What exactly is ID?

You are arguing that _theoretically_ there could be an IDer who is not a Creationist. Yes, _theoretically_ there could be. But do we have real life examples?

Who cares? If the arguments and evidential, claims of ID are valid does that make the claims of creationism valid? Conversely if the claims of biblical creationists are refuted does that refute the evidential claims of IDists?

Is it really so outrageous to point out that the two are not evidentially equivalent?

Islamic IDers are still believers in the Jewish Wizard, just like the Christians.

So now you are saying that Islamic IDists are the same as biblical creationists? What?

I'm not saying there couldn't possibly be a Hindi IDer, but I certainly have never heard of one.

Dude I know various non-religious people who would be inclinded to agree that nature indicates some sort of godly/deistic design of some vague sort. Whether it be morality, biology, vaguely theistic evolutionism, the physical constants of the universe or whatever. Yet none are biblical creationists in terms of belief.

How does that reconcile with your assertion that ID and creationism are one and the same thing?

So where does that leave us? Can we take any IDers claims to NOT be a Creationist on face value? I seriously doubt it.

If every biblical creationist supports ID does that mean that every IDist is a Christian creationist?

Surely the answer to this question is - NO.

Yet you seem to be saying that the two are logically equivalent?

So showing that all creationists support ID is the same as saying that all IDists are creationists? Is that what you are saying? I personally know people who if you ask them "is there evidence of design in nature?" will say quite possibly yes. Yet they would cringe in horror at the idea of being classed as Christian creationists. How do you reconcile that with your absolute assertion that the ID and Christian creationism are identically the same thing? They obviously are not. Whatever political fight you need to have pretending the two are evidentially the same serves no-one but the liars and evidence deniers that I would hope me and you are both against.

I think you are taking my comments beyond what I actually stated.

If you go back upthread, here is my comment:

But is Intelligent Design the same as the "ID Movement"? In the US, and currently -- yes.

If you'll note, in this comment anyway, I have made no claims about "all creationists", or "Christian creationism." ID was found throughout William Paley's Natural Theology (1802), but that has nearly nothing to do with the current ID movement. Paley's ideas were sleeping peacefully, mostly forgotten and largely ignored, until the late 1980s.

The current movement dusted off some old ideas, such as Paley's, and started a political push to disguise creationism/creation "science" in still another garb in an effort to sneak it back into the schools after the Edwards decision.

Given this, I stand by my comment -- in the US, and currently, intelligent design is the same as the "ID Movement." The differences are insignificant.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Given this, I stand by my comment -- in the US, and currently, intelligent design is the same as the "ID Movement." The differences are insignificant.

OK fine. But do you think that refuting the Christian notions of biblical creationism invalidates the evidential basis of ID as a whole?

Or do you think that the claims of ID need to be logically and evidentially refuted in their own right?

But do we have real life examples? Who cares?

I do. The idea that maybe somewhere there might be someone who is arguing ID without invoking Creationism is a nice game of speculation, but what we see day in and day out are people who are true blue Creationists shrouding their goals behind the label "ID".

These are people like SO who, though they know they are arguing that Jesus did it with "Magic!" refuse to own up to "Magic!" being the mechanism because they know that once that is revealed it's just a hop, skip and a jump from uncovering their true anti-education agenda.

So now you are saying that Islamic IDists are the same as biblical creationists? What?

Not "now". That's exactly what I've been saying all along. There are no Islamic ID proponents who are not simply Creationists. Lest you forget Islam and Christianity are both bastard children of Judaism. All three hold Genesis as the basic outline of Creation.

Dude I know various non-religious people who would be inclinded to agree that nature indicates some sort of godly/deistic design of some vague sort. Whether it be morality, biology, vaguely theistic evolutionism, the physical constants of the universe or whatever. Yet none are biblical creationists in terms of belief. How does that reconcile with your assertion that ID and creationism are one and the same thing?

Because they are not IDers. They aren't on here arguing FOR ID. They are people who, if you cornered them and asked: "Do you believe that things look designed", they say, "Um, sure."

Just like "Do you believe there is life after death?" "Um, sure."

However, dig a little deeper. Start asking them WHO designed it, HOW the designed it, WHAT EVIDENCE they have that it was designed and you'll find that this group of friends of yours quickly breaks into two groups.

1) "I dunno, I haven't really thought about it. I guess it's not really designed."
2) "It was Jesus."

If every biblical creationist supports ID does that mean that every IDist is a Christian creationist? Surely the answer to this question is - NO.

Christian creationist? No. Creationist? Yes.

Islamic Creationists are not Christian. They are Islamic. You can tell because they are called "Islamic".

No one has honestly put forth a single argument for ID which has not boiled down to a Jewish Wizard did it with magic.

