As a proponent of evolution its alot easier for me to imagine evolution occuring, then a "god" creating(poofing) everything into its current state.
The question then becomes where the magic line is drawn ...
evolutionary creationist, evolutionary theist, (and 'evolutionary' not needed for: ) Deist, Agnostic, whatever.
ID in the form of christian creationism, is about the simplest explanation there is.
No, ID in it's simplest conception, means that you take no preconceptions of any kind, and assume that no 'revelation' of design may be evident. You have to simplify, simplify, simplify, to get to the "simplest explanation" eh?
Introducing any religion (christian, hindu, whatever) to the mix complicates it, as there has to then be a correlation between the {ID concept used} and the {chosen faith}. There is certainly no need to assume christian creationism has any more valid a reconstruction than any other {religion\faith\belief}, so occam's bloody razor removes it.
The best you can assume is that the way the creation works can be understood based on the rules used to form it. This means all scientific avenues are valid, as they are attempts to reach the best understanding of the way the whole thing works.
Not only that, but it becomes imperative to pursue
all lines of rigorous and logical thought - scientific and philosophical - so that you are not deceived by any apparent patterns and can seperate the wheat from the chaff.
The problem for ID is how to distinguish the view in one end of a kaleidoscope (an organized pattern) from the view in the other (a random jumble) when you don't understand the {system\function\behavior} of the kaleidoscope.
Carried to it's logical conclusion, ID (fully) becomes a form of Deism (instead of only a weak (corrupted?) sibling). What holds many ID
eists back is the unwillingness to recognize those things they cannot change:
God, grant me serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can
and wisdom to know the difference.
Scientific evidence is one of those things.
I like complexity, not the simplest answer possible.
Complexity has a function if it adds to the explanatory power of a concept (and it can be tested). This is the way the scientific theories grow (until some new simplifying paradigm\gut comes along). General Relativity is more complex than Newtonian physics.
Complexity that does not add to explanatory power usually reduces it and is thus counterproductive.
Eventually fundametalist creationists will see the light and accept that the world is very very old, that evolution is how life evolves ...
Fundamentalists and creationists will still be around - those that are
YEC will become increasingly marginalized as the evidence continues to mount that the world is undeniably (rationally anyway) old, and will join other denial based beliefs, like flat-earthers - but the fundamentalists and creationists will find some way to reconcile (to themselves anyway) belief with the facts.
That being said (and to bring this thread back to the original topic ... ), the concept of ID is a philosophical concept that, when taken to it's logical conclusion, uses
all of science as a tool. As such it does not belong in science class (in the same way that math is not taught in, say, physics or engineering or whatever classes) but in philosophy class.
This allows the full use of the structures of logic for theories, proofs (if possible) and deductions and a rational evaluation of all the evidence.
And it would have to
have a history to be put in history class eh?
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2