What will ID evolve into?

Creationist: one who believes god poofed mankind into existence via dirt. Design Proponent: one who believes man is a guided evolutionary result of some intelligence... probably the judeo-christian god.Even though the design proponents are still fighting across the country, they haven't had a single victory in the courts and I think it's safe to say they won't have much better luck in the future. My question is what comes next? Will this animal mutate and evolve into something else again? Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix typo.

The indirect reference to a creationist textbook takes away from your point. You only need the two stages of creationism followed by ID, then pose your question. Let me know when you're done and I'll take another look.--Percy

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Good question. I don't know. Predicting the future was never my strong point But I do enjoy a good wild guess, so here we go:I'd like to think that it will evolve into nothing. That is, they'll finally understand that attacking a tank with a tooth-pick just doesn't work and they'll just go away. But that seems too easy and unlikely.My thoughts lean in the direction of deism. I think they will see the increasing popularity of deism and see something they think they can control or take advantage of. They will call themselves deists, and promote deism... but when push comes to shove they will again be shown for exactly what they are... and they will lose again. However, in the process, they will royally piss-off most of the honest-deists and we'll see a lot of venting on this forum. Especially when creation-deism reaches an area before honest-deism and deism gets a bad name. Things like that are going to make the honest-deists (rightfully) mad.

Wouldn't they want something that would appear more secular than deism?

I think they will patiently wait for a republican administration again and rehash their old arguments, which, I'm assuming, they'll tweek to make sound differently.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I would guess they'll find some area of science that they can try to twist to their liking. I know they already do this, but they'll just continue, and eventually "rebrand" themselves with a new name that would evoke that area of science in the lay public.My guess is Quantum Mechanics. I bet they'll latch more and more on the "spooky action at a distance" and such as a way to argue that not only was there some force that created the universe, it is still actively working in it. From there, they can swing things back to questions such as "What force" and the answer they'll expect people to answer is "God."

I think ID is already (after Dover) evolving in a case of convergent evolution into something like the "new age" few. Fuzzy, imprecise, misunderstanding and misusing science (Like "What the Bleep Do We Know?" ).They already want to "water down" science so it isn't so darned hard to play the game. They will go down the same path as though who suggest that scientific results are just another one of many world views.That is one path for them and I think they are already on it.The only other thing they can do is continue to make up things and carry on with time honoured creationist tactics. That appears to be, in the long term, an evolutionary dead end.On second thought, a branch of ID might continue to mutate into theistic evolution. Some seem close to that now really.

Probably.I was just guessing. I'm guessing that they will see the uselessness in attempting to force such a strictly defined system (science) into their malleable theology. Then I'm thinking they'll take a good look at their dwindling numbers and realize they need to do something to get more converts first.Since they're so good at lying to get scientific people to believe their junk... I'm assuming they'll try their hand at lying to get theological people to believe their junk.Winning over the bulk of Deists to the side of Creationism will give them the popular vote again. I don't think the Deists will fall for it, but... well... I don't really understand why anybody ever falls for it.But, it's just my shot-in-the-dark guess.

The latest trend amongst creationists (and by default, IDers) is to attempt to change science so that it will accommodate their beliefs, or as a fallback to distort the nature of science in the minds of the populace.Examples are "Its just a theory" and "teach both theories" which distort the scientific meaning of theory, while attempting to elevate religious belief to the level of a scientific theory. "Teach the controversy" and "Its only fair" are also a part of this dishonest approach.Another thing we see a lot of recently is the false distinction between "true" science and the rest of science, the latter of which presumably includes anything that contradicts creationists' religious beliefs.Finally, we have Behe's definition of science as given on the witness stand during the Dover trial. He had to admit that his definition of science was sufficiently broad as to include astrology. (Creationists have to make it that broad to include ID.)So until creationists come up with something to replace ID, they keep trying to distort what science is, as well as pretending that their religious beliefs are science--anything to wedge those beliefs into the schools.

---

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

The formal definition of scientific theory?
I don't really care because it never amounts to anything more that a weak debate tactic, nothing more than semantics.semantics: the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a wordNot something I dwell on because it doesn't substantiate a thing.Unfortunately we WILL always see it in this debate with the inference that evolution is labeled theory so it must be approahing established fact.What always bothers me is that if something was approaching established fact there would be no need for semantics of any kind.Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

Notice that it is creationists that are using semantics Not the real scientists. A theory is able to predict future scientific findings, something evolution has been very good at. That's why it's called a theory, because it meets criteria. It's not a matter of opinion.Creationists are not able to predict future discoveries, because when they do, their predictions are seldom correct. That's why it is not called a theory.Now, what will creationism "evolve" into? (love the delicious irony). It will probably become more like a cult, promoting anti-scientific dogma, and rely less on distorting facts as people are becoming better at seeing through their arguments. I'm guessing that the more conservative "young earth" creationists will deride the scientific method itself, continue calling evolutionists biased and predisposed toward a godless universe, will continue calling evolution immoral and continue stressing its incompatability with their particular interpretation of the Bible.More adventurous creationists may delve into the metaphysical, the frontiers of science, or speculate on the unknowns of quantum mechanics. The unknowns are where they will be more easily able to use "god-of-the-gaps" arguments and maybe, just maybe, actually find evidence of a divine creation in the distant past. Who knows? The truth is out there.

I presume that by "semantics" you mean pointing out what scientists actually mean when they call something a theory.The reason that there is a need to explain what scientists mean when they use the word "theory" is that creationists keep lying about this subject.Clearly, the fact that creationists lie and that scientists correct them has no bearing on whether evolution is well-established.The fact that creationists need to lie so much does, however, tell one a great deal about creationism.

If the book was closed on the basis of scientific PROOF there would be no need for insults and straw man arguments.Why is there an ever present need to attach "young earth theory" and the Bible to ID?
Do all proponents of ID claim that the account of life on earth follows the biblical account?
Are all proponents of ID required to support a young earth theory?If anything is predictable it is this tactic of assigning beliefs and statements, rather than simply presenting the scientific proofs that would effectively negate anything that contradicts Darwin.Claims that evolution predicts what will be found in the fossil record have to date achieved very little.For an evolutionist to predict that every fossil he digs up will be seen by him as a transitional isn't proof, instead it's self fulfilling prophecy.
Each and every fossil has to be a transitional based on his prior belief in common ancestry.Likewise for a believer in ID the fossil record supports his beliefs.
He sees separate and distinct species absent of transitionals.So as far as fossil evidence is concerned nothing short of an irrefutably defined fossil series of a transition will suffice to end the debate, nor should it on a question like this.What irrefutable scientific methods can be used to substantially rule out ID or evolution?
That should be the question if we are interested in science.
You seem to feel that methods do exist and have been used to remove all doubt.
So why do you go off on these sophomoric rants?
If the concrete evidence is in why is there a need for this garbage?There isn't much of this going on in regard to the speed of light or the force of gravity.
Now why do you suppose that is?
Let me give you my theory as to why....they have be measured and proven.Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

Those who would prefer not to discuss what might replace ID, in the same way that ID attempted to replace traditional creationism, shouldn't be posting here. Please find appropriate threads for what you'd like to discuss, or propose new threads over at [forum=-25].

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director