Intelligent Design is not creationism

There you go again fm.

Believing in things.Where's your evidence?

0 Replies

From your link rl..

Quote:

Reading performance....
The average scale scores
in 2003 for students at grade 8 in
both Catholic and Lutheran schools
were higher than the average score
for those in Conservative Christian
schools.

Quote:

Mathematics Performance
At grade
8, students in Lutheran schools
scored higher on average than students
in Catholic and Conservative
Christian schools in 2003.

Quote:

Science Performance
Figure 7 shows results from the
most recent science assessment in
2000. Fourth-graders in Lutheran
schools scored 8 points higher, on
average, than their counterparts in
Conservative Christian schools.

In fact in every category Conservative Christian schools did no better than other religious schools but in MOST categories they did worse than other religious schools.

Thanks for providing support for my contention rl. :wink: Kids in fundamentalist schools don't do as well.

Of course the real interesting stat in the link is the comparison of students with disabilities between public and private schools: Table A-1 - 21.9 in public to 3.7 in private. You wouldn't expect an 18 point difference in students with learning disabilities to show up in results comparing the two, would you?

Of course the study does say this..

Quote:

Higher performance scores in
private schools do not imply that the private
schools are better than public schools, as they
often serve different populations of students.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

real life wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
rl, just to clarify here, if you would, please, am I to infer you include me among the ranks of "liberal elitists"?

What would cause you to infer such?

I'd really like an answer to this one.

Why would you infer this based on no evidence? Is it just force of habit? A reflex?

Here ya go:

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1978694#1978694]rl[/url] (in response to Dok) wrote:

'I know what's best for you' and 'the public is stupid' are common themes heard from liberal elitists.

Now - ya got an answer - are ya happy? And now I have a question. Why would you imply there be no evidence by which one in opposition to you might infer you considered those in opposition to you to be, as not merely indicated but directly alledged, specifically, unambiguously stated, in your own words, "liberal elitists"? Is it just force of habit? A reflex?

I submit also that any number of studies have found parochial schools and academies of Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopal/Anglican sponsor and/or affilliation, both same-sex and co-ed, outperform their other religiously-based counterparts, other private schools and academies, and the secular public schools, particularly in the areas of math, science, and social studies, and that as a whole, occasional exceptions not withstanding, home-schooling places its product as a demographic at no advantage compared to secular public schooling.

Now, I suspect you might wish to take issue with that assessment, and dispute the assertion embodied therein. Allow me to offer a sampling of that which you would be disputing:

Alexander, K. L. and Pallas, A. M. (1985). School sector and cognitive performance: When is a little a little? Sociology of Education, 58(2), 115-128.

Arum, R. and Beattie. I. (2000, reprint), The Structure of Schooling, 474-488. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Baker, D. P., & Riordan, C. (1998). The "eliting" of the common American Catholic school and the national education crisis. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(1), 16-23.

Borg, W. R. and Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational Research: An Introduction (5th edition), White Plains, NY: Longman.

Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Bryk, A. S., and Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Burstein, L. (1980). The analysis of multi-level data in educational research and evaluation. Review of Research in Education, 8, 158-233.

Bushweller, K. (1997). Working miracles: Catholic schools' success formula. American School Board Journal, 184(1), 14-19.

Chubb, J. E. and Moe, T. M. (1988). Politics, markets and the organization of schools. American Political Science Review, 82, 1065-1087.

Chubb, J. E., and Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, Markets and America's Schools. Washington DC: Brookings Institute.

Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., and Kilgore, S. (1982). High school achievement: Public, Catholic and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.

Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., and Kilgore, S. (1982). Cognitive outcomes in public and private schools. Sociology of Education, 55(2-3), 65-76.

Coleman, J. S., and Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and Private High Schools: The Impact of Communities. New York: Basic Books.

Gamoran, A. (1992). The variable effects of high school tracking. American Sociological Review, 57 (6), 812-828.

Gamoran, A. (1996). Student achievement in public magnet, public comprehensive, and private city high schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(1), 1 -18.

Graetz, B. (1990). Private schools and educational attainment: Cohort and generational effects. Australian Journal of Education, 34(2), 174-191.

Hoffer, T. B. (2000). Catholic school attendance and student achievement: A review and extension of research. In J. Youniss & J. J. Convey (Eds.), Catholic Schools at the Crossroads (pp. 87-112). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hoffer, T., Greeley, A. M., & Coleman, J. S. (1985). Achievement growth in public and Catholic schools. Sociology of Education, 58(2), 74-97.

