Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does intelligent design have creationist roots?
Fallen
Member (Idle past 3872 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 1 of 151 (505276)
04-09-2009 6:36 PM


Recently, while browsing the A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence thread, I came across a post by Bio-molecularTony, who apparently associates himself with the Intelligent Design movement. In his post, he frequently made reference to the designer in question being God — and, with this assumption, went on to discuss the possible abilities, motivations, etc. of God.
In response to Tony, Coyote asked why someone would post so much about religious belief in a thread relating to Intelligent Design. I suggested that Tony didn’t correctly understand what Intelligent Design was about. Coyote then went on to argue that Intelligent Design is fundamentally an evolution of scientific creationism, thus implying (apparently) that Tony was correct to assume that Intelligent Design is a religious idea.
Since this topic is fundamentally different from the original intent of that thread, I think a new topic is order.
Continuing the discussion:
Coyote writes:
The reason I cited Of Pandas and People is the following (this is the textbook going through editions and revisions):
quote:

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34:
Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

Of Pandas and People (1987, intelligent design version), p. 3-41:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.



Note that these last two versions span the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court banning creation "science" in schools. That is what led to the invention of "intelligent design."
This is a clear case of a creationist text being cut-and-pasted, changing "creationists" to "design proponents" -- except for the one place they missed and ended up with "cdesign proponentsists."
So yes, I believe that intelligent design was invented to masquerade its religious background, and to replace creation "science" after it was banned by the court.
As I was saying, I could perhaps agree that the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, who wrote the textbook, changed from being a creationist organization to being an organization advocating Intelligent Design. If I recall correctly, one of the writers of the textbook testified at Dover that creationists was a placeholder term until a new term was thought up. This seems unlikely to me, however, since a lot of traditional creation science was apparently in early versions of the textbook. (global flood, kinds, etc.) Thus, it would seem that the FTE changed from being a creationist organization to an organization supporting Intelligent Design during the time period you mentioned.
While I agree that Intelligent Design draws some of its support from creationists and former creationists such as the FTE, I disagree with your statement that intelligent design was invented to masquerade its religious background, and replace creation ‘science’ after it was banned by the court. I disagree because I think its clear that many of the advocates and supporters of Intelligent Design come from very anti-creationist backgrounds. As I mentioned in my second post, Michael Behe was a Christian both before and after rejecting evolution in favor of ID. David Berlinski was an agnostic both before and after he started supporting ID. Demsbki, Rana, and Ross are all examples of old earth creationists who have weighed in to support Intelligent Design. All of these people hold and advocate beliefs that are extremely offensive to YECs. Yet, they are among the founders of the Intelligent Design movement.
As a result, I think Intelligent Design draws its support from many groups, including creationists. Frankly, this shouldn’t be surprising, considering that many groups advocate a world that is intelligently designed.
Edit: On further research, early versions of the text book do not discuss "kinds," the global flood, or the age of the earth. My statement in this post was inaccurate.
Edited by Fallen, : accuracy

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 04-09-2009 7:09 PM Fallen has not replied
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 04-09-2009 7:35 PM Fallen has not replied
 Message 5 by Huntard, posted 04-10-2009 1:43 AM Fallen has not replied
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2009 2:57 AM Fallen has not replied
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2009 4:57 AM Fallen has not replied
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 04-10-2009 7:19 AM Fallen has not replied
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 04-10-2009 7:25 AM Fallen has not replied
 Message 150 by themasterdebator, posted 07-04-2009 3:40 PM Fallen has not replied

  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 3872 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 22 of 151 (505690)
04-15-2009 1:31 PM


Innocent until proven guilty.
subbie writes:
Well, in the first place, it's hardly clear since the word "many" is rather vague. You mention 5 by name, does that constitute "many?"
Yes, when you consider them compared with the total number of people that could be considered important in the founding and develop of ID theory. I list them not because they are the only non-creationists, but rather because I have actual data about their previous and current beliefs.
subbie writes:
Second, it's far from clear that any of the people you mention are anti-creationist.
By anti-creationist, I mean they held and continue to hold beliefs that are in contradiction with the literal biblical account.
subbie writes:
So, to you, the fact that old earth creationists support ID is proof that ID doesn't have creationist roots?
No. However, the fact that, among other groups, old and young earth creationists weighed in together to develop and support intelligent design would seem to imply that intelligent design isn’t derived exclusively from young earth creationism. My apologies for the confusing wording.
subbie writes:
Beyond that, the basic game plan that IDers use is straight out of the creationist handbook.
Step 1, find something that science hasn't (yet) explained (or that you don't think science has explained)(or that has an explanation that you don't understand). Wave your hands around a bit about this "mystery," then conclude that it's proof of intelligent intervention.
Step 2, misrepresent what the theory of evolution says, then attack your straw-man misrepresentation.
Step 3, ignore all established methods of presenting your ideas to the scientific community and publish a mass-market book to try to convince those without scientific training that there's something to your nonsense.
Step 4, when the scientific community rejects your IDeas, claim that closed-minded dogmatism (or atheism) is the only thing preventing scientists from accepting what you say.
Make no mistake, IDers' roots are showing to anyone who wants to look.
I’m not trying to be offensive or gratuitously rude, but you really should learn more about intelligent design before posting on boards like this. I would recommend reading through Dembski’s Design Revolution, for starters.
Coyote writes:
This comes from the infamous Wedge Document, an internal fundraising and planning document of the Discovery Institute that somehow leaked and ended up on the internet.
Indeed. One could learn as much simply by reading the back cover of Phillip Johnson’s The Wedge of Truth, which, by the way, is publicly available for anyone who wants to read it. Quote: Johnson prophetically concludes that the walls of naturalism will fall and that the Christian gospel must play a vital role in building a new foundation for thinking — not just about science and religion but about everything that gives human life hope and meaning. It’s hardly a secret that many people support Intelligent Design for both scientific and religious reasons. Those religious reasons are not always YEC, however, and there are also those who support ID for non-religious reasons.
Huntard writes:
Who/what is the designer? There are really only 2 possibilities. Either they are aliens with advanced technology, or it is a supernatural being. If it is aliens, then where did they come from. If they "evolved" through natural means, then the step has just been moved one place. If they're also designed, then who is their designer? Here there are also 2 possibilities. Either they are other aliens, or it is a supernatural being. You can keep this up for a while, but eventually you'll have to come to the supernatural being, because we know life hasn't always existed. Well, and dealing with the supernatural, just isn't science. Guess what does deal with the supernatural? That's right, creationism!
Aliens with advanced technology need not have bodies that are filled with indicators of intelligent design, as we do. Other suggestions I have seen include the world of the matrix and future humans using time machines. Even if we assume that the designer was a god, that still leaves many options open other than a literal interpretation of Genesis.
PaulK writes:
The argument that the FTE had rejected creationism in favour of ID was tried in the courtroom - and failed, because the evidence was so strongly against it.
Out of curiosity, why do you believe the FTE represents the roots of the intelligent design movement? It seems to me that when examining the origins of a theory, one should look at the thinkers who came up with it rather than analyzing the motives of the people who print the textbooks.
PaulK writes:
So far as I can tell, Behe used to be a creationist. In 1994 he was arguing that the absence of transitional fossils for whale ancestry was evidence against evolution.
A former evolutionist scientist tells why Darwinianism is impossible
Also, using an argument that has been used by creationists doesn’t necessarily mean you hold all of the beliefs of a creationist.
Percy writes:
Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and it's interesting that the Discovery Institute is so hard up for Senior Fellows that they have one who describes his relationship with their core values as "warm but distant." I doubt you could find any senior fellows of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) who would describe their relationship with science as "warm but distant."
Here is the full text of the quote:
My attitude is pretty much what it has always been: warm but distant. It’s the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives. I have been a published critic of various design-theoretic arguments, but unlike other critics, I have never suggested that the Enlightenment would come to an end were they to be widely accepted. I have no scruples about the inference to design as an argument form. We use it all the time. My criticisms are specific, precise, and technical. I think Mike Behe and William Dembski have in irreducible complexity and complex specified information re-introduced two provocative ideas to the discussion — provocative, but not entirely adequate. And I must stress that they have re-introduced these ideas, since in one form or another they have long been a part of the world’s skeptical doubts about Darwin. I wrote about complex specified information as long ago as 1986, in Black Mischief: Language, Life, Logic & Luck.
Taken from: http://www.idthefuture.com/...rview_with_david_berlin_2.html
So, while his relationship with the ID movement as a whole is warm but distant, he has no scruples about inferring design, at least as a form of argument. He also claims to have been instrumental in the development of the idea of complex, specified information — one the core ideas of Intelligent Design. Thus, because of his early support of and contributions to intelligent design, one could correctly consider him to be among the founders of the movement.
Edited by Fallen, : No reason given.
Edited by Fallen, : typo

