ID as Science vs. ID as Creationism

In a pre-promotion message of her new topic, Trixie posted: The Discovery Institute (DI) (Wikipedia page, Discovery.org), or more specificly, their Center for Science and Culture wants to impress that ID is not creationism (at least when contrary information such as the Wedge Document isn't leaking out).Even if disregarding such as the Wedge Document, the DI persists in having a most vague position on what the "Theory of Intelligent Design" is, and how it fits into the greater scientific view. See The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators, and see if you can find a clearly stated "Theory of Intelligent Design" in there. I read quite a bit of it, with no success.However, from their Top Questions page:

quote:

---

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

​

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS's "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).

---

From "Not By Chance":

quote:

---

In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

​

Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.

---

(my "bolding")I would like to see the DI trumpet the above "bolded" to the creationists. Such is the opinion of Michael Behe (in my view, ID's strongest supporter):

quote:

---

Unlike William A. Dembski [18] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[19] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.

---

(Source, see also Michael Behe's Amazon Blog)Note that Behe also accepts the multi-billion year Earth age and universe age. But the DI insists that age considerations are not relevant to ID considerations:

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.

---

I've previously seen a better source that the above quoted, but I currently can't find it. In that unfound source they state something along the lines of "ID theory works equally as well in either a young Earth or an old Earth time frame".Anyway, the DI denies that the time frame of the Earth's life history is a relevant consideration. I say that time frame considerations are essential.So, what can the DI do to impress all that ID is scientific? To begin with, I think they need to prominently and explicitly state what separates ID from mainstream creationism. Until they do, creationists of all stripes will continue to try to latch onto ID as being support for their creationism.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Added Quetzal topic plug at top of message.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Changed Discovery Institute link structure, which had been just the Wiki page. Added the "Discovery.org" link.

---

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

​

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

​

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

To convince me that ID is scientific the ID movement would have to act like a genuine scientific movement. Which would mean most of it going away. They don't need the lawyers or the PR and many of the Discovery Institute Fellows (some of whom are real embarrassments) could go.But I don't think that the ID movement really wants to do that. As I've said before they want to give the appearance of being scientific when it's convenient just as they want to give the impression of being a religious movement when it is convenient.The impression I get from the Wedge document is that they assumed that the science would simply fall into place. When it didn't, they decided it wasn't so important after all/

i believe it would be true to say that the introduction of ID to science is the scientific method of admitting the sign of intelligence in the order of the natural order, and that all that is was directed to behave in their patterns, while at the same time wanting to say its possibly wrong.the reason why most scientist don't want too is because they feel it would endorse religion. because even admitting the possibility without quoting any particular religion, those who feel it is a better theory than the "chance" theory will seek religion for answers. so many scientists realizing this, don't want it added at all.i don't believe its even necessary to add ID with any particular religious endorsement. i don't believe its necessary to add it under the premise it could be wrong. since my feelings on what i would call "the law of complexity" (not sure if one even exists, just my thoughts) would find that at T=0 there is zero chance the "something" at those coordinates spawned time and the laws of the order without direction (intelligence)but before those of you who want to dispute my feelings about this, remember the topic ^ID is not "religion in disguise" is my argument, but that ID would be admitting that religion is valid. and for that reason, scientists do not want it in science. (as i believe anyways to be the true source of the problem).

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I've read your post four time sand the title you gave it says it all really - problematic. I really have no idea what you're trying to say, other than scientists don't like religion. To nail that one, can I point out that many scientists are religious, it just so happens that they can tell the difference between religion and science and don't want to teach religion as science.If you want to argue that ID doesn't have religious overtones, I suggest you have a wee read at the Kitzmiller-v-Dover case and look at what those in favour of teaching ID had to say about it, then come back and tell us that religion has nothing to do with ID as it is currently being touted. If religion has nothing to do with it, why would someone say, in trying to get ID into the science classroom or words to that effect (I'm typing from memory, but can find the reference if you so wish)Can I also say that keeping ID out of the science class isn't saying it isn't valid, just as keeping cookery out of the science class isn't saying it isn't valid, or sewing, or baseball, or painting. It's just saying they aren't science!Can you rewrite your post so that I can see if what I think you're saying is actually what you are saying? Pay particular attention to your first paragraph as that really flummoxed me.

first paragraph:introduce the possibility in science of "intelligent designer" (God) in "theory" (could be wrong)to be the goal of ID advocates. (as i see it anyways) the ones who want to advocate it believe wholeheartedly God IS, or, believe the "possibility" is true. the ones who believe he IS, will quote the references that led them to that belief. which of course, can mean statements like the one you just quoted.i wouldn't expect it any other way given human nature. does it make the possibility any less accurate ? no. does it give scientists something to argue against? definitely.but what is the truth? is ID a possibility given the size, scale and complexity of the universe?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Can someone else trasnslate the first paragraph for me because tesla's explanation is even more cryptic that the original paragraph.

