Intelligent Design is not creationism

Both rotten apples, but we don't have to go into that.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Quote:

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 "Of Pandas and People"

2) The Wedge Strategy

When I claim that ID isn't creationism I'm referring to the concept of ID not the ID movement. Not that I think the ID movement is creationist. I'm just not going to spent time defending it. Neither of your points above even touches the concept of ID. Even if the ID movement sprang out of young earth creationism (which it didn't) it is certainly not that now. The concept of ID goes back at least as far as the ancient Greek philosophers. Most ID proponents like myself have never read the "Pandas" book. We started out reading Behe and Dembski. There is not a hint of creationism in any of the ID books I've read.

According to Dembski, ID begins - with a seemingly innocuous question:

Quote:

Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

As one ID theorist puts it:

Quote:

The first thing to note about the question is that you don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don't even have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it.

The question is a good one, as it stems from the fact that certain things do exist in our reality only because they were brought into existence by an intelligent cause. If human beings did not exist, for example, Mount Rushmore would not exist. Thus, Mount Rushmore's existence is dependent on intelligent causation. So one begins to wonder if there are other aspects of our reality that are likewise dependent on intelligent causation. If so, can we detect them? If so, just how reliable is our detection?

That is ID in a nutshell. Nothing there about a supernatural entity. Nothing about a young earth. Nothing about a worldwide flood. Nothing about the fixity of species. No rejection of common descent. Nothing anti-evolution. Just two basic assumptions:

· Intelligent causes exist

· These causes can be empirically detected

This is what the ID concept is and it's not affected by the "Pandas" book, or The Wedge Strategy or the Dover decision.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

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.

You may be dismayed to find this, but courts are charged with making findings of fact as well as of law.

I'm sure this won't depress you too much, though, as you have already dispalyed a wonderful ability to ignore anything which does not comfortably fit with the way you insist the world be seen.

0 Replies

Quote:

As long as you recognise that 'nor is it science' you can have your ID-creationism distinction.

But if it's not creationism and it's not anti-evolution then what exactly disqualifies it from being science?

0 Replies

Quote:

You may be dismayed to find this, but courts are charged with making findings of fact as well as of law.

Sure but that doesn't mean their decisions are always correct. The court in this case was clearly wrong. And you would be saying the same thing if the court had ruled in favor of ID.

0 Replies

Yes, i would be saying that. Courts are charged with making findings of fact and of law. Dembski and Behe were questioned on the stand, and admitted that the creationist position found unacceptable by the Supremes in the 1987 decision was simply dressed up anew with the ID imprimatur, and presented as something new.

That is the most damning piece of evidence which lead the court to make a finding of fact that ID and creationism are one and the same. Your simple bald contention that the court is "clearly wrong" is without foundation, and a marvelous example of hiding one's head in the sand.

0 Replies

If, as is Teleo's position, that the court was wrong in its decision re: Kitzmiller,
"A wrong decision is the first step to a successful appeal".

A funny thing about the "wedgies". They are trying to rapidly disassociate themselves from their own bedrock movement and to try to (, like within the last 5 months) somehow
reconnect with science by proposing that "the search for design" is a valid subdiscipline rather than merely a fervent wish of the faithful.

0 Replies

The patchwork quilt design of the Earth and the Universe -- Jeez, God is a little old lady in Iowa!

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

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?

See the problem is that I know most ID-ists are Christians in the Science field seeking something rational to draw in people to Christianity. I go to an Engineering schol and this is what I see. You may make the case that they are not the same, but I have several people here (believers) that are trying to convince me of the oppostite by the same means: citing various people etc.

*eats fish sandwich*

0 Replies

Are the sammiches good?

Are there any cold drinks?

0 Replies

They say "beviges" in Rolla.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
As long as you recognise that 'nor is it science' you can have your ID-creationism distinction.

But if it's not creationism and it's not anti-evolution then what exactly disqualifies it from being science?

The complete lack of any scientific support.
The failure to do any testing.
The lack of any published peer review findings.
The inability of its proponents to clarify it in any scientific fashion.

The simple fact that it doesn't meet any of the criteria of the scientific method disqualifies it as science. It isn't the best possible explanation for observations.

The list is pretty long why it isn't science. The real question is "what makes it science?" Nothing that I can see does. Science means when questioned about it there must be some support by those proposing it. Which facts support it? What testing supports it? What predictions can you make that prove to be true? Your lack of any scientific support points rather strongly to it not being science.

The ID argument is no stronger than arguing that all life forms come from elephant dung. The claim is easy to make. The support to back it up is non existent when really examined. Because flies come from elephant dung isn't proof that the dung created the flies any more than the idea that because a creature is complicated, it proves it was designed.

The real problem with ID is it is a proposal based on a requirement that everything has to be orderly. There is no such requirement. It is a trick that humans play on themselves to give meaning where there is none. Casinos love people that require order where there is none. It means those people will walk in with can't lose schemes that are destined to lose.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

That is ID in a nutshell. Nothing there about a supernatural entity. Nothing about a young earth. Nothing about a worldwide flood. Nothing about the fixity of species. No rejection of common descent. Nothing anti-evolution. Just two basic assumptions:

· Intelligent causes exist

· These causes can be empirically detected

This is what the ID concept is and it's not affected by the "Pandas" book, or The Wedge Strategy or the Dover decision.

There is no way to empirically test for an intelligent cause.

I could posit that water can be turned into wine or lead could turn into gold. That doesn't make it a valid theory. I have to have some evidence of it happening before it becomes in some way scientific. I wouldn't propose teaching that lead and gold are the same element on the periodic table? Would you?