Horn, L. J., Chen, X., & Adelman, C. (1998). Toward resiliency: At-risk students who make it to college [Report]. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Hudolin-Gabin, J. (1994). Lessons from Catholic schools: Promoting quality in Chicago's public schools. Educational Forum, 58(3), 282-288.

Jencks, C. (1985). How much do high school students learn? Sociology of Education, 58(2), 128-135.

Jensen, G. F. (1986). Explaining differences in academic behavior between public school and Catholic school students. Sociology of Education, 59(1), 32-41.

Jeynes, W. H. (1999). The effects of religious commitment on the academic achievement of Black and Hispanic children. Urban Education, 34(4), 458-479.

Keith, T. Z. (1985). Do Catholic high schools improve minority school achievement? American Educational Research Journal, 22(3), 337-349.

Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 746-759.

Lee, V. E., Chow-Hoy, T. K., Burkam, D., Geverdt, D., & Smerdon, B. A. (1998). Sector differences in high school course taking: A private school or Catholic school effect? Sociology of Education, 71(4), 314-335.

LePore, P. C., & Warren, J. R. (1997). A comparison of single-sex and coeducational Catholic secondary schooling: Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 485-511.

Marsh, H. W. (1991). Public, Catholic single-sex, and Catholic coeducational high schools: Their effects on achievement, affect and behaviors. American Journal of Education, 99(3), 320-356.

Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1990). Public/Catholic differences in the High School and Beyond data: A multigroup structural equation modeling approach to testing mean differences. Journal of Educational Statistics, 15(3), 199-235.

Noell, J. (1982). Public and Catholic schools: A reanalysis of "public and private schools." Sociology of Education, 55(2-3), 123-132.

Ornstein, A. C. (1989). Private and public school comparisons. Education and Urban Society, 21(2), 192-206.

Riordan, C. (1985). Public and Catholic schooling: The effects of gender context policy. American Journal of Education, 93(4), 518-540.

Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583 -622.

Sander, W. (1996). Catholic grade schools and academic achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 31(3), 540-548.

Willms, J. D. (1985). Catholic school effects on academic achievement: New evidence from the High School and Beyond Follow-up Study. Sociology of Education, 58(2), 98-114.

Witte, J. F. (1992). Private versus public school achievement: Are there findings that should affect the educational choice debate? Economics of Education Review, 11(4), 371-394.

The foregoing represents but a sampling of the available supporting material. Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopal/Anglican schools outperform the pack, period. Creationism/ID-iocy is not common among the curriculae of any such school, and in fact the parent bodies of each of those religious entities, The Vatican, The Luthran Synods, and the Anglican Communion, specifically reject creationism/ID-iocy, equating the two, and unambiguously endorse conventional scientific evolution.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

...Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopal/Anglican schools outperform the pack, period. Creationism/ID-iocy is not common among the curriculae of any such school, and in fact the parent bodies of each of those religious entities, The Vatican, The Luthran Synods, and the Anglican Communion, specifically reject creationism/ID-iocy, equating the two, and unambiguously endorse conventional scientific evolution.

True enough, but they all equally embrace the belief that mankind and the universe are the creation of an intelligent God. In addition they equally reject the notion that science or a materialist philosophy can or will explain everything. Unless you have a very restrictive definition of the word "creationism" in mind, they are "creationists" too.

My impression is your beliefs on the essential questions here are about as far from theirs as they are from those of the fundamentalist Protestant advocates of accepting Biblical text as fact and science, instead of metaphor (or at least a reflection of the limits of the humans who wrote and translated it.)

My view is the Protestant fundamentalists are an easy and self-limiting (tho admittedly dangerous if entirely unopposed) target. The debate here is reduced to an obvious absurdity on one hand and a hidden (or at least omitted from the debate) goal and agenda on the other. There is a perfectly obvious middle ground, and it involves explicitly acknowledging the limitations of science and the questions it can and cannot answer -- and doing so both in the political debate and in the educational system.

I believe that, if done, this would defang the political debate on both sides and lead to a resolution that would protect both science and philosophy - in our schools and in the public discourse. In addition, in paraphrase of a well-known Kissinger expression, --- 'It has the added advandage of being true'.

That this is not done leads me to view the dedicated protagonists on both sides of this sustained political dispute -- and these threads as well -- with more or less equal skepticism and suspicion.

0 Replies

George, I agree with the thrust of your argument; there need be no conflict between religion and science, and I've often said so. Of course the Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans hold an ultimate creator as a given, however, they do not demean that ultimate creator by assigning to it the details of how the afairs of the material realm are conducted; their creator has much more important things to do, in their view. While I remain heavilly skeptical of their foundational premise, I have little quarrel with their worldview when it comes to evolution. That is not to say there are not myriad other issues at dispute, but those are not here at discussion.

