Does intelligent design have creationist roots?

Uh, look at the title of the thread. We're not assessing the merits of ID, we're discussing whether it has creationist roots.I was actually trying to respond to your point that ID advocates are just following the evidence. That's why I pointed out that the vast majority of creationists and ID advocates are evangelical Christians. Where religious beliefs correlate so prominently it's not because they're following the evidence, and as Dover made clear, rank and file evangelical Christians aren't familiar with the evidence and can't even define ID. "Following the evidence" isn't within their capabilities.Concerning Behe and Fuller, I was not making any attempt to argue that they claimed to be able to connect the intelligent designer to God. The point was that although not evangelical Christians, Behe is very religious, and Fuller, while his religious views are not public, is professionally very focused on religion in his philosophical and sociological work, and I suspect he's very religious, too.In other words, with few exceptions, ID supporters are very religious, and to a great extent the ID advocates of today were the creationist supporters of yesterday. It is no surprise that the tactics today are similar to the tactics then. For example, you quote Behe saying that creationism is "a theological religious concept," but creationists were not forthright and honest about this 20 years ago, were they, and IDists are being no more forthright and honest today. It will surprise no one 20 years from now when whatever succeeds ID is on trial and someone testifies, "Creationism and ID were religious concepts, but what we've got now is real science."What Behe is actually saying is, "Okay, well, yeah, creationism was religion, but this time we're really doing science. Yeah, okay, we avoid legitimate science journals and conferences like the plague and run our own journals and conferences just like creationism did, but we're still really doing science. And okay, yeah, we've come out against methodological naturalism which underpins all of modern science just like creationism, but we're not really anti-science like they were. And yes, I don't really see any need to actually perform scientific research on the ideas I proposed in my book Darwin's Black Box just like creationists didn't do research, but I'm just a scientist doing real science. Really, trust me, I wouldn't lie." That Of Pandas and People was modified from a creationist to an ID textbook just by making word substitutions was one of the least debatable facts to emerge from Dover. The only thing less equivocal was that Bill Buckingham was a liar. I agree, but neither should it be claimed that ID has widespread support when most of its so-called supporters are actually those you say are abusing it.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Where was it hiding again? I missed it the first five times....

Hi everyone - I recently registered and have spent a few weeks lurking and trying to get a feel for how things are done here before posting.I think ID's creationist beginnings are self-evident. While the general notion might have appeal that stretches beyond Christianity, it's not possible to convincingly argue that the contemporary phenomenon (for lack of a better term) came from anywhere but Christianity.At the risk of commenting off-topic, I wish ID proponents would make attempts at turning the idea into a scientific one. Make some predictions, run some experiments and have the results peer-reviewed. Help show that ID can be more than thinly veiled Creationism.Please?

quote:

---

At the risk of commenting off-topic, I wish ID proponents would make attempts at turning the idea into a scientific one. Make some predictions, run some experiments and have the results peer-reviewed. Help show that ID can be more than thinly veiled Creationism.

---

But they can't do that. That would expose it for what it truly is.In the words of the Wizard of Oz.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.The man behind the curtain for ID is creationism.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Theodoric wrote:

But they can't do that. That would expose it for what it truly is

On some level, I agree with you; it's highly unlikely that they will try. On the other hand, it might be really interesting to see them honestly do so.In the few places I've discussed this stuff, the conversations quickly go beyond the expertise of the average anonymous debate geek (myself included). For example, wouldn't it be interesting to try to define "higher intelligence"? If we're supposed to be seeing evidence that creation was created by someone/something far surpassing our intellect, what exactly can we point to? How would we identify alien intelligence, let alone divine intelligence?There must be disciplines which have already worked on questions like this. When NASA sent Voyager out with that gold record containing images, sounds and messages from humanity, they must have given some thought to what kinds of tools/understanding a peer or higher level of intelligence might have access to.ID proponents should actually try to point to very specific things that represent the hallmark of a creator God. Irreducible complexity was a nice try, but it failed.edit: sorry, this is definitely off-topic.Edited by Whateverman, : No reason given.

Percy: Setting aside the fact that you have yet to provide evidence that an association exists, guilt by association can work both ways. For example, according to a recent Gallup poll, about 72% of Americans who accept evolution also believe that God was involved in the process. In 1982, about the time intelligent design advocates were starting to get their act together, a total of 81% of Americans who accepted evolution also believed God guided it. According to your logic, this must mean that belief in evolution is motivated by the Christian religion. Actually, none of this is surprising considering the fact that the vast majority of American citizens are religious.Edited by Fallen, : fixing broken linksEdited by Fallen, : 1982, not 1983

---

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

I'm posting a second reply because while reading Michael Shermer's Why Darwin Matters I came across this quote from William Dembski, a Discovery Institute fellow, author of many books, originator of the concept of specified complexity, and one of the most prominent supporters of ID. This quote is from February 6, 2000, at the National Religious Broadcasters conference in Anaheim, California: Whenever advocates of creation science or ID think only true believers are listening, they're actually very honest about what they think, and Dembski thinks ID's job is to clear the obstacle of Darwinism from the path to salvation. Dembki's interest in ID is not scientific. He's a theologian, not a scientist, and his only interest in ID is as a weapon in the war against the evolutionary threat to faith. ID is evangelical Christianity's hope for disproving evolution, just as creation science was their hope up until about 20 years ago.There's just no way to hide the fact that the vast majority of people pushing ID are evangelical Christians, just like the vast majority of people pushing creation science were evangelical Christians 20 years ago. The roots of ID are deeply embedded within creation science which is itself deeply embedded within evangelical Christianity.We know that many honest and sincere evangelicals sincerely believe that ID is really science, but religious adherents the world over believe lots of things that aren't true of reality. We use science to figure out what's true of reality, and until ID does science instead of self-promotion it'll go nowhere science-wise.One more quote, again from Shermer's book. If ID has a father figure it is Philip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, who in 1996 said: Well duh!--Percy

How would you define a "quote mine," Percy?

First of all, I need to point out that guilt by association is an informal fallacy, meaning it's a fallacy only when it is fallacious to do so.The people who push for ID do so have repeatedly admitted that they believe the IDer behind the design is the judeo-christian god. When asked if it was possible for the IDer to have been some kind of extraterrestrial or alien, they almost always unanimously answer "no". Guilt by association in this case IS NOT fallacious.On the other hand, the theory of evolution says nothing about a creator. Even if 99.9% of the people who believe in the theory of evolution also believe in god, there is absolutely no religious motive for them to support the theory. Guilt by association in this case IS fallacious.

How would you define, "Let's ask a leading question and just leave the accusation hanging in the air without offering any arguments or evidence and without being specific or even quoting a single word?"The quotes I provided of Behe, Dembski and Johnson are accurate characterizations of their views. It's not like they've ever tried to hide that they believe the intelligent designer is God. Should I quote from the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute next? Maybe from the opening paragraph stating their "bedrock principle" that "human beings are created in the image of God?" Does that sound like ID to you?Your point based upon the Gallup poll didn't make sense to me and I couldn't see where your numbers came from, but to the extent it is true that a very large segment of America accepts both evolution and a role for God then it is worth noting that a much smaller subset believe that God's role constitutes science. The plaintiffs at Dover all believed in God.--Percy

Quote mining:

...a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the etymology of this term is obscure, the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored."

See The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines.Creationists can't find quotations by reputable scientists that disparage evolution, so they manufacture the quotations they want, often from material that is arguing the exact opposite point.In other words, its a form of lying.

