Thinking Christian Comments
Original Post: John Wise, ID, and Science
I think I have a better understanding of what you mean when you say "ID", but I still don't think it's science. What you're describing is a metaphysical framework for interpreting science. A scientist's metaphysics may guide what they choose to research, but then they perform that research under methodological naturalism. I'm behind that 100%. On the other hand, that's not what I hear from other people using the term. I can deal with that, but just wanted to point it out.
I don't know enough of the innerworkings of the ID movement to even begin to have an opinion on how close your definition of it matches theirs (originally, or now). I know yours doesn't match the majority of its detractors. Sometimes we have to cut a term loose when it's been twisted too far. I can compare it to the original meaning of the word 'hacker'. When I first encountered it, it refered to a person who liked to figure out how things work, but then the press took the word and twisted it to mean someone who broke into computers. I still use the word sometimes with a qualifer among a group whom I know realize it's original meaning, but I don't expect that of the public at large. Perhaps you need to find another term to describe what you mean by ID, or a qualifer for it.
Boy, you're right about how terms get twisted. I don't know how we could get a new one started, though it would be nice if we did.
Morning, Tom--
Wise also jumps on the history of Of Pandas and People, following it to a false conclusion. He assumes that because it previously used the term creation where now it says Intelligent Design, that ID and creationism are synonymous. Nonsense. The way one determines whether words are synonyms is by examining what they mean. If they mean the same thing, they are synonyms.
"If they mean the same thing, they are synonyms." I agree:
"Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands."--Of Pandas and People, p. 22 (early draft)
“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.”--Of Pandas and People, p. 99, current version
Like you said, "If they mean the same thing, they are synonyms." How much clearer does it have to be said?
Well, first of all I don't agree with either as a definition of ID. I don't have the full context so I'm not going to run any further with that complaint. The better definition is that is a scientific and philosophical research program that proposes that some features are better explained by reference to a designing intelligence than by unguided natural processes.
Secondly, read my post. I have considerably more complete definitions of Creationism there. Quote-mining without context doesn't get you anywhere--isn't that what evolutions complain ID does? Don't you do it either, okay?
There are a number of scientific and legal problems associated with Creationism. ID, properly defined, doesn't exhibit those problems. When ID gets called creationism, it's an attempt to tar ID with those scientific and legal stigmas--but none of them actually apply to ID. When it's done by someone who ought to know what ID really is, it comes off looking--to those who know the truth, at least--like nothing but a cheap rhetorical trick. Which it probably is.
Hi Tom--
Well, first of all I don't agree with either as a definition of ID.
But Tom, it's not a question of whether you agree or disagree with the definition of Pandas. You don't speak authoritatively for the ID movement. Of Pandas and People does. It's the one the School Board in Dover tried to sneak 60 copies of into the school library. And the simple fact is that their definitions of ID and creationism are virtually identical, which means they have met your standard that "If they mean the same thing, they are synonyms." [Although technically, they can also be closely related, not always identical].
Secondly, read my post. I have considerably more complete definitions of Creationism there. Quote-mining without context doesn't get you anywhere--isn't that what evolutions (sic) complain ID does? Don't you do it either, okay?
Quote mining is taking a snippet of a quote out of its surrounding context for the purpose of misrepresenting the article you're citing. I quoted an entire paragraph.
However, the paragraph's topic was a bit of a side trip. Your main theme seemed to be defending the idea of ID as an actual science:
At the risk of redundancy with MikeGene, I find I must respond to a May 4 article by Dr. John Wise at SMU.
The title of his article shows what is of most concern to him, and therefore to us: "Intelligent Design is Not Science: Why This Matters." One has to wonder what strong dividing wall is built between philosophy and science in his mind.... Intelligent Design is not only science; it includes important philosophical components, both before and after its research, as it were.
Sandwiched between those two is a genuine scientific program. It seeks to identify and classify biological information, and to explore whether such information and certain complex structures and functions could plausibly have developed by unguided natural processes. It also explores challenges raised against evolutionary theory. This is a matter of science.
Yes, ID is involved with a challenge to Philosophical Naturalism; but even that challenge is by no means dependent on the science of Intelligent Design.
[Emphasis mine]
The only problem with all this is that you'd better clue-up your fellow crea.. I mean ID supporter MikeGene. He's of the apparently mistaken opinion that--
Keep in mind that I agree ID is not science and have said so for years, thus I am not trying to critique Wise in order to defend some “ID is science” position. His problem is that he simply doesn’t understand the basic logic of ID.[Emphasis mine]
So, let's see now. You say your own Campus Crusades is wrong about ID (why do you still link to them, then?), you say 'Of Pandas and People' is wrong about ID, and now you're saying MikeGene--one of your own--is wrong about ID not being science. Are you really sure they're the ones that have it wrong?
But Tom, it's not a question of whether you agree or disagree with the definition of Pandas. You don't speak authoritatively for the ID movement. Of Pandas and People does. It's the one the School Board in Dover tried to sneak 60 copies of into the school library.
ROFL! Pardon me, but that's the best laugh I've had all day.
I don't speak authoritatively for ID, but neither does the Dover school board. Why don't you look up some authoritative definitions at the Discovery Institute?
Yes, I do disagree with MikeGene in some ways. There's diversity among the ID community.
But Ron, this business of "my own Campus Crusades" has been discussed so often that I'm getting really, really tired of it. Why won't you listen????? I'm sure you can read, if you just would! (For the sake of others who have not been part of this discussion, please just relax. I've already explained all this to Ron, and he just keeps beating on it with no acknowledgment of my explanations or answers. He just refuses to get it. That's all you need to know. Email me if you want supporting links to verify this.)
In the spirit of reasonable discourse, Ron, I'm asking you to lay off that topic. You see, we had the discussion once, and the explanations were made, and you didn't pay attention to them then. Since you didn't do that, you are not showing an interest in discourse. You're trying to tie up the discussion; you're baiting me. I'm not going to go there with you. Yes, you got me annoyed with it this time. If that was your objective, you accomplished it; and if that is your objective, that's not what this blog is for. We're here to discuss.
I'll make the other correction you requested, Ron.
it's not a question of whether you agree or disagree with the definition of Pandas. You don't speak authoritatively for the ID movement. Of Pandas and People does.
Hi Ron,
This comment seems very short sighted. You might be interested in a poll that Mike Gene performed on telicthoughts.com that addressed the relevance of Pandas for the ID supporters that comment on TT.
It goes well against this bold claim.
Thanks, Gatsby.
I looked it up--that link is http://telicthoughts.com/panda-results/ .
Morning, Tom--
Me: But Tom, it's not a question of whether you agree or disagree with the definition of Pandas. You don't speak authoritatively for the ID movement. Of Pandas and People does.
You: ROFL! Pardon me, but that's the best laugh I've had all day.
I don't speak authoritatively for ID, but neither does the Dover school board.
First of all, I didn't say the Dover school board speaks authoritatively for the ID movement. I said--quite clearly--that the so-called textbook suppliment Of Pandas and People does. Maybe you just mis-read me. (BTW: The original title of Pandas was Creation Biology in 1983, followed by Biology and Creation in 1986. No, there's no connection between ID and creation, is there?)
Yes, I do disagree with MikeGene in some ways. There's diversity among the ID community.
About some pretty basic things, apparently--you guys can't even agree on whether ID is science or not!
But Ron, this business of "my own Campus Crusades" has been discussed so often that I'm getting really, really tired of it. Why won't you listen????? I'm sure you can read, if you just would!
I'll tell you one thing I can read. I can read that you still link to them. Why do you continue to link to a website that you yourself claim is putting out false information about ID?
I keep bringing up the point, Tom, because you keep evading it. You have repeatedly made the claim that my side 'conflates' creationism and ID out of some malicious desire to--as you put it--
...tar ID with those scientific and legal stigmas
--that creationism has been repeatedly stuck with in the courts.
What you refuse to address--can't imagine why--is: If my side is conflating the two out of dishonesty, then why does your side do it too? Your "explanation" was 'They don't understand the topic as well as you and I do.' So if my side does it out of dishonesty, your side does it out of stupidity?
Tom, the fact is that both sides routinely equate the two because they're for all practical purposes equivalent, regardless of what the Disco Inst. says. Biblical creationism is not precisely the same as Young earth creationism, which is not precisely the same as Old Earth Creationism, but they're all creationism. And so is intelligent design. And that's not just my opinion. That has been established in federal court. The evidence was so convincing that ID is just a sanitized version of creationism that it convinced a judge who is a lifelong republican and churchgoer, appointed to the bench by none other than King George himself!
In the spirit of reasonable discourse, Ron, I'm asking you to lay off that topic. You see, we had the discussion once, and the explanations were made, and you didn't pay attention to them then. Since you didn't do that, you are not showing an interest in discourse. You're trying to tie up the discussion; you're baiting me. I'm not going to go there with you. Yes, you got me annoyed with it this time. If that was your objective, you accomplished it; and if that is your objective, that's not what this blog is for. We're here to discuss.
