Creationism vs Intelligent Design?

[☭proletarian☭]

To say something is designed means, by definition, that it was designed by something.

Else it's not designed.

Yes, but a 'something' is not necessarily a 'someone'.

An intelligence is a mind and, therefore a 'person' as the term is used. Be that mind an outside agent or the composite of the whole (a 'universal mind' or conscious universe), the premise is the same.

I see you never studied philosophy beyond what your church told you.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

To say something is designed means, by definition, that it was designed by something.

Else it's not designed.

Yes, but a 'something' is not necessarily a 'someone'.

Thats what I was getting hung up on Foxfyre. They aren't claiming to know if it was something, someone, or random but want to see if they can find out. I dont understand people taking issue with them trying to use scientific methods to explore that idea.

I really shouldn't play with people so much on stuff like this either because then no one knows when i'm serious or joking, this time im serious .

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know the terms. Scientifically prove that God does not exist. Try it, then go argue with Thomas Aquinas. Logical positivism, my butt.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I know the terms. Scientifically prove that God does not exist.

If you know the terms, then I should need to say noting more than Burden of Proof

Try it, then go argue with Thomas Aquinas.

I'm pretty sure he's dead

Logical positivism, my butt.

Does your butt even exist? Can you prove it does?

 

[Foxfyre]

To say something is designed means, by definition, that it was designed by something.

Else it's not designed.

Yes, but a 'something' is not necessarily a 'someone'.

Thats what I was getting hung up on Foxfyre. They aren't claiming to know if it was something, someone, or random but want to see if they can find out. I dont understand people taking issue with them trying to use scientific methods to explore that idea.

I really shouldn't play with people so much on stuff like this either because then no one knows when i'm serious or joking, this time im serious .

LOL, if you don't have fun doing this, you're not doing it right. So have all the fun you want. Respectfully of course. (cough)

Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al did not claim to know the answers. But to these brilliant minds, there is such an order and symmetry to the universe and most of the things in it, they could not reconcile their own common sense and sense of purpose with a universe that got this way purely by chance. And that is why they left the door open for some explanation other than pure chance. Not one embraced any concept of a personal God or diety who called it all into being however.

In other words they were scientists with open minds, a very good thing for scientists to have.

I oppose Creationists who would force their personal religious beliefs into a science curriculum. Creationism is not science and has no place in a science classroom.

But I also oppose those bigots who are so full of hate and loathing for any religious concept that they would use that as an excuse to close minds to all possibilities. I oppose any who would deny students opportunity and encouragement to wonder about all unexplained things and how things got to be the way they are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for proving my point. You can't prove that God doesn't exist, so don't worry about burden of proof. The IDers can't prove that God does exist. Thus you all, Proletarian, operate in the world of faith.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, but a 'something' is not necessarily a 'someone'.

Thats what I was getting hung up on Foxfyre. They aren't claiming to know if it was something, someone, or random but want to see if they can find out. I dont understand people taking issue with them trying to use scientific methods to explore that idea.

I really shouldn't play with people so much on stuff like this either because then no one knows when i'm serious or joking, this time im serious .

LOL, if you don't have fun doing this, you're not doing it right. So have all the fun you want. Respectfully of course. (cough)

Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al did not claim to know the answers. But to these brilliant minds, there is such an order and symmetry to the universe and most of the things in it, they could not reconcile their own common sense and sense of purpose with a universe that got this way purely by chance. And that is why they left the door open for some explanation other than pure chance. Not one embraced any concept of a personal God or diety who called it all into being however.

In other words they were scientists with open minds, a very good thing for scientists to have.

I oppose Creationists who would force their personal religious beliefs into a science curriculum. Creationism is not science and has no place in a science classroom.

But I also oppose those bigots who are so full of hate and loathing for any religious concept that they would use that as an excuse to close minds to all possibilities. I oppose any who would deny students opportunity and encouragement to wonder about all unexplained things and how things got to be the way they are.

I am in full agreement, foxfyre. Thus, ID and creationism should be presented in philosophy or religious comparative experiences or liberal arts classes, because they are not scientific but exploratory in thought.

 

[Foxfyre]

You almost got it Jake. At least you got it more closely than you usually do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I will re-edit this. Thank you.

 

[Father Time]

I know the terms. Scientifically prove that God does not exist. Try it, then go argue with Thomas Aquinas. Logical positivism, my butt.

You can't scientifically prove Bigfoot or aliens don't exist. So I guess under your definitions not believing in them is a faith.

 

[JakeStarkey]

FT, are you a BF worshipper. We got them where I live.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also proving that something does not exist is not the prerogative of science. All science can do is confirm probability and falsify and draw conclusions based on those two things. There is nothing that exists on Earth that science is capable of fully explaining, because nothing exists on Earth on in the universe that science knows everything there is to know about it.

If speculative thought was removed from science, we would have no science at all, since EVERY scientific discovery starts out with somebody wondering if. . . .

Any science teacher worth his/her salt should be encouraging students to wonder if. . . .

And THAT leaves room for at least acknowledgment of intelligent design even though there is no way to include that in a science curriculum.

 

[Father Time]

FT, are you a BF worshipper. We got them where I live.

A what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

ff, your conclusion makes sense to me. Yes, I would encourage, if I were a biology teacher, students to take anthropology, religion, and philosophy classes that would explore those very concerns.

 

[JakeStarkey]

FT, are you a BF worshipper. We got them where I live.

A what?

Oh, come on. I mean a B[ig] F[oot] worshipper.

 

[Father Time]

FT, are you a BF worshipper. We got them where I live.

A what?

Oh, come on. I mean a B[ig] F[oot] worshipper.

No, I don't believe in Bigfoot or Nessie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, now prove they don't exist.

 

[manifold]

JakeSnarky thinks it takes faith to not believe in the existence of santa claus

JakeSnarky thinks it takes faith to not believe in the existence of the easter bunny

JakeSnarky thinks it takes faith to not believe in the existence of the tooth fairy

JakeSnarky thinks it takes faith to not believe in Scientology

JakeSnarky thinks it takes faith to not believe in Astrology

JakeSnarky thinks it takes faith to not believe blood lettings is a sound medical procedure

JakeSnarky clearly knows absolutely nothing about the meaning of faith

JakeSnarky is markedly unwise

 

[JakeStarkey]

mani, go take a class in logic, please. Sheesh, you have got me laughing.

The atheists state proudly they believe that God does not exist. Since they can't prove it, then it is only faith based belief.

Nice try, guys. You are a hoot.

 

[manifold]

Amazing the certainty of ignorance sometimes.