ID is a fraudulent means of promoting creationism

I still say that ID is merely creationism in disguise. I'm sure that many here won't agree with my opinion, so I'll provide evidence to back up my claim.

OK, let's evaluate the organization at the forefront of the ID "theory," the Discovery Institute...

According to Wikipedia, the Discovery Institute is "conservative Christian think tank, structured as a non-profit educational foundation." You don't say, but that's the first thing the site says. I added the emphasis, BTW.

Well, what do they say? If you Google "Discovery Institute," the first link maintains that it's a non-partisan think tank. Again, my emphasis. Ah, who do we believe?

Who Is Promoting Intelligent Design?

According to the New York Times, many of the 50 books put out by the foundation were published by religious presses like InterVarsity or Crossway (wait, stop the presses... I just couldn't resist). Leaders of the group also helped a Roman Catholic cardinal place an article in the NY Times that further divided the church and evolution. And, the Times maintains that the Wedge Document, put out by the institute in 1999, "sought 'nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies' in favor of a 'broadly theistic understanding of nature.'" Once again, my emphasis.

So, even though they favor a "broadly theistic" view of nature, ID has nothing to do with religion. Hmm... (Sure, this is only one group with this group, but a powerful group pushing changes in the schools and church on this issue surely carries a lot of weight, right?) I must also add that the institute is not solely concerned with ID, but ID is a big thing with them.

So, let's look at the origins of this institute. In '96, the institute was created through money provided by the MacLellan Foundation and Roberta and Howard Ahmanson; the latter are billionaires. The latter provided $750,000 over 3 years to the institute, and the MacLellan Foundation gave a smaller grant.

Upon closer inspection of the benefactors, the MacLellan Foundation "supports organizations 'committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ.'" You can see this on their own web page. And, according to this article, the Ahmansons are Christian Reconstructionists, people who favor overhauling all laws and replacing them with biblical laws.

Let's keep going. The organization has been getting increased funding, as seen in the Times article. Of 22 foundations that fund them, over 2/3 have religious goals in mind. Check out the article on some of these groups; the religious intentions are truly there.

So, though this only 1 group, yet a sizeable one, that is clearly masking creationism with ID, I feel that the entire "theory" is doing this. According to Wikipedia, the scientific community agrees with my notion that ID is not a theory. They even go so far to call it "junk science." Hell, the U.S. National Academy of Science also maintains that ID is not a theory.

What do ID proponents have to say about this? Naturally, they disagree. HOWEVER, peer reviewed research articles do not appear to exist for ID. Though the Discovery Institute would like you to believe that, Michael Behe himself, a staunch proponent of the "theory," gave sworn testimony this year in which he said no such articles exist. Only ONE article, written by Stephen C. Meyer (affiliated with the Discovery Institute), was published. Subsequently, the publisher withdrew the article from Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington , the peer review journal in which it was published. The reason: circumvention of the journal's peer review standards.

Face it, the people primarily supporting ID, such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer, are openly Christian. In fact, Wikipedia maintains that most ID proponents are evangelical Protestants.

So, it appears that, based on the evidence, ID is creationism in disguise. It may not be, but it sure as hell looks like it. Creationism says an intelligent being created all life; so does ID. People pushed for creationism to be taught in schools; people do the same for ID. People say creationism opposes and actually proves evolution wrong; same with ID. (Evolution, on the other hand, does not maintain that it proves either other idea wrong. Some proponents of evolution do, however)

So, should ID be taught in schools? Well, since it appears to be creationism in disguise, no. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v Aguillard that creationism violates the separation of church and state. Hence, it is not supposed to be taught in public schools.

So, there you have it. ID, the crafty phoenix of creationism. I gotta hand it to the IDers, though, they're pretty crafty.

Ok first every single one of your "points" was covered in my thread here and you know this 'cause you posted in it and this was pointed out to you.

Once again you've decided to wallow in ignorance an ignore the counters to, again, every single point you made. And you know this...if you were so sure of your position you would have dealt with these issues there instead of 'tucking tail and running here' to pretend as though you never heard the explanations.

Nice job btw turning the origins debate into an anti Christian rant, your a troll and completely ignorant about this....regardless of whether if it's your fear, dogma, or ignorance that prevents you from admitting it, i believe it's clearly evident to any objective member/lurker who has been following the debate.

Oh bud and by the way as far as "wikipedia say so" let's check your source as to the veracity of your source shall we....

Wikipedia (from wikipedia): It is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing articles to be changed by anyone with an internet connection.

Well nice try troll... maybe next time... or maybe join an actual ID discussion when you're done ranting against the faithfull and we'll see if we can't get that ignorance in check for ya. I thought i told you only one glass of haterade this morning "truthseeka"

Anti-Christian rant? Troll? I'd insult you, but I'm one of the unlucky posters here who always gets called on it.

Whatever. All that stuff is made up, huh? Even the Maclellan Foundation's own website, eh? The NY Times and Wikipedia wasn't enough, so I'll come back with the same info from other sources. I'll debunk the "irreducible flagellum" later.

Calm down guys, the topic and issues can be frustrating but we're all above that here.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Anti-Christian rant?

You called ID creationism thinly veiled at that. Creationism 99% of the time is dealing with Christianity, did you mean another faith? Did you provide the religous text used to generate the ID hypothesis or the ID hypothesis used to defend a religous text....actually making it creationism and not an anti - Christian rant?

