5 ms·

>This is a variant of a common creationist argument, often promoted by those who prefer the term "intelligent design" to "creationism." But so-called "intellige

>This is a variant of a common creationist argument, often promoted by those who prefer the term "intelligent design" to "creationism." But so-called "intelligent design" is just a variant of hard-core creationism. Are you implying that belief that the universe was intelligently designed necessarily implies belief that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, among other beliefs? That doesn't seem right.

f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
No, not implying that. These are not my terms, but I would call the 6000 years ago stuff "young earth creationism," distinct from several kinds of "old earth creationism." My point was just that proponents of so-called "intelligent design" sometimes try to create the impression that it is not itself a form of creationism, but it very much is. Not exactly the same as young earth creationism or any of the old earth variants, but still very much creationism nonetheless. The basic idea as I understand it is that life exhibits "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved naturally, and therefore must have been created by some "designer." It is the "must have been created" part that makes is fundamentally creationist.
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  >My point was just that proponents of so-called "intelligent design" sometimes try to create the impression that it is not itself a form of creationism, but it very much is. Not exactly the same as young earth creationism or any of the old earth variants, but still very much creationism nonetheless. Ah, I see, yes, it does seem to me that most if not all intelligent design proponents are creationists (usually I see creationism being used to refer to young earth creationism). I don't know of intelligent design proponents who deny creationism, that's interesting. >The basic idea as I understand it is that life exhibits "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved naturally, and therefore must have been created by some "designer." It is the "must have been created" part that makes is fundamentally creationist. Well, to be sure, while intelligent design theory is a theory meant to compete with evolutionary theory (what you've just outlined), what the original poster has said isn't necessarily intelligent design theory. They seem to have in mind the fine-tuning argument, roughly speaking that the order/structure of the universe suggests that the universe was designed to be that way. This argument doesn't compete with any scientific theories (except perhaps the multiverse theory, though my sense is that this is a contentious theory among scientists and atheist philosophers alike). But yes, this argument too suggests creationism. Creationism is part and parcel of theism, though---your original comment seemed to imply that creationism is something obviously silly (as in, silly in a way in which theism is not)? Or am I just not reading you right?
  - f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
    > I don't know of intelligent design proponents who deny creationism, that's interesting. I don't know if any intelligent design proponents deny creationism in all its forms. They hardly can, since what they are proposing is itself a form of creationism. But many try to obscure the fact that it is a form of creationism. > what the original poster has said isn't necessarily intelligent design theory. They seem to have in mind the fine-tuning argument, roughly speaking that the order/structure of the universe suggests that the universe was designed It's the same argument, though. Whether it's a "beautiful statue," as in the post I replied to here, or a watch, or a blood-clotting mechanism, or "the order/structure of the universe," the argument is "this thing was clearly designed, therefore the God that I profess to believe in is real." Doesn't matter whether you call it "intelligent design" or "fine-tuning" or whatever, it's all the same: this thing was "designed," therefore there is/was a "designer" who intentionally created it. It's all creationism. This is all sort of an aside from my main point to the post I replied to, which is that by equating the fact that he "feels" there is a God with "feeling" hungry, he is using the words "feel" and "feeling" very sloppily at best, and conflating two very different things in a way that confuses rather than clarifies. Certainly, there are those who use this kind of sloppy language exactly because it confuses rather than clarifies. He may just be a victim of one, possibly many times removed, or he may be one himself. I dunno.
    - knightoffaith 3y ago
      >it's all the same Yes, in the sense that they point towards a creator of the universe. But intelligent design theory is more readily dismissed as anti-scientific nonsense, while the fine-tuning argument is not. Since your original reply to the original poster was that "none of these reasons are reasons", and you went on to say, re: the design argument, nothing more than "this is a creationist argument", the implication seemed to be that an argument being a creationist one is reason enough to dismiss it. If you were just making a comment that the argument was expressing a belief that the universe was created (creationism), that seems fairly obvious, and I don't have anything to quibble about.
      - 3y ago
- JR1427 3y ago
  Just to chime in here, I don't think that the complexity of life is a clincher for existence of God. I don't think that humans are in a very good position to judge the complexity of things. A more intelligent creature might think the universe very crude and simple, and a less intelligent one might think it terribly complex. From a scientific point of view, I don't think we can judge how intelligent we are, so arguments around complexity don't necessarily help. As for evolution, well, I've seen it happen in the lab. I think it happens, and I think it's plausible that evolution is how all life as we know it today arose. I don't think we have really hard evidence for that yet, and just because a mechanisms _could_ have done something, doesn't mean it did. I can imagine a that evolution was a tool used to create life procedurally. If I was creating a universe, then I think I would use procedural generation! But here I am slipping in to assuming God created things in the same way a programmer creates games and simulations, which of course is pure speculation.

