Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does intelligent design have creationist roots?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 121 of 151 (509805)
05-25-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Fallen
05-24-2009 11:09 PM


Re: Shermer quotes
Fallen writes:
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.
Sure it would be fair to accuse Shermer of quote mining, assuming the quotes met one simple criterion. You don't need to see a quote's context to become suspicious that it's a quote mine. All you need to know is that the quote appears to be saying something that would be highly unusual for that person to say. Stephen Jay Gould was a prominent opponent of creationism, and he was quote mined relentlessly by creationists. One famous example is where creationists quote Gould saying:
Gould writes:
The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
Does this sound like an opinion that a paleontologist and one of the most famous evolutionary scientists in the world would hold? No, of course not. And so one immediately suspects a quote mine, and that turns out to be the case. Gould was stating that position in order to argue against it. His next sentence begins, "Although I reject this argument..."
A creationist might be forgiven for innocently passing on that quote since they would likely be ignorant of both context and the details of Gould's views, but some creationist out there did purposefully and knowingly extract that quote from its context.
And this isn't an isolated incident. Creationists have produced literally pages and pages and pages of quote mines of prominent scientists. It is relentlessly dishonest behavior like this that occasionally causes those on the side of science to finally just throw up their hands in frustration and label creationists as liars. And obviously some are, and I think we're all thankful that for the most part intelligent design advocates have abandoned this facet of their creationist heritage.
Getting back to Shermer's quotes, ask yourself if Shermer is quoting Behe, Dembski or Johnson saying anything they don't actually believe. Only if you knew that they don't believe the intelligent designer is the Christian God would you suspect quote mining. But we know they all believe this, and if the particular quotes Shermer used aren't on the Internet you'll still have no trouble finding others. For example, just enter "Dembski intelligent design God" into Google. I've just done this and the 2nd link (Dog Bites Man; Dembski Says Designer is God) has this Dembski quote:
Dembski writes:
I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.
Religion does strange things to people. A thousand years ago it caused them to travel halfway around the civilized world to crusade against infidels in Palestine. More recently it has caused at least a couple mass suicides (Johnstown and Heaven's Gate). How does one explain such things? I don't think anyone can answer that question.
And so of course we also can't explain why Behe, Dembski and Johnson think that intelligent design is science, but I believe that they are truly sincere in this belief. But they also seem to understand that the science isn't really in complete form yet, and certainly not ready for the classroom, which is the main reason the Discovery Institute pulled out of Dover.
Supporting this view, here are a couple more quotes from Shermer's book, Why Darwin Matters. This first one is from Dembski's 2004 book, The Design Revolution (you can find this one on the web):
Dembski writes:
Because of intelligent design's outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the cultural and political component of intelligent design is now running ahead of the scientific and intellectual component.
This next is a quote from Paul Nelson, a Discovery Institute fellow, at the 2004 meeting of the Bible Institute in Los Angeles (you can find this one on the web, too):
Nelson writes:
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. . . .Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity' - but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.
Look at what Dembski and Nelson are saying. Not only does intelligent design have insufficient scientific support, it doesn't even have an intelligible theory. This is probably the biggest reason why intelligent design shouldn't be taught in science class. And even aside from the problems regarding what one could possibly teach about intelligent design, there's the larger problem of how any school system could in good conscious teach as legitimate biology something that 99% of biologists reject.
The route to the science classroom is by becoming accepted science by doing the research, presenting the results, and convincing colleagues. If becoming accepted science is a goal of intelligent design then eschewing scientific journals and conferences is a recipe for failure. Creating your own "scientific" journals and conferences, which is just what creationism did, is just too obviously a dishonest attempt to give the appearance of doing science without actually doing science. I think that intelligent design would love to become accepted science if they only could find a way to do that, but the real world isn't being very cooperative in providing them any evidence.
What is your standard for determining when guilt by association is fallacious? How do you justify your standard?
I know you asked this question of Taz, but establishing objective standards for assessing guilt by association would seem outside the scope of this thread. Staying more within this thread's topic I would answer that while it is a fact that most advocates of intelligent design are evangelical Christians whose real beef is with the teaching of evolution in public schools, this isn't sufficient by itself to conclude that intelligent design is just spruced up creationism. It's suspicious, of course, but not conclusive. But when you add other facts the reality becomes crystal clear:
  • 99% of biologists reject intelligent design, just as they did creationism.
  • The Discovery Institute is primarily engaged in PR efforts rather than research, just like ICR (a creationist organization).
  • Intelligent design has made no research progress, just like creationism.
  • Intelligent design opposes the methodological naturalism that underpins all science, just like creationism.
  • Intelligent design avoids participation with mainstream science, just like creationism.
  • Intelligent designers endlessly assert that they are doing legitimate science, just like creationists.
  • All it took to change a book about creation science into a book about intelligent design was to replace references to creator and creation with intelligent designer and intelligent design.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Fallen, posted 05-24-2009 11:09 PM Fallen has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 122 of 151 (509811)
05-25-2009 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Fallen
05-24-2009 11:09 PM


Sitting Duck
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.
Please show this statement to your father that he might use it in a competency hearing to gain control over your assets until such time as you have rid yourself of this delusion. In the meantime, avoid the dancing people with the daises.