Troll?

Speaking authoritatively on subjects you know little to nothing about, looks like baiting to me (aka trolling). Maybe i'm wrong, i'm sure you started this thread to learn and not spew propoganda. I could be wrong, sure...better?

I'd insult you, but I'm one of the unlucky posters here who always gets called on it.

If you say so. I never get hostile with these debates usually, and the pro-ID position is the minority position around ATS big time. The majority of members that i have respect and admiration for are infact anti-ID if you will, and they don't get me po'ed like a new troll will. They manage to show some class, i have made a decision on your objectivity and personality and well, you erk me. It's probably best we go our seperate ways...i wont respond to you or your posts from now on and you show me that same respect, agreed?

Whatever. All that stuff is made up, huh?

It's not made up, but it's not ID it's propaganda....you've been duped. Wiki has its uses for sure, but no, a ref. that can be edited at will by anyone isn't reliable. Saying ID is stealth-creationism or Christian fundamentalism is so far off the mark that i see it for what it is. It's(your post) talking about the Design theory of a couple centuries ago (Paley..again i covered him in my thread and why its not modern design theory).

I'll debunk the "irreducible flagellum" later.

You're really something special, bud. BTW if you've figured the series of small successive steps that 'built' the bacterial flagellum via NDT (falsifing the IDT claim and again covered in depth on a couple of my threads: Testing Intelligent Design Theory? and Protein Structures and Intelligent Design) DO NOT post that info here, you'll want to copyright it and publish a book probably 'cause your going to be rich!

You're something else, "i'll debunk the 'irreducible flagellum' later"...you're killing me guy.

Anyways my friend i've enjoyed these conversations i've learned so much i think we've really grown together. But now it's time to say goodbye...surely somebody else will argue with you, but i just ain't interested. Like i said we go our seperate ways here my friend, enjoy your stay at ATS and GOD bless ya.[/tear]

Regards,
-Rren

me

Anyways my friend i've enjoyed these conversations i've learned so much i think we've really grown together. But now it's time to say goodbye...surely somebody else will argue with you, but i just ain't interested. Like i said we go our seperate ways here my friend, enjoy your stay at ATS and GOD bless ya.[/tear]

OK, ok so i'm a tool too. I was having a bad day and took it out on you. Bad reaction on my part and i'll try an fix that here if i can.

Ok man i've been thinking about this and maybe i was too harsh. I haven't really talked about the ID "conspiracy angle" much and shouldn't have dismissed your post without commenting on the specifics... and actually from what i can tell Skeptic Overlord himself started this new origins forum because he believes in this conspiracy and thought it needed to be discussed. I disagree of course but who am i to say what you can discuss and where you can discuss it...

Although i feel that you've been more than a little antagonistic and i still don't think, based on what i've seen you post, your opinion is your own. Calling you a troll and totally de-railing your thread which is on the very topic this forum was created to discuss was uncalled for. So i'll try and make ammends and get out of the way after that... there's actually majority support for your position around here. *shrug*

Please read the links i provide to support my claims, i showed you that respect.

ID is a fraudulent means of promoting creationism

First i think you need to define what you mean by creationism. Most peoples definition would be something along the lines of; an attempt to defend the accuracy of the Genesis account of creation using science. Are you calling creationism something else? If not how/why do you feel that ID meets that criteria... making ID, creationism.

OK, let's evaluate the organization at the forefront of the ID "theory," the Discovery Institute...

First things first truthseeker, let's go to the source - www.discovery.org...

1)You used a 'wiki' to support the claim that they are a "conservative christian think tank", their not imo, although i was being misleading to suggest that's obvious. It's not and i can see why people take issue with some things that the 'Institute' does and says.

I still don't think it has jack to do with the science of ID, but i know nobody wants to hear that, especially the conspiracy theorists. The political goals and ambitions of the discovery institute are probably what started this controvercy and i'll be the first to admit that i don't like or agree with the political strategy... always have btw. I'll let someone else decide whether it's right or wrong, neccessary or not though, it's just not my style. It has nothing to do with ID as an origins theory imo and that's why i tend not to pay those issues much mind. But that's the issue here so i guess it's relevant... again.

Discover Institute and "Theocracy"
Overview: Periodically certain Darwinists make false and unsubstantiated claims that Discovery Institute advocates “theocracy” or is part of the “radical Christian right” or supposedly supports something called “Christian reconstructionism.” These charges are little more than smears, and they show the bankruptcy of the Darwinists’ own position. Rather than argue about the substance of the scientific debate over neo-Darwinism, all Darwinists can do is engage in baseless ad hominem attacks.

Also see The "Wedge Document": How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend

Here's their mission statement, where do you see the 'conservative christian thinking' that is pushing biblical creationism under the guise of a scientific ID or design paradigm?

Instead of the patient, mind numbingly slow process of gaining majority support they devised a strategy ("the wedge") and pushed the issue into the political arena. Although i understand why and i don't see the sinister ulterior motives that you guys do, i don't agree with this move. The mind numbingly slow process is just the way science has always worked and fundamental changes in the paradigm like ID proposes are not the type of thing i would like to see become political arguements because it only strengthens the opposition and forces them to hide behind dogma and not debate the science imho.

Discovery Institute link
Intelligent-design advocates have mixed reactions to the Christian right's support of their work. On the one hand, the movement is largely dependent on funding from wealthy conservative philanthropists. That, according to Meyer, is why a 1999 funding document from the Discovery Institute argued that intelligent design had "reopened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature", and would eventually lay the groundwork for a series of debates and legal challenges over what should be taught in America's classrooms.

Although Meyer is willing to promote such perceptions, he concedes that they can cause problems. For intelligent-design researchers who would like to see the concept peer-reviewed and accepted by the scientific community, the politics are frustrating, and potentially dangerous. The political goals associated with intelligent design lead many scientists to reject it outright as little more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo. "Some of the policy proposals that have been made, for example the Dover case, are frankly, from our point of view, distracting," says Meyer. "We want to focus on intelligent design as an emerging research programme."

According to the New York Times, many of the 50 books put out by the foundation were published by religiouspresses

You didn't want to comment on the content of any of the books published? How does the religion of the publishing company have any bearing on ID or whether it's creationism or not? The content may do that certainly but that's not what you're suggesting. So what's is your point here exactly... as it pertains to the topic at hand: ID is a fraudulent means of promoting creationism. You have yet to show ID as either fraudulent or creationism, only that it has support from some Christians... what do you think that means or proves?

Wedge Document, put out by the institute in 1999, "sought 'nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies' in favor of a 'broadly theistic understanding of nature.'" So, even though they favor a "broadly theistic" view of nature, ID has nothing to do with religion.

It just means that we're not here as some sort of a cosmic accident (materialism) which is what ID proposes and is not some big secret and not denied by any ID advocates that i know of. Which religion do you think an "overthrow of materialism" supports exactly? What do you think of theistic evolution? Why do you feel materialism as an origins methodology is supported by the evidence and should be the only scientific consideration re: origins?

.... add that the institute is not solely concerned with ID, but ID is a big thing with them.

The discovery Institute has a program called The Center for Science and Culture which is the intellignet design think tank. They are seperate and deal with the science and not the political issues. htp://www.discovery.org/csc/aboutCSC.php

So, though this only 1 group, yet a sizeable one, that is clearly masking creationism with ID, I feel that the entire "theory" is doing this. According to Wikipedia, the scientific community agrees with my notion that ID is not a theory.

Just to be clear you have only shown that ID has support among some members of the Christian community which is not in dispute and seems to be expected of a theory that counters materialism... "no duh" comes to mind. Christian support does not make it a conspiracy, or creationism and certainly doesn't make it psuedoscientific either. Matt put up a good post in the testing IDT thread(pg3) on the troubles new theories, that contradict accepted dogmas, have being accepted. You still have to dispute the hypotheses put forward by the ID theorists, hiding behind a stealth creationism arguement or rejecting it based on the metaphysical presupposition or materialism is a pretty weak argument imo.

The Wedge Strategy
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

What specifically do you take issue with? Why is it dangerous, psuedoscientific or intellectual laziness that might strike down the fundamental nature of science and logic and send us back to the Dark Ages?

...peer reviewed research articles do not appear to exist for ID....

I covered this in the testing IDT thread(pg1) and provided some links to the troubles IDTists have been having even getting their papers read much less reviewed... there's a reason opponents have devised and anti-wedge strategy which is making it almost impossible for IDTists to get published in the peer-review literature and its not based on the merits of the research... they're trying to discredit them. It works too, guys like you are always using the fact that its not published as evidence enough the theory isn't sound.

Only ONE article, written by Stephen C. Meyer (affiliated with the Discovery Institute), was published. Subsequently, the publisher withdrew the article from Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington , the peer review journal in which it was published. The reason: circumvention of the journal's peer review standards.

You've got hold of some bad info, and used it without checking to see if it was legit because it backed your preconceived opinion. Did you read the paper? It's available online for free and i provided you a link in another thread.
Anywho i assume you would consider NPR to be an objective source, yes? They published a story about this www.npr.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">here


It's not so cut and dry as you think or you would like people to believe. I really suggest you do some of your own research before promoting such spurios allegations, in keeping with the ATS creed of "deny ignorance". I'm not calling you stupid by saying your ignorant about ID, but don't let your opinion be spoon fed to you by the mainstream media. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge... not a slam on your character.

Face it, the people primarily supporting ID, such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer, are openly Christian.

Irrelevant. By your logic any scientist who is also a Christian or person of faith is unreliable. I'll let you respond to that before i give you a list of Christian scientists or the theories they are responsible for.

In fact, Wikipedia maintains that most ID proponents are evangelical Protestants.

Find a new source. Wiki is a good place to start, but you have to be able to back up the OP's opinion on any particular subject.

So, it appears that, based on the evidence, ID is creationism in disguise. It may not be, but it sure as hell looks like it.

Again all you've done is shown ID has some Christian support... that does not make it creationism. I think if you knew what actual design theory was you wouldn't throw around those accusations based on such flimsy "evidence".

Creationism says an intelligent being created all life; so does ID.

Creationism says that GOD created all and that the Genesis account is an acurate depiction of that creation, you're confusing the issue like so many, who don't know the actual theory, do.

People say creationism opposes and actually proves evolution wrong; same with ID.

Creationism stands in opposition to universal common ancestry, stating that all life evolved from seperate kinds instead of from just one. Evolution says nothing what-so-ever about how life got here (origins) it starts with the assumption that life is here (however it "became" is irrelevant to evolution) and then tries to show how organisms adapt and change over time.

Here's a short page you really should read:

But inclusion of design theory as part of the standard discourse of the scientific community, if it ever happens, will be the result of a long and difficult process of quality research and publication. It also will be the result of overcoming the stigma that has become attached to design research because of the anti-evolutionary diatribes of some of its proponents on the one hand and its appropriation for the purpose of Christian apologetics on the other. In these latter regards, the odds are stacked against it from the start.
...snip...
'design theory' is at best a means for mathematically describing, empirically detecting, and then quantifying teleology (goal-directedness) in nature, without prejudging where or whether it will be found. Secondly, if it is granted that teleology might be an objective part of nature, then it also has to be acknowledged that design research can be carried out in a manner that does not violate methodological naturalism as a philosophical constraint on science.
...snip...
In conclusion, it is crucial to note that design theory is at best a supplementary consideration introduced along- side (or perhaps into, by way of modification) neo-Darwinian biology and self- organizational complexity theory. It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful research paradigms, and to suggest that it does is just so much overblown, unwarranted, and ideologically driven rhetoric.

So, should ID be taught in schools?

I say no, it's incomplete and needs to find mainstream acceptance from the scientific community. Some seem to think the debate is already over and those people are who i take issue with. I say an objective look at the evidence from the larger community has yet to happen and if you spend anytime reading rebuttal information you'll see most objections to ID are philosophical and not scientific... but please man read some stuff from the ID theorists first.

So, there you have it. ID, the crafty phoenix of creationism. I gotta hand it to the IDers, though, they're pretty crafty.

I wonder who's being crafty here. You've made a pretty weak and circumstantial case completely negating the scientific arguments and instead shown how some Christians like it... therefore it must be bad.

Anyways man sorry again for losing my cool, insulting you and hijacking your thread. You actually did have some good questions... i still say you need to do some more of your own, objective, research before you present your opinion so boldly or matter-of-factly but many people share your concerns and if we few advocates ignore them or resort to throwing insults they'll never go away.

Well, I don't know what to say.

You kinda 180'd between your last 2 posts. I don't know what pisses you off about me disagreeing with you. If my position is weak compared to yours, you ought to be happy; that gives you more credence. Besides, scientists argue and debate all the time.

But, I do think I see what the problem has been in our discussions/arguments/debates. After thinking about it for a while, I feel that you have a different view on ID than the mainstream. It seems like you're saying that ID shows that an unidentified designer did all this. It looks like you might be saying it could be aliens, Allah, Cronos, or the Spaghetti Monster; with the theory, you just don't know who. But, I've seen you post things in other threads that say you believe in God.

That's fine, because, as you said, theist scientists exist. You know what IS the problem, though? These scientists leave God in their personal lives and stick to science in the workplace. The thing with ID is, you can't necessary do this. I don't care what you say, you're lying if you say that you don't mean your own deity when you refer to a designer. If you do, you're adding to the dogma of your religious beliefs.

But see, the people pushing ID do have an agenda. Why do you think they say, "teach the controversy in evolution?" Evolution itself does that; unlike religious dogma, it can change. Then, you see them say that either evolution should be taught as a false theory, or it should be taught side by side with ID, along with a disclaimer on evolution.

You disagree with that, and that's fine. But, you seem like you would want it to be taught eventually. IF ID ever makes it to theory status, I wouldn't have a problem with that. My problem is that people maintain that it IS already at theory status, and that's just a lie. It hasn't been tested, it doesn't make predictions, so how is it a theory? A hypothesis, sure, but not a theory.

The way I see it, it IS a fraudulent means of promoting creationism. Why? The fraud is in the effort to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling. Creationism took a blow there. Now, I see people, not only pushing for ID in schools, but pushing to ban evolution. There's another fraud. How does one hypothesis, even another theory, invalidate another by default?

Why else do I feel this way? The Discovery Institute, which has been leading the ID battle, was formed through the support of Christian billionaires and a Christian group, continues to receive funding from Christian sources, and has Christian members. The proponents of ID, whom you mentioned yourself, are Christians. Why is the preponderance of supporters of ID Christians? If it was more evenly divided across the religious (and even atheist) spectrum, I wouldn't see an agenda.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Well, I don't know what to say.

You kinda 180'd between your last 2 posts. I don't know what pisses you off about me disagreeing with you.

Yeah like i sad i was having a bad day (not ATS related) and i got frustrated that we were 'back at square one' on the ID debate after having spent so much time dealing with these issues that i believe to be irrelevant to whether or not ID is legitimate scientifically.

If my position is weak compared to yours, you ought to be happy; that gives you more credence. Besides, scientists argue and debate all the time.

"Your position" is weak imo because your opinion isn't based on your own research. I felt as though you were saying; these ID idiots are just a bunch of religous zealots who don't understand science. That's a weak position and you have nothing but your prejudice towards Christianity and some spurious conspiracy angle to substantiate that imho.

But the actual opposition to ID science is not weak. If it was my side would be winning, we ain't even close. Like i said closing the case based on metaphysical naturalism is weak, and that's the majority of the opposition argument imo.

But, I do think I see what the problem has been in our discussions/arguments/debates. After thinking about it for a while, I feel that you have a different view on ID than the mainstream.

You'll find after some more study (read the Dembski and Behe pages) that most actual ID theorists and proponents have a different view than that presented to the mainstream.