There is ZERO evidence of any intelligence guiding evolution. There is no way to test for it that comes out any better than chance. If I rolled three sevens in a row. Does that mean I designed the outcome? I wanted the results to be sevens but it was as likely to come out 3 sevens in a row if I wanted it to be 3 elevens in a row. Taking an outcome that is random and applying a design to it doesn't prove it was designed. You have to compare it to a purely random outcome to be sure.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The real problem with ID is it is a proposal based on a requirement that everything has to be orderly. There is no such requirement. It is a trick that humans play on themselves to give meaning where there is none. Casinos love people that require order where there is none. It means those people will walk in with can't lose schemes that are destined to lose.

And there you have religion in a nutshell - the losers keep the house afloat, and a steady supply of losers is assured - so long as the house can see to it the rubes don't tip to the scam.

0 Replies

Teleologist said:

Quote:

But if ID is not creationism and it's not anti-evolution then what exactly disqualifies it from being science?

parados said:

Quote:

The complete lack of any scientific support.
The failure to do any testing.
The lack of any published peer review findings.
The inability of its proponents to clarify it in any scientific fashion.

All of the above is based on your mistaken notion that ID is creationism and ID is anti-evolution. We are in one vicious circle here. Of couse ID lacks scientific support if it's creationism. It certainly can't be tested if it invokes the supernatural. Why would any science journal peer review something that is nothing more than religious dogma? How can ID be clarified in a scientific fashion when it denies all the data supporting evolution? If all your preconceptions about ID were true then I would agree it's not science. But your preconceptions are wrong.

0 Replies

Who's on First?

0 Replies

Quote:

There is no way to empirically test for an intelligent cause.

I would agree there is no razzle-dazzle magic bullet test that proves ID. But why expect such a test? Science has provided no methodology that can distinguish between design and non-design in an experimentally
testable fashion. Perhaps you can enlighten me about the tests you use to distinguish between design and blind watchmaking. Or do you actually infer blind watchmaking without any tests??

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

All of the above is based on your mistaken notion that ID is creationism and ID is anti-evolution. We are in one vicious circle here. Of couse ID lacks scientific support if it's creationism. It certainly can't be tested if it invokes the supernatural. Why would any science journal peer review something that is nothing more than religious dogma? How can ID be clarified in a scientific fashion when it denies all the data supporting evolution? If all your preconceptions about ID were true then I would agree it's not science. But your preconceptions are wrong.

And not a single mention of any science to support it.

It isn't my mistaken notion at all. It is your mistaken notion that something is science without any science to support it. It might be science. If so, provide the supporting evidence. Without supporting evidence then it is nothing more than speculation. Speculation doesn't make it science. My preconceptions have nothing to do with it. Yours do however. Science requires supporting evidence BEFORE you can claim it is science. Failure to provide that supporting evidence points to it NOT being science. Continued failure to provide any evidence starts to PROVE it isn't science.

If it denies all the facts supporting evolution then it can't be science because science MUST provide an answer for all the observed facts. If it fails to address the observed facts then it isn't science.

Tell us how ID supports the mutation of genes. Why are most mutations harmful if there is an intelligent designer? Is the designer not that intelligent?

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Quote:
There is no way to empirically test for an intelligent cause.

I would agree there is no razzle-dazzle magic bullet test that proves ID. But why expect such a test? Science has provided no methodology that can distinguish between design and non-design in an experimentally
testable fashion. Perhaps you can enlighten me about the tests you use to distinguish between design and blind watchmaking. Or do you actually infer blind watchmaking without any tests??

ID is science.
Science requires that an hypothesis be tested with the scientific method.
ID can't be tested because science provides no methodology.

Thank you Tele, you just proved why ID isn't science. It can't be tested by the scientific method. Because it can't be tested by the scientific method it can't be science. How much more clear can it be?

design vs blind watch making? - It is tested all the time. It's called statistics. What are the odds of something occurring randomly vs controlled. Random mutations occur. Most are harmful. Why are so many harmful if there is an intelligent designer? Why do similar mutations occur if they are known to be harmful by this intelligent designer? Statistics says most mutations will be harmful. Statistics says that some mutations will be common and will repeat. (It's called genetics.) Why do statistics predict the genetic outcome of a population's offspring if there is an intelligent designer?

0 Replies

teleo say

Quote:

Perhaps you can enlighten me about the tests you use to distinguish between design and blind watchmaking. Or do you actually infer blind watchmaking without any tests??

. I think it were Chumly that reminded you that , and I quote"This is your thread skippy"

We should wait and see how the IDers, actively distancing themselves from any (apparent) religious ties, will come up with their next incarnation. Your arguments are sufficiently depooped. Although you are loudly claiming that IDers arent a religious sort, their history belies this assertion.

Science has NOT busied itself with a search for "design". If thats what you want, you should join with the ressurected IDers in their new ID RESEARCH links. They are now establishing a search for evidence of design.
I say, that if one wishes to take on a ridiculous position, one should aim as high above rational critique as possible. While many thesitic evolutionists discuss the possibility of a "designer", they dont make it their lifes work. Unlike the true IDers like Dembski, it surrounds all his wok, and by doing so, relegates anything he does to the level of the "search for Noahs Ark, or the search for the extraterrestrials responsible for the Nazca Lines.

I predict that this entire new tack by the IDers will, be a further intrusion into our public schools,as they "test" the bouindaries of our Constitution by successive secularization.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know