Another view of ID:
What is "Intelligent Design?" Does that Mean Creationism Is Dead?
by Swan 43 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
seattleniceguy
Hello Swan,
ID really is just Creationism in a shiny new wrapper, as you say. It's not science because it doesn't propose any testable hypotheses. The ID camp just wants teachers to suggest that some sort of God-person had a hand (What kind of hand? They aren't willing to say or propose any experiments to find out.) in some sort of mechanism that somehow put together the universe we now see. How incredibly helpful. Also, they want to put stickers in books saying that evolution is "only a theory" (as contrasted with...?).
ID has nothing to teach! Can you imagine the tests?
Q. Describe some of the mechanism(s) by which the present diversity of life may have come to be.
A. An intelligent Creator made it happen.Q. Briefly describe the principles of Natural Selection.
A. Darwinian rubbish. God made all the aminals.SNG
-
AlanF
So-called Intelligent Design or ID is a new-fangled form of creationism, but the people promoting it are not generally associated with the traditional Young-Earth Creationists. The latter are generally either Seventh-Day Adventists who follow the teachings of George McCready Price, or Evangelicals who follow the teachings of Henry Morris and others like him.
Modern YECism got its main kickoff in 1961, when Henry Morris and John Whitcomb published The Genesis Flood, which was a sort of updated version of Price's writings such as his 1923 book The New Geology. Morris went on to found the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, and has published dozens of books promoting his YEC views. Of course, even though Morris and company bill their views as "Scientific Creationism", these views are nothing but mythical nonsense.
The self-styled Intelligent Design movement got its kickoff in 1991, when Phillip Johnson (then a law professor at U.C. Berkeley) published Darwin On Trial. The book's main thesis was that Darwinism is not proved and does not really explain anything. Others soon jumped on Johnson's bandwagon and have published an increasing number of books and other works.
Johnson converted to Christianity in the early 1980s (I think) and soon became quite evangelical in outlook. In 1985 Michael Denton published Evolution On Trial, which was a strong but rather wrongheaded critique of Darwinism (around 1997 Denton repudiated some of his arguments and made it clear that he accepts evolution in the general sense and a limited form of Darwinism). Johnson accepted Denton's arguments, and over his publishing career has expanded upon them. Johnson credits Denton for sparking him on his ID career, and Denton has loosely joined forces with Johnson.
While ID proponents are extremely careful to avoid theological references in their literature intended for consumption by non-religious people or the undecided, in private and in certain other circles they unhesitatingly state that their goal is to overthrow Darwinism so as to bring people to Christ. Thus, despite their public protestions, their motives are religious, not scientific. Obviously they're only using a facade of scientific respectibility to cover over their religious motives, and are therefore dishonest.
Nevertheless, I think that some ID arguments and objections to Darwinism have some validity. Not nearly as much as they claim, but some. For example, natural selection cannot explain everything in biology, and is obviously an incomplete theory. And the study of abiogensis is in its infancy. But that's only to be expected with a science as complicated as evolutionary biology -- there are many things not yet understood.
Perhaps the biggest problem with ID (igoring the dishonesty of its most vocal promoters) is that it doesn't offer any explanations for anything. All these people do is criticize Darwinism and abiogenesis -- not evolution as a whole -- and hope that their brand of creation belief will somehow fill the vacuum. Well it doesn't work that way. IDers need to provide a coherent explanation of the evolution of life (which most admit happened) that has as its prime mover whatever Designer they like, and give a scientifically satisfactory answer as to who and what this Designer is. To date, the only entity they've given -- in private -- is the Christian God.
AlanF
-
BrendaCloutier
Johnson converted to Christianity in the early 1980s (I think) and soon became quite evangelical
Nothing worse than a recent convert or a recently recovered addict....
AlanF I tend to agree with you on many points. Science is truly in it's infancy, being only what, 5-600 years old? I'm speaking of Newton, etc.
That today "we" are able to identify human DNA is amazing at best. Putting a man on the moon 36 years ago and returning them to earth alive, sending probes into space, the Hubble telescope, micro imaging, etc., are incredible scientific developments allowing us the mere beginning of understanding. And this technology is getting smaller-better-faster on a daily(?) basis.
Is their an intelligent source to the universe(s)? The answer of "yes" can be considered a childlike explanation. It could just pan out to be true.
I'm willing to change my understanding of god's existence (at the core of the universes and the core force powering the universes, whos laws are those of science, i.e., mathmetics, physics, magnetics, gravity, etc.) when someone shows me empirical evidence that I can understand that is proof positive I am wrong.
I have been (admitted to being) wrong at least once, and then I was mistaken.
I'm sure the counter claim to this by the athiest is show proof that god does exist, and that they, too, are wrong.
Hugs and Peace
Brenda
-
Carmel
Well it seems to me as a "believer" in neo Darwinism, that many make that into a religion. So it would seem that teaching it as the only "scientific" reality is a form of dogmatism reminisicent of 5th century Catholocism. The CNN article about the suit refers to separation of church and state. Wonder what church? What religion? Christianity is not the only religion that touts creationism based on mythical stories. Lets get real, the ACLU doesn't always get it right!
carmel of the "designer group"
-
metatron
I am utterly astounded by the current blindspot in scientific thinking about life and the
world we live in. Let me try again:
Where's the human blueprint kept? Celera ( human genome project conclusion) plainly
said that the genome IS NOT a blueprint! Fuzzy reductionist thinking keeps trying to
reduce human form and ability to a brief code - much of which is shared with mice and bananas!
It seems far more likely to me that genes are just a token handed you by a hat check girl.
She gives you your coat and umbrella but has no blueprint for producing them.