It seems like you're saying that ID shows that an unidentified designer did all this. It looks like you might be saying it could be aliens, Allah, Cronos, or the Spaghetti Monster; with the theory, you just don't know who. But, I've seen you post things in other threads that say you believe in God.

ID makes no effort to identify the designer and admits that it isn't capable to do so scientifically. In that respect ID doesn't violate methodological naturalism which is the philosophical constraint on scientific study. Yes the "designer" for me is GOD, for a Muslim it could be Allah, for a Hindu it would be Rama, for Raelins[sic?] aliens, for an atheist or an agnostic maybe some sort of imperceivable 'guiding force' etc, etc.

The point we are trying to make is that ID doesn't make any comment on that (pro or con) and not because IDTists refuse to, but because ID, as a method to formulate hypotheses, is unable to make such determinations and then test for them. The only thing that ID logically imlplies imo is that we are not here by accident. They base that on evidence and study of nature and not philosophy.

That's fine, because, as you said, theist scientists exist. You know what IS the problem, though? These scientists leave God in their personal lives and stick to science in the workplace.

That's the point man you accuse ID theorists of doing something they don't do. You base that on their personal philosophy and not the merits of the research and science they offer for review and critique(hence: "spurious allegations"). Read the rebuttals to some of the rejected papers and see how refutation of the evidence presented is replaced with theological arguments.

But see, the people pushing ID do have an agenda. Why do you think they say, "teach the controversy in evolution?" Evolution itself does that; unlike religious dogma, it can change. Then, you see them say that either evolution should be taught as a false theory, or it should be taught side by side with ID, along with a disclaimer on evolution.

It's not "anti-evolution" as you present it. It challenges neo-Darwinian principals as adequate to account for biological complexity, re: origins. It's not in opposition to the "Theory of Evolution" so much as the hypothesis of evolution. ID can change to as we identify what biological components are not irreducibly complex by the same methods that researchers use to falsify the NDT claim.

You disagree with that, and that's fine. But, you seem like you would want it to be taught eventually. IF ID ever makes it to theory status, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

We are in complete agreement here believe it or not.

My problem is that people maintain that it IS already at theory status, and that's just a lie. It hasn't been tested, it doesn't make predictions, so how is it a theory? A hypothesis, sure, but not a theory.

You need to read what the theorists actual say about the status of the "theory", you are misinformed. Many of the names you know say that metaphysical naturalism cannot be ruled out and infact say that that's what ID research hopes to find out. The field of molecular biology has been growing by leaps and bounds, we know things about biological complexity (specified, interlocking or irreducible) than we ever had when these issues were "decided"... the ND(hypothesis by the standards you apply to ID re: origins) explanation is outdated and no longer stands up to objective scrutiny. That's the critical look at neoDarwinian models that is being debated in the "school controvercy"... it's not the "man ain't no monkey", global flood, or young earth et al creationist arguements that most people think it's about.

How does one hypothesis, even another theory, invalidate another by default?

It don't, and again no respected ID theorist is suggesting otherwise. But you can't talk about design and not address materialism... they are mutually exclusive.

You have also brought up the "imperfect design" arguments against the idea of an "intelligent" designer. The reason they can't be answered by ID is because they are philosophical in nature therefore not something science can test to either validate of falsify. How do you know the "designer" didn't make this "imperfections" as part of his plan to make your spirit stronger? How do you know the we were not created perfectly but have subsequently "de-evolved" as a product of sin... or a pre-ordained plan... or because the spaghetti monster likes backwards eyeballs, uni-brows, farting and ugly people? You're asking ID science to answer questions it simply cannot answer for you. Perfection is subjective and based on a perspective that may not be knowable.

Anyways I purposefully dodged the conspiracy (billionaire philanthropists) argument because i don't buy it and think it proves nothing in the end except these particular benefactors like the theory proposed by the ID community. The fact that they are Christians seems to make sense, and doesn't support your creationist argument one lick (you presented no ID argument that supports your conjecture). Do you really expect support from the atheist community?

Anyways like i said, i'll stay away and let supporters of the conspiracy theory help you to investigate further. If you're right i would certainly like to know about it... so i'll be following along. I want the truth too, if ID is unscientific it justs means that differentiating appearance of design from actual design isn't testable/falsifiable... not that there is no GOD, so my dogma and ideology are irrelevant imho.

Good luck.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours,
-Rren

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Rren]

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Rren]

I will have to agree with the thread starter, because that is what eventually happen with the introduction of another School of thoughts to challenge evolution.

Sorry Rren even when you are trying to show that is not creationism, the truth is that religious movement are going to push the religious views through ID teaching in school.

I posted about it and you also became outraged at what you call an insult, but what we want and what it should be have nothing to do with what the religious advocates have in mind.

They were not able to push their creationism in the school curriculum but they are very happy to have a door open with ID to do just that.

I guess we just have to wait and see and then . . . . when the deed is done we will be able to talk about it.

Originally posted by marg6043
I will have to agree with the thread starter, because that is what eventually happen with the introduction of another School of thoughts to challenge evolution.

Sorry Rren even when you are trying to show that is not creationism, the truth is that religious movement are going to push the religious views through ID teaching in school.

I posted about it and you also became outraged at what you call an insult, but what we want and what it should be have nothing to do with what the religious advocates have in mind.

They were not able to push their creationism in the school curriculum but they are very happy to have a door open with ID to do just that.

I guess we just have to wait and see and then . . . . when the deed is done we will be able to talk about it.