Fine, then let's discuss. Let's discuss why it is you repeatedly accuse my side of dishonesty in conflating ID and creationism, but get really upset when I point out that your side does it routinely as well.
You see, Tom--It doesn't matter what the DI says ID means. If your own organization conflates the two, that means they consider the two to be equivalent for all practical purposes.
I've given you 2 examples so far. What if I could bring 2 more examples? Or 10? Or 50? What would you say then?
Hi Ron,
From reading over your post I have a question for you. Do you consider Freeman Dyson, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Van Till to be creationists?
Ron,
I'll tell you one thing I can read. I can read that you still link to them. Why do you continue to link to a website that you yourself claim is putting out false information about ID?
See my earlier answer. I have no personal responsibility or authority over that website. It is a cooperative effort of many agencies. Campus Crusade is itself a very large and fairly decentralized organization and I don't know who decided to make that link. In short, I don't link to it, as I already told you. Someone else does, and that someone else has a different and probably much less studied view of the matter. So this is not actually correct as a matter of fact:
You see, Tom--It doesn't matter what the DI says ID means. If your own organization conflates the two, that means they consider the two to be equivalent for all practical purposes.
If you were to look through all of our web pages, you would find page after page after page--thousands of articles on hundreds of topics--and this is the only one where you will find this connection--on a web page managed in cooperation with many other organizations. Our organization doesn't major on ID--the Discovery Institute does.
We do have a part of our organization that works with faculty members and carries on a lively amount of work in the realm of ideas. They don't have an official "organizational line" to offer; but they try to facilitate good thought. Here's a set of resources from Campus Crusade that you ought to look through if you want to observe some of that--it's a search in "LeaderU.com" on the terms intelligent, design, and creationism. Notice, please, that there is thoughtful discussion there, not silly linking of words. Not every person there, or every article there, is in lockstep. That's how it works when people think about things.
You see, your hammering on this seems to me to be more persistence in finding interesting little conspiratorial connections between ID and creationism, when the straightforward approach is to read what ID and creationism leaders say about the matter. You make a great deal of hay out of nothing.
Now, as to whether all versions of creationism are the same, let's explore that a bit. That purported connection only matters if there is something either scientifically or legally wrong with creationism, right? (For if Creationism were legally and scientifically accepted, no one would worry about there being a connection.) And of course there is something legally and scientifically wrong with Young Earth Creationism.
Scientifically, it is off base among virtually all of science in that it looks to the Bible as its final arbiter of scientific knowledge, it says that all of creation tood 6 literal 24-hour days, it says that God is the creator, it insists on a young universe, it holds to a theory of a universal flood (and sees the fossil record as evidence of that flood), and disagrees with the standard Darwinian answer for the development of life.
Legally, it is problematical in that its teaching has been disallowed in the courts, on account of its religious basis.
Intelligent Design shares only one of those scientific features: it disagrees with the standard Darwinian answer. It does not necessarily reject common descent, by the way; just that it came about by means of unguided processes. It partially shares another belief: that naturalism is not sufficient to explain the complexity of life. Some ID theorists, myself included, would say we believe in creation--that God did what has been done. But that is not a part of ID theory as such.
Legally, ID has been deemed to be a religion. That was Judge Jones's decision. That was, in my strong opinion, a mistake. But it's also irrelevant to what's going on in ID, for nobody in any ID leadership is now (or was even then) calling for ID to be taught in public schools. Dover's school board made a serious error, which the Discovery Institute warned them against.
So then, you say that ID=Creationism. What do you want to accomplish with that equation? Do you want to tar ID with all the scientific stigma of creationism? That's wrong and illegitimate, for the scientifically disreputable aspects of Creationism are not in any way a part of ID. So call it creationism if you want--but only if you clearly specify that it does not share the aspects of creationism that science has so roundly rejected! You must do that to be honest.
Or do you want to put ID under the same legal restrictions as creationism? So what? We're not trying to get ID into the schools.
Do you see how your simple conspiratorial equating of words on the basis of their being connected on a page somewhere is inadequate, incomplete, thoughtless, unnuanced? You have to stretch into deep history or into the most under-involved fringes to say as, you do,
Fine, then let's discuss. Let's discuss why it is you repeatedly accuse my side of dishonesty in conflating ID and creationism, but get really upset when I point out that your side does it routinely as well.
Our side only does it routinely if you take the most conspiratorial view of circumstantial evidences. Don't do that, for your own sake. I call on you instead to give this matter a full, careful, reasoned consideration.
