|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design (ID) Creationist(s) - (Michael Behe, the prime example) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
NosyNed has been having a bit of a clash with Buzsaw on the topic title matter. Here NosyNed replies to a Buzsaw message (I quote the entire message):
NosyNed writes: Buz, you use ID creo together a lot. This is another reminder that as the words are commonly used they are NOT the same thing. As a default the creos are young earth, no evolution biblical literalists who, among other things do not think we are evolved animals. As an official positions the ID movement does not argue with the age of the earth, agrees with most of evolution and that we are evolved animals. These are hardly compatible positions. You might want to stop trying to be wishy washy and trying to avoid appearing to disagree with any of them. You can't have it both ways. As I see it, there are two primary expounders of ID creationism. They are Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) and the Discovery Institute. Behe admits to accepting the vast bulk of mainstream evolutionary thought, including a 4.5 billion year old Earth and a common ancestor for humanity and the modern great apes (Reference: Kenneth Miller: Finding Darwin's God). Or as NosyNed puts it - "As an official positions the ID movement does not argue with the age of the earth, agrees with most of evolution and that we are evolved animals." On the other hand, as I understand it, the Discovery Institute is quite vague in regards to how it's position fits into the larger picture (ie. They have no young Earth vs. old Earth position). I will run with the idea that Michael Behe is the prototypical ID creationist. As such I would call him a theistic evolutionist. My fundamental assertion is "ID Creationist" = "Old Earth Theistic Evolutionist". I believe this should be filed in the "Intelligent Design" forum. Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Removed annoying extra space from in front of the "," in topic title. Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
This YEC vs YCC belongs there.
Between my slowness in replying (most of the problem) and your temporary retirement, the thing fell idle. I did make a short reply that fell by the wayside. I seem to recall having another reply stored somewhere on some hard drive, back from one night that the forum wasn't accepting input. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I presume that most believers in some variety of Godly creator think that, to some degree, intelligence and design were part of the creation process. As such it is fair (but off-topic) for Buzsaw to refer to himself as and intelligent design creationist.
{Added by edit: The "off-topic" comment above may well be a misstatement on my part. Please see down thread. - Moose} Now, my experience is, that at least some young Earth creationists will latch onto anything they perceive to damage the theory of evolution / old Earthism, regardless of whether the same has any support towards YECism. As I see it, the "true IDists" are those people that are trying to find and document physical evidence of design in nature. I like to call it "finding God's fingerprints". I strongly think that these active "true IDists" are NOT those of the YEC persuasion, but I may be wrong. It seems that so far in this topic, the state of thought is that the Discovery Institute does not choose to or want to be pinned down on an opinion of what the Earth's age is. I certainly would like to see them pinned down on such, as I feel the matter of the Earth's age is most fundamental in the discussion of the origins of things Earth. Or something like that. I have just done a Google search of the Discovery Institute site for the phrase age of earth. I have a number of pages open, waiting to be read. Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added disclaimer after 1st paragraph. Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Moose writes: I presume that most believers in some variety of Godly creator think that, to some degree, intelligence and design were part of the creation process. As such it is fair (but off-topic) for Buzsaw to refer to himself as and intelligent design creationist. I think that, despite having started the topic, I'm confused about what the theme is and what is on or off-topic. I think I'm mixing the Buzsaw YCC/YEC question into my thinking, which I've tried to direct to the "Great Debate" topic. I think that in the above quoted I was trying to say that Buzsaw was on-topic some, but not on-topic enough. I now don't know what to think, but that statement may have been wrong, and Buzsaw's ID Creationism may indeed be on-topic. Buz, the question is, are you trying to document how God did the intelligent design, such as Michael Behe and/or the Discover Institute is? If so, I would proclaim you to be a "true IDer", as defined in an earlier message. If not, then you are just going along for a ride on the ID bandwagon. Dazed and confused Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Moose writes: I presume that most believers in some variety of Godly creator think that, to some degree, intelligence and design were part of the creation process. The Buzsaw counterstatement:
Buzsaw writes: I presume that most (evolutionists) in some variety of (humanistic secularism) think that, to some degree, intelligence and design were part of the (NS/RM evolutionary) process. Buz, I was conceding that ID can be a part of a creationist belief. You seem to have taken it badly. Maybe my phrasing was bad. By "believers in some variety of Godly creator" I was trying to include all creationists from the YEC's to the theistic evolutionists, and perhaps even the deists. By "think that, to some degree, intelligence and design were part of the creation process" I was trying to say that the belief in the amount ID could range from major (with little evolution involved) to minor (with much evolution involved). Now, what were you trying to say? I think it might be better stated more along the lines of:
I presume that most believers in some variety of humanistic secularism think that intelligence and design were NOT part of the NS/RM evolutionary process. I would tend to agree with that statement. But this seems to be really getting disconnected from the topic theme. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Yes, I may be taking these quotes out of context.
http://www.discovery.org/...:
quote: Offhand, I don't think that lawyer Calvert has any affilition with the Discover Institute (DI), and as such may or may not be speaking the DI position. Intelligent Design Group Urges California High School to Change Course or Remove Intelligent Design | Discovery Institute:
quote: My "bolding". Attorney Casey Luskin is program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. This excludes Buzsaws variety of ID.
http://www.discovery.org/...:
quote: They just won't put a time frame on ID!
http://www.discovery.org/...:
quote: "He" is Phillip Johnson. So, why do I think the DI is operating in the land of smoke and mirrors? Moose Added by edit: Frequently Asked Questions | Center for Science and Culture
quote: From their FAQ page. Kind of vague, but implies a certain coziness with old Earth evolution. Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added another link and quote. Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Buz, I fully grant to you that a Biblical creationist is welcome to his beliefs that God had intelligence and design (intelligent design) behind his creation process. Yes, it is valid for you to call yourself a "intelligent design creationist". Probably every creationist, regardless of the variety, can validly claim that "intelligent design" is part of his creationism.
I, however, argue that the Discovery Institute represents the core of those who argue "intelligent design". They are trying to document the presence of intelligent design. And as I quoted them, in bold:
Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture,... Or are you arguing based upon empirical data, and I am just unaware of such? Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Repeating portions of quotes from my message 34:
quote: quote: They say, in effect, ID study is based on empirical data, but the age of the Earth is not a significant part of the scope of their studies. The time frame of what happened is not a significant consideration??? Does anyone here buy that? I don't. Moose
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024