In
a pre-promotion message of her new topic, Trixie posted:
I wanted to ask this here since it's relevant - the term ID doesn't convey the hidden creationist agenda and I do believe that ID can be separated from traditional Creationism, it just hasn't been. I'm not saying that if it gets separated it will be valid science, just that it's possible to separate it from religion e.g., aliens. No, I don't believe this either, but it does remain a possibility.
The
Discovery Institute (DI), or more specificly, their
Center for Science and Culture wants to impress that ID is not creationism (at least when contrary information such as
the Wedge Document isn't leaking out).
Even if disregarding such as the Wedge Document, the DI persists in having a most vague position on what the "Theory of Intelligent Design" is, and how it fits into the greater scientific view. See
The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators, and see if you can find a clearly stated "Theory of Intelligent Design" in there. I read quite a bit of it, with no success.
However, from their
Top Questions page:
quote:
1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS's "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).
From "Not By Chance":
quote:
In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.
(my "bolding")
I would like to see the DI trumpet the above "bolded" to the creationists. Such is the opinion of Michael Behe (in my view, ID's strongest supporter):
quote:
Unlike William A. Dembski [18] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[19] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.
(Source, see also
Michael Behe's Amazon Blog)
Note that Behe also accepts the multi-billion year Earth age and universe age. But the DI insists that
age considerations are not relevant to ID considerations:
quote:
In the letter Luskin explains why intelligent design is not the same as creationism: “Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth.
I've previously seen a better source that the above quoted, but I currently can't find it. In that unfound source they state something along the lines of "ID theory works equally as well in either a young Earth or an old Earth time frame".
Anyway, the DI denies that the time frame of the Earth's life history is a relevant consideration. I say that time frame considerations are essential.
So, what can the DI do to impress all that ID is scientific? To begin with, I think they need to prominently and explicitly state what separates ID from mainstream creationism. Until they do, creationists of all stripes will continue to try to latch onto ID as being support for their creationism.
Moose
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
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
™ Version 4.2