It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men.
Spock: Mirror Mirror

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Fallen, posted 05-24-2009 11:09 PM Fallen has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 123 of 151 (509812)
05-25-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Taz
05-25-2009 1:30 AM


Appeal to Authority
It's only fallacious when we refer to an improper authority like referring to the local pastor on the latest scientific discoveries.
I disagree. An appeal to authority is fallacious when we say that something must be true because Mr./Ms. X said it is. It doesn't matter if this is a "proper" authority or not.
Who who says something has no logical baring on it's truth.
Of course, separate from the logic it is reasonable to expect an experts pronouncements to be more likely true than someone who knows something but that is only a first cut at the issue.
It is why they say it that really counts.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Taz, posted 05-25-2009 1:30 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Taz, posted 05-25-2009 10:45 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 124 of 151 (509822)
05-25-2009 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by NosyNed
05-25-2009 9:25 AM


Re: Appeal to Authority
NosyNed, we've already been down this path. Too bad the site's search engine ain't working. I'll post the link to the thread where myself versus all you guys took place on this very matter when I find the thread.
Added by edit.
http://EvC Forum: Science is based on a logical fallacy - II (re: Appeal to Authority) -->EvC Forum: Science is based on a logical fallacy - II (re: Appeal to Authority)
Start at message 21 and go backward and forward from there to see our conversation.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by NosyNed, posted 05-25-2009 9:25 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Percy, posted 05-25-2009 11:17 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 126 by PaulK, posted 05-25-2009 12:52 PM Taz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 125 of 151 (509832)
05-25-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Taz
05-25-2009 10:45 AM


Re: Appeal to Authority
Taz writes:
Too bad the site's search engine ain't working.
The site's search engine works fine. I entered "fallacies aquaintance authority ethical professionals" into the search box and it found the precise message you cited.
I'll post the link to the thread where myself versus all you guys took place on this very matter when I find the thread.
What is the point of citing a thread where you took on everyone but convinced no one?
As Nwr stated in that thread (Science is based on a logical fallacy - II (re: Appeal to Authority)), one commits the fallacy of appeal to authority when one attempts to close off further discussion by citing an authority. I suppose the fallacy isn't as egregious if the authority is legimate, but it's still a fallacy.
So if someone says, "The Bible says the Earth is only 6000 years old," while it is a reference to an authority, it is not an appeal to authority. For example, if you reply, "But the geological evidence says otherwise," and the answer comes back, "Then let's explore that evidence," then while the Bible reference was as an authority, it obviously wasn't an example of the fallacy of appeal to authority.
But if the answer that comes back is, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that's that," then that seems like a pretty clear example of the fallacy of appeal to authority.
In the same way, if someone says, "Einstein says that time slows with increasing velocity," and someone else replies, "There is evidence that this is not true," and the answer comes back, "Then let's examine this evidence," then though it's a reference to an authority, it isn't the fallacy of appeal to authority.
Only if the answer comes back, "You think you know more than Einstein? Get lost!" then that's a pretty clear example of the fallacy of appeal to authority.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Improve grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Taz, posted 05-25-2009 10:45 AM Taz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 126 of 151 (509850)
05-25-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Taz
05-25-2009 10:45 AM


Re: Appeal to Authority
As I've said elsewhere, an argument can be logically fallacious and still be a good argument - even a strong one. It just isn't absolutely certain.
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because no matter how good the "authority" they can always be mistaken. However, an appeal to a genuine authority may be the best argument available to us on certain subjects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Taz, posted 05-25-2009 10:45 AM Taz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 127 of 151 (510082)
05-27-2009 8:37 AM


Smile for the Day
Off topic, but I just referenced Einstein in my previous message, so I'll put this here. While in line at the CVS pharmacy yesterday I looked up at the board that said "Meet our pharmacists." Next to it were three pictures, and the third one was...Einstein.
"I'd like to meet your new pharmacist," I said when it was my turn.
"Al isn't here right now. His hours are 10 to 3 weekdays."
"Oh, that's too bad," I replied. "I'd really like to meet him."
"Who's he asking about, Al?" someone else called over.
"Yeah, Al."
"He's on sabbatical."
"Oh, too bad," I said. "Well, you take good care of Al."
"Don't worry, we will."
--Percy

  
TheWhale
Junior Member (Idle past 5411 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 06-03-2009


Message 128 of 151 (510744)
06-03-2009 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
04-09-2009 7:35 PM


