude any intelligence. others (myself included) prefer an overlay that recognizes naturalistic explanations explain much but don't explain it all. we reserve the right to consider intelligence as a possibility.

in that sense then perhaps it is appropriate to consider ID a philosophy, but it is a philosophy of how to deal with evidence and what to include in the interpretive possibilities.

i hope this makes sense. let me know if i need to clarify.
 
alden,

Actually, a creation is indicative of the existence of a creator. That is evidence. Then there is the Bible, which describes that creator in more detail. On top of that, there is the effect on people who have faith in that creator. The Bible states that through faith people are radically changed in their souls. And it has in fact happened millions of times. I have personally experienced it along with who contribute on this board. This is all evidence. You may reject the evidence, but it is evidence none the less. And it is no less evidential due to your rejection of it. If you don't "see" the evidence it is because you eyes are not "open".
 
Johnny, if it is created it does.

Nordberg, nothing had to create the creator, specially if he/she/it is not a creation but eternal
 
mia - thank you for that reply, it is far better than my lay explanation. my point was just that "well, it had to come from somewhere!" is not "evidence" of ID.
 
alden,

Actually I am not necessarily using feelings in my examples. Some of it is feeling, sure. It is subjective evidence, which can still be scientific if it can be observed even through testimony and reproduced, which is implicit in the example of there being many people who have gone through it.

There is also an objective part to it too. Peoples' lives are radically changed: morals, families, finances, marriages, and other aspects of life. It is real and observable and it has been repeated in millions of peoples' lives. It is not what I usually call "science", but technically science can be used in this way.
 
I was not saying that science was subjective. My second paragraph is about the objectiveness of lives changed by Jesus Christ. There are subjective aspects to it but many objective ones as well. I list a few.

The comment about science is that I don't normally think of science as dealing with human behavior and changes therein. However, I think observing human behavior, seeing effects reproduced, and making predictions based on conclusions is as much science as doing so with natural law.
 
You really can't blame mop for trying to get a lick in related to spelling, he's getting blistered on the scientific front.

So clear a a bell, "ID is a theory, just not a scientific theory."

I am just trying to help this thread get to 250 without a single scrap of scientific data supporting Intelligent design.. past musings of course...
wink.gif
 
monahorns,

Sorry, not trying to dismiss the whole of evidence as "feelings". Looking back, that word had a kind of negative feel to it.

But the measurable points of changing people's lives are not evidence. At least, they are not evidence for the existence of a creator any more than they are evidence for a million other things. Science doesn't apply to something that can't be tested.

To generalize for a second: Christian people in general seem to believe that there's no proof that god exists. That's consistent with the need for faith, which seems to be a central point of their religion. On the other hand, a few religious people are always trying to "prove" their beliefs correct. I understand that urge, but it seems illogical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top