But those who do believe in God do that now. Many scientists believe that the universe is the way it is by God's will.If you want all history, geography, biology, math etc texts to have a line inside the cover saying."As God has willed so we describe in this holy tome."That wouldn't change the contents of any of the books by one line. We look to the universe to tell us just how God chose to set things up. That is what God left to tell us how he did things that is what is used.What else are you asking for?As has been noted elsewhere, the "big name" advocates for ID already agree that the biological explanation what has happened is something they agree with. They even appear to agree with at least some of the "hows" as well. They just want God to have a guiding hand now and then. They just haven't been able to point out exactly where he did the guiding. The attempts they have made have been shown to be a bit weak.The line I suggest in the front of all books would cover the idea that there has been the occasionally guidance wouldn't it?Of course, then you might have to start the argument over just who this god is.

I'm afraid you're on your own, Trixie. I don't speak Teslaese. Most definitely. This ties in directly to what I feel they have to do to convince me that they're scientific: they have to take an actual position, other than "not evolution."Everything that evolutionists teach is open for the public to read and criticize. Every detail of our theory is in the public realm. There aren't many details in IDology, and the few that there are aren't very detailed. Science requires substance, which means you have to produce a definitive hypothesis about the age of the earth or about the exact mechanisms behind natural phenomena or about anything else.No amount of experimentation can possibly support the hypothesis that facts are irrelevant. A theory agile enough to function the same in either a billion-year timeframe or a ten-thousand-year timeframe is not defined well enough.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

you have a very valid point.my argument would be that science is used as a tool for atheist's to hide behind. since " no one has proven God, and science does not admit to it as a possibility, he is not" without a scientific explanation of what God is, no one can truthfully explore where God has potentially acted or not.by how i define him, i can see that he set an order that has definite actions and reactions, and then gave some things the power of choice, to act or not act, based on their belief. has God acted? if he IS, why wouldnt he?faith is action, based on belief, with no doubt to the outcome.
when you walk out of your house, you are taking faith that you are, and the door is, and the world outside is. you acted on that belief.so by how i see God as defined within scientific boundaries of laws, which are true by all observation, i then concluded God based on those laws and observations.the truth is, no one can say God is not (no proof) and other's will argue no proof that God is. so already its accepted by the masses and even scientists, that God potentially is. (meaning, with no definite proof either way, it is possible in theory)what ID advocates want, is the official announcement by science as a whole and to be taught in the classroom, that because no proof either way is evident in science, that it does not endorse either aspect "at this time" but that the "potential" is there.Edited by tesla, : as=isEdited by tesla, : added a point.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

That's a good insight, NosyNed. The points that the ID proponents are arguing aren't actually the points that evolutionist teach, anyway: they are simply wanting God to be a part in it, too.I'm a Christian myself, and I believe that, even if God did tweak anything, He used a natural mechanism to do it, so we wouldn't be able to discern the difference between 'natural selection' and 'supernatural selection,' anyway, because there legitimately wouldn't be a difference.Keep in mind, this is just speculation, and it doesn't belong in a science classroom either, because it doesn't change anything: after all, in science, it's the causative mechanism we care about, not the omnipotent power behind the mechanism.I wouldn't complain if, every time a Darwinian mechanism came up in class, the teacher told the class, "You can believe that it was God's will for this to happen, if you want." That's essentially want the IDist's seem to want, anyway, and it doesn't require a non-theroetical, bogus theory to challenge teh mainstream views that it doesn't challenge, anyway.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

quote:

---

the truth is, no one can say God is not (no proof) and other's will argue no proof that God is. so already its accepted by the masses and even scientists, that God potentially is. (meaning, with no definite proof either way, it is possible in theory)

---

em..no. People who might happen to be scientists might say something about god, the practice of science by scientists say nothing at all about God, so it no "not accepted".

this would be limiting God's ability by man's logic.if God is, and hes a much more superior intelligence and form, what man can say what is possible, or not possible for God?i have to go to work, God be with you all, and be well

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

No, your argument is that you want scientists to spend their time chasing fairies.I have to ask. What gives you and the ID camp the right to try and dictate what avenues scienctists should be pursuing? The way I see it, the Idists aren't short of a buck or two. Maybe they should spend more of their resources doing their own work. People like you demand that scientists drop everything so they can entertain your ideas.Bottom line. If ID wants to be seen as science, they better start doing some.

Translation: In order for I.D to be accepted as a science it has to start out, at least, by following the scientific method... Translation:...but since it cannot, we must redefine the scientific method to include I.D. because it is also my wish that I.D. be considered science anyway, because it is so blatantly obvious to any non-atheist that evolution is directed by the hand of God. Translation:God directs all things, nothing is left to chance and random mutation, while at the same time since I know that no scientist with any credibility would believe this crap, I will also throw in the caveat that it "could" be wrong...thus making it a falsifiable hypothesis...and therefore acceptable to mainstream science.How's that?