You've SUGGESTED that someone theoretically COULD. You even outlined it. But you _don't_ believe it.

Find me someone who HONESTLY believes that the designer is a pink unicorn and you win.

In the meantime, we've got to look at the numbers. 100% "It's a Jewish Wizard". Not much more we can say about that.

OK fine. But do you think that refuting the Christian notions of biblical creationism invalidates the evidential basis of ID as a whole?

There is no evidential basis for ID. It is religion pure and simple, with a "sheep's clothing" of science draped poorly over the top.

Or do you think that the claims of ID need to be logically and evidentially refuted in their own right?

The few actual claims that have been made in support of ID (e.g., design "theory," IC) have been shown to be incorrect. Generally laughably incorrect. Recall Behe on the witness stand at Dover?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No one has honestly put forth a single argument for ID which has not boiled down to a Jewish Wizard did it with magic. You've SUGGESTED that someone theoretically COULD. You even outlined it. But you _don't_ believe it. Find me someone who HONESTLY believes that the designer is a pink unicorn and you win. In the meantime, we've got to look at the numbers. 100% "It's a Jewish Wizard". Not much more we can say about that.

Well it's Friday and I have been down the pub as usual.

And I have asked a deeply limited if vaguely representative cross section of British society what they think and this is the result (of at least a couple of people deeply paraphrased)

"Yes I think nature indicates design and purpose from a higher intelligence but not of the sort any religion I have ever heard of meaningfully suggests. Certainly not Jesus as our saviour or any such thing. Religion is bollocks. But belief in a higher being that watches over us in a moral sense and that created things in some way is perfectly justified"

Needless to say I went on to tell them the error of their ways in my usual overly atheistic fervent manor

But these are the genuine summarised beliefs of people I know that are IDist in nature whilst being very non-Christian creationist in terms of belief.

How can you say that ID and creationism are the same thing beyond the narrow confines of your particular and very transitory political battle?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK fine. But do you think that refuting the Christian notions of biblical creationism invalidates the evidential basis of ID as a whole? There is no evidential basis for ID. It is religion pure and simple, with a "sheep's clothing" of science draped poorly over the top.

Are you confusing me with someone who is advocating ID as science?

My point is that the evidential basis for ID and Christian biblical creationism are different. Not that ID is scientifically or evidentially correct FFS!!!!!?

The few actual claims that have been made in support of ID (e.g., design "theory," IC) have been shown to be incorrect.

Well exactly. Thus making the refutation of ID as distinct from biblical creationism both possible and indeed completed! No argument from me there.

Generally laughably incorrect. Recall Behe on the witness stand at Dover?

So if we can show ID as so evidentially bankrupt why do we need to conflate it with biblical literalism in order to show it it's woeful intellectual and evidential bankruptcy?

The answer is we don't. Let the creationists conflate the two. Let us show the evidential bankruptcy of each.

So if we can show ID as so evidentially bankrupt why do we need to conflate it with biblical literalism in order to show it it's woeful intellectual and evidential bankruptcy?

We don't need to show that. They do a magnificent job of showing that for us. Currently, in the US, the separation between biblical literalism and ID is minimal to virtually non-existent. See the Dishonesty Institute's various activities as evidence for this, as they are the primary proponent for ID. Particularly, look at the many ways the Mighty Casey [Luskin] has struck out.*

The answer is we don't. Let the creationists conflate the two. Let us show the evidential bankruptcy of each.

I'm not interested in showing anything concerning creationism and ID until it is claimed that that belief either constitutes science, or is supported by science. Examples of this are the global flood at about 4,350 years ago and a young earth. You can include ID as a third example, as that is essentially what it is -- religious belief purporting to be science.

When creationists make such claims they are subject to disproof.

-----------

* Sorry ;-)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I've decided to agree with you. In the course of researching something for a different discussion, I staggered into this article which discusses the fundamental differences between ID and genuine creationism.

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/...of_Intelligent_Design.html

f evolution fails as an explanation for the rich diversity of species on the planet Earth, then why not posit a rich diversity of designers? Science writer Richard Hoppe finds such a scenario not only possible but likely, noting that: …Some of the most impressive and elaborate designs in biology appear to have as their primary purpose the defeat or subversion of other designs. Designs engage in various kinds of biological arms races with one another. Some examples are: • Predator/prey arms races. • Parasite/host arms races. • Male/female arms races. • Disease-causing bacteria/drug companies arms races. Each of these is an example of design pitted against design, directly implicating multiple designers.

There's lots more goodies than that there. Essentially, if we take the design hypothesis at face value, instead of letting evangelical fraudsters shape the argument, it shows clear evidence not for the Biblical creator but rather for a chain of Gnostic demiurges.

The Gnostic version of the Adam and Eve myth also differs radically from the Biblical one, presenting the Garden of Eden as a shabby laboratory where the “archons” built Adam from blurry blueprints, botching his brain and body almost beyond repair: The (first) human being… was a creation of angels [but was] unable to stand erect because of the angels’ impotence, and rather writhed on the ground like a worm.... Even after the Eden fiasco, the archons continued to tamper with the human gene pool, raping Eve, drowning Adam’s descendants in a flood, and descending to the Earth to impregnate the survivors with half-human hybrids. As we shall see, the ID and AP theories so beloved of contemporary apologists have far more in common with the open, flawed and multiple processes described here than with anything even remotely resembling the Biblical creation account; or, as one Gnostic scribe observed waggishly: For Adam was a laughingstock, since he was made a counterfeit type of man by the Rulers.

I didn't see the sarcasm tag on your post. An oversight?

Because I certainly hope you don't expect us to take any of that seriously ??!!!?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

To clarify: if we allow that design implies a designer, then the design we see points not to one perfect designer, but rather to numerous incompetent ones in direct competition with one another.

Which part of that doesn't sound serious?

To clarify: if we allow that design implies a designer, then the design we see points not to one perfect designer, but rather to numerous incompetent ones in direct competition with one another. Which part of that doesn't sound serious?

All of it.

The theory of evolution covers this quite well without having to abandon all of science and the evidence supporting it and propose instead invisible and imaginary deities of various stripes.

There is a lot more evidence to support the idea of space aliens being involved somewhere than these invisible and imaginary deities. (Anything is greater than absolute zero.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Your singlemindedness is interfering with your clear thinking. Because I point at comparisons to a Gnostic model, you reject my logic, while at the same time opening the door to an aliens model, the only real difference between the two being that one is already at the root of what is wrong with the creationist appeal to design while the other is a more modern nonsense fantasy. Von Daniken's gods are no better than Marcion's or Matthew's.

The fact that none of this stuff can stand up to evolution is a fine viewpoint. But from a "design" standing, fundie creationism can't even stand up to its own ancient enemies. This is important. The Intelligent Designer is even more clearly a false idol than the historical Jesus or the omni-Trinity or the pantheon of Catholic saints. Even if you grant its pseudo-scientific premises, it still doesn't say what they want it to say without their direct immediate supervision to keep it out of trouble!

Sir Hoyle seems to have betrayed at least some misgivings about the implications of these ideas, warning in a 1971 press conference that: Human beings are simply pawns in the game of alien minds that control our every move. They are everywhere, in the sky, on the sea, and in the Earth... It is not an alien intelligence from another planet. It is actually from another Universe which entered ours at the very beginning and has been controlling all that has happened since...

Your singlemindedness is interfering with your clear thinking. Because I point at comparisons to a Gnostic model, you reject my logic, while at the same time opening the door to an aliens model, the only real difference between the two being that one is already at the root of what is wrong with the creationist appeal to design while the other is a more modern nonsense fantasy. Von Daniken's gods are no better than Marcion's or Matthew's. The fact that none of this stuff can stand up to evolution is a fine viewpoint. But from a "design" standing, fundie creationism can't even stand up to its own ancient enemies. This is important. The Intelligent Designer is even more clearly a false idol than the historical Jesus or the omni-Trinity or the pantheon of Catholic saints. Even if you grant its pseudo-scientific premises, it still doesn't say what they want it to say without their direct immediate supervision to keep it out of trouble!

It's getting late and I am not following this very well.

Could you rephrase this into simpler terms and I'll try again in the morning?

I would appreciate that very much. I don't think I can do this justice right now.

Thanks!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

My pleasure. Before they ever come to blows with real science, even on their own terms, they are an epic failure. Did you read the stuff about Dembski's creationism? He is having to dance like a chorus girl to keep his own congregation of Baptists from coming after him. He "talks too much like one of them science fellas", as it were. Beating at him with science is only valuable in that it allows someone objective who is following the argument to learn some actual science. But it won't stop them, their audience already hates science.

We don't need to do much to stop them, they are ready to betray and devour one another at the drop of a hat. Occasionally, apparently for entertainment purposes, we let them get far enough to be able to force them into court under oath, where they promptly reveal themselves to be liars and fools. In the meantime, teach the brighter people following along as much science as you want. I think pointing out that their idol doesn't even do the tricks he is supposed to, is at least equally useful, in that it will alert the inquisition in their own faith that what they are doing is "funny stuff".

Again, Intelligent Design is drawing attention to the idea of a God who is not perfect, not benevolent, and not even necessarily singular. It's giving us dozens of times as many chances to ask Well then, who designed the Designer? It's putting Jesus in the same category as crap like Chariots of the Gods.

They are heaping hot coals on their own heads. Don't object if some of us want to fan the flames while you handle the process of adding fuel