Hi Gatsby--
From reading over your post I have a question for you. Do you consider Freeman Dyson, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Van Till to be creationists?
Well, Miller and Collins are Christians, but are also evolution supporters, so I'd have to say no.
Tom--
Let's see if I can get anything posted before haloscan crashes again.
In short, I don't link to it, as I already told you. Someone else does, and that someone else has a different and probably much less studied view of the matter.
This is true only in the sense that the offending page isn't a part of the CCC site itself. Someone else does, but you link to that someone else, so indirectly you do link to them.
Notice, please, that there is thoughtful discussion there, not silly linking of words. Not every person there, or every article there, is in lockstep. That's how it works when people think about things.
Yeah, like "Let's think about how we can palm off creationism onto the general public without getting caught."
Only problem is--you did get caught--at Dover. My side caught you. Of all the expert witnesses for my side in that trial, do you know who the one witness was that your side tried to prevent from being allowed to testify? Barbara Forrest. It seems that they read her book, and knew that her testimony would be enormously damaging in that it would prove that all ID is is an attempt by the religious right to palm off a sanitized version of creationism. And that's exactly what she did. That ID is nothing but old-world creationism stripped of any overt references to the Bible and God is now an official finding of law. It may upset you, but facts are facts--your side got caught. ID is not science, and is creationism--both are established in the federal courts now.
You see, your hammering on this seems to me to be more persistence in finding interesting little conspiratorial connections between ID and creationism, when the straightforward approach is to read what ID and creationism leaders say about the matter. You make a great deal of hay out of nothing.
What I'm trying to do is to correct the disinformation that you dutifully put out for the Discovery Institute.
Legally, ID has been deemed to be a religion. That was Judge Jones's decision. That was, in my strong opinion, a mistake. But it's also irrelevant to what's going on in ID, for nobody in any ID leadership is now (or was even then) calling for ID to be taught in public schools.
Or do you want to put ID under the same legal restrictions as creationism? So what? We're not trying to get ID into the schools.
More Discovery Institute doubletalk:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in a pedagogically appropriate manner.
Secular Purposes for Teaching about Intelligent Design
Overview: Teaching students about intelligent design can serve many genuine secular purposes in the science classroom. This list of reasons to teach intelligent design extends from informing students of competing scientific ideas, to developing critical thinking skills, to ultimately enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.
Both quotes from the DI's own site. It took all of 90 seconds to find those links.
Now tell me again how it is that your side doesn't want ID to be taught in the public schools?
Yeah, like "Let's think about how we can palm off creationism onto the general public without getting caught."
You don't read very well, Ron. I've responded to that one so many times...
The Discovery Institute doesn't want ID teaching to be required in public schools. That answers your final few paragraphs. Obviously, though, if a teacher wants to bring it in, DI won't stand in their way! I'm not chasing down those links, though, so I won't try to guess what the context was.
What Judge Jones said about ID and creationism was just, well, wrong in many aspects. You can make up your little conspiracy theories on trying to sneak creationism in under an ID cloak--when the two theories actually disagree on the points where creationism has been rejected--and you can play with it all you want. Frankly, I think the Dover School Board may have been guilty of just that, and they got caught, as you said. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm saying that ID leaders are not doing that.
But I think we probably just need to agree to disagree. And you can quit harping on the Creation/Evolution Toolbox thing. It's a silly point you're trying to make. It's at least four clicks away from the home page here, and you can get an awful lot of places on the web in four clicks.
Well, Miller and Collins are Christians, but are also evolution supporters, so I'd have to say no.
Hi Ron,
Is Mike Behe a creationist?
Hi Gatsby--
Is Mike Behe a creationist?
Essentially--In the sense that he supports ID he is.
Essentially--In the sense that he supports ID he is.
He accepts common descent and it's because of his support for ID that he's a creationist? Could you explain that, because it doesn't make immediate sense for me.
Would that make David Berlinski a creationist?
Ron, what do you want the word "creationist" to accomplish as applied to Behe? Recall, the word usually has an intent to stigmatize. That stigma is drawn from creationism's poor scientific status, specifically in the areas I have already mentioned above:
it looks to the Bible as its final arbiter of scientific knowledge, it says that all of creation tood 6 literal 24-hour days, it says that God is the creator, it insists on a young universe, it holds to a theory of a universal flood (and sees the fossil record as evidence of that flood), and disagrees with the standard Darwinian answer for the development of life.
Legally, it is problematical in that its teaching has been disallowed in the courts, on account of its religious basis.
