Over at the Pandering Thumb, I’ve been in discussion with the rabid anti-creationists, discussing the merits of Intelligent Design (ID). Let me tell you, it’s hard to maintain my even demeanor while being insulted and made fun of, but it’s a good discipline to learn – God is showing me that if I want to be mature, I have to learn to not return insult for insult, but continue to be kind, and model the type of discourse I expect from others who disagree. I’m learning that here as well.
But I want to provide some resources for those who ask "What is the difference between creationism and ID? Aren’t they really the same thing? Isn’t ID just a creationist ploy to sell a non-religious version of creation science?"
- Slate Magazine (secular media) – "The limited scope of Intelligent Design theory makes it compatible with a wide range of views. Some prominent ID theorists believe in evolution—or at least that species can change over time—and many believe that the Earth was created more than 10,000 years ago. But there are also ID theorists who believe in a literal reading of Genesis." This link also has a nice audio link from NPR.
- Of Pandas and People (ID book) – "The idea that life had an intelligent source is hardly unique to Christian fundamentalism. Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs and normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source." (Of Pandas and People, pg. 161)
- The Discovery Institute (Intelligent Design Proponents) – "Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. "
- Reasons to Believe (Old Earth Creationists) – "Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars. Such a model does not lend itself to verification, nor can it make specific, credible predictions. On both counts, scholars, particularly scientists, would be reluctant to acknowledge the concept’s viability and give it serious attention. Nor does this approach offer them spiritual direction." (audio link)
- Answers in Genesis (Young Earth Creationists) – "Since the only thing in their platform which comes close to being a commonly-shared presupposition is a negative (naturalism is wrong), they can provide no coherent philosophical framework on which to base the axioms necessary to interpret evidence relevant to the historical sciences (paleontology, historical geology, etc). So they can never offer a ‘story of the past’, which is one more reason why they must continually limit the debate to one of mechanism—and then only in broad, general terms (designed vs undesigned).They generally refuse to be drawn on the sequence of events, or the exact history of life on Earth or its duration, apart from saying, in effect, that it ‘doesn’t matter’. However, this is seen by the average evolutionist as either absurd or disingenuously evasive—the arena in which they are seeking to be regarded as full players is one which directly involves historical issues. In other words, if the origins debate is not about a ‘story of the past’, what is it about?"
- Access Research Network (creationists) – "Although intelligent design is compatible with many "creationist" perspectives, including scientific creationism, it is a distinct theoretical position. In fact, there are only two general views that aren’t compatible with intelligent design: 1) a radical naturalism that denies the existence of any non-human intelligence, theistic or otherwise and 2) conventional theistic evolution. It may seem surprising that the second view, conventional theistic evolution, is incompatible with intelligent design, since it clearly embraces the existence of God. But the view we generally associate with "theistic evolution" denies that God’s creative activity can be empirically detected."
- The Panda’s Thumb (evolutionist) – "With ID getting lots of press these days, and with an on-going court case trying to establish if ID is any different than creationism of yore, people can sometimes get confused about what exactly ID is. This can’t possibly be due to the ID advocates’ own equivocation and ambiguity, it must somehow be our fault, because otherwise they wouldn’t keep blaming us." (NOTE: They don’t think there is any significant difference between ID and Creation Science)
- TalkOrigins (evolutionist) – "Intelligent design is defined and treated as a form of creationism by its supporters. (The ideas listed here are prevalent in the ID movement, but there may be individual members who disagree with some of them.) Intelligent design’s main characteristics — rejection of naturalism, denial of evolution, belief in abrupt appearance and supernatural design, emphasis on gaps in the fossil record, claims of scientific support, claims that evolution is a threat to society, and support for "teaching the controversy" — are essentially unchanged from young-earth creationism of the 1970s"
Over at the Pandering Thumb, I've been in discussion with the rabid anti-creationists, discussing the merits of Intelligent Design (ID). Let me tell you, it's hard to maintain my even demeanor while being insulted and made fun of, but it's a good discipline to learn – God is showing me that if I want to be mature, I have to learn to not return insult for insult, but continue to be kind, and model the type of discourse I expect from others who disagree. I'm learning that here as well.
Observer, being nice doesn't mean I have to go without a little humor, esp. when I'm not picking on a person – organizations are so much more fun to parody. You Pharisees are so picky. At least I'm not using four letter words like I'm tempted to do.
Do you regard being pointed to good science as "insulting?"
