What exactly is ID?

Well it's Friday and I have been down the pub as usual.And I have asked a deeply limited if vaguely representative cross section of British society what they think and this is the result (of at least a couple of people deeply paraphrased)"Yes I think nature indicates design and purpose from a higher intelligence but not of the sort any religion I have ever heard of meaningfully suggests. Certainly not Jesus as our saviour or any such thing. Religion is bollocks. But belief in a higher being that watches over us in a moral sense and that created things in some way is perfectly justified"Needless to say I went on to tell them the error of their ways in my usual overly atheistic fervent manor But these are the genuine summarised beliefs of people I know that are IDist in nature whilst being very non-Christian creationist in terms of belief.How can you say that ID and creationism are the same thing beyond the narrow confines of your particular and very transitory political battle?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you confusing me with someone who is advocating ID as science?My point is that the evidential basis for ID and Christian biblical creationism are different. Not that ID is scientifically or evidentially correct FFS!!!!!? Well exactly. Thus making the refutation of ID as distinct from biblical creationism both possible and indeed completed! No argument from me there. So if we can show ID as so evidentially bankrupt why do we need to conflate it with biblical literalism in order to show it it's woeful intellectual and evidential bankruptcy?The answer is we don't. Let the creationists conflate the two. Let us show the evidential bankruptcy of each.

The actual arguments and evidential claims in favour of ID are agnostic about who or what the designer is. Irreducible complexity, conservation of information, the obviousness of design in nature etc. etc. Whatever.Those predominantly (but I maintain not exclusively) presently making those arguments and claims in a very high profile manner are not at all agnostic about who or what the designer is. They are creationist Christians. I don’t dispute that at all.But what I do not understand is why you guys are so determined to conflate the arguments in favour of ID with the people that are currently advocating those arguments?Why do you think creationists have adopted ID so passionately? I would say it is because ID is more acceptable to a much wider audience than more specific descriptions of God. ID resonates with people’s intuitive common sense about notions of evidence, science and there being some sort of less specified higher intelligence ultimately behind the majesty and non-randomness of nature. A higher being that many might accept without necessarily being tied to any particular religion at all. There are many more people willing to accept the argument it can’t all just be down to random chance than there are willing to accept either any form of biblical literalism or more general Judeo-Christian specific notions of God.By simply saying ID is nonsense because creationism is obviously nonsense and all IDists are creationists really — as you are doing here - does no good to the pro-science cause in my opinion. It alienates those (whom I would argue are vast in number) who hold a vague and largely unconsidered notion of an intelligent designer but who are not in any way part of the creationist lobby. It pushes those people away from actually considering the issues and evidence straight into the eager arms of the creationists who are willing to adopt whatever strategy achieves the most publicly popular outcome in their favour. The wedge in action.To my mind it is far better, indeed necessary, to make the scientific case against ID on it’s own merits. Intelligent Design is evidentially bankrupt. We can show that regardless of who is making the pro-ID arguments. Given the current climate we should be exposing ID for what it is to the most people possible. Not just creo-bashing for it’s own sake.By conflating the actual arguments of ID with the creationist movement most vocally and strategically making those arguments I think you guys are playing directly into the hands of Christian fundamentalists. By playing the PR game on their terms.

I meant to address Message 828 to your post and somehow ended up replying to an older post of Nuggin's. Anyway - Here is a reply to notify you of that post.I wouldn't want anyone to miss my gems of wisdom and insight..........

(***Hallelujah Chorus Plays***) I have previously vaguely advocated allowing ID into the science classroom as a socially relevant example of that which is not science. In an ideal situation where there is enough time in the curriculum (which I accept there is not) older or more advanced students could think through and dicuss the issues and have highlighted what exactly the differences between genuinely scientific theories are. I really don't want to start another dispute between you and I but in a thread called "What is ID" I have to take the opportunity to ask the following:Where do you think ID starts? Because some fairly eminent theistic scientists and you yourself have advocated things like the fine tuning of the physical constants of the universe as being an indicator (evidence?) of a higher being of some sort. To me this seems like a sort of very dilute IDism.Anyway answer that last point or not as you wish. I'm not gonna pursue it here whatever you say.

Maybe he does. Or maybe he believes that based on faith in the bible alone. I don't know. I don't see how you can either? Unless he actually claims that Adam and Eve are physically evidenced I don't see how we can assert that this is his argument and ignore the actual ID arguments he is making. So you accept that in terms of argument at least ID and creationism are not the same thing?Anyway - Maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. But until he makes that claim I don't see how it helps anyone to just insist that this is what he must mean reallyAs I said here - Message 828I think he probably does. But who cares what you or I think his underlying motivation for making ID arguments is? Does this and this alone invalidate the arguments for ID as presented? No. So why does it matter?Isn't conflating the argument being presented with the person or motivation for making that argument just an ad-hominem attack in the true sense of the phrase?Our side of the debate has the evidence on it's side. We don't need to stoop to the same low levels as these guys. Let's follow the evidence and let that defeat the ID arguments. Leave the logical fallacies to the creos.

