binadub - you are confusing me.
It's part of my charm.
No, I think we are confusing each other. It seems to be a matter of definition and semantics.
I'm seeing that I may have confused you to some degree because when I say "intelligent design" I mean it in a generic sense (no caps) whereas I think you see Intelligent Design as an organization, equating it with the Discovery Institute. I see it as a theory that they are pressing, you see it as the organization. I see "intelligent design" as simply meaning a superior intelligence is responsible for creation as opposed to atheism.
I have never called ID a religion. It is creationism in disguise so perhaps you extrapolated from that?
You're saying ID is not a religion, but it is "creationism."
So are you saying creationism is not religion?
In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms.
That's the whole premise for not allowing it to be taught in school--separation of church and state.
What "red herrings" are you referring to?
You seem to avoid my points that DI does not present ID as "creationism" (in the popular sense of being YECism). In spite of the fact that I have repeatedly said ID is not science, you asked me what ID has contributed to science. That, imo, is a red herring argument.
Come to think of it, however, I guess I could say that ID has contributed some scientists to science. :-)
(Are you a scientist?)
Also, on the red-herring point, you seem to keep trying to get the discussion with me to be about evolution. I'm not discussing evolution, and I'm sure you know that subject better than I. What I do maintain is that ID is not anti-evolution. It is, however, anti-atheist, and that may be the point of contention.
Intelligent Design (ID) is not religion and it is not science, - binadub
So we agree "Intelligent Design" is not science. That's progress. I would go further and say its anti-science. Of course its mission is to convince America that it is science.
It is not anti-science. I think saying its mission is to convince America that it is science might be a red herring. But I think it is true that they hope to get their theistic view represented, just as atheism is covertly implied in evolution. The DI people from what I can see do not deny evolution, but they would like to get mathematical "Probability" included as might relate to upward natural selection, as well as "Irreducible Complexity" and "Specified Complexity." I would have no problem with those theories being included in curriculum provided that they are 1) testable and 2) falsifiable, etc.
intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural... - DI website
Now you can claim they are lying, but regardless of the personal objectives of some of its proponents, that's from the mission statement is for Discovery Institute. - binadub
The main piece of evidence I presented was an official internal document published by the DI called the "Wedge Strategy" which was leaked and widely distributed. The DI have confirmed it is genuine. It proved beyond any shadow of doubt that thier ambiguity about the supernatural is a lie. They studiously avoid using the "god" word because they know that puts them in conflict with the constitution. You have fallen for their deception which is why you think ID is not creationism.
Why did you ignore the Wedge Document in your reply?
My reply was getting long and it was getting late. The Wedge document does not imo prove that "intelligent design" is religion. But again, I'm thinking of ID in a generic definiton, not an organization. I don't care what the proponents of the Design Institute believe so I have only given Wedge a cursory reading. It's my understanding that it was intended to be a fund-raising strategy to promote ID theory in the schools.
Let me try to explain it with an illustration.
Let's say a company (Co-1) is in competition with another company (Co-2), so they plan a strategy to expose corruption in the other company. Their motive for doing this is to gain competitive advantage in order to make a greater profit rather than for justice. So they actively implement their plan to expose corruption in the other company and they eventually succeed.
Now from my perspective, I don't care what the motive of Co-1 is. All I'm concerned with is that the corruption in Co-2 was exposed. Regardless of C0-1's reasons, the result was a revelation of what is true.
So I don't care what DI's alleged motives are as long as the legal system keeps them on track with their stated purpose as it is now presented. In that regard I think the opposition they get from your community is a good thing, because that constant criticism will force them to keep it legal.
The issue is not about evolution versus religion, it's about atheism versus deism.
Nobody has raised deism. With very few exceptions ID proponents are theists. TE proponents are theists. If you want to discuss deism feel free to open a new thread.
*I* have raised "deism" because imo that IS the stated objective of "intelligent design" (generic definition). When DI states, as it does in my quote above, and you quoted my quote in your reply, that "intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural... - DI website
. . . THAT is deism by definition imo. If they go beyond deism, then it starts becoming religion.
