What exactly is ID?

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.

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 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.

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?

I disagree. Fundie creos conflate the two at every opportunity for social purposes. But that is not the same as them actually being the same. But you are conflating those who make the arguments with the arguments themselves. ID as a position is not inherently Christian. Even if fundie Christians are advocating ID as a means to an end.
Are there not Moslem IDists? IDists of other godly beliefs? Even IDists of no particular godly belief at all?The illusion of design in nature is something that has fooled a lot of people over a vast amount of time. They have not all been Fundie Christians. Nor do I think they all are now. There are some people who just think nature is all too "complex" and intended to be "random". I would suggest that this view is far more prevalent in the world than pure creationism.Creationist IDists just get most of the press. But advocating that there is evidence of Intelligent Design in nature is not the same as saying that Noahs flood and Adam and Eve are also physically evidenced.I think you are conflating stated beliefs and the wider motivation for (specifically fundie Christians) advocating ID with the actual arguments of ID which could be made seperately to creationism.Fundie Christians make that conflation. But is that any reason for us to do so at the argument/evidence level? Just because they are?EvC needs to have some non-Christian strong believers. It would make the place much more interesting.

Dembski has said he believes in creationsim. The quotes make this abundantly clear.But has he said that he considers the stories of Genesis (for example) to be physically evidenced?All I have seen him claim physical evidence for is ID. Intelligent Design of a generic and not necessarily Christian type. Regardless of what he goes on to believe on the basis of faith in the bible (or whatever).If he is claiming that biblical literalism is physically evidenced then I will shut up. But if he hasn't made that claim and has only claimed ID is evidenced I think that distinction is being overlooked by you guys.

The "ID movement"? As in the set of Christian fundamentalists who set out with the "wedge" strategy? Well of course, by very definition, they are Christian fundamentalists.But are we talking about the origin of the "ID movement" or of ID? If the latter I would say this has existed in one form or another ever since humans began considering such things way back in the dawn of humanity.I think it comes as naturally as breathing (I exaggerate somewhat) to us humans to look at something that appears to be non-random and come to the conclusion that it must obviously be the work of some invisible, magic skybeing of some sort. I would never argue that the "ID movement" is anything other than you suggest. But is Intelligent Design the same as the "ID Movement"? I think the world is full of people who could be described as IDists of one form or another but who are not Christians. I think ID (as flawed as it is) can claim it's own evidentail philosophy entirely without any reference to the bible.But if we are talking about the "ID Movement" and the "Creationsit movement" then yes - They are absoluetly the same thing.I never thought I would ever be defending ID in any way shape or form............

I still don't see him saying that creationism is physically evidenced?There are numerous theistic evolutionsits who might describe God as "the prime instance of intelligent agency" but who are not creationists. No?The "I see science as the way of understanding how God did it" mob. Isn't that the position this quote suggests?

Well then what you are talking about is specifically the Christian led ID movement rather than the arguments and claims of evidence for ID as things that can be taken in themselves. That's fine if we are just talking about ID as a current social phenomenon. But I stand by the distinction in terms of claimed evidence and arguments in principle. Surely the arguments of ID are able to be applied to anyone who believes in any sort of magic being that created everything? But that magic being doesn't have to be the Christian god. Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design? - IslamOnline Well obviously all ID arguments are gonna invoke a magical designer of some sort at root. By definition. But it doesn't have to be the Christian God does it? But it still doesn't have to be Christian creationism does it? Yes they can. Here for the sake of argument let me try.There is evidence of design in nature (let's pretend I believe that). This is "proved" by irreducible complexity and the conservation of information.I declare the designer to be the Immaterial Pink Unicorn. I declare Christ and Christians to be false prophets duped by the great trickster the Ethereal Squirrel. I am an anti-Christian IPUist who would tear down all the churches of the world (the IPU hates worshippers and just wants us to get on with our lives free from deistic interference - I know this because she told me)So is my pretend persona a Christian creationist? Is he an IDist?

