A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

I am not asking whether it is the biblical God. I now have two questions:1. Would you admit that the good majority of proponents of Intelligent Design fully believe that the intelligent designer is God, and that by bringing intelligent design into the classroom, they would be bringing God into the classroom?2. Is intelligent design a form of creationism?This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-29-2005 10:43 PM

I'm not a follower of ID so I'm not going to try to answer for them any further. I've said what I've gleaned from what I've run across here and there and that's about it.I think you should concede that you can't read minds and judge motives and then this thread can move on to what is of most interest to you.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-29-2005 10:51 PM

I am a proponent of intelligent design.1. Which God? Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, et al? God, perse is not a religion. The students of various religions may apply the designer to whatever they wish. It's a given that any designer of the universe would be a supreme intelligent and powerful being. In our nation, most proponents of ID worship and believe in the god, Jehovah to be the supreme designer and the Biblical record to be the history of origins. If this were set up in Iraq, I suppose Allah would be that designer god and the Quran the record book. In India perhaps the designer would be Brahma.Edited to add that in a class of mixed ID proponents, the student could apply the ID argument to their respective personal persuasion as to the designer.2. ID would be a form of creationism, yes.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-29-2005 11:44 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

I had asked: Faith responded: Then perhaps you don't know enough about them to get offended on their behalf.Faith wrote: I go on what I read -- in what people write. If you wish, you may call that "reading minds." "Of Panda's and People" started out as a "scientific creationism" textbook. The changes to it were little more than a "find" and "replace," substituting "intelligent designer" for "God." Sounds to me like a case of being disingenuous. Sounds to me like an instance of dishonesty. And it sounds like a repackaging of creationism.Faith wrote: I think this is already getting interesting...This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-30-2005 01:35 AM

I was only asking whether the "intelligent designer" is God, not about the specific beliefs regarding this God. But whether you are an adherent of Islam or Judaism, your belief in God is a religious belief. Am I correct? Well, at least you are being more straight-forward about this than the authors of "Of Panda's and People." Honesty. I like that.

I get offended by ANYBODY's motives being impugned on the basis of somebody's disagreeing with their viewpoint. Motives are not so easily readable and it's an ad hominem to accuse your opponent of inner states you cannot know about. So does everybody. I do. I have never heard of that publication. You'd have to prove that this happened, that it's important, that it's deceitful in any way. Otherwise again it's just an attack on the character of IDers rather than an argument with their position.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-30-2005 04:35 AM

"Of Pandas and People" is the intelligent design textbook. It is intended for elementary school students. This textbook has figured in quite prominently in the Dover trial -- the first trial in which the Intelligent Design movement could face constitutional scrutiny. It is the book which first popularized the term "intelligent design." A number of the leading "intellectuals" of the intelligent design movement contributed to "Pandas," including Michael Behe. William Dembski is presumably going to work on the next revision."Pandas" was published by "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics." The founder and president of this foundation is John Buell who worked for Campus Crusade for Christ, then Probe Ministries, then founded "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics." The working titles of "Of Pandas and People" were "Creation Biology" (1983), "Biology & Creation" (1986), "Biology & Origins" (1987), then finally "Of Pandas and People" (1987). The definitions of "scientific creationism" and "intelligent design" were virtually identical. Once the Edwards decision was made (1987) which ruled "scientific creationism" unconstitutional, the substitution of "intelligent design" for "scientific creationism" began. There are graphs which are quite dramatic.Claiming to have knowledge of the intelligent design movement without having any knowledge of "Pandas" would be like claiming to have knowledge of the intelligent design movement without having any knowledge of Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, or William Dembski.If you would like to check my facts on this, you might try the Barbara Forrest testimony from the Dover trial. The most relevant part is located here: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), AM Session, Part 2Recycling a creationist textbook as an "intelligent design" textbook is - in my view - sufficient evidence of dishonesty on the part of this movement and its leaders, particularly when this is the first book to popularize the term "intelligent design." Given what I have cited, it is also very strong evidence that "intelligent design" is simply recycled creationism, and as I have indicated, I appreciate Buzsaw's honesty in admitting as much.This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-30-2005 10:22 AM

I haven't claimed to have knowledge of ID. I'm not an IDer, I don't agree with their nonfundamentalist reading of Genesis, I haven't been following the big flap, and I'm not in favor of fighting to get creationism in any form into the public schools. And I'm not interested enough to read up on it. I simply hate people imputing motives to people.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-30-2005 10:29 AM

Reading is a process of imputing motives. When you read what someone writes, you are reading what the have written for the purpose of identifying what they intended to say. If this weren't possible, then we quite literally would have nothing left to say.

Nonsense, Tim. In the context of a debate you don't impute motives as you have done. That's just smearing the opposition. You deal with the content.

Also, what they intended to say is a completely different thing from their motives for saying it.{I tried to add the above line to the above post three times and it would not take.}

On the contrary.. showing that a source has a certain bias, and what that bias is most certainly is relavent.

He didn't show that. He made up his own interpretation of their motives, sleazy ones of course. Besides, of course they are biased and so is he, that should be taken for granted. But assuming they acted dishonestly on the basis of their bias is out of order.

Tim wrote: Faith wrote: Message 70Message 71Message 73Let me give you an example: "I'm sorry, I am having difficulty figuring out what you meant to communicate by that." Do you get my meaning?When you read what a person writes, you are trying to figure out what it is that they intended to communicate. What they intended to communicate was their meaning.However, sometimes actions speak louder than words -- if someone lifts my wallet, says that they didn't intend to do that, and then proceeds to run off, the very act of running off says a great deal more than their statement regarding their intentions.Additionally, you can judge both actions and words in terms of their context. In this particular context, scientific creationism was declared illegal, then they "scientific creationism" with "intelligent design" as a form of repackaging the same old ideas as if they were something new. Doing so was dishonest, and about as obviously so as the pick-pocket I mentioned in my previous paragraph. In the pick-pocket's favor, I might add, he committed only two acts -- but the editors committed the same dishonest act more than 200 times.

Repackaging a book is not the same as stealing your wallet. What's your point anyway, that ID is *REALLY* creationism in disguise? But of course it's creationism as far as much of the scientific thinking goes so why shouldn't a textbook be easily adapted to express their views? What's dishonest about that? They are not being dishonest about their main point which is that the physical world itself shows that there had to be a designer, or about not naming the designer since it is the science they want to focus on. They aren't fundamentalists who DO want to see the Creator named and obeyed in the teaching of Biblical creationism.I continue to believe you are wrong to comment at all on the motives or anything personal. Answer their arguments.