Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,215 Year: 5,472/9,624 Month: 497/323 Week: 137/204 Day: 7/4 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 721 of 1273 (543725)
01-20-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 720 by Nuggin
01-20-2010 9:54 AM


Re: Moderator Request
This seems to be about the difference between creationism and ID and (specifically) whether Dembski considers the two to be identical. I don't think he does. Despite the quotes.
I certainly don't think ID and creationism are the same thing. Creationism (of the Christian kind) to my mind is biblical literalism. Whilst ID can range all the way from strict creationism to more remote deistic notions of a created universe with certain constants designed to eventually facilitate life. However I would say that most who would actually describe themselves as IDists (as opposed to creationists) accept things like evolution and the age of the Earth to a large extent but would caveat that with notions of there being physical evidence of design. Irreducible complexity. Theories about information. Etc. etc.
So to Dembski - The quotes seem to suggest that in terms of belief Dembski is indeed a creationist. Adam and Eve real people etc. etc. But in terms of his theories and arguments I am not aware of him having claimed that there is physical evidence for purely creationist claims. In terms of his theories and arguments (as far as I am aware) he is claiming ID. Complexity, information etc. etc. Not biblical creationism as such.
If this seems like a blurry distinction then I accept that. We all know that ID is used as a wedge for getting specifically Christian notions of reality into places that they don’t deserve to be. But in terms of the evidence being cited (such as it is) and the arguments presented I think what Dembski is actually advocating is better described as ID than creationism.
But I am hardly a keen follower of his work so if anyone can show me him saying that biblical creationism rather than just ID is physically evidenced then I will be happy to admit I am talking out of my arse and that there is no distinction as far as he is concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2010 9:54 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 723 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2010 5:00 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 727 by Huntard, posted 01-21-2010 3:28 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 730 of 1273 (543842)
01-21-2010 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 727 by Huntard
01-21-2010 3:28 AM


Creationism and ID
But isn't ID the way to show how "biblical creationism" is evidenced in reality?
Almost certainly in reality. In almost all cases. But are the two necessarily the same thing in principle? Is it possible to argue in favour of Intelligent Design whilst also saying the the bible is obvioulsy a ridiculous fantasy if taken literally?
I would say yes. In fact I would go so far as to say that there are people who do make the distinction. Isn't Behe and his molecular level irreducible complexity such an example. It is my understanding that he accepts most of evolution as per standard scientific consensus. He just invokes ID at the molecular level to achieve it.
I mean, say ID was evidenced, wouldn't Dembski then be overjoyed he found "evidence for god's creation"? He clearly thinks that's how it happened, evidenced by his adam and eve quoet.
I am trying to distinguish between the creationist beliefs of these guys (e.g. Adam and Eve actually existed) and what they are claiming as evidence of ID (e.g. irreducible complexity at the molecular level, conservation of information theories etc. etc.)
Whilst I agree with you that the two will be inevitably conflated in practise I don't think this need necessarily be the case in principle.
I think ID can stand apart from creationism as a belief system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by Huntard, posted 01-21-2010 3:28 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 734 by Nuggin, posted 01-21-2010 10:20 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 735 by Huntard, posted 01-21-2010 10:41 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 731 of 1273 (543844)
01-21-2010 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 723 by Nuggin
01-20-2010 5:00 PM


Belief and Evidential Claims
Accordingly, ANYONE making the claim that the Christian God created anything is, by their own standards, a creationist of one of these three types.
I don't doubt that Dembski is a creationist in terms of belief.
But is he a creationist or an IDist in terms of what he is claiming is actually evidenced?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2010 5:00 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by Nuggin, posted 01-21-2010 10:17 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 739 of 1273 (543884)
01-21-2010 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 733 by Nuggin
01-21-2010 10:17 AM


