Re: Real simple question on ID/aliens etc

Grogs wrote:
"explainer" <gordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1142001167.735606.125290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, "Murf" <rob_murfin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello everybody

I have read, re-read and glanced at numerous posts, papers and
articles on the ID debate. I get the picture

I don't think so.

However, one thing we tend to skim over is the "who is teh
inteligent
designer bit". We all know that the elephant in the corner is the god
of genesis (tm), but the ID movement often claim (in smoke and
mirrors) that they are open minded - i.e. it could be aliens (liek
the Raelians believe) or time travellers (f*ck knows who ACTUALLY
believes that one)

Who says "the elephant in the corner is the god of genesis (tm)". No
one I know. To identify the ID movement as claiming "(in smoke and
mirrors)" suggests to me you prefer pandering to prejudice over
understanding someone's honest opinion.

IMHO, IDers, in the maini, are creationists who are deging toward an
acceptance of ToE, but have not yet found their way to the endpoint.
Their journey is impeded by the fanatics at both ends--the
creationists who assured them they will be "left behind" if they
desert God and the absolutist athiests who shout epitaphs if idiocy at
anyone who believes in a supernatural causative source of the
universe.

Whe you strip away the vitriolic ranting from both sides you find,
IDers have an honest opinion that life is too complex to have been
created by natural processes. Couple that with the lack of evidence
for a natural origin of life and you have checkmate.

Enter ToE, which says new life forms come into being from existing
life forms. Here the IDers are bending, with varied agreement, the
idea that species can lead to breeds (as in dogs and horses) which
over time can lead to DNA changes which become new species. I think
Michael Behe is of this mindset. But they haven't caved in on the
origin of phyla or origin of life.

Of course ToE is silent on the origin of life, an essential point
missed (or temporarily forgotten)by too many including some of the
most rabid ToE proponents.

If the TOE doesn't cover the origin of life, how can ID be a 'competing'
theory, since that's what it's all about?

My understanding of ID is that it is about more than the origin of
life, it's about the formation of complex life forms. The conflict
within ID is that there seems to be an acceptance of evolution from
species to species, but a rejection of the idea that all life evolved
from an original form. ToE does not address the origin of life, but
many creationists and IDers think it does. A visit to the Intelligent
design network page
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/TeachingResources.htm#Evolution
Controversy allows you to pull up a paper, William S. Harris, PhD and
John H. Calvert, JD Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to
Evolution (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003) within
which you will find this definition:

<quote>
The theory of intelligent design has been described by ID theorist
Professor William Dembski of Baylor University as follows:

Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent causes
can do things that undirected natural causes cannot. Undirected natural
causes can place scrabble pieces on a board, but cannot arrange the
pieces as meaningful words and sentences. To obtain a meaningful
arrangement requires an intelligent cause. This intuition, that there
is a fundamental distinction between undirected natural causes on the
one hand and intelligent causes on the other, has underlain the design
arguments of past centuries.
<end quote>

That's it? Is that the theory of intelligent design? Our problem is
that the ID folks are non-specific. Not only are new life forms too
complex to have occured naturally, the intelligent design concept is
beyond explanation.

The ID proponents are slippery as to the origin of life, even the
extent to which evolution plays a part. They have alienated Ken Ham,
somewhat, but that isn't hard to do. A visit to
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp will
show you where the YEC Ken Ham is distancing himself from ID. His last
paragraph says it all for me.

<quote>
In summary, ID has many good tenets, such as the idea of irreducible
complexity, but it purposely separates the Creator from creation. God
has a dual role of both Creator and Redeemer. An understanding of both
these roles can only be accomplished using both general revelation
(nature) and special revelation (the Bible).
<end quote>

My translation, "I disagree with them. They are heretical, but I can
say it here because I embrace OECs, too." Not a polite reading, even
prejudiced, but I have little patience with hypocrisy.

The creationist->creation science->intelligent design->evolution
transition is a difficult intellectual evolution. It takes time,
patience and an inquiring mind. Too many of the fundamentalist
creationists have closed their minds, but there are many who have not,
who are eager to learn, but reject prostlization in every form,
including the absolutist anti-creation, fundamental
atheism-is-the-only-way point of view.

