Deistic, Not Theistic, Intelligent Design

[DRMIZER]

Deistic Intelligent Design (DID) is the belief of an intelligent eternal creating Force/Creator presupposed when contemplating the order found throughout Nature. The study of the order found throughout Nature is science.

As Deists, we believe in God/Designer/Creator/Force. We don't believe in any of the so-called "revelations" of any of the various "revealed" religions. But Deists DO believe in a Designer of Nature. Many historic Deists like Jefferson actually refer to God as the Designer. Based on observing the stars tonight I'd say he/she is a very intelligent Designer.

Some of the people currently promoting ID are, in all probability, just sneaky Christians. They use ID as a means to get Biblical creationism taught in public schools. As was recently reported, the charlatan Pat Robertson made this clear when he basically damned the people of Dover who voted out the school board members who were promoting ID. An article about Robertson makes the statement that ID is a rival of Darwinian theory. That could not be said about Deism and Deistic Intelligent Design. I had an atheist tell me once that there is no Creator and the proof is in snow flakes. Each snow flake is different so, he illogically "reasoned", the Creator would have to spend all his time making snow flakes. I explained to him that Deists believe that the Designer designed the laws of nature that govern snow flakes. And likewise, evolution is one of the designs of Nature's God. (Based on the childish and unreasonable ways God is portrayed by Christianity, I can understand how some people could initially accept the snow flake argument.)

Deists should not let the backdoor Christians scare them from openly endorsing DID. Not only does it serve the purpose of presenting to people God in a very reason-friendly and rational way, it gives us a weapon against the insanity of Christianity and the Bible. We can point out the absurdities the Bible is overflowing with regarding the origins of life and the creation. We can make it crystal clear that to believe in the Bible is going strongly and directly against our God-given reason. We know our reason and the Bible have two very different authors. DID offers us a great opportunity!

[Nuke the Oil]

The entire point of ID is to present a quasiscientific justification for God. ID is not science, and really isn't all that interesting when presented as a philosophy.

[Void Image]

"A supernatural force created the universe"

Wham, I just presented DID/ID/etc. in it's entirety. That's why it isn't all that interesting.

[sub_zer0]

"A supernatural force created the universe"

Wham, I just presented DID/ID/etc. in it's entirety. That's why it isn't all that interesting.

"A naturalistic force created the universe"

Wham, I just presented evolution in its entirety. Thats why it isn't all that interesting.

[Russikan]

"A naturalistic force created the universe"

Wham, I just presented evolution in its entirety. Thats why it isn't all that interesting.

Actually the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, or even life. And it quite interesting. However, he has a point, something as unspecific as ID really isn't to interesting. If they went into specifics it might be more interesting. But of course then they would be even more wrong, wrong enough for more people to realize it.

[Void Image]

"A naturalistic force created the universe"

Wham, I just presented evolution in its entirety. Thats why it isn't all that interesting.

"In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species. The terms organic evolution or biological evolution are often used to distinguish this meaning from other usages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

There you go again with the twisting of words and subjects in order to make your own beliefs sound more appealing. There are volumes of research and volumes of research still to come involving evolution.

[sub_zer0]

Actually the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, or even life. And it quite interesting. However, he has a point, something as unspecific as ID really isn't to interesting. If they went into specifics it might be more interesting. But of course then they would be even more wrong, wrong enough for more people to realize it.


Naturalistic force created the universe. A naturalistic force guided evolution.

[Nuke the Oil]

Naturalistic force created the universe. A naturalistic force guided evolution.

Science says nothing of your "naturalistic force" whatever the heck that is meant to be.

[Dangerrmouse]

Enough with inteligunt desine.l

[sub_zer0]

Science says nothing of your "naturalistic force" whatever the heck that is meant to be.

It is YOUR naturalistic force. And science apparently has a lot to say about it, as it is evolution!

I believe in the supernatural force that created the universe and existence. You believe in a naturalistic force, namely evolution.

[Craig]

Naturalistic force created the universe. A naturalistic force guided evolution.

I appreciate that you've inadvertently offered a quasi-Aristotelian explanation for the origins of the universe, but I don't think "naturalistic force" is the right term for what science postulates. How can something be entitled as "naturalistic" outside of the space/time continuum?

[sub_zer0]

I appreciate that you've inadvertently offered a quasi-Aristotelian explanation for the origins of the universe, but I don't think "naturalistic force" is the right term for what science postulates. How can something be entitled as "naturalistic" outside of the space/time continuum?

What exactly are you saying?

[Russikan]

Naturalistic force created the universe. A naturalistic force guided evolution.