You wouldn't want to say that just because Behe agrees with some things creationism says, that should automatically stigmatize him. For example, creationism says that fossils are the mineralized remains of animals who died a long time ago. There are things that creationism says that everybody else says too. So not everything creationism says or believes is a reason for its stigma. Thus if you want to use the label to stigmatize Behe, you will have to be specific about this: what specifically in science does Behe believe that he shares with creationists, that is of low repute deserving stigma.
To say that he is a creationist in the sense that he supports ID is very sloppy thinking, because ID is not "essentially" (to use your term) creationism in any of the usual stigmatic senses of the term. We've been through that. I'd love to see you be more thoughtful and more accurate.
Tom, Gatsby--
It might cause less confusion to describe Behe and Berlinski as neo-creationists. They share an insistence that there are features of nature that can only be explained by some outside agency; in Behe's case, God, in Berlinski's case, aliens or something (he's supposed to be the house agnostic, if I recall).
Hope that helps.
That helps--at least it's something like an improvement in terminology, a step in the right direction.
Tom--
And you can quit harping on the Creation/Evolution Toolbox thing. It's a silly point you're trying to make. It's at least four clicks away from the home page here, and you can get an awful lot of places on the web in four clicks.
It's no silly point, Tom. By linking to the CCC site, you are helping to direct internet traffic to a site that itself links to bad information (well, you say it's bad).
But the larger point is the more important one, which is that ID supporters themselves use the two terms so interchangably that they themselves equate the two. This is important because it deflates your claim that my side equates the two out of some sinister motive. We equate the two for the same reason you do it--ID is a sanitized version of creationism; sanitized in order to avoid constitutional problems in court. This is now an official finding of law. Remember, it's not required that two terms mean precisely the same thing in order to be synonymous. From Webster's Dictionary:
1: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
2 a: a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something (as a concept or quality)
Creationism and intelligent design are synonymous in both senses.
But I'll split the difference for you. Instead of repeatedly reminding you that your own group uses the two terms interchangably, I'll link to one or two new ID-friendly sites that do it.
Nobody's fooled, Tom. ID is sanitized creationism.
Ron,
"It's no silly point, Tom. By linking to the CCC site, you are helping to direct internet traffic to a site that itself links to bad information (well, you say it's bad)."
It's a small risk I'm willing to take. I'm not about whitewashing, anyway. There are people in this debate who are terrified of differing viewpoints, but I'm not one of them.
Some ID supporters use the term interchangeably, but ID thought leaders don't. I don't expect every person in the world who has ever read an article about this to have all the nuances figured out. The terms are not interchangeable when they are properly thought through, but I'm not going to put a gun to the head of every creation or ID supporter who doesn't understand that yet.
Ron, I'm going to really try to get your attention with the rest of this. You keep repeating yourself on points that have been effectively refuted; and instead of rebutting the refutations, you just repeat yourself. You seem to think it's a rebuttal to show that my website is four clicks away from another one that speaks of ID and creation in the same breath. That's just terribly weak, wouldn't you agree?
Now, if you think Creation and ID are the same in both senses you have listed here, you just don't read carefully enough. You don't want to be bothered with new information, you are impervious to discussion and evidence. You have said here that nobody's fooled, but you're actually fooling yourself with your preconceptions.
Ron:
Come on… really: get a life. This is an example of why you’re stooping to the same silly lows we can predict (oh, I love that term!) DL invariably does:
Creationism and intelligent design are synonymous in both senses… Nobody’s fooled, Tom. ID is sanitized creationism.How do you come to this conclusion? Do you check with the source, the Discovery Institute or with leading IDers? No, for that would make too much sense and would undermine your position. Do you provide a sound philosophical argument that clearly distinguishes between what YOU call creationism and ID? Nope. Even here, at a blog where you’re safe from being called to account in your comments because they’re not open-source published, you’ve shown a remarkable inability to distinguish between (1) the philosophical and theological doctrine of creationism (which has nothing to do with the evolution debate one way or the other), (2) the pseudo-science called “creation science,” and (3) ID. I called you on this earlier. Quite revealingly, you never responded.
The only thing you do is cherry pick links from organizations that are not authorities on these issues (neither are you, by the way), you fit your points to a personally-predetermined curve (very bad anti-scientific approach, by the way), you don’t permit reasonable people at these organizations the opportunity to debate the issue, i.e., you don’t (or won’t) accept the fact that this debate is a work-in-progress, and you take an exceedingly arrogant, ignorant, and dogmatic tone (see above): “I, Ron, decree from now until the end of time that ID is creationism, so let it be written, so let it be done… I asserted it, I believe it, that settles it.” Intellectual disciplines are always a work in progress, Ron: they are always contingent on new information. Why is it that you so desperately want to pigeon-hole the Discovery Institute and set in stone something they themselves are working on? (You’re labeling Behe was a jewel in weirdness.) Do you think that is a “scientific” approach? Do you think it displays intellectual (let alone moral) integrity?
