Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
23 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,947 Year: 21,983/19,786 Month: 546/1,834 Week: 46/500 Day: 4/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design (ID) Creationist(s) - (Michael Behe, the prime example)
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3779
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1 of 47 (395616)
04-17-2007 3:56 AM


NosyNed has been having a bit of a clash with Buzsaw on the topic title matter. Here NosyNed replies to a Buzsaw message (I quote the entire message):

NosyNed writes:

Buz, you use ID creo together a lot. This is another reminder that as the words are commonly used they are NOT the same thing.

As a default the creos are young earth, no evolution biblical literalists who, among other things do not think we are evolved animals.

As an official positions the ID movement does not argue with the age of the earth, agrees with most of evolution and that we are evolved animals.

These are hardly compatible positions. You might want to stop trying to be wishy washy and trying to avoid appearing to disagree with any of them. You can't have it both ways.

As I see it, there are two primary expounders of ID creationism. They are Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) and the Discovery Institute.

Behe admits to accepting the vast bulk of mainstream evolutionary thought, including a 4.5 billion year old Earth and a common ancestor for humanity and the modern great apes (Reference: Kenneth Miller: Finding Darwin's God).

Or as NosyNed puts it - "As an official positions the ID movement does not argue with the age of the earth, agrees with most of evolution and that we are evolved animals."

On the other hand, as I understand it, the Discovery Institute is quite vague in regards to how it's position fits into the larger picture (ie. They have no young Earth vs. old Earth position).

I will run with the idea that Michael Behe is the prototypical ID creationist. As such I would call him a theistic evolutionist. My fundamental assertion is "ID Creationist" = "Old Earth Theistic Evolutionist".

I believe this should be filed in the "Intelligent Design" forum.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Removed annoying extra space from in front of the "," in topic title.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2007 7:30 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 47 (395621)
04-17-2007 7:00 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15632
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3 of 47 (395628)
04-17-2007 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
04-17-2007 3:56 AM


I've got to disagree with some points.

Firstly Behe is hardly separate from the DI crowd - he's a DI fellow and it seems that he often follows the party line (even when he ought to know better e.g. endorsing Wells' Icons of Evolution).

The DI group have a policy of not discussing the age of the Earth. I suspect that this is a political strategy designed to avoid the problems that Hugh Ross (who openly advocates OEC) has with YEC groups. However YECs such as Paul Nelson are in the DI crowd, and it is at least possible that some other important members are secretly YEC (although I don't think that Behe is). I cannot rule out the possibility that the DI group is predominantly YEC but avoids discussion of the issue because it would greatly undermine their claim to be scientific rather than religious in the eyes of the general public.

Behe at least pays lip service to much of common descent, but that is unusual amongst the DI grouping. Dembski famously asserted that "Intelligent Design is no friend of theistic evolution" (from memory - this may not be an exact quote) and Behe did not contradict him. Since then Dembski has suggested views that would come under the heading of Theistic evolution but it is hard to tell if he believes them of if they are simply part of his apologetic strategy. I consider it more likely that he is a Creationist.

My view on the matter is that the ID movement is mainly composed of OECs with YECs as the largest minority grouping. Behe's views most likely come between full-blown OEC and TE, with an element of creation accounting of IC systems. I suspect that Behe's suggestion that all IC systems were included in the genomes of originally created single-celled organisms was more of an off-hand speculation and that Behe beleives in more direct intervention in evolution than that, possibly including more creation events. It is very likely that Behe was an OEC at one time, since he used to argue against whale evolution until the major finds of the '90s made that less tenable.

However it is certain that the ID movement as a whole does NOT argue for a Young Earth, a recent creation or a literal world-wide flood. Some of their major arguments (e.g. the Cambrian explosion) are not very compatible with YEC and some (fine-tuning arguments, "front-loading") tend to suggest TE. Against that must be set Dembski's explicit rejection of TE. TE seems to occupy a marginal position within the ID movement - and it should be noted that strong critics of ID also endorse forms of TE (Miller and Collins to name two, and I doubt that Conway-Morris has much time for ID either).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-17-2007 3:56 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 47 (395788)
04-17-2007 9:54 PM


Re: small reminder Buz -- creo not equal to IDer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NN writes:
Buz, you use ID creo together a lot. This is another reminder that as the words are commonly used they are NOT the same thing.
As a default the creos are young earth, no evolution biblical literalists who, among other things do not think we are evolved animals.

Buz response: I find it necessary to designate ID creo from creo. Everyone from Percy and Jar to YECs have referred to themselves as creationists in that they believe in a supreme god who somehow have been involved in the process of creation. At least that's how I have understood them. That term creationist is just too broad a term to designate one's ideology, imo.

NN writes:
As an official positions the ID movement does not argue with the age of the earth, agrees with most of evolution and that we are evolved animals.

Buz Response: No that's just not correct. Jehovah is an intelligent designer who intelligently designed everyting in the universe as per my hypothesis and as well as per all YECs. How can you say intelligent design had anything to do with the early stages of NS and RM?

NN writes:
These are hardly compatible positions. You might want to stop trying to be wishy washy and trying to avoid appearing to disagree with any of them. You can't have it both ways.

Buz response: It appears that you the one who's wishy washy and trying to have things both ways.

NOTE: Thanks Moose for opening this thread. I agree it needs to be spun off from the other topic, It began as an on topic reason for creationist persistence but it progressed to where it needed it's own topic. You're soooo efficient. :cool:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2007 10:12 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 04-18-2007 2:24 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 47 (395791)
04-17-2007 10:07 PM


Buzsaw IS An ID Creationist.
....And that will never change, no matter what Behe or anyone else says. Evos work to exclude us from everything and now from intelligent design. With Buzsaw and the BH (Buzsaw Hypothesis) it aintagona happen.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-18-2007 2:47 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 6 of 47 (395796)
04-17-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Buzsaw
04-17-2007 9:54 PM


Copied Reply
Sorry I missed the other one:

I find it necessary to designate ID creo from creo. Everyone from Percy and Jar to YECs have referred to themselves as creationists in that they believe in a supreme god who somehow have been involved in the process of creation. At least that's how I have understood them. That term creationist is just too broad a term to designate one's ideology, imo.

I see that I misunderstood your use of ID Creo -- You mean a creationist IDer. Not ID / Creo including the two together.

You are right that you can define creationist very broadly (as Jar does) but that only muddies the waters. The term has a commonly understood usage.

No that's just not correct. Jehovah is an intelligent designer who intelligently designed everyting in the universe as per my hypothesis and as well as per all YECs. How can you say intelligent design had anything to do with the early stages of NS and RM?

At least some of the IDers (and it appears their official) position do not disagree with the age of the earth (or at least keep very quiet about it). That means they are NOT in agreement with YECs. They also do NOT claim that all of evolution is untrue -- just selected "IC" bits. I have not seen them say that the evolution of humans is incorrect either. They do not agree with YECs.

You can not be both an IDer and a YEC. You can also not be an IDer and the more common types of OEC. At least as far as the public front of ID is concerned. It has been contrived that way as a trick to get past the constitution of course. Many of the ID community agree with you and YEC and most OECers but that is not the "official" position that they can put forward. So ID (as a 'movement') has to be in conflict with YEC and much of OEC too or it fails in what it is trying to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2007 9:54 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2007 10:38 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 04-18-2007 2:54 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 47 (395799)
04-17-2007 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
04-17-2007 10:12 PM


Re: Copied Reply
NN writes:

I see that I misunderstood your use of ID Creo -- You mean a creationist IDer. Not ID / Creo including the two together.

What's wrong with the term, Intelligent Design Creationist? How does Creationist Intelligent Designer change anything?

NN writes:

You are right that you can define creationist very broadly (as Jar does) but that only muddies the waters. The term has a commonly understood usage.

Imo, it's Jar and you people who muddy the waters, doing your best to rob our ligitimate and logically proper logo and applying it to your secularist NS & RM model. We are a great deal more intelligently design oriented than NS/RM evo creos are.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2007 10:12 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Rob, posted 04-19-2007 10:22 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 8 of 47 (395840)
04-18-2007 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Buzsaw
04-17-2007 9:54 PM


As an official positions the ID movement does not argue with the age of the earth

No that's just not correct

Behe, Dembski et al have either remained silent or stated that the age is probably old. Behe has made a public statement to the effect that most of life can be accounted for through evolution.

I think that ID is creationism, in disguise, so the occasional slip from their position is to be found. I am not surprised you get confused since they are confused!

Jehovah is an intelligent designer who intelligently designed everyting in the universe as per my hypothesis and as well as per all YECs.

Buz, you believe that the earth is young and that it was created and designed by Yaweh. How are you not a YEC?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2007 9:54 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 04-18-2007 10:16 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15632
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 9 of 47 (395841)
04-18-2007 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Buzsaw
04-17-2007 10:07 PM


Re: Buzsaw IS An ID Creationist.
You may be AN ID creationist in the broad sense. However you are not even a part of the organised ID movement, let alone a leader of it or a spokesman for it. You don't get to decide what views the ID movement will support or endorse.

The ID movement rejects the term "ID creationist". The very fact that you use the term tells those of us in the know, that you do not know the position of the ID movement.

The ID movement does NOT endorse YEC or a recent global Flood.

Many YECs reject the ID movement BECAUSE it does not endorse YEC or a recent global Flood.

The views you attribute to "ID Creationists" are typically the views of YECs - views which the ID movement does not endorse and which many ID leaders likely deny and certainly do not publicly support. The YECs who do support these views are equally likely to reject the ID movement.

Thus your assertions are badly misleading. You use the "ID" term despite the fact that the views expressed have nothing to do with the ID movement. There is no reason why you cannot accurately refer to YECs. So why don't you do it ?

Your own words indicate that you intend to suggest that your views are intended to be those of the ID movement. or at least those held by prominent members:

quote:

I find it necessary to designate ID creo from creo. Everyone from Percy and Jar to YECs have referred to themselves as creationists in that they believe in a supreme god who somehow have been involved in the process of creation. At least that's how I have understood them. That term creationist is just too broad a term to designate one's ideology, imo.

If you object to a broad use of creationist you can hardly use the term "ID" in a way that is nearly as broad. Certainly it would not be approrpriate to refer to YEC beliefs as "ID Creationist" beliefs when the more precise (and accurate) "YEC" term is available.

Edited by PaulK, : Added relevant quote form the other thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2007 10:07 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15632
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 10 of 47 (395842)
04-18-2007 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
04-17-2007 10:12 PM


Re: Copied Reply
I would correct that Ned. YECs can be members of the ID movement. ID is a "broad church" but that greatly restricts the views that the movement will endorse (it will not even endorse an Old Earth).

Therefore I believe that this would be a more accurate objection

"You cannot honestly present YEC views as the views of ID"

YEC views are permitted within ID but not endorsed by ID. It would be more accurate and less misleading to refer to YEC views as the views of YECs (the more so since many YECs reject the ID movement).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2007 10:12 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 47 (395888)
04-18-2007 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Modulous
04-18-2007 2:24 AM


Modulous writes:

Buz, you believe that the earth is young and that it was created and designed by Yaweh. How are you not a YEC?

If I've said it once I've said it a hundred times or more on these forums. BUZSAW IS NOT A YEC AND NEVER EVER ARGUED ANYTHING FROM A YEC POSITION. My position has always been that the Biblical account does not give any indication as to how old the earth is. As for the universe, the Biblical record clearly implies that it is eternal as is God who has always existed in it. Like everything else in the universe, whenever the earth was created it was God who did it. That is how I read Genesis 1:1. This position is both Biblically compatible and thermodynamically compatible and is the only creo position which accomodates the existence of an eternal god since the others are temporal hypotheses. So far as I am aware it is the only position existing which is (abe: all three). Very likely there are others which I am not aware of.

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 04-18-2007 2:24 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 04-18-2007 1:02 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 12 of 47 (395932)
04-18-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Buzsaw
04-18-2007 10:16 AM


Buzsaw writes:

BUZSAW IS NOT A YEC AND NEVER EVER ARGUED ANYTHING FROM A YEC POSITION.

In your own Belief Statement thread, Message 7, you said to me:

quote:
The difference is that I only have the creatures as young whereas YEC's generally have the whole universe as young.

There may be a technical difference between an old earth with young creatures and a young earth with young creatures. For practical purposes, though, you might as well be a YEC, since you reject the bulk of scientific evidence.

The difference between you and a YEC doesn't seem to be any more significant than the difference between a YEC who believes in the Paluxy footprints and a YEC who doesn't.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 04-18-2007 10:16 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 04-18-2007 6:40 PM ringo has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 47 (396046)
04-18-2007 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ringo
04-18-2007 1:02 PM


Earth Is Not A Creature
Ringo, YEC is young earth creationist. I am a YCC (Young creature creationist) but not a YEC. No way can you spin that into YEC.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 04-18-2007 1:02 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 04-18-2007 7:03 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 04-18-2007 7:22 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31764
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 14 of 47 (396051)
04-18-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
04-18-2007 6:40 PM


Re: Earth Is Not A Creature
I am a YCC (Young creature creationist) but not a YEC.

Sorry but Young Creature Creationists is as silly and sophomoric a position as Young Earth Creationist.

They are both simply based on willful ignorance.

The evidence is that critters have been around here on earth for many millions of years.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 04-18-2007 6:40 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 15 of 47 (396055)
04-18-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
04-18-2007 6:40 PM


Re: Earth Is Not A Creature
Buzsaw writes:

I am a YCC (Young creature creationist) but not a YEC.

As I said, there is no practical difference. When you ignore some of the evidence, it doesn't matter which evidence you ignore. You can't get the right answer.

You deny the number 2. YECs deny the number 3. Either way, you can't get the right answer for 2 + 3.

For practical purposes, YEC = YCC. The Y is simply wrong.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 04-18-2007 6:40 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 04-18-2007 10:42 PM ringo has 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