This is getting easier. Most all I have to do is go back to my previous posts and cut-and-paste what I've already quoted with little to add.
It seems like nobody reads it, just responds without actually reading the references presented, brief as they are.
BTS:
ID is not philosophically opposite to atheism. Theism is philosophically opposite. You can be a theist and not believe in ID.
Wrong.
You can also be a theist and believe in ID, but you cannot be an atheist and believe in ID.
Indeed, it is not. ID makes specific claims going beyond the claim that God is the originator of the Universe.
Since you evidently did not read it:
From my post #267 above (partial quote from the New World Encyclopedia):
Ref: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design [emphases mine]
. . . Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things.
Here is a partial quote from the DI's mission statements (quote from my posts #262 and again in patrially in #263 above):
Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.[emphasis mine]
===========
Cofty:
Lets get specific. Do you believe that any feature of the natural world is too complex to be explained by a naturalisitc process and needed the intervention in real time and space of an intelligent agent?
Cofty, what you just cannot seem to comprehend is that it is immaterial what I personally believe. I could be an atheist, an agnostic, a deist, a theist or a raving fundamentalist, and it does not change the fact that ID, as defined in the dictionary and the New World Encyclopedia (which definitions I go by), which agrees with DI's published definition of ID, is that it is explicitly defined as not being "Creationism" as it is defined in the dictionary. I specifically do not go by the definitions insisted upon by biased opposers of ID. (I've been very "specific" about that.)
If you do you are a creationist. Not as nutty as Ken Ham and Dwayne Gish perhaps but in the same unscientific camp.
Wrong. Here's the definition of Creationism again (from post #272 above):
Dictionary definitions:
cre·a·tion·ism
[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. ( sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.
Cofty, did you even bother to read the above definition especially the highlights?
With reference to the above definition, I'll quote again from my reply above to BTS in this post, from the New World Encyclopedia:
ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, . . .
Therefore, if I do not believe all things were created in their present form (i.e., "substantially as they now exist"), AND if I do not believe the Genesis account is literal, AND if I do not believe each newborn is directly created by God, AND if I believe in observed evolution over billions of years not 6000 years, I'm not, by definition, a Creationist.
Put another way (againi), if I am not a fundamentalist, evangelical YEC Bible literalist, I'm not a Creationist.
If all you mean is that evolution is sufficient to explain all of life but you believe there was an original cause behind it all then you have no common ground with ID. You are a theistic evolutionist and you may want to consider the points in the OP.
That all depends on your definition of theism. In the broad sense, theism is almost indistinguishable from deism, except it is a little more monotheistic religiously. Taking your advice again, here is a Google dictionary definition of "theism":
the·ism
[thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).
While this is closer to the definition of ID than "Creationism" (especially 2.) ID still does not define the "intelligence" specifically as a god and definitely does not define it as a ruler of the universe. Theism does, generally speaking, but ID does not, and therein lies the difference.
Apart from that, he has not/will not interfere with his creation,
That fits the definition of ID with the exception (and this is probably why you oppose it), ID does not specify that a creator cannot be involved ongoing with creation. It just is--as you complain--non-specific about that. ID does allow for the possibility that intelligence is involved on-going with evolution. That is a little different than theistic evolution.
But we don't know this. binadub has still to share his thoughts on anything specific.
I'm being very specific about what I'm arguing.
Specifically, I am convinced that your definitions (along with most exJW skeptics) of both ID and Creationism are contrary to the formal definitions presented in dictionaries and encyclopedia. I specifically believe the definitions in the dictionaries and the New World Encyclopedia are correct. Therefore I believe it is misleading to present ID as Creationism, thereby misrepresenting ID.
Knowsnothing:
Ok binadub, you do not believe in Creationism. Rather, you seem to believe in a deity that was the first cause that set into motion the universe. Apart from that, he has not/will not interfere with his creation, for lack of a better term.
I believe that is close to the correct definition of Intelligent Design (i.e., ID), although ID does not specify whether "he" does or does not involve with evolution. That is left to the "unknown."
Your belief is compatible with Deism, and it in no way interferes with science.
As I have said numerous times in this thread (in fact Cofty accused me of injecting "deism"), to my understanding of the term, you are correct--deism is compaatible with ID. (Caveat: Don't confuse my belief with my insistence on the correct definitions of ID and Creationism. I have not been discussing my theological beliefs. I have been arguing definitions, specifically that ID is not Creationism.
There are still so many unknowns to be discovered.
Knowsnothing, that is probably the most intelligent comment that has been made in this whole thread.
And incidentally, fwiw, ID does not necessarily represent my personal perspective. (But that's beside the point.)
My point is just too simple: Intelligent Design is different than Creationism--one is religious the other is not.
~Binadub