Evolution is about the natural process that changes living beings, nothing about a force or about creating anything. Stop trying to extend it into areas it does not apply to.

And why do you support ID anyway, did you know that Behe foolishly believes that the Earth is billions of years old? Are you compromising your principles?

[Craig]

It is YOUR naturalistic force. And science apparently has a lot to say about it, as it is evolution!

No it's not. Most scientists would not agree that "a naturalistic force" created the universe, given the problem I have cited above, and given that you've entitled this force "evolution". I have never heard a scientist claim the universe evolves. Clearly then, you need to distinguish between evolution and cosmology, and understand that the term "naturalistic force" is an entirely misleading term for those who believe the universe was not created or otherwise can to be due to a supernatural creator.

I believe in the supernatural force that created the universe and existence. You believe in a naturalistic force, namely evolution.

[Nuke the Oil]

It is YOUR naturalistic force. And science apparently has a lot to say about it, as it is evolution!

I believe in the supernatural force that created the universe and existence. You believe in a naturalistic force, namely evolution.

No. Science answers 'how' questions, not 'why' questions. It describes the mechanics of evolution no matter what "causes" it if anything. Science is only interested in testable hypotheses. "Naturalistic Forces" are not testable (In science we have 4 very testable forces - electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear and gravity), and neither are gods. They are not science.

[sub_zer0]

No it's not. Most scientists would not agree that "a naturalistic force" created the universe, given the problem I have cited above, and given that you've entitled this force "evolution". I have never heard a scientist claim the universe evolves. Clearly then, you need to distinguish between evolution and cosmology, and understand that the term "naturalistic force" is an entirely misleading term for those who believe the universe was not created or otherwise can to be due to a supernatural creator.

What's the opposite of the supernatural, which created the universe, etc? Anything not supernatural, meaning natural.

[Craig]

What exactly are you saying?

I'm saying that the term "naturalistic force" confuses things unnecessarily and is inaccurate. I've elaborated in my next post. By Aristotelian, I mean that it was Aristotle who postulated that Phusei onta in nature have within them an inherent force which leads to being moved. However, the concept of "naturalistic force" as the origin of the universe is only quasi-Aristotelian, because to my knowledge, Aristotle believed that the universe always has existed.

[sub_zer0]

I'm saying that the term "naturalistic force" confuses things unnecessarily and is inaccurate. I've elaborated in my next post. By Aristotelian, I mean that it was Aristotle who postulated that Phusei onta in nature have within them an inherent force which leads to being moved. However, the concept of "naturalistic force" as the origin of the universe is only quasi-Aristotelian, because to my knowledge, Aristotle believed that the universe always has existed.

If that is the case than the universe is God... lol

[Craig]

What's the opposite of the supernatural, which created the universe, etc? Anything not supernatural, meaning natural.

Nevermind, I'm splitting hairs on the one point; one could make the case that I was arguing for the sake of arguing. I do still think that "natural force" is misleading. The Big Bang is not a "force" by the scientific definition of the term.

[Craig]

If that is the case than the universe is God... lol

That's Baruch Spinoza's conclusion, yes, though the way you reached your conclusion was very different from how he reached his conclusion, based upon his rejection of different Cartesian substances. Aristotle would disagree however that a universe that always has existed is "God". He rejects the idea of salvation (specifically Plato's idea of salvation, though I expect he'd reject Christianity), and would point out that there's nothing that logically compels him to accept that only this thing you call "God" can exist eternally. You might respond that there's theistic reasons which compel you to accept that only God can exist eternally, but that's another can of worms altogether.

[sub_zer0]

That's Baruch Spinoza's conclusion, yes, though the way you reached your conclusion was very different from how he reached his conclusion, based upon his rejection of different Cartesian substances. Aristotle would disagree however that a universe that always has existed is "God". He rejects the idea of salvation (specifically Plato's idea of salvation, though I expect he'd reject Christianity), and would point out that there's nothing that logically compels him to accept that only this thing you call "God" can exist eternally. You might respond that there's theistic reasons which compel you to accept that only God can exist eternally, but that's another can of worms altogether.

Jesus was more of a philosopher than Aristotle ever dreamed of being. ;p

[meloakey]

Not saying I agree with the Christian God or anything else. But what if there is some supernatural thing that created the universe. I mean how did the Big Bang originate? How did all matters in the universe come to the point when they evolve? How did that first thing come about? Yes evolution is true, all things evolve but what did that first thing evolve from? To my knowledge, science has yet to show evidence of how the first molecule of dust came about or how you can get something from nothing.

Whether you call it deism or ID, there is some logic in it. That perhaps something supernatural, unexplained could have created everything.