Modern science has followed a line of reductionistic thought that treats genes as a landfill
of causation - are you gay? have musical talent? intelligent? alcoholic? You just got stuck
with an arbitrary arrangement of nucleic elements fastened to a helix!
Science - or what passes for it currently - is simply ignoring the ultimate FACT that the
universe is ARBITRARY - it 'just is'. While a few mavericks discuss paradoxes
- like Schrodinger's Cat - , most just keep plodding down the same silly path
in trying to impute all end effects to simple atoms. Once you grasp the above,
finding intelligence distributed thruout nature looks pretty reasonable
metatron
-
AlanF
Brenda said:
: Nothing worse than a recent convert or a recently recovered addict....
Ain't it the truth!
: ... Science is truly in it's infancy, being only what, 5-600 years old? I'm speaking of Newton, etc.
Exactly, and people who don't really understand science -- unfortunately, often those with religious preconceptions -- often forget that. That's why I cringe when I see people criticize science for reasons like, "If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they cure cancer?" Who's "they"? Or like, "Evolutionists can't prove that life arose from nothing, so God did it!"
: ... And this technology is getting smaller-better-faster on a daily(?) basis.
That it is. I'm taking a course right now in "semiconductor device physics" and have been astounded to learn that the smallest layers of stuff in cutting-edge transistors are only 2-3 atoms thick. That's almost beyond belief! And the transistor was only invented in 1946!
: Is their an intelligent source to the universe(s)? The answer of "yes" can be considered a childlike explanation. It could just pan out to be true.
It might, and it might not. That's why I remain an agnostic.
: I'm willing to change my understanding of god's existence (at the core of the universes and the core force powering the universes, whos laws are those of science, i.e., mathmetics, physics, magnetics, gravity, etc.) when someone shows me empirical evidence that I can understand that is proof positive I am wrong.
I doubt there'll ever be positive proof one way or another. Weight of evidence -- now that's another matter.
: I have been (admitted to being) wrong at least once, and then I was mistaken.
: I'm sure the counter claim to this by the athiest is show proof that god does exist, and that they, too, are wrong.
To a certain extent, yes. But the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence puts the burden of evidence on the believer in the Christian God, Allah, Zeus, or whatever god one postulates. Weight of evidence, once again.
Carmel said:
: Well it seems to me as a "believer" in neo Darwinism, that many make that into a religion.
Many do, but that doesn't mean it actually is a religion. Otherwise we'd have to say that any strongly held opinions about anything are religious beliefs.
: So it would seem that teaching it as the only "scientific" reality is a form of dogmatism reminisicent of 5th century Catholocism.
Not really. There's a great deal of evidence -- not mathematical proof -- in favor of neo-Darwinism, and even more evidence supporting the fact that life has evolved (by whatever means) over geologic time. Science, of necessity, must teach whatever the most competent practioners of science say the evidence supports best, and in this case, the evidence in favor of evolution and Darwinism is far stronger than that in favor of any sort of creationism. Some people might claim, as an alternative to the theory of gravity, that little gods make planets go round the sun, but science can't teach such an idea as an alternative to gravity. Nor can it teach creationism as an alternative to "natural" explanations.
: The CNN article about the suit refers to separation of church and state. Wonder what church? What religion?
Doesn't matter. The Constitution states that the government is not to establish a religion of any sort, but is to keep its hands off religion -- with the obvious limitation that it can't allow religions to break normal laws. When government-sponsored teachers teach religious ideas -- which all forms of creationism are -- then they run afoul of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. That's all the ACLU is pointing out.
: Christianity is not the only religion that touts creationism based on mythical stories.
Which is why the Constitution is written as it is, to cover all bases. That way, if Hare Krishna's managed to gain political power in the U.S., they couldn't teach Hindu creation myths in the schools.
: Lets get real, the ACLU doesn't always get it right!
True, but they have it right in this case. People are completely free to teach religious ideas to anyone they can get to listen, but teachers in public schools must comply with Constitutional directives.
AlanF
-
AlanF
So, metatron, if the universe is arbitrary, just what, in your opinion, causes all humans to end up looking much the same, if not DNA acting as a "blueprint"? Or more correctly, as the core algorithm of a rather complex cellular automaton?
AlanF
-
ColdRedRain
That's what I mean. It was promoted as Scientific Creationism, and they harped about it being science, not theology. Now ID is more non-theological? Then are they saying by implication that Scientific Creationism was religion, not science?
One doesn't have to be a religous theologist to believe in intelligent design. Case in point, that scientist that reverted from being atheist the other day. You can say he's far from beign a theologist, since he disavows any connection to any Abrahamic gods, but rather, he recognizes a god that depends less on theology and more on philosiphy. Creationism however is a religious teaching. To believe in creationism is to believe in intelligent design coupled with a brand of theology. Much like being an athiest and a Darwinist. You can be an athiest without being a Darwinist.
-
MungoBaobab
It used to be that the JWs said evolution had no foundation; that there was no evidence for it. Now it touts evolution as unproveable. "Well you can never prove it. It's an unprovable theory."
I heard those arguments, and I thought to myself, Now where did I hear that kind of statement before? Then I remembered. All those detective movies/TV shows.
Detective: ..And what a coincidence you just took out a $100,000 life insurance policy on your wife. What did your mistress think of that? And by the way, just where were you Wednesday night?
Suspect: You say I have the motive, but what you don't have is a witness or a murder weapon. You can never prove I did it, Detective.
And we all now, once the guy says that, he's guilty. The allegation is true. Intelligent Design is a PC term for Creationism. Atomic theory, plate tectonic theory, economic theory, none of it comes with a disclaimer on the school textbook. Why should biological theory be any different?