Intelligent Design is not creationism

Simple resolve:

Someone identify themselves as a Creationist, and someone else identify themselves as a ID-ist. Then you two discuss your diferences, and then for those of us on the outside, we can observe the difference.

Until then, ID is still the gateway drug to Creationism as far as I'm concerned.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Simple resolve:

Someone identify themselves as a Creationist, and someone else identify themselves as a ID-ist. Then you two discuss your diferences, and then for those of us on the outside, we can observe the difference.

Until then, ID is still the gateway drug to Creationism as far as I'm concerned.

Go ahead and make yourself comfortable; a fish sandwich lunch will be served as soon as the bread arrives.

0 Replies

Quote:

Teleologist, what part of "ID-iocy and Creationism have been determned and held in a court of law to be one and the same" gives you difficulty?

I reject the court's ruling. The judge used the same flawed reasoning that the ID critics on this board use. Flawed reasoning is flawed reasoning even if it comes from a judge. Are you telling me that if the court ruled that ID is science that you would agree that ID is science?

0 Replies

Quote:

Until then, ID is still the gateway drug to Creationism as far as I'm concerned.

I just showed you seven major differences between ID and creationism. What more do you want?

0 Replies

Your version? Or the version they attempted to foist off on the courts? Everyone is a theologist here but of the armchair variety. You can reject the courts ruling all day long but that doesn't make them wrong. (The judge simply recognized what they were up to).

0 Replies

Teleologist, the flawed reasoning is not on the part of the court. In point of fact, as demonstrated by among other means, evidence drawn directly from the sworn testimony of Behe, Dembski, Minnich, et al, by publications and other documents verified and confirmed as originating with or appearing under the imprimatur and nihil obstat of The Creation Institute, by the sworn testimony of witnesses, corroborated and verified through electronic recordings of the events at testimony, and by sworn affidavit and deposition that the 2 were under the law one and the same, that they/it falsely claim status as science, and that consequently the teaching of ID-iocy as science is unconstitutional. To hypothecate the court might have found otherwise is afoundational and futile, and precisely is why The Creation Institute backed away from the case, why ID-iocy lost, and why there has been and will be no appeal.

I suspect similar maneuvers will be attempted by ID-iots elsewhere, and I expect that in every such event the outcome will be not dissimilar. Facts are facts, law is law, and apart from the 1st Amendment, ID-iocy is and can be butressed by no law under the US Constitution.

0 Replies

Quote:

As noted severally in previous posts, the cognates of the religious "Creator" concept were willfully, knowingly, and mendaciously replaced in Pandas with cognates of the "Intelligent Design" concept, which concept was intelligently, if dishonestly, designed to obscure the religionist foundation of ID-iocy.

Yes, that's the flawed interpretation of what happened and there is another side to the story but I already provided three quotes from that 14 year old outdated book that clearly states that ID theory doesn't posit a supernatural creator. Can you cite anything else that backs up your claim of dishonesty in this regard? If not, your argument is extremely weak.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Are you telling me that if the court ruled that ID is science that you would agree that ID is science?

What difference does it make what might have happened, the fact of the matter is what did happen, and why it happened. You might as well have asked: what if the sun had extinguished, and the case was deferred to another dimension.

0 Replies

Quote:

Your version? Or the version they attempted to foist off on the courts? Everyone is a theologist here but of the armchair variety. You can reject the courts ruling all day long but that doesn't make them wrong. (The judge simply recognized what they were up to).

Who are the "they" you are referring to? It certainly wasn't the Discovery Institute as they were against the Dover policy from the beginning. Those pushing the policy were creationists on the Dover school board.

0 Replies

No, I'm asking for your version. Your version would be interesting indeed. How many definitions of ID are there? As many who want to believe in it.

0 Replies

Quote:

What difference does it make what might have happened, the fact of the matter is what did happen, and why it happened.

So you think judges are qualified to determine what is science? The only reason the ID critics are happy about this situation is because it went their way. If the court had ruled ID to be science the ID critics would be yelling about judges not being authorities on science. No way would they have accepted the court's ruling as having any merit.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

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 agree with Setanta that since this is your claim, it's your job to give evidence for it, not our job to give evidence against it. But let me give you two pieces of evidence against your position just so you get an idea of how good your evidence will have to be.

1) The revision history of Dembski's Of Pandas and People This year's decision in Kitzmiller records some interesting facts about the relation between creationism, ID on the other hand, and particularly the reference book on ID, Of Pandas and People. (PDF here),

"[i]Pandas[/i] went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutesFTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and"creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas." I have nothing to add to this, except to say that this makes me very skeptical of your claim that ID is not creationism.

2) The Wedge Strategy The Discovery Institute, arguably the chief proponent of Intelligent Design Theory, published a document called The wedge strategy back in the days when it still called itself "The center for the renewal of science and culture." The document outlines a strategy for achieving two governing goals:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies."
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."

Here is what the document has to say about the role of ID:

"The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Note the language here: the purpose is "to replace", not "to complement", "with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God." Language like this makes me very skeptical of your claim that ID is not anti-evolution.

