Does intelligent design have creationist roots?

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.From the decision of the court. as hosted at talkorigins.org The evidence clearly shows that at the beginning "Intelligent Design" was just another name for creationism.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As I mentioned in my second post, Michael Behe was a Christian both before and after rejecting evolution in favor of ID.

---

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.Even in Darwin's Black Box he stopped short of explicitly endorsing common descent (granting only that the evidence seemed convincing).And, of course, Behe's views still seem to be more religious than scientific, even if he is no longer a creationist.

quote:

---

What most conservative Christians don't know about intelligent design is that it believes the universe began with the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago, that the earth is 4.56 billion years old, that the current geology of our planet reflects the expression of natural forces over billions of years, and that there was no global flood about 4500 years ago.

---

It would be fair to say that many leaders in the ID movement believe that, However ID itself takes no position on those matters. Indeed there are YECs happily within the ID movement.

quote:

---

Which was the point I was making. They only think they're inside it, and only because they misunderstand it, see ICR's rather nuanced position on intelligent design: Intelligent Design and/or Scientific Creationism

---

You're including some of the leaders of the ID movement in that - Nancy Pearcey and Paul Nelson are two that I know of. Philip Johnson once said that it was too soon to talk about the age of the Earth. The ID movement knows that it can't get a Young Earth taught in schools - which is what the ICR is upset about - but it still wants the YECs on board.If the ID movement achieved it's objectives I think that there would be an internal struggle over the issue - and I can't say that the Old Earthers would definitely win.

quote:

---

Like I said, the Discovery Institute is evidently desperate for fellows. Does their presence make YECism part of ID?

---

We're not talking about nobodies or hangers-on like Berlinski here. Nancy Pearcey was a contributor to Of Pandas and People, for instance.So I'd say that the answer is yes. They are there because YECism IS part of ID. Which is the way that the ID movement wants it. Why else won't they admit to the Earth being 4.5 billion years old ?

quote:

---

I wasn't talking about ID leadership, I was talking about the rank-and-file.

---

And the fact that there are YEC leaders in the ID movement undermines that assertion.

quote:

---

As Dover made clear, the rank-and-file has it all confused. When asked to describe ID all they could do is talk in terms of God and Christ and Noah's flood and all lifeforms being created by God and getting rid of evolution.

---

And I think that that is a lot closer to the real ID position than the party line that ID is "science".

quote:

---

I think what you're thinking of is the Discovery Institute's "big tent" approach, and certainly people like Paul Nelson's presence is helpful in making this case to assuage the concerns of YEC organizations like ICR.

---

Of course I am. The DI is the heart of the ID movement. They recognise YEC as a part of ID. Individual ID supporters accept an old Earth. But the ID movement as a whole doesn't seem willing to go with that.

Not quite. The "therefore" doesn't follow. It's just that they're not confused in the way that you think.They ARE confused about how far the ID movement will go to support them teaching creationism. Which is not very far (they'll whine about "persecution" after the fact, though). They are confused about the party line - the religious part of ID is supposed to be for internal consumption only, If they think that ID is YECism - instead of just including it - they're confused about that, too.

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, why do you believe the FTE represents the roots of the intelligent design movement?

---

I never said that it did. I was merely pointing out that your idea that the FTE had abandoned creationism had been shown to be false.But of course we must not forget that Of Pandas and People was endorsed by the DI, as "the" ID textbook.

quote:

---

Also, using an argument that has been used by creationists doesn’t necessarily mean you hold all of the beliefs of a creationist.

---

Your link shows that although Behe claims to have been an "evolutionist" he was NOT especially committed to it. Indeed he seems all to willing to abandon it.And I would add that I did not claim that Behe was merely using an argument used by creationists. I believe that he was directly arguing for creation.

quote:

---

In any case, neither quote demonstrates the idea that intelligent design is religiously motivated.

---

They provide very strong evidence that religion is a powerful motive behind ID. It must be remembered that the whole point of the Discovery Institute ID program was to "renew" society through the promotion of religious belief.

quote:

---

The first is simply a logical point. No one is interested in promoting a noble lie.

---

That is an assumption, not a logical point in the strict sense.

quote:

---

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.

---

You may be putting the cart before the horse here. In fact it may well be that their religious beliefs are the reason that they believe in ID in the first place - and it may well be the case that every word of what you say applies equally to the "creation science" movement.

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course the "creation science" movement made similar claims. So a degree of skepticism is warranted. There doesn't seem to be any grounds to doubt their claims of religious motivation - many are plainly religious. However their claims to scientific motivation seem very open to doubt.Let us consider Behe's views on the evolution of the immune system as shown in the Kitzmiller trial (see transcript of day 12. Now it is a fact that research into the question of how the immune system evolved has been productive (which is one reason to consider it science) and successful predictions have been made on the basis of this work.And Behe says that that is not enough. Here's what he wants: That sounds like a very big demand to me. In fact it seems plainly unreasonable - even designed to be practically impossible. In fact the only way it could be reasonable is if ID had an alternative view which did meet Behe's criteria, or at least came closer to reaching them than the work Behe dismisses. Of course we know that's not true. ID doesn't compete with evolution on that ground - not in the evolution of the immune system or any other system.So what we have here looks very much as if Behe is simply setting the bar ridiculously high for evolution while not expecting ID to offer anything much at all.Behe suggests that the ID paradigm will do better - but this seems to be based purely on faith. ID has no track record of success, or even producing work equivalent to that that Behe dismisses.So Behe's objection is not scientific or even rational. There are no scientific grounds for his faith in ID. So I suggest that if he is sincere it can only be because ID is in accord with his religious faith.

quote:

---

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.

---

That book was published 5 years ago. There is still no sign of "Darwinism’s imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design" on scientific grounds - or even a good reason to think that it will ever happen.We saw much the same in the Wedge Document from 1998. A confidence that the necessary academic support for ID would materialise in a very short time. A confidence that was shown to be unfounded.The document goes on to state: That "solid scholarship, research and argument" never arrived.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

As I've said elsewhere, an argument can be logically fallacious and still be a good argument - even a strong one. It just isn't absolutely certain.An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because no matter how good the "authority" they can always be mistaken. However, an appeal to a genuine authority may be the best argument available to us on certain subjects.

quote:

---

I would say that YECreationism and ID is completely different.

---

The YECs in the ID movement would disagree. YECism is accepted as a form of ID. You're more likely to see Michael Behe leave the ID movement than Paul Nelson or Nancy Pearcey.

quote:

---

The very little I read about ID - (I try to keep my reading to actual science and conspiracy theories ) - never really covered their opinion of a young earth.

---

That's because there isn't an official ID view on the age of the Earth (other than "don't talk about it"). I believe that the ID leaders are mainly OECs, but YECs are definitely allowed into the Big Tent. Of course the major YEC organisations don't like it that ID doesn't take an explicitly Young Earth stand, but of course if ID did that it would just be "Creation Science" under a new name - without a hope of getting past the courts.