Intelligent Design (ID) Creationist(s) - (Michael Behe, the prime example)

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.

Hi Moose. Being the logical sort, I look at the definition of intelligence and the definition of design and go figure. The Biblical record attributes creation by design via a supreme hyper-intelligent being who as the record puts it, deliberately designed and formed all that exists, inclusive of all of the biological living things to the cosmos by wisdom, knowledge and understanding, et al. This, imo is the epitome of intelligent design.On the other hand I see intelligence and deliberate design via natural processes as having a lesser role in that natural processes are just that, natural, including NS and RM (natural selection and random mutation.)As I understand Behe, he is trying to ascribe what rightfully should be the primary factor of Biblical creationism to secularistic humanistic ideology.I regard my Biblical model as more intelligent design oriented than that of Behe. I believe my model has been articulated so as to be understood If not, I can repeat it or cite where it has been.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Thanks Paul. No way am I a YEC.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Yes, I may be taking these quotes out of context. http://www.discovery.org/...:

quote:

---

Calvert, a lawyer from Lake Quivira, thinks a third possibility exists to explain life and its diversity: "intelligent design," the theory that everything in the universe was designed, not the result of natural processes. Intelligent design adherents don't disagree with evolutionists over the age of the Earth or many other tenets of evolution, such as natural selection.

---

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:

---

In the letter Luskin explains why intelligent design is not the same as creationism: “Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth. Moreover, unlike creationism, intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or divine creator.”

---

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:

---

Let's take the theological objections first. First, the notion that ID is just re-packaged "young-earth creationism" is laughable. There is no ID position on the age of the earth-probably most of its advocates accept the standard geological picture of a 4.5 billion year old earth. You should recognize, though, that this will not stop its opponents from playing the anti-fundamentalist card. In the Firing Line program I mentioned, several members of the anti-ID team tried to paint all opposition to Darwinism as just young-earth fundamentalism; that was hilarious, since the pro-ID side included Phil Johnson, an old-earth creationist; Mike Behe and William Buckley, both Roman Catholics who have no problem with an old earth (or even with the possibility of common descent for all animals!); and David Berlinski, a mathematician who is a secular Jew (once when I told him I went to MIT and worked as a high-tech engineer, and then went into the ministry, he asked me "What happened to you?").

​

As I said, realizing this turns many young-earth creationists against ID; they say it's a compromise of a "literal reading" of the Bible. And other opponents will take this up and say, "See, you're not being consistent." Now, it just so happens that what I know best is the Hebrew language; and I would argue that the Genesis account does not require a young earth, but instead the six days are "God's work days". That doesn't stop it from being a true and historical account; it just makes us careful about chronology.

---

They just won't put a time frame on ID! http://www.discovery.org/...:

quote:

---

Nor will he say just how old he thinks the Earth is. “We do not take a position on the age of the Earth, because it is not something we are addressing,” he said.

---

"He" is Phillip Johnson.So, why do I think the DI is operating in the land of smoke and mirrors?MooseAdded by edit:Frequently Asked Questions | Center for Science and Culture

quote:

---

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

​

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.

---

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

Moose, how does all this negate my claim to Intelligent Design relative to my hypothesis of God, creation and the universe given the definition of intelligence and design? Or do you think it does?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

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: Or are you arguing based upon empirical data, and I am just unaware of such?Moose

Hi again Moose. I'm not arguing upon empirical data on most counts. I understand that that is also the case with the BB and evo argument. It's all hypothesis and theory based upon evidence, some which may be regarded as empirical and some not. For one thing I can argue empirically that my hypothesis satisfies 1LoT if it is true. Of course nothing needs be empirical to have terms like ID attached to the hypothesis. The hypothesis is either ID or not regardless of how substantial the hypothesis is, imo.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Repeating portions of quotes from my message 34:

quote:

---

Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture,...

---

quote:

---

Nor will he say just how old he thinks the Earth is. “We do not take a position on the age of the Earth, because it is not something we are addressing,” he said.

---

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

Great please provide the empirical evidence for "god" as it is described in yoru hypothesis.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Hi Dr. Certainly I'm not claiming empirical evidence for God. Where did you get that I did? My claim is that my eternal universe hypothesis is empirically 1LoT compatable as stated if true.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. What experiments have you done to determine that your hypothesis is compatible with the first law of thermodynamics?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

When the hypothesis has all existing energy through and by one source and being eternally managed by that intelligent designing entity why do you need testing outside of 1LoT to determine whether it is compatible with that science law?1. No energy has ever been created. It all has eternally existed through and by one entity.2. No energy is ever destroyed, being existent in by and through one ID entity and eternally managed by same. 1LoT is the observable and testable science law that all the energy from this hypothetical source has never been created or destroyed.3. The BB hypothesis/theory has no explanation for where all the existing energy came from, implying that it suddenly began to exist. This imo, is less compatible and testable than my eternal energy hypothesis which accounts for no energy ever having been created. You people are bankrupt as to any explanation of where all the energy originated from. 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. My hypothesis at least offers a hypothetical answer to that question.Your BB hypothesis fails the 1LoT test, IMO, whereas mine passes it.To summarize my point, one test for my ID eternal energy Buzsaw Hypothesis is that it is compatible with observable and testable scientific law, i.e. 1LoT. ABE: Please understand that I'm not claiming my hypothesis to be empirical. It is hypothetical. What I am claiming to be empirical is that my ID/energy hypothesis passes the 1LoT test. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : Added "ID" to last sentence.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

really? then why did you say: when you say: you're saying that you have experimental data that shows that your hypothesis is compatible with the first law of thermo. And you are as equally bankrupt when it comes to where your "god" comes from. You sweep it all under the rug with the answer "he's always existed".to addess your edit: what experiments ahve you done to show that your hypothesis passes the test? To dumb it down for you empirical=experimental, if you're claiming that your hypothesis is somehow empirically sound it means that you have experimental data to back it up.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

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.

Actually these two properties have not been proven. All we know is that right now, right here, we do not observe energy being created or destroyed. Naturally. The BB theory, like the theory of evolution, does not discuss the origins of energy - just its evolution over time. Throughout the entire scope of the Big Bang, energy has existed - it is eternal to the theory. What you should be focussing on is the theories that discuss the hows of the big bang. How and why did it happen, where did the fields come from? To that end - we have such ideas as M-theory. M-theory has some interesting ideas in this direction. It does, but it is not your hypothesis. That idea has been around a long while. There are several ideas about where energy came from, should you choose to delve into cosmology. 1LoT is not an eternal law, it may only be applicable to the 4 dimensional universe we have come to know. When we explore the implications of string theory we might find that energy is quite different than we had previously percieved it to have been. The BB theory does not state that energy is created or destroyed. Seems a little circular to me. The reasoning being, if energy can not be created that means it has always existed. We can test this by seeing if the idea that it has always existed contradicts the law that energy cannot be created.You cannot empirically test a statement of logic. All you have said is:P1: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
P2: Energy exists.
C: It must always have existed.Which is sound logic. It might be true, or the first premise might be false. Who can say?

---

Which would make (and has made) for an interesting topic in its own right.