|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does intelligent design have creationist roots? | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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
By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as "special creation" of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005)
The evidence clearly shows that at the beginning "Intelligent Design" was just another name for creationism. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: And the fact that there are YEC leaders in the ID movement undermines that assertion.
quote: And I think that that is a lot closer to the real ID position than the party line that ID is "science".
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: That is an assumption, not a logical point in the strict sense.
quote: 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: 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:
Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.
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: 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:
Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.
That "solid scholarship, research and argument" never arrived. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024