Re: Belief and Evidential Claims
Really, there is no difference between the two.
I disagree. Fundie creos conflate the two at every opportunity for social purposes. But that is not the same as them actually being the same.
All IDrs eventually, when cornered, admit that the designer is the Christian God. The term "ID" is nothing more than political cover - as it was "designed" to be in the first place.
But you are conflating those who make the arguments with the arguments themselves. ID as a position is not inherently Christian. Even if fundie Christians are advocating ID as a means to an end.
Are there not Moslem IDists? IDists of other godly beliefs? Even IDists of no particular godly belief at all?
The illusion of design in nature is something that has fooled a lot of people over a vast amount of time. They have not all been Fundie Christians. Nor do I think they all are now. There are some people who just think nature is all too "complex" and intended to be "random". I would suggest that this view is far more prevalent in the world than pure creationism.
Creationist IDists just get most of the press.
Renaming "racism" to "ethnic origins preferences" doesn't make a KKK member any less racist.
But advocating that there is evidence of Intelligent Design in nature is not the same as saying that Noahs flood and Adam and Eve are also physically evidenced.
I think you are conflating stated beliefs and the wider motivation for (specifically fundie Christians) advocating ID with the actual arguments of ID which could be made seperately to creationism.
Fundie Christians make that conflation. But is that any reason for us to do so at the argument/evidence level? Just because they are?
EvC needs to have some non-Christian strong believers. It would make the place much more interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 733 by Nuggin, posted 01-21-2010 10:17 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 741 by hooah212002, posted 01-21-2010 3:15 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 745 by Nuggin, posted 01-21-2010 4:08 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 740 of 1273 (543885)
01-21-2010 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 735 by Huntard
01-21-2010 10:41 AM


Re: Creationism and ID
Whilst I agree with you that the two will be inevitably conflated in practise I don't think this need necessarily be the case in principle.
Of course. in Dembski's view however (and he is the one being discussed here), they are.
Dembski has said he believes in creationsim. The quotes make this abundantly clear.
But has he said that he considers the stories of Genesis (for example) to be physically evidenced?
All I have seen him claim physical evidence for is ID. Intelligent Design of a generic and not necessarily Christian type. Regardless of what he goes on to believe on the basis of faith in the bible (or whatever).
If he is claiming that biblical literalism is physically evidenced then I will shut up. But if he hasn't made that claim and has only claimed ID is evidenced I think that distinction is being overlooked by you guys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 735 by Huntard, posted 01-21-2010 10:41 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 742 by hooah212002, posted 01-21-2010 3:25 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 832 by Huntard, posted 01-25-2010 9:44 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 743 of 1273 (543889)
01-21-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 741 by hooah212002
01-21-2010 3:15 PM


Re: Belief and Evidential Claims
However, I must point out the *origin of ID. Can one truly believe that the ID movement was brought about simply on the belief in..ID?
The "ID movement"? As in the set of Christian fundamentalists who set out with the "wedge" strategy? Well of course, by very definition, they are Christian fundamentalists.
But are we talking about the origin of the "ID movement" or of ID? If the latter I would say this has existed in one form or another ever since humans began considering such things way back in the dawn of humanity.
I think it comes as naturally as breathing (I exaggerate somewhat) to us humans to look at something that appears to be non-random and come to the conclusion that it must obviously be the work of some invisible, magic skybeing of some sort.
Is it not obliteratingly obvious that it was *created to mask creationism? Why is "Of Pandas and People", as pointed out in Dover, not sufficient evidence of this point?
I would never argue that the "ID movement" is anything other than you suggest. But is Intelligent Design the same as the "ID Movement"?
It may very well end up being wholly seperate from creationism, even to the point where there is a hard line between the two. I really don't think we are there yet, though.
I think the world is full of people who could be described as IDists of one form or another but who are not Christians. I think ID (as flawed as it is) can claim it's own evidentail philosophy entirely without any reference to the bible.
But if we are talking about the "ID Movement" and the "Creationsit movement" then yes - They are absoluetly the same thing.
I never thought I would ever be defending ID in any way shape or form............