I agree too that Protestant Fundamentalists present far too dire a threat to go unopposed, and I see the entire evolution vs creation "debate" to be a wholly artificial construct, entirely of their making, and laden with far more sinister agenda than merely inflicting religious twaddle on the public education system.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

True enough, but they all equally embrace the belief that mankind and the universe are the creation of an intelligent God. In addition they equally reject the notion that science or a materialist philosophy can or will explain everything. Unless you have a very restrictive definition of the word "creationism" in mind, they are "creationists" too.

Which goes right to the heart of the disagreement. ID is creationism unless you have a very restrictive definition.

0 Replies

I think a distinction between YEC (young earth creationism, as championed by real life as well as the southern baptists - are you a southern baptist, real life? -) and old earth creationism as championed by mainstream christianity (how much time is in one of 'gods' days, anyhow) needs to be made here

0 Replies

timberlandko says:

Quote:

Of course the Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans hold an ultimate creator as a given...

Does that mean they are creationists?

0 Replies

Answer my challenges, all you do is feign you don't see them!

Teleologist wrote:

It is beyond the scope of ID to determine the nature of a designer from billions of years ago.

Then how can you say "ID does not posit a supernatural creator? You make no sense.

Teleologist wrote:

ID is limited by the scientific method.

So where is the scientific method for ID? You have provided none.

Teleologist wrote:

However, I haven't seen an ID hypothesis where the designer of life on earth was posited to be supernatural. ID hypotheses work just fine with the modest assumption of a designer that possesses a human-like intelligence.

Given that man has your so-called "human-like intelligence" you would be now saying man is able to be a designer. Where is your proof man can be a designer?

Teleologist wrote:

More will come in due time.

More what exactly? To date no rational arguments or evidence have been forthcoming from you at all!

Teleologist, I note you still have avoided my first question (for the third time) so I'll pose it again. Go ahead, I challenge you! You made the claim, now back it up, big boy!

Teleologist wrote:

Creationism posits a supernatural creator. ID doesn't.

Chumly wrote:

If as you claim ID does not posit a supernatural creator, it must follow that ID gives credence to a natural creator, therefore show me where ID'ers give credence to the concept that advanced extraterrestrials are the intelligent designers.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

timberlandko says:

Quote:
Of course the Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans hold an ultimate creator as a given...

Does that mean they are creationists?

Tele, quoting out of context to falsely impute to the originator a meaning or concept contrary to that actually expressed amounts functionally to perpetrating a lie. Lets set the record straight by repeating the unbowdlerized statement:

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1980695#1980695]timber[/url] wrote:

Of course the Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans hold an ultimate creator as a given, however, they do not demean that ultimate creator by assigning to it the details of how the afairs of the material realm are conducted; their creator has much more important things to do, in their view.

Teleologist wrote:

Don't the ID critics claim they are all creationists?

One may be a creationist - in the abstract - without being an ID-iot, without assigning to that creator the "hands-on details" of the universe. However, the converse is not possible; one may not postulate design without a designer and the consequent purposeful, active intervention of that designer. In the larger sense, the Christian sects which most closely approach rationality and intellectual honesty - or at least those which distance themselves least far from those principles - see their creator as founder and sole proprietor, not as executive, managerial, operational, maintenance, or accounting staff ... the owner and therefore overall boss, but not directly involved with the day-to-day stuff. Big difference.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

ID implies a designer... Who designed him?

It's turtles all the way down....

Is something that creates data/information/intelligence and passes it on defined as a designer?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I agree too that Protestant Fundamentalists present far too dire a threat to go unopposed, and I see the entire evolution vs creation "debate" to be a wholly artificial construct, entirely of their making, and laden with far more sinister agenda than merely inflicting religious twaddle on the public education system.

I believe the Fundamentalists are basically self-limiting and not likely to gain more power. (And I come from a background that could not be more unlike or opposed to them.) If they have a "sinister agenda", as you say, perhaps you will acknowledge there is also an opposing and equally sinister agenda to impose, if only by default and omission, a secular humanist belief system in all actions of government including schools. (Though I don't view either as sinister - merely wrong.) It is my belief that this ususlly unstated secular humanist viewpoint behind things like opposing public references - even in an historical cultural context - to God, and opposing the middle course above in education, which we both evidently advocate, -- is precisely the thing that goads the Fundamentalists to action and, more importantly, gets them the tacit support of people who don't even buy their narrow-minded, anti-scientific literalism.

Those who oppose the Fundamentalists choose to posit that the issue is ONLY Genesis vs Evolution, when it obviously is much more. Many of them either don't think enough to see the distinction or, for their own reasons, choose to ignore it and thereby resolve the narrow public question by permitting only what amounts to a secular humanist interpretation of science and philosophy in the schools - thereby winning the larger issue by default. However stupid you may believe Fundamentalists to be, they are generally smart enough to see through that gambit.

I believe that if the whole question were to be debated intelligently and openly (sadly, an unlikely prospect), and in particular if the limitations of science were acknowledged by educators in their curricula, the Fundamentalist air supply would be cut off and the schools debate would quickly fizzle out. However, even on these threads, I have found it difficult to find any resonance for these points.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

I think a distinction between YEC (young earth creationism, as championed by real life as well as the southern baptists - are you a southern baptist, real life? -) and old earth creationism as championed by mainstream christianity (how much time is in one of 'gods' days, anyhow) needs to be made here

Interesting observation.

I don't think I have ever actually met anyone who really denies the indisputable geological evidence of the earth's age or the elementary findings of cosmology concerning the evolution of galaxies, stars and planetary systems. Certainly most people don't spend much time each day contemplating these subjects, but there has been so much intrusion of the products of these things into the public information sea we all share - things like continental drift; the formation and erosion of mountain chains; the discovery of marine fossils in mountainous areas far from the sea; the record of repeated shifts in the magnetic poles preserved in basaltic rock; stories about dinosaurs & films about Jurassic recreations; etc. I know lots of Southern Baptists, but none who will deny the reality of all these things.

I don't say there are none or that there are no hucksters out there more than willing to pass these questions by on their way to rousing support through fear or other such things. I'm sure there are some - but I've never met one.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
I agree too that Protestant Fundamentalists present far too dire a threat to go unopposed, and I see the entire evolution vs creation "debate" to be a wholly artificial construct, entirely of their making, and laden with far more sinister agenda than merely inflicting religious twaddle on the public education system.

I believe the Fundamentalists are basically self-limiting and not likely to gain more power. (And I come from a background that could not be more unlike or opposed to them.) If they have a "sinister agenda", as you say, perhaps you will acknowledge there is also an opposing and equally sinister agenda to impose, if only by default and omission, a secular humanist belief system in all actions of government including schools. It is my belief that this ususlly unstated secular humanist viewpoint behind things like opposing public references - even in an historical cultural context - to God, and opposing the middle course above in education, which we both evidently advocate, -- is precisely the thing that goads the Fundamentalists to action and, more importantly, gets them the tacit support of people who don't even buy their narrow-minded, anti-scientific literalism.

And you call rejecting God open minded? And not giving young people a chance to decide for themselves by forcing the Bible (a book) out of school class rooms? Why are you afraid of mere words if that is all they are? That sound real superstitious and religious to me actually and "democratic", now who has an agenda?

Those who oppose the Fundamentalists choose to posit that the issue is ONLY Genesis vs Evolution, when it obviously is much more. Many of them either don't think enough to see the distinction or, for their own reasons, choose to ignore it and thereby resolve the narrow public question by permitting only what amounts to a secular humanist interpretation of science and philosophy in the schools - thereby winning the larger issue by default. However stupid you may believe Fundamentalists to be, they are generally smart enough to see through that gambit.

What is a creationist? Someone who doesn't think the universe just suddenly popped out of a ballon with a big bang?

I believe that if the whole question were to be debated intelligently and openly (sadly, an unlikely prospect), and in particular if the limitations of science were acknowledged by educators in their curricula, the Fundamentalist air supply would be cut off and the schools debate would quickly fizzle out. However, even on these threads, I have found it difficult to find any resonance for these points.

I see no viable alternative for creation. Where else did the universe come from or was there just no beginning? Something started the big bang and whatever that was it was certainly a God to us. That long ago and such an immense beginning.

How man evolved does not directly answer how the universe began.

0 Replies

Rex -- I think you have missed my meaning.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Rex -- I think you have missed my meaning.

I may have missed your point I wondered if I was missing something while I was posting.. I am tired tonight sorry...

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:

Creationism posits a supernatural creator. ID doesn't. That's a simple fact. If you dispute it then show me where any ID theorist makes a supernatural creator part of a hypothesis. Go ahead, I challenge you!

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

If as you claim ID does not posit a supernatural creator, it must follow that ID gives credence to a natural creator...

And design advocate Micah Sparacio does give credence to a natural creator. He says:

Quote:

As far as I can tell, human design occurs within a fully constrained natural domain. I see no reason to suspect that intelligent design of any kind requires some "extranatural mechanism." Indeed, the only design that we are readily familiar with occurs within the natural order of events, so why would anyone suspect otherwise?

