Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Again, you are not reading what I am writing. I didn’t say that ID claimed it. I said that people who promote ID cannot do anything but claim it. They are Christians. Who on earth do the think created life?

You all believe it was God. And then we have this subset of Christians who want to try to convince all of us that some unknown, yet intelligent designer has continued the process.

It’s so absurd that I don’t find it unreasonable that you can’t grasp this nonsensical state of affairs.

Your post was a response to mine arguing against claims I never made. That’s why I called “strawman”. I think reading my posts before responding to them will help with the confusion. This is the philosophy forum, not theology. Do me the courtesy of criticizing what I claim using logic and evidence.

But you claimed that ID denies supernatural involvement in creating life.

‘ID does not claim the intelligence in that first cell was supernatural, only that it existed.’

That I accepted and then I simply pointed out that EVERY proponent who does not claim that ID was responsible will readily admit to God being responsible. And that ID simply carries on from there.

Laughable.

 

[buffalo]

Ah, the Axeman cometh yet again. Director of the Biologic Institute which is funded by our good friends - The Discovery Institute. Charlatans to a man.

Resorting to Rule #1 again. Always attack the poster and not deal with the argument.

 

[edwest211]

He can’t help it. Don’t tell him I told you

 

[Pattylt]

Quick question…I’ve read several times now that ID theology and ID philosophy are separate. Where is the ID site that sticks to philosophy only? Thanks.

 

[edwest211]

Here you are.

Yes, Intelligent Design Is Detectable by Science | Evolution News

This is one key issue on which proponents of ID and of theistic evolution differ.

evolutionnews.org

 

[Pattylt]

Thank you.

 

[Pattylt]

From the link:
So the discovery of such information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring (or detecting) that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren’t there to observe the system coming into existence.

Seems ID also realizes it wasn’t there!

It was an interesting basic read and rather simplified, I assume. I saw no discussion what the minimum requirements are for the intelligent designer. In its example of three lines of letters which only the second is intelligible to us English speakers, it also dismissed the third line of A’s and B’s but didn’t explain how that was so different from the genetic code of GCUA ?

Then it veers off into the fine tuning of the universe which I had no idea was part of ID philosophy.

 

[Bradskii]

Then it veers off into the fine tuning of the universe which I had no idea was part of ID philosophy.

Yeah, apparently it is. So much so that Buff uses a quote from Sir Roger Penrose about the entropy of the big bang to define ‘idvolution’. Who would have known…

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Ah, the Axeman cometh yet again. Director of the Biologic Institute which is funded by our good friends - The Discovery Institute. Charlatans to a man.

Resorting to Rule #1 again. Always attack the poster and not deal with the argument.

That’s Rule 2. It follows from Rule 1: Check the bona fides of the person making the statements.

And do you think that was true? That the DI instructed them to do their research in secret?

 

[o_mlly]

But you claimed that ID denies supernatural involvement in creating life.

I wish to modify my diagnosis of the problem from simple “Concisionitis” to the more serious “Alexia Reading Disorder.” A brain scan may be in order.

Here are the posts:

#615

ID claims the first cell possessed a complex specified system, i.e. intelligence. ID does not claim the intelligence in that first cell was supernatural, only that it existed.

#627

Please read the post. ID claims no supernatural cause for the intelligence in the first living cell.

Gee, I don’t see the word “denies” in either post.

I speculate that atheist evolutionists fearing the inevitable collapse of their claim to an intellectual foundation for their worldview believe they must kill ID in the womb using any method that their moral code allows which is, well, anything at all.

 

[Bradskii]

Here are the posts:

#615

o_mlly:

ID claims the first cell possessed a complex specified system, i.e. intelligence. ID does not claim the intelligence in that first cell was supernatural, only that it existed.

#627

Please read the post. ID claims no supernatural cause for the intelligence in the first living cell.

Gee, I don’t see the word “denies” in either post.

That’s fair enough. Even though after quoting your exact words I said that I accepted what you said. That ID claims no supernatural involvement.

The rest of the post, which is the main point being made, stands. That is, that every ID proponent who says ‘we claim no supernatural involvement’ will go on to tell you in no uncertain terms that God is in fact the supernatural involvement.

And to try to justify this nonsensical state of affairs we have the claim that there is ID the science and ID the philosophy. Which apparently allows you to say: ‘We claim no supernatural involvement. Well, except God of course’.

 

[o_mlly]

The rest of the post, which is the main point being made, stands. That is, that every ID proponent who says ‘we claim no supernatural involvement’ will go on to tell you in no uncertain terms that God is in fact the supernatural involvement.

No, the main point is false as well. Theists are quite able to separate scientific knowledge from their philosophical or theological knowledge.

ID scientists make claims on the same basis as evolutionists: evidence and reason.

It is not the ID scientists who continually try to muddle this thread by inserting non-scientific arguments and assigning these strawmen to ID proponents. (The post quoted above being a good example.)

I can only and have speculated why they do so: when reason fails them and their fear prevails then this emotion takes over and they resort to childish debating tactics e.g., straw man followed with ad hominem. Please holster the emotions and let us return to the rationality of scientific inquiry.

 

[Bradskii]

It is not the ID scientists who continually try to muddle this thread by inserting non-scientific arguments and assigning these strawmen to ID proponents.

1. An ID scientist will refuse to countenance any supernational involvement with the intelligence in the first cell (‘ID claims no supernatural cause for the intelligence in the first living cell’).
2. An ID scientist will, by definition, refuse to admit to the identity of the designer.
3. THAT SAME ID SCIENTIST, the moment he walks out of the Design Institute, will tell you that God is the creator, He is the cause of the intelligence in the first living cell*, and He is the designer.

This is not rational behaviour by any means.

• Not that there is any. Info maybe but no intelligence.

 

[o_mlly]

1. An ID scientist will refuse to countenance any supernational involvement with the intelligence in the first cell (‘ID claims no supernatural cause for the intelligence in the first living cell’).
2. An ID scientist will, by definition, refuse to admit to the identity of the designer.
3. THAT SAME ID SCIENTIST, the moment he walks out of the Design Institute, will tell you that God is the creator and He is the designer.

This is not rational behaviour by any means.

Let’s not get political as well. Assuming you mean “supernatural”, item 1 reduces to:

1. Scientists will refuse to claim any supernatural involvement.
2. Scientists do not make claims not supported by the evidence.
3. Scientists also go to Church and proclaim their beliefs as faith, not science.

Very rational, don’t you think.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

1. An ID scientist will refuse to countenance any supernational involvement with the intelligence in the first cell (‘ID claims no supernatural cause for the intelligence in the first living cell’).
2. An ID scientist will, by definition, refuse to admit to the identity of the designer.
3. THAT SAME ID SCIENTIST, the moment he walks out of the Design Institute, will tell you that God is the creator and He is the designer.

This is not rational behaviour by any means.

Let’s not get political as well. Assuming you mean “supernatural”, item 1 reduces to:

1. Scientists will refuse to claim any supernatural involvement.
2. Scientists do not make claims not supported by the evidence.
3. Scientists also go to Church and proclaim their beliefs as faith, not science.

Very rational, don’t you think.

Your number two is completely different. They specifically say that the designer is not known. They refuse to answer any questions on who or what it might be. From the DI’s own web page:

‘Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.’

What a bunch of charlatans. They’ve kept me amused for so long I should make a contribution to them.

 

[o_mlly]

Your number two is completely different. They specifically say that the designer is not known. They refuse to answer any questions on who or what it might be. From the DI’s own web page:

Uh … No scientific evidence, no claim. Seems consistent to me.

News flash: Evolutionists refuse to answer who created the first living cell. What a sham!

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Your number two is completely different. They specifically say that the designer is not known. They refuse to answer any questions on who or what it might be. From the DI’s own web page:

Uh … No scientific evidence, no claim. Seems consistent to me.

News flash: Evolutionists refuse to answer who created the first living cell. What a sham!

What is there not to understand? They DO claim to know. When they’re walking out of church. Then they DON’T claim to know as they walk onto the DI. We’re talking about the same people. A classic case of dissociated identity disorder. They post here quite often.

And ‘evolutionists’ (such a clumsy word), if you mean the people involved with the study of evolution, are not involved in studying abiogenesis. They are two separate fields of enquiry. So they will pass you onto those involved with searching for how life started. Just down the corridor on the left.

And when you ask them about who started life, they will politely point out that supernatural proposals are not in their field of enquiry either and pass you onto those involved with theology. Just down the corridor on the right.

If you end up back with the guys concerned with abiogenesis and ask them for a scientific answer, then they will most defitely not ‘refuse to answer’. One, because if they knew they would be shouting it from the rooftops. And two, because they don’t yet know in any case (although they have lots of ideas they would love to discuss with you).

 

[o_mlly]

And when you ask them about who started life, they will politely point out that supernatural proposals are not in their field of enquiry either and pass you onto those involved with theology. Just down the corridor on the right.

Sure. “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

And when you ask them [ID scientists] about who started life intelligence or designed DNA, they will politely point out that supernatural proposals are not in their field of enquiry either and pass you onto those involved with theology. Just down the corridor on the right.

And yes to this deep insight as well:

What is there not to understand? They [theistic evolutionists] DO claim to know. When they’re walking out of church.

Time to put away my mouse and pick up my pick.

 

[Bradskii]

And yes to this deep insight as well:

Bradskii:

What is there not to understand? They [theistic evolutionists] DO claim to know. When they’re walking out of church.

AND when they walk into the science lab. They don’t claim to know in church and claim not to know in the lab. There is no conflict for these people. They know that God is in control and created everything. And they know how He did it.

The ID mob? They’ll give you a different answer depending on which building they’re standing it.

 

[buffalo]

And do you think that was true? That the DI instructed them to do their research in secret?

If they did, so what? The results are what we need to consider.