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2009 2:02 PM Fallen has not replied
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 04-15-2009 2:10 PM Fallen has not replied
 Message 25 by subbie, posted 04-15-2009 2:49 PM Fallen has not replied
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 04-15-2009 3:35 PM Fallen has not replied
 Message 27 by bluegenes, posted 04-15-2009 4:37 PM Fallen has not replied
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 04-15-2009 10:45 PM Fallen has not replied

  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 3872 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 87 of 151 (507600)
05-06-2009 4:45 PM


Out of curiosity, would anyone here be interested in a 1-on-1, moderated debate on the history of Intelligent Design? I greatly enjoy reading all of your responses to my posts, but it is hard for me to discuss this issue with so many people at once. I am not necessarily issuing a challenge right now, but it would be nice to know if people are available.
Edited by Fallen, : No reason given.

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by subbie, posted 05-06-2009 5:49 PM Fallen has replied
 Message 91 by Trev777, posted 05-09-2009 5:25 PM Fallen has not replied

  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 3872 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 89 of 151 (507683)
05-07-2009 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by subbie
05-06-2009 5:49 PM


Re: Great Debate
What exactly do you believe about the subject?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by subbie, posted 05-06-2009 5:49 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by subbie, posted 05-07-2009 1:07 PM Fallen has replied

  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 3872 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 94 of 151 (508330)
05-12-2009 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by subbie
05-07-2009 1:07 PM


Re: Great Debate
@Subbie: Perhaps it would help if I was more specific. You accused me of "moving goal posts" in your last post - I was unaware that any other "goal post" had ever existed. Where exactly will the "goal post" be, in our debate? More specifically, exactly how do you define creationism, and why do you use that definition? Whether or not we disagree depends on how you answer this question - naturally, I would like to know your answer before agreeing to a debate.
Edit: By "your last post" I meant post 25. My apologies if this has caused confusion.
Edited by Fallen, : No reason given.

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by subbie, posted 05-07-2009 1:07 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by OriginLifeandDeath, posted 05-14-2009 9:26 PM Fallen has not replied
 Message 99 by subbie, posted 05-14-2009 11:38 PM Fallen has replied

  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 3872 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 100 of 151 (508713)
05-15-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by subbie
05-14-2009 11:38 PM


Re: Great Debate
Your definition states that intelligent design is a form of creationism. Obviously, I can’t accept it, since doing so would end the debate before it started.
I’m primarily interested in discussing the idea that the modern intelligent design movement arose in response to Edwards v. Aguillard, as "Creationism’s Trojan Horse." Barbara Forrest, for example, argued as much in her book and at Dover. In my view, calling ID "Intelligent Design Creationism" or, more directly, referring to intelligent design advocates as "creationists" represents an unfair and mostly inaccurate labeling used to shut down debate. It is implied that advocates of intelligent design are primarily motivated by a desire to circumvent legal standards about separation of church and state, rather than scientific evidence.
After doing some research, I agree that the term "creationist" has several different meanings and implications. I think we should recognize this fact, and instead discuss whether or not the term is fair and accurate when applied to the modern movement of intelligent design and its origins. We should also consider how much influence Edwards v. Aguillard had in the formation and conception of the idea.