---

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

Many years ago, I attended a lecture by a prominent creationist (can't remember his name... he's a fat guy). He was one hell of a good speaker. But what was good about him pretty much ended there. Since I had a background in science, I was able to see through the quote mines and outright lies he presented.For example, he presented a science text book and quoted the author saying "the age of a fossil could be determined by the age of the rock" and then he quoted another section of the book by the same author "the age of a rock could be determined by the age of the fossil." At this point, people in the audience, which comprised almost entirely of science illiterate people, started laughing at what they thought was an apparent absurdity in logic. Anyone who's ever had a 101 course in science should have been able to understand the meaning behind those two quotes. But the lecturer was depending on people's ignorance of science and made the author of the science book sound like a dumbass.By the end of the lecture, he concluded that from all the evidence (aka bullshit) he presented during the lecture, the Earth must only be about 6 thousand years old and a world wide flood was responsible for all the geological formations and fossils we see today. What followed was a thunderous applause by the crowd. I don't know which pissed me off more: the fact that the guy was lying right through his teeth or the fact that the unwashed masses actually bought his lies.

I apologize for my last post. After reading it again, in the larger context of the thread, it sounds like I’m condescendingly accusing Percy of quote mining. Actually, that wasn’t my intent at all. Percy seems like an honest person, and I doubt he would ever do anything like that. I was actually curious if the author Percy was referencing, Michael Shermer, could be properly called a quote miner according to the standard definition applied to creationists.After further consideration, I don’t think it would be fair to attach that label to Shermer, since neither quote’s context is available online. Of course, if the quotes were indeed taken out of context, he would be a quote miner. However, I think it makes sense that Dembski would choose to particularly emphasize the religious implications of intelligent design when speaking in front of a religious audience. Also, it is very possible that Phillip Johnson believes that this debate is primarily about religion and philosophy. For example, he wrote a chapter in Darwin on Trial titled Darwinist Religion. He even referred to evolution as The Established Religious Philosophy of America in the title of one of his online papers. However, he only comes to that conclusion in his book after first spending many chapters examining the lack of scientific evidence in favor of evolution.In any case, neither quote demonstrates the idea that intelligent design is religiously motivated. There are a couple of reasons for this. The first is simply a logical point. No one is interested in promoting a noble lie. In other words, no matter how friendly an idea is to religion, no one will support it if they think it is false. As a result, I think it is reasonable to say that the most important motivation of ID advocates is the fact that they think their theory is scientifically correct. Second, if we are to take quotes from ID advocates as trustworthy evidence about their motivations, it becomes clear that they are motivated primarily by their view of the scientific evidence.For example, consider this quote from Dembski’s The Design Revolution, page 50:For the record, therefore, let’s be clear that design theorists oppose Darwinian theory on strictly scientific grounds. Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinism’s imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design. But the reason design theorists take seriously such implications is that we are convinced that Darwinism is, on its own terms, an oversold and overreaching scientific theory.Or, if you would prefer an online source, try reading Dembski’s presentation at the RAPID conference:Unless intelligent design is an intrinsic good -- unless it can be developed as a scientific research program and provide sound insights into the natural world -- then its use as an instrumental good for defeating ideologies that suffocate the human spirit becomes insupportable. Intelligent design must not become a ‘noble lie’ for vanquishing views we find unacceptable (history is full of noble lies that ended in disgrace). Rather, intelligent design needs to convince us of its truth on its scientific merits. Then, because it is true and known to be true, it can become an instrument for liberation from suffocating ideologies -- ideologies that suffocate not because they tell us the grim truth about ourselves but because they are at once grim and false (Freud's psychic determinism is a case in point). (Link) What is your standard for determining when guilt by association is fallacious? How do you justify your standard?

