DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**casinoboneerer** · 05-04-2011, 07:09 AM

Neighbors design radio signals. Intelligent Design, as a general framework, is about detecting design. It doesn't claim to jump from the detection of design to the identity of the one doing the designing. That is left for philosophy or theology to work out.

But in terms of SETI, that's just applying the principles of Intelligent Design.

I love the way creationists try to handwave their way past the basic issues.

ID assumes a creator. It has to. The so called "proof" of design rests on no more than its adherents' inability to conceive of human beings existing without the intercession of a supernatural being. As such it is at best "negative evidence." Irreducible complexity is nether complex nor irreducible, except in the minds of its believers.

"Historical sciences" are neither more nor less empirical than any other sciences.

Anyway, it looks like we have a new Humber...minus the outsized ego, one hopes. But with the same propensity for arcane and circular arguments that assume their own conclusions...

If you want to see how geoffrobinsion's argument will unfold, see the comments on the following page:

Christianity Today article placing creationism in opposition to ID | Uncommon Descent

...including...

I understand ID’s official position. But as a philosopher/apologist/presuppositionalist, I would come in and say that the only way ID, science, the laws of logic, rationality, etc. make any sense is if Christianity is true.

So ID makes no claims of who the designer would be. But I can take their groundwork and run with it. As ID people say, that’s a second-order question. And that’s OK. and

Before Christianity came about in 30 AD or so? Sure. Before Jesus existed? Well, He always existed. and

You are indeed correct. They employ logic, rationality, induction, etc. When materialists employ those things, they aren’t being consistent with their own worldview. They have to borrow from theism. Other theists who aren’t Christians can, but they run into other issues different from those above.
...
So when materialists complain that ID requires the supernatural (which it doesn’t in the way they mean), I would require them to give up rationality, induction, beliefs in universals, and language if they want to totally get rid of the supernatural. In other words, they can’t speak or argue and be consistent materialists. In case you're wondering what a "peresuppositionist" is, it's someone who thinks they can defend Christianity by pointing out the flaws in everyone elses beliefs while "presupposing" the literal truth of the Bible. Which of course, doesn't work in the real world.

So just how many angels CAN dance on the head of that pin?

05-04-2011, 07:09 AM	#25
casinoboneerer Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 466 Senior Member	Neighbors design radio signals. Intelligent Design, as a general framework, is about detecting design. It doesn't claim to jump from the detection of design to the identity of the one doing the designing. That is left for philosophy or theology to work out. But in terms of SETI, that's just applying the principles of Intelligent Design. I love the way creationists try to handwave their way past the basic issues. ID assumes a creator. It has to. The so called "proof" of design rests on no more than its adherents' inability to conceive of human beings existing without the intercession of a supernatural being. As such it is at best "negative evidence." Irreducible complexity is nether complex nor irreducible, except in the minds of its believers. "Historical sciences" are neither more nor less empirical than any other sciences. Anyway, it looks like we have a new Humber...minus the outsized ego, one hopes. But with the same propensity for arcane and circular arguments that assume their own conclusions... If you want to see how geoffrobinsion's argument will unfold, see the comments on the following page: Christianity Today article placing creationism in opposition to ID \| Uncommon Descent ...including... I understand ID’s official position. But as a philosopher/apologist/presuppositionalist, I would come in and say that the only way ID, science, the laws of logic, rationality, etc. make any sense is if Christianity is true. So ID makes no claims of who the designer would be. But I can take their groundwork and run with it. As ID people say, that’s a second-order question. And that’s OK. and Before Christianity came about in 30 AD or so? Sure. Before Jesus existed? Well, He always existed. and You are indeed correct. They employ logic, rationality, induction, etc. When materialists employ those things, they aren’t being consistent with their own worldview. They have to borrow from theism. Other theists who aren’t Christians can, but they run into other issues different from those above. ... So when materialists complain that ID requires the supernatural (which it doesn’t in the way they mean), I would require them to give up rationality, induction, beliefs in universals, and language if they want to totally get rid of the supernatural. In other words, they can’t speak or argue and be consistent materialists. In case you're wondering what a "peresuppositionist" is, it's someone who thinks they can defend Christianity by pointing out the flaws in everyone elses beliefs while "presupposing" the literal truth of the Bible. Which of course, doesn't work in the real world. So just how many angels CAN dance on the head of that pin?
	Quote