[JoeR]

Why must there ever have been nothing?

[mataj]

If some god created the universe, and if Big Bang theory is even remotely correct, then the said god must have lost a couple of fingers in the process, at least.

Deists believe that the Designer designed the laws of nature Laws of nature as we know them, are probably just approximations. Probably. At the time being, we can't even be sure about that, and we probably never will be. I can only hope, that we'll never discover the ultimate, exact laws, that govern our universe, because that would mean the end of science. There would be no need to discover anything new. So, if we don't know whether the laws of nature as we know them are exact or not, we can't know whether the said laws are made by some sort of designer god or not.

Old Occam's reasoning still stands. Occam said, that all we know about God we know from revelation. God revealed himself by performing miracles. He showed us who's boss by violating the laws of nature as we know them. By studying nature & it's laws, it's therefoer impossible to prove it's eventual creator/designer. Occam's conclusions don't prove or disprove deism, neither do they prove or disprove naturalism. By drawing a clear line between theese two, however, they certainly do disprove biblical creationism.

[Strel]

It is YOUR naturalistic force. And science apparently has a lot to say about it, as it is evolution!

It's not ours. It is another aspect of your misunderstanding of science. We presuppose nothing.

I believe in the supernatural force that created the universe and existence. You believe in a naturalistic force, namely evolution.

Evolution is a process, not a force.

Do you know anything about evolution?

[Craig]

Jesus was more of a philosopher than Aristotle ever dreamed of being. ;p

I rather doubt this sub_zer0- but first I must ask, what do you mean by "more of a philosopher"? Secondly, I'll note that Aristotle, as a philosopher, wrote on a much broader range of topics than those written about Jesus. Again, your claim is tenuous at best.

[mataj]

Jesus was more of a philosopher than Aristotle ever dreamed of being. ;pReally? Bible doesn't seem to be very friendly towards philosophy:
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col 2:8)I'd rather say, that Christ was more of a psyop warrior that any CIA or KGB guy ever dreamed of being.

[Duo_Maxwell]

a intelligent creator? Perhaps. Competent? Depends on its involvement.

God can retain its competency if it merely created the initial spark. If it was involved in the creation of millions of species that were failures, I question its competency as well as ethical standards.

Still, there is only one diest group that buys into ID: Christian leaning Diests.

I'm a diest that wholehardly rejected ID.

ID is nothing more then impatience and immaturity. If one cannot explain something, Goddidit.

[heel31ok]

Actually the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, or even life. And it quite interesting. However, he has a point, something as unspecific as ID really isn't to interesting. If they went into specifics it might be more interesting. But of course then they would be even more wrong, wrong enough for more people to realize it.
Well actually the theory of evolution is the biggest bait and switch con game going. You say it does not have anything to do with creation of the universe which is correct and yet it is the evolutionist that argue it is . Then when it is shown no evidence exist to support that claim they jump over to just the evolution of life and life forms . Back and forth they jump like a used car salesman trying to confuse someone into buying it. It works on some but even the salesmen know it really ain't right . So you have a lot of consumers running around playing it up for the salesmen because they do not want to feel like the got ripped off . Instead they want to make it seem they got the car they wanted all along and everyone should do the same.

ID is the lazy man's way to try to get God in the back door without actually mentioning him by name.Yes God did it and I am not ashamed to say it outright.

[Craig]

Well actually the theory of evolution is the biggest bait and switch con game going. You say it does not have anything to do with creation of the universe which is correct and yet it is the evolutionist that argue it is . Then when it is shown no evidence exist to support that claim they jump over to just the evolution of life and life forms . Back and forth they jump like a used car salesman trying to confuse someone into buying it. It works on some but even the salesmen know it really ain't right . So you have a lot of consumers running around playing it up for the salesmen because they do not want to feel like the got ripped off . Instead they want to make it seem they got the car they wanted all along and everyone should do the same.

ID is the lazy man's way to try to get God in the back door without actually mentioning him by name.Yes God did it and I am not ashamed to say it outright.

That's more than a little misleading Heel. If you've paid attention to what supporters of science have stated, you'll notice that we've consistently claimed that the theory of evolution and Big Bang theory or any other cosmological explanations are seperate things. The one can be falsified without the other necessarily being falsified. What you've confused, in my opinion, is the fact that most of the science supporters do not want to posit that God created the universe as a scientific explanation. That's not the same as stating that it's impossible that God created the universe; rather, they are stating that without good empirical evidence for the existence of God, positing God as an explanation for the origin of the universe as a scientific explanation is poor science. And they're right.

It's also misleading because we do have evidence about the nature of the origin of the universe, and we are learning new things too as time goes by. So stating that there's "no evidence" is deceptive at best.

