Does intelligent design have creationist roots?

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.

So your position is that ID includes YEC, and that therefore the rank-and-file conservative Christian isn't confused about ID. Understood. I disagree.--Percy

ID is more of a tool than a true ideological belief. It is a tool to "wedge" religion back into the schools under the false guise of science.As a tool, it has attracted both OEC and YEC folks, as well as many folks who don't care what it is as long as it can be used against evolution.The few scientists who have been pushing it generally seem to be in the OEC camp.Then there's the Dishonesty Institute, more interested in ID as a tool for destroying people's trust in science in any way they can so they can institute a theocracy. Or in their own words, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (Nothing short of a theocracy will force science to change its inherent methods; they just hope you don't realize that.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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.

Well, maybe some don't care, maybe some are confused. Whatever the case, they're certainly mistaken if they believe that ID is the way to get creationism taught in school.It may possibly be the case that IDists tailor their presentations to the faithful by deemphasizing their scientific positions. But in secular venues, especially in public debates and in presentations to school boards and legislatures, they have to persuade people that ID is science and that it is not associated with creationist views like a young earth and a relatively recent global flood. It was the failure of such ideas that made the switch to ID necessary, and so ID must, of necessity at least publicly, disavow such views and embrace legitimate science.If you want to claim that there's some considerable dissembling going on over at DI I wouldn't argue with you, I often feel that way, too, but I try not to think that way. Many creationists think evolutionists know evolution is a lie, and I think it's just as much a mistake to conclude that creationists know creationism (in whatever form) is a lie. Most people just don't have the stamina to lead insincere lives.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Having been in this religious mindset myself at one point in my life, I would have to agree with you Percy. The vast majority of creationists aka a large majority of fundamentalist Christians are sincere in there religious beliefs which also overflows into all aspects of there lives including there "scientific" understanding of the world.I think the old adage "You can be sincere but be sincerely wrong" applies well to this type of mindset and is very propos to this situation.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

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. By anti-creationist, I mean they held and continue to hold beliefs that are in contradiction with the literal biblical account. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.htmlSo, 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

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.

Yeah, the thing is, we don't have that either. But if this was the case, the theory of evolution still holds true for the aliens. If the matrix is the case, then humans still evolved, yet the world we see around us isn't "real". In case of the time machine, you run into a paradox, namely, where did those future humans come from? If their ancestors HAD to be designed by them, then they couldn't have gotten there, now could they? And who said "creationism" only refers to a literal interpretation of Genesis? "Creationism" is simply every belief that a supernatural being or force is responsible for the life of this planet, or even the planet or the universe itself. There are Hindu creationists, you know.

---

I hunt for the truth

quote:

---

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.

---

Five is many. Okay....

quote:

---

By anti-creationist, I mean they held and continue to hold beliefs that are in contradiction with the literal biblical account.

---

Which literal biblical account? And, given that there are different accounts that say different things, isn't it pretty much impossible not to hold a belief in contradiction of one or another?

quote:

---

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.

---

Ah yes. Another tried and true creo stratagem, moving the goalposts. First, the discussion was whether ID has creationist roots. Now, it's whether ID has young earth creationist roots. Tell you what, you decide what point you want to argue and let us know when you've fixed on one. But, if you're going to try to create a distinction between OEC and YEC, you better provide a compelling reason for that distinction. To those of us who understand science and creationism, OEC and YEC are virtually the same in their rejection of and attack upon science, although they disagree on some of the rather minor details.

quote:

---

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.

---

So, you wanna compare qualifications? Suits me.I've been studying creationism and ID since the mid 80s. In college, I majored in Philosophy with an emphasis on Philosophy of Science. My honors thesis was on creationism, and I got an A on it from Dr. Philip Kitcher, author of Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. I've read dozens of books on ID and creationism, and hundreds of websites. I've also read a great deal about evolution. Note carefully, I'm not providing my credentials to prove that I'm right, I'm providing my credentials to show that I do know what I'm talking about.I'm not trying to be offensive or gratuitously rude either, but accusing those who criticize ID or creationism as simply not understanding it is another hoary creo gambit, and usually wrong.

quote:

---

I would recommend reading through Dembski’s Design Revolution, for starters.

---

Well, that certainly wouldn't be a start for me. In any event, at this site, we don't simply swap citations to authority back and forth. You are expected to provide the argument yourself in your own words. So tell me, what does Dembski say in Design Revolution? In particular, since you were responding to my description of the creationist game plan, tell me why that book doesn't fit with my description. You might begin by demonstrating that it's any different from Steps 3 and 4. Specifically, you could address the preface, which Wiki describes this way: Isn't it amazing that I haven't even read the book, yet it fits so well with the creo game plan I outlined?