You know very well my position regarding ID: I and most Thomists have reasoned to the position that it is not an MES, and I’ve presented what I hope are clear philosophical arguments to support that position. (Whether you understand those arguments and accept them is up to you, but I hope you’re not just cheaply grinning and using that as an “ah-ha, gottcha, you dumb creationists!” moment.) So, I have no vested interests and no hidden agendas. You also know, on the other hand, how critical I am—philosophically and MES-wise—of Darwinism. If you believe any scientific theory is unquestionable, you’re out to lunch. If you believe any MES alone can be used to disprove God or the existence of the human soul, you’re even further out to lunch—not to mention quite ignorant of the issues. If you believe reason and faith are antagonists, frankly, you should be committed.
You, however, seem quite frightened about people working on something very interesting, like ID. (Tom: Any insights from the world of psychology as to why Ron as such a fixation on obfuscation?) That’s mostly what I’m getting from your barking-moon-bat approach with Tom. If you’ve got personal issues, deal with them.
Hi Ron,
They share an insistence that there are features of nature that can only be explained by some outside agency
But then wouldn't this qualify Ken Miller, Freeman Dyson, Davies (depending on the mood he's in while writing a book), Polkinghorne and Van Till?
They all see at least some features that can only be explained by something that transcends the physical.
But your definition does make some sense for me - I just think that it qualifies theistic evolutionists and some agnostics as being neo-creationists.
Also, by "some features" I'm not refering to the biotic world, but cosmology.
Hey Tom--
Sorry I was out of pocket a couple of days. My modem. It was struck by lightning. (No, just being silly. It did go south, tho).
First of all, for my link hunt I decided to visit the ICR--the Institute for Creation Research. Now a blast from the past, mostly. Answers-in-Genesis has taken their place, it seems.
Anyway, I decided to use the 'Google' feature that most sites now provide and type in "intelligent design" in the search box and searched the site. Look at
And when you search the Answers-in-Genesis site--Oh my, Tom. Do you know how many hits you get on the AIG site? Almost a thousand, Tom!! From the Biblical Creationist website Answers in Genesis.
It makes me wonder--If creationism and ID are really so different, why do you suppose the Biblical Creationist website Answers-in-Genesis seems to find ID so interesting?
Ron:
If creationism and ID are really so different, why do you suppose the Biblical Creationist website Answers-in-Genesis seems to find ID so interesting?I get the feeling you've never heard of set theory or seen a Venn diagram. Does A∩B mean anything to you?
Thanks for the excellent answer, SteveK!
Material that relates to the truth or falsehood of Darwinism is interesting to both groups. On the other hand, as a blogger once wrote,
The way one determines whether words are synonyms is by examining what they mean. If they mean the same thing, they are synonyms. Creationism is a theory that includes giving a literal six-day reading of Genesis authority over science, commitment to a universal flood, a recent origin of the universe, and rejection of common descent of species. Intelligent Design includes none of these.
But that might not sound familiar to you, it comes from an obscure source.
Hi, Steve--
So intelligent design and creationism are related, eh? The question is: How related? How much overlap between the two would there be on this Venn diagram of yours?
That's the real question.
Hi Ron, Steve and Tom,
I think they needn't overlap at all. Intelligent Design (upper-case) theory postulates that the work of a designer in the universe is empirically detectable. Tom gave the definition of creationism above.
It is possible for creationists to believe, without contradiction, that design is not detectable. Gosse proposed something like this in his book Omphalos. However, evidence for intelligent design (lower-case), in the event that there is unambiguous evidence, would be useful to lots of young-earth creationists as an apologetic.
By the same token, Intelligent Design (upper-case) theory makes claims that are far more modest than (and at the same time different to) Young Earth Creationism. As far as I know (but I haven't done much digging around), many of ID (upper-case)'s leading advocates are proponents of an old earth. It's not even as though all of them are Christians.
So there is no reason why the circles should overlap at all. Sure, you could establish whether they do in fact overlap and to what extent, by conducting a survey and seeing how many people believe one, the other, or both. But suggesting that one (Intelligent Design (upper-case)) implies the other (Young-Earth Creationism) is like suggesting that "I am east of Greenwich" implies "I am south of the Equator".