The other thing is that I've never seen someone make the jump from cosmology to evolution, and then back from evolution to cosmology. Evolution rests on its own evidence, which is by and large, (if not entirely), seperated from the cosmological explanation for the origin of our universe. There again, your comments are more than misleading.

So, assuming we really are crooked "used car salesmen", we apparently have some crooked "used car customers". ;)

[Nuke the Oil]

Moreover I would say that backers of religion have more in common with crooked car salesmen than the backers of science. Science after all, lets you "test drive" it for as long as you want. The works of science are blatant and obvious, look at the computer you are typing on for example. No "test drives" in religion though. Only faith that the car will work from the words of your salesmen. Also note that science does not tell anyone how to live. Those who say otherwise are charlatans using pseudoscience.

There is an extremely good and simple reason why "Goddidit" explanations are spurned by scientists. They prevent people from critically questioning natural phenomena because they are "holy mysteries". If we accept "Goddidit" for evolution and the big bang, then why not for quantum mechanics, relativity, electromagnetics, chemistry. Or we could regress further and say "Goddidit" as an explanation for lightning, earthquakes, the apparent movement of the sun and planets across the heavens and so forth. "Goddidit" can never be accepted by science.

[heel31ok]

That's more than a little misleading Heel. If you've paid attention to what supporters of science have stated, you'll notice that we've consistently claimed that the theory of evolution and Big Bang theory or any other cosmological explanations are seperate things. The one can be falsified without the other necessarily being falsified. What you've confused, in my opinion, is the fact that most of the science supporters do not want to posit that God created the universe as a scientific explanation. That's not the same as stating that it's impossible that God created the universe; rather, they are stating that without good empirical evidence for the existence of God, positing God as an explanation for the origin of the universe as a scientific explanation is poor science. And they're right.

It's also misleading because we do have evidence about the nature of the origin of the universe, and we are learning new things too as time goes by. So stating that there's "no evidence" is deceptive at best.

The other thing is that I've never seen someone make the jump from cosmology to evolution, and then back from evolution to cosmology. Evolution rests on its own evidence, which is by and large, (if not entirely), seperated from the cosmological explanation for the origin of our universe. There again, your comments are more than misleading.

So, assuming we really are crooked "used car salesmen", we apparently have some crooked "used car customers". ;)
Well I am not buying it. The bait and switch happens all the time. You are misleading in you post if you say it does not occur.I agree on one thing you said and that is the attempt to keep God from being named the source.which in the end is what it all comes down to .

[heel31ok]

Moreover I would say that backers of religion have more in common with crooked car salesmen than the backers of science. Science after all, lets you "test drive" it for as long as you want. The works of science are blatant and obvious, look at the computer you are typing on for example. No "test drives" in religion though. Only faith that the car will work from the words of your salesmen. Also note that science does not tell anyone how to live. Those who say otherwise are charlatans using pseudoscience.

There is an extremely good and simple reason why "Goddidit" explanations are spurned by scientists. They prevent people from critically questioning natural phenomena because they are "holy mysteries". If we accept "Goddidit" for evolution and the big bang, then why not for quantum mechanics, relativity, electromagnetics, chemistry. Or we could regress further and say "Goddidit" as an explanation for lightning, earthquakes, the apparent movement of the sun and planets across the heavens and so forth. "Goddidit" can never be accepted by science.
No in this particular subject no test drives are allowed you take the word of the scientist.The bait and switch occurs again when you try to turn the use of a computer into the proof that an outlandish hoax is true. So in your example and proof, since my computer works then all these other things have to be true. Wow talk about faith. The Goddidit resistence is not for the sake of science and critical questioning. Do not kid yourself I have to believe you know better than that. God does not put a block on discovery of Holy mysteriesand is not hiding things from us.Our falln state and the fallen state of the creation prevents alot of discovery and lends itself towards the imaginations of man and his inflated view of himself and his abilities to master all things. This mastery has not been gained even through science. Only a glimpse has been gained.
The Goddidit resistence is to God himself and man not wanting to share his pseudo glory with Him. If Goddidit cannot be accepted by science then the science you speak of is not real science but another science which is not another.If it is not of God nor allows God to be a part of it then we know where it comes from and where it goes to.in the end God did do it it is only the how and why that is yet to be explained.