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by subbie, posted 05-14-2009 11:38 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by subbie, posted 05-15-2009 7:14 PM Fallen has replied

  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 3872 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 102 of 151 (508732)
05-15-2009 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by subbie
05-15-2009 7:14 PM


Re: Worthless subtitle replaced by this slightly less worthless subtitle
Fair enough. I think we have enough of an area of disagreement for me to write my opening post.
subbie writes:
Is it simply because they base their ideas on a looser reading of Genesis than OECs or YECs? I've been giving this topic some small thought, and it occurred to me that perhaps you have the idea that since IDers accept more of science than OECs do, and OECs accept more than YECs, you think this difference is significant. Is that the basis for your distinction?
Actually, I don't think intelligent design has anything at all to do with any interpretation of Genesis. The whole point of using the term "intelligent design" is to draw attention to the fact that ID advocates believe the evidence suggests an intelligent designer at work. Nothing more, nothing less.

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by subbie, posted 05-15-2009 7:14 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 05-16-2009 10:00 AM Fallen has replied
 Message 104 by Modulous, posted 05-16-2009 10:26 AM Fallen has not replied

  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 3872 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 105 of 151 (508841)
05-16-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Percy
05-16-2009 10:00 AM


Re: Worthless subtitle replaced by this slightly less worthless subtitle
Percy writes:
What percentage of scientists who are traditional creationists are evangelical Christians? I don't really know, but I'm sure we can agree it's a very high percentage, right? Maybe 99%?
What percentage of scientists who are IDists are evangelical Christians? I don't really know this number, either, but I hope we can still agree that it's a fairly high percentage. Maybe 80%?
I don’t know of any polls on the issue, so I can’t agree to any estimate with confidence. On the other hand, why do you believe this is relevant? If a Nazi supports evolution, does that make evolution the same thing as antisemitism? If a Christian starts an inquisition, does that make Christianity the same thing as torture? Frankly, such questions are irrelevant. An idea should be classified on its own merits, not the beliefs of the people advocating it.
Percy writes:
Some very prominent IDists are not evangelical Christians, like Michael Behe, arguably the founder of the modern intelligent design movement. But at trial when asked if he believed the intelligent designer was God he answered, "Yes, that's correct." (Dover Trial Transcripts, Morning of Day 10)
I’m glad you brought up Behe’s testimony at Dover, since he actually did an excellent job of explaining why intelligent design is fundamentally different from creationism. If you look at the next question he was asked, he explains his answer. Quote:
Q. Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
A. No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.
So, although he believes the designer is God, he doesn’t believe it can be proven using scientific evidence. A creationist concludes that God created based on theological factors and looks for scientific evidence to support this prior belief. An intelligent design advocate, in contrast, starts by examining the scientific evidence and concludes than it can be demonstrated that an intelligent designer was involved at some point, but nothing more. This is especially clear in Behe’s case, since he had no prior theological reason to believe the scientific evidence would indicate design.
This distinction between ID and creationism immediately becomes apparent if you read the rest of Behe’s testimony. For example, in a section from the morning of day 11, there are several pages worth of discussion about the meaning of intelligent design and its differences from creationism. Probably the pithiest bit of testimony from Behe: Creation is a theological religious concept. And intelligent design is a scientific idea, which is based exclusively on the physical, observable evidence plus logical processes.
And this isn’t just testimony from Dover. This conception of intelligent design as an idea derived only from the scientific evidence has been a consistent factor in the ID literature since the beginning of the movement.
Percy writes:
Steve William Fuller is an IDer and sociologist with no public statements of his religious beliefs, but at Dover he testified at length about God and about the relationship between science and religion. When asked if the designer is a monotheistic conception of God he answered, "Yes, it is in that tradition that comes about, yes. You need a God that's detachable from the creation." (Dover Trial Transcripts, Afternoon of Day 15)
Actually, Fuller was asked And historically the designer has always been known as a certain kind of monotheistic conception of God? The context was a historical discussion of William Paley, who clearly did link his design argument to God. ID advocates recognize several problems with Paley’s argument, one of which is the weak scientific link between this object is designed and this object is designed by God.
Percy writes:
The textbook of intelligent design, Of Pandas and People, began as a creationist textbook. It was transformed into a book about intelligent design by simple word substitutions. "Creator" was replaced by "intelligent designer", "creation" was replaced by "intelligent design", and so forth. All other content in the book is the original creationist content.
This is all very debatable, but the issue is large enough that I think it would be best to wait until my opening post in the debate with subbie to address this issue.
Percy writes:
But the real identity of ID is revealed at the grass roots level in school systems like Dover, where the only proponents of ID are young earth creationists who see ID as their only chance of opposing evolution. This is why the Discovery Institute is against public spectacles like the Dover trial. They understand that as much as they'd like to keep their religion out of their science, their followers lack the knowledge and expertise to maintain or even understand this position, and many are not aware that such a distinction exists. You can't have school board members promoting ID with statements like, "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" (Bill Buckingham, chair of the Dover school board) and still maintain that ID isn't religion.
Well, again, I don’t see why an idea should be defined by those that abuse it. Advocating that intelligent design proves that someone died on a cross is clearly an abuse of the idea. On the other hand, it is true intelligent design is friendlier toward the theistic beliefs of most Americans than the idea it would replace. However, ideas are classified based on their content, not their implications.