This message is a reply to:
 Message 741 by hooah212002, posted 01-21-2010 3:15 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 746 by hooah212002, posted 01-21-2010 4:09 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 747 by Nuggin, posted 01-21-2010 4:14 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 749 by Coyote, posted 01-21-2010 5:26 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 744 of 1273 (543890)
01-21-2010 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 742 by hooah212002
01-21-2010 3:25 PM


Re: Creationism and ID
I still don't see him saying that creationism is physically evidenced?
There are numerous theistic evolutionsits who might describe God as "the prime instance of intelligent agency" but who are not creationists. No?
The "I see science as the way of understanding how God did it" mob. Isn't that the position this quote suggests?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 742 by hooah212002, posted 01-21-2010 3:25 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 748 by hooah212002, posted 01-21-2010 4:16 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 769 of 1273 (543964)
01-22-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 745 by Nuggin
01-21-2010 4:08 PM


Re: Belief and Evidential Claims
But, we aren't talking about the illusion of design. We are talking about a highly motivated, profit producing, political movement which was Christened (pun heavily intended) by PR guys and who literally laid out their goals on paper to remove evolution from schools so as to re-introduce religion (ie Christianity) in its place.
Well then what you are talking about is specifically the Christian led ID movement rather than the arguments and claims of evidence for ID as things that can be taken in themselves. That's fine if we are just talking about ID as a current social phenomenon. But I stand by the distinction in terms of claimed evidence and arguments in principle.
Muslim IDers (if there are any, can you name one?) believe that a Jewish Wizard magicked everything into existence.
Surely the arguments of ID are able to be applied to anyone who believes in any sort of magic being that created everything? But that magic being doesn't have to be the Christian god.
Islamic Link writes:
This non-theological nature of the ID Movement also makes it inter-religious. Whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, or any other kind of theist, you can identify with the movement. This movement defines the particular paradigm of science we would like to have, and it is science that defines society in the long run.
Muslims should also note the great similarity between the arguments of the Intelligent Design Movement and Islamic sources. Hundreds of verses in the Qur’an call people to examine the natural world and see in it the evidence of God. Great Islamic scholars like Ghazali wrote large volumes about design in animals, plants, and the human body. What Intelligent Design theorists like Behe or Dembski do today is to refine the same argument with the findings of modern science.
In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it.
Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design? - IslamOnline
If A = B = C = D, then they are all the same thing.
Well obviously all ID arguments are gonna invoke a magical designer of some sort at root. By definition. But it doesn't have to be the Christian God does it?
"Magic!" _is_ Creationism.
But it still doesn't have to be Christian creationism does it?
the actual arguments of ID which could be made seperately to creationism.
Honestly, they can't. SO has been trying to do so on this thread and has failed miserably.
Yes they can. Here for the sake of argument let me try.
There is evidence of design in nature (let's pretend I believe that). This is "proved" by irreducible complexity and the conservation of information.
I declare the designer to be the Immaterial Pink Unicorn. I declare Christ and Christians to be false prophets duped by the great trickster the Ethereal Squirrel. I am an anti-Christian IPUist who would tear down all the churches of the world (the IPU hates worshippers and just wants us to get on with our lives free from deistic interference - I know this because she told me)
So is my pretend persona a Christian creationist? Is he an IDist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 745 by Nuggin, posted 01-21-2010 4:08 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 774 by Nuggin, posted 01-22-2010 2:57 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 776 by Iblis, posted 01-22-2010 4:07 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 770 of 1273 (543966)
01-22-2010 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 748 by hooah212002
01-21-2010 4:16 PM


Re: Creationism and ID
There are numerous theistic evolutionsits who might describe God as "the prime instance of intelligent agency" but who are not creationists. No?
I've yet to see any IDist that is STRICTLY scientific.
Well of course not. Because ID isn't scientific. But then concluding that a magic sky being is ultimately responsible for anything is difficult to reconcile with being "STRICTLY scientific".
It is bloody well obvious that behind ID is christianity.
It is obvious that behind the current ID movement in North America (and no doubt to an extent the West in general) lies Christianity.
But that isn't the same as the arguments of ID being the same as the arguments of biblical literalism in principle. I could be a moslem IDist, an IPU IDist or whatever.
Every ID website I have tortured myself into researching is draped in biblical quotes.
The current ID movement is highly prolific. But I wonder what we would find if we loooked up Intelligent Design in Arabic?
theistic evolutionist could also be an ID proponent.
Well doesn't a theistic evolutionist think that a superior Intelligence is guiding stuff behind the scenes in some way? The difference between a theistic evolutionsit and an ID proponent of irreducible complexity is what........? In terms of the mechanisms of evolution? Do both fully accept RANDOM mutation? Perhaps one more than the other but the differences don't seem to be as great as you seem to be suggesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 748 by hooah212002, posted 01-21-2010 4:16 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 771 of 1273 (543973)
01-22-2010 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 749 by Coyote
01-21-2010 5:26 PM


Re: Belief and Evidential Claims
But is Intelligent Design the same as the "ID Movement"?
In the US, and currently -- yes.
Well that seems quite a limited view of things to me.
We could refute all the purely Christian creationist arguments about floods and what-not and still never touch any of the arguments of ID which are, in princile, applicable to any supernatural designer one can conceive of.
I think, in terms of arguments and evidence, ID needs to be tackled in it's own right regardless of the current conflations of Western biblical creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 749 by Coyote, posted 01-21-2010 5:26 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 772 by hooah212002, posted 01-22-2010 2:23 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 773 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2010 2:29 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 778 of 1273 (544001)
01-22-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 772 by hooah212002
01-22-2010 2:23 PM


Re: Belief and Evidential Claims
I think, in terms of arguments and evidence, ID needs to be tackled in it's own right regardless of the current conflations of Western biblical creationists.
So you are OK with following the moving goalposts?
Which moving goalposts? The goalposts that say that disproving biblical literalism refutes ID? That is the goalpost moving I am objecting to here.
You are going to lend credence to anything they throw out?
I am not "lending credenece" to anything. I think that ID is as evidentially bankrupt as a theory as is scientifically possible. But that still doesn't make it identical in terms of argument or evidential validity to biblical literalism. Are you saying this is untrue?
When they finally learn that ID is shit, there will be another dog and pony show to take IT'S place.
How can you show that "ID is shit" if you say it is the same thing as biblical Christian literalism? When it blatantly isn't the same in terms of arguments and evidential claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 772 by hooah212002, posted 01-22-2010 2:23 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 779 of 1273 (544002)
01-22-2010 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 773 by Coyote
01-22-2010 2:29 PM


Re: What is ID?
Well that seems quite a limited view of things to me.
Can you show that it is wrong?
Wrong? No. Limited? Yes.
I worded it very carefully.
Yeah I noticed. So did I.
Floods and what-not are not a part of ID. ID is just a cover story, creationism stripped to it's barest essentials. It has to be that way to keep up the pretense that it is science.
If by "ID" you mean the Christian creationist driven ID movement then - Yes. I am not disagreeing with that.
But is ID simply a North American Christian creationist invention? Or is it something that transcends particular religions that present day Christian creationists have seized upon as a means to an end?
I would say the latter. Do you really disagree?
The evidence is clear that the modern ID movement in the US started after the Edwards decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was "designed" to replace creation "science" and get Christian fundamentalism back into the schools in the false guise of science. This was shown in detail in the Dover decision.
So the ID movement in North America is founded upon Christian attempts at social acceptance. Yeah - I don't dispute that.
But does disproving Christian creationsit arguments refute ID arguments? That is my question. That is my point.
We can both agree that the present social climate in the Christian West makes the two things socially indistinguishable and I won't argue with you. But does that make the arguments against ID the same as those against Christian notions of creationism? I say no.
If you disagree, show where this is incorrect.
Because I can advocate the IPU as the designer of the universe, be totally anti-Christian and still make ID arguments.
Which part of that do you not understand?
But be prepared to show how the Discovery Institute, and their tame creationist scientists, are promoting actual science instead of a narrow brand of fundamentalist Christianity. What is their research budget? Where are their laboratories? Do they employ any scientists who are not dedicated creationists first?
So showing that all creationists support ID is the same as saying that all IDists are creationists? Is that what you are saying?
I personally know people who if you ask them "is there evidence of design in nature?" will say quite possibly yes. Yet they would cringe in horror at the idea of being classed as Christian creationists.
How do you reconcile that with your absolute assertion that the ID and Christian creationism are identically the same thing?
They obviously are not. Whatever political fight you need to have pretending the two are evidentially the same serves no-one but the liars and evidence deniers that I would hope me and you are both against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 773 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2010 2:29 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 782 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2010 7:57 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 780 of 1273 (544003)
01-22-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 776 by Iblis
01-22-2010 4:07 PM


