Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8962 total)
192 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (4 members, 188 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,302 Year: 3,050/23,288 Month: 1,241/1,809 Week: 360/313 Day: 101/71 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design (ID) Creationist(s) - (Michael Behe, the prime example)
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3801
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


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

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3801
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 18 of 47 (396149)
04-18-2007 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Buzsaw
04-18-2007 10:42 PM


Revive the "What variety of creationist is Buzsaw?" "Great Debate"?
This YEC vs YCC belongs there.

Between my slowness in replying (most of the problem) and your temporary retirement, the thing fell idle.

I did make a short reply that fell by the wayside. I seem to recall having another reply stored somewhere on some hard drive, back from one night that the forum wasn't accepting input.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 04-18-2007 10:42 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 04-19-2007 4:46 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3801
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 26 of 47 (396422)
04-19-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AdminBuzsaw
04-19-2007 9:54 PM


Re: Topic Clarification
I presume that most believers in some variety of Godly creator think that, to some degree, intelligence and design were part of the creation process. As such it is fair (but off-topic) for Buzsaw to refer to himself as and intelligent design creationist.

{Added by edit: The "off-topic" comment above may well be a misstatement on my part. Please see down thread. - Moose}

Now, my experience is, that at least some young Earth creationists will latch onto anything they perceive to damage the theory of evolution / old Earthism, regardless of whether the same has any support towards YECism.

As I see it, the "true IDists" are those people that are trying to find and document physical evidence of design in nature. I like to call it "finding God's fingerprints". I strongly think that these active "true IDists" are NOT those of the YEC persuasion, but I may be wrong.

It seems that so far in this topic, the state of thought is that the Discovery Institute does not choose to or want to be pinned down on an opinion of what the Earth's age is. I certainly would like to see them pinned down on such, as I feel the matter of the Earth's age is most fundamental in the discussion of the origins of things Earth.

Or something like that.

I have just done a Google search of the Discovery Institute site for the phrase age of earth. I have a number of pages open, waiting to be read.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added disclaimer after 1st paragraph.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 04-19-2007 9:54 PM AdminBuzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2007 12:09 AM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2007 2:56 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3801
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 29 of 47 (396450)
04-20-2007 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
04-20-2007 12:09 AM


Re: Topic Clarification
Moose writes:

I presume that most believers in some variety of Godly creator think that, to some degree, intelligence and design were part of the creation process. As such it is fair (but off-topic) for Buzsaw to refer to himself as and intelligent design creationist.

I think that, despite having started the topic, I'm confused about what the theme is and what is on or off-topic. :frazzled:

I think I'm mixing the Buzsaw YCC/YEC question into my thinking, which I've tried to direct to the "Great Debate" topic.

I think that in the above quoted I was trying to say that Buzsaw was on-topic some, but not on-topic enough. I now don't know what to think, but that statement may have been wrong, and Buzsaw's ID Creationism may indeed be on-topic.

Buz, the question is, are you trying to document how God did the intelligent design, such as Michael Behe and/or the Discover Institute is? If so, I would proclaim you to be a "true IDer", as defined in an earlier message. If not, then you are just going along for a ride on the ID bandwagon.

Dazed and confused Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2007 12:09 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2007 10:08 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3801
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 30 of 47 (396451)
04-20-2007 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
04-20-2007 12:20 AM


Re: The Biblical Creationist Perspective
Moose writes:

I presume that most believers in some variety of Godly creator think that, to some degree, intelligence and design were part of the creation process.

The Buzsaw counterstatement:

Buzsaw writes:

I presume that most (evolutionists) in some variety of (humanistic secularism) think that, to some degree, intelligence and design were part of the (NS/RM evolutionary) process.

Buz, I was conceding that ID can be a part of a creationist belief. You seem to have taken it badly. Maybe my phrasing was bad.

By "believers in some variety of Godly creator" I was trying to include all creationists from the YEC's to the theistic evolutionists, and perhaps even the deists.

By "think that, to some degree, intelligence and design were part of the creation process" I was trying to say that the belief in the amount ID could range from major (with little evolution involved) to minor (with much evolution involved).

Now, what were you trying to say? I think it might be better stated more along the lines of:

I presume that most believers in some variety of humanistic secularism think that intelligence and design were NOT part of the NS/RM evolutionary process.

I would tend to agree with that statement. But this seems to be really getting disconnected from the topic theme.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2007 12:20 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3801
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 34 of 47 (396580)
04-20-2007 11:19 PM


Some blurbs from the Discovery Institute
Yes, I may be taking these quotes out of context.

http://www.discovery.org/...:

quote:
Calvert, a lawyer from Lake Quivira, thinks a third possibility exists to explain life and its diversity: "intelligent design," the theory that everything in the universe was designed, not the result of natural processes. Intelligent design adherents don't disagree with evolutionists over the age of the Earth or many other tenets of evolution, such as natural selection.

Offhand, I don't think that lawyer Calvert has any affilition with the Discover Institute (DI), and as such may or may not be speaking the DI position.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3143:

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. Moreover, unlike creationism, intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or divine creator.”

My "bolding".

Attorney Casey Luskin is program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. This excludes Buzsaws variety of ID.

http://www.discovery.org/...:

quote:
Let's take the theological objections first. First, the notion that ID is just re-packaged "young-earth creationism" is laughable. There is no ID position on the age of the earth-probably most of its advocates accept the standard geological picture of a 4.5 billion year old earth. You should recognize, though, that this will not stop its opponents from playing the anti-fundamentalist card. In the Firing Line program I mentioned, several members of the anti-ID team tried to paint all opposition to Darwinism as just young-earth fundamentalism; that was hilarious, since the pro-ID side included Phil Johnson, an old-earth creationist; Mike Behe and William Buckley, both Roman Catholics who have no problem with an old earth (or even with the possibility of common descent for all animals!); and David Berlinski, a mathematician who is a secular Jew (once when I told him I went to MIT and worked as a high-tech engineer, and then went into the ministry, he asked me "What happened to you?").

As I said, realizing this turns many young-earth creationists against ID; they say it's a compromise of a "literal reading" of the Bible. And other opponents will take this up and say, "See, you're not being consistent." Now, it just so happens that what I know best is the Hebrew language; and I would argue that the Genesis account does not require a young earth, but instead the six days are "God's work days". That doesn't stop it from being a true and historical account; it just makes us careful about chronology.


They just won't put a time frame on ID!

http://www.discovery.org/...:

quote:
Nor will he say just how old he thinks the Earth is. “We do not take a position on the age of the Earth, because it is not something we are addressing,” he said.

"He" is Phillip Johnson.

So, why do I think the DI is operating in the land of smoke and mirrors?

Moose

Added by edit:

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

quote:
2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.


From their FAQ page. Kind of vague, but implies a certain coziness with old Earth evolution.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added another link and quote.


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 35 by Buzsaw, posted 04-21-2007 9:54 PM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 38 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-27-2007 12:53 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3801
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 36 of 47 (396754)
04-21-2007 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
04-21-2007 9:54 PM


Re: Some blurbs from the Discovery Institute
Buz, I fully grant to you that a Biblical creationist is welcome to his beliefs that God had intelligence and design (intelligent design) behind his creation process. Yes, it is valid for you to call yourself a "intelligent design creationist". Probably every creationist, regardless of the variety, can validly claim that "intelligent design" is part of his creationism.

I, however, argue that the Discovery Institute represents the core of those who argue "intelligent design". They are trying to document the presence of intelligent design. And as I quoted them, in bold:

Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture,...

Or are you arguing based upon empirical data, and I am just unaware of such?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 04-21-2007 9:54 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2007 7:27 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3801
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 38 of 47 (397663)
04-27-2007 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Minnemooseus
04-20-2007 11:19 PM


Empirical, but the empirical age of the Earth is not important
Repeating portions of quotes from my message 34:

quote:
Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture,...

quote:
Nor will he say just how old he thinks the Earth is. “We do not take a position on the age of the Earth, because it is not something we are addressing,” he said.

They say, in effect, ID study is based on empirical data, but the age of the Earth is not a significant part of the scope of their studies.

The time frame of what happened is not a significant consideration??? Does anyone here buy that? I don't.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-20-2007 11:19 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020