Understanding Intelligent Design Creationism: Christian Version

[scd]

@AllenWitmerMiller

And that is also a good reply to the ID advocate on this thread (or perhaps it was another thread) who said that the Theory of Evolution can’t be science because it is not falsifiable

im not sure about that. if we will see a cat evolving into a dog we can involve the multiverse theory. so basically any likelihood as possible.

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

even if we never seen a human made a watch- we can still conclude design by looking at the watch shape and structure.

Could you be a bit more specific? What are the shapes and structures that point to design, in your opinion?

[scd]

@T_aquaticus

Could you be a bit more specific? What are the shapes and structures that point to design, in your opinion?

you mean what make me to conclude design when i see a watch? i think that the complexity and the apparently functionality.

[Charles_Miller (Charles Edward Miller)]

Good answer, my friend.

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

you mean what make me to conclude design when i see a watch? i think that the complexity and the apparently functionality.

Thunderclouds are complex and have functionality. Are those designed as well?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

Thunderclouds are complex and have functionality. Are those designed as well?

You bet however if you measure design detectability the watch has more because of the repeatability of the functional output.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

You bet however if you measure design detectability the watch has more because of the repeatability of the functional output.

Thunderstorms repeatedly form and have function, and it happens naturally.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T.j_Runyon

Then every Christian is an Intelligent Design proponent. ID thinks they can do this scientifically. I’m not sure of that. And I’m not sure we should even be able to even if Christian Theism is true.

@T.j_Runyon

There is a difference between relying on one’s faith to conclude God designed everything…

vs.

asserting that Science has the competence to prove Design.

I’m a little surprised that you have to be reminded of this. It is a key distinction in @swwamidass’ presentation on Science vs. Faith.

[T.j_Runyon]

And I’m not surprised you misunderstood what I said.

[T.j_Runyon]

@gbrooks9

There is a difference between relying on one’s faith to conclude God designed everything…

vs.

asserting that Science has the competence to prove Design.

It’s not one versus the other. There are other ways to knowledge besides science

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T.j_Runyon

And I’m not surprised you misunderstood what I said.

@T.j_Runyon:

Assuming you are responding to my words, it is easy to misunderstand something that is written based on a confusion.

There is science, there is poetry, there are personal reactions to observations.

I believe you are the one who constructed an “either/or” premise.

[T.j_Runyon]

@gbrooks9

I believe you are the one who constructed an “either/or” premise

Nope.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

Thunderstorms repeatedly form and have function, and it happens naturally.

Not quite as precise as a watch

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Not quite as precise as a watch

First it was “complexity = design”, now it’s “precision = design”. Getting pretty desperate there aren’t you Bill?

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Not quite as precise as a watch

Based on what empirical measurements? Or is this a subjective opinion?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

Based on what empirical measurements? Or is this a subjective opinion?

The movement of watch hands is quite repeatable. The expression of lightning from clouds not so much.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

The movement of watch hands is quite repeatable. The expression of lightning from clouds not so much.

The goal posts keep moving all over the field. First it was complexity, then it was precision, and now it is repeatability. It seems that you will keep throwing out new words as previous concepts are shown to be wrong.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

The movement of watch hands is quite repeatable. The expression of lightning from clouds not so much.

The vibrational frequency of cesium atoms is much more precise and repeatable than the movement of watch hands. Looks like your desperate arguments fail again.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

The vibrational frequency of cesium atoms is much more precise and repeatable than the movement of watch hands. Looks like your desperate arguments fail again.

Atoms are a great vehicle of design detection.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

The goal posts keep moving all over the field. First it was complexity, then it was precision, and now it is repeatability. It seems that you will keep throwing out new words as previous concepts are shown to be wrong.

Just like evolution