Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,419 Year: 6,676/9,624 Month: 16/238 Week: 16/22 Day: 7/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Straggler
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 721 of 1273 (543725)
01-20-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 720 by Nuggin
01-20-2010 9:54 AM


Re: Moderator Request
This seems to be about the difference between creationism and ID and (specifically) whether Dembski considers the two to be identical. I don't think he does. Despite the quotes.
I certainly don't think ID and creationism are the same thing. Creationism (of the Christian kind) to my mind is biblical literalism. Whilst ID can range all the way from strict creationism to more remote deistic notions of a created universe with certain constants designed to eventually facilitate life. However I would say that most who would actually describe themselves as IDists (as opposed to creationists) accept things like evolution and the age of the Earth to a large extent but would caveat that with notions of there being physical evidence of design. Irreducible complexity. Theories about information. Etc. etc.
So to Dembski - The quotes seem to suggest that in terms of belief Dembski is indeed a creationist. Adam and Eve real people etc. etc. But in terms of his theories and arguments I am not aware of him having claimed that there is physical evidence for purely creationist claims. In terms of his theories and arguments (as far as I am aware) he is claiming ID. Complexity, information etc. etc. Not biblical creationism as such.
If this seems like a blurry distinction then I accept that. We all know that ID is used as a wedge for getting specifically Christian notions of reality into places that they don’t deserve to be. But in terms of the evidence being cited (such as it is) and the arguments presented I think what Dembski is actually advocating is better described as ID than creationism.
But I am hardly a keen follower of his work so if anyone can show me him saying that biblical creationism rather than just ID is physically evidenced then I will be happy to admit I am talking out of my arse and that there is no distinction as far as he is concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2010 9:54 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 723 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2010 5:00 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 727 by Huntard, posted 01-21-2010 3:28 AM Straggler has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13107
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 722 of 1273 (543792)
01-20-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 720 by Nuggin
01-20-2010 9:54 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Nuggin writes:
He's not a liar because he disagrees with me. He's a liar because he says that I never posted the quotes - which clearly I did. Twice.
But in your Message 709 you don't quote Smooth Operator saying that you never posted the quotes. You instead quote him claiming that Dembski has never equated ID with creationism, then you claimed you proved otherwise and that SO is lying.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2010 9:54 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 724 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2010 5:02 PM Admin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 723 of 1273 (543804)
01-20-2010 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 721 by Straggler
01-20-2010 10:57 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Creationism (of the Christian kind) to my mind is biblical literalism.
That's too narrow a definition, since Creationists themselves differentiate between literalists, YECs and OECs. (There is probably even more diversity than that, but nothing jumps to mind atm).
Accordingly, ANYONE making the claim that the Christian God created anything is, by their own standards, a creationist of one of these three types.
So to Dembski - The quotes seem to suggest that in terms of belief Dembski is indeed a creationist. Adam and Eve real people etc. etc. But in terms of his theories and arguments I am not aware of him having claimed that there is physical evidence for purely creationist claims. In terms of his theories and arguments (as far as I am aware) he is claiming ID. Complexity, information etc. etc. Not biblical creationism as such.
Dembski is making claims that there is a "designer".
He's stated for the record that that "designer" is the Christian God as mentioned in the Bible.
He's also stated for the record that the Bible is referring to REAL people who actually lived.
That makes him a Creationist. I can't tell from these quotes if he is a YEC or an OEC, but I suspect OEC.
The fact that he chooses the term "intelligent design" doesn't make him any less of a creationist. After all, the whole point of the Intelligent Design movement is to rename Creationism into something more paletable. Hence: "CDesign Proponentists".
If we're going to allow people to just rename their argument and get off scottfree, then how are we to hold anyone accountable for anything?
Imagine trying to deal with this quote:
"I'm not a racist, I just believe in genetic racial differentiation. Ignore the fact that my argument boils down to black people are inferior."
Dembski is arguing that the Creationist Christian God Created everything ergo he _is_ a Creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2010 10:57 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by hooah212002, posted 01-21-2010 8:26 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 731 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 8:36 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 724 of 1273 (543805)
01-20-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 722 by Admin
01-20-2010 3:47 PM


Re: Moderator Request
You instead quote him claiming that Dembski has never equated ID with creationism, then you claimed you proved otherwise and that SO is lying.
My quotes demonstrated that Dembski stated for the record that the "designer" is the Christian God. AND that he believes that Adam and Eve were literally real people.
If that's not Creationism, then there are NO Creationists at all and we should remove the "c" from "evcforum"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 722 by Admin, posted 01-20-2010 3:47 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 725 by Admin, posted 01-20-2010 9:18 PM Nuggin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13107
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


(1)
Message 725 of 1273 (543812)
01-20-2010 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 724 by Nuggin
01-20-2010 5:02 PM


Re: Moderator Request
Hi Nuggin,
Now that we've established that you actually did accuse SO of lying when he disagreed with you, let me repeat what I said before:
I'm a moderator, not a participant. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My only point is that there are those who disagree with you and that there's therefore something to discuss.
If you hold your opinion that ID is equivalent to creationism so strongly that instead of discussing it you cast accusations of lying at those who disagree with you, then since these are discussion threads there's not much more you can contribute on that issue. But if you feel like actually discussing whether ID is equivalent to creationism then carry on.
If this still makes no sense to you then we can continue the discussion over at Report discussion problems here: No.2.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 724 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2010 5:02 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 726 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2010 9:38 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 726 of 1273 (543814)
01-20-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 725 by Admin
01-20-2010 9:18 PM


Re: Moderator Request
Got it. SO gets to do whatever he wants, I've got to watch my mouth.
Fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by Admin, posted 01-20-2010 9:18 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2544 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 727 of 1273 (543820)
01-21-2010 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 721 by Straggler
01-20-2010 10:57 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Straggler writes:
But I am hardly a keen follower of his work so if anyone can show me him saying that biblical creationism rather than just ID is physically evidenced then I will be happy to admit I am talking out of my arse and that there is no distinction as far as he is concerned.
But isn't ID the way to show how "biblical creationism" is evidenced in reality?
I mean, say ID was evidenced, wouldn't Dembski then be overjoyed he found "evidence for god's creation"? He clearly thinks that's how it happened, evidenced by his adam and eve quoet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2010 10:57 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 8:33 AM Huntard has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 728 of 1273 (543832)
01-21-2010 8:05 AM


Maybe not proof positive.....
Here is something from the IDEA website, of which Casey Luskin is the founder. For those who don't know Casey, he is a prominent speaker on behalf of ID. He is also staff at Discovery Institute.
Is Intelligent Design Theory Science or Religion?
Intelligent design is an answer to the question, "How did we get here?" If understanding in science is to "recogniz[e] the causes and effects of phenomena"1 and scientific progress "consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena"1 then if certain natural objects were caused by intelligent design, then it would increase scientific understanding would science would undergo progress to discover that fact. Yet, a common question about intelligent design is if it is a "religious" or "theological" concept or if it is a scientific theory. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that one can answer the question "How did we get here?" with "Life was intelligently designed" by using both scientific methods or the methods of religion:
Reading the above, it is air apparent that Luskin has a hard time diffentiatin religion from ID, almost to the point that he is conflating science with both requiring religion AND interfering with religion. This also is an insufficient answer to even the first question in the paragraph: Is Intelligent Design Theory Science or Religion?
You can also see the entire page is rote with biblical passages. I thought ID was pourely science?
Do Science and Religion Overlap?
When talking about the question, "How did we get here?" (i.e. origins) both science and religion speak. An accurate model of science and religion must recognize that fact:
Science and religion are both different "ways of knowing" can be different ways of knowing about the same thing: origins. Science knows things through the scientific method. Religion knows things through faith and divine revelation. Science approaches the subject of origins through the scientific method. Religion approaches the subject of origins from faith and divine revelation:
This, to me, is a gross misrepresentation of both what science is and what ID claims.
There is also a thunderf00t video on Youtube where Luskin admits that the designer IS god/YHWH. This is also discussed on Pharyngula (both sites are inaccessible to me atm becasue I am at work).
We may never get them to outright admit ID is creationism in disguise, that would destroy their plot. however, all it takes is minute amounts of piecing things together to understand that ID IS creationism (albeit in disguise, POOR disguise).

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 1050 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 729 of 1273 (543838)
01-21-2010 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 723 by Nuggin
01-20-2010 5:00 PM


Thought you might like this....
Dembski writes:
Now, within Christian theology there is one and only one way to make sense of transcendent design, and that is as a divine act of creation. I want therefore next to focus on divine creation, and specifically on the creation of the world. My aim is to use divine creation as a lens for understanding intelligent agency generally. God's act of creating the world is the prototype for all intelligent agency (creative or not). Indeed, all intelligent agency takes its cue from the creation of the world. How so? God's act of creating the world makes possible all of God's subsequent interactions with the world, as well as all subsequent actions by creatures within the world. God's act of creating the world is thus the prime instance of intelligent agency.
Before examining this criterion, I want to offer a brief clarification about the word "design." I'm using "design" in three distinct senses. First, I use it to denote the scientific theory that distinguishes intelligent agency from natural causes, a theory that increasingly is being referred to as "design theory" or "intelligent design theory" (IDT). Second, I use "design" to denote what it is about intelligently produced objects that enables us to tell that they are intelligently produced and not simply the result of natural causes. When intelligent agents act, they leave behind a characteristic trademark or signature. The scholastics used to refer to the "vestiges of creation." The Latin vestigium means footprint. It was thought that God, though not physically present, left his footprints throughout creation. Hugh Ross has referred to the "fingerprint of God." It is "design" in this sense-as a trademark, signature, vestige, or fingerprint-that our criterion for discriminating intelligently from unintelligently caused objects is meant to identify. Lastly, I use "design" to denote intelligent agency itself. Thus, to say that something is designed is to say that an intelligent agent caused it.
The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence written by none other than William Dembski
I guess saying that the christian god is the creat..er I mean *designer, and not saying "I AM A CREATIONIST" constitutes him as.....not being a creationist?
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, qwacks like a duck AND farts like a duck, does that make him a rhino because he says hes a rhino?
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2010 5:00 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by Nuggin, posted 01-21-2010 10:15 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 730 of 1273 (543842)
01-21-2010 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 727 by Huntard
01-21-2010 3:28 AM


Creationism and ID
But isn't ID the way to show how "biblical creationism" is evidenced in reality?
Almost certainly in reality. In almost all cases. But are the two necessarily the same thing in principle? Is it possible to argue in favour of Intelligent Design whilst also saying the the bible is obvioulsy a ridiculous fantasy if taken literally?
I would say yes. In fact I would go so far as to say that there are people who do make the distinction. Isn't Behe and his molecular level irreducible complexity such an example. It is my understanding that he accepts most of evolution as per standard scientific consensus. He just invokes ID at the molecular level to achieve it.
I mean, say ID was evidenced, wouldn't Dembski then be overjoyed he found "evidence for god's creation"? He clearly thinks that's how it happened, evidenced by his adam and eve quoet.
I am trying to distinguish between the creationist beliefs of these guys (e.g. Adam and Eve actually existed) and what they are claiming as evidence of ID (e.g. irreducible complexity at the molecular level, conservation of information theories etc. etc.)
Whilst I agree with you that the two will be inevitably conflated in practise I don't think this need necessarily be the case in principle.
I think ID can stand apart from creationism as a belief system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by Huntard, posted 01-21-2010 3:28 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 734 by Nuggin, posted 01-21-2010 10:20 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 735 by Huntard, posted 01-21-2010 10:41 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 731 of 1273 (543844)
01-21-2010 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 723 by Nuggin
01-20-2010 5:00 PM


