Intelligent Design is not creationism

I have little interest in a distinction between ID and creationism. If one wants to find or make one that is OK by me, but I just don't see it as particularly meaningful, unless one wishes to speculate on meaning behind the laws of physics themselves. I have not followed the legal cases under diuscussion and I am neither aware of nor very interested in "wedge strategies" or the writings of those cited. I do note that courts established by various governments are means of establishing facts as they may be deemed admissable under law, and truth as it permitted under that law. They are not, however, the last word in establishing either philosophical or even scientific truth as many in history have discovered.

I do not understand the (false, I believe) notion that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. Conflating these non-overlapping ideas can lead only to confusion and error, from whichever direction one approaches it. Evolution has withstood all the scientific tests of more than a century of investigation. There is no reason or basis on which to doubt or fault its basic principles. We may well find that, at the genetic-molecular level, the driving processes are not truly random in the sense that some notable biologists have asserted. However, even this uncertain outcome, would not significantly alter the descriptive or predictive merits of the theory.

How it all began is a different matter, and many who argue in defense of both evolution and science, make the error of assuming no truth outside of human science can possibly exist. Here is an example;

parados wrote:

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?.

The truth is that there is no scientific basis whatever to posit any theory for the origin of the material world, whose evolution, processes and properties are indeed the stuff of science. The absence of a compelling scientific proof for any particular theory of origin does not constitute proof that it is false. Pointing out the absence of scientific proof for a particular belief about origins does not constitute an answer to the question of where it all came from. This philpsophic question remains open.

It seems to me that this dispute has brought the worst elements of both those with scientific and spiritual preoccupations to bear on the relatively simple question of what should be taught as science in our schools.

0 Replies

neat sig line george

0 Replies

It's Yeats. Old William Butler did a lot of good stuff.

BTW, How was your trip??

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

You are not listening. ID is not anti-evolution. Unless you get that bogus notion out of your head we are going to keep talking past each other.

Quote:

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?

Intelligent design doesn't refer to optimal design. Your argument might pose a problem for creationism but not for ID. ID doesn't posit an omnipotent designer or a designer that continuously and regularly intervenes in the biotic world. ID can be summed up as "design followed by evolution". Such a process isn't going to unfold perfectly but its managed to turn microbes into magpies, maple trees and musicians.

0 Replies

I actually accomplished alot in the week I was on site. Weve been doing sampling and seismic lines. Ill be back down for a while in May and then itll be too cold for a major field program.

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 small matter of the scientific method.

0 Replies

Quote:

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?

If it is true that science has no way to distinguish something designed from something not designed then this is just as much a problem for the blind watchmaker hypothesis as it is for ID. One is just the flip side of the other. Therefore, the inference of blind watchmaking in science cannot be tested against a null hypothesis. Thus, if someone says, "X is the result of blind watchmaking," we need to remember that such a claim was made without an empirically validated criterion for differentiating aspects of biotic reality that may have originated via blind watchmaking from those that may have been created by an intelligence. This means blind watchmaking hypotheses are circular accounts with no way to confirm they are true or even approximate truth.

0 Replies

Quote:

ID can be summed up as "design followed by evolution".

I've been saying this for quite a while. Most IDers are evolutionists.

I'm not, as you can tell. But the fact is that most are theistic evolutionists. About 40% of scientists surveyed fit this category as well, according to this article on a pro-evolution website.
see http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

· 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.

As I said, the facts recorded in Kitzmiller v. Dover made me skeptical against ID, and I only mentioned them to give you an idea of how good your evidence of its merits will have to be to persuade me.

So, what's your evidence?

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

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?

One thing is the intelligent cause of the Mount Rushmore sculpture, and that its cause can be empirically detected.

Another thing is the supposed intelligent cause of life, or the universe for that matter, and that its supposed cause can be empirically detected.

0 Replies

Trying to mount an entire campaign based upon the statement that "Creationism and ID arent the same" misses the point. As Thomas has layed out, the Dover case was the result of the imposition of a specific world view on a science curriculum that was (supposed to be ) based upon reason, empirical data, and the scientific method.
Whether the IDers want to abandon the ship of their roots is kijnd of funny , especially sin:ce theyve lost Dover.

