Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote:

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.

You still haven't defined creationism. Spell it out.

0 Replies

Creationism- any belief that life was created in some manner by a supreme being of some kind.

The manner doesn't matter, nor does the supreme being. ID is a form of creationism since it assumes a supreme being and creation through design.

Many different kinds of creationism can be found here...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

0 Replies

Creationism is pseudo-science. Intelligent design is pseudo-science. Neither should be taught as science.

0 Replies

Fine - it would, in the sense of a philosophy or movement, depepend from a creator concept.

Encarta: Creationism - cre·a·tion·ism [ kree áysh'n ìzz?m ]

noun

Definitions:

belief that God created universe: the belief that God vreated the universe
Compact Oxford:creationism

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
: 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
Wordsmyth: Creationism
Syllables: cre-a-tion-ism

Part of Speech noun
Pronunciation kri e shE nih zEm
Definition 1. the doctrine that the world, life, and matter were created out of nothing by an omnipotent god, rather than that they evolved from other forms.
Definition 2. the theological doctrine that each human soul is created out of nothing for each individual born.
American Heritage: creationism

SYLLABICATION: cre·a·tion·ism
PRONUNCIATION: kr-sh-nzm
NOUN: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
Derived Forms creationist, n., adj. ; creationistic, adj.

Want more? I'm sure I can come up with a couple dozen more of the same.

0 Replies

I went to Wikipedia and looked up Intelligent design. The definition was pretty much a repet of Creationism. However, it stated that William Dembski has been looking for signs of intelligence for a number of years, so far, apparently hes had little luck. That worries me.

0 Replies

Quote:

Want more? I'm sure I can come up with a couple dozen more of the same.

That's more than enough. None of those definitions of creationism is applicable to intelligent design.

0 Replies

One assumes you speak ex cathedra . . .

0 Replies

William Dembski's definition of intelligent design according to Wikipedia:

Quote:

The intelligent design concept of specified complexity was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes.

"Produced by an intelligent cause rather than being the result of natural processes" is not different than saying "created by God". The change in wording is merely an attempt to get around the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).

0 Replies

While this member has been hollering for a definition of creationism, he (?) has been notably silent when asked for a description of the inferential designer.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
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.

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?

Two more dissimilar situations could scarce be imagined.

In one, (your murder mystery) there are multiple eyewitnesses BEFORE the fact who can attest to both persons' habits, prior whereabouts, actions leading up to the day in question, ownership of the personal effects etc

In the other,(the genesis of the Universe) you have zero knowledge or evidence (direct or indirect) of what came before.

You shoulda stuck with 'Very little is known for sure'. That was your most honest moment.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
Want more? I'm sure I can come up with a couple dozen more of the same.

That's more than enough. None of those definitions of creationism is applicable to intelligent design.

Really? Who is the designer? And how does he design without creating anything?

0 Replies

Publication written and issued by Discovery Institute since 1999:

Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook
(David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, paperback, 42 pp.)

0 Replies

rl, the details in the "murder mystery" are perfectly analogous to astromic observations, practical physics, and experiential reference. Simply because one dislikes what science discloses, and is incapable of or disinterested in determining how that one might for that one's self go about actually learning science in order to comprehend it in no way alters what science discloses. Your objections, as posed, evidence no knowledge or understanding of science beyond gradeschool and comic books whatsoever - essentially what you are saying is equivalent to "I don't understand that, I don't see how it could be, so I reject it, but no matter; since it conflicts with the Bible, obviously its wrong, and must be challenged."

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

essentially what you are saying is equivalent to "I don't understand that, I don't see how it could be, so I reject it, but no matter; since it conflicts with the Bible, obviously its wrong, and must be challenged."

That we don't understand has got nothing to do with the Bible which is only one attempt at explaining the mystery.Because the Bible is a fairy tale in no way solves the problem of our lack of understanding which is something that seems to bother a lot of people.

I accepted,years ago,that I hadn't a clue and thus proceeded down a sort of stringently ascetic epicurian route in which the Bible being a fairy tale and my inability to understand became similar to my big toe in importance.

Not having yet developed gout,despite scientific predictions to the contrary,I see no reason to alter my stance.

0 Replies

spendi,

Quote:

I accepted,years ago,that I hadn't a clue

. And time could not improve what nature had bestowed

0 Replies

Poetry!

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

rl, the details in the "murder mystery" are perfectly analogous to astromic observations, practical physics, and experiential reference.

Really? So you know what existed BEFORE the Big Bang and you have eyewitnesses? Whose experience are you referencing?

timberlandko wrote:

Simply because one dislikes what science discloses,

Don't know whether I like it or not since you haven't disclosed anything remotely resembling evidence of what existed prior to the Big Bang, and you haven't quoted any scientist who has either.

timberlandko wrote:

and is incapable

Oh I am capable

timberlandko wrote:

of or disinterested

And I'm very interested, but I don't see any substance in your post to prove that your analogy works

timberlandko wrote:

in determining how that one might for that one's self go about actually learning science in order to comprehend it in no way alters what science discloses.

