ID is not different than creationism, it just uses different terminology with some additional quasi-scientific obfuscation. Consider the creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People:
… a comparison of an early draft of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy showed how in hundreds of instances the word “creationism” had been replaced by “intelligent design”, and “creationist” simply replaced by “intelligent design proponent”.
Can you think of any other 2 intellectual theories where you could take a book written about one and do a global search-and-replace on a few key terms in order to yield a good launching point for a book about the second theory?
For an analogous case, consider Lee Smolin’s “Life of the Cosmos” hypothesis. That posits natural selection between universes—and black holes as the birth canal for new universes.
That seems literally incredible—since black holes have no insides. However, the rest of the logic of Smolin’s hypothesis does not depend critically on the origin of the new universes—so if you replace “black holes” with “basement universes” the hypothesis becomes much more credible.
This discussion over whether creationism and ID are distinguishable confuses principle with practice. It also conflates the public tenets of a movement with the views of the members of the movement.
Are creationism and ID distinguishable in principle? Yes. I think this is the point that several people here are trying to make.
Are creationism and ID distinguishable in practice? I’m highly skeptical, since as you also observe, ID seems to be a stripped-down obfuscation of creationism.
Looking at their public tenets, ID and creationism are not interchangeable, because any day some folks could come along who believe in ID but not in creationism. However, until such folks come along, I think it would be safe to say that IDists and creationists are empirically interchangeable, even if ID and creationism are not. Is there anyone out there who believes in ID but not creationism?
P.S… Scientology is a potential example of IDists who are not creationists, because this says that “With respect to evolution, Scientology holds that life forms have evolved, but that a much greater force is directing those changes”, though Hubbard’s views seem far too muddled to say for sure. At least, Scientologists do seem to believe that humans contain a “genetic entity” that has progressed through many stages, including Clam and Sloth, before ending up in humans, and that aliens have caused “incidents” in this process. So it sounds like Scientologists would agree with a broad formulation of ID (directed evolution), even though they are not involved in the ID or creationism movements.
“Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn’t require it, because the scientific theory doesn’t tell you who the designer is. While most people—including myself—will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that.” (Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01).
Again the profound ignorance you guys have of the ideas you disagree with comes out. Its a common mistake to say they are the same with different terms look at the actual view points and you find they are not.
Educate yourself...
Creationism: based on the Bible and the Christian God
Intelligent Design: does not necessitate the Christian God and centers around the idea of irreducible complexity
Seriously I don’t agree with it but at least before I go off half-cocked I actually bother to educate myself.
Intelligent Design: does not necessitate the Christian God and centers around the idea of irreducible complexity.
I guess you didn’t read the wikipedia article I linked to:
The concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.
That textbook [the later 1993 edition] was the first significant published use of the term. It’s the same book where they started with a creationism book and used hundreds of passages verbatim by replacing “creationism” with “intelligent design”. It was obviously a ploy to repackage creationism in a way that wouldn’t run foul of separation of church and state, and would thus allow it to be taught in public schools. Just as obviously, if “intelligent design” centered around the idea of irreducible complexity, why did it not figure prominently in the 1989 edition of the intelligent design textbook?
“I guess you didn’t read the wikipedia article I linked to”
If your knowledge of this comes from Wikipedia no wonder your clueless… read the links I posted:
“Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that “designer” could in theory be anything or anyone.”
As I said not necessarily the Christian God.
“Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)”
From the discovery institute… again as I said the two are different…
Pointing out that the intelligent design movement had its roots in creationism does not imply the concepts are interchangable. Rather obviously, they are not. Creationism posits a supernatural creator. The idea that living things were intelligently designed does not.
ID is not different than creationism, it just uses different terminology with some additional quasi-scientific obfuscation. Consider the creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People:
Can you think of any other 2 intellectual theories where you could take a book written about one and do a global search-and-replace on a few key terms in order to yield a good launching point for a book about the second theory?
For an analogous case, consider Lee Smolin’s “Life of the Cosmos” hypothesis. That posits natural selection between universes—and black holes as the birth canal for new universes.
