I am not challenging the possibility of success of scientific methods of DETECTION of design.
What I’m asserting is that no matter HOW you detect it … if you DETECT Design, then you are also claiming a DESIGNER … which in the case of the Universe has to be (by virtually all definitions) GOD.
Going back to the Denton topic… if he REALLY IS agnostic, then he cannot be proposing a form of DIRECTED evolution - - because CONSCIOUSNESS is an implied element to DIRECTION.
Tony, your reformulation suffers the same problem as George’s comments. This is a rather simple issue. To illustrate the point in simple terms, let us assume there are only two design advocates on earth. Let us further say that one of the two theorists explicitly requires a theological component in his/her explanation of the origin of life on earth, and the other does not. At such a point, it would no longer be truthful to say Design Advocacy requires a theological component. For instance, it would not be a sustainable claim to say that “Intelligent Design is an INTRINSICALLY theological claim” or that “ID encapsulates both [science and theology].”
At the very most, one might be able to say that ‘some versions’ of design theory have a theological component, but that would not be inclusive of all design theory. Furthermore, if one takes even a modest review of the majority of design theory writings (particularly regarding biological design, which was indicated in the statements made above) then one finds that virtually every major design proponent explicitly states that their work does not include or require a theological component in order to be coherent.
One wonders what the point of the objection is, if not merely rhetorical in nature.
As a real world example to further illustrate the point, on Biosemiosis.org, a case is made that the translation of recorded information into a functional effect is an inherently irreducibly complex process, requiring one arrangement of matter to serve as a representational medium, and another arrangement of matter to establish what is being represented. I would be happy to answer anyone who thinks that this observation requires a theological component in order to be coherent.
What I’m asserting is that no matter HOW you detect it … if you DETECT Design, then you are also claiming a DESIGNER … which in the case of the Universe has to be (by virtually all definitions) GOD.
If we accept this, and I do, then your claim “Intelligent Design is an INTRINSICALLY theological claim” is not a sustainable claim, given the well-documented fact that most design detection is concerned with biological design on earth, which is outside your quoted statement.
Your claim would have to be modified to cover a very limited portion of design theory in order to be correct, and it would be factually correct to say that your previous statement was false.
Sir, or Madam, your claim is false a priori . . . INTELLIGENT design requires intelligence.
Such an intelligence is, by virtually anyone’s criteria, DIVINE. You can argue otherwise all day long … but it doesn’t make much sense to argue INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the entire universe is something OTHER than Divine Intelligence.
George: Such an intelligence is, by virtually anyone’s criteria, DIVINE. You can argue otherwise all day long … but it doesn’t make much sense to argue INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the entire universe is something OTHER than Divine Intelligence.
I believe if I type a comment such as this …
If we accept this, and I do, then your claim “Intelligent Design is an INTRINSICALLY theological claim” is not a sustainable claim, given the well-documented fact that most design detection is concerned with biological design on earth, which is outside your quoted statement.
… then I have made a valid distinction between a) your claim about cosmological design and b) biological design, which encompasses the majority of design theory text.
It seems to me almost certainly deceptive to willfully cut off the distinction I made, and respond only to the first half of my sentence, as if the second half of my sentence (including the legitimate distinction) was not there.
Am I wrong about that?
In any case, even accepting your follow-on statement (which again I do) then your original statement that “Intelligent Design is an INTRINSICALLY theological claim” remains false for the very reasons given. Biological design detection does not require a Divine creation to be coherent.
AH! So… the Discovery Institute would support the idea that an alien civilization seeded Earth with life?
Fantastic… let me know when they publish an article asserting that … I think the History Channel is laying the ground work too … And if you want to teach ALIEN CREATION of earth life in the schools… I would support that … but ONLY if that’s what is being taught. As soon as God is mentioned as an alternative, then it’s religion.
It is intrinsically religious at the level of the UNIVERSE.
If you want to leave it open to an alien race creating life on just Earth … well… just say that is what you want to teach, and I’ll support that. But as I said in my post to Eddie, as soon as God gets thrown into the mix… it’s religion!
Apparently you just want me to waste my posting tokens?
As I qualified above … it is only false if the writer SPECIFICALLY intended to direct his comments to the creation of life on Earth only … and did not intend to embrace the entire Universe.
I think his silence on the matter is pretty good evidence that he had no intention of so limiting the scope of his comments.
I have already agreed with, and accepted, Eddie’s qualification. You should too.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“… 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.
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.
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 …
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.
