Another reason to switch from ID to IE (i.e., Intelligent Evolution)

_{William Dembski

June 9, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Journalism and the Debate Over Origins: Newspaper Coverage of Intelligent Design
Martin JD, Trammell KD, Landers D, Valois JM, Bailey T
Journal of Media and Religion, Vol. 5, No. 1. (January 2006), pp. 49-61.
http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15328415jmr0501_3

ABSTRACT: In light of increasing media coverage and national debate of a discipline called Intelligent Design (ID), this study content analyzed 575 articles from major newspapers on this topic. Researchers drew articles from the LexisNexis. database and coded them for the presence of certain portrayal, and scientifically certain versus uncertain portrayal, and these variables were analyzed across news type. Researchers also measured the presence of several frames and the dominant frame within each article. Results suggest that ID was largely portrayed as a religious – as opposed to a scientific – movement. Coverage also was largely skeptical of ID’s scientific legitimacy.

Comments

I can see many that will have a feeling that theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been hoodwinked, because they were anti-evolution, but now they pro-evolution.
The ID tent is not big enough to contain those who proclaim that evolution does not occur and has nover occurred while at the same time holding to a model of origins that requires that evolution has happened, rapidly, and no explanation of why it has stopped. Tiem to clean the ID house. Intelligent Design Evolution it is!Mung_{June 10, 2006
June
06
Jun
10
10
2006
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Why not call it "Intelligent Mutation" ? Or even "Intelligent Natural Selection"?Mats_{June 10, 2006
June
06
Jun
10
10
2006
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Missing "end blockquote" after first sentence.j_{June 10, 2006
June
06
Jun
10
10
2006
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one...
"Intelligent Darwinist": one who believes that "random" variations and "natural" selection are parts of a designed process, and who realizes that Darwin was wrong when he guessed that the original lifeforms were "so simple." :-) [Actually, "intelligent design" is the right term, for the reasons spelled out in Intelligent Design.]
j_{June 10, 2006
June
06
Jun
10
10
2006
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

I say stick with ID. It's a good name for the concept. Besides, it's broader in scope than just biology. Let the opposition jeer and smear all they want; if there's real substance to ID (which I believe there is), it won't matter in the end.crandaddy_{June 9, 2006
June
06
Jun
9
09
2006
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

It is a pity that they want US$24 to look at this paper. I usually write the authors and ask for a copy, but there are no email addresses here.idnet.com.au_{June 9, 2006
June
06
Jun
9
09
2006
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Am I correct in saying that young earth creationists believe that there was a considerable amount of very fast "change over time" in the time leading to and even following the Flood? Would this not be considered very accellerated "evolution"? ID describes evidence for an intelligently designed process of change over time; Intelligently Designed evolution, and an intelligently Designed origin of life and biological source code. If we simply drop "design" we will lose sight of the basis of our inference to design. Intelligence is a very vague term. I think we use many papers in Nature and Science precisely because the use the word "design". We might rarely find the phrase "displays intelligence" in the litterature. "Evolution is a fact; itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s how it works that is in question." That statement is rather too sweeping for me. As Philip Johnson pointed out repeatedly, it depends on what we mean by evolution and what we mean by fact.idnet.com.au_{June 9, 2006
June
06
Jun
9
09
2006
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

You know... do we really need to change our language at this point? Sounds like a drastic measure, a desperate measure. The impression I get it, is that slowly but surely, we're going to win this war. I'm unconvinced a change of name is helpful, rather, it could have the consequence of getting most Christians upset. I can see many that will have a feeling that they've been hoodwinked, because they were anti-evolution, but now they pro-evolution. We need to bear in mind this word 'evolution'. It is not just the definition, but the belief system that it refers to, that is the danger here. Seems like where panda'ring to the enemy... *haw haw*Gods iPod_{June 9, 2006
June
06
Jun
9
09
2006
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

I, for one, accept universal common descent -- well sort of. I consider common descent to be true as my Windows XP is the common descendant of Windows 3.1. There is no question that the developers of XP began with program code from a previous version, and modified it (descent with modification). There is no question that the previous version got its code from a previous ... back to Windows 3.1, back to MSDos. Do I accept descent with individual mutation event by individual mutation event modification? No. Even if such were the case, and it might be, then those mutation events must be strategic, and front-loading -- mutations put in solely because future mutations will make them meaningful. Please understand, I consider the serious possibility that a recompile may be required in the development process. If a designer were to take his/her/its design for a lizzard, modify that design, and use the modified design to create out of dust a mammal, would that not still realistically be descent with modificiation? As described above, I accept universal common descent with modification. I suspect that the vast majority of IDers are also able to accept universal common descent, as described above. I like the title IE, or ID evolutionist. I find the title ID creationist to be negatively loaded. The change of title, however, sounds petty to me. I think it would be better for the ID movement to regularly refer to itself as the ID evolutionist movement, rather than the IE movement. Once "ID evolutionist" becomes established, then the D might be worth dropping.bFast_{June 9, 2006
June
06
Jun
9
09
2006
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

The scientific community and their cohorts hate the term design, since it connotes an entity. They hate even more so the term intelligent, since they equate that with super intelligent, or divine. Instead of descent with modification, you could call it EAI, or evolutionary ascent with intervention. That concept would embody evolutionary change in an upward (or parallel) direction, and the mechanism would simply be the embryonic processes, with gene modifications interspersed. To partially satisfy the scientific mindset, you would NOT specify what the interventionary agent(s) are. By leaving that question open, naturalistic causes could compete equally with a designer causality. Evolution is a fact; it's how it works that is in question. Microevolution fits the NS/RM scheme, and is undoubtedly a mechanism for defensive adaptation, as well as to produce diversity. Renaming the broader concept of evolution, if done properly, will allow the possibility of a designer (or idle tweaker), but still allow for purely naturalistic means. Expect an uproar over any new term. I'm sure they'd say, "EAI is merely ID renamed!", (or yes, in a cheap tuxedo). The term Creationism, however, would have to fall by the wayside.leebowman_{June 9, 2006
June
06
Jun
9
09
2006
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

"There is no use changing the name from Ã¢â‚¬Å“intelligent designÃ¢â‚¬Â to Ã¢â‚¬Å“intelligent evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â. The intractable Darwinist opposition will react to the Ã¢â‚¬Å“newÃ¢â‚¬Â concept in exactly the same way-with relentless criticism and abuse." Yep. And the new sound bite would be "Intelligent Evolution is Intelligent Design in a cheap tuxedo".Marcos_{June 9, 2006
June
06
Jun
9
09
2006
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

And start using their word, and that'll truly freak out. IE to them will be far worse than ID.Gods iPod_{June 9, 2006
June
06
Jun
9
09
2006
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

There is no use changing the name from "intelligent design" to "intelligent evolution". The intractable Darwinist opposition will react to the "new" concept in exactly the same way-with relentless criticism and abuse. If the name is changed, then the Discovery Institute must give its full endorsement to common ancestry. If I am not mistaken, many proponents of the original intelligent design concept have remained ambivalent about common ancestry. Calling something "intelligent evolution" while remaining doubtful about common ancestry would create a gross contradiction: evolution has the concept of common ancestry built right in.apollo230_{June 9, 2006
June
06
Jun
9
09
2006
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply