Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
101 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,006 Year: 22,042/19,786 Month: 605/1,834 Week: 105/500 Day: 2/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does intelligent design have creationist roots?
Fallen
Member (Idle past 2212 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 responded

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

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 832 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 137 of 151 (511342)
06-09-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Fallen
06-09-2009 12:40 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
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?

This entire discussion is covered with two points.

1) "cdesign proponentists" - If you have a text book which reads "Creationists" and you copy and paste "design proponents" over Creationists without changing a single other word then "design proponents" = "creationists".

You couldn't take a history textbook and copy and paste "Spain" over "England" and have it not be grossly incorrect.

You couldn't take a math textbook and copy and paste "5" over "9" and have it not be grossly incorrect.

You couldn't take a chemistry textbook and copy and paste "hydrogen" over "carbon" and have it not be grossly incorrect.

You couldn't take a physics textbook and copy and paste "potential energy" over "kinetic energy" and have it not be grossly incorrect.

Yet, they DID copy and paste "design proponent" over "creationist" and it didn't make a lick of difference.

2) The Wedge Document specifically lays out their strategy of renaming Creationism and getting a foot in the door.

You can present ALL the quotes in the world from ID proponents claiming that they aren't Creationists - it won't matter.

Once you announce to the world that you have a strategy of lying to get your goal, any subsequent quote is suspect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Fallen, posted 06-09-2009 12:40 PM Fallen has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 138 of 151 (511356)
06-09-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Fallen
06-09-2009 12:40 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
Fallen,

Why else, but for creationism, would you start with the conclusion that we were made by an "intelligent designer", and then proceed to try and knock down every competing theory without ever producing research in support of your own idea? Why else would someone state "Not evolution, therefore ID"? It is obvious that the idea of a supernatural designer was assumed before hand.

It seems rather obvious to me that the only reason for the existence of ID is as a religious conterpoint to evolution. It is even spelled out as such in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document. No one is really interested in doing ID research, and no one is doing this research. No one is trying to describe the steps in the ID process, nor giving us evidence that these design processes were used in the past. ID is a desert where science is concerned. The only push that ID supporters have made is to discredit evolution, that's it. It has even reached the point that post-Dover strategies include the "teach the controversy" or "teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution" approach.

If ID were not religious and were based on science it would be able to stand on it's own two feet. It can't. Without evolution as the foil there is nothing in ID. Just as creationism before it, ID is nothing more than an attack on science that conflicts with an overtly theistic origin to the universe and life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Fallen, posted 06-09-2009 12:40 PM Fallen has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19078
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 139 of 151 (511372)
06-09-2009 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Fallen
06-09-2009 12:40 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
Pandas is not about the history of ID, so most of your post is irrelevant to your point. I understand that you don't agree with Kenyon's observations about a process of changing perspectives he personally lived through but don't see the significance.

Creationists and IDists consistently claim the facts are whatever they want them to be. They declare creationism science, then when that doesn't work they declare ID science, then they declare the two are unrelated, then they declare that ID is independent of any religious movement. And there are people who will believe you, but whenever the evidence is examined the truth is clear.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Fallen, posted 06-09-2009 12:40 PM Fallen has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-27-2009 9:00 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 140 of 151 (513332)
06-27-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Percy
06-09-2009 2:25 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
Hi all.

As stated in an earlier post, creationists/IDers use many of the same ideas such as attacking evolution, the "1 or the other" position, and the complete lack of any research aside from saying "it's too hard! [whine] Oh well, God/ID didit.

I challenge anyone to come up with a reason that creationism is different than ID. (and no, the cut and paste is not a valid argument)


“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
- Stephen Roberts

“I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in”
- Dan Foutes

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 2:25 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by onifre, posted 06-29-2009 1:33 PM Teapots&unicorns has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1290 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 141 of 151 (513522)
06-29-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Teapots&unicorns
06-27-2009 9:00 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
I challenge anyone to come up with a reason that creationism is different than ID. (and no, the cut and paste is not a valid argument)

I would say that YECreationism and ID is completely different.

At least ID agrees with most aspects of the theory of evolution; they don't discard the theory completely, they only take issue with a few things. Mostly, irreducible complexity, etc.

Where as a YECreationist disagrees with the theory completely. He/she believes the earth is more or less 10,000 years old and God made everything as is.

To me this seems like a huge difference.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-27-2009 9:00 PM Teapots&unicorns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-29-2009 2:33 PM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2009 2:54 PM onifre has responded
 Message 144 by Perdition, posted 06-29-2009 4:47 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 142 of 151 (513527)
06-29-2009 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by onifre
06-29-2009 1:33 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
I challenge anyone to come up with a reason that creationism is different than ID. (and no, the cut and paste is not a valid argument)

I would say that YECreationism and ID is completely different.

At least ID agrees with most asspects of the theory of evolution; they don't discard the theory completely, they only take issue with a few things. Mostly, irreducible complexity, etc.

Congratulations, Oni! You win the $10 million!

But seriously, now, I was talking about the fact that evolution can be traced back to a single common ancestor- I'm not talking about how it got there, this is evolution, not abiogenesis- and that both ID and creationism assume that life had to come from somewhere (i.e God/Designer). But you are right, YECreationism can be separated by ID by that fact. Thank you.

Where as a YECreationist disagrees with the theory completely. He/she believes the earth is more or less 10,000 years old and God made everything as is.

To me this seems like a huge difference.

Yes, you are right, but I was also including OECreationists. I forgot about the "sects" of creationism. My bad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by onifre, posted 06-29-2009 1:33 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 143 of 151 (513529)
06-29-2009 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by onifre
06-29-2009 1:33 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by onifre, posted 06-29-2009 1:33 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by onifre, posted 06-29-2009 6:30 PM PaulK has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1577 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 144 of 151 (513538)
06-29-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by onifre
06-29-2009 1:33 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
At least ID agrees with most asspects of the theory of evolution; they don't discard the theory completely, they only take issue with a few things. Mostly, irreducible complexity, etc.

False. Some ID proponents agree with most aspects of the theory of evolution. Some do not. That's one of the "hallmarks" of ID, it doesn't actually make any claims other than "there is an intelligent designer." The nature of that designer, the process of its design, and the proof of that design are left ot the individual to descern on their own.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by onifre, posted 06-29-2009 1:33 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Theodoric, posted 06-29-2009 5:25 PM Perdition has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6879
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 145 of 151 (513542)
06-29-2009 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Perdition
06-29-2009 4:47 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
The nature of that designer, the process of its design, and the proof of that design are left ot the individual to descern on their own.

Sure sounds like religion to me.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Perdition, posted 06-29-2009 4:47 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Perdition, posted 06-29-2009 5:46 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 147 by Coyote, posted 06-29-2009 6:27 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1577 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 146 of 151 (513544)
06-29-2009 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Theodoric
06-29-2009 5:25 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
Sure sounds like religion to me.

It does indeed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Theodoric, posted 06-29-2009 5:25 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 147 of 151 (513547)
06-29-2009 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Theodoric
06-29-2009 5:25 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
The nature of that designer, the process of its design, and the proof of that design are left ot the individual to descern on their own.

Sure sounds like religion to me.


And it sure doesn't sound like science. More like the opposite of science.

Summary: yes, ID has creationist roots--it was "designed" to sneak creationism back in to the schools.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Theodoric, posted 06-29-2009 5:25 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1290 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 148 of 151 (513548)
06-29-2009 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by PaulK
06-29-2009 2:54 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
Hi PaulK

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.

Hi Perdition,

False. Some ID proponents agree with most aspects of the theory of evolution. Some do not. That's one of the "hallmarks" of ID, it doesn't actually make any claims other than "there is an intelligent designer." The nature of that designer, the process of its design, and the proof of that design are left ot the individual to descern on their own.

Well shit, thanks. Honestly I had no idea YEC was accepted by ID proponents. 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. And most of the ID supporters here have seemed to accept an old earth. Do we have any YEC/ID supporters on this site?

I understand that a YEC can support the ID movement, I just didn't know the ID supporters were accepting of YEC. I just assumed the ID folks didn't dispute geology as well.

Thanks for the lesson, fellas.

- Oni


Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2009 2:54 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2009 1:08 AM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 151 by themasterdebator, posted 07-04-2009 3:42 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 149 of 151 (513569)
06-30-2009 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by onifre
06-29-2009 6:30 PM


Re: A Former Creationist Reveals All
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by onifre, posted 06-29-2009 6:30 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 151 (514189)
07-04-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fallen
04-09-2009 6:36 PM


I would say that intelligent design definitely has creationist roots. In the US, the constitution requires a separation of church and state, so simply teaching the Bible is out of the question. I believe ID gained much of its following from creationists who needed another name for their ideas. They could then go to the public offering to teach children ID instead of outright saying Biblical creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fallen, posted 04-09-2009 6:36 PM Fallen has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019