John Wesley on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design


#56

Great, we agree!

Intelligent Design theory is not intrinsically religious, however theories specifically about the design of the universe have inherent religious or theological implications.

Thus your previous statement, as you made it, would need to be modified in order to be correct.


(George Brooks) #57

Yes, agreed.

And I will go through the formality of modifying my statement when the author of the original article linked to the forum ALSO modifies his statement.

As it stands now, his discussion has a UNIVERSAL scope, and my criticism of his scope still stands. If there had been any HINT that the author intended to include ALIENS as a possible scenario - - limited to the Earth rather than applicable to the entire Universe, I would have written a different kind of comment.

George


#58

I gather this is the text to which you are referrring. It is what you posted in your initial comment:

George: I find this quote in the article to which Eddie so helpfully linked us:

Vincent Torley: "In particular, ID theory do[es] not identify the Designer with the God of the Bible, as the currently available scientific evidence does not warrant that conclusion. (Of course, many ID advocates, including myself, believe the Designer to be the same Being as the Biblical God, but we do so on philosophical rather than scientific grounds.) Consequently, it would be absurd to accuse the Intelligent Design movement of “making authoritative claims about theological issues.”

I think this conclusion is LAUGHABLE.

Intelligent Design is an INTRINSICALLY theological claim

I find it hard to understand your objection Dr Torley’s comments. His comment is that ID theory doesn’t identify the source of design as being from the God of the Bible because there is no scientific evidence that can demonstrate such a claim. If he were to modify this statement (as you suggest) it would become false. He then says that he personally (and others) believe that the source of design is indeed the God of the Bible, but they do so on philosophical grounds, not through the science of ID. Again, there is nothing here to modify. He then concludes that (on the basis of the previous statements) it is wrong to accuse ID of “making authoritative claims about theological issues”. If it is this last statement you object to, then your objection seems rather unreasonable, given that the church making the accusation is a church that worships the God of the Bible, and ID does not attribute design to the God of the Bible. ID does not make claims, authoritative or otherwise, about a thing it does not address.


(Benjamin Kirk) #59

OK, What is Intelligent Design theory? What empirical predictions has it made in the past? What empirical predictions is it now making that are being tested?


(George Brooks) #60

All he has to do is add a clause like this:

“… especially if human DNA was DESIGNED by an alien race and seeded on the earth by these same aliens …”

adding this disclaimer would have changed my reaction to his writing dramatically. Without that disclaimer, I made the same assumption as virtually any Christian audience would make: he was speaking about the “Designer” aspect of the whole Universe.

George


#61

Biological ID claims that design is detectable in the organization of living things. A good amount of design theory revolves around the origin and nature of genetic information, which ID claims is the product of intelligence. ID then presents empirical evidence to support that claim. One ID prediction, obviously near and dear to me, specifically revolves around the origin of genetic information. Whereas theories of abiogenesis inherently predict that the origin of genetic information is an unguided natural process, ID predicts that it is semiotic and the product of intelligence. That prediction can be demonstrated to be true.


Scientific hypotheses make empirical predictions
#62

George,

Dr Torley made an entirely truthful statement. In response, you leveled an objection that is factually incorrect.

Full stop.


(George Brooks) #63

It is not truthful if he is UNWILLING to include “Aliens-ala-Prometheus” as one of the possible scenarios.

Do you have ANYTHING in writing from him saying that he would do so? The implication of his writing is DESIGN for the entire UNIVERSE.

It is only Eddie’s explication that Intelligent Design discussions can ALSO be restricted to only life on the Earth, that has made it possible to imagine a different interpretation of the article. But nobody has confirmed that the writer had any intention of allowing for that scenario.

I don’t believe even Eddie has suggested that the EARTH ITSELF (not just the life on it) might have been a creation of Aliens as well. You must not have much to argue about if all you can do is chase me for days and days and days…

George

P.S. Have you actually READ the “gobbly gook” someone put on your home page?
I think I understand why you can’t let this dispute end … you would have to start explaining why you have made your home page so difficult to understand …

http://www.biosemiosis.org/


#64

George,

Dr Torley’s statement is : “ID theory does not identify the Designer with the God of the Bible, as the currently available scientific evidence does not warrant that conclusion.”

That is a statement of fact. It does not require modification. It does not require modification for either cosmological or biological ID. You are simply wrong.

