Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design (ID) Creationist(s) - (Michael Behe, the prime example)
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 47 (395628)
04-17-2007 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
04-17-2007 3:56 AM


I've got to disagree with some points.
Firstly Behe is hardly separate from the DI crowd - he's a DI fellow and it seems that he often follows the party line (even when he ought to know better e.g. endorsing Wells' Icons of Evolution).
The DI group have a policy of not discussing the age of the Earth. I suspect that this is a political strategy designed to avoid the problems that Hugh Ross (who openly advocates OEC) has with YEC groups. However YECs such as Paul Nelson are in the DI crowd, and it is at least possible that some other important members are secretly YEC (although I don't think that Behe is). I cannot rule out the possibility that the DI group is predominantly YEC but avoids discussion of the issue because it would greatly undermine their claim to be scientific rather than religious in the eyes of the general public.
Behe at least pays lip service to much of common descent, but that is unusual amongst the DI grouping. Dembski famously asserted that "Intelligent Design is no friend of theistic evolution" (from memory - this may not be an exact quote) and Behe did not contradict him. Since then Dembski has suggested views that would come under the heading of Theistic evolution but it is hard to tell if he believes them of if they are simply part of his apologetic strategy. I consider it more likely that he is a Creationist.
My view on the matter is that the ID movement is mainly composed of OECs with YECs as the largest minority grouping. Behe's views most likely come between full-blown OEC and TE, with an element of creation accounting of IC systems. I suspect that Behe's suggestion that all IC systems were included in the genomes of originally created single-celled organisms was more of an off-hand speculation and that Behe beleives in more direct intervention in evolution than that, possibly including more creation events. It is very likely that Behe was an OEC at one time, since he used to argue against whale evolution until the major finds of the '90s made that less tenable.
However it is certain that the ID movement as a whole does NOT argue for a Young Earth, a recent creation or a literal world-wide flood. Some of their major arguments (e.g. the Cambrian explosion) are not very compatible with YEC and some (fine-tuning arguments, "front-loading") tend to suggest TE. Against that must be set Dembski's explicit rejection of TE. TE seems to occupy a marginal position within the ID movement - and it should be noted that strong critics of ID also endorse forms of TE (Miller and Collins to name two, and I doubt that Conway-Morris has much time for ID either).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-17-2007 3:56 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 47 (395841)
04-18-2007 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Buzsaw
04-17-2007 10:07 PM


Re: Buzsaw IS An ID Creationist.
You may be AN ID creationist in the broad sense. However you are not even a part of the organised ID movement, let alone a leader of it or a spokesman for it. You don't get to decide what views the ID movement will support or endorse.
The ID movement rejects the term "ID creationist". The very fact that you use the term tells those of us in the know, that you do not know the position of the ID movement.
The ID movement does NOT endorse YEC or a recent global Flood.
Many YECs reject the ID movement BECAUSE it does not endorse YEC or a recent global Flood.
The views you attribute to "ID Creationists" are typically the views of YECs - views which the ID movement does not endorse and which many ID leaders likely deny and certainly do not publicly support. The YECs who do support these views are equally likely to reject the ID movement.
Thus your assertions are badly misleading. You use the "ID" term despite the fact that the views expressed have nothing to do with the ID movement. There is no reason why you cannot accurately refer to YECs. So why don't you do it ?
Your own words indicate that you intend to suggest that your views are intended to be those of the ID movement. or at least those held by prominent members:
quote:
I find it necessary to designate ID creo from creo. Everyone from Percy and Jar to YECs have referred to themselves as creationists in that they believe in a supreme god who somehow have been involved in the process of creation. At least that's how I have understood them. That term creationist is just too broad a term to designate one's ideology, imo.
If you object to a broad use of creationist you can hardly use the term "ID" in a way that is nearly as broad. Certainly it would not be approrpriate to refer to YEC beliefs as "ID Creationist" beliefs when the more precise (and accurate) "YEC" term is available.
Edited by PaulK, : Added relevant quote form the other thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2007 10:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 47 (395842)
04-18-2007 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
04-17-2007 10:12 PM


Re: Copied Reply
I would correct that Ned. YECs can be members of the ID movement. ID is a "broad church" but that greatly restricts the views that the movement will endorse (it will not even endorse an Old Earth).
Therefore I believe that this would be a more accurate objection
"You cannot honestly present YEC views as the views of ID"
YEC views are permitted within ID but not endorsed by ID. It would be more accurate and less misleading to refer to YEC views as the views of YECs (the more so since many YECs reject the ID movement).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2007 10:12 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 31 of 47 (396456)
04-20-2007 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Minnemooseus
04-19-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Topic Clarification
I would suggest that it is highly questionable for Buz to use the term "ID creationist" to refer to himself or to views held exclusively by YECs.
Neither his position or the YEC position are endorsed by the ID movement. At most they are permitted within it - but so are many other views. As such his use of the term is hardly any better than the use of "creationism" he is supposedly reacting against. Indeed it is arguably worse since it is actively misleading while Jar is using a valid but unusual meaning (and usually explains it when he does).
Further, in the other thread Percy has criticised Jar for his use of "creationist" so it's not as if he were getting a "free ride" either.
I suggest that Buz uses the YCC acronym as it more accurately describes his views and helps prevent him being mistaken for a YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-19-2007 10:33 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2007 10:14 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 47 (397872)
04-28-2007 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
04-27-2007 10:17 PM


Re: Empirical Data
quote:
The BB hypothesis/theory has no explanation for where all the existing energy came from, implying that it suddenly began to exist.
IIRC the BB theory properly doesn't deal with this issue, but cosmologists do. They have answers just as you do. They just can't establish what the TRUE answer is. i.e. they have answers at least as good as yours.
quote:
This imo, is less compatible and testable than my eternal energy hypothesis which accounts for no energy ever having been created.
It may have escaped your notice, but cosmologists HAVE been dealing with the issue.
quote:
You are the ones who sweep it all under the rug with the answer, "we don't know." Imo, according to the observable and testable science of 1LoT all energy had to have somehow existed eternally.
"We don't know" is the truthful answer. Speculation is all we have - and you're including that.
quote:
Your BB hypothesis fails the 1LoT test, IMO, whereas mine passes it.
Which shows that ypur opinion is based on ignorance (at best).
The fundamental issue is that you believe that making up something that seems plausible to you is a good way of finding the truth. Or at least it is when it is you doing it - do you let other people do the same thing ? I don't think so.
We, on the other hand show more respect for real knowledge and facts and consider unfounded opinions to be worthless. No doubt you would agree with that - for opinions you disagreed with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 04-27-2007 10:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024