Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Intelligent Design Creationism” as a Label

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.

Comments
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.Seversky
June 26, 2016
June
06
Jun
26
26
2016
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
@ 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.Roy
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
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.mohammadnursyamsu
November 9, 2015
November
11
Nov
9
09
2015
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
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.Yarrgonaut
November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
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.Virgil Cain
November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
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.Virgil Cain
November 8, 2015
November
11
Nov
8
08
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
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.) KFkairosfocus
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
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: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-creationism-as-a-label/#comment-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/orpages/or151/151johngould.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/2739607/Scientific_GOD_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/2012/10/design_thinking065381.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'. :)bornagain
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
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.Seversky
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
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.bornagain
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
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!scottH
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Re your #55, Roy, were they not supposed to be photons streaming from the Singularity.Axel
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
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.Roy
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
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.Mapou
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
@ 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.Roy
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
@ 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.Roy
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Thanks a million of the links @ #30, Philip. Very much appreciated.Axel
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
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.Virgil Cain
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
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.Mapou
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
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.Carpathian
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
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.Seversky
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
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.mohammadnursyamsu
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Roy, again, kindly look at the discussion of the empirical, inductive inference in 39 above: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-creationism-as-a-label/#comment-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/4207kairosfocus
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
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.johnnyb
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
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?mike1962
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
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.Virgil Cain
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
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.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-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/2013/05/from_discoverin_4072531.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/multimedia/audio/2015/09/pt-2-another-evolutionary-icon-the-long-necked-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'?bornagain
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply