Philosophy Now Forum

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:56 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:01 pm Ok then. All of my original points stand then. The theory is inherently religious because it definitely posits untestable supernatural entities as causes for observable phenomena, and valid scientific method can never accommodate untestable causation.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:09 pm Right!
But if someone could ever definitively prove evolution, then by the rule of the excluded middle, one could argue that creationism just cannot be.
Right?

Wrong!
In what way would the fact of evolution being true rule-out the possibility of a higher (transcendent) lifeform being responsible for the design and creation of the foundational context upon which the processes of evolution could then unfold?
No offense intended, but the supporters of the idea that evolution somehow eliminates any need for a designer of the universe seem to be almost as naïve as those who created the ideas that the evolutionists are attempting to dispel.

No offense taken. Thanks for showing me the fallacy of my logic. What mislead me was the conceit that ID is a kind of creationism. I have questions (I’m asking, not implying nor arguing from any position):

What happens after design and creation? Isn’t there a need for follow-up, for evaluation of the overall plan, for corrections if needed?
In what way(s) does ID differ from creationism? How is it not a form of creationism?

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:56 pm No offense intended, but the supporters of the idea that evolution somehow eliminates any need for a designer of the universe seem to be almost as naïve as those who created the ideas that the evolutionists are attempting to dispel.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:16 pm No offense taken. Thanks for showing me the fallacy of my logic. What mislead me was the conceit that ID is a kind of creationism.

I don’t think you were being misled, for it is completely reasonable of you to assume that ID and creationism are intimately related (if not synonymous terms).

I mean, logic would suggest that creationism is simply the execution of the architectural (intelligently formulated) designs that originate from a higher (transcendent) level of being.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:16 pm I have questions (I’m asking, not implying nor arguing from any position):

What happens after design and creation? Isn’t there a need for follow-up, for evaluation of the overall plan, for corrections if needed?

I am guessing that the design and creation of the universe requires follow-up and corrections - even to this very moment.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:16 pm In what way(s) does ID differ from creationism? How is it not a form of creationism?

Of course this is just my personal opinion but, again, the two terms seem to be two sides of the same coin. So I am not sure of how and where you are visualizing a difference between the two.

Would you mind elaborating on that point?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:13 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:56 pm No offense intended, but the supporters of the idea that evolution somehow eliminates any need for a designer of the universe seem to be almost as naïve as those who created the ideas that the evolutionists are attempting to dispel.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:16 pm No offense taken. Thanks for showing me the fallacy of my logic. What mislead me was the conceit that ID is a kind of creationism.

I don’t think you were being misled, for it is completely reasonable of you to assume that ID and creationism are intimately related (if not synonymous terms).
I mean, logic would suggest that creationism is simply the execution of the architectural (intelligently formulated) designs that originate from a higher (transcendent) level of being.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:16 pm I have questions (I’m asking, not implying nor arguing from any position):
What happens after design and creation? Isn’t there a need for follow-up, for evaluation of the overall plan, for corrections if needed?

I am guessing that the design and creation of the universe requires follow-up and corrections - even to this very moment.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:16 pm In what way(s) does ID differ from creationism? How is it not a form of creationism?

Of course this is just my personal opinion but, again, the two terms seem to be two sides of the same coin. So I am not sure of how and where you are visualizing a difference between the two.

Would you mind elaborating on that point?
_______

Although I have since read (in Wikipedia!) that the two terms are essentially synonymous, that was only my guess earlier. I suspected that a) my guess could be wrong, and b) if I assumed my guess to be wrong, you would at least be able to clarify for me what later read in several articles.

Creationism as a theory is nothing short of a fantasy. In fact it does not even constitute a theory at all, it is just fantasy.