The ID group has so terrified Darwinists that they have battened down the hatches around fake science to ‘disprove’ the issue of design. Richard Dawkins with chattering teeth has pronounced natural selection the answer to design. But the issue of design never works as a proof for the existence of god, for a simple reason that the god idea is incoherent. And figures like Kant long ago exposed such logic. The problem appears step one with the term ‘intelligent’. Can we predicate design as ‘intelligent’ to conclude the existence of god? Can we call ‘god’ intelligent. Think carefully the idea is a trap.
Consider the absurdities latent in our terminologies with a slightly different example: If Gautama was enlightened isn’t an omnipotent ‘god’ enlightened? If buddhas then pass beyond existence, does god then pass beyond existence? The idea creates hopeless confusion and shows how only a primitive theism can ascribe personhood and consciousness to ‘god’. The same would be true of ‘intelligent’, no doubt. When we mix different and distinct terminologies the results are garbage in garbage…
In fact we no language or concepts to even discuss the question beyond the idiot level of Christian theology. And design arguments at that level fail at the start. But design in nature is a perfectly good concept and can be considered without theological implications. It suddenly becomes, if not fully coherent, then at least a question for science to explore.
I have heard ID dismissed as “apologetics,” with the implication of proponents in search of evidence to support a conclusion to which they’re pre-committed.
Source: Stephen Meyer: The Evidence “Cries Out” for God, Not the Other Way Around | Evolution News
No matter how hard they try the ID group will never be able to prove the existence of god using the idea of intelligent design, or simple design. It would help if they simply stopped and helped the public move beyond darwinism. The whole public paradigm is stuck between stupid darwinism and unintelligent design arguments. The case for design has been made but to bring in the term ‘intelligent’ vitiates all the work done on the subject.
I wrote Undeniable primarily for people who wonder whether God is really there — either believers who sometimes doubt their belief or doubters who sometimes doubt their doubt. These people need to know that claims on the part of scientists to have made sense of reality apart from God are badly confused. And because Darwin’s theory is the centerpiece of those claims, I made refuting his theory the centerpiece of the book.
Source: Keeping the Debate Over Undeniable on Track | Evolution News
This kind of junk misses the point that the term ‘god’ has been so trashed by christians/jews/moslems that it can no longer be used. If you are going to leverage ‘design’ to find god again you can’t use that to justify christian and jewish Old Testament mythology. The result is/will be cognitive dissonance and a failure to upgrade theories of evolution. Drop the term ‘god’ and start over with some new terminology.
There is a lot to say here and we should produce our own book on this subject. The question of atheism can be of great help in ‘debriefing’ the confusions of theism, and their dogmatic fixation of belief. Continue reading theism/atheism tend to collide and negate each other…//Here are the top 10 reasons I don’t believe in God | Alternet
The vocal fervour of today’s missionary atheism conceals a panic that religion is not only refusing to decline – but in fact flourishing
Source: What scares the new atheists | John Gray | World news | The Guardian
The New Atheists set themselves up for discombobulation on many grounds and have been subject to many critics, not least here John Gray who is actually quite interesting in the midst of his gross errors (he can’t seem to disentangle from darwinism, poor thing). Continue reading what should scare christians, jews, moslems (and buddhists)…//What scares the new atheists | John Gray