The job of every scientist is to see if what current science discloses needs to be altered

timberlandko wrote:

Your objections, as posed, evidence no knowledge or understanding of science beyond gradeschool and comic books whatsoever

If that were true, you should be highly embarrassed that a poor comic book brain like mine can see that your analogy is bogus. What must really educated folk think?

timberlandko wrote:

- essentially what you are saying is equivalent to "I don't understand that,

Oh I think everybody understood your analogy, but where are the eyewitnesses to pre-Big Bang existence to correspond with the eyewitnesses who would testify that they saw the two together arguing, etc BEFORE the event in question?

timberlandko wrote:

I don't see how it could be,

This might have been the first accurate statement you made, since there is no validity to you analogy. It's missing parts are the problem. You haven't supplied a comparison at all.

timberlandko wrote:

so I reject it,

And this is the second accurate statement.

timberlandko wrote:

but no matter; since it conflicts with the Bible,

Your analogy is not addressed by the Bible, so I didn't reference any conflict there. But your analogy does conflict with common sense since you have not anything in your analogy to correspond to knowledge of the state of affairs PRIOR TO the event in question

timberlandko wrote:

obviously its wrong, and must be challenged."

Well at least you got three things right. Laughing

0 Replies

Forensic analysis is pretty common in science. One doesn't have to observe something to conclude with reasonable certainty how or when it happened. You compare the present evidence from an unknown event with evidence from observed events.

0 Replies

rl, despite your obsessive focus, what occurred prior to the emergence of the singularity is immaterial. What is material is that by direct observation, the probability of the event is indicated to within an exceedingly close approximation of certainty, while there exists no contraindication. The causitive mechanism is not known, but all observation confirms the event. No magic, no gods, just astronomy and physics.

What preceeded the Big Bang might as well - given our current observational capabilities - be postulated to be the province of gods or magic or anything else, since there is no evidence by which to even begin to formulate a rational explanation. The Planck Horizon, however, is observable, could only be an artifact of the Big Bang, and the math works, whether you understand it or not.

Worth mentioning again is that all you do is object to what has been determined by science, without providing any objective reason for your rejection of what amounts to evidence beyond reasonable doubt. You sieze on real, or imagined, gaps in the evidence, shadow areas, and ignore the overwhelming preponderance of confirmatory evidence. The "But nobody saw it" dodge is just about the silliest one that can be imagined; it really translates to "I don't want to believe it".

And there's the crux - you want something to believe, you want to think not just that there must be an answer to your liking, but that you have that answer. You don't like the answers science provides, since they don't fit with your preconceived ultimsate answer, so you question and reject science's answers, despite having nothing concrete with which to challenge those answers. Others prefer not to believe, but to discover, understand, know, build on, and from there continue to explore the universe of knowledge. Uncerainty is not something to be feared or denied, it is a challenge, a frontier to be explored and exploited.

Now, demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.

0 Replies

Timber wrote:

Quote:

That there be Intelligent Design entails certain things:

· there be an intelligent designer or designers

· from whence, perforce, would proceed the product of intelligent design

· necessitating that the the intelligent designer or designers created, or
in your words, "front loaded", the product of intelligent design

· placing the intelligent designer or designers in the role of creator

· thus demonstrating that Intelligent Design and creationism be the
same, an incontravertable consequence of the Intelligent Design
concept.

Sure, both ID and creationism posit an intelligent designer behind the origin of life but that doesn't make them the same. There are many differences. Here they are:

Creationism posits a supernatural creator. ID doesn't.

Creationism claims the earth is 6,000- 10,000 years old. ID doesn't dispute the earth is 3.5-4 billion years old.

Creationism claims the earth's geology can be explained primarily by a worldwide flood. ID doesn't.

Creationism claims that "Created kinds" of plants and animals can vary only within fixed limits. ID doesn't make this claim.

Creationism rejects common ancestry. ID doesn't.

Creationism disputes that humans and apes share a common ancestor. ID doesn't.

Creationism is anti-evolution. ID isn't.

The reason ID critics insist on calling ID creationism is because they want to discredit ID with the public by associating it with the controversial tenets of creationism. It's not that they merely want to point out that creationism and ID both posit an intelligent designer behind the origin of life because that wouldn't discredit ID with the public. Polls show that around 45% of Americans believe that God created plant and animal life as described in Genesis. Another 45% believe God guided an evolutionary process to do the job. Neither group has a problem with ID being behind the origin of life so the ID critics aren't going to get anywhere by pointing that out. But the group that accepts God guided evolution can be turned against ID if they are convinced that ID supports a young earth, rejects common ancestry, is anti-evolution etc. And that is the strategy behind the ID critics calling ID creationism. It is a dishonest effort to misrepresent ID.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know