ID, a \"Backwards\" Philosophy?

A very powerful question I like to ask is how does ID separate itself from other theistic positions?
 
It appears to me that it is asserting a creator then finding evidence for it, whereas the scientific one is making no assertions at all. How can ID be a better explanation? - I wrote once in a paper, that it is perspective that leads a person to a conclusion. An atheist and an ID advocate look at the evidence leading to evolution. - Atheist: "You see, these chemical reactions occur without interference. Evolution needs no creator to explain it." - ID advocate: "The breadth and scope of life's complexity definitely allows us to infer that a creator exists." - Then you have MY view: Both of you gents are arguing purely within philosophical perspectives and are not actually discussing the data at all. You're discussing the result that you want, not the result that is actually there. You have to be an atheist to reach the atheistic conclusion, and some level of theist to reach the other. To someone who is truly neutral--neither sheds any light at all on the God question. - So how does ID separate itself from other theistic positions enough that it can claim a "better" representation of reality?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

2707 views


> Atheist: "You see, these chemical reactions occur without interference. Evolution needs no creator to explain it."
> 
> ID advocate: "The breadth and scope of life's complexity definitely allows us to infer that a creator exists."
> 
> 
> So how does ID separate itself from other theistic positions enough that it can claim a "better" representation of reality? - I would change the quotes: The atheist says these chance mutation reactions occur .....etc. - The IDer says: science is proving life's chemistry to be so complex chance could not have done it. - That is not the same as a theistic approach, which starts with Bible stories. My Jesuit (almost, he got married) friend always reminded me, once you accepted a few basic Catholic tenets, the rest was all logical. ID starts with the science and then tries to be logical.

Post reply

2734 views


> > Atheist: "You see, these chemical reactions occur without interference. Evolution needs no creator to explain it."
> > 
> > ID advocate: "The breadth and scope of life's complexity definitely allows us to infer that a creator exists."
> > 
> > 
> > So how does ID separate itself from other theistic positions enough that it can claim a "better" representation of reality?
> 
> I would change the quotes: The atheist says these chance mutation reactions occur .....etc.
> 
> The IDer says: science is proving life's chemistry to be so complex chance could not have done it. 
> 
> That is not the same as a theistic approach, which starts with Bible stories. My Jesuit (almost, he got married) friend always reminded me, once you accepted a few basic Catholic tenets, the rest was all logical. ID starts with the science and then tries to be logical. - The dilemma I see is that the idea of a creator is entrenched in our thought and culture, so how can we really tell that we're not working towards a philosophical goal vs. actually following evidence? Especially when the conclusion we reach is still ultimately debatable? You said yourself that your conviction is a leap of faith. Doesn't that mean that you've already reached a conclusion and are now justifying it?

Post reply

2714 views

Especially when the conclusion we reach is still ultimately debatable? You said yourself that your conviction is a leap of faith. Doesn't that mean that you've already reached a conclusion and are now justifying it? - Yes the conclusion is not proveable, which leads to the leap of faith. Remember I started out in your agnostic position, and by the time I had done my cosmological research, I said to myself, there has got to be something. It was only then that I began to look at Darwin, in which at first I had total belief, and I was amazed at the huge holes in his theory. I had simply accepted the theory beforehand without any critical reading or thought. It was a great conjecture for the knowledge in 1859, but the subsequent work casts huge doubts if you step back and take an honest neutral look. My leap came AFTER all of the reading and thinking, just the opposite timing proposed in your final sentence. I justified a conclusion a long time ago and now I am defending it in this website, to add to the discussion here. I made my mind up in 1990 after starting to read in about 1960. But what I believe doesn't sound like your average religion.

Post reply

2750 views

Especially when the conclusion we reach is still ultimately debatable? You said yourself that your conviction is a leap of faith. Doesn't that mean that you've already reached a conclusion and are now justifying it?
> 
> Yes the conclusion is not proveable, which leads to the leap of faith. Remember I started out in your agnostic position, and by the time I had done my cosmological research, I said to myself, there has got to be something. It was only then that I began to look at Darwin, in which at first I had total belief, and I was amazed at the huge holes in his theory. I had simply accepted the theory beforehand without any critical reading or thought. It was a great conjecture for the knowledge in 1859, but the subsequent work casts huge doubts if you step back and take an honest neutral look. My leap came AFTER all of the reading and thinking, just the opposite timing proposed in your final sentence. I justified a conclusion a long time ago and now I am defending it in this website, to add to the discussion here. I made my mind up in 1990 after starting to read in about 1960. But what I believe doesn't sound like your average religion. - Amen to that. - Sorry. Had to...

Post reply

2730 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

ID, a \"Backwards\" Philosophy? (Evolution)