---

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

Just like considering any other informal fallacy. Take the appeal to authority, for example. Is it always fallacious appeal to authority? Heck, no. That's why we have experts. It's only fallacious when we refer to an improper authority like referring to the local pastor on the latest scientific discoveries.In other words, use your common sense.Guilt by association is not always a fallacy. Prominent IDists have repeatedly admitted that they think it's silly to think the IDer is something like alien or Buddha. And yet they have also repeatedly admitted that they believe the IDer is the judeo-christian god.Have you even heard of Cdesign Proponentsists? Have you even considered the fact that IDists seem more busy with advertising ID rather than perform honest-to-god real scientific experiments? When was the last time they even published a real scientific paper on ID?The totality of the evidences point to a very clear motivation behind the ID movement.On the other hand, the idea that the theory of evolution somehow supports a judeo-christian theology is a dead-end idea. There's no motivation for religionists to advocate the theory of evolution for religious reasons.Again, if you want to use logical fallacies, make sure you know how to use them first. Take a logic class or something. Simply looking them up on the internet ain't gonna do it. When we're talking about informal logic, statements are fallacious only when they are. Not every 'no true scotsman' is a fallacy. Not every 'appeal to authority' is a fallacy. You have to look at the argument and decide on an individual basis.Added by edit.I'm not going to repeat everything Percy has already said. I think Percy has given enough evidence to link ID with creationism. Guilt by association in this case is not fallacious.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In any case, neither quote demonstrates the idea that intelligent design is religiously motivated.

---

They provide very strong evidence that religion is a powerful motive behind ID. It must be remembered that the whole point of the Discovery Institute ID program was to "renew" society through the promotion of religious belief.

quote:

---

The first is simply a logical point. No one is interested in promoting a noble lie.

---

That is an assumption, not a logical point in the strict sense.

quote:

---

In other words, no matter how friendly an idea is to religion, no one will support it if they think it is false. As a result, I think it is reasonable to say that the most important motivation of ID advocates is the fact that they think their theory is scientifically correct.

---

You may be putting the cart before the horse here. In fact it may well be that their religious beliefs are the reason that they believe in ID in the first place - and it may well be the case that every word of what you say applies equally to the "creation science" movement.

quote:

---

Second, if we are to take quotes from ID advocates as trustworthy evidence about their motivations, it becomes clear that they are motivated primarily by their view of the scientific evidence.

---

Of course the "creation science" movement made similar claims. So a degree of skepticism is warranted. There doesn't seem to be any grounds to doubt their claims of religious motivation - many are plainly religious. However their claims to scientific motivation seem very open to doubt.Let us consider Behe's views on the evolution of the immune system as shown in the Kitzmiller trial (see transcript of day 12. Now it is a fact that research into the question of how the immune system evolved has been productive (which is one reason to consider it science) and successful predictions have been made on the basis of this work.And Behe says that that is not enough. Here's what he wants: That sounds like a very big demand to me. In fact it seems plainly unreasonable - even designed to be practically impossible. In fact the only way it could be reasonable is if ID had an alternative view which did meet Behe's criteria, or at least came closer to reaching them than the work Behe dismisses. Of course we know that's not true. ID doesn't compete with evolution on that ground - not in the evolution of the immune system or any other system.So what we have here looks very much as if Behe is simply setting the bar ridiculously high for evolution while not expecting ID to offer anything much at all.Behe suggests that the ID paradigm will do better - but this seems to be based purely on faith. ID has no track record of success, or even producing work equivalent to that that Behe dismisses.So Behe's objection is not scientific or even rational. There are no scientific grounds for his faith in ID. So I suggest that if he is sincere it can only be because ID is in accord with his religious faith.

quote:

---

For example, consider this quote from Dembski’s The Design Revolution, page 50:

​

For the record, therefore, let’s be clear that design theorists oppose Darwinian theory on strictly scientific grounds. Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinism’s imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design. But the reason design theorists take seriously such implications is that we are convinced that Darwinism is, on its own terms, an oversold and overreaching scientific theory.

---

That book was published 5 years ago. There is still no sign of "Darwinism’s imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design" on scientific grounds - or even a good reason to think that it will ever happen.We saw much the same in the Wedge Document from 1998. A confidence that the necessary academic support for ID would materialise in a very short time. A confidence that was shown to be unfounded.The document goes on to state: That "solid scholarship, research and argument" never arrived.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.