Physics professor endorces Intelligent Design

[Irate Canadian]

It's notable that I agree more with Phank, the New Atheist, than with KB, Mossrose, and Teallaura.

"ID" in the Philip Johnson sense is scientifically unfalsifiable -- just like belief in the supernatural. In the Mossrose sense then it's a "religion".

If we can't even agree that Intelligent Design(tm) IS a religion and Evilution ain't, then all discussions are gonna end up like this.

K54

P.S. Not to offend anyone (heehee), but if anyone can show that SCIENTIFIC evolution is a RELIGION is going to earn 1,000 Klaus points.

You still haven't made any counterpoints to my previous response to you.

[rogue06]

maybe Shuny is Russian

In Russia Intelligent Design "endorces" Physics professors

[klaus54]

There's just one problem here - I don't have a position on YEC/OEC/TE/E/XYZ - ask Rogue, I don't debate them at all. You merely assume that you know something and argue from it - how is that an interest in the truth?

My point stands, you do not argue substantively that I have seen (case in point) and you are hypocritical to complain about what others believe - or not.

You are the thing you profess to hate. That is the truly sad bit - or you're just trolling, one of the two.

Neither of the two.

I just hate ignorance, especially when professed with confidence.

K54

[klaus54]

You still haven't made any counterpoints to my previous response to you.

How does one come up with counterpoints to the unfalsifiable?

K54

[klaus54]

IIRC, Teal's not a YEC but simply wants a good conversation between the different factions. I don't see then need why you need to feel sorry for Mossrose and Cerebrum. They have a opposing view from you. That doesn't automatically exclude them from the conversation.

An opposing view on WHAT? The unfalsifiable?

Might as well be boxing the air.

K54

P.S. How many angels can dance on the head of 10 penny nail?

I expect a substantive response.

[rwatts]

... he supports "intelligent design" as a principle (as do all Christians) but not "Intelligent Design" as a movement.

I think that's always a very important distinction to keep in mind, particularly by atheists such as myself, when dealing with theists.

There is one aspect of intelligent design which is, in a way, quite reasonable. The notion of intelligent design is intimately bound up with theism and is not an unreasonable idea. Another aspect to it, ID, is simply silly.

[Teallaura]

Neither of the two.

I just hate ignorance, especially when professed with confidence.

K54

Translation: the latter.

[Jedidiah]

Neither of the two.

I just hate ignorance, especially when professed with confidence.

K54

Is that ironic or is that ironic.

[Teallaura]

I think that's always a very important distinction to keep in mind, particularly by atheists such as myself, when dealing with theists.

There is one aspect of intelligent design which is, in a way, quite reasonable. The notion of intelligent design is intimately bound up with theism and is not an unreasonable idea. Another aspect to it, ID, is simply silly.

I find it hard to follow on occasion because there seems to be a good deal of confusion about what is intended.

[Irate Canadian]

I find it hard to follow on occasion because there seems to be a good deal of confusion about what is intended.

I always thought ID was the same thing as theistic evolution...

[Teallaura]

I always thought ID was the same thing as theistic evolution...

I think it's more of an umbrella term - hence the confusion when arguing specifics.

[Roy]

I find it hard to follow on occasion because there seems to be a good deal of confusion about what is intended.

Naturally. What is intended is along the lines of
some-version-of-creationism-but-we-don't-want-to-call-it-that. That's how the term originated, as the exhibits from the Kitzmiller trial made perfectly clear. Intelligent design is an offshoot of creationism with the references to scripture removed.

Roy

[phank]

I always thought ID was the same thing as theistic evolution...

As far as I can tell (from sources such as the Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent), ID is fundamentally incompatible with the theory of evolution. Basically, ID appeals to those who believe that evolution never happened, and ex nihilo creation happened instead.

As I understand it, the theistic evolutionists tend to believe that the evidence for the fact of evolution is pretty solid, but that the entire process was either initialized, or guided, or both, by some indetectible intelligent agency, namely the god(s) of their respective faiths.

Technically, ID doesn't actually take a specific stand on the age of the earth, the theory of evolution, etc. except insofar as insisting that nothing of the sort could possibly have happened without some supernatural component. But as I said, the appeal they make (in their arguments, and for their funding) is to YECs.

[Jedidiah]

Not all ID proponents are YEC.

[rogue06]

Not all ID proponents are YEC.

Some are OEC and a couple even say that they're agnostic.