Well anyone who is an IDist would claim that an intelligent designer is the mechanism. We can probably both agree that this is evidentially bankrupt and intellectually feeble but I don't see what this has to do with ID and creationism being the same thing?Surely Intelligent Design in it's most base form is the claim that there is physical evidence of purposeful design in nature? OK. Except that not everyone who believes that "it cannot all be random" believes in a Jewish wizard. Not in the past, not now and very probably not in the future. Well quite.So stick to the evidence againt the ID arguments being presented and stop making the claim that an argument must be wrong purely because the person making it is a creationist really. We don't need to make those sorts of arguments. We can do better than stoop to their level.That is my point.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

ID as in the Christian creationist movement? Quite possibly.
But ID in the sense of humans justifying belief in some sort of supernatural designer by insitisting that some aspect of nature or other could only have come about by purposeful design? I suspect that this notion will be with us for quite some time. If you are defining ID to be Christian creationist ID then yes. But the argument from design in a more general sense is more emotionally powerful and alluring than I think you give it credit for.I think there are a lot of people in the world who would agree with the sentiment that "it can't all just be random". As misguided as I think you and I agree that this argument is in terms of concept and phraseology. Given that ID has been around so long in one form or another and that it seems like almost second nature for us as a species to invoke a purposeful designer wherever we see order or function in nature - I would hazard the guess that it wil be another form of ID repackaged to appeal to the masses.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Oh come on! Are you seriously claiming that everyone who considers nature to exhibit design of any sort at all must be a Christian a Jew or a Moslem? You are looking at this through the cultural blinkers of a North American fighting a limited and transient political battle with Christian fundamentalist advocates of your "Jewish wizard".Have you read about Hindus and their own creation/evolution debate at all? Hindu views on evolution - WikipediaWhat about the position I described in Message 786 of this thread where some very non-religious people were happy to accept design of some sort? I would go so far as to say that this is the predominant view in Western Europe. But even if I am wrong on that it isn't an uncommon view.I will quote myself from before: Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Actually it was about the various Hindu aproaches to evolution. Both accepting and denying. To what extent? Are theistic evolutionists who think evolution hapened as is evidenced but that God sort of helped it along to reach the desired outcome (i.e US in God's image) - Are they creationists? IDists? What about Behe and his irreducible complexity at the molecular level theory? That accepts evolution it just doesn't accept random mutation as the mechanism (much like theistic evolution to my mind). He is surely one of IDs most famous theorists? No. Not all. From the previous link - "Some Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures, namely the Vedas. An exception to this acceptance is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), which includes several members who actively oppose "Darwinism" and the modern evolutionary synthesis" But having some vague notion that nature demonstrates design from a higher intelligence is. Yes?Do yopu really dispute that there are millions of people who believe this without necessarily accepting any of the Jewish wizard stuff you are so determined to accuse them of? Well it depneds what you mean. If they don't follow, advocate or believe in any particular religion but just believe that "there must be something" because "it can't all just be random" is that religious?I am partially inclined to agree with you but that they are in denial to some extent but that doesn't at all mean that they believe in a "Jewish wizard". Or that they are creationists. Quite possibly. But that still doesn't make them advocates of the Jewish wizard you keep referring to as the defining aspect of creationist thinking.The arguments of ID are agnostic about the designer even if those making the arguments are not. Why won't you confront the actual arguments and leave the conflations and ad-hominem to the creos?

Well now you have defined "creationism" as anything that involves a supernatural designer of any sort. And that incorporates pretty much every theist, deist or any other believer. I don't think that definition is very helpful. Well what is the mechanism used to "direct change" then? I am afraid that what you are doing here is providing your own definitions, then equivocating on those definitions and now splitting hairs in ways that make no sense. How can you claim that Hindus believe in a Jew wizard? You are equivocating again. Argue the position. Not the person. If irreducible complexity has any merit as an argument (for example) simply saying "but you believe in a Jew wizard" does not refute that argument.Attacking wider belief and motivation for holding a position is not the same as refuting the argument presented. That is the creos game. Don't play it. This isn't about convincing creationists. It is about the wider public and the fact that creos are appealing to the vaguely IDistic beliefs held by many to promote their own more specific agenda. Yes. By conflating arguments and attacking the motivation and people that they oppose rather than by confronting the evidence.We do not need to do that. The evidence is on our side. Don't play them at their own game or stoop to their pitiful level of debate. The public just don't care as much about these issues as you and I probably do. But the public are not imbeciles and evidence based argument based on facts can win the day if presented appropriately. If you make this a PR batte based solely on attacking people and their motivation for holding a position then you are falling into the creationist trap.You will say that they are creationists whose motivation is to suport their "Jew wizard" beliefs. They will say you are a godless atheist whose motivation is to deny god at any cost. And the evidence and facts will just get lost in the red mist. No. I am saying deny the fire the oxygen it needs. I think that by adopting the creationist tactics of argument (i.e. fight the person and their motivation rather than the position or argument presented) that you are throwing yourself on the fire and adding yourself as fuel in the process.

