Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 31 2007,15:44)|
| † |
|Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 31 2007,15:18)|
|Just to complete the thought above. |
Crandaddy: † † † † † † † † † † † † † †
|Why oh why do people think that mechanism is so necessary to design detection? Why canít they see that minds donít operate by any mechanism that we can understand and that mechanism resides in the absence of design.|
The term "design" has several meanings, including "to plan". But the claim of Intelligent Design isn't merely that the Designer had a thought, but that the Designer manipulated biology. And this requires a mechanism. And the mechanism connects the Designer with his creation.
Your distinction is calls to mind Howard Van Till's oft repeated distinction of the "mind-like" versus "hand-like" phases of any instance of design - and ID's obstinate silence on the latter.
Intelligent Design advocates confuse nearly all relevant terminology, such as when Febble took Dembski's definition of "intelligent" at face value and reached the arguably valid conclusion that orthodox evolutionary mechanisms are "intelligent" (and was consequently banned by DaveScot). Other common problems concern the nature of the scientific method, naturalism, randomness and pattern, not to mention irreducible complexity, complex specified information, and information generally.