The bag of goodies that the IDers brought to the table was the entire "wedge document".They had openly professed, in this manifesto, that their strategy was to create a big tent, beneath which, all the Creationists could assemble and concentrate on the enemy(science). At that time (post Edwards v Aguillard), they began tweaking their own internal structures, and associations:

They renamed their propaganda ministry from "The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture" to a less religious name

They removed the logo of Michelangelos "Hand of God" to a DNA strand. (The visual of this is obvious)

Their original text, compiled by "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics" was "Of Pandas and People" . In that one they redacted any mention of Creation or Creationism and , merely substituted "Intelligent Design"

All of this has , of course, made the scientific community a little skeptical as the IDers loudly professed (as Teleo is doing) that ID is silent upon any relationship with a deity.

However, their leadership, in quiet moments, has left a major spoor trail that refutes all that they say in public.

THe Wedge Document starts off with

"Intelligent Design "theory" promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with science consonant with Christian(and) theistic convictions"

or howbout Phil Johnson

''Our strategy has been to change the subject... so we can get the issue if ID, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world, and into the schools" Jan 2003.

No matter how the IDers claim that they are a movement built upon science and subject to its laws, I say, lets just look at your roots. Nothing has really changed except the IDers spend a great deal of time trying to convince us that they ARE what they say they are.

I fer one aint buyin that horzshidt.

0 Replies

It's the old foot-in-the-door salesman's technique to sell you that over-priced vacuum cleaner, or, in this case, to sell you a Bible. I've got three including one in more-or-less plain English. It's also the wolf in sheep's clothing strategy and no matter if one does believe ID is not Creationism, they haven't examined how those who want something taught in science classes that isn't science are desperate. They still feel threatened by evolution and cosmology. They don't believe either is an inspiration to live a full, rich life -- that only Christianity has the answers. Peddling their ideas is really just preaching because they personally feel threatened that Christianity is loosing ground. Please, continue to believe what you want to believe. You won't find any criticism regarding that from me. But try to sell me on a bogus product such as ID and I will balk.

0 Replies

I personally fear that rationality and logic is losing ground to religious fanaticism, and don't see religious fanaticism losing any ground.

0 Replies

Religious fundamentalism and, at it's coattails religious fanatacism, has gained ground over the past thirty years. It's also revealing it's feet of clay to those rational human beings who don't want the overpriced, inefficient vacuum cleaner. Throwing out ID as an answer isn't much different than the same salesman throwing dirty through the door onto one's carpet so he can demonstrate his product. Of course, it's a kind of dirt that is easily picked up by the worst vacuum cleaner. ID is simply a Madison Avenue type of marketing, more bequiling to some scientific minds than Creationism. But it's being prompted by those in fear that Christianity is loosing credibility and loosing ground as a movement.

It's not fooling rational legal minds -- it will not end up being taught in public schools. In reverse, evolution is now being taught in some private theological universities but without the tacked on ID. People actually have the free will to decide for themselves. What's so hard to understand about that concept?

0 Replies

(What the motivation actually is that these people are control freaks and want a sugar coated version of Christianity taught in public schools and their fear has lead to all sorts of deluded manifestations).

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I have little interest in a distinction between ID and creationism. If one wants to find or make one that is OK by me, but I just don't see it as particularly meaningful, unless one wishes to speculate on meaning behind the laws of physics themselves. I have not followed the legal cases under diuscussion and I am neither aware of nor very interested in "wedge strategies" or the writings of those cited. I do note that courts established by various governments are means of establishing facts as they may be deemed admissable under law, and truth as it permitted under that law. They are not, however, the last word in establishing either philosophical or even scientific truth as many in history have discovered.

I do not understand the (false, I believe) notion that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. Conflating these non-overlapping ideas can lead only to confusion and error, from whichever direction one approaches it. Evolution has withstood all the scientific tests of more than a century of investigation. There is no reason or basis on which to doubt or fault its basic principles. We may well find that, at the genetic-molecular level, the driving processes are not truly random in the sense that some notable biologists have asserted. However, even this uncertain outcome, would not significantly alter the descriptive or predictive merits of the theory.

How it all began is a different matter, and many who argue in defense of both evolution and science, make the error of assuming no truth outside of human science can possibly exist. Here is an example;

parados wrote:

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?.

The truth is that there is no scientific basis whatever to posit any theory for the origin of the material world, whose evolution, processes and properties are indeed the stuff of science. The absence of a compelling scientific proof for any particular theory of origin does not constitute proof that it is false. Pointing out the absence of scientific proof for a particular belief about origins does not constitute an answer to the question of where it all came from. This philpsophic question remains open.

It seems to me that this dispute has brought the worst elements of both those with scientific and spiritual preoccupations to bear on the relatively simple question of what should be taught as science in our schools.

That's nice george. The statement was that ID is science. Without science to back it up then it isn't science. It is a philosphy to claim a creator is directing evolution. I have no problem with that philosophy. I have a problem with calling it science.

Perhaps the problems lies not in others george, but in yourself. Try reading something before you claim it means something it doesn't. I never said no truths were outside science.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

In reverse, evolution is now being taught in some private theological universities but without the tacked on ID. People actually have the free will to decide for themselves. What's so hard to understand about that concept?

That was the very concept behind including ID in the public school curricula -- ID & evolution both taught as theory. Why do evolutionists so fear the free will of 15/18-year-olds who have been taught to examine and question those gaping holes in both theories?

Using your analogy, could it be the Hoover Co. (currently holding the neighborhood monopoly) fears the housewife's decision once she examines, questions, and compares the Bissell salesman's product?

0 Replies

It's not taught as theory in these schools, nor is ID taught as a theory in these schools. It's a bonefide science class without reference to ID.

The gaping holes are not present in evolution but there is a gigantic gaping hole in ID -- it requires pure faith that it exists as there is no empirical evidence. It is not demonstrable.

Evolution is demonstrable. If you don't know that, you have not studied it.

The neighborhood vacuum cleaner salesman has dissapeared in this area so it wasn't exactly the best example (except for a very funny "I Love Lucy" episode). But, yes, the "Hoover salesman" (used as a metaphor for ID salesman) is fearful that once someone examines the Bissell (evolution), their "theory" will fall apart like fabric made out of cheese.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I have little interest in a distinction between ID and creationism.

Evidently, then, the creator of this thread has different interests than you, as shown by the title of his thread.

georgeob1 wrote:

If one wants to find or make one that is OK by me, but I just don't see it as particularly meaningful, unless one wishes to speculate on meaning behind the laws of physics themselves.

I don't find any important distinctions either. Everything I've heard about them tells me they're both junk science. But the creator of this thread disagrees with that, too.

georgeob1 wrote:

[C]ourts established by various governments are means of establishing facts as they may be deemed admissable under law, and truth as it permitted under that law. They are not, however, the last word in establishing either philosophical or even scientific truth as many in history have discovered.

If you and I ever go hiking together in Sequoia National Park, and if we encounter a Grizzly Bear on our hike, I don't have to outrun the Grizzly -- I only have to outrun you. Likewise, our facts don't have to be perfect -- they only have to be better than those the other side offers. So far, teleologist's facts don't begin to approach the trustworthiness of a federal trial in which leading ID proponents made their case, and ended up getting laughed out of court -- by a Republican judge whom G.W. Bush appointed. To repeat, I'm not claiming that is proof of our position. But is evidence -- much better evidence than teleologist offered so far.

georgeob1 wrote:

We may well find that, at the genetic-molecular level, the driving processes are not truly random in the sense that some notable biologists have asserted. However, even this uncertain outcome, would not significantly alter the descriptive or predictive merits of the theory.

Please show me where a notable Biologist claims that the driving process of Darwinian evolution is random at the genetic-molecular level. Just as on every other level, the driving force is selection through the environment, and that's not a random process.

georgeob1 wrote:

How it all began is a different matter, and many who argue in defense of both evolution and science, make the error of assuming no truth outside of human science can possibly exist. Here is an example;

parados wrote:

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?.

Your disagreement is with teleologist, not parados. Teleologist made the claims that (1) ID theory postulates an intelligent, possibly natural designer, and (2) that ID is empirically testable. Given those claims, it is perfectly fair of parados to ask what evidence the tests have turned up.

0 Replies

Give him a break, Thomas, as I think he was working on his third bloody mary.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know