Intelligent Design

“Intelligent Design Creationism” as a Label

Spread the love

A lot of people still have trouble distinguishing between Intelligent Design and Creationism. This post will hopefully help out.

I know of a lot of people who refer to Intelligent Design as “Intelligent Design Creationism”. This comes up a lot in blogs and on facebook. However, this is a confusion of words. I will start out by saying that I am, in fact, an Intelligent Design Creationist, but the reason that this label applies to me is exactly why the label does not apply generally.

I hold to both the theories of Intelligent Design and Creationism. However, they are logically separable theories. I can hold to Intelligent Design without being a Creationist, and, technically, I can also hold to Creationism without holding to Intelligent Design (though this is rare to find in practice). The only worthwhile way to use the term “Intelligent Design Creationist” is not as a synonym for Intelligent Design, but as a separate specifier indicating someone who does both at the same time.

For instance, let’s say that a person is a musician and a physicist. It might be correct to call them a musical physicist, or a physicist musician. However, if they did a work of physics, it would be incorrect to refer to a basic work of physics as musical physics unless they specifically and explicitly incorporated concepts from music into physics. As such, the term “musical physicist” might not even apply, if the person never did both together, any more than we should refer to someone as a “tennis-playing physicist” just because they happen to do both play tennis and work in physics.

Likewise, while the label “Intelligent Design Creationist” applies to me, it does not apply to the entirety of my work – some of which is in Intelligent Design, some of which is in Creationism, and some of which is in Intelligent Design Creationism. Since I do operate both, and sometimes mix them, I am appropriately called an “Intelligent Design Creationist”.

So what is creationism? There are many meanings, but usually the meaning is that of special creation – the idea that certain groups of organisms are the result of multiple, distinct creation events. Other definitions include Young-Earth Creationism and Old-Earth Creationism, but these are not specifically biological theories, as they are whole theories about earth and cosmological history. Some refer to “creationists” as anyone who thinks that God had something to do with the universe, but this is really too general to be meaningful, as it would classify as “creationists” people who spend their lives fighting against “creationism”. It would make, for instance, Simon Conway-Morris a creationist, plus everyone at BioLogos, plus Ken Miller and a host of others.

Now, what is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design simply means that you think that there is the possibility that we can detect signals of intelligence from identifiable patterns in the universe. There are many people who hold to this view, including those who would not be classified as creationists. It is actually more of a theory of causation than of origins. As I pointed out in this post, it is logically possible to believe in a materialistic evolution and still hold to Intelligent Design. Michael Behe, for instance, holds such a view, as far as I can tell. So it would be completely inappropriate to call Michael Behe an “Intelligent Design Creationist”, since he doesn’t even agree with Creationism on any major point, much less does he do any work in that area.
Likewise for Dembski. Though he is, I believe, an old-Earth creationist by belief, absolutely none of his work in Intelligent Design deals with this issue. Dembski’s work is about how one makes an inference to design. Even in the places where he combines theology with ID, Old-Earth Creationism does not come into the picture. Therefore, Dembski should not be considered an “Intelligent Design Creationist” either.

Intelligent Design is a field of study all of its own. It is about design, design detection, and what we can know about how the process looks and acts, and how we can use that knowledge to better understand nature. I can see how people might disagree with this field altogether (i.e., “design” is a meaningless concept), or how people might agree with the general idea but disagree with its current manifestation (i.e., Irreducible Complexity doesn’t point to design, or Specified Complexity doesn’t tell us anything, or Specified Complexity isn’t measurable). Nonetheless, if your criticism of ID is based on confusing it with Creationism, then you are merely making noise.

I say all this as someone who believes that words mean things, and that being specific about what we say is what allows us to reason at all. It is unfortunate that many try to muddle terms together and make them mean different things – it is unacademic and unhelpful to the conversation, and generally leads to confusion all the way around. If we want clear concepts, we must use terms clearly and unambiguously.

I do a lot of teaching, and it is not unusual to have to correct students by helping them use terms correctly. This is perfectly understandable – students don’t know the terms, and they don’t yet know the importance of using well-defined meanings. What pains me in this case is that the ones who most abuse terminology in this case are those who claim to be scholars. The convolution of terms, and the slicing and dicing of meanings of words by the academy makes every boneheaded mistake by a student or the general public pale in comparison. Those who should be at the forefront of carefully crafting a discussion using precise terminology are those people making a mess of things in order to make sure everyone else agrees with them. The academy should be embarrassed by its own behavior.

70 Replies to ““Intelligent Design Creationism” as a Label

  1. 1
    Barry Arrington says:

    ID, broadly speaking, is an inquiry into whether intelligent agents when they act leave objectively identifiable markers and whether the natural world bears such markers.

    Creationism is widely associated with religious accounts of origins.

    They are not the same thing. It is in our opponents’ interests to pretend they are in order to confuse and obfuscate. Thus, in my experience the phrase “intelligent design creationism” is almost always used in bad faith.

    The OP tries to make things better by explaining the difference. Sadly, this is a quixotic effort. The problem is not that our opponents do not know they difference; they certainly do. The problem is their bad faith. Thus, explaining to them something they already know will not make things better. Things will get better only when they cease to act in bad faith. I, for one, am not going to hold my breath.

  2. 2
    Alicia Cartelli says:

    Maybe you guys should ask bornagain to stop ending his pseudoscience copy/paste comments with bible verses.
    Just a thought

  3. 3
    Barry Arrington says:

    Alica, do bornagain’s comments confuse you about the difference between ID and creationism?

  4. 4
    REC says:

    cdesign proponentsists

    Your post ignores the origins, history and apparent goals of ID. How many posts on this site are about atheism or miracles or anti-materialism?

    You can try to erect fences, but ID has failed to emerge as a scientific movement with any credibility. Your top journal has -0- publications in 2015.

    I could take any field–say bariminology or young earth geology and apply the same logic. One could be, I suppose by playing the same game you are here, a materialist who believes the world came into being 6000 years ago.

  5. 5
    mike1962 says:

    Barry: The problem is not that our opponents do not know they difference; they certainly do. The problem is their bad faith.

    To put it bluntly, they are liars and deceivers.

    Let’s just call a spade a spade.

  6. 6
    Barry Arrington says:

    REC, I can distinguish between Richard Dawkins’ statements pushing his evangelical atheism and his statements regarding the science of Darwinism.

    In fact, it is laughably simple to do so.

    Are you not smart enough to make such basic distinctions? If that is the case, just say the word and we will provide remedial help for you.

  7. 7
    Learned Hand says:

    ID, broadly speaking, is an inquiry into whether intelligent agents when they act leave objectively identifiable markers and whether the natural world bears such markers.

    This would be consistent with a body of work exploring ID principles in any context other than biological origins, or advocacy of ID in any context other than trying to supplant a narrow slice of secular science. In other words, it’s not consistent with the real world. ID, broadly speaking, is a big tent which conveniently provides secular rhetoric to the virtually unanimously religiously-motivated opponents of the theory of evolution.

    The idea that ID is actually a serious effort to inquire into such hallmarks of intelligence would be quite damning if it were true. It would add another field in which ID theorists have failed to make a mark.

  8. 8
    Barry Arrington says:

    LH @ 7,

    Your rant is nearly indecipherable. But you seem to be saying that all ID proponents always lie. That says more about you than it does about ID. It says you have a pathetically closed mind about any subject that comes close to stepping on your ideological toes.

  9. 9
    mike1962 says:

    LH @7: ID theorists have failed to make a mark.

    Dembski, Behe and Meyers haven’t made a mark?

    I guess you have a strange kind of “mark” detector.

  10. 10
    johnnyb says:

    “This would be consistent with a body of work exploring ID principles in any context other than biological origins”

    Even if it were limited to biology, it certainly wouldn’t equate it to creationism. ID applied to biology does not rule out an evolutionary origin (which would be needed for the creationism label), or even a materialistic evolutionary origin (as I have shown here).

    But, as a point of fact, there is a lot of work in ID that is not focused on biology. Dembski’s “The Design Inference” barely mentions it. My own work on the cognitive psychology of creativity doesn’t mention it, and I even have an application paper for applying the concept in project management.

    George Gilder’s Knowledge and Power is about ID applied to macroeconomics, while Peter Thiel’s Zero to One applies ID to entrepreneurship.

    A friend of mine, Eric Holloway, is working on applying it to generalized search patterns.

    So, in short, if you bothered to look, there is in fact active research on ID in a variety of areas besides biology. These have all been covered on UD. It’s slower than other fields because there is literally no money in it – usually it costs money to do it. Everyone in it is doing it because it’s a fantastic concept that we think will be important to the future. There are no professorships, no teaching posts, even book sales are pretty meager. I can’t major in ID. Agreeing with ID can actually prevent you from getting a PhD. There is merely the love and adventure of learning something new and building a new science from scratch.

    Don’t worry, you can’t actually stop us. However, if you take heed to the suggestions in this post, you can at least avoid looking like a fool when ID becomes mainstream. Or you can do what everyone else does when an idea passes them by, and pretend like you knew it all along after-the-fact.

  11. 11
    Learned Hand says:

    Your rant is nearly indecipherable. But you seem to be saying that all ID proponents always lie.

    We can at least agree that you failed to decipher it. Your assumption is completely wrong—I neither said nor believe that. I make a serious effort not to assume the worst of people who disagree with me. I would recommend that you undertake the same effort, but where would you be without your hobby?

  12. 12
    Learned Hand says:

    Dembski, Behe and Meyers haven’t made a mark?
    I guess you have a strange kind of “mark” detector.

    They’ve made a mark on the culture; they helped reshape modern American creationism. What other mark would you say that they have made? Are their ideas used by anyone outside the creationist movement?

  13. 13
    mike1962 says:

    LH: They’ve made a mark on the culture; they helped reshape modern American creationism. What other mark would you say that they have made?

    They have engendered a lot of critical thinking and discussion among people who are interested in the subject. I doubt “the culture” by and large is aware of them or their Darbot counterparts. And creationists tend to take a dim view of ID. (http://www.icr.org/article/int.....eationism/)

    Are their ideas used by anyone outside the creationist movement?

    ID is not creationism. (See OP.)

    Or are you one of those liars and deceivers who conflate creationism and ID?

  14. 14
    Learned Hand says:

    Even if it were limited to biology, it certainly wouldn’t equate it to creationism. ID applied to biology does not rule out an evolutionary origin (which would be needed for the creationism label), or even a materialistic evolutionary origin (as I have shown here).

    This is a fair point. How many people are there who actually thread this needle, though? I think there are UFOlogists who would technically be materialist ID-believers, but there seems to be little to no overlap between them and the ID community. Dembski and Behe don’t write books for the Zechariah Sitchen crowd. A theoretical distinction that could be drawn is not enough to actually put space in between “creationism” and “intelligent design.”

    Let’s go back for a moment to your point above, though, that words have meaning. Do you think that when you and ID critics use the word “creationism,” we’re using it the same way? I suspect not, and isn’t that dispositive of this issue?

    Thank you for your list of non-biological ID writing. It looks like I’ve been ignorant of some of the movement! As you say, though, it’s a small part of the movement—and since ID produces virtually no scholarship (compared to mainstream biology, philosophy, mathematics, finance, etc.), we’re talking about a fraction of not very much. I think this non-biological approach is a fringe of a fringe. When someone writes a paper about how the principles of natural selection apply to the business cycle, does that mean that it would be wrong to treat “evolution” as primarily a biological phenomenon?

    That’s not a rhetorical question; I can see valid reasons for digging beneath the primary application to the general principles. Yet there’s so little of that digging being done. You’ve identified strong reasons for that: lack of funding and respect for the enterprise. But then, don’t we expect theories that just don’t work to go unfunded and unappreciated?

    Don’t worry, you can’t actually stop us.

    I agree! But then, what is there to stop? The fact that I can’t (and wouldn’t) prevent Bio-Complexity from publishing a paper proving that ID can be used to detect design doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that, in actual fact, it’s not going to.

  15. 15
    Learned Hand says:

    They have engendered a lot of critical thinking and discussion among people who are interested in the subject.

    I agree with both of these points. And I think it’s a good thing that they’ve done so. My own thinking about creationism has changed greatly over the years. These days I’m inclined to say it does no particular harm; most people treat the debate as they would being a sports fan or political wonk—as intellectual entertainment, even if they treat the underlying concepts as deadly serious.

    In other words, I think Dembski and Behe are deeply wrong. But if they’ve hurt anyone by defending creationism (see below), I don’t know how to measure it. And I think they’ve provided us with a lot of intellectual stimulation over the years, by advancing interesting ideas they genuinely believe. I think they deserve credit for that.

    It doesn’t translate into making a mark on the actual science, though. For all ID’s grandiose predictions, it hasn’t actually made any headway in the fields it claims to revolutionize: biology, statistics, mathematics, philosophy, computer science, etc. Lots of people are making advances in those fields, just not IDists. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, I think the ideas just don’t work.

    ID is not creationism. (See OP.)

    I disagree. The OP glosses over what “creationism” is, which makes it useless for moving the ball forwards on this point. For myself, I think that “creationism” includes any belief that the world (and/or life) was purposefully created, when that belief rejects the theory of evolution. I think that ID is a subset of that belief. My definition is clunky, but I think it’s not redundant or overly inclusive or too narrow. Even so, if you have a better definition, I’d genuinely like to hear it.

  16. 16
    johnnyb says:

    “This is a fair point. How many people are there who actually thread this needle, though?”

    Quite a few, actually. Michael Behe for a popular name. Michael Denton is another. Richard Sternberg is yet another (I think). Many of the UD authors match this – vjtorley, for instance. I think there are a few others, but I don’t keep an active head count. Back when Telic Thoughts was an active site, that was the majority opinion there. So, I don’t know if it is a plurality, but it is certainly a significant voice in the ID movement.

    “but there seems to be little to no overlap between them and the ID community”

    That’s because people on the materialism side have made sure that any association with ID is a career-killer.

    “Do you think that when you and ID critics use the word “creationism,” we’re using it the same way?”

    It’s possible it is being used differently, but can you propose the way in which it is being used? Under the definition being used, is Simon Conway-Morris a creationist?

    “I think this non-biological approach is a fringe of a fringe.”

    I don’t disagree entirely, but I don’t see how the spread of people’s interests affect the ontological status of an idea. I have certainly been pushing for more of this approach, but, again, with materialists actively trying to get anyone in academia associated with ID fired, I can’t say I’m overly surprised by the situation. As an example (though this is within biology), a friend of mine was pursuing his graduate degree, and Eugenie Scott was actively badgering his graduate advisor to drop him from the program because he was not a materialist. I hope you can see how such an environment might lead to less scholarship. I’ve never heard of any other group who cares what the beliefs and ideas of graduate students anywhere are. It is only the materialists who are out to get rid of non-materialists wherever they may be found.

    “When someone writes a paper about how the principles of natural selection apply to the business cycle, does that mean that it would be wrong to treat “evolution” as primarily a biological phenomenon?”

    I don’t know, because natural selection is a much abused term. I do know that many people in science don’t think of natural selection as primarily a biological phenomena. There are many who view it as a much more large-scale endeavor. A case that I could comment on better is entropy, which has turned out to cover a lot more than energy, and winds up being an entire field called statistical mechanics. Entropy is the main area where it is used, just because that is where it originated. But statistical mechanics is applicable to a number of situations outside of thermodynamics. The main application of thermodynamics still remains, but for historical reasons. There is not limiting factor in the theory itself. I don’t see the people engaging in statistical mechanics being looked at askance for making generalized claims that started in a specific field. In fact, science is full of such things. Calculus originated for physics, and now is used all over the place. So no, having a historical origin in a particular area doesn’t in the least indicate that it is not more generally applicable.

    “But then, don’t we expect theories that just don’t work to go unfunded and unappreciated?”

    I do, but that hasn’t been the issue. The issue has been the active campaign to shut down the conversation. Take, for instance, the Polanyi Institue at Baylor.

    “The fact that I can’t (and wouldn’t) prevent Bio-Complexity from publishing a paper”

    Here’s a question – would you prevent a graduate student from getting their PhD, or fire a good untenured professor, for holding a different view?

  17. 17
    Barry Arrington says:

    Barry:

    ID, broadly speaking, is an inquiry into whether intelligent agents when they act leave objectively identifiable markers and whether the natural world bears such markers.

    LH disagrees. He says that ID is merely a smoke screen for a religious movement, i.e., that ID proponents are fundamentally dishonest liars:

    ID, broadly speaking, is a big tent which conveniently provides secular rhetoric to the virtually unanimously religiously-motivated opponents of the theory of evolution.

    Barry calls him out:

    you seem to be saying that all ID proponents always lie.

    LH lies about his lie:

    your assumption is completely wrong—I neither said nor believe that. I make a serious effort not to assume the worst of people who disagree with me

    So, on the one hand LH says that ID proponents are liars, that they are providing merely “secular rhetoric” for a religious project. Then he says he always assumes the best about his opponents.

    LH, you seem to be losing track of your lies. Never fear. I will help you sort them out.

  18. 18
    johnnyb says:

    “or myself, I think that “creationism” includes any belief that the world (and/or life) was purposefully created, when that belief rejects the theory of evolution.”