That seems literally incredible—since black holes have no insides. However, the rest of the logic of Smolin’s hypothesis does not depend critically on the origin of the new universes—so if you replace “black holes” with “basement universes” the hypothesis becomes much more credible.
This discussion over whether creationism and ID are distinguishable confuses principle with practice. It also conflates the public tenets of a movement with the views of the members of the movement.
Are creationism and ID distinguishable in principle? Yes. I think this is the point that several people here are trying to make.
Are creationism and ID distinguishable in practice? I’m highly skeptical, since as you also observe, ID seems to be a stripped-down obfuscation of creationism.
Looking at their public tenets, ID and creationism are not interchangeable, because any day some folks could come along who believe in ID but not in creationism. However, until such folks come along, I think it would be safe to say that IDists and creationists are empirically interchangeable, even if ID and creationism are not. Is there anyone out there who believes in ID but not creationism?
P.S… Scientology is a potential example of IDists who are not creationists, because this says that “With respect to evolution, Scientology holds that life forms have evolved, but that a much greater force is directing those changes”, though Hubbard’s views seem far too muddled to say for sure. At least, Scientologists do seem to believe that humans contain a “genetic entity” that has progressed through many stages, including Clam and Sloth, before ending up in humans, and that aliens have caused “incidents” in this process. So it sounds like Scientologists would agree with a broad formulation of ID (directed evolution), even though they are not involved in the ID or creationism movements.
Communism and socialism?
It is different—according to Behe himself:
“Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn’t require it, because the scientific theory doesn’t tell you who the designer is. While most people—including myself—will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that.” (Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01).
Wrong....
http://www.discovery.org/a/1329
http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/
Again the profound ignorance you guys have of the ideas you disagree with comes out. Its a common mistake to say they are the same with different terms look at the actual view points and you find they are not.
Educate yourself...
Creationism: based on the Bible and the Christian God
Intelligent Design: does not necessitate the Christian God and centers around the idea of irreducible complexity
Seriously I don’t agree with it but at least before I go off half-cocked I actually bother to educate myself.
I guess you didn’t read the wikipedia article I linked to:
That textbook [the later 1993 edition] was the first significant published use of the term. It’s the same book where they started with a creationism book and used hundreds of passages verbatim by replacing “creationism” with “intelligent design”. It was obviously a ploy to repackage creationism in a way that wouldn’t run foul of separation of church and state, and would thus allow it to be taught in public schools. Just as obviously, if “intelligent design” centered around the idea of irreducible complexity, why did it not figure prominently in the 1989 edition of the intelligent design textbook?
“I guess you didn’t read the wikipedia article I linked to”
If your knowledge of this comes from Wikipedia no wonder your clueless… read the links I posted: “Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that “designer” could in theory be anything or anyone.”
As I said not necessarily the Christian God.
“Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)”
From the discovery institute… again as I said the two are different…
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
Do your homework...
Any further commentary please direct to the email address I failed to provide...
That fails to make your case. You claimed “ID is not different than creationism”. That is simply wrong—see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Pointing out that the intelligent design movement had its roots in creationism does not imply the concepts are interchangable. Rather obviously, they are not. Creationism posits a supernatural creator. The idea that living things were intelligently designed does not.
This is the real reason to ban debates with ID proponents.
It’s flipping annoying.
ID.png
Of course, that’s not a screen shot of the current Wikipedia page.
I also found this:
“Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism? (Yes.) [...]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design
All that proves is that you can’t trust Wikipedia to get its facts straight :-(
Which is a serious mistake: there is too much gibberish in the world to learn it all before turning down.
Wow, you guys truly are useless...
Apparently there is to much information that is above you head since you guys follow EY who can’t do the math for QM.
“Which is a serious mistake: there is too much gibberish in the world to learn it all before turning down.”
So thats why you guys can’t do technical work, and don’t understand advanced math… I get it… its above you… cool...
Well whatever I am finished… I don’t care what you do… If average people like ones here want to look foolish great what do I care…
So have fun winning your popularity contest to get a good boy from EY...
Cheers