Intelligent Design is not creationism

Yeah great reply, timber.

'Very little is known for sure, so it's almost certain that this is what happened. No other conclusion is permitted.'

Great reply.

Although scientific organizations classify ID as one of the 5 major divisions of "Creationist" thought, it must be remembered that the key feature of all of these "schools" is that they are derived from a religious, not a scientific POV.As Judge Jones stated in the closing of his 12/20/05 "Memorandum of Opinion"
..."We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom"...

and the reason is

..."In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We conclude that it is not, and moreover, ID cannot uncoupkle itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"...

IDiot isn't name-calling I suppose? It seems to be timber's favorite.

Of course, ID cannot be passed off as science. It think that's what stimulates the distain and the "name-calling." It's not any coincidence that some have come aboard this thread to shield those who post nonsense and then proceed to post more nonsense.

And that is why there is never anything new on TV - It's simple physics. :wink:

There was a new episode of "The Sopranos" last night and it's headed towards lifting the series to an epic level which was previously enjoyed by "The Godfather." The Discovery Channel (it's not surprising that has been borrowed by the ID'ers to ligitimize their claim that ID is science) is one good reason to own a hi-def TV, although I prefer the DLP or LCD TV's over plasma. Plasma is also used to create sculpture via a plasma torch which is a high speed, very narrow stream of air charged with plasma. I've sold many of those.

There is programming coming up on PBS re ID on Frontline or one of their other series shows. The last one I saw was on crystal meth which may be what some ID'ers are on -- they can seem tweaked to me.

I started this thread to refute the claim of ID critics that ID is creationism and is anti-evolution. The ID critics here have failed to back up their claim and are now switching to the ID isn't science tactic. Well of course ID isn't science if it is indeed creationism and anti-evolution but I've shown that it isn't. Here's an article that sheds more light on this topic.

Whether ID is science isn't semantics
By Alvin Plantinga

Judge John Jones' 139-page opinion in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District raises questions that go far beyond the legalities of this specific case. I won't offer an opinion on whether the judge's decision is correct ?- although apparently he's never met an objection to intelligent design he doesn't like and some of his "findings" seem vastly more sweeping than is appropriate.

First, a general question: What sorts of issues can a judge decide just by fiat?

Jones rules, among other things, that:
· ID is just warmed-over creation science
· ID tries to change the very definition of science
· The scientific community has refuted the criticisms of
· evolution brought by the IDers
· ID involves a kind of dualism and that this dualism is doomed.

But how can one hope to settle these matters just by a judicial declaration?

Consider, for example, the claim that ID is just creation science in drag, as it were. That ruling is relevant in that previous court decisions have gone against creation science. But the kind of creation science those decisions had gone against is characterized by the claim that the world is a mere 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the currently favored age of 4 billion or so years old.

Second, those creationists reject evolution in favor of the idea that the major kinds of plants and animals were created in pretty much their present form. ID, as such, doesn't involve either of these two things. What it does involve, as you might guess, is that many biological phenomena are intelligently designed ?- indicated by their "specifiable complexity" or "irreducible complexity" ?- and that one can come to see this by virtue of scientific investigation.

Indeed, Michael Behe, a paradigmatic IDer and the star witness for the defense, has repeatedly said that he accepts evolution. What he and his colleagues reject is not evolution as such. What they reject is unguided evolution. They reject the idea that life in all its various forms has come to be by way of the mechanisms favored by contemporary evolutionary theory ?- unguided, unorchestrated and undirected by God or any other intelligent being.

Anyway, isn't this question ?- whether ID is just rewarmed creation science ?- a question for philosophical or logical analysis? Can one settle a question of that sort by a judicial ruling? Isn't that like legislating that the value of pi is 1/3 rather than that inconvenient and hard to remember 3.14?

And consider that presumably the judge means the scientific community has successfully refuted the criticism of unguided evolution brought by the IDers. Otherwise, what he says wouldn't be relevant. But again, is that the sort of thing a judge can legislate? A judge can declare until he's blue in the face that an objection has been successfully refuted. Couldn't it still be perfectly cogent? But this is not the place for that interesting question. Instead, let's examine the judge's reasoning in support of his decision. Here is part of his ruling:

After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community (p. 64).

The judge gives at least two arguments for his conclusion that ID is not science. Both are unsound.

First, he said that ID is not science by virtue of its "invoking and permitting supernatural causation." Second, and connected with the first, he said that ID isn't science because the claims IDers make are not testable ?- that is verifiable or falsifiable. The connection between the two is the assertion, on the part of the judge and many others, that propositions about supernatural beings ?- that life has been designed by a supernatural being ?- are not verifiable or falsifiable.

Let's take a look at this claim. Of course it has proven monumentally difficult to give a decent definition or analysis of verification or falsification. Here the harrowing vicissitudes of attempts in the 50s and 60s to give a precise statement of the verifiability criterion are instructive. But taking these notions in a rough-and-ready way we can easily see that propositions about supernatural beings not being verifiable or falsifiable isn't true at all.

For example, the statement "God has designed 800-pound rabbits that live in Cleveland" is clearly testable, clearly falsifiable and indeed clearly false. Testability can't be taken as a criterion for distinguishing scientific from nonscientific statements. That is because in the typical case individual statements are not verifiable or falsifiable.

As another example, the statement "There is at least one electron" is surely scientific, but it isn't by itself verifiable or falsifiable. What is verifiable or falsifiable are whole theories involving electrons. These theories make verifiable or falsifiable predictions, but the sole statement "There is at least one electron" does not. In the same way, whole theories involving intelligent designers also make verifiable or falsifiable predictions, even if the bare statement that life has been intelligently designed does not.

Therefore, this reason for excluding the supernatural from science is clearly a mistake. But, there is the judge's claim that science excludes reference to the supernatural, independent of concerns about verifiability and falsifiability. Reference to the supernatural just can't be part of science. This idea is sometimes called "methodological naturalism." But what is the reason ?- if any ?- for accepting methodological naturalism? Apparently, the judge thinks it is just a matter of definition ?- of the word "science," presumably. Here the judge is not alone. Michael Ruse, a philosopher of biology, said in his book Darwinism Defended:
The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law.

Do Ruse and the judge really mean to suggest that the dispute can be settled just by looking up the term "science" in the dictionary? If so, they should think again. Dictionaries do not propose definitions of "science" that imply methodological naturalism. Therefore, it looks as if Jones and those whose advice he followed are advancing their own definition of "science." But how can that be of any use in an argument or controversy of this sort?

Suppose I claim all Democrats belong in jail. One might ask: Could I advance the discussion by just defining the word "Democrat" to mean "convicted felon"? If you defined "Republican" to mean "unmitigated scoundrel," should Republicans everywhere hang their heads in shame?

So this definition of "science" the judge appeals to is incorrect as a matter of fact because that is not how the word is ordinarily used. But even if the word "science" were ordinarily used in such a way that its definition included methodological naturalism, that still wouldn't come close to settling the issue.

The question is whether ID is science. That is not a merely verbal question about how a certain word is ordinarily used. It is, instead, a factual question about a multifarious and many-sided human activity ?- is the very nature of that activity such as to exclude ID?

Does this important and multifarious human activity by its very nature preclude references to the supernatural? How would anyone argue a thing like that?

Newton was perhaps the greatest of the founders of modern science. His theory of planetary motion is thought to be an early paradigm example of modern science. Yet, according to Newton's own understanding of his theory, the planetary motions had instabilities that God periodically corrected. Shall we say that Newton wasn't doing science when he advanced that theory or that the theory really isn't a scientific theory at all?

That seems a bit narrow.

Many other constraints on science have been proposed. Jacques Monod, the author of Chance and Necessity, says that science precludes any form of teleology. Other proposed constraints are that science can't involve moral judgments ?- or value judgments, more generally ?- and that the aim of science is explanation, whether or not this is in the service of truth.

Additional constraints that have been proposed in various contexts include: Scientific theories must in some sense be empirically verifiable and/or falsifiable; scientific experiments must be replicable; science can study only repeatable events; and science can't deal with the subjective but only with what is public and sharable.

Some say the aim of science is to discover and state natural laws. Others, equally enthusiastic about science, think there aren't any natural laws to discover. According to Richard Otte and John Mackie, the aim of science is to propose accounts of how the world goes for the most part, apart from miracles. Others reject the "for the most part" disclaimer. How does one tell which, if any, of these proposed constraints actually do hold for science? And why should we think that methodological naturalism really does constrain science? And what does "science" really mean?

I don't have the space to give a complete answer ?- as one says when he doesn't know a complete answer ?- but the following seems sensible: The usual dictionary definitions suffice to give us the meaning of the term "science." They suggest that this term denotes any activity that is:

(a) a systematic and disciplined enterprise aimed at finding out truth about our world, and
(b) has significant empirical involvement. Any activity that meets these vague conditions counts as science.

But what about methodological naturalism and all the rest of those proposed constraints? Perhaps the following is the best way to think about the matter: There are many related enterprises, all scientific in that they satisfy (a) and (b). For each of those proposed constraints, there is an activity falling under (a) and (b), the aim of which is in fact characterized by that constraint. For each or at any rate many of the proposed constraints there is another activity falling under (a) and (b), the aim of which does not fall under that constraint. Further, when people propose that a given constraint pertains to science just as such, to all of science, so to speak, they are ordinarily really endorsing or recommending one or more of the activities the aim of which is characterized by that constraint.

Now how does this work out with methodological naturalism? Well, there are some scientific activities that are indeed constrained by methodological naturalism. The partisans of methodological naturalism are endorsing or promoting those scientific activities and recommending them as superior to scientific activities not so constrained. But of course there are other scientific activities ?- Newton's, for example ?- that are not so constrained.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing science in accord with methodological naturalism? There is a good deal to be said on both sides here. For example, if you exclude the supernatural from science, then if the world or some phenomena within it are supernaturally caused ?- as most of the world's people believe ?- you won't be able to reach that truth scientifically.

Observing methodological naturalism thus hamstrings science by precluding science from reaching what would be an enormously important truth about the world. It might be that, just as a result of this constraint, even the best science in the long run will wind up with false conclusions.

Alvin Plantinga is a leading philosopher known for his work in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of religion. He is currently the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.

We seem to be having a problem with the applications tests that are commonly used in law. In the Dover case he used the "endorsement tests" and the "Lemon test' to arrive at his answers and opinion. As weve said before, if the school board is so concerned , like you, that the decision was wrong, why not appeal it , rather than try to make your arguments on a bulletin board?

So let's say you could convince me that ID and Creationism are not the derivitives of each other. What's your point? I don't believe ID or Creation. A lot of people don't here. What's your point? That's like someone like me comnig and explaining the difference between dwarfs and hobbits to you. You don't care because you don't believe in either.

Note: if anyone is curious, I don;t have an clue to the difference between them.

You've shown nothing of the kind. I know of no one at this site who claims that ID is "anti-evolution." The claim that it is not science is more than borne out by the failure of anyone, including this member, to demonstrate a scientific basis for ID. The claim that it is not creationism is beggared by the deafening silence which greets the question of what constitutes the "intelligent designer" implied by the very name of this particular scam.

It is highly amusing, however, to see a theologian at Notre Dame offered as evidence.

Hes a Calvinist set. Hes been writing his apologias and "naturalism Defeated" crap for years. Plantinga is well known among the "true believers"

A Calvinist at Notre Dame ? ! ? ! ?

Will wonders never cease ! ! !


So, like, is he a Presbyterian, a Congregationalist . . . or a primitive Calvinist?

Primitive, his PhD is from Yale. (I think, I have lotsa stuff on him from the Pa ed debates)

Raup coined the phrase that 'evolution is finding new things to do with old stuff"


How many bricks must be removed from a wall before it falls?

It is rather ironic, you know, that you mention Yale. At the time of the Stamp Act Congress, the President of Yale College was a "new light" Congregationalist. The Congregational church had been seriously riven, not simply doctrinally, but politically as well, due to the harsh measures which were taken by the "old light" congregationalist leaders during the "great awakening" bruhaha. The "old light" congregationalist used the power of government in colonies with a religious establishement to suppress the revivalist movement. Yale had a "new light" President in the 1760s, who promoted "new light" followers, and who became a focus for resistance to royal authority, not on the basis of the larger issues of defiance of Parliament, but on the basis of seizing the main chance to get over one the "old light" opposition.

Politics are strange not only in the bedfellows involved, but the actual sexual practices.

Let us suppose someone has disappeared, ceased to participate in all activities formerly practiced, has not been in contact with co-workers, freinds or family from a certain point in time. Let us further suppose it be a matter of general observation that now-missing someone and another individual were parties to an ongoing rancorous dispute, and further that the last known observation of the missing someone places those two individuals in the company of one another, engaged in heated argument. Let us now suppose the second individual be observed driving the missing individuals car, wearing the missing individual's expensive watch, and exhibiting scratches and contusions about the face and hands. Let us now assume the missing individual's remains be discovered, bearing signs of a violent struggle, and that those remains be discovered in a location not known to be one generally frequented by either the deceased individual or the other party to the dispute, a location in relatively convenient proximity to an all-night gas station where further investigation confirms the second party was observed to purchase gas and cigarettes, using the deceased person's credit card, within a period of time consistent with the deceased individual's probable time of death .

No one saw the assault take place. No one saw the deceased person die. By the evidence at hand, what conclusion may be drawn?





The term ID-iot and its cognates ridicule a proposition and the demographic comprising its proponents, LW - any individual may infer the term and/or its cognates to apply to that individual or not as that individual may find appropriate.





I submit you have done no such thing, but rather that you persist in denial and sophistry. You musta missed something somewhere, Teleologist - for your convenience, I refer you to an earlier post on this thread:


I submit, Teleologist, your proposition, that Intelligent Design is not creationism, is demonstrably invalid, and, using your own cited supporting sources and your own words, has been demonstrated so, in that the concept of a causal designer must of necessity be incorporated with and dependent upon a creator concept. A case MIGHT be made that creationism does not of necessity entail Intelligent Design - though it would be difficult if not impossible to make any such case conclusivey, given the mutual, interwoven ramifications of the two concepts, but without a creationism concept, there cannot be an Intelligent Design concept.


Take the hint -

Quit digging.

Timber, I do recognize that a generic reference like ID-iot requires someone to volunteer to fit the reference on these boards. I'm wondering what this name calling is when nobody has been specifically called a name. They may have been made to appear ignorant but I'm not sure they really care. They come back for more.

Like I've stated before, be careful what you volunteer for even though it can be misconstrued when everyone else steps backwards.

How do you define creationism? I asked this question on the first page of this thread and no one would answer it. We are obviously working with two different definitions of creationism. I'm using the common definition you will find in any dictionary or encyclopedia. You evidently are using your own custom made definition, so tell me what it is.

Not my definition, nor any sorta semantics, partner, simple etymology - creationism inherrently and of necessity entails a creator - the concept is predicate upon a creator, period. No way around that.