Re: Belief and Evidential Claims
I don't understand the IPU's motivation to waste our tax dollars getting herself into science class then?
Her Pinkness has no desire to be mentioned in any science classroom.
I think she would much more interested in invading sunday schools and bible studies.
She abhors such things. And would ban them if not for the principle of non-interference.
Let's face it, ID is a failed concept. Dover finished him. He needs a new name.
Legaly? Yes. Spiritually? Yes. IPUism is the true path to redemption. Why not?
As Smooth has demonstrated repeatedly, Dembski's methodology only applies to lifeforms.
OK. So the IPU nly concerned itself with life-forms. What is your point? The IPU is the designer. Whether uou believe this or not the evidence of design is obvious and prevalent.
You are in denial regarding the design that is all around us.
It won't help us distinguish lighthouses from pulsars, or broken rocks from tools. Nor can anything specific be said about the identity of the designer; it could be an alien, it could be a Jew / wizard, it could be an endless chain of turtles. It's not supposed to matter!
Oh you fool! Believe and you will see. In the meantime trust us that have expereinced her pinkness and accept the logic of design in nature as being evidence of an immaterial supernatural designer no matter what you believe that designer to be.
So fine, let's call a spade a spade. Generic organic designer!
Call her that if it makes you happy. But the IPU is the majesterial intelligence behind the design of all nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by Iblis, posted 01-22-2010 4:07 PM Iblis has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 781 of 1273 (544004)
01-22-2010 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 774 by Nuggin
01-22-2010 2:57 PM


Re: Belief and Evidential Claims
You are arguing that _theoretically_ there could be an IDer who is not a Creationist.
Yes, _theoretically_ there could be.
But do we have real life examples?
Who cares? If the arguments and evidential, claims of ID are valid does that make the claims of creationism valid? Conversely if the claims of biblical creationists are refuted does that refute the evidential claims of IDists?
Is it really so outrageous to point out that the two are not evidentially equivalent?
Islamic IDers are still believers in the Jewish Wizard, just like the Christians.
So now you are saying that Islamic IDists are the same as biblical creationists? What?
I'm not saying there couldn't possibly be a Hindi IDer, but I certainly have never heard of one.
Dude I know various non-religious people who would be inclinded to agree that nature indicates some sort of godly/deistic design of some vague sort. Whether it be morality, biology, vaguely theistic evolutionism, the physical constants of the universe or whatever. Yet none are biblical creationists in terms of belief.
How does that reconcile with your assertion that ID and creationism are one and the same thing?
So where does that leave us? Can we take any IDers claims to NOT be a Creationist on face value? I seriously doubt it.
If every biblical creationist supports ID does that mean that every IDist is a Christian creationist?
Surely the answer to this question is - NO.
Yet you seem to be saying that the two are logically equivalent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 774 by Nuggin, posted 01-22-2010 2:57 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 784 by Nuggin, posted 01-22-2010 8:21 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 783 of 1273 (544009)
01-22-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 782 by Coyote
01-22-2010 7:57 PM


Re: What is ID?
Given this, I stand by my comment -- in the US, and currently, intelligent design is the same as the "ID Movement." The differences are insignificant.
OK fine. But do you think that refuting the Christian notions of biblical creationism invalidates the evidential basis of ID as a whole?
Or do you think that the claims of ID need to be logically and evidentially refuted in their own right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 782 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2010 7:57 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 785 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2010 8:27 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024