    What do you mean by “rejects the theory of evolution”? If by evolution you mean common ancestry, then you and I have the same definition of creationism. If by evolution you mean natural selection, then evolution is no longer the consensus view that it is claimed to be.

    As to making their mark, Dembski’s “The Design Inference” seems to be fairly well cited across a number of disciplines. Behe’s book has inspired a number of reactions, even if they often don’t mention him. There is actually a number of directions of evolutionary investigation that is inspired simply for refuting ID. Even if that was ID’s only contribution – to get the evolutionary biology community to ask better questions – I would count that as a huge contribution to science.

  19. 19
    computerist says:

    Many used to consider ID not science. Now, many consider it only bad science, which somehow still means it’s not science? The way I see it, even if ID is bad science, that’s still science. And the scientific process is like anything else that requires risk and failure and learning from failure to move forward and succeed. While I don’t consider YEC great science, one has to admit alot of good science and investigative feedback has come out of the YEC camp as a result of positing a young earth. I would not attempt to banish YEC science or any form of creationism and will simply accept it as science. I think this is a far more healthy position to take for society and scientific advancement.

  20. 20
    Learned Hand says:

    Quite a few, actually. Michael Behe for a popular name. Michael Denton is another. Richard Sternberg is yet another (I think). Many of the UD authors match this – vjtorley, for instance. I think there are a few others, but I don’t keep an active head count. Back when Telic Thoughts was an active site, that was the majority opinion there. So, I don’t know if it is a plurality, but it is certainly a significant voice in the ID movement.

    I wouldn’t count Behe, as his beliefs fall within what I would call creationism. I don’t know what else to call the belief that evolution is impossible without the guiding hand of an effectively infinite power. I don’t know enough about the others’ beliefs to respond; I suspect that it’s a moot point if we’re talking past each other with different definitions of “creationist.” (In fact, I think this whole dispute ultimately boils down to defining what “creationist” means. That may seem obvious, but it escapes most people who go down this road—see, for example, your OP which acknowledges that the term is important but doesn’t actually state a definition.)

    It’s possible it is being used differently, but can you propose the way in which it is being used? Under the definition being used, is Simon Conway-Morris a creationist?

    I don’t know enough about his beliefs to say.

    I don’t disagree entirely, but I don’t see how the spread of people’s interests affect the ontological status of an idea.

    I don’t think that it does. Rather, I’d say that the point is what people do believe rather than what they might theoretically be able to believe. I agree that ID is not inherently the same thing as creationism—only that in practice IDists are almost exclusively a subset of creationists. Of course, this depends on the definitions, and I strongly doubt we’re using those words in the same way.

    Here’s a question – would you prevent a graduate student from getting their PhD, or fire a good untenured professor, for holding a different view?

    No. Not even if that student was a young-earth creationist, assuming they were capable of doing the required work.

  21. 21
    Learned Hand says:

    What do you mean by “rejects the theory of evolution”? If by evolution you mean common ancestry, then you and I have the same definition of creationism. If by evolution you mean natural selection, then evolution is no longer the consensus view that it is claimed to be.

    Interesting! I don’t just mean natural selection; I don’t know that anyone really denies that natural selection exists, do they? Common ancestry is a good enough approximation for now, I think.

    So that’s our definition of creationism, isn’t an IDist by definition a creationist?

    As to making their mark, Dembski’s “The Design Inference” seems to be fairly well cited across a number of disciplines.

    I’d love to see a chart of those citations, not that I’m willing to do the work. I think they’d fall mostly into a few different categories: citing him as an influential creationist, criticizing his ideas as risible, or citations within the very small self-identifying ID community. Is that making a significant mark? It’s more than most of us will make in our careers, but that’s not saying much in the scheme of things. I’d consider him to be “making a mark” within the substantive scientific community if his ideas were being developed and used by scientists; I don’t think that’s happening. But yes, I do agree that he’s made a mark culturally.

    There is actually a number of directions of evolutionary investigation that is inspired simply for refuting ID.

    Interesting—like what?

    Even if that was ID’s only contribution – to get the evolutionary biology community to ask better questions – I would count that as a huge contribution to science.

    I’m curious what those questions are, but I think that could be a contribution to science.

  22. 22
    bornagain says:

    Since Darwinian atheists falsely believe that science and Theism don’t mix, I sure wish they would stop using bad theological arguments to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution.

    Just today is this shining example of bad Theology from Larry Moran:

    From Biochemist Larry Moran, More Gratuitous Misrepresentations – Ann Gauger – November 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Meyer … believes that a supernatural being visited the Earth about 540 million years ago and noticed that it was teeming with life — lots of plants, algae, fungi, protozoa, and bacteria. The god(s) thought there should be some bigger creatures called “animals” so he/she/it/they built a few and let them loose to reproduce and evolve.”
    – Larry Moran
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....00701.html

    I’ve seen bad theology in my day, but that has to rank right up near the top in terms of being bad theology.

    But I guess poor professor Moran and his Darwinian cheerleaders just can’t help themselves. Bad Theology was at the founding of Darwinian evolution and bad Theology continues to be the faulty foundation upon which it rests still to this today:

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):

    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species – STEPHEN DILLEY
    Abstract
    This essay examines Darwin’s positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin’s theological language about God’s accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin’s mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin’s positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin’s overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin’s science.
    http://journals.cambridge.org/.....741100032X

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    Abstract
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

    That Darwinian atheists themselves would be dependent on faulty Theological premises, in order for them to try to make their case against God and for Darwinian evolution, is not really all that surprising since all of science is dependent on Theological presuppositions.

    The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site
    Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,
    http://justinholcomb.com/2012/.....god-exist/

    “virtually all of science proceeds as if ID is true – it seeks elegant and efficient models; it reverse engineers biological systems; it describes evolution in teleological terms; it refers to natural forces and laws as if there is some kind of prescriptive agency guiding matter and energy; it assumes that the nature of the universe and human comprehensive capacity have some sort of truthful, factual correspondence.”
    William J Murray

    In other words, atheists must sit in God’s lap to slap his face

    “Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
    Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him.”
    – Cornelius Hunter

    Photo – an atheist contemplating his mind
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kj.....0/rob4.jpg

    As to Alicia Cartelli’s disdain for scripture at the end of my posts:

    Verses and Music:

    Luke 19:37-40
    When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
    “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”
    “Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”
    Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!”
    “I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

    Love & The Outcome – He Is With Us (Official Music Video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYLoigK4WSI

  23. 23
    Mapou says:

    Darwinists have turned “creationist” into a dirty word. I am not a young-earth Christian fundamentalist but I am personally proud to be a creationist. And it is not just living organisms that were created but every physical thing that exists.

    I think it is time we turned the table on the dirt worshippers. The real dirty word here is “Darwinist”. Come to think of it, “dirty Darwinist” has a nice ring to it. And yes, if you are an ID proponent, you are a creationist. Don’t be ashamed of what you are.

    For effect only: I am a damn creationist and proud of it.

  24. 24
    Axel says:

    It wasn’t a problem for Einstein. He just wasn’t anxious to join up the dots too pertinaciously. There was a ‘great illimitable Spirit’ who designed everything, and he wanted to left it at that.

    He didn’t mind the divine toe and instep in the door; it was just the thought of the rest of the divine foot he was cagey about.

    WWII and the Holocaust etc, understandably shook the faith of many Jewish and part-Jewish intellectuals, or inhibited the prospects for it to develop in congruence with their understanding of physics.

    Nevertheless, they all seemed to recognise at least deism as the rational inference from science. Of course many of the Greats, such as Planck and Godel, were firm believers.

  25. 25
    Axel says:

    Demonising – a normal feature of the political, far-right – is a sign that they have no cogent argument.

  26. 26
    Virgil Cain says:

    REC:

    Your post ignores the origins, history and apparent goals of ID.

    ID’s history dates back to at least the ancient Greeks. And it’s goals have always been to understand what we observe.

    How many posts on this site are about atheism or miracles or anti-materialism?

    You can only say so much about ATP synthase, biological reproduction, bacterial flagella, cilia, DNA, genetic codes, neuro-muscular systems, muscular-skeletal systems, sexual reproduction, meiosis, the factors required to make earth habitable for us, the laws that govern nature, the properties of water, consciousness, etc., etc., etc. And attacking materialism is mandatory, so here we are.

    You can try to erect fences, but ID has failed to emerge as a scientific movement with any credibility.

    And evolutionism has credibility? Really?

  27. 27
    Virgil Cain says:

    Creation is a subset of ID. If Creation is true then so is ID. However ID could be true without Creation being true. The Bible could be proven to be a hoax and ID would be OK but Creation wouldn’t be.

    So yes some of the arguments are going to be the same.

  28. 28
    ppolish says:

    Isn’t ID a subset of the.whole “new paradigm” “third way” rethinking of Evo Theory? An overturning of the “unguided” “purposeless” bogusness. Maybe not a subset but the foundation.

  29. 29
    Mapou says:

    Hold on a second. Are you guys saying that one can believe in ID (living organisms require intelligent design) and not believe that these organisms were created? Which way does this make any sense? Whoever designed them first must have created them, no?

    Sorry. Something in that argument does not compute. As far as I understand it, ID is creationism. Period. And we should all be proud of it.

  30. 30
    bornagain says:

    OT: Axel, I know you may find this interesting. This Pastor has really done his homework on NDEs and done a very informative series on them:

    Imagine Heaven – Evidence for the Afterlife (with interview of Dr. Mary Neal)
    https://vimeo.com/140585737

    Imagine Heaven – Relationships in Heaven (Interview: Don Piper)
    https://vimeo.com/141336262

    Imagine Heaven – The Most Beautiful Place
    https://vimeo.com/142068732

    Imagine Heaven – The Highlight of Heaven
    https://vimeo.com/142922744

    Imagine Heaven – What About Hell?
    https://vimeo.com/143542740

    Imagine Heaven – Rewards That Last
    https://vimeo.com/144330752

  31. 31
    REC says:

    Mapou is correct. Post-Dover you’ve all got a quirky no, no intelligent design doesn’t require an intelligent designer (creator) reflex.

    Phillip E Johnson:

    NOVA: What is intelligent design?

    Phillip Johnson: I would like to put a basic explanation of the intelligent-design concept as I understand it this way. There are two hypotheses to consider scientifically. One is you need a creative intelligence to do all the creating that has been done in the history of life; the other is you don’t, because we can show that unintelligent, purposeless, natural processes are capable of doing and actually did do the whole job.

    Is the “creative intelligence” doing the “creating” a creator or not?

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/e.....esign.html

  32. 32
    Mapou says:

    REC:

    Is the “creative intelligence” doing the “creating” a creator or not?

    Absolutely. This is like asking, “Can one drive a car that was designed but not built?”

    Now, I understand perfectly why some ID proponents are reticent to be called creationists. It’s because you imbeciles in the dirt worshipping camp managed to turn the word into a bad word meaning something like “young earth Christian fundamentalist Bible thumper”.

    Who cares what dirt worshippers think? I think ID proponents should wear the creationist label proudly. I know I do. We should promote it at every opportunity and announce it on the rooftops. “Don’t be ashamed of your convictions” is one of my mottos.

  33. 33
  34. 34
    johnnyb says:

    “So that’s our definition of creationism, isn’t an IDist by definition a creationist?”

    No. As we’ve pointed out many times (even on this thread!), there are many ID’ers who agree with common ancestry (Behe, Denton, Gonzalez, Sternberg are the bigger names, and vjtorley and others on this board as well), and the theory itself is neutral on this question, since a design inference is orthogonal to questions of ancestry.

    “I’m curious what those questions are, but I think that could be a contribution to science.”

    A good example is Adami/Pennock’s Avida program. Pennock said in a lecture that it was inspired by the questions that Behe asked (I think this was correct – the report was several years ago). This is actually pretty clear if you read between the lines in Adami’s paper in Nature.

    Behe’s calculations in Edge of Evolution and elsewhere of the limits of Darwinism have inspired a number of papers to go and do their own calculations on the question, which generally have proved out his point (but claiming victory against him by nibbling around the edges). Interestingly, copies of Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box have been noted on John Maynard Smith’s bookshelf.

    Gregory Chaitin, one of the founders of modern information theory, has numerous times said that he appreciates ID, and uses ID concepts as a baseline for measuring the ability of evolution to generate information.

    There have been others who have written private emails (I have been privy to see a few) that, even by those who disagree with ID, the challenges posed have been helpful to re-examine the work they do. There was once one posted anonymously here on UD, but I can’t remember enough of it to search for it well.

    On top of this, I would claim that the move of evolutionary biology off of natural selection as a primary cause of evolution over the last two decades has been largely the result of ID, even though I doubt anyone would say this. I find it hard to believe that the criticisms of natural selection that have been touted by ID’ers for decades and by creationists even more decades before are now, completely independently, being discovered by evolutionary biologists. This stretches the imagination. For instance, Fodor’s criticisms of natural selection is largely an echo of the criticisms against natural selection proffered for the last half-century by all teleologically-minded people (note – Fodor does in fact move the conversation forward by noting the relationship with other, similar theories that have failed, and perhaps being more rigorous on a few points, but the outlines are largely the same). It strains credulity to say that the criticisms which were lambasted in public for decade upon decade suddenly find their way into reputable circles completely independently! I don’t think that there’s anything nefarious going on – there’s no one up late at night copying down things from ID or creationist sources and then hoping no one will notice. But the questions that students bring (and then professors have to answer) do come from somewhere, and I would be really surprised if the shift away from selectionism wasn’t due in large part to the ID movement.

    “or citations within the very small self-identifying ID community”

    I don’t really see how that is problematic. If I did work in the evolutionary psychology of rabbits, I shouldn’t be surprised if most of my citations comes from other people studying the evolutionary psychology of rabbits. If people are developing ideas based on Dembski (which they are), they, by definition, are within his community. But somehow that puts their work out of bounds? That quickly becomes equivalent to “no one cites X positively to develop their work, except those who cite X positively to develop their work.”

    As an example of building off of the theory, both Durston and Ewert developed extensions to Dembski’s specified complexity – Durston using Shannon Information Theory as a foundation and Ewert using Algorithmic Information Theory. Interestingly, Ewert proved that they were essentially equal. Thus, two different theoretical starting points converge. This is evidence that there really is something there, and not mere navel-gazing.

  35. 35
    bpragmatic says:

    “Even if that was ID’s only contribution – to get the evolutionary biology community to ask better questions – I would count that as a huge contribution to science.

    Learned Hand says:
    I’m curious what those questions are, but I think that could be a contribution to science.”

    Let us start with something like this: First of all, related to asking better questions the “evolutionary biology community” should develop a code of ethics demanding, among other things, full disclosure of the assumptions underlying the assertions presented in text books, journal articles, scientific studies. And refuse to grant interviews to pop culture journalists writing newspaper, magazine and video articles unless there is full disclosure by the journalists of those assumptions and speculations undergirding the assertions inherent in the studies presented by the “evolutionary biological community”.

    The reason why they wont do this though, is because if they did, they would expose their “science” as the pseudoscientific pablum that it is. Lose public and private funding, prestige, personal financial security, control etc.

  36. 36
    Robert Byers says:

    We come from and live in a very Christian civilization and world civilization of saying there is a God(s) who created everything that matters.
    ID can not avoid its about showing God’s fingerprints on natures origins.
    What else is the intelligence?
    ID should not run away from good ole creationism.
    If not likeing Genesis well okay.
    Yet in this thread the author is saying creationism comes from religious texts etc.
    It doesn’t. It comes from Gods witness and creationism attacks the opposition with scientific investigation.
    YEC is only, say 20%, based on Genesis in its purpose for being organized.
    80% is based on scientific investigation in debunking the wrong dumb opposition ideas.

    Come on ID friends.
    You complain about THEM labeling you wrong but then you label YEC wrong.
    ID is creationist. Just not genesis creationist mostly.
    ID can’t say intelligence doesn’t mean a God when thats what it always has and does mean.
    The sin here is ID doesn’t defend the science credibility of YEC.
    Do that and then separate yourselves.
    Don’t say ID does science and YEC doesn’t.
    Its not accurate or I’m wrong.
    if wrong show why?

  37. 37
    Learned Hand says:

    No. As we’ve pointed out many times (even on this thread!), there are many ID’ers who agree with common ancestry (Behe, Denton, Gonzalez, Sternberg are the bigger names, and vjtorley and others on this board as well), and the theory itself is neutral on this question, since a design inference is orthogonal to questions of ancestry.

    I don’t know enough about the others to assess their beliefs, but I don’t agree that Behe accepts common descent. I think he would disagree with me on that point, but if I understand his position correctly, he thinks evolution—including the changes necessary for common descent to be real—is impossible unless actively guided by an external force. And practically speaking, that force must be divine or otherwise effectively supernatural. To say that something is impossible but made to happen by divine (or otherwise inscrutable) intervention is not to accept that thing, in my opinion, especially when the scientific consensus is that it’s perfectly possible.

    I think this helps us reduce my definition even further, into two parts. I think “creationist” implies two things: 1. The belief that a divine, intelligent force purposefully created life; and 2. The rejection of mainstream scientific conclusions that are perceived as inconsistent with that belief. What do you think?

    There’s still some ambiguity here; secular creationists like certain UFOlogists would qualify except that their Designers aren’t God. They’re an even smaller fringe than die-hard YECs, so I’m not too concerned if the definition imperfectly includes or excludes them. Perhaps though we could say “inscrutable” or “supernatural” rather than “divine.” Also, the intervention needn’t just be with the creation of life—intervening with its development would count too, in my mind. But I don’t think any IDists really take the position that the Designer, God, stumbled upon existing lifeforms he didn’t create and then intervened in their evolution. Please do let me know if I’m wrong about that!

    Interestingly, copies of Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box have been noted on John Maynard Smith’s bookshelf.

    There’s one on mine, too, along with several of Dembski’s books, Harun Yaya’s Atlas of Creation, and David Icke’s “Human Race Get Off Your Knees.”

    On top of this, I would claim that the move of evolutionary biology off of natural selection as a primary cause of evolution over the last two decades has been largely the result of ID, even though I doubt anyone would say this.

    That’s interesting. I’m not qualified to evaluate that claim. I’d be interested in hearing from someone who is.

    “or citations within the very small self-identifying ID community”
    I don’t really see how that is problematic. If I did work in the evolutionary psychology of rabbits, I shouldn’t be surprised if most of my citations comes from other people studying the evolutionary psychology of rabbits. If people are developing ideas based on Dembski (which they are), they, by definition, are within his community. But somehow that puts their work out of bounds? That quickly becomes equivalent to “no one cites X positively to develop their work, except those who cite X positively to develop their work.”

    I don’t think it’s all that problematic, merely a sign of the very limited influence he’s had. The people who cite him approvingly are the people who already agreed with him—a small and largely homogenous community made up of people whose work has, like his, failed to make any headway. If the question is still whether Dembski has “made a mark,” I think the fact that he doesn’t seem to be able to persuade experts that his ideas work is relevant.

    Also, Dembski’s virtues—and I do find things to admire about him—do not include humility. He doesn’t characterize ID as something as limited as “the evolutionary psychology of rabbits.” If ID works, it’s an enormous revolution in human knowledge. I think the failure of its proponents to move the ball forward in any of the affected fields—biology, mathematics, philosophy, astronomy, etc.—is relevant given that potential scope. To me, “making a mark” in science would be making large advances in the acceptance and utilization of ID. Dembski instead seems to be one of a very small class of creationists with legitimate credentials fighting to retard the slow, centuries-long death of their ideology.

    This is evidence that there really is something there, and not mere navel-gazing.

    Again, I lack the means to assess this. With the tools that I have for gauging the idea’s success, I can merely note how odd it is that essentially no SMEs seem to be persuaded by ID rhetoric. And that seems to be true in all the relevant fields. I also note that no one seems to think that ID actually works, and I include ID advocates in that. I’m not aware of any attempts to actually test the tools in a controlled setting, to see if they reliably do detect design under blinded circumstances. Why not? Wouldn’t that be the surest way to defend the theory against its critics?

  38. 38
    kairosfocus says:

    JB, thought-provoking. The most significant thing emerging from objectors above is just how hard they are kicking against the goads, and how (inadvertently) they are highlighting their own agendas, biases and hostilities verging on hate. Not to mention silent enabling of abuse and oppression. KF

  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    LH

    While I must express appreciation that you have taken time to express your thoughts, what jumps out at me is the glaring gap.

    For me, the root design inference pivots on an observable reality recognised by Plato in the Laws Bk X 2350 years ago and acknowledged by him to be older. Namely, that we see effects and can trace distinct causal factors and distinctive impacts. Particularly, blind chance, blind mechanical necessity, and intelligently directed configuration — aka design.

    Something like an Abu 6500 reel is an apt example of an entity exhibiting functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I for useful short.

    This is not a novel, suspect notion, it is a longstanding, even trivially observable pattern in our world. Namely, composite entities, phenomena, processes based on a network of nodes connected arc-wise with relevant coupling and orientation, per what Wicken termed a wiring diagram. The next factor is, there is specific function dependent on configuration. A bag of reel parts could work as a paperweight, but that does not sharply constrain configuration. Function as a fishing reel critically depends on the configuration, and it takes skill to specify, compose, arrange and construct.

    Similarly, the text of comments in this thread exhibit such FSCO/I, based on linear strings, *-*-*- . . . -*

    That turns out to be important, as functional config clusters can be specified in accord with a description language, and under conditions of reasonable conciseness, string length is an index of degree of complexity and scope of config space in which the FSCO/I clusters “live.” Of particular interest is reduction to strings of structured Y/N q’s, i.e. binary digits.

    AutoCAD etc illustrate this.

    The next point is that 500 – 1,000 bits marks a threshold.

    3.27*10^150 to 1.07*10^301 possibilities.

    The first level easily exhausts the atom level fast chemical reaction time search resources of our sol system [~10^57 atoms, ~ 10^17s ~ 10^13 or 14 steps/s]. Thus, as the requisites of functional specificity pivoting on organisation confine acceptable clusters to narrow islands in the sea of possibilities, blind search faces a super-task type needle in haystack challenge. (This is very similar to how the 2nd law of thermodynamics is statistically grounded on search challenge i/l/o dominant clusters of microstates defining equilibrium recognisable as a macrostate.)

    That then lends context to the observation on a trillion member base (just think Internet), that FSCO/I is routinely and indeed only observed to come about causally by intelligently directed configuration.

    That is, it is an observable and inductively strong sign of design as cause.

    On observing FSCO/I, the best current, empirically anchored and analytically plausible causal explanation is design; intelligently directed configuration.

    This is patently testable and potentially falsifiable, simply provide a counter-instance where, reliably and on credible observation, FSCO/I comes about by blind watchmaker forces of chance and necessity. (This is particularly readily testable by the equivalent of setting up say 500 coins and rapidly searching the space of possibilities through a random process with testing for some relevant function. A cold paramagnetic substance with two states in a B field, aligned and counter-aligned, would be the equivalent physical model, cf Mandl on Statistical Thermodynamics. Of course the logical model would be in a computer. But feed genuine randomness, say captured and whitened sky noise or zener noise, perhaps through triggering cycles of a Johnson type counter etc.)

    I suggest, much of the current state of objecting rhetoric is driven by a striking fact: in accord with expectations from the statistics of the config space, dozens of attempts have failed.

    Sort of like the story of the perpetuum mobile.

    Another objection is that there is a dis-analogy as living systems reproduce and so can evolve.

    The problem here, is that such cell based living things (the actually observed class) integrate smart gated encapsulation with a lot of FSCO/I, a metabolic automaton with a reaction network that is FSCO/I rich, and reproduction is based on a code using process readily summarised in terms of a von Neumann kinematic Self-Replicator [vNkSR]. That is — just as Paley pointed out in Ch 2 of his Nat Theol 50 years before Darwin [and which Darwin et al obviously knew about but likely set aside as cells then seemed fairly simple) — the self-replicating process is itself a case in point of what is to be explained. I clip, on additionality:

    Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch should after some time discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself — the thing is conceivable; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts — a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools — evidently and separately calculated for this purpose . . . .

    The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done — for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art . . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair — the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use.

    Thus, at the root of Darwin’s tree of life sits OOL, and the code using reproduction requisite to cell based life is antecedent to proposed evolution based on differential reproductive success leading to culling of less successful varieties.

    Design sits at the explanatory table at the very root, as of right not grudging sufferance; rhetoric and abusive behaviour notwithstanding.

    This transforms explanation of origin of body plans, as design cannot be ruled out a priori on ideological grounds — we are talking here of 10 – 100+ mn bits of further FSCO/I, per case . . . including 60 mn base prs in 6 – 10 MY for us, on the “2% different from chimps” claim.

    At least, if science and science education are to preserve their integrity as truth-seeking i/l/o empirically observed realities. (That by itself raises very serious questions about what has been going on with say, methodological naturalism so-called, rhetoric about smuggling the supernatural into secular science [when the true contrast since Plato is chance, necessity, and design], and sneering about god of the gaps.)

    A re-check above will readily show to the unbiased mind, that the discussion is not about religious texts or traditions, though there may be points of contact. Rhetoric about creationists in cheap tuxedos or about wedge document hidden agendas turn out to be little more than setting up and knocking over creationist strawmen. Too often, by way of willfully speaking with disregard to truth, in hopes of profiting from what is said or suggested being taken as true. Lying, in short. Or else ill advisedly passing on or allowing oneself to be unduly taken in by malicious agit-prop.

    Post Umpqua, such things have long passed the boundaries of decency and acceptability. Innocent blood cries up from the ground over the assiduous cultivation of anti-Christian bigotry, contempt, scapegoating and demonising. It is time to stop, and to acknowledge wrong done and its predictable consequences.

    High time.

    Going back to the substantial matter, the design inference is patently inductive and empirically grounded, in a scientific context.

    As at now, it is those who object who have an unmet burden of warrant, once ideological question begging and institutional capture are set to one side.

    What about intelligence?

    We know the phenomenon, we know we cannot exhaust it as the only possible case. We know there are debates over possibilities. That means, we should at least entertain that such can be embedded in the substructure of reality in ways we don’t understand including possibly immanent and non personal.

    Intelligence is manifest in its ability to transcend what chance and necessity without direction can do.

    So, we are back to the core, evidence based, truth seeking values of science, and the need to respect responsible diversity of views.

    With innocent blood crying up from the ground.

    Again.

    KF

  40. 40
    Roy says:

    No article that attempts to distinguish ID from creationism will succeed unless it deals with the nasty little fact that is the main reason they are conflated:

    “Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”

    “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, wings, etc.”

    “cdesign proponentsists”

    When this is left out the impression given is of concealment and revisionism.

  41. 41
    bornagain says:

    Roy, exactly why is it that Darwinists are allowed to make ‘god would not have done it that way’ arguments, but no one is allowed to argue the counter position of “God would have done it that way’?

    In fact, in the twisted world of Darwinian reasoning, Dr. John Avise used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental, which is actually a powerful scientific argument against Darwinism, as a theological argument for Darwinism since, according to Darwinian theology, God would never allow such things as detrimental mutations:

    It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012
    Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]”
    – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome: A Case For Non-Intelligent Design”
    (Dr. Cornelius Hunter goes on to comment)
    “There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way.” –
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....it-is.html

    Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57 By John C. Avise
    Excerpt: “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.”

    I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:

    Mutation total (as of June 27, 2015) – 166,768
    http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/

    Contrary to what Dr. Avise may believe, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is NOT a point of evidence in favor of Darwinism! In fact, it is a very powerful scientific argument against Darwinian claims,,, That this fact would even have to be pointed out to Darwinists is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian theology truly is in regards to the science at hand.

    Here are a few more (of many) ‘God would not have done it that way’ arguments from Darwinists.

    “The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, “orphaned” genes, “junk” DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival. It works, and it works brilliantly; not because of intelligent design, but because of the great blind power of natural selection.”
    – Ken Miller

    “Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution … we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed … the evolutionary prediction that we’ll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply … our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes”
    – Jerry Coyne

    “We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, gene fragments, tandem repeats, and pseudo¬genes, none of which are involved directly in the making of a human being. In fact, of the entire human genome, it appears that only a tiny percentage is actively involved in useful protein production. Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution.”
    – Michael Shermer

    From Discovering Intelligent Design: Two Thumbs Up – May 27, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that “odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution — paths that a sensible God would never tread.” Likewise Miller claims that an intelligent designer would have “been capable of remodeling a complete digit, like the thumb of a primate, to hold the panda’s food.”
    It turns out that the panda’s thumb is not a clumsy design. A study published in Nature used MRI and computer tomography to analyze the thumb and concluded that the bones “form a double pincer-like apparatus” thus “enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity.”
    The critics’ objection is backed by little more than their subjective opinion about what a “sensible God” should have made.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....72531.html

    “the argument from imperfection — i.e., organisms show imperfections of “design” that constitute evidence for evolution — is not a theological argument, but a scientific one. The reason why the recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, makes a big detour around the aorta before attaching to the larynx is perfectly understandable by evolution (the nerve and artery used to line up, but the artery evolved backwards, constraining the nerve to move with it), but makes no sense under the idea of special creation — unless, that is, you believe that the creator designed things to make them look as if they evolved. No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections, but they all, as Dobzhansky said, “make sense in the light of evolution.”
    Jerry Coyne – Why Evolution Is True

    Coyne’s ‘scientific’ argument from the poor design of the laryngeal nerve is now known to be false.

    podcast: Dr. Lönnig gives an account of the rational design of the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve, a feature that Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists claim can only be explained by Darwinian evolution.
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....d-giraffe/

    So Roy, why are Darwinists so dependent on bad theology to try to make their case, and that bad theology is supposedly ‘scientific’, yet no one is allowed to question that bad theology lest they be labeled a dreaded ‘creationist’ and thus supposedly ‘non-scientific’?

  42. 42
    Virgil Cain says:

    Roy, ID is OK with universal common descent which makes your posted definition incorrect. And “cdesign proponentsists” was taken from a rough draft. Not only that but Darwin mentioned a Creator in his “On the Origin of Species”. By your logic evos are also Creationists.

  43. 43
    mike1962 says:

    Mapou: As far as I understand it, ID is creationism. Period. And we should all be proud of it.

    If intelligent design is creationism, then appending “creationism” to “intelligent design” is superfluous. If intelligent design is not creationism, then appending “creationism” to “intelligent design” is erroneous.

    Traditionally, “creationism” has been identified with the literal six-day biblical creation story. The culture warriors who hate ID know that and want the public to erroneously identify in their minds “intelligent design” with six-day biblical creationism. The culture warriors want to deflect any criticism away from blind-watchmaker evolution, and make this about “religion” encroaching upon “science.” Think about it: what was Dover about?

  44. 44
    johnnyb says:

    I think Roy’s issue is that he lives in a static universe. It is true that the equivocation that I criticize evolutionists of making is an easy one. Lots of people have fallen into it. But the purpose of the development of thought is to identify important distinctions. These important distinctions, once identified, should not be re-conflated just because that’s what they did “in the old days”. That’s just the opposite of thinking.

    Let me put forth a parallel (and true) story, and see what Roy thinks of it. In all of his published work, Lemaitre asserted that the Big Bang theory (note – Lemaitre invented the Big Bang theory) was independent of religious considerations. However, in his unpublished writings, it was discovered that he had written something to the effect of “this shows that the beginning of the universe was bathed in light, just as Genesis suggests.”

    Should we get rid of the Big Bang because, in an old unpublished draft Lemaitre wrote that the big bang shows that the universe began in light “as Genesis suggested it“? Or should we take the later, published version of his idea that the Big Bang is logically independent of religious viewpoint?

    Even if his ideas about Genesis and the Big Bang were published, is not the later development of the Big Bang theory itself evidence of the logical separation, no matter what Lemaitre actually thought? If the Big Bang theory was really just an attempt by a Catholic priest to insert Genesis into science, what does anyone care? The question is whether or not it is true.

    So, Roy, if you think that ID is creationism because of an old draft of Pandas and People, then you should be consistent and claim that the Big Bang is not only creationism, but Biblical Creationism.

  45. 45
    kairosfocus says:

    Roy, again, kindly look at the discussion of the empirical, inductive inference in 39 above: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-586745 Until that has been successfully addressed by your side the sort of rhetorical stunt you just tried will be little more than a red herring distraction led away to a strawman caricature poisoned with demonisation and set alight to poison, cloud, polarise and distort the atmosphere. And that, in a situation where innocent blood has been spilled because madmen are distilling that poison out of the air into shoot Christians on sight. In other words, tin ear or not, you have a responsibility to wake up to what you are helping to enable by insisting on spreading long since cogently corrected — the linked is over nine years old — agit prop smears. KF

    PS: I point out that the actual history of ideas root of design theory is that Bible thumping fundy — NOT — Plato, in The Laws, Bk X.

    PPS: Here is also good context re Dover: http://www.discovery.org/a/4207

  46. 46
    kairosfocus says:

    Rec, design is intelligently directed configuration. Contrivance. As 39 above discusses, the inference to it is an empirically anchored inductive exercise. Until that is addressed, stunts like conflating design with designers as creative thus “creators,” thence Creationism will be little more than red herrings led away to poisoned strawmen set alight. In an atmosphere where because of years of deliberate poisoning and polarising, madmen are now distilling shoot on sight out of that toxic air. It is high time for rethinking and doing better post Umpqua. KF

  47. 47
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Yes, the inductive argument about FSCO/I is fairly simple and even significantly non-technical. The problem is not some wrinkle or other of novel research, but underlying logic and controlling assumptions.

    Hence, Johnson:

    For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.

    [–> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:

    “Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific “dead ends” and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.”

    Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to “natural vs [the suspect] supernatural.” Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga’s reply here and here.]

    And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And if the latter is twisted into a caricature god of the gaps strawman, then locked out, huge questions are being oh so conveniently begged.]

    That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

    It is time for a rethink.

    KF

  48. 48

    JohnnyB wrote: “Intelligent Design simply means that you think that there is the possibility that we can detect signals of intelligence from identifiable patterns in the universe.”

    Defintions should be straightforward, literal, and generic. As a rule all theories in science have to be stated in a general form.

    Intelligent design as science should therefore refer to how intelligent design works. It should just as well refer to the physics of how human beings intelligently design stuff, as any other intelligent design which can be found in nature.

    The term creationism is a generic umbrella term, same like materialism. But where materialism only covers facts, creationism also covers opinion. With creationism one can theorize the facts by what decisions the earth was created, and also form the opinion that the earth is beautiful or ugly, as a matter of opinion.

    Subjectivity, saying what is good, loving and beautiful is a creationist concept.

    Creationism is then only saying that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. A very generic fundamental theory of everything, which establises the validity of both fact and opinion.

  49. 49
    Seversky says:

    I would say that while intelligent design and creationism can be treated as separate subjects, there is little doubt that they are at least as closely linked as evolution and abiogenesis, if not more so. It is also disingenuous to deny that the majority of ID proponents support the movement because it offers the possibility of finding the signature of intelligent agency in the natural world which, in their minds, would be a big step towards scientific evidence of their God’s handiwork. Founding fathers of the ID movement, such as Philip Johnson, were quite open about their theological purpose so why deny it?

    At this point I need to insert the usual disclaimer that the religious beliefs of honest researchers do not prevent them from doing good science. Finding a reliable way of distinguishing between artifice and nature, for example, regardless of the agent, would be useful and, hence, good science. However, as News gleefully points out, there have been instances of scientists conducting and publishing what amounts fraudulent research for what no doubt seemed to them to be good reasons at the time. Given that, we are entitled to be circumspect about the likes of Jonathan Wells who admitted entering science with the express purpose of destroying Darwinism. He may well do good science regardless but it should be subject to the same close scrutiny that all research should receive. And I may be wrong but I don’t recall that Einstein took up theoretical physics with the express purpose of destroying Newtonism for religious reasons.

    As for somewhat overwrought rhetoric about the cultivation of “anti-Christian bigotry, contempt, scapegoating and demonising” leading to shooting incidents such as at Umpqua, those gunmen are no more typical of atheists, materialists or secularists than the Westboro Baptist Church is typical of all Christians. In the case of the Umpqua tragedy we have one eyewitness who testified that, yes, the gunman did ask victims if they were Christian but, regardless of what they answered, he shot them anyway. These are disturbed individuals whose problems do not appear to have their roots in religious or philosophical debates. Whatever beliefs they might profess are more likely to be post hoc rationalizations and justifications for offenses they feel compelled to perpetrate for much more visceral reasons.

    Intelligent Design cannot escape the fact that it is rooted in Christian creationism and “creation science”. That does not mean it can’t be good science but to be that it needs to do more that just criticize the flaws, both real and imagined. in the theory of evolution. Physicists before Einstein had become well aware of problems with Newtonian mechanics but they did not spend most of their time complaining about the social ills caused by the theories or that they were only sustained by corrupt and self-serving academic cabals. Instead, they went out and tried to develop better theories, theories which worked better because they succeeded where Newtonian mechanics failed. Einstein got there first, although he was not the only one working towards a better theory.

    This is why ID, as it stands, cannot and will not replace the theory of evolution. It is not a better theory of “how”, it is essentially a conjecture about “who”. If ID were to demonstrate a reliable method for identifying design in nature and if that method revealed that extraterrestrial agency had influenced the course of life on Earth that would be a huge discovery, one of the greatest in science. But it would not necessarily say anything about the theory of evolution. Evolutionary processes could still operate even if they were being tweaked by aliens. Nor would it necessarily be evidence of God, very advanced ETs perhaps, but not God.

    One final cautionary note. If ID were to succeed in discovering that we are actually the handiwork of some very advanced aliens, it would effectively knock us off our perch as the pinnacle of Christian creation. If there are older, smarter, better beings elsewhere in the Universe what reason do we have for believing that we are God’s most favored creation? Be careful what you wish for.

  50. 50
    Carpathian says:

    Mapou:

    Sorry. Something in that argument does not compute. As far as I understand it, ID is creationism. Period. And we should all be proud of it.

    I think that is the only way to look at the ID movement.

    It doesn’t mean Creationism/ID is right about the origins of life, but the arguments start to make sense seen from a Creationist/ID viewpoint.

  51. 51
    Mapou says:

    Mike1962,

    “Creationism” must be redefined to mean what the word itself purports to mean. We should resist the Darwinist definition with everything we got. It should only mean the following: Creationism is the philosophical position that living organisms (and the entire universe) were necessarily designed and created. It should not have anything to do with how a particular branch of Christianity interprets the book of Genesis.

    So-called “culture warriors” is also a misnomer. The imbeciles are not warriors. They are jackasses without honor. We must not allow them to redefine words and change the subject of the debate. We must fight them every step of the way. Personally, I have no respect for them and I never will.

    I am a creationist 100%. We must embrace the label and cleanse it from the demons imposed on it by that clueless and honorless band of jackasses.

  52. 52
    Virgil Cain says:

    Creationism has a specific meaning and it is based on the Bible. ID is not based on the Bible so it should not be called Creationism.

  53. 53
    Axel says:

    Thanks a million of the links @ #30, Philip. Very much appreciated.

  54. 54
    Roy says:

    @ bornagain:

    Roy, exactly why is it that …

    Nothing you wrote has any bearing on my point, the thread topic, or anything I’m interested in discussing with anyone, let alone you.

  55. 55
    Roy says:

    @ johnnyb: If Lemaitre had devised “Big Bang Theory” by writing “And God said: Let there be lighta Big Bang” you might have a point. But he didn’t.

  56. 56
    Mapou says:

    Virgil Cain:

    Creationism has a specific meaning and it is based on the Bible. ID is not based on the Bible so it should not be called Creationism.

    There are all kinds of creationists, all of whom base their belief on some religion or other, and not necessarily on the Bible. There are Christian creationists, Jewish creationists, Muslim creationists, Hindu creationists, Voodoo creationists, Ancient Egyptian/Babylonian/Assyrian/Greek/Roman/Aztec/Mayan/Inca creationists, freemason creationists and many more.

    So I disagree that the term creationist should be applied only to those who believe in the Bible. We must return to the purity of the meaning of the word and make it our own. A creationist is simply someone who believes that living organisms were originally designed and created by one ore more intelligent designers.

    Some creationists (I included) subscribe to the theory that that the creation process took many hundreds of millions of years and consisted of a number of explosively creative periods followed by carefully planned mass extinctions. It appears that there was some intense experimentation going on within a larger plan to terraform the planet and make it suitable to human habitation. Humans seem to have been the last great species/kind to be designed/created.

  57. 57
    Roy says:

    Until that has been successfully addressed by your side the sort of rhetorical stunt you just tried will be little more than a red herring distraction led away to a strawman caricature poisoned with demonisation and set alight to poison, cloud, polarise and distort the atmosphere. And that, in a situation where innocent blood has been spilled because madmen are distilling that poison out of the air into shoot Christians on sight.

    Can anyone produce an example of Christians being shot on sight because of a dispute over the definition of intelligent design? Otherwise the above is just deluded insanity.

  58. 58
    Axel says:

    Re your #55, Roy, were they not supposed to be photons streaming from the Singularity.

  59. 59
    scottH says:

    Why does ID have to defend itself on whether or not it is a form of creationism or based on religion when as BA77 has linked many times before, Darwin used a lot of “God wouldn’t do it this way so it wasn’t designed” arguments? It can just as easily be said, if not more so, that Darwinian evolution is used to prop up atheistic beliefs.

    btw, Mapou
    Good points, keep em coming!

  60. 60
    bornagain says:

    Roy you state

    Nothing you wrote has any bearing on my point, the thread topic, or anything I’m interested in discussing with anyone, let alone you.

    Yet the thread title is

    “Intelligent Design Creationism” as a Label

    And your point was that one cannot always readily distinguish between ID and Creationism because of inherent Theology in both positions.

    My point was that Darwinists are also dependent on inherent Theology in their arguments, although it is certainly bad theology that Darwinists are dependent on.

    Thus, the point is certainly relevant to both the topic of the thread and to your point, which was to try to disparage ID because of inherent Theological overtones that overlap Creationism.

    The only reason for you not wanting to discuss this point is because it shows your position to be based on a hypocrisy.

    Since you have no interest in discussing the faulty theological basis of Darwinian thought, as pointed out in post 22, then I don’t blame you for not wanting to discuss it with me or anyone else. It simply renders your point on Theological overlap null and void.

    Moreover, it is a inherent hypocrisy in your argument that you cannot rid yourself of since all of science proceeds as if Theism is true, as also pointed out in post 22.

  61. 61
    Seversky says:

    bornagain @ 60

    My point was that Darwinists are also dependent on inherent Theology in their arguments, although it is certainly bad theology that Darwinists are dependent on.

    […]

    Since you have no interest in discussing the faulty theological basis of Darwinian thought, as pointed out in post 22, then I don’t blame you for not wanting to discuss it with me or anyone else. It simply renders your point on Theological overlap null and void.