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Let's not forget your original point. This is from your opening post: The actual roots of the intelligent design concept are almost always traced back to Paley. If he isn't the original creationist "root" I don't know who is.As I said once already, the intelligent design concept attracts adherents for more than religious reasons, but it was adopted and made into a movement by the same people who previously failed to expel evolution from the classroom, the creationists.So all you're really saying is that contemporary creationists didn't invent the concept of intelligent design, and I think many here would agree with you. Like I said, credit for that is usually given to Paley.More importantly, and as has already been pointed out by others in this thread, intelligent design is an inherently religious concept because wherever and whenever life first began, since there was no prior life to intelligently design that first life, if you really believe a natural origin for life is impossible then only supernatural possibilities remain. Intelligent design is in essence a rejection of natural explanations and of science itself.Dembski's concepts concerning information and specified complexity are inventions of his own mind without any connection to the real world.--Percy

About what percentage of well known I.D. supporters seriously believe any of the above are responsible for what they perceive as design in life? I ask because, if I.D. has creationist roots, then we would expect the overwhelming majority of its supporters to be against natural explanations.A former evolutionist scientist tells why Darwinianism is impossibleIn the link that you give us (above) Michael Behe says:

quote:

---

The scientific argument [for I.D.] is easy to see, but some people have committed themselves to materialism. For intelligent design to make strong inroads into science, that will have to change.

---

William Dembski's blog complains about "materialism" on its front page.So, it looks as though these people object to science looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena, and want to bring the supernatural into play.I think that both the modern version of I.D. and the old William Paley version have evolved from Christian creationist culture.An interesting question about your high tech. aliens would be: how could they possibly contain less "FSCI" than bacteria? (If more, they require design by I.D. arguments).The I.D. arguments all require a supernatural designer in order to exempt the designer from those very arguments.Incidentally, while you're here, and as you read Dembski, perhaps you're the right person to explain something to us. How can a designer design something that contains "FSCI" without having a brain/mind that contains "FSCI"? In other words, isn't I.D. automatically a failure as an explanatory theory for the origin of "FSCI", as it makes it a prerequisite for itself?

None of this argues against my point. The impetus for ID is the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Edwards v. Aguillard, which rightly banned creation "science" from the schools.Creation "science" and its illegitimate stepchild, ID, are creationism in disguise--and they are not fooling anyone.How many of those few "scientists" who support ID turn out to be fundamentalists first and scientists second? Pretty much all, as there is no science to ID--its all religious apologetics dishonestly taking on the trappings of science in hopes of fooling some school boards and sympathetic state legislators.And don't forget, fundamentalism is anti-science! Just look at the statements of faith and tenets of belief of the various creationist organizations on the internet! (If you're not familiar with them I'll be happy to post some, or links to some. In essence, they all say bible first and science second. That's the exact opposite of science!)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

[disclaimer: no, I haven't read through everything posted here since a few days ago] Not quite, though I do agree with you about the current situation.Back around 1980, I started studying "creation science". In 1981, there was an episode of Nova entitled, I think, "Did Darwin Get It Right?". Phillip Johnson was in that episode; his Darwin on Trial had recently been published. I listened to him and all I could think was: "What an idiot! He's likening science to a law court procedure and applying courtroom rules of evidence, when that is absolutely the worst analogy one could draw! Science is not like a courtroom procedure, but rather far more like a police investigation. Seeking clues, forming and testing hypotheses, that what science does. Courtroom rules of evidence apply to the final presentation of what has been discovered, not to an active investigation. What an idiot!"So, while it's true that it was after Edwards v. Aguillard that creationists shifted their strategy towards presenting the already-existing ID movement as their new front and we suddenly hearing from them new buzzwords like "intelligent design" and "abrupt appearance theory", it is also true that ID did not grow out of their movement, but had originated as a separate anti-evolution movement. In fact, because it was of different genesis, it did not share two of the worst failings of "creation science": adherence to a young earth (the claims for which are the easiest to expose as complete crap) and the inability to put on the appearance of being scientific. Let's face it, ID produces bullshitters who are far superior to those of "creation science".BTW, many years later, some time between 2000 and 2005, on the Web I ran across an essay by Johnson, which unfortunately I have not been able to find again. Towards the end, he gives his reason for opposing evolution: because it doesn't give God anything to do. What a clear statement of "God of the Gaps" thinking! A position that is utterly useless in science and perhaps one of the worst theological positions to take.

Quote
And who said "creationism" only refers to a literal interpretation of Genesis? "Creationism" is simply every belief that a supernatural being or force is responsible for the life of this planet, or even the planet or the universe itself. There are Hindu creationists, you know. unquoteWhat do the Hindu creationism say? Does it posit a 6000 year old world? Or a 6000 million or 6000 billion old COSMOS?How old is the world, nay cosmos, according to the Hindu creationism? Is it opposed to evolution?Kindly reply if you do not want that your post be declared puerile.Edited by RCS, : No reason given.