2
   

Intelligent Design is not creationism

 
 
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 11:16 am
Intelligent design is often equated with creationism. They are not the same, not even close. First, ID has no conection to the Genesis account of creation and it doesn't invoke the supernatural. Second, ID isn't anti-evolution.

Here is a quote from a prominent ID advocate that blows the assertion that ID is creationism right out of the water. William Dembski says:


Quote:
ID is not an interventionist theory. It's only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation.

Intelligent design does not require organisms to emerge suddenly or be specially created from scratch by the intervention of a designing intelligence. To be sure, intelligent design is compatible with the creationist idea of organisms being suddenly created from scratch. But it is also perfectly compatible with the evolutionist idea of new organisms arising from old by a process of generation. What separates intelligent design from naturalistic evolution is not whether organisms evolved or the extent to which they evolved but what was responsible for their evolution.



According to Darwinian theory, evolution is a blind, undirected, purposeless process. In the words of Richard Dawkins:


Quote:
Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.


Stephen J. Gould has compared evolution to a drunk reeling back and forth between the bar room wall and the gutter (Gould 1996 page 149). He has also described intelligence as an evolutionary accident.

If one rejects this view is their only choice to be anti-evolution? No. One can view evolution as a teleological process, a process that was designed.

Evolutionary biologist Denis Lamoureux says:


Quote:
I am a thoroughly committed and unapologetic evolutionary biologist trained to the PhD level... I find that the evidence for biological evolution is overwhelming...And, I believe in Intelligent Design. I see the creation "declaring the glory" of God's mind everyday... I believe that God created life, including humanity, through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process, which even reflects intelligent design...

To me, the evolution of life is similar to our creation in our mother's womb. No one thinks that God comes out of heaven to attach a nose or an ear. Rather, most believe that the Creator 'knit our fearfully and wonderfully made' bodies through His embryological natural processes...To be sure, intelligent design in nature is real.



So is evolution like a drunk reeling back and forth between the bar room wall and the gutter or is it like an embryological process? The former describes the Darwinian view of evolution and the latter is the intelligent design perspective. While the embryological process is entirely naturalistic and doesn't require an intelligent entity intervening to "attach a nose or an ear" it nevertheless is not a Darwinian process. The embryological process is teleological. In other words, it is a goal-directed, pre-programmed process. It doesn't depend on accidents (mutations) coincidentally linking together with random changes in the environment to produce a baby. So the issue before us isn't ID versus evolution. It's whether the evolutionary process is devoid of design, goal, or purpose.

Polls show that about half of those that believe in God also believe that God guided/directed the evolutionary process. This view is not compatible with Darwinian evolution which is a blind, undirected, purposeless process. The alternative? Cambridge Paleontologist Simon Conway Morris says:


Quote:

Does evolution have a structure, an overall design, perhaps even a purpose? Orthodox opinion recoils from this prospect. Evolution, it is widely believed, is an effectively random process where almost any outcome is possible. If evolution is in some sense channeled, then this reopens the controversial prospect of a teleology; that is, the process is underpinned by a purpose.



There is no reason why a teleological approach can't run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.

The ID perspective allows one to investigate these evolutionary possibilities:

1. Evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled.

2. Evolution was designed such that it could acquire new information over time.

3. Permutations of 1 and 2.

Does the educational system have an obligation to make sure that school children don't find out that scientists are investigating these possibilities?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 25,238 • Replies: 775
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 11:19 am
To paraphrase Mencken, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 11:21 am
YO ! ! !

Hey, goys and birls, a new propagandist just blew in. Seems to have spent a week lurking before making a first post.

Welcom to a2k, hope you're wearin' your bullet-proof shorts . . .
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 12:29 pm
Oh, please. Creationism is to intelligent design as Genesis is to Exodus.

You can call it what you will, but you can't call it science.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 12:54 pm
There is no historic proof for Exodus either. The Egyptians didn't even keep slaves -- they indoctrinated any conquered people as citizens and gave them jobs. The pyramids and other monuments were built by agriculture workers and even doctors who needed to work -- the argricultural workers kept busy in the off seasons. It's not the Red Sea that parted but the Reed Sea which was likely mis-translated by either Charlton Heston or Cecil B. DeMille.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 12:58 pm
Didn't you just love Edward G. Robinson as an ancient Hebrew slave? Laughing

Yeah, Moses, see?

Wait a minute... You mean everything you see in movies isn't true?! Shocked
0 Replies
 
Teleologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 01:00 pm
Define creationism. Define science.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 01:05 pm
It's your thread, Sparky. Define away!
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 01:06 pm
Define? Now you want to used A2K as a dictionary?

www.merriamwebster.com

Are you doing homework?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 02:10 pm
ID implies a designer... Who designed him?

It's turtles all the way down....
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 02:19 pm
DrewDad wrote:
It's turtles all the way down....



heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


okbye
0 Replies
 
Teleologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 02:27 pm
Well, for those of you that maintain that ID is creationism I was wondering what definition of creationism you were going by as ID is clearly not creationism as it is commonly defined in a dictionary or encyclopedia.

Here is the definition of creationism per the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.

Now compare that with this description of ID from William Dembski:

Quote:
ID is not an interventionist theory. It's only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation.

Intelligent design does not require organisms to emerge suddenly or be specially created from scratch by the intervention of a designing intelligence. To be sure, intelligent design is compatible with the creationist idea of organisms being suddenly created from scratch. But it is also perfectly compatible with the evolutionist idea of new organisms arising from old by a process of generation. What separates intelligent design from naturalistic evolution is not whether organisms evolved or the extent to which they evolved but what was responsible for their evolution.


That sure doesn't sound a bit like the dictionary defintion of creationism to me.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 02:50 pm
And William Dembski, who only has credentials in mathematics, but who is a self-styled philosopher and theologian who doesn't sound like any scientist qualified to speak to these issue--so we're even.

Dembski is presently a "Professor" of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and heads their "Science" and Theology Center. Sure . . . he's a scientist . . .


Say, you weren't gonna try to sell us a bridge, were ya?
0 Replies
 
Teleologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 02:53 pm
Quote:
ID implies a designer... Who designed him?


So if we found something like Mt. Rushmore on Mars we couldn't logically infer it was sculpted because that would do nothing to explain the origin of the sculptors. Similarly with respect to all examples in which we infer the activity of an intelligent agent. All those explanations fail to explain the origin of the agent itself, and are therefore unjustified. So we can never infer design in any case. Therefore, if you are reading this, you have no justification for inferring that someone has written this post. It's best to stop the regress of explanation at the computer screen itself.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 02:55 pm
In the case of this particular thread, i heartily agree. Careful now, you're perilously close to articulating the good Reverend Paley's 1802 watchmaker argument--don't wanna let the cat out of the bag just yet . . .
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 02:56 pm
bm
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 02:58 pm
Yes, i'd say a bowell movement adequately describes what the author is trying to feed us here . . .
0 Replies
 
Teleologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 03:04 pm
Quote:
And William Dembski, who only has credentials in mathematics, but who is a self-styled philosopher and theologian who doesn't sound like any scientist qualified to speak to these issue--so we're even.


Not really. Dembski is a design theorist. He is certainly qualified to define ID. Surely your not suggesting that one needs to be a scientist to do this.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 03:06 pm
No, not at all, there is absolutely no need for credentials of any sort to attempt to run a flim-flam.

What "credentials" do you allege that Dembski possesses as a "design theorist?"
0 Replies
 
Teleologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 03:09 pm
Quote:
Careful now, you're perilously close to articulating the good Reverend Paley's 1802 watchmaker argument--don't wanna let the cat out of the bag just yet . . .


And you're perilously close to articulating Richard Dawkins Blind watchmaker argument.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Intelligent Design is not creationism
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/02/2021 at 06:11:57