The ID hypothesis has as much to do with religion as the Ku Klux Klan has to do with Christianity. Because certain organizations have co-opted the theory and wish to use it for the own means and ends doesn't say ANYTHING about the validity of the theory. I respect your position re: teaching ID in schools, and in fact, at this point agree. But, I am unwilling to dismiss ID as simply a creationist ploy, as I have read the theory. If you'd read anything about the theory, and not the mainstream press' take on it, you'd realize this to.

While ID does not specifically make any statements about christianity, it is being used by the christian right to discuss god in biology class.

I think that is the biggest hurdle ID needs to get past before it is given more respect.

And while Behe or Dembski have certainly come up with testable scenarios, we still don't have any concrete evidence behind ID. IMHO it is still a hypothesis at this stage. And as long as the christian right uses ID as a political tool, ID will not get any respect among the mainstream.

Originally posted by mattison0922

The ID hypothesis has as much to do with religion as the Ku Klux Klan has to do with Christianity.

May be true but still they ID promoters like the poster before me said they will have to shake their religious supporters in order to get a fair and square opportunity in the science classroom.

After all you have to take in consideration that for a bias teacher with a bias school children that comes from a Christian background and Christian believes will re direct their ID topic to the one and only creator and that is the intelligent design of the God of creation.

I can even see already in the schools taking form and the real bases of ID been forgotten in the debates of aliens vs God almighty.

Hey, here's sum proof ID is creationism in disguise. Religous people came up with ID. Religious people are the one's complaining about wanting ID taught in school. Alot of the people who aren't religious, like me, DON'T WANT ID in school. I see no reason for my kid to learn a theory that has literally NO scientific basis to back itself up as a theory. The religous community is just trying to squeeze itself into our school's in hope's of getting more follower's.

Plain simple truth at it's best.

[EDIT]

And one other point. If ID isn't creationism in disguise, then WHY are the religous people taking our PUBLIC STATE RUN schools to court over it? Why are they arguing against evolution in favor of ID? Where are the damn scientist's who AREN'T religous that accept ID?

Any moron with half a brain stem can see ID is creationism. Not only that, if ID isn't creationism, then wth is it? They both deal with the universe being created by a higher being. Just with ID you religous type's decided to not give credit to your god in hope's of corrupting the mind's of children in school.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by PhoenixByrd]

Originally posted by PhoenixByrd
Hey, here's sum proof ID is creationism in disguise. Religous people came up with ID.

That's just ridiculous. A religious person came up with Laws of Motion and the Law of Univesal Gravitation.

Religious people had made lots of contributions to science.

This is almost, but not quite as absurd as your post in the protein structures thread.

That one is really a classic... you can try but you're going to have to work hard to top the ridiculousness in that one. Give it a shot though. I have faith, if anyone can do it you can.

So is this just a let's attack phoenix day or something? You feel big and bad and more intelligent then me for attacking me in thread's I reply to? You keep it up if you'd like ... I'm not the one who's gunna look in the wrong here.

And who exactly did start the whole ID concept? I've been trying to find it's originator. The reason I believe right now that the guy who started it is religous is because I've only seen/heard religous people trying to push it into our school's. If this person isn't religous I'd be very surprised. But all in all, it DOES sound like creationism.

People lets not forget that we are still on a topic that even when has been debated very extensively still have a conspiracy edge to it.

Originally posted by PhoenixByrd
So is this just a let's attack phoenix day or something?

Nope, it's attack ridiculous, unbacked assertions day, actually that's everyday, but it just so happens that it's you who's posting in such a manner in the forums I haunt today. If you'd like, we can petition Hallmark to make 12/19 attack Phoenix day.

You feel big and bad and more intelligent then me for attacking me in thread's I reply to?

Nope, you could be the most intelligent person I've ever met, I have no way to know this. I don't feel more intelligent than you. I do feel more informed re: origins topics than you though. Perhaps it's my own personal bias, but your comments lead me to believe you know very little about origins theories.

And again, I didn't attack you, I attacked your lack of objectivity in the other thread, and I attacked your unverifiable and ridiculous assertion re: the origins of ID in this thread. Please learn the difference.

You keep it up if you'd like ... I'm not the one who's gunna look in the wrong here.

Okay.

And who exactly did start the whole ID concept? I've been trying to find it's originator.

Really, geez, that's funny. What did you mean when you wrote the following:

Hey, here's sum proof ID is creationism in disguise. Religous people came up with ID.

So which is it? Do you know that ID was started by Religious people, or have you been unable to find it's 'originator?'

Seems like a funny juxtaposition of statements, don't you think? In one statement you profess to know who started ID, and in the other you are asking who started it. Interestingly enough, your post asking about the origins of ID was made after your statement re: its religious origins.

Perhaps you can fill us in: Do you or do you not know something about the origins of IDT?

The reason I believe right now that the guy who started it is religous is because I've only seen/heard religous people trying to push it into our school's. If this person isn't religous I'd be very surprised. But all in all, it DOES sound like creationism.

What's happening with respect to ID in schools has nothing to do with the validity of the theory. Any movement can be co-opted for any motive. So... then what you're saying, is that despite all of your posts saying that ID is in fact 'ridiculous' and 'stupid' you've not actually read any ID. The only thing you know about ID sounds like it came from the news. Interesting. People, in general on ATS, are unwilling to trust their local news source for much in terms of the gov't, 911 theories, the war in Iraq, UFO's, aliens, etc., yet they put complete faith in Connie Chung's analysis of ID. What gives .