In federal court, now several times, in fair trials, creationists have been unable to draw any distinction between intelligent design and other forms of creationism. Do you consider it an insult to have that pointed out in response to claims there is some difference that, somehow, y'all just can't seem to get into print?
Or do you intend that as an insult to the duly appointed, non-activist judges who made the decisions? Do you consider it an insult to be asked about your motivations, or should we assume some motivation on your part?
No, being pointed to science ("good" is your qualifier) is fine, but namecalling, patronizing attitudes, and such are insulting.
Losses in federal courts to not assure that we have arrived at the truth, esp. with activist judges and poor cases presented by creationists. Losing court cases is worth considering, but in no way conclusive regarding the truthiness ;) of creatism – it may be our implementation that is merely off.
Regarding getting into print, the point has been made, but not answered well, that teh science establishment black-balls people who even suggest that the common evolutionary orthodoxy may be wrong. Getting printed is in some sense very political – sure, you may need "good" science to get published (despite the fact that up to 50% of articles are repudiated – doesn't say much for the peer review process – do you consider that an acceptable rate of misinformation?), but that may not be enough.
I have no problem discussion motivations.
Quote from Ed: Do you regard being pointed to good science as "insulting?"
Non-sequitor. Being pointed to quality science doesn't preclude that the manner of such pointing could insulting toward the questioner.
Quote from Ed: In federal court, now several times, in fair trials, creationists have been unable to draw any distinction between intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
Does else anyone see how Ed is unable to write a sentence without spin.
First, why should creationist be the asked to make distinctions regarding ideas they not respresentative of .i.e. Intelligent Design?
Second, simply because one fails to note a distinction between two things does it necessarily follow that there is no distinction between the two things being considered?
Quote from Ed: Do you consider it an insult to have that pointed out in response to claims there is some difference that, somehow, y'all just can't seem to get into print?
Yes, because it insults logic (i.e. it is false, a red herring, and proves nothing even if it wasn't false) which I believe should be used in rational discuss which is something Ed knows nothing about or is willing engage in.
Quote: Or do you intend that as an insult to the duly appointed, non-activist judges who made the decisions?
Who decided that he was non-activist? Because you say so? Is disagreed with a judge by definition an insult Ed? Seem you want to disallow debate and disagreement by calling everything you don't like an insult. I find that insulting to rational discussion.
Quote from Ed: Do you consider it an insult to be asked about your motivations, or should we assume some motivation on your part?
Yes. I consider it a genetic fallacy to be asked about motivations before we debate the merits of the issue at hand and do that to your opponents is to fail the principle of charity toward those with whom you disagree with IS to insult them. Its called poisoning the well Ed, look it up.
Observer, being nice doesn't mean I have to go without a little humor, esp. when I'm not picking on a person – organizations are so much more fun to parody. You Pharisees are so picky. At least I'm not using four letter words like I'm tempted to do.
Seeker, I have to disagree. Over at PT the use of pejoratives is pervasive (e.g. refering to ID proponents as IDiots). This significantly dulls the edge of their arguments. Christians must choose their words carefully, as they are at all times under observation a examples to the world. For me, your use of "pandering" and "rabid" partially negated the point you were making, and was particularly disturbing on a site describing itself as "Christian perspectives". Even in your response to me you turned to the pejorative "Pharisee".
I see. Well, are you saying I can't call their site Past Dumb either? Sheesh.
Never! It's a free country, and you're still free to make a fool of yourself.
Failing to come up with an argument for ID that's actually different from the ones for creationism is just more of the same. That's why the IDiot label sticks so firmly.
"Who decided that he was non-activist? "
In the case of Judge Jones, those deciding he was non-activist include George W. Bush, Orrin Hatch, John Kyl, and others.
What do you know that they don't?
I said:
Septeus 7 said:
There's no spin there. Heck, I could make it more accurate and point out that no one had been able to draw any distinction between intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
Or are you now trying to deny that "intelligent design" was the phrase the "Foundation for Thought and Ethics" replaced "creationism" with in their counter textbook? I'm only relying on the sworn testimony of creationists in court — are you saying they'd lie?
Not just sworn testimony. There were also drafts of "Of Pandas And People" showing how "creationists" were replaced by "design proponents", with one intermediate having "cdesign proponentists". Of course, the "evidence" and arguments for "creationism" and "intelligent design" were the same.
Needless to say, the forensic analysts had a field day with that one.
"intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. "
Can anybody tell me how such an experiment would be organized, carried out, evaluated and reviewed? Are there currently any such tests being carried out?