    Moreover, it is a inherent hypocrisy in your argument that you cannot rid yourself of since all of science proceeds as if Theism is true, as also pointed out in post 22.

    I see nothing in 22 to show that the theory of evolution or science on general are in any way dependent on theistic assumptions.

    What I do see, contra the thrust of the OP, is one of the founding fathers of ID, Phillip E Johnson, writing as follows:

    This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.

    If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this. … We call our strategy the “wedge.”

    The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that “In the beginning was the Word,” and “In the beginning God created.” Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message

    We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.

    The subject is not just the theory of evolution, the subject is the reality of God.

    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.

    It isn’t the theory of evolution which is underpinned by theistic assumptions.

  62. 62
    bornagain says:

    Seversky, you claim that

    I see nothing in 22 to show that the theory of evolution or science on general are in any way dependent on theistic assumptions.

    Which is an interesting, and patently false, claim for you to make since, besides the peer reviewed links that I cited in post 22 testifying to the fact that Darwinian arguments are inherently Theological, ‘god would have not done it that way’ arguments are still used to this day by leading Darwinists to try to give an air legitimacy to Darwinian claims. I listed some specific examples of leading Darwinists of today using (bad) theology here in post 41:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-586750

    As well, here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, ‘Darwin On Trial’, in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue:

    Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw

    Here is a quote from the Nature article that tried to refute Johnson’s book. A quote that is blatantly theological:

    David Hull, reviewing Darwin on Trial for Nature, was equally severe with me for refusing to concede that Darwinism has finished off theistic religion for good. Hull emphatically proclaimed a Darwinist doctrine of God:

    “What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin’s Galapagos Islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.6”
    http://www.arn.org/docs/orpage.....ngould.htm

    In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala expressly uses theological argumentation in his book to try to support Darwinian evolution, and Dr. Craig invites him to present empirical evidence, any positive empirical evidence at all, that Darwinian evolution can actually do what Ayala claims it can:

    Refuting The Myth Of ‘Bad Design’ vs. Intelligent Design – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg

    Here is a much more thorough lecture on the Theological foundation of Darwinism (based on Cornelius Hunter’s book “Darwin’s God):

    The Descent of Darwin (The Theodicy of Darwinism) – Pastor Joe Boot – video – 16:30 minute mark
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996

    Thus Seversky, it appears you have very selective vision when it comes to not seeing Theology in science. Especially when it comes to not seeing the Theological argumentation that is rampant within Darwinian thought.

    As to all of science proceeding as if Theism were true, well that fact is plain as day.

    Tell me Seversky, how far do you think science would have gotten if there truly were no real rhyme or reason for why anything exists as atheists presuppose?

    Apparently not very far since there were no atheists at the founding of each major discipline of modern science. Only Theists, mostly Christians, were there.

    Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD – Tihomir Dimitrov – (pg. 222)
    http://www.academia.edu/273960.....OD_Journal

    Moreover, it is found that even atheistic scientists themselves cannot rid themselves of the belief that things exist for a purpose. i.e. Atheists live in denial of the purpose that they must presuppose in order to do science in the first place!

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    Quite an embarrassing finding for atheists if you ask me.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg of the epistemological house of mirrors that is atheism.
    Atheists also deny their free will and deny their own conscious mind, which is the most certain thing that we can be sure about. Then there is also Plantinga’s EAAN, Boltzmann Brains, etc.. etc..

    Atheism shoots itself in the head several times over in trying to account for why man can understand the universe through science.

    Atheism is like a suicidal zombie when it comes to explaining how we can ‘do science’.
    🙂

  63. 63
    kairosfocus says:

    Carpathian, strawman twisting again. Perhaps you have forgotten the implications of cultivating an atmosphere that stigmatises Christians as ignorant, stuopid, insane or wicked; that wraps self-refuting and inherently amoral evolutionary materialism in a lab coat and pretends that those who beg to differ can only be motivated by dubious religious views [read here: creationism in a cheap tuxedo etc]; that presents a Christian upbringing as child abuse; that portrays God as a bronze age moral monster followed by dangerous fanatics; pretending that Christians are right-wing theocratic Christo-fascist fanatics and potential tyrants/terrorists and more? All of which trace quite directly to the so-called new atheist movement and its widespread promotion. I suggest you would do better to ponder the implications of the sort of enabling behaviour you have indulged in light of what has already begun to happen. KF

  64. 64
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, I suggest to you that until the issues of the design inference on FSCO/I etc as reliable signs (as say 39 above outlines) are cogently addressed by promoters of evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers, motive mongering is little more than a polarising and blinding fallacy. One backed by the ideological captivity of science to evolutionary materialism as the Johnson you would stigmatise aptly pointed out and cogently refuted in brief; kindly note the very direct assertion in my augmentation from Rational Wiki, which can be backed up from a cross section of significant cases. (I trust you know enough to recognise that endorsing and citing a specific argument is not equivalent to a sight unseen blanket endorsement.) KF

  65. 65
    Virgil Cain says:

    Seversky:

    It isn’t the theory of evolution…

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. The main reason is because of quantification- neither natural selection nor drift can be quantified in a biological context.

  66. 66
    Virgil Cain says:

    Mapou:

    There are all kinds of creationists, all of whom base their belief on some religion or other, and not necessarily on the Bible. There are Christian creationists, Jewish creationists, Muslim creationists, Hindu creationists, Voodoo creationists, Ancient Egyptian/Babylonian/Assyrian/Greek/Roman/Aztec/Mayan/Inca creationists, freemason creationists and many more.

    Umm Muslims and Jews are Creationists via the OT Bible and all on your list are Creationists via religion or religious doctrine.

    ID doesn’t care about religion so we need something to covey that fact.

  67. 67
    Yarrgonaut says:

    Learnedhand, it’s not news that Intelligent Design hasn’t gone far yet in terms of hype and publications, but that fact mainly reveals that the leaders in the movement have done a poorer job networking lately, as there is no question that there are plenty of people with the relevant credentials interested in the subject.

  68. 68

    The conceptual scheme of creationism relies on 2 categories, creator and creation.

    1 creator
    – creates by choosing
    – God, soul, beauty, goodness, love, emotions
    – the existence of all in this domain is a matter of opinion
    – an opinion is arrived at by choosing it
    – spiritual domain

    2 creation
    – is chosen
    – the universe, fantasy, mathematics
    – the existence of all in this domain is a matter of fact issue
    – a fact is arrived at by evidence of something forcing to produce a 1 to 1 model of it

    So one part of creationism falls outside of science, is not factual, it merely validates how subjectivity works. The scientific part of creationism is about how things are chosen (for example democracy and dictatorship are different ways of how is chosen at a societal level).

    Intelligent design falls in category 2, referring to sophisticated ways of choosing, for instance like in a human brain.

    It is then a matter of research to find out if the DNA system is organized in a similar way to the human brain, for making intelligent decisions, or if super structures in the universe like galaxies, are organized in terms of making intelligent decisions.

    As distinct from for instance the freedom of the molecules in a gas cloud, which decisions may coincedentally form something by many simple decisions, which would not be intelligent design eventhough it is all chosen.

    Socalled “poof” creation, that is to say creation of some sophisticated thing, without a sophisticated way of choosing it, like in a human brain, falls outside of intelligent design science, and is left to generic creationism.

    For “poof” creation questions about the start of the universe, and questions about the universe as a whole, are central. To find out the likelyhood of simple things relative to complex things being chosen, in a possible system where nothing has been decided yet.

  69. 69
    Roy says:

    @ bornagain, 60:

    And your point was that one cannot always readily distinguish between ID and Creationism because of inherent Theology in both positions.

    No it wasn’t.

    My point, clearly stated, was that attempts to distinguish creationism from ID will fail unless they address one of the main reasons the two are conflated.

    I said nothing at all about whether they were in fact distinguisable, nor about what features they may or may not have in common. You have totally mischaracterised my words.

    The only reason for you not wanting to discuss this point is because it shows your position to be based on a hypocrisy.

    I do not want to discuss that point because it is unrelated to my comment.

    I do not want to discuss that point (or any other) with you because you accused me, based solely on a disagreement over Darwin’s academic pedigree, of supporting the selling of pieces of abortees.

  70. 70
    Seversky says:

    I thought Phillip E Johnson, one of the founding fathers of the movement, had made it clear what Intelligent Design was about:

    This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.

    If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this. … We call our strategy the “wedge.”

    The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that “In the beginning was the Word,” and “In the beginning God created.” Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message

    We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.

    The subject is not just the theory of evolution, the subject is the reality of God.

    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.

    That doesn’t seem to leave much doubt about who the Designer is meant to be.

Leave a Reply