I'm sorry if it's been a tough day for you, Phoenix. Start backing up your assertions with information and a demonstration that you've looked into the info, and you're opinions are likely to be treated with a greater degree of respect.

Brrr, it's cold in here!

Rren, in any case, it's a fact that the Discovery Institute was created and funded by Christians - that's not really at issue - but some people consider the organization to be affiliated with the "radical Christian right," which may or may not be true, or may be partially true. To say that this piece of information is without merit because Phoenix (man, he had quite a day today...) quoted WikiPedia to support this fact is kind of unfair to both Phoenix and WikiPedia.

Also, I wanted to point out that scientific positions do not use phraseology including words such as "accident" or "mistake" in regard to the creation of matter and life: this is perhaps solely a theistic colourization of the "scientific view." I think it's safe to say that in the vast sea of cosmic possibility, there may be a degree somewhere between "accidental" and "intentional" formation, and most scientists view natural processes as neither intentional (relative to an outside perspective) nor accidental.

While all of this is of course arguable, I think that whenever someone says something similar to "science says (lol) that we were made by accident," it's really not accurate - science is neutral and not philosophical. From a scientific standpoint, it is assumed that life was created as part of a natural process, so to be consistent, the creation of life would have to be no more "accidental" than precipitation cycles. Words such as "accident" and "mistake" have no scientific value.

As well, it could be said that science holds a philosophical view by virtue of its presupposition that we live in a natural universe. This may or may not be true, depending on your personal semantic approach to the idea, but I've yet to see it play an important role in effectively undermining or negating any scientific conclusions.

Zip

Zip, I know this wasn't directed at me, but.....

Originally posted by Zipdot
Also, I wanted to point out that scientific positions do not use phraseology including words such as "accident" or "mistake" in regard to the creation of matter and life: this is perhaps solely a theistic colourization of the "scientific view."

Hmmm... I may be splitting hairs here: I believe you're correct in that scientist's - in publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals, etc, don't use words like accident, or mistake. But often times that word is used to describe the origins of life by people affiliated with science in books, interviews, articles for the lay person, etc. So I do think that the scientific community is responsible, at least in part for that phraseology. But really though, if you think about it, if you remove the concept of Design from biology, what you have is the luck of the draw. It's as much an 'accident' as getting any particular hand of cards is.... though I do agree that the phraseology sucks.

I think it's safe to say that in the vast sea of cosmic possibility, there may be a degree somewhere between "accidental" and "intentional"

Well, accidental is sort of a loaded word, don't you think. Accidental is generally perceived negatively. BUT, I do think things are either random or intentional.

and most scientists view natural processes as neither intentional (relative to an outside perspective) nor accidental.

Well, for the most part, this is true. I think this is because many things in science, such as gravity, crystal formation, etc. are governed by fundamental laws. This of course breaks down when we talk about origins with respect to biology. We've not yet discovered any fundamental law or processes that accounts for many aspects of biology. I think this is why the perception of random or intentional is bestowed upon origins biology in particular.

it is assumed that life was created as part of a natural process, so to be consistent, the creation of life would have to be no more "accidental" than precipitation cycles.

Right. But until we discover or otherwise elucidate this fundamental natural process, this will continue to be a topic that is hotly debated.

As well, it could be said that science holds a philosophical view by virtue of its presupposition that we live in a natural universe. This may or may not be true, depending on your personal semantic approach to the idea, but I've yet to see it play an important role in effectively undermining or negating any scientific conclusions.

Why must it undermine or negate conclusions? It could be that metaphysical naturalism is completely appropriate in the description of many things, and in fact, it is. But maybe other presuppositions can in fact be effective as well, without undermining metaphysical naturalism. I don't understand this 'all or nothing' approach to science. The Wedge Document notwithstanding, I don't believe ALL or even most IDTist's want to change the definition of science. While I don't consider myself to be an IDTist, I certainly don't support operating outside the realm of methodological naturalism, but I do support scientists being able to operate under whatever metaphysical presupposition they choose, and not be subject to a witch hunt.

Originally posted by Zipdot
Brrr, it's cold in here!

Well my mom says that my smile lights up a room. So now you guys are calling my mom a liar. That's it!

*throws down his picture of Hovind, that he carries everywhere he goes, and puts up his dukes.* [/totally joking]

Rren, in any case, it's a fact that the Discovery Institute was created and funded by Christians - that's not really at issue

I conceded both those points, yes?

- but some people consider the organization to be affiliated with the "radical Christian right," which may or may not be true, or may be partially true.

What people constitute this "radical Christian right," do we have names? Can we make a plausible case, based on Discovery Institutes funding, for these radicals using the ID debate to sneak Creationism in the 'back door'? Say you're an ID researcher - trying to get funding - when nobody will touch ID with a ten foot pole. Have you seen what happens to a "respectable scientist" when they come out in favor of ID? I'm not saying you guys ain't on to something here, i really don't know. What would you do if you were in their position?

They go out of their way, ad nauseum, to say that religion plays not part in the scientific process or methodology of ID that they propose. But these guys are stuck in a bad place here. If they don't get their funding from these, as of yet unidentifed, 'radicals' then the ID movement dies because it was too controvercial and not because it's unscientific.