Hi Tom--
But that might not sound familiar to you, it comes from an obscure source.
Is it from the same guy that said
We're not trying to get ID into the schools.
Ron, I think I already answered your question on the degree of overlap, in my last comment.
Your last comment is completely irrelevant to the current one. It's also another example of a pattern you repeatedly follow:
1. You bring up something that you think is embarrassing to ID.
2. I explain it what's really going on instead, showing how there is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation (here's the current example of this).
3. You ignore the explanation.
4. Later on you bring it up as something that you think is embarrassing to ID.
That's at least three things:
a) Ineffective
b) Not arguing/discussing in good faith
c) Just a bit annoying
Now, I could spin the cycle 'round and 'round with you, by picking up my part in (2) again, explaining what's really going on instead. But that gets tiresome.
Thanks for that note, by the way, Ben. I think there still is some overlap in that both groups are interested in whether Darwinism can be shown false, but that's all the necessary overlap there is. I guess I would add one other, too, which is that both groups take issue with Philosophical Naturalism. That's it. Any other connection is incidental and not essential to the theories.
Ron:
So intelligent design and creationism are related, eh?
Of course. No secret there.
The question is: How related? How much overlap between the two would there be on this Venn diagram of yours?
That's the real question.
They certainly overap in the 'intelligent designer' catagory. It's common to both. Beyond that I don't think there are any simiarities.
Among other things, Christian theism identifies the designer and has knowledge of his character, intentions, morality, etc.,while ID does not. Christian theism goes beyond science to philosophy/theology/faith, while ID is (trying to) stay within the boundary of science by developing a way to infer design by intelligence.
The bottom line is they are not the same thing.
Tom--
Now, I could spin the cycle 'round and 'round with you, by picking up my part in (2) again, explaining what's really going on instead. But that gets tiresome.
Yep, it does look like we've reached that point in the thread where we just go around in circles. The point of my participation on this blog is to engage you in some kind of a dialog, and the thread isn't ending that way.
You have to deal with the situation you as an ID supporter find yourself in, though. The scientific community nearly to a man views intelligent design as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo", the mainstream science media such as Discover magazine consider it the same way, and now a lifelong churchgoing republican federal judge has made the connection between intelligent design and creationism in a shattering legal, precedent-setting ruling.
Sorry, Tom--but despite your fervent protests, you guys have been made:
Intelligent design is an attempt to recast religious dogma in an effort to reintroduce the teaching of biblical creationism to public school science classrooms; the intelligent design movement is an effort to reshape American society into a theocracy, primarily through education. As evidence, critics cite the Discovery Institute's political activities, its "Wedge strategy" and statements made by leading intelligent design proponents.
Ron said: The scientific community nearly to a man views intelligent design as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo"
That's a fallacy college freshmen are taught to avoid: numbers don't determine truth. Argue the veracity of the claim, Paul, not "how" the knowledge was obtained or "how many" people hold that knowledge. How many people "nearly to a man" used to believe the earth was flat? Did the number of "believers" make it so? And how about the genetic fallacy you try to foist upon us: is truth determined by the ruling of a federal judge?!? Get real! You're not engaging Tom "in a dialog," you're imposing fallacies.
The point (as is clear from Dawkins' latest book)? Atheists can't seem to reach even a sophomore's (wise fool's) understanding of reality.
Holo--
That's a fallacy college freshmen are taught to avoid: numbers don't determine truth.
No, I really don't think it isa fallacy, Holo. My statement that
The scientific community nearly to a man views intelligent design as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo
is a simple statement of fact. And as for your hand-waving dismissal of the value of scientific consensus, let me ask you: If you're ever diagnosed with cancer, are you going to have yourself treated with laetril? I mean, the scientific consensus is that laetril is worthless, and look at all the times all those scientists have been shown to be wrong--like with the flat earth example you cited. I mean, if 99% of the experts in the field say it's worthless, then it must be great. Right?
Sorry Holo, but you're in the same position Tom is on this one. Intelligent design has been completely discredited. It has produced absolutely nothing as a science (even though in the same time frame that it's been around the guy that discovered prions went from flat rejection by his peers to winning a Nobel prize), it is related to creationism (see SteveK's post above), the scientific community completely rejects it and now it has lost a major Federal court case.
Only conservative Christians support ID. Only conservative Christians fund ID. Only conservative Christians vote for it. And the reasons are transparent:
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.--from the Discovery Institute's own Wedge document
Or as Wikipedia puts it:
Intelligent design is an attempt to recast religious dogma in an effort to reintroduce the teaching of biblical creationism to public school science classrooms; the intelligent design movement is an effort to reshape American society into a theocracy, primarily through education.
