“Intelligent Design Creationism” as a Label

_{Jonathan Bartlett

November 6, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

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.Roy_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

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?Learned Hand_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

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?Robert Byers_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

"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.bpragmatic_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

"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.johnnyb_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

Baby Got Book (OFFICIAL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTYr3JuueF4bornagain_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

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/evolution/defense-intelligent-design.htmlREC_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

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/144330752bornagain_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

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.ppolish_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

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.Virgil Cain_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

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?Virgil Cain_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Demonising - a normal feature of the political, far-right - is a sign that they have no cogent argument.Axel_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

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.Axel_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

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/2015/11/from_biochemist100701.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/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.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/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X 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/2014/09/methodological_1089971.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/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-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-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/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
bornagain_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

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.Learned Hand_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

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.Learned Hand_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

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.computerist_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

"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.johnnyb_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

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.Barry Arrington_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

"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?johnnyb_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

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.Learned Hand_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

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.Learned Hand_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

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/intelligent-design-or-scientific-creationism/) 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?mike1962_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

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?Learned Hand_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

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?Learned Hand_{November 6, 2015
November
11
Nov
6
06
2015
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply