"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

[Nordberg]

ID as a scientific theory is laughable and correctly slapped down by the courts.

ID as a ontological belief system seems perfectly reasonable to me. Absent any tangible data, the idea that the cosmos results from a higher organizing principle beyond human cognition is just as likely as the idea that an ordered, mathmatically structured, and finely-tuned universe just popped into existence for no conceiveable reason.

Something had to pop into existence. We can see and measure structures in the universe. They exist. Claiming some spiritual being popped into existence and created it all adds unnecessary complexity with no gain. Why did he pop into existence? Who created him? Why did he create the universe? The universe is a shooting gallery of collisions, explosions, dying planets and stars. it is not well-tuned. Earth will get destroyed by a rock shooting through the universe if we don't blow it up first.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Like I said, so is an invisible tortoise possible. We need plausibility of something being true. As well as an explanation.

This is nothing but a special pleading. Now you are trying to make up specific examples that have nothing to do with the general concept to try and make your case.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Something had to pop into existence. We can see and measure structures in the universe. They exist. Claiming some spiritual being popped into existence and created it all adds unnecessary complexity with no gain. Why did he pop into existence? Who created him? Why did he create the universe? The universe is a shooting gallery of collisions, explosions, dying planets and stars. it is not well-tuned. Earth will get destroyed by a rock shooting through the universe if we don't blow it up first.

Now you are moving the goal posts. This is divine creation / creationism not intelligent design. Different topic.

 

[BidenPresident]

Now you are trying to poison the well by making claims about things I never said. All I claimed was that there is the possibility of a greater intelligence than us in the universe and that intelligence is in part guiding things on this planet. It is possible. It is also possible that it cannot be detected or measured by our current understanding and technology.

For example, in the fifth century BC, the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus postulated that matter--tangible stuff--was made up of invisible particles they couldn't identify. They called these atomos. It would be centuries before they were proven correct.

What's to say the same thing is true about an intelligent designer? As a theory, it holds credibility. Beyond that, it is not something that can be taught. Thus, the idea is valid, teaching it from a biblical standpoint would be wrong and ill-advised.

stop with the cliches like "poison the well." Okay? it's tedious

 

[BidenPresident]

This is nothing but a special pleading. Now you are trying to make up specific examples that have nothing to do with the general concept to try and make your case.

Stop with your silly fallacies. I am starting to think you really are Intothenight.

 

[BidenPresident]

Now you are trying to poison the well by making claims about things I never said. All I claimed was that there is the possibility of a greater intelligence than us in the universe and that intelligence is in part guiding things on this planet. It is possible. It is also possible that it cannot be detected or measured by our current understanding and technology.

For example, in the fifth century BC, the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus postulated that matter--tangible stuff--was made up of invisible particles they couldn't identify. They called these atomos. It would be centuries before they were proven correct.

What's to say the same thing is true about an intelligent designer? As a theory, it holds credibility. Beyond that, it is not something that can be taught. Thus, the idea is valid, teaching it from a biblical standpoint would be wrong and ill-advised.

Concept of intelligent designer was invented about 2000 years ago. We tested it. It failed. If you want to be religious, have at it. Don't dress it up as rationality.

 

[Bigdog]

 

[T. A. Gardner]

stop with the cliches like "poison the well." Okay? it's tedious

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Concept of intelligent designer was invented about 2000 years ago. We tested it. It failed. If you want to be religious, have at it. Don't dress it up as rationality.

How has it been tested?

 

[BidenPresident]

troll

 

[BidenPresident]

How has it been tested?

No evidence of a designer. Just a universe. Again, feel free to have your religion.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

No evidence of a designer. Just a universe. Again, feel free to have your religion.

 

[BidenPresident]

Looks like you are done.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Looks like you are done.

You have offered ZERO proof of your position.

 

[Lightbringer]

The Wedge Document, the manifesto written by the Discovery Institute (DI) to outline the future proliferation of Intelligent Design (ID), was composed in 1998. It was leaked a long time ago, and you can see it here. If you read it, you’ll find that they’ve missed their temporal “goals” by a long shot.

In fact, Intelligent design has been discredited, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller decision in Pennsylvania, Judge Jones declared ID “not science” so that teaching it in public schools was prohibited as an incursion of religion into government. ID pretty much died after that, and there have been no further judicial decisions, so banning ID from public schools is the law. (Fingers crossed that the new, religiously conservative Supreme Court doesn’t change that.) ID sure as hell isn’t “the dominant perspective in science.”

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/01/08/intelligent-design-nearly-down-the-drain/

This is the hill you choose to die on? Everyone here knows you're too fucking stupid to understand the argument one way or the other.

 

[BidenPresident]

You have offered ZERO proof of your position.

I only said the universe exists and we know that. Positing a designer which cannot be interrogated is mere speculation.

 

[Lightbringer]

I only said the universe exists and we know that. Positing a designer which cannot be interrogated is mere speculation.

That's not what you said. You're stupid AND a liar.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I only said the universe exists and we know that. Positing a designer which cannot be interrogated is mere speculation.

Exactly, a theory. One that isn't provable, at least not yet. That doesn't invalidate the theory however.

Where it goes astray is trying to put a religious spin on it outside of religion. Your mistake is conflating the two ideas into one. Intelligent design does not require a religious basis.

 

[AProudLefty]

Exactly, a theory. One that isn't provable, at least not yet. That doesn't invalidate the theory however.

Where it goes astray is trying to put a religious spin on it outside of religion. Your mistake is conflating the two ideas into one. Intelligent design does not require a religious basis.

Create a hypothesis.

 

[Lightbringer]

Exactly, a theory. One that isn't provable, at least not yet. That doesn't invalidate the theory however.

Where it goes astray is trying to put a religious spin on it outside of religion. Your mistake is conflating the two ideas into one. Intelligent design does not require a religious basis.

Yes it does.