I hope this helps explain why you have a lot of persuading to do. And with that, I'm looking forward to any evidence you may have for your claim.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
As noted severally in previous posts, the cognates of the religious "Creator" concept were willfully, knowingly, and mendaciously replaced in Pandas with cognates of the "Intelligent Design" concept, which concept was intelligently, if dishonestly, designed to obscure the religionist foundation of ID-iocy.

Yes, that's the flawed interpretation of what happened and there is another side to the story but I already provided three quotes from that 14 year old outdated book that clearly states that ID theory doesn't posit a supernatural creator. Can you cite anything else that backs up your claim of dishonesty in this regard? If not, your argument is extremely weak.

If there is no supernatural creator then kindly point to the natural creator. It should be easy to point to since it is not supernatural. Science deals with the natural world.

What scientific evidence exists of this natural creator? What tests have been done to show that this natural creator exists? How can I test for this creator? Where can I find the peer reviewed articles that support there is a natural creator?

Judges don't decide what is science. The scientific method decides what meets the criteria of science. So.. Provide evidence of this natural creator as requried by the scientific method. Failure to do so only shows that it isn't science.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

So you think judges are qualified to determine what is science?

Whether or not they are qualified to determine what is science, they are certainly qualified to record and assess facts. It is the facts recorded in Kitzmiller that condemn ID and its proponents, not the opinions the judge may hold about what is science and what is not.

0 Replies

Quote:

Teleologist, the flawed reasoning is not on the part of the court. In point of fact, as demonstrated by among other means, evidence drawn directly from the sworn testimony of Behe, Dembski, Minnich, et al..

Nonsense. I provided a bunch of quotes from Behe and Dembski that clearly state that ID theory doesn't posit a supernatural creator. The court discounted this and instead focused on the theological beliefs of Behe and Dembski which is entirely irrelevant to the issue of what ID theory is. Do Behe and Dembski have to be atheists in order to prove ID theory isn't religious?

0 Replies

Quote:

It is the facts recorded in Kitzmiller that condemn ID and its proponents, not the opinions the judge may hold about what is science and what is not.

Well, I've yet to hear one fact that establishes ID is creationism.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Well, I've yet to hear one fact that establishes ID is creationism.

This is disingenuous twice over. (1) As I point out in the thread before the one you quoted, the revision history of Pandas contains facts that show how ID consists of creationism and a name change. (2) As I pointed out in the post before the one you quoted, it is your thesis that ID is not creationism. That makes it your job to prove it, not our job to refute it.

(Correction: Two posts ago, I misattributed the authorship of Pandas: Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis wrote that book, not Dembski.)

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
As noted severally in previous posts, the cognates of the religious "Creator" concept were willfully, knowingly, and mendaciously replaced in Pandas with cognates of the "Intelligent Design" concept, which concept was intelligently, if dishonestly, designed to obscure the religionist foundation of ID-iocy.

Yes, that's the flawed interpretation of what happened and there is another side to the story but I already provided three quotes from that 14 year old outdated book that clearly states that ID theory doesn't posit a supernatural creator. Can you cite anything else that backs up your claim of dishonesty in this regard? If not, your argument is extremely weak.

Teleologist, I submit once more the "flawed interpretation" is not the court's, and that the sources you cite, in particular Pandas have been impeached; not only do they not provide support for your proposition on their face, but by the proven fact of their evasive-purpose driven, willful, knowing, and calculated manipulation they cannot do so. It was been demonstrated and found under law that Pandas was revised to avoid running afoul of previous US Supreme Court decisions, and further that the manipulative, deceitful manipulations were blatantly, egregiously obvious even to the most disinterested, uninformed observer. Pandas' claim to refute the proposition ID-iocy and Creationism be the same is and has been found under law to be contrary to established, uncontested fact - in otherwords, any such claim of refutation is an untruth, a lie. That's the law, under The US Constitution and by multiply echoed and reaffirmed legislative law and even the oldest of common law tradition as well, like it or not. Neither a lie nor the thereto pertinent or therefrom derived testmony of a proven liar provide support or validation of any proposition. The lie has been proven, the liars exposed, all by, on and of their own merits and presentments.

It is not "my" argument that ID-iocy and Creationism be the same, and be not science but religion, it is the argument of law, and of science, considered, determined, and held in view of and in congruence with established fact. It is established fact. Of course, established fact is known to present difficulty to those seeking to endorse and/or validate the ID-iot proposition and/or any of its permutations, antecedents, or ramifications.

Thems the facts.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Teleologist wrote:
Well, I've yet to hear one fact that establishes ID is creationism.

This is disingenuous twice over. (1) As I point out in the thread before the one you quoted, the revision history of Pandas contains facts that show how ID consists of creationism and a name change. (2) As I pointed out in the post before the one you quoted, it is your thesis that ID is not creationism. That makes it your job to prove it, not our job to refute it.

(Correction: Two posts ago, I misattributed the authorship of Pandas: Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis wrote that book, not Dembski.)

Disingenuous several times over, Thomas; that hammer has struck home several times in this discussion, with citations to and quotes from original source material and with cites to and quotes from informed, authoritative commentary pertinent and relevant thereunto. The only response the challenge has met has been an amalgam of avoidance, denial, and repetition.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
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?"

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 position. Most of the responses consist of insults.

As long as you recognise that 'nor is it science' you can have your ID-creationism distinction.
To me though, it seems a little like distinguishing between green apples and red apples...

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know