What exactly is ID?

This seems to be about the difference between creationism and ID and (specifically) whether Dembski considers the two to be identical. I don't think he does. Despite the quotes.I certainly don't think ID and creationism are the same thing. Creationism (of the Christian kind) to my mind is biblical literalism. Whilst ID can range all the way from strict creationism to more remote deistic notions of a created universe with certain constants designed to eventually facilitate life. However I would say that most who would actually describe themselves as IDists (as opposed to creationists) accept things like evolution and the age of the Earth to a large extent but would caveat that with notions of there being physical evidence of design. Irreducible complexity. Theories about information. Etc. etc.So to Dembski - The quotes seem to suggest that in terms of belief Dembski is indeed a creationist. Adam and Eve real people etc. etc. But in terms of his theories and arguments I am not aware of him having claimed that there is physical evidence for purely creationist claims. In terms of his theories and arguments (as far as I am aware) he is claiming ID. Complexity, information etc. etc. Not biblical creationism as such.If this seems like a blurry distinction then I accept that. We all know that ID is used as a wedge for getting specifically Christian notions of reality into places that they don’t deserve to be. But in terms of the evidence being cited (such as it is) and the arguments presented I think what Dembski is actually advocating is better described as ID than creationism.But I am hardly a keen follower of his work so if anyone can show me him saying that biblical creationism rather than just ID is physically evidenced then I will be happy to admit I am talking out of my arse and that there is no distinction as far as he is concerned.

But in your Message 709 you don't quote Smooth Operator saying that you never posted the quotes. You instead quote him claiming that Dembski has never equated ID with creationism, then you claimed you proved otherwise and that SO is lying.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

That's too narrow a definition, since Creationists themselves differentiate between literalists, YECs and OECs. (There is probably even more diversity than that, but nothing jumps to mind atm).Accordingly, ANYONE making the claim that the Christian God created anything is, by their own standards, a creationist of one of these three types. Dembski is making claims that there is a "designer".
He's stated for the record that that "designer" is the Christian God as mentioned in the Bible.
He's also stated for the record that the Bible is referring to REAL people who actually lived.That makes him a Creationist. I can't tell from these quotes if he is a YEC or an OEC, but I suspect OEC.The fact that he chooses the term "intelligent design" doesn't make him any less of a creationist. After all, the whole point of the Intelligent Design movement is to rename Creationism into something more paletable. Hence: "CDesign Proponentists".If we're going to allow people to just rename their argument and get off scottfree, then how are we to hold anyone accountable for anything?Imagine trying to deal with this quote:
"I'm not a racist, I just believe in genetic racial differentiation. Ignore the fact that my argument boils down to black people are inferior."Dembski is arguing that the Creationist Christian God Created everything ergo he _is_ a Creationist.

My quotes demonstrated that Dembski stated for the record that the "designer" is the Christian God. AND that he believes that Adam and Eve were literally real people.If that's not Creationism, then there are NO Creationists at all and we should remove the "c" from "evcforum"

Hi Nuggin,Now that we've established that you actually did accuse SO of lying when he disagreed with you, let me repeat what I said before:I'm a moderator, not a participant. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My only point is that there are those who disagree with you and that there's therefore something to discuss.If you hold your opinion that ID is equivalent to creationism so strongly that instead of discussing it you cast accusations of lying at those who disagree with you, then since these are discussion threads there's not much more you can contribute on that issue. But if you feel like actually discussing whether ID is equivalent to creationism then carry on.If this still makes no sense to you then we can continue the discussion over at Report discussion problems here: No.2.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Got it. SO gets to do whatever he wants, I've got to watch my mouth.Fine.

But isn't ID the way to show how "biblical creationism" is evidenced in reality?I mean, say ID was evidenced, wouldn't Dembski then be overjoyed he found "evidence for god's creation"? He clearly thinks that's how it happened, evidenced by his adam and eve quoet.

Here is something from the IDEA website, of which Casey Luskin is the founder. For those who don't know Casey, he is a prominent speaker on behalf of ID. He is also staff at Discovery Institute. Reading the above, it is air apparent that Luskin has a hard time diffentiatin religion from ID, almost to the point that he is conflating science with both requiring religion AND interfering with religion. This also is an insufficient answer to even the first question in the paragraph: Is Intelligent Design Theory Science or Religion?
You can also see the entire page is rote with biblical passages. I thought ID was pourely science? This, to me, is a gross misrepresentation of both what science is and what ID claims.There is also a thunderf00t video on Youtube where Luskin admits that the designer IS god/YHWH. This is also discussed on Pharyngula (both sites are inaccessible to me atm becasue I am at work).We may never get them to outright admit ID is creationism in disguise, that would destroy their plot. however, all it takes is minute amounts of piecing things together to understand that ID IS creationism (albeit in disguise, POOR disguise).

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence written by none other than William DembskiI guess saying that the christian god is the creat..er I mean *designer, and not saying "I AM A CREATIONIST" constitutes him as.....not being a creationist?If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, qwacks like a duck AND farts like a duck, does that make him a rhino because he says hes a rhino?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Almost certainly in reality. In almost all cases. But are the two necessarily the same thing in principle? Is it possible to argue in favour of Intelligent Design whilst also saying the the bible is obvioulsy a ridiculous fantasy if taken literally?I would say yes. In fact I would go so far as to say that there are people who do make the distinction. Isn't Behe and his molecular level irreducible complexity such an example. It is my understanding that he accepts most of evolution as per standard scientific consensus. He just invokes ID at the molecular level to achieve it. I am trying to distinguish between the creationist beliefs of these guys (e.g. Adam and Eve actually existed) and what they are claiming as evidence of ID (e.g. irreducible complexity at the molecular level, conservation of information theories etc. etc.)Whilst I agree with you that the two will be inevitably conflated in practise I don't think this need necessarily be the case in principle.I think ID can stand apart from creationism as a belief system.

I don't doubt that Dembski is a creationist in terms of belief.But is he a creationist or an IDist in terms of what he is claiming is actually evidenced?

Thanks,
I particularly like his last bit in the 1st quote: So, _not_ a creationist, just a believer that God _CREATED_ everything.

Really, there is no difference between the two.All IDrs eventually, when cornered, admit that the designer is the Christian God. The term "ID" is nothing more than political cover - as it was "designed" to be in the first place.Renaming "racism" to "ethnic origins preferences" doesn't make a KKK member any less racist.

Typical run down of this thought process:Creationist: "I believe there was a designer"
Scientist: "Who was that designer"
Creationist: "The Christian God"IDr: "I believe there was a designer"
Scientist: "Who was the designer"
IDr: "It could be the Christian God or Space aliens."
Scientist: "So, space aliens can evolve without special help from a designer but humans can't?"
IDr: "Well, err, no, they were designed too."
Scientist: "Okay, who designed the space aliens?"
IDr: "The Christian God"

When Dembski's the one talking about them? Yes. Of course, anything's possible. But we're talking about Dembski here, not just a random ID'er. And you're not gonna tell me he thinks this is the case. But we're not talking about Behe, we're talking about Dembski. There is no distinction. For what Dembski actually means when he says "he has evidence for ID", is that "he has evidence for creation". Of course. in Dembski's view however (and he is the one being discussed here), they are. Sure it can. It can only lead to three things though:Infinite regression (Aliens making aliens making aliens making...)
Admitting the designer arose by evolution (thus making their point moot)
Saying god is the designer (proving it's creationism)

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead