Intelligent Design is not creationism

The shrill reactions of all of the opponents here of any questioning of the presumed completeness of materialist-evolutionary models for not only the observable processes of the natural world, but also its, and our, existence, is a sad thing to see. -- Usually I am bemused by the ad hominem attacks, the demands for credentials on the part of antagonists who will not themselves under any circumstances engage the basic questions, the overwrought conspiracy theories, and the unthinking and thoughtless mockery on the part of those who react with horror to any questioning of an obviously incomplete doctrine which evidently they accept with the same fervor with which they accuse those who oppose them. However the intensity of the pileing on here is far out of proportion to the provocation (if indeed that is what it is.) A most unscientific and unphilosophic, display on the part of a mob of offended true believers.

If that is so, please demonstrate (and this is not an unreasonable request in the context of this thread) the extent to which a theory of evolution is commensurately "an obviously incomplete doctrine" as opposed to the proposition of "intelligent design." That is not to say that i would deny that a theory of evolution has no lacunae--i simply wish to know what preponderance of evidence can be adduced for "intelligent design" which even remotely approaches that which is available for a theory of evolution.

I don't believe there is any reason at all to doubt the accuracy of the evolutionary model for the unfolding of the variety of types and species we observe among self-replecating organisms. However, I note that it doesn't explain the origin of life - the first self-replecating organism. Moreover neither it nor physics explains or attempts to explain the source of our existence and that of the material world. Such an explanation would necessarily be outside science as we know it. I don't claim to have one myself either. However I do recognize that an intelligent creator is a possibility, and that the alrernative - here at least - seems to be a denial of the question. (emphasis added)

Yes, George, you are absolutely correct, there is denial here--the author of this thread denies that "intelligent design" is the same as creationism. The use of an expression such as "intelligent creator" will hardly be charming support from such a point of view.

Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God.

Setanta wrote:

Yes, George, you are absolutely correct, there is denial here--the author of this thread denies that "intelligent design" is the same as creationism. The use of an expression such as "intelligent creator" will hardly be charming support from such a point of view.

My post, quoted by you, had to do with the unfortunate character of your reaction and those of the familiar posters here to his proposition. I have little interest in such definitional questions such as whether creationism is or is not the same as intelligent design.

The Secular Humanists are coming ! ! ! The sky is falling ! ! !

I salute you, George, on this candid admission that you did not come to this thread to discuss the titular subject, but only to snipe at those whom you dislike for doctrinal reasons.

Do you seriously contend that asking someone to back up a claim that there is empirical evidence for "intelligent design" constitutes "those who react with horror to any questioning of an obviously incomplete doctrine which evidently they accept with the same fervor with which they accuse those who oppose them?"

Setanta wrote:

The Secular Humanists are coming ! ! ! The sky is falling ! ! !

Change the noun/subject and that is exactly your reaction and that of the others here to both the proposition in this thread and the question of intelligent design generally. QED

Setanta wrote:

I salute you, George, on this candid admission that you did not come to this thread to discuss the titular subject, but only to snipe at those whom you dislike for doctrinal reasons.

I hope that twist pleased you.

I offered a serious criticism of the general reaction here. The fact is I don't dislike you, Timber or others for doctrinal reasons or any other. You do occasionally irritate me with your bombast, but I have observed that I evidently reciprocate in kind. I do seriously disagree with you, Timber, etc. and regret the collective evasion of the central issue on your parts which pervades this and other threads on the subject.

The opening post to this thread makes two points. ID isn't creationism and ID isn't anti-evolution. I've yet to see any evidence or valid argument that refutes my positon. Most of the responses consist of insults.

I am neither self-righteous nor angry - only disappointed that discussions on this subject so frequently degenerate to shrill name-calling, indignation and denial - all while missing the rather obvious central question.