In what way is intelligent causation non-natural? All causation that I know of takes place in the natural world and is thus natural. I'm not sure that I can even conceive of non-natural causation (indeed, my mind can not wrap itself around such a notion).

When one is talking about extra-natural causes, I have no idea what one is talking about. My mind hasn't come across such a thing. All causation that I know of takes place in the natural world. This notion of the natural world stands in sharp contrast to the limited notion of "nature" which eliminates or reduces teleology and intelligent causation from its ontology.

I advocate an expanded natural ontology which makes room for teleology and makes intelligent causation a first-class citizen of that ontology.

Still, I'm unclear as to what an "extra-natural thing" is. Almost by definition, it is "that which does not exist." Certainly, the ID theorists are not interested in investigating "that which does not exist."

So there is a distinction to be made:

1. Nature: the ontology available to modern science

2. Nature: that which exists and takes place in the universe

If one includes intelligent causation as a part of one's ontology, then there is no reason to suppose that an intelligent cause is extra-natural. Rather, it is perfectly natural.

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

show me where ID'ers give credence to the concept that advanced extraterrestrials are the intelligent designers.

Sure, here is one from design theorist Mike Gene:

Quote:

My ID hypothesis:

1. Evolution was front-loaded (meaning certain evolutionary trajectories were rigged) through the exogenous seeding of a heterogeneous population of sophisticated cells.

2. The mechanism - advanced bioengineering.

3. The designer - some form of being with human-like intelligence.

Want more details? In time. But for now, simply recall the "level of detail" that comes with origin of life hypotheses. They don't really offer much more detail that my hypothesis.

0 Replies

timberlandko says:

Quote:

One may be a creationist - in the abstract - without being an ID-iot, without assigning to that creator the "hands-on details" of the universe. However, the converse is not possible; one may not postulate design without a designer and the consequent purposeful, active intervention of that designer. In the larger sense, the Christian sects which most closely approach rationality and intellectual honesty - or at least those which distance themselves least far from those principles - see their creator as founder and sole proprietor, not as executive, managerial, operational, maintenance, or accounting staff ... the owner and therefore overall boss, but not directly involved with the day-to-day stuff. Big difference.

This is getting more and more convoluted. ID doesn't posit a designer that is directly involved with the day-to-day stuff. Right now ID is focused on the origin of life. To qualify as an "abstract creationist" does one need to espouse an accidental origin of life?

0 Replies

Teleologist,

- Now show me Micah Sparacio's proof for his claims as per your claim that "ID is limited by the scientific method."

- Now show me Mike Gene's proof for his claims as per your claim that "ID is limited by the scientific method."

Further I note you still avoided almost all my challenges to you so, I will again post them in full. You are not going dodge them by feigning they did not exist, will keep posting them to show your ongoing duplicity.

Teleologist wrote:

It is beyond the scope of ID to determine the nature of a designer from billions of years ago.

Then how can you say "ID does not posit a supernatural creator? You make no sense.

Teleologist wrote:

ID is limited by the scientific method.

So where is the scientific method for ID? You have provided none.

Teleologist wrote:

However, I haven't seen an ID hypothesis where the designer of life on earth was posited to be supernatural. ID hypotheses work just fine with the modest assumption of a designer that possesses a human-like intelligence.

Given that man has your so-called "human-like intelligence" you would be now saying man is able to be a designer. Where is your proof man can be a designer?

Teleologist wrote:

More will come in due time.

More what exactly? To date no rational arguments or evidence have been forthcoming from you at all!

Teleologist, I note you still have avoided my first question (for the third time) so I'll pose it again. Go ahead, I challenge you! You made the claim, now back it up, big boy!

Teleologist wrote:

Creationism posits a supernatural creator. ID doesn't.

Chumly wrote:

If as you claim ID does not posit a supernatural creator, it must follow that ID gives credence to a natural creator, therefore show me where ID'ers give credence to the concept that advanced extraterrestrials are the intelligent designers.

0 Replies

George wrote-

Quote:

I believe that if the whole question were to be debated intelligently and openly (sadly, an unlikely prospect), and in particular if the limitations of science were acknowledged by educators in their curricula, the Fundamentalist air supply would be cut off and the schools debate would quickly fizzle out. However, even on these threads, I have found it difficult to find any resonance for these points.

There has been some George and I feel sure that if you contributed more often there may well be an increase.

Despite the severe strictures I have been faced with from the secular humanists it is noticeable that not one single IDer has felt able to lend support.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know