Question for believers in ID.

Who is "everyone?" Has there been someone else who didn't think you were defending ID?

And since when does "everyone" have to agree upon something for it to be true? Not everyone thinks Earth orbits the sun.

It's less of a bully beating a nerd, and more of a snake invading a backyard. But it's interesting that you perceive superiority only as which belief is more popular. You completely ignore my point about how science actually impacts your life and improves it in tangible, measurable ways, whereas religion doesn't. Why is that? More evasion.

Let's review.

:bugeye: What exactly am I misrepresenting?

:shrug:

These are your words, Wynn. Tell me what conclusion I'm supposed to draw from them, if not what I just said.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are trying to take something known, such as happens in school, in a lame attempt to apply it as if it is the same as here, of Science/Courts vs Superstition, as well as supplying no meat in your posts, as usual. What a court decides about the Constitution is not a 'bully' over claims of 'unknown' as true. The word "bully", as used here, does not apply. Poor attempt.

It was once thought by the Church that physical illness was caused by evil spirits, yet science showed bacteria and viruses to be responsible, which not only damaged the superstition but ended it, and so some may posit science as the enemy to belief. Science findings are not 'bullying' either, but are the continuing opening of the box of truth that the superstitious try to keep a lid on.

The Church still thinks that mental ills called 'sins' are caused by evil spirits…

So it is that science is not superior to superstition?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's simple, they see design in the universe.
Modern atheists project religion into the idea, because they cannot intelligent design.
And putting ''religion'' into the mix, ensures a lack of scientific credibility.

It's all about them pesky modern atheists (modaths) wanting to presentl their nude emporer as a well dressed person.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wynn,

It's simple, they see design in the universe.
Modern atheists project religion into the idea, because they cannot refute intelligent design.
And putting ''religion'' into the mix, ensures a lack of scientific credibility.

It's all about them pesky modern atheists (modaths) wanting to present their nude emporer as a well dressed person.

jan.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Intelligent design usually is proposed and defended by people who claim to be theists/religious.

Earlier, you said ID wasn't religious. Can you explain why you think ID isn't religious?

 

Is it a design without a designer (such as it has forms)? If not, would you say that they have a higher alien race in mind? If so, could be, since life is a known happening.

 

I thought I already explained it.

Explain my response to me, and let's see if you properly understood what I meant.

jan.

 

It's hard to imagine how actual information can come about by chance.
And this is one of the convincing arguments for ID'ists regarding the information contained within the cell,


jan.

 

Except, of course, God.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

James R,

Because they know, as you cannot refute them in argument, that is your only line of attack. And when they explain that although they may believe in God, or even be religious, it doesn't take anything away from the science, it falls on deaf ears. You want them to be operating from a religious perspective so much, you accuse them of being so in their work. Very dishonest and underhanded tactics. That alone, amongst other things, casts doubt on your whole campaign, AFAIC.

Most if not all evangelical evolutionist, darwinists, neo-darwinists, and naturalists, are atheist. Thus you are in exactly the same position as they. Even though you wouldn't think it the way you talk.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

What does any of this have to do with Intelligent Design?

jan.

 

No. Intelligence.

jan.

 

The information argument is a non-starter. Genes seem to create information (a problematic concept, but I'm leave that for now) through several mechanisms- duplication, transcribing with errors, borrowing from other organisms, etc. (I'm not a scientist so the list is incomplete). All of these are filtered through the mechanism of natural selection until they describe beneficial changes (possibly additions) to the organism.

 

You'll have to say more, because I am not sure I understand what you mean, and I'm not sure I understand your first reply either. You'll need to add more steps to your reasoning.

So let's try again:

So you're saying that there are people who look at the Universe, and consider it designed. (And for this, they don't necessarily need to be theists nor religious.)

Modern atheists, however, are baffled by the notion that the Universe could be intelligently designed. But they also cannot refute this. Not being able to refute it, they are upset. In order to deal with that upset, they look for ways to discredit the idea of intelligent design, so that there'd be nothing to be upset about. Since in their view, "religion" has a history of being woo-woo and lacking scientific credibility, they connect "religion" and intelligent design, so that along with dismissing "religion," they can also dismiss intelligent design, and thus be rid of the upset.

(I brought in the notion of "upset" here, because there has to be some way of accounting for why modern atheists would want to discredit religion or intelligent design.)

?

 

The moment you use a term like "beneficial," you're actually in the domain of intelligent design.
Using qualifiers like "beneficial" or "detrimental" suggests you are working with the idea of teleological determination, and that puts you right into the middle of intelligent design.

 

Beneficial in terms of the ability of genes to create an organism that projects those genes into the future. That has nothing to do with ID.

 

'Chance' is not the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design. Can you say what is?

 

Failure to answer.

 

Well, that removes any notion of a God-type Being from the picture. So then, some more highly evolved aliens could have made life on Earth.