Re: Origins of intelligent design
"Not exactly a scientific attitude, eh? And this is the main force behind intelligent design."
That's typical, find an extreme position and proclaim it as "the main force behind ID".
So this Discovery Institute speaks for everyone that hasn't concluded that the book is closed on the question of the origin of species, because you would like to paint it that way?
This might come as a shock to anyone you have sold this stuff to...
1. I'm not convinced that Darwin unlocked all the answers on a trip to the galapagos.
2. I've never heard of the Discovery Institute
3. I don't want any religion taught in schools.
4. I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in schools so long as it isn't presented as scientific fact.
5. This describes the vast majority of people who argue against having evolution presented as scientific fact.
Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 04-09-2009 7:35 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Admin, posted 06-03-2009 8:37 AM TheWhale has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 129 of 151 (510745)
06-03-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by TheWhale
06-03-2009 8:24 AM


Topic Reminder
Hi Whale, welcome to EvC Forum. I'd like to call your attention to the one rule in the Forum Guidelines that probably gets the most attention from moderators here:
  1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
For instance, if you'd like to make the case that the Discovery Institute is not *the* major player in ID, then you should propose a new thread over at [forum=-25]. Or for any other topic you'd like to discuss.
But please help keep this thread on-topic. Thanks.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by TheWhale, posted 06-03-2009 8:24 AM TheWhale has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by TheWhale, posted 06-03-2009 8:41 AM Admin has replied

  
TheWhale
Junior Member (Idle past 5411 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 06-03-2009


Message 130 of 151 (510747)
06-03-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Admin
06-03-2009 8:37 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
Thanks for the welcome.
In regard to my post it is on topic as you will see when you refer to the post I replied to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Admin, posted 06-03-2009 8:37 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Admin, posted 06-03-2009 8:49 AM TheWhale has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 131 of 151 (510748)
06-03-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by TheWhale
06-03-2009 8:41 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
TheWhale writes:
In regard to my post it is on topic as you will see when you refer to the post I replied to.
The post you replied to, Message 4, is on-topic because it discusses whether ID's roots trace back to traditional creationism.
Your reply to that post, Message 129, is off-topic because it doesn't. In fact, nothing you said is remotely related to the topic.
Please, no responses here to this message. Problems with discussion should be taken to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by TheWhale, posted 06-03-2009 8:41 AM TheWhale has not replied

  
TheWhale
Junior Member (Idle past 5411 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 06-03-2009


Message 132 of 151 (510758)
06-03-2009 9:57 AM


Ok lets try again.
The topic was supposed to be whether ID has it's roots in creationism.
Post 4 points out that the Discovery Institute has creationist beliefs
and on this alone decides that ID and the Discovery Institute are one and the same.
I reply by pointing out that the Discovery Institute doesn't represent proponents of ID.
I fail to see how that is off topic.
Are you saying that this thread is strictly meant to catalog a list of creationists that present themselves as ID proponents?
Is it that you WANT to paint EVERYONE with the same brush therefore my pointing out that this is not the case is a violation because it doesn't serve the purpose?
If I'm an evolutionist and want to declare that all ID proponents fit this discription my comments are eagerly invited, but if I wish to correctly point out that this is highly disingenuous then I'm committing some kind of violation.
It starts to sound to me like a topic closed to discussion rather than a topic OF discussion.
So if it makes everyone feel more secure I'll just join in.
When in Rome....
ALL ID proponents are creationists in disguise every single one of them.
Better?
Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Admin, posted 06-03-2009 10:29 AM TheWhale has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 133 of 151 (510761)
06-03-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by TheWhale
06-03-2009 9:57 AM


What part of "No responses to this message" didn't you understand? In what way was, "Problems with discussion should be taken to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread," unclear?
And just in case there's still some kind of uncertainty in your mind, DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES POST A RESPONSE TO THIS MESSAGE OR ANY OTHER MODERATOR MESSAGE IN THIS THREAD!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by TheWhale, posted 06-03-2009 9:57 AM TheWhale has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 134 of 151 (510943)
06-04-2009 10:16 PM


A Former Creationist Reveals All
Dean Kenyon is the author of the book Of Pandas and People that received so much attention during the Dover trial. Now an ID proponent, in 2000 he reportedly said:
Dean Kenyon writes:
Scientific creationism, which in its modern phase began in the early 1960s, is actually one of the intellectual antecedents of the Intelligent Design movement.
See A New Scientific Revolution. This is the Google cached version, the webpage at Catholic.net apparently is no longer there, but it can be found at other websites around the web.
I think this neatly settles the issue.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling.

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Fallen, posted 06-09-2009 12:40 PM Percy has replied

  
djwray
Junior Member (Idle past 5313 days)
Posts: 5
From: Australia
Joined: 06-06-2009


Message 135 of 151 (511149)
06-06-2009 8:14 PM


MOSTLY OFF-TOPIC
It makes sense to think that Intelligent Design has creationist roots rather than being the result of random changes like Darwinian evolution, especially if you are willing to consider that the meaning of life is meaningful, rather than meaninglessness promoted by atheists.
http://www.atotalawareness.com (very, very long)
D J Wray
Or at least quite tangential to the topic. I'm going to try to somehow turn this line of thought into a new topic. - Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner, etc. Also added subtitle.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024