[Strel]

:lol: No in this particular subject no test drives are allowed you take the word of the scientist.The bait and switch occurs again when you try to turn the use of a computer into the proof that an outlandish hoax is true. So in your example and proof, since my computer works then all these other things have to be true. Wow talk about faith. The Goddidit resistence is not for the sake of science and critical questioning. Do not kid yourself I have to believe you know better than that. God does not put a block on discovery of Holy mysteriesand is not hiding things from us.Our falln state and the fallen state of the creation prevents alot of discovery and lends itself towards the imaginations of man and his inflated view of himself and his abilities to master all things. This mastery has not been gained even through science. Only a glimpse has been gained.
The Goddidit resistence is to God himself and man not wanting to share his pseudo glory with Him. If Goddidit cannot be accepted by science then the science you speak of is not real science but another science which is not another.If it is not of God nor allows God to be a part of it then we know where it comes from and where it goes to.in the end God did do it it is only the how and why that is yet to be explained.


$500 fine for contempt of court. Assuming facts not in evidence.

[heel31ok]

:lol:


$500 fine for contempt of court. Assuming facts not in evidence.
You will have to take that up with my Advocate.And by the way He already paid my fine.

[towski]

You will have to take that up with my Advocate.And by the way He already paid my fine.

(I just threw up in my mouth a little)

[Strel]

You will have to take that up with my Advocate.And by the way He already paid my fine.


Your advocate did not appear in court. 3 days in jail!

[Dangerrmouse]

He is licenced to practice in this jurisdiction?

[Strel]

He is licenced to practice in this jurisdiction?

There's no record of Him in the state bar registry, and no Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on file with this court. We might have entertained one if it were filed, with an original signature...

[Nuke the Oil]

No in this particular subject no test drives are allowed you take the word of the scientist.

If the word of the scientist is not good enough for you, go look at some science textbooks. If that is not good enough, have a look at experimental results in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You can access some of these over the internet, but you best bet is to use a local university library.

The bait and switch occurs again when you try to turn the use of a computer into the proof that an outlandish hoax is true. So in your example and proof, since my computer works then all these other things have to be true. Wow talk about faith.

I have studied quantum mechanics. It is impossible to make electronics without knowledge of solid state physics. What is more I personally have done experiments involving solid state devices, so who faked the results?

Now what results do you have to present from Christianity? Oh, that's right, nothing! Zip. Zilch. The scientific method has yielded result after result, changing the face of the planet and life on the Earth as we know it. What has Christianity yielded but a bunch of fanatics? Any religion can do that. Who would have thought a system based on simplicity and reason would yield far greater results than a bunch of archaic superstitions of goatherds and peasants?

The Goddidit resistence is not for the sake of science and critical questioning. Do not kid yourself I have to believe you know better than that.

Tell that to Galileo.

God does not put a block on discovery of Holy mysteriesand is not hiding things from us.Our falln state and the fallen state of the creation prevents alot of discovery and lends itself towards the imaginations of man and his inflated view of himself and his abilities to master all things. This mastery has not been gained even through science. Only a glimpse has been gained.

Question, why does God make the universe appear to be billions of years old? And no scientist has claimed mastery of all natural phenomena last time I checked.

The Goddidit resistence is to God himself and man not wanting to share his pseudo glory with Him. If Goddidit cannot be accepted by science then the science you speak of is not real science but another science which is not another.If it is not of God nor allows God to be a part of it then we know where it comes from and where it goes to.in the end God did do it it is only the how and why that is yet to be explained.

Please at least read this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method or scientific process is fundamental to scientific investigation and to the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by the scientific community. Scientists use observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for natural phenomena, termed hypotheses. Under the working assumption of methodological materialism, observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by various experiments, which should be reproducible. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be conceivable to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.

The existence of God is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Therefore God has no place in science by the definition of science. This doesn't imply God does not exist, it merely implies that study of God is outside the realm of science.

[Craig]

Well I am not buying it. The bait and switch happens all the time. You are misleading in you post if you say it does not occur.I agree on one thing you said and that is the attempt to keep God from being named the source.which in the end is what it all comes down to .

Let's see your evidence of the bait and switch. Remember, you defined this as:

You say it does not have anything to do with creation of the universe which is correct and yet it is the evolutionist that argue it is . Then when it is shown no evidence exist to support that claim they jump over to just the evolution of life and life forms . Back and forth they jump like a used car salesman trying to confuse someone into buying it

So now I'm calling you on it. Show me where the evolutionist jumps into a discussion cosmology, then on evolution, when there's no evidence for his cosmology, and back to cosmology from evolution. If this happens all the time as you claim, it should be easy for you to find several examples, and I expect no less than that. You made the claim- you can back it up.

[Craig]

I'll also add that it's fundamentally dishonest to imply that evolution is a "bait and switch game" dependent upon cosmology when most of the evidence cited to support evolution is completely seperate from cosmology.