Maybe - But that in practise the number of people this approach would reach would be extremely limited. Maybe not enough of the mass appaeal that I think the creos crave. Also those who tend to study philosophy tend not to be so gullible IMHO by virtue of age and academic incination. Do they teach philosophy at high school level at all in the US?My own prediction (re Coyote's question of what the next creo tactic will be) is that some cosmological approach will be bastardised for their own PR purposes. This has the attraction of having the support of both popular appeal and some eminent theistic scientists making the right kind of noises. Noises that can be claimed to support their thinking even if those genuine scientists advocating such things would never willingly support the creationist movement. But this approach doesn't tackle evolution at all so it depends where their priorities lie.

Well it depends what we are trying to achieve. I thought public education of genuinely scientific conclusions and their evidential foundation over pseudo-scientific ID claims was the aim here? I don't think that is served very well by your "lump them all together" approach to this particular question. So by your definition anyone who doesn't accept utterly and completely the tenets of an entirely atheistic form of methodological naturalism, anyone who proposes that there be a designer of any sort at all behind any aspect of nature at all, is a "creationist"?Fuck - I thought I was bloody minded about these issues. You take things to a whole new level.I think your approach just alienates the vast majority of the public from scientific conclusions and sends them unwittingly into the eager arms of the genuine creationists. You are meeting all the creo aims of lumping science and atheism together so that "Darwinism" and other scientific conclusions can be labelled simply as attempts to deny god. You are also fulfilling the entire aim of the "wedge" strategy by unnecessarily pitting the conclusions of science against practically anyone with any sort of belief in the supernatural at all.I have my differences with theists and deists. But atheists have more in common with the vast majority of these guys on the issue of science education and evolution than we do the real creationists. You are making enemies of people that are on your side in this debate. Well by your all-encompassing definition practically everyone is already a creationist anyway!!! The key difference (the only difference that ultimately matters) between our side and theirs is that our position is based on facts and evidence.You wanna ignore that and instead play name calling games with creos then so be it - But don't be surpised if that strategy backfires and any recognition of the inherent superiority of the evidence based position gets lost in the process.

Well done. By your definition the creationist movement can claim to represent probably the vast majority of people in the world today to some extent or other. And your point is what?Do you think that your preferred method of dismissing ID arguments by citing the wider belief systems and motivation of those who are (currently) making ID arguments either actually refutes those ID arguments or will result in the mass conversion of creationists to science? Dude c'mon!Anyway - As I have said previously: Argue the position. Not the person.ID arguments are evidentially bankrupt and cannot compete with genuine scientific conclusions in the only way that ultimately matters. THAT is the strongest argument we have on our side. In fact that is why it is "our side" in the first place. I say don't dilute that trump card by resorting to the same ad-hominem games the creos do.

So you think that the argument "You believe in a Jewish wizard really therefore all your arguments are just obviously wrong" is going to hold sway and persuade who exactly? What about the vast number of people who haven't really considered the issue much beyond thinking "well it can't all just be random so I believe in something"? By your definition these people are creationists too! What? No. You are the one lumping all believers together as creationists really. I am saying that it is more complex than that. I am saying most believers agree with you and I that ID isn't science and that it should not be taught as science. I am saying that the evidential arguments presented in favour of ID need to be tackled and not just dismissed via ad-hominem attacks. Except that most of those you are accusing of believing in "Jew magic" (including Hindus bewilderingly), advocate the teaching of evolution as science and not teaching ID as science. Which is what the actual creationists driving the ID political movement under discussion are trying to disrupt.How does lumping together those believers that agree with you about the main issue of science education and genuine creationists help tackle the creationist inspired ID movement and it's educational aims?What are you trying to achieve Nuggin? Are you trying to tackle the social issues of the ID movement and it's attempt to infiltrate education? Or are you out to show that all believers in any even vague form of ID are wrong?I am happy to join you in either quest. But the first is socially important and the second, as much fun as it can be, is an irresolvable exercise in intellectual masturbation.Let's get our priorities right.