And I am not chasing you around for “days and days and days”. I did not post on this topic until yesterday afternoon. You continue to blame Dr Torley for your uncharitable and factually incorrect response, and I am simply allowing you to demonstrate the length you will go to obfuscate this fact.

–> The bolded edit you just added to your previous post is ad hominem non-sequitur, and is a further demonstration.


(George Brooks) #65

Bio,

  1. I do not think you know what “ad hominem” actually means.

  2. Dr. Torley’s statement is mostly fact: “current available scientific evidence does not warrant the conclusion” that the Designer is the God of the Bible.

  3. Unfortunately, there is a difference between “ID theory” and “ID proponents” and the goals of “ID proponents”. So it does not follow that just because the THEORY is devoid of a conclusion that ID proponents are devoid of such a conclusion. And THAT is what I found laughable.

George


#66
  1. An unsupported attack on me or Biosemiosis.org does nothing whatsoever to correct the factual problems with your response to Dr Torley’s comment.

  2. Dr Torely’s comment is entirely correct for both cosmological and biological ID.

  3. You did not make a distinction between theory and advocate in your response, and indeed you assigned your remarks to the theory instead of the advocate. Your statement was that ID theory is an “INTRINSICALLY theological claim” which is false.

Given that there appears to be no end to your obfuscation of this fact, I am happy to let you have the last word.


(George Brooks) #67

I don’t believe Eddie would agree that an ALIEN race could be conceived as the DESIGNER of the Universe. So Dr. Torley’s statement can really only be made true by applying the Alien scenario to the source of EARTH’s life.

Otherwise… it’s pretty much a “God thing”.

As to your website … I gave you free advertising … and a pretty clear message to you that it is very difficult to understand.


(George Brooks) #68

It is not possible to have INTELLIGENT DESIGN if there is no conscious intelligence doing the designer.

Let me know when you can clarify Denton’s position on this:

  1. Does he believe in a conscious designer of the Universe?
  2. Does he think there is a DESIGN to the Universe?

George


#69

Good grief George, please read for comprehension. It would not matter if someone wanted to conceive of an alien race as being the creator of the universe or not – ID still does not assign the designer as the God of the Bible.

Is this just too simple of a concept to understand?


I think I understand your inability to grasp Biosemiosis.org, and you are welcome to your opinion.

It is not shared by others.


(George Brooks) #70

Bio…

You seem to think this is all about one word or one phrase : “Design THEORY”. But if we return to the original article and the original paragraph, we read a much more nuanced discussion!:

" … the Intelligent Design movement says nothing about the identity of the Intelligent Designer of life and/or the cosmos."

" In particular, ID theory do not identify the Designer with the God of the Bible, as the currently available scientific evidence does not warrant that conclusion."

The author does a bait and switch!

FIRST, he talks about the ID MOVEMENT … in connection to the Cosmos (NOT just about the planet Earth).

THEN, he switches to ID THEORY . But the MOVEMENT is certainly intent on linking the God of the Bible to the Designer of the Cosmos. We all know this.

So, as much as I would like to humor you, Mr. Bio., but the INTENT TO CONFUSE seems readily present in this article. And we CATCH him doing it.

George


#71

But the MOVEMENT is certainly intent on linking the God of the Bible to the Designer of the Cosmos. We all know this.

yawn.

Yes George, I realize that this is what has you in the throws of conspiratorial outrage. Given that they do not use ID theory to assign the designer as the God of the Bible, how does any of this rescue your false statement that ID theory is an “INTRINSICALLY theological claim”. Is it merely because you and your pals know they are all liars, George?


#72

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(George Brooks) #73

Bio, I tell you what I’ll do. I’ll modify my sentence so that it is clear that I’m referring to the ID’s application to the COSMOS, not just the technical meaning of the THEORY.


#74

George, to discount the content of what a man or woman is saying, by assigning to them some unscrupulous motivation that they are deceptively hiding from you, is generally seen as a serious flaw in reasoning.

At this point, it is so completely evident that this is what you are doing, and will defend the practice of, I don’t really think it matters anymore how you want to spin it.


(George Brooks) #75

You are quite astute! This is exactly why I wrote what I wrote. And the reasoning applies to YOU just as much as to the writer of the original article.

It is rather surprising to see all this solidarity between ID folks … who think they can convince their readers that they are just Philosophers seeking Scientific Truth, rather than stubborn advocates of Biblicism of one sort or another.

George