Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Programmer: Intelligent design is not old Earth creationism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Further to Not all creationists are created equal? (Typically, Real Clear Science didn’t ask an ID theorist to explain what ID is, so the result is like a dog dancing – not good but at least, sort of, dancing):

Programmer Jonathan Bartlett offers some thoughts:

The discussion of intelligent design, while not terrible, has a few significant flaws. First of all, it basically equates ID with old-earth creationism. ID’ers come from a range of specific opinions. There are people in ID who are YEC, OEC, Theistic Evolutionists, and even a few atheists (technically, they are probably better considered pantheists).

The article correctly states that fundamental difference for ID is that there is a mode of causation, namely agency, that is not law or chance (which the article mentions). However, an important consideration missing was that this does not have to be expressed in a way that is interventionist, and it doesn’t have to be God who is behaving in this way.

If you think that your own choices are the result of your internal will and your creativity, and not forced upon you by the laws of nature and chance, then you are a member of ID. That is, if you think that humans act as automatons of nature, you probably need to pick another position, but if you think that humans are not fully coerced by their physical body and environment, then you are a de facto ID’er. If you think that God’s work in creation is detectable within nature as not emanating from nature itself, even if you think He did all of the work at the beginning and everything evolved from there, you are an ID’er.

Well, that is a position that would be recognized within the ID community.

But by now it should be axiomatic that few pop science outlets today would serve their readers so well as to have anyone who identifies with the intelligent design community explain what ID is.

Unfortunately, academic science is currently no better, on a variety of measures. See, for example: Peer review: Snail declared extinct turns up again, no retraction issued?

Some of us think that any committee of non-extinct (as claimed) snails would be good enough peer reviewers under the circumstances…

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
IMHO, The beginning of universe is murky. Neither 'Evolution' nor 'ID' can explain it. We don't have enough intellect to probe and prove the beginning. We should accept it and move on.the bystander
September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
If you think that God’s work in creation is detectable within nature as not emanating from nature itself, even if you think He did all of the work at the beginning and everything evolved from there, you are an ID’er.
If one thinks God did all of the work at the beginning and everything evolved from there, how can one also hold that God’s work in creation is detectable within nature as not emanating from nature itself? IOW, if God did all of the work at the beginning and everything evolved from there, it would appear as if God's work in creation was emanating from nature itself. How could it be otherwise? Doesn't all change require an agent?Mung
September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
OT: DrCraigvideos just loaded a video that looks interesting,,, (similar to their Kalam video): The Fine Tuning of the Universe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5okFVrLdADkbornagain77
September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply