Does intelligent design have creationist roots?

The instructions within the DNA of a sigle cell, written out would fill a thousand 600 page books (Gore 1976). Advancements in science in this area have made it more not less, difficult to believe that all life on earth arose by chance.
Francis Crick (Nobel Prize for discovering structure of DNA) stated, -"To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order..Here we need only ask, how many posible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event that would be? This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about 200 amino acids long, this is if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is 20 multiplied by itself some 200 times. This is conveniently written 200 followed by 260 zeros..
Moreover we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. had we considered longer ones as well the figure would have been even more immense.

And the first "cells" (protocells) probably had no genetic material at all. How does this affect your probability calculation?

We should be mighty glad the the cell didn't rely on chance to select each of its aimno acids, hun? It's clearly not a rare event. Why doesn't that make you question your method?

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

@Subbie: Perhaps it would help if I was more specific. You accused me of "moving goal posts" in your last post - I was unaware that any other "goal post" had ever existed. Where exactly will the "goal post" be, in our debate? More specifically, exactly how do you define creationism, and why do you use that definition? Whether or not we disagree depends on how you answer this question - naturally, I would like to know your answer before agreeing to a debate.Edit: By "your last post" I meant post 25. My apologies if this has caused confusion.Edited by Fallen, : No reason given.

---

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content, add banner.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content, add banner.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content, add banner.

All messages should have a direct connection to the origins of intelligent design concepts. If not, it is off-topic and should not be in this topic.Adminnemooseus

---

For present purposes, I'm comfortable with the following description of "creationism" from Wikipedia: My reference to moving goalposts had to do with the fact that you appeared to change the meaning of the term creationism as used in your OP, where you referred specifically to "scientific creationism." I agree that we should settle on a definition of creationism and stick to that one definition.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Your definition states that intelligent design is a form of creationism. Obviously, I can’t accept it, since doing so would end the debate before it started.I’m primarily interested in discussing the idea that the modern intelligent design movement arose in response to Edwards v. Aguillard, as "Creationism’s Trojan Horse." Barbara Forrest, for example, argued as much in her book and at Dover. In my view, calling ID "Intelligent Design Creationism" or, more directly, referring to intelligent design advocates as "creationists" represents an unfair and mostly inaccurate labeling used to shut down debate. It is implied that advocates of intelligent design are primarily motivated by a desire to circumvent legal standards about separation of church and state, rather than scientific evidence.After doing some research, I agree that the term "creationist" has several different meanings and implications. I think we should recognize this fact, and instead discuss whether or not the term is fair and accurate when applied to the modern movement of intelligent design and its origins. We should also consider how much influence Edwards v. Aguillard had in the formation and conception of the idea.

---

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

Well, I'm familiar with what Dr. Forrest has said on the matter. Why don't you begin by explaining why you disagree with what she's said. In particular, I think you need to address her "cdesign proponentist" transitional form.In addition, perhaps you could give your reasons for concluding that ID isn't a species of creationism. Is it simply because they base their ideas on a looser reading of Genesis than OECs or YECs? I've been giving this topic some small thought, and it occurred to me that perhaps you have the idea that since IDers accept more of science than OECs do, and OECs accept more than YECs, you think this difference is significant. Is that the basis for your distinction?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Fair enough. I think we have enough of an area of disagreement for me to write my opening post. Actually, I don't think intelligent design has anything at all to do with any interpretation of Genesis. The whole point of using the term "intelligent design" is to draw attention to the fact that ID advocates believe the evidence suggests an intelligent designer at work. Nothing more, nothing less.

---

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

What percentage of scientists who are traditional creationists are evangelical Christians? I don't really know, but I'm sure we can agree it's a very high percentage, right? Maybe 99%?What percentage of scientists who are IDists are evangelical Christians? I don't really know this number, either, but I hope we can still agree that it's a fairly high percentage. Maybe 80%?Some very prominent IDists are not evangelical Christians, like Michael Behe, arguably the founder of the modern intelligent design movement. But at trial when asked if he believed the intelligent designer was God he answered, "Yes, that's correct." (Dover Trial Transcripts, Morning of Day 10)Steve William Fuller is an IDer and sociologist with no public statements of his religious beliefs, but at Dover he testified at length about God and about the relationship between science and religion. When asked if the designer is a monotheistic conception of God he answered, "Yes, it is in that tradition that comes about, yes. You need a God that's detachable from the creation." (Dover Trial Transcripts, Afternoon of Day 15)What we see is that almost no scientists who aren't evangelical Christians accept creationism.And we see that maybe only 20% of scientists who accept ID aren't evangelical Christians, but this group is still highly religious.The textbook of intelligent design, Of Pandas and People, began as a creationist textbook. It was transformed into a book about intelligent design by simple word substitutions. "Creator" was replaced by "intelligent designer", "creation" was replaced by "intelligent design", and so forth. All other content in the book is the original creationist content.But the real identity of ID is revealed at the grass roots level in school systems like Dover, where the only proponents of ID are young earth creationists who see ID as their only chance of opposing evolution. This is why the Discovery Institute is against public spectacles like the Dover trial. They understand that as much as they'd like to keep their religion out of their science, their followers lack the knowledge and expertise to maintain or even understand this position, and many are not aware that such a distinction exists. You can't have school board members promoting ID with statements like, "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" (Bill Buckingham, chair of the Dover school board) and still maintain that ID isn't religion.--Percy

Why do they call it intelligent design and not teleology?Answer: Because teleology is a philosophical attempt at a proof for the existence of God and IDers wanted to avoid that and pretend to be scientifical.Why did they want to appear scientifical?Answer: Because they want it taught in school.Why do they want to teach it in school?Answer: Because they think that evolution alone will turn children from God.What's the evidence that it has anything to do with creationism at all?Answer: ID sprung into existence the moment that the courts ruled that creation science could not be taught in schools, and was marketed to the same people that creation science was. Also see: The Wedge.So yes, ID has stripped Yahweh by name. It doesn't refer to Genesis. It is teleology in all but name, and the people that head up the movement are funded by creationist punters. The reason they call it ID is not to draw attention to the intelligent designer, but to try and avoid using the synonymous phrase 'god' and also to avoid using the already established word 'teleology'.You see: I was taught teleology at high school as part of Religious Studies. ID doesn't want their ideas taught in RS or RE classes, they want them in the science class so they have to strip all the god stuff out, and not talk about 'creation', and replace all mentions of god with 'designer' and creation with 'design'.They have to try and avoid people making the connection between the teleological argument for the existence of God and the Intelligent Design argument for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

I don’t know of any polls on the issue, so I can’t agree to any estimate with confidence. On the other hand, why do you believe this is relevant? If a Nazi supports evolution, does that make evolution the same thing as antisemitism? If a Christian starts an inquisition, does that make Christianity the same thing as torture? Frankly, such questions are irrelevant. An idea should be classified on its own merits, not the beliefs of the people advocating it. I’m glad you brought up Behe’s testimony at Dover, since he actually did an excellent job of explaining why intelligent design is fundamentally different from creationism. If you look at the next question he was asked, he explains his answer. Quote:Q. Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
A. No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.So, although he believes the designer is God, he doesn’t believe it can be proven using scientific evidence. A creationist concludes that God created based on theological factors and looks for scientific evidence to support this prior belief. An intelligent design advocate, in contrast, starts by examining the scientific evidence and concludes than it can be demonstrated that an intelligent designer was involved at some point, but nothing more. This is especially clear in Behe’s case, since he had no prior theological reason to believe the scientific evidence would indicate design.This distinction between ID and creationism immediately becomes apparent if you read the rest of Behe’s testimony. For example, in a section from the morning of day 11, there are several pages worth of discussion about the meaning of intelligent design and its differences from creationism. Probably the pithiest bit of testimony from Behe: Creation is a theological religious concept. And intelligent design is a scientific idea, which is based exclusively on the physical, observable evidence plus logical processes.And this isn’t just testimony from Dover. This conception of intelligent design as an idea derived only from the scientific evidence has been a consistent factor in the ID literature since the beginning of the movement. Actually, Fuller was asked And historically the designer has always been known as a certain kind of monotheistic conception of God? The context was a historical discussion of William Paley, who clearly did link his design argument to God. ID advocates recognize several problems with Paley’s argument, one of which is the weak scientific link between this object is designed and this object is designed by God. This is all very debatable, but the issue is large enough that I think it would be best to wait until my opening post in the debate with subbie to address this issue. Well, again, I don’t see why an idea should be defined by those that abuse it. Advocating that intelligent design proves that someone died on a cross is clearly an abuse of the idea. On the other hand, it is true intelligent design is friendlier toward the theistic beliefs of most Americans than the idea it would replace. However, ideas are classified based on their content, not their implications.

---

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.