I do not think you know what “ad hominem” actually means.
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.
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.
An unsupported attack on me or Biosemiosis.org does nothing whatsoever to correct the factual problems with your response to Dr Torley’s comment.
Dr Torely’s comment is entirely correct for both cosmological and biological ID.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Just imagine how much more powerful your conspiratorial accusations would be if ID advocates were using science to identify the designer as the God of the Bible. But you’ve already conceded they don’t do that. I guess that’s why you see them as liars - lying to their gullible readers. It all makes perfect sense.
Since you don’t understand the words on Biosemiosis.org, I know you’ll never venture to see how I lie to my readers. I’ll save you the trip. Here is how I lie to my readers:
To be fair, it should be recognized that there are three broad groups of people who might respond to these observations. The first group is typically made up of theists and those who hold an intuitive inner belief that there is something more to existence than matter alone. They generally welcome this information because it is more or less consistent with their beliefs, even though it does not (and cannot) prove those beliefs to be true. It is also inevitable that some within this group will inappropriately assume the evidence demonstrates more than it does. The second group is typically made up of materialists and atheists who routinely reject this information, not because it disproves materialism (note: it is not possible to falsify materialism) but because it represents a virtually impenetrable barrier to materialism; showing that a purely materialistic origin of life is almost certainly false. Ultimately it forces materialists to assume their conclusions against physical evidence to the contrary. This is a fairly contradictory position for a group who by and large consider material evidence to be the one and only means of advancing our knowledge of reality. Between these two groups are the agnostics and those who are likely to have never been in contact with such information, and have therefore never reflected upon it in any meaningful way.
…
1. Science cannot answer the ultimate questions of reality
The creation of space and time at the origin of the universe is an event forever hidden in the deep unobservable past. We are likely to never know, with any objective certainty, what the source of this event was. The same is true of the origin of life, the rise of consciousness, and the basis of free will. While it is entirely normal that we would want conclusive answers to these great questions, what we are actually left with is simply existence as we find it. From that, we can pursue discoveries with passion, and hope to have the wisdom to understand what the universe is telling us.
Consequently, the constant implication (by many popularizers of science) that science has answered these questions (or is on the verge of answering these questions) is unethical and cavalier with regard to the evidence. The impetus for this cavalier conduct is highly questionable, particularly given the fact that the output of this conduct isn’t an advancement on a cure for cancer or cleaner air over our cities – which are the actual hopes and dreams of the public who pays for science – but is most often social, political, and even legal in nature.
As it turns out, the greatest consequence of these questions is how we as groups and individuals choose to treat each other. This fact only underscores the necessity that we understand the limits of our knowledge, and call upon ourselves to respect rationality and intellectual freedom among all people.
That is not a statement of fact. There is no such thing as “ID theory.” Theories are hypotheses that have been through many attempts to falsify them.
How about stating a mechanistic hypothesis and the empirical (that means not subject to interpretation) predictions it makes? Please leave out any grand titles, as they only serve to muddy the waters.
I stand by my comment, particularly since the term “ID” is used by both you and Bio in multiple ways, none of which are well-defined.
If you’d like to show that you are not just engaging in nonproductive snark, you are more than welcome to provide a rigorous definition of “ID per se,” though, and explain how it differs from all of the times it’s been used by you and Bio in this thread.
It seems to me that you are doing everything but illustrating the point in simple terms here. However, I have gone through the rest of the thread today (sorry for not responding earlier—I was occupied with some other issues) and I have become aware that the discussion has elaborated on some main points of concern (the distinction between cosmological and biological design, and whether aliens seeded planet earth). Cosmological and biological evolution can be easily explained that even grade-school children can understand and envision the complete picture—if it is clearly expressed using the appropriate terms and definitions for their level of education. For our concerns here, or any other ID demonstration, there are no technical terms necessary to illustrate these details—it’s elementary! At this basic level of illustrating the process of evolution (cosmological or biological) only the basic framework is required. We are not discussing the physics of the singularity at the point of critical mass, or the chemical makeup of the primitive atmosphere of early earth, or the genetic feature of the translation of information within the cell. Why has it taken over a year (since I have been here) for ID proponents like yourself, or Eddie, to come forth and clarify the ID position on what is implied by Intelligent Design? It has always been so simple to delineate and yet there has been so much deception, misrepresentation, and dishonesty on the position of ID—perhaps there has been a good reason for this. And don’t get me wrong, I’m glad to see that things seem to be unraveling on that front—just very surprised that’s all. This is a very good sign indeed. Thank you for bringing these issues out in the open.
Yes, @Eddie made that point clear enough to understand which I’ll quote here again;
Although, I believe my questions here, are still valid;
I have presented my position many times on this forum concerning the Intelligent Designer being the eternal animating force that underlies the material world itself. What are your opinions regarding this consideration? More to the point, what is Intelligent Design’s position on this issue?
The concept eternal animating force is part of the belief system of panentheism, also known as monistic monotheism. Here is a brief quote on panentheism I saved within the past year that has since been removed;
"Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) “all”; ἐν (en) “in”; and θεός (Theós) “God”; “all-in-God”) is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.
In panentheism, God is not exactly viewed as the creator or demiurge but the eternal animating force behind the universe, with the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. The cosmos exists within God, who in turn “pervades” or is “in” the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the “supreme affect and effect” of the universe."
The problem with aliens is that it just creates an infinite regress—what created the aliens? Therefore, whether aliens brought life to planet earth, or whether life strictly began on planet earth—both scenarios require a primary Intelligent Designer, the (eternal animating force).
Perhaps the observation itself does not require a theological component in order to be coherent however, a theological component is necessary to account for its being.
>I have very good scientific reasons to believe that the hypothesis “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause” is true. But my opinion would only add to a clutter of clever ways to say “it looks designed to me” that have already been boringly repeated again and again and again as though that is a scientific theory, when it honestly is not.