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 05-16-2009 10:00 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 05-16-2009 5:37 PM Fallen has replied
 Message 107 by Coragyps, posted 05-16-2009 7:07 PM Fallen has not replied
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 05-18-2009 5:01 PM Fallen has replied

  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 3872 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 111 of 151 (509089)
05-18-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
05-16-2009 5:37 PM


Re: Worthless subtitle replaced by this slightly less worthless subtitle
Percy: Setting aside the fact that you have yet to provide evidence that an association exists, guilt by association can work both ways. For example, according to a recent Gallup poll, about 72% of Americans who accept evolution also believe that God was involved in the process. In 1982, about the time intelligent design advocates were starting to get their act together, a total of 81% of Americans who accepted evolution also believed God guided it. According to your logic, this must mean that belief in evolution is motivated by the Christian religion. Actually, none of this is surprising considering the fact that the vast majority of American citizens are religious.
Edited by Fallen, : fixing broken links
Edited by Fallen, : 1982, not 1983

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 05-16-2009 5:37 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Taz, posted 05-24-2009 6:40 PM Fallen has not replied

  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 3872 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 113 of 151 (509761)
05-24-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Percy
05-18-2009 5:01 PM


Re: Worthless subtitle replaced by this slightly less worthless subtitle
How would you define a "quote mine," Percy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 05-18-2009 5:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 05-24-2009 7:13 PM Fallen has replied
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 05-24-2009 8:07 PM Fallen has not replied

  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 3872 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 118 of 151 (509778)
05-24-2009 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Percy
05-24-2009 7:13 PM


Shermer quotes
I apologize for my last post. After reading it again, in the larger context of the thread, it sounds like I’m condescendingly accusing Percy of quote mining. Actually, that wasn’t my intent at all. Percy seems like an honest person, and I doubt he would ever do anything like that. I was actually curious if the author Percy was referencing, Michael Shermer, could be properly called a quote miner according to the standard definition applied to creationists.
After further consideration, I don’t think it would be fair to attach that label to Shermer, since neither quote’s context is available online. Of course, if the quotes were indeed taken out of context, he would be a quote miner. However, I think it makes sense that Dembski would choose to particularly emphasize the religious implications of intelligent design when speaking in front of a religious audience. Also, it is very possible that Phillip Johnson believes that this debate is primarily about religion and philosophy. For example, he wrote a chapter in Darwin on Trial titled Darwinist Religion. He even referred to evolution as The Established Religious Philosophy of America in the title of one of his online papers. However, he only comes to that conclusion in his book after first spending many chapters examining the lack of scientific evidence in favor of evolution.
In any case, neither quote demonstrates the idea that intelligent design is religiously motivated. There are a couple of reasons for this. The first is simply a logical point. No one is interested in promoting a noble lie. In other words, no matter how friendly an idea is to religion, no one will support it if they think it is false. As a result, I think it is reasonable to say that the most important motivation of ID advocates is the fact that they think their theory is scientifically correct. Second, if we are to take quotes from ID advocates as trustworthy evidence about their motivations, it becomes clear that they are motivated primarily by their view of the scientific evidence.
For example, consider this quote from Dembski’s The Design Revolution, page 50:
For the record, therefore, let’s be clear that design theorists oppose Darwinian theory on strictly scientific grounds. Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinism’s imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design. But the reason design theorists take seriously such implications is that we are convinced that Darwinism is, on its own terms, an oversold and overreaching scientific theory.
Or, if you would prefer an online source, try reading Dembski’s presentation at the RAPID conference:
Unless intelligent design is an intrinsic good -- unless it can be developed as a scientific research program and provide sound insights into the natural world -- then its use as an instrumental good for defeating ideologies that suffocate the human spirit becomes insupportable. Intelligent design must not become a ‘noble lie’ for vanquishing views we find unacceptable (history is full of noble lies that ended in disgrace). Rather, intelligent design needs to convince us of its truth on its scientific merits. Then, because it is true and known to be true, it can become an instrument for liberation from suffocating ideologies -- ideologies that suffocate not because they tell us the grim truth about ourselves but because they are at once grim and false (Freud's psychic determinism is a case in point). (Link)
Taz writes:
The people who push for ID do so have repeatedly admitted that they believe the IDer behind the design is the judeo-christian god. When asked if it was possible for the IDer to have been some kind of extraterrestrial or alien, they almost always unanimously answer "no". Guilt by association in this case IS NOT fallacious.
What is your standard for determining when guilt by association is fallacious? How do you justify your standard?

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 05-24-2009 7:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Taz, posted 05-25-2009 1:30 AM Fallen has not replied
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 05-25-2009 2:46 AM Fallen has not replied
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 05-25-2009 7:54 AM Fallen has not replied
 Message 122 by lyx2no, posted 05-25-2009 8:58 AM Fallen has not replied

  
Fallen
Member (Idle past 3872 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 136 of 151 (511339)
06-09-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Percy
06-04-2009 10:16 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
This isn't really a refutation, but I think it would be good to point out that Kenyon is the type of person you would expect to have an incorrect understanding of the history of intelligent design. He is, after all, a former creationist who joined the ID movement after his side lost Edwards v. Aguillard. The FTE hired him to help with Pandas because he was a prominent origin of life researcher who had become critical of evolution, not because of his creationist background.
This was actually discussed at Dover. Jon A. Buell, president of the organization that published Pandas, was asked about Kenyon. (Link)
Jon A. Buell writes:
Dr. Kenyon changed his view after he interacted with us. We went to Davis and Kenyon for the nuts and bolts of science in Davis' case of biology, and in Kenyon's case in the origin of life.
Dr. Thaxton, Charles Thaxton, who was the academic editor, was the one who had been steeped in the history of science and philosophy of science and was working out the framework that -- through which these would be laid out. So we did not hire Kenyon for his view on creation science.
In any case, what standards of evidence are you using, Percy? Are quotes from advocates of intelligent design good evidence about the history of their movement? If so, I can provide many quotes saying that the history of the movement is separate from creationism. If not, why are you using quotes?

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 06-04-2009 10:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Nuggin, posted 06-09-2009 12:46 PM Fallen has not replied
 Message 138 by Taq, posted 06-09-2009 1:28 PM Fallen has not replied
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 2:25 PM Fallen 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