f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago

No, not implying that. These are not my terms, but I would call the 6000 years ago stuff "young earth creationism," distinct from several kinds of "old earth creationism." My point was just that proponents of so-called "intelligent design" sometimes try to create the impression that it is not itself a form of creationism, but it very much is. Not exactly the same as young earth creationism or any of the old earth variants, but still very much creationism nonetheless. The basic idea as I understand it is that life exhibits "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved naturally, and therefore must have been created by some "designer." It is the "must have been created" part that makes is fundamentally creationist.

knightoffaith 3y ago
>My point was just that proponents of so-called "intelligent design" sometimes try to create the impression that it is not itself a form of creationism, but it very much is. Not exactly the same as young earth creationism or any of the old earth variants, but still very much creationism nonetheless. Ah, I see, yes, it does seem to me that most if not all intelligent design proponents are creationists (usually I see creationism being used to refer to young earth creationism). I don't know of intelligent design proponents who deny creationism, that's interesting. >The basic idea as I understand it is that life exhibits "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved naturally, and therefore must have been created by some "designer." It is the "must have been created" part that makes is fundamentally creationist. Well, to be sure, while intelligent design theory is a theory meant to compete with evolutionary theory (what you've just outlined), what the original poster has said isn't necessarily intelligent design theory. They seem to have in mind the fine-tuning argument, roughly speaking that the order/structure of the universe suggests that the universe was designed to be that way. This argument doesn't compete with any scientific theories (except perhaps the multiverse theory, though my sense is that this is a contentious theory among scientists and atheist philosophers alike). But yes, this argument too suggests creationism. Creationism is part and parcel of theism, though---your original comment seemed to imply that creationism is something obviously silly (as in, silly in a way in which theism is not)? Or am I just not reading you right?
- f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
  > I don't know of intelligent design proponents who deny creationism, that's interesting. I don't know if any intelligent design proponents deny creationism in all its forms. They hardly can, since what they are proposing is itself a form of creationism. But many try to obscure the fact that it is a form of creationism. > what the original poster has said isn't necessarily intelligent design theory. They seem to have in mind the fine-tuning argument, roughly speaking that the order/structure of the universe suggests that the universe was designed It's the same argument, though. Whether it's a "beautiful statue," as in the post I replied to here, or a watch, or a blood-clotting mechanism, or "the order/structure of the universe," the argument is "this thing was clearly designed, therefore the God that I profess to believe in is real." Doesn't matter whether you call it "intelligent design" or "fine-tuning" or whatever, it's all the same: this thing was "designed," therefore there is/was a "designer" who intentionally created it. It's all creationism. This is all sort of an aside from my main point to the post I replied to, which is that by equating the fact that he "feels" there is a God with "feeling" hungry, he is using the words "feel" and "feeling" very sloppily at best, and conflating two very different things in a way that confuses rather than clarifies. Certainly, there are those who use this kind of sloppy language exactly because it confuses rather than clarifies. He may just be a victim of one, possibly many times removed, or he may be one himself. I dunno.
  - knightoffaith 3y ago
    >it's all the same Yes, in the sense that they point towards a creator of the universe. But intelligent design theory is more readily dismissed as anti-scientific nonsense, while the fine-tuning argument is not. Since your original reply to the original poster was that "none of these reasons are reasons", and you went on to say, re: the design argument, nothing more than "this is a creationist argument", the implication seemed to be that an argument being a creationist one is reason enough to dismiss it. If you were just making a comment that the argument was expressing a belief that the universe was created (creationism), that seems fairly obvious, and I don't have anything to quibble about.
    - 3y ago
JR1427 3y ago
Just to chime in here, I don't think that the complexity of life is a clincher for existence of God. I don't think that humans are in a very good position to judge the complexity of things. A more intelligent creature might think the universe very crude and simple, and a less intelligent one might think it terribly complex. From a scientific point of view, I don't think we can judge how intelligent we are, so arguments around complexity don't necessarily help. As for evolution, well, I've seen it happen in the lab. I think it happens, and I think it's plausible that evolution is how all life as we know it today arose. I don't think we have really hard evidence for that yet, and just because a mechanisms _could_ have done something, doesn't mean it did. I can imagine a that evolution was a tool used to create life procedurally. If I was creating a universe, then I think I would use procedural generation! But here I am slipping in to assuming God created things in the same way a programmer creates games and simulations, which of course is pure speculation.