But why teach mere science in science class when you could be using that valuable time to lead kids to the Lord. Right?
All I'm asking for is for the sciences to be taught the way the relevant experts say it should be taught. You, Tom, and others want it taught the way Pat Robertson and the 700 Club want. One of those is really bad social policy.
Ron,
Sorry, Tom--but despite your fervent protests, you guys have been made:
You still haven't actually addressed the facts I laid out for you, have you?
Wikipedia's theocracy claim is not authoritative. What it is, is a lie. ID leaders (for the 100th time) are not asking for biblical creationism to be taught in schools, and the theocracy charge is a ludicrous, conspiracy-theorist, overreaction to the fact that people with certain beliefs are using the same political process everyone else is to try to participate in public process.
Ron:
The scientific community nearly to a man views intelligent design as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo"
Therefore...what, Ron? What are we supposed make of this statement of yours?
a) Therefore it is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo"; or
b) Therefore it is not "creationism in a cheap tuxedo"
You see, Ron, anyone can play the silly game you are playing because it doesn't require anyone to think past the level of a junior high student. Try this one:
"The religious community nearly to a man views atheism as false."
Therefore...what, Ron?
Hi Steve--
You see, Ron, anyone can play the silly game you are playing because it doesn't require anyone to think past the level of a junior high student.
The purpose of that statement wasn't to prove that creationism is the same as ID. It was simply to point out that ID--as an idea--has no credibility, which it doesn't.
Ron, you say ID has no credibility. If your point is that the scientific world largely disagrees, the answer is "d'oh." We knew that.
Was that your point, or did you have another one?
Ron,
Atheism, as an idea, has no credibility in the religious community.
Therefore....what?
You are stating the obvious as it relates to ID and scientists. What is the point of these obvious statements? I think most here have moved beyond the obvious and are trying to sort out what is not so obvious. Specifically, what is true and what is false wrt ID theory.
.
Guys--
Ron, you say ID has no credibility. If your point is that the scientific world largely disagrees, the answer is "d'oh." We knew that.
Was that your point, or did you have another one?
The point of that particular comment wasn't to try to prove/disprove ID. It was to try to put the discussion in some perspective. We're devoting a lot of time discussing the finer points of something that most professional science educators, nearly all scientists, the mainstream science media and now a major federal court decision have already rejected.
Intelligent design--like creation science before it--is a transparent attempt to advance a religious agenda, and that is pretty much becoming the consensus opinion outside of Christian conservatives now. The only base of support ID has is its evangelical base--like this blog--and this is an obvious fact that society is beginning to wake up to.
Ron, whether you want to spend a lot of time discussing the finer points of ID is up to you.
ID is not a "transparent attempt to advance a religious agenda." But I've explained that so often, with no effect on your responses at least, that I'm going to let it drop now.
Tom--
You: ID is not a "transparent attempt to advance a religious agenda."
Dembski: The conceptual soundings of the [intelligent design] theory can in the end only be located in Christ"
Dembski: "Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration."
Wedge Document: 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 human beings are created by God.
Phillip Johnson: "This (the intelligent design movement) isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy."
World Magazine, 30 November 1996
Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
American Family Radio, January 10, 2003
Phillip Johnson: "The subject is not just the theory of evolution, the subject is the reality of God."
Hank Hanegraaf's "Bible Answer Man" radio program, 19 December 2001
Phillip Johnson: "The objective (of the Wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"
Church and State Magazine, April 1999
Your continued protests that ID is not a thinly disguised religious agenda insults the intelligence of everybody on this blog. You're right--maybe you should just let it drop.
Quote-mining. No context. That's the complaint that's repeatedly made against ID, isn't it?
A little context would enable a person to answer. But as you recommended, and as I previously said, I'm going to drop it. It's not because I think I'm at a dead end. It's because I don't think you've paid any attention to any explanation I've given to any of this up until now. I'm talking about actual ideas with actual content, not just slogans and quotes out of context. You just come back with unrelated charges, not addressing anything I've actually said. Why would I expect that to change?
Tom--
In fairness--that last one (according to one of mine: Panda's Thumb) is a bad quote after all. PT says it started out as a quote about Johnson and turned into a quote by PJ. I like PT and tend to accept their view on these things.
Anyway, you can strike that last one, if you want. Sorry--My bad.
Still, I don't think they're all bad quotes... 
Commenting by HaloScan