To say that this piece of information is without merit because Phoenix (man, he had quite a day today...) quoted WikiPedia to support this fact is kind of unfair to both Phoenix and WikiPedia.

All i was saying, as someone who uses wiki often, that if your going to make a controvercial statement you need to be able to back that up. Wiki isn't reliable in that aspect (not without merit, but not authoritative)... think i gotta stand on this.

I provided a link (.pdf above) titled "Dicovery Institue and Theocracy", which states this on the first page.

Discovery embraces the American Founding’s principles of representative democracy and civil and religious liberty, including the principle of the separation of church and state. It has never supported in any way the idea of theocracy.
Discovery Institute is not a religious organization. It is, and always has been, a secular public policy center . Accordingly, it has sponsored programs on a wide array of issues, including mass transit, technology policy, international trade, education, economics, and the environment.

Throughout its history, Discovery Institute Fellows and staff have represented an eclectic range of religious views ranging from Roman Catholic to Jewish to mainline Protestant to agnostic.

Also from this link i provided (.pdf above) titled: "The "Wedge Document": How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend". (They go through "The Wedge" point by point for those of you still take issue with it)

Discovery Institute, the supposed mastermind of this “religious” conspiracy, was in fact a secular organization that sponsored programs on a wide array of issues, including mass transit, technology policy, the environment, and national defense.
o At the time the “Wedge Document” was being used by Darwinists to stoke fears about Christian theocracy, the Chairman of Discovery’s Board was Jewish, its President was an Episcopalian, and its various Fellows represented an eclectic range of religious views ranging from Roman Catholic to agnostic. It would have been news to them that they were all part of a fundamentalist cabal.
o Far from promoting a union between church and state, Discovery Institute sponsored for several years a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation between church and state.

If we are to believe these guys are liars/conspirators, which is the allegation here, then i'm gonna need more than a 'wiki' to back it up. It doesn't pass the smell test imho. If you believe that's unfair to Phoenix or Wikipedia so be it... I think i got the high ground here mate. Gonna be hard to prove a negative, all i got is pointing out the logical flaws in this conspiracy "theory" or the "any one can edit it" source used to support it.

Also, I wanted to point out that scientific positions do not use phraseology including words such as "accident" or "mistake" in regard to the creation of matter and life: this is perhaps solely a theistic colourization of the "scientific view." I think it's safe to say that in the vast sea of cosmic possibility, there may be a degree somewhere between "accidental" and "intentional" formation, and most scientists view natural processes as neither intentional (relative to an outside perspective) nor accidental.

While all of this is of course arguable, I think that whenever someone says something similar to "science says (lol) that we were made by accident," it's really not accurate - science is neutral and not philosophical.

While i grant you that "science says" was improper, but many scientists do. If your saying that there is no need, or cause based on evidence, to invoke the Divine or super-natural in the creation or origins of life than aren't you saying indeed that it was accidental or random (not goal directed) chance? Semantics aside of 'course, as a layman i often muck up the jargon but i believe i understand the concept. I agree science should be nuetral, but it's not. The very debate over ID is that science is biased towards metaphysical naturalism or materialism... you disagree? Not what it should be mind you, but what it is.

If you were right i wouldn't expect all this hulabaloo over ID. Why not let ID theorists attack the many questions science still has from a different perspective (design not chance)... nobody is suggesting replacing NDT. I've read that IDTists believe the scientific process had been stymied by this dogmatic constraint on the metaphysical presuppositon used to formulate hypothesis. (i probably just butchered their position there, maybe Matt can clear it up )

From a scientific standpoint, it is assumed that life was created as part of a natural process, so to be consistent, the creation of life would have to be no more "accidental" than precipitation cycles. Words such as "accident" and "mistake" have no scientific value.

We're not arguing about the cycle (evolution) so much as the origin of that cycle, no? Evolution still works, the supposition has just changed... how would you describe naturalistic (by that i mean not goal directed) origins, other than accidential or random chance? You're saying the ID hypothesis is flawed, it's a "blind watchmaker"... things just look designed even though they are not. If you rule out a designer or Creator all you're left with is accident or random chance. I don't think i ever said "mistake" tho, that would imply a purpose or a missed objective in order to "make" a mistake... "nothingness" can't really make a mistake, i think. *Oh dear, i've just gone cross-eyed*

As well, it could be said that science holds a philosophical view by virtue of its presupposition that we live in a natural universe. This may or may not be true, depending on your personal semantic approach to the idea, but I've yet to see it play an important role in effectively undermining or negating any scientific conclusions.

Zip

Like Matt pointed out and in the paper i linked above by Bruce Gordan, ID doesn't violate methological naturalism. But yes the argument is over; "science holds a philosophical view by virtue of its presupposition ". The presupposition is key here imho, they (IDers) are putting forth hypotheses that are testable and don't violate the methological constraints on what science can investigate. Don't make them right or wrong necessarily, but give these guys a break already. Let 'em get their stuff published and peer reviewed. nobody is asking for a free pass here. If the scientific community is uneasy with the relationship between "the radicals" and the ID community than let them in the door... they could find some funding or credibility if they didn't have to fear for their jobs and reputations for daring to challenge the likes of Dawkins and his ilk.

Anywho that's enough of that... but hey am i a "debunker" now? Man this is nice, come on in the mainstream fellas - water's fine. "Man the road less travelled sure got alot of stones" [/Whitey Ford]

Eh tin hatters?

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours Zip.