And that has what to do with evolution? Is part of evolution teaching
'there is no god' in biology class? There can't be a person who both
believes in a god and believes evolutionary theory is true?

Right on! I'm one of those evolutionary Christians. Not a problem for
me, but then I'm a big fan of Lloyd Geering's idea about Christianity
Without God. To most Christians I'm a heretic, which in it's original
meaning meant "one who has another view". I take that as a compliment.

When the emotions are stripped away and the thinking person is
identified you will find someone who is interested in learning and
disinterested in being told how to think.

Yes, this sounds altruistic--and I am not defending or supporting the
ID advocates who lie about the issues--but in my experience whith
friends, neighbors and fellow church members I have found an audience
eager to examing their thinking. I anve also found many whose minds
are made up and don't want to be confused by other information. I
discuss ideas with the first and leve the second alone.

However, we often jump to the answer "of course this answers
nothing" - but has any probed beyond the staement "it could have
ben aliens"

i.e. - What is the ID movements response to "who designed the DNA
of the alien visitors?"

I'm not looking for the ID line "we just don't know" - I'm looking
to see if they have actually suggested anything

I don't know of any, and would be very surprised if any actually
have.

Suggesting actual explanations isn't exactly a part of the ID
methodology.

It's not part of the contemporary Christianity either. The view is
that God is transcendent, "beyond word and form", any attempt to
objectify God is futile. This does not play well in the rational,
objective scientific world, but that's the way it is.

You say above that no one you know is claiming the 'creator' in ID is the
God of Genesis. You even accuse the previous poster of being prejudiced
for suggesting that. Yet in that last paragraph, you talk about defining
that same God. Why would that even be an issue if no one you know thinks
the 'creator' is the God of the Bible?

Not exactly. What I said is "Who says "the elephant in the corner is
the god of genesis (tm)". No one I know. To identify the ID movement
as claiming "(in smoke and mirrors)" suggests to me you prefer
pandering to prejudice over understanding someone's honest opinion."

Can you tell me what "the elephant in the corner is the god of genesis
(tm)" means?

As for prejudiced, aren't we all? Maybe I should be more careful with
language on TO since there's so much acid thrown around. To be
prejudiced is to prejudge, to form an opinion with less than enough
facts. It is not a term of criticism as I used it, but I can
understand how it could be so taken. The point is that many IDers
honestly see intelligent design as a valid life creation, but when you
discuss ID and evolution with them, the rational agree ID is not a
scientific theory and evolution is. My point is that the people who
beleive in ID aren't all pushing for ID as science, but when their
views are attacked, especially in a biased way, they defend themselves
to the loss of a calm debate on the true issue: ID is a belief and
evolution is a scientific theory and never the twain shall meet.

All the best, Gordon Hill

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What does ID have to offer to the scientific community?
    ... tell science when some line of research was pointless, ... phenomenon" of evolution from lower to higher ordered life. ... the evolution of a new organ or system over a human lifetime. ... Richard Dawkins's views on God and theism are not evolutionary theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • POTM [was Re: Evolutions problems]
    ... >> Among the many problems with evolution are the questions it is unable to ... >Unanswered questions are not a problem with Science. ... >"Life from life, with modifications" describes the Theory of Evolution. ... You believe that God created man from a clay mold that He ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: POTM [was Re: Evolutions problems]
    ... >>> Among the many problems with evolution are the questions it is unable to ... >>Unanswered questions are not a problem with Science. ... You believe that God created man from a clay mold that He ... >>breathed life into. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Real simple question on ID/aliens etc
    ... Who says "the elephant in the corner is the god of genesis ". ... IDers have an honest opinion that life is too complex to have been ... Evolution ... The theory of intelligent design has been described by ID theorist ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Promoting Ignorance
    ... >>> Bush Endorses 'Intelligent Design' ... evolution. ... >>> on the creation and complexity of life. ... >>> inject religion into science courses. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)