Well of course not. Because ID isn't scientific. But then concluding that a magic sky being is ultimately responsible for anything is difficult to reconcile with being "STRICTLY scientific". It is obvious that behind the current ID movement in North America (and no doubt to an extent the West in general) lies Christianity.But that isn't the same as the arguments of ID being the same as the arguments of biblical literalism in principle. I could be a moslem IDist, an IPU IDist or whatever. The current ID movement is highly prolific. But I wonder what we would find if we loooked up Intelligent Design in Arabic? Well doesn't a theistic evolutionist think that a superior Intelligence is guiding stuff behind the scenes in some way? The difference between a theistic evolutionsit and an ID proponent of irreducible complexity is what........? In terms of the mechanisms of evolution? Do both fully accept RANDOM mutation? Perhaps one more than the other but the differences don't seem to be as great as you seem to be suggesting.

Well that seems quite a limited view of things to me.We could refute all the purely Christian creationist arguments about floods and what-not and still never touch any of the arguments of ID which are, in princile, applicable to any supernatural designer one can conceive of.I think, in terms of arguments and evidence, ID needs to be tackled in it's own right regardless of the current conflations of Western biblical creationists.

Which moving goalposts? The goalposts that say that disproving biblical literalism refutes ID? That is the goalpost moving I am objecting to here. I am not "lending credenece" to anything. I think that ID is as evidentially bankrupt as a theory as is scientifically possible. But that still doesn't make it identical in terms of argument or evidential validity to biblical literalism. Are you saying this is untrue? How can you show that "ID is shit" if you say it is the same thing as biblical Christian literalism? When it blatantly isn't the same in terms of arguments and evidential claims.

Wrong? No. Limited? Yes. Yeah I noticed. So did I. If by "ID" you mean the Christian creationist driven ID movement then - Yes. I am not disagreeing with that.But is ID simply a North American Christian creationist invention? Or is it something that transcends particular religions that present day Christian creationists have seized upon as a means to an end?I would say the latter. Do you really disagree? So the ID movement in North America is founded upon Christian attempts at social acceptance. Yeah - I don't dispute that.But does disproving Christian creationsit arguments refute ID arguments? That is my question. That is my point.We can both agree that the present social climate in the Christian West makes the two things socially indistinguishable and I won't argue with you. But does that make the arguments against ID the same as those against Christian notions of creationism? I say no. Because I can advocate the IPU as the designer of the universe, be totally anti-Christian and still make ID arguments.Which part of that do you not understand? So showing that all creationists support ID is the same as saying that all IDists are creationists? Is that what you are saying?I personally know people who if you ask them "is there evidence of design in nature?" will say quite possibly yes. Yet they would cringe in horror at the idea of being classed as Christian creationists.How do you reconcile that with your absolute assertion that the ID and Christian creationism are identically the same thing?They obviously are not. Whatever political fight you need to have pretending the two are evidentially the same serves no-one but the liars and evidence deniers that I would hope me and you are both against.

Her Pinkness has no desire to be mentioned in any science classroom. She abhors such things. And would ban them if not for the principle of non-interference. Legaly? Yes. Spiritually? Yes. IPUism is the true path to redemption. Why not? OK. So the IPU nly concerned itself with life-forms. What is your point? The IPU is the designer. Whether uou believe this or not the evidence of design is obvious and prevalent.You are in denial regarding the design that is all around us. Oh you fool! Believe and you will see. In the meantime trust us that have expereinced her pinkness and accept the logic of design in nature as being evidence of an immaterial supernatural designer no matter what you believe that designer to be. Call her that if it makes you happy. But the IPU is the majesterial intelligence behind the design of all nature.

Who cares? If the arguments and evidential, claims of ID are valid does that make the claims of creationism valid? Conversely if the claims of biblical creationists are refuted does that refute the evidential claims of IDists?Is it really so outrageous to point out that the two are not evidentially equivalent? So now you are saying that Islamic IDists are the same as biblical creationists? What? Dude I know various non-religious people who would be inclinded to agree that nature indicates some sort of godly/deistic design of some vague sort. Whether it be morality, biology, vaguely theistic evolutionism, the physical constants of the universe or whatever. Yet none are biblical creationists in terms of belief.How does that reconcile with your assertion that ID and creationism are one and the same thing? If every biblical creationist supports ID does that mean that every IDist is a Christian creationist?Surely the answer to this question is - NO.Yet you seem to be saying that the two are logically equivalent?

OK fine. But do you think that refuting the Christian notions of biblical creationism invalidates the evidential basis of ID as a whole?Or do you think that the claims of ID need to be logically and evidentially refuted in their own right?