Belief and Evidential Claims
Accordingly, ANYONE making the claim that the Christian God created anything is, by their own standards, a creationist of one of these three types.
I don't doubt that Dembski is a creationist in terms of belief.
But is he a creationist or an IDist in terms of what he is claiming is actually evidenced?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2010 5:00 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by Nuggin, posted 01-21-2010 10:17 AM Straggler has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 732 of 1273 (543855)
01-21-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 729 by hooah212002
01-21-2010 8:26 AM


Re: Thought you might like this....
Thanks,
I particularly like his last bit in the 1st quote:
God's act of creating the world is thus the prime instance of intelligent agency.
So, _not_ a creationist, just a believer that God _CREATED_ everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by hooah212002, posted 01-21-2010 8:26 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 733 of 1273 (543856)
01-21-2010 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 731 by Straggler
01-21-2010 8:36 AM


Re: Belief and Evidential Claims
But is he a creationist or an IDist in terms of what he is claiming is actually evidenced?
Really, there is no difference between the two.
All IDrs eventually, when cornered, admit that the designer is the Christian God. The term "ID" is nothing more than political cover - as it was "designed" to be in the first place.
Renaming "racism" to "ethnic origins preferences" doesn't make a KKK member any less racist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 731 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 8:36 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 739 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 3:05 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 734 of 1273 (543858)
01-21-2010 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 730 by Straggler
01-21-2010 8:33 AM


Re: Creationism and ID
I think ID can stand apart from creationism as a belief system.
Typical run down of this thought process:
Creationist: "I believe there was a designer"
Scientist: "Who was that designer"
Creationist: "The Christian God"
IDr: "I believe there was a designer"
Scientist: "Who was the designer"
IDr: "It could be the Christian God or Space aliens."
Scientist: "So, space aliens can evolve without special help from a designer but humans can't?"
IDr: "Well, err, no, they were designed too."
Scientist: "Okay, who designed the space aliens?"
IDr: "The Christian God"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 8:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 828 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 8:42 AM Nuggin has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2544 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 735 of 1273 (543859)
01-21-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 730 by Straggler
01-21-2010 8:33 AM


Re: Creationism and ID
Straggler writes:
Almost certainly in reality. In almost all cases. But are the two necessarily the same thing in principle?
When Dembski's the one talking about them? Yes.
Is it possible to argue in favour of Intelligent Design whilst also saying the the bible is obvioulsy a ridiculous fantasy if taken literally?
Of course, anything's possible. But we're talking about Dembski here, not just a random ID'er. And you're not gonna tell me he thinks this is the case.
I would say yes. In fact I would go so far as to say that there are people who do make the distinction. Isn't Behe and his molecular level irreducible complexity such an example. It is my understanding that he accepts most of evolution as per standard scientific consensus. He just invokes ID at the molecular level to achieve it.
But we're not talking about Behe, we're talking about Dembski.
I am trying to distinguish between the creationist beliefs of these guys (e.g. Adam and Eve actually existed) and what they are claiming as evidence of ID (e.g. irreducible complexity at the molecular level, conservation of information theories etc. etc.)
There is no distinction. For what Dembski actually means when he says "he has evidence for ID", is that "he has evidence for creation".
Whilst I agree with you that the two will be inevitably conflated in practise I don't think this need necessarily be the case in principle.
Of course. in Dembski's view however (and he is the one being discussed here), they are.
I think ID can stand apart from creationism as a belief system.
Sure it can. It can only lead to three things though:
Infinite regression (Aliens making aliens making aliens making...)
Admitting the designer arose by evolution (thus making their point moot)
Saying god is the designer (proving it's creationism)

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 8:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 740 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 3:13 PM Huntard has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024