We are discussing the merits of TE. I only raised ID to prevent confusion about the topic.
And I apologized for missing your point and was willing to let the topic of ID drop in this thread. You promised to address it in another thread, and I was even going to let that drop when you didn't. I have kept responding to you here because I didn't want to ignore your replies to me. I'm not trying to interfere with your TE discussion. I tend to agree with you about that.
You ask what I say Intelligent Design has contributed to science...Comment: Red herring...&Answer: Nothing--it isn't science.
ID is not science. ID is not religion. ID is not anti-evolution. Like atheism, ID is a philosophy about origin. - binadub
You are the only person who seems to think ID has any merit but who concedes its not science. You have missed the whole point of ID.
It seems to me that you miss the point of ID. That's where I think the confusion lies--our different definitions of what ID is. I think it's simply supposing a Creator based on viable theoretical argument to support it; you think it is an organized religious movement (YEC creationism).
I think a lot of things that are not science have merit. The point of contention of ID is opposition to atheism. I am not an atheist, so I think ID has merit. I assume you think atheism has merit. I don't accuse you of missing the point of atheism nor do I think I miss the point of atheism on the premise that I don't agree with it. ID is simply the theoretical antithesis of atheism; it is not science, nor anti-science, nor evolution, nor anti-evolution.
It [ID] has two central claims -
1. That an intelligent designer can be detected through the application of a the science of "specified complexity".
2. That certain molecular systems are "irreducibley complex" and require an intellgent designer.
These are sceintific claims - or to be more accurate they are psuedo-scientific claims.
I particularly tend to see merit in "specified complexity."
I think of it like this:
For simplicity's sake, there was a fellow in Italy in the 1600s who invented the piano. The piano is a complex musical instrument. It would seem the person who invented it had an extraordinary sense for the difference between pleasant sound and irritating noise and arranging different sounds into melodies. Of course the piano can make either kind of sound, melody or noise depending on how the different keys are pressed, in what order and combination, and in what rhythm. Now the odds ("probability science") of setting the piano out in a hail storm and getting a concerto are remote (a form of specified complexity).
Then Bach in the 1700s began writing down chords, and it is thought that over time this was the beginning of musical "theory." And many composers followed, implement that theory and advancing it, and musicians followed and beautiful music.
Now the inventor of the piano did not create all the beautiful music, and his instrument could be used to make harsh meaningless noise as well. The inventor just created the instrument upon which others developed theory and advanced the art of the music over time indefinite.
Another analogy was attributed to Newton as I heard it, that saying there is no god is like saying you get Webster's dictionary from an explosition in the printing shop. Or the arrangement of letters of the alphabet in this post are, as I understand it, an example of "specified complexity," not likely to happen by random chance.
I'm no scientist, but I personally do not consider that to be pseudo-science. It is observable, testable, and falsifiable. I think some scientists agree.
It is anti-evolution becasue it wants to insert the supernatural into a natural process. For example a lot of progress has been made in explaining the evolution of the bacterial flagellum but Behe et al continue to insist it must have a supernatural designer.
I'll quote DI's own statement from their Web site again:
"... intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural..." - DI website
To be fair, I am aware that belief in God is what the proponents believe personally. They believe in an intelligent creator and so do I, personally. But that is not what they are advocating be taught in the schools--because they know they can't. Nevertheless, I still want to make it clear that I do not support ID being taught in school science--because, as said, it is not science.
Perhaps you could sum up your personal position on evolution in a few words, it might help me understand your point. I am still puzzled about what you are saying.
My view of evolution or your view of evolution is immaterial to my points about what "intelligent design" is or is not. My point is simply that "intelligent design" is not Young-Earth anti-evolution creationism. And while that term is employed by religious apologists, it is not in of itself religion, and in particular it is not by definition YECism. I have no problem with observed evolution, and I believe a Creator is responsible.
I think we've more than covered it. Again, I apologize for getting it off track from your intended discussion. I would have been fine with it continuing in another thread.
Thanks though for a good discussion. I'm going to let you have the last word. :-)
~Binadub
