M
Michaelo
Guest
Do you think ID is basically a rebranding of creationism?
- Status
O
Orogeny
Guest
1
1ke
Guest
Define what you mean by Creationism, since the term is used in many ways by many different groups, and then we can discuss whether or not Intelligent Design is a “rebranding” of Creationism.
M
Michaelo
Guest
1ke
An influential anti-evolution book, Of Pandas and People, proposed this definition:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Davis and Kenyon 1989, 99-100)
Early drafts in 1987 were actually riddled with “creation” and its cognates, but following the Edwards v. Aguillard decision that found teaching “creation science” to be unconstitutional, “creation” was simply replaced with “intelligent design” in new drafts of the book. So in the broadest sense, creationism appears to have simply been rebranded as ID.
more info
An influential anti-evolution book, Of Pandas and People, proposed this definition:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Davis and Kenyon 1989, 99-100)
Early drafts in 1987 were actually riddled with “creation” and its cognates, but following the Edwards v. Aguillard decision that found teaching “creation science” to be unconstitutional, “creation” was simply replaced with “intelligent design” in new drafts of the book. So in the broadest sense, creationism appears to have simply been rebranded as ID.
more info
D
Della
Guest
There’s a huge difference between what the Catholic Church means by creation and God being the Creator than Evangelicals would teach, so anything written by/for Evangelicals is bound to see ID from the perspective of a literal 6 day creation/6000 years ago.
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach creationism–it teaches creation–period. IOW, ID, seen through Catholic teaching, is very possible. It would mean (just my personal interpretation here) that what we see in creation, such as DNA, the structure of genes, the necessity of some functions dependent upon others, etc. points to a Designer and not simply to random selection, although random selection is not ruled out nor a “dirty” word.
It’s a complex issue, but what it really boils down to is: Did Someone design life and the arrangement of the cosmos or did it all happen spontaneously with no design intended? Neither position can be “proved” by natural investigation nor through theological constructs. We can only see the evidence of Creation vs. Non-creation and decide which is more persuasive, which more beneficial to us individually and as human beings.
E
edwest2
Guest
The greatest current fear of the secular world is that Intelligent Design will gain some sort of credibility in scientific circles and/or in the minds of average people. This will threaten the ongoing secular/humanist/atheist marketing campaign. And erode what they view as their power base.
The Catholic Church supports the idea of actual design in nature. See Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn, published in the New York Times. The Cardinal also quotes Pope John Paul II regarding this.
Intelligent Design consists of these ideas.
Peace,
Ed
The Catholic Church supports the idea of actual design in nature. See Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn, published in the New York Times. The Cardinal also quotes Pope John Paul II regarding this.
Intelligent Design consists of these ideas.
- Living things as simple as cells are integrated systems. They cannot be reduced. If so, they will cease to function. Compared to a factory, a living cell is a lot more complex.
- There is no credible explanation as to how new, functional information can be added to an organism’s DNA. A certain level of adaptation is built in, but that’s it.
- There is no credible explanation as to how simple cells aggregated themselves, became more complex and then began to create organs. Increasing complexity requires detailed instructions – specified complexity.
Peace,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
It is useful to analyse ID into two distinct species:* ID1 - the universe and all in it was created/designed by God/The Designer.
- ID2 - the universe and all in it was designed by an unspecified designer and there is scientific evidence of this.
Assuming that by “creationism” you mean “Literal Genesis AiG-style creationism” then ID1 is not a rebranding of creationism as it includes all Theistic Evolutionists. ID2, or DI-ID is indeed such a rebranding. The classic evidence of this is the revelation at the Dover trial of the quick search-and-replace on the original creationist version of “Pandas and People” to make the new DI-ID version. That includes the classic transitional form “cdesign proponentsists” from an incomplete replacement of “creationists” with “design proponents”.
The same is seen with the definitions of Creationsm and Intelligent Design:
1986 preliminary version:
and
1989 published version:
The Discovery Institute version of ID is indeed the latest incarnation of “Creation Science”, “Teach the Controversy” and all the other creationist attempts to do an end-run round the US Constitution. As each has failed a new idea is proposed to take its place.
rossum
V
VociMike
Guest
That seems to me (an ID ignoramus, to be sure) to be a reasonable list. But is it a theory? Does it suggest any experiments?
E
edwest2
Guest
An attempt was made to outline ID in a peer reviewed journal but the person who allowed the article to be published was immediately made out to be ‘one of them.’
opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220
First, man is already designing nano scale machinery. It may be possible to build a nano scale factory and build devices atom by atom or molecule by molecule. A demonstration video of such a process appears on youtube.
First, I want to point out that this is not an attempt to reroute or shut down scientific research but to show that complex integrated systems don’t just invent themselves. And I am not suggesting that scientists everywhere drop everything to do this research.
If it could be shown that say, some advanced alien race built men then there would be a collective sigh of relief among secularists. But I think the claim that complex, integrated living things are not capable of being disassembled without losing function is worth investigating. The current paradigm that non-directed forces succeeded again and again by luck to produce specific functionality in an organism defies probability theory.
Peace,
Ed
opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220
First, man is already designing nano scale machinery. It may be possible to build a nano scale factory and build devices atom by atom or molecule by molecule. A demonstration video of such a process appears on youtube.
First, I want to point out that this is not an attempt to reroute or shut down scientific research but to show that complex integrated systems don’t just invent themselves. And I am not suggesting that scientists everywhere drop everything to do this research.
If it could be shown that say, some advanced alien race built men then there would be a collective sigh of relief among secularists. But I think the claim that complex, integrated living things are not capable of being disassembled without losing function is worth investigating. The current paradigm that non-directed forces succeeded again and again by luck to produce specific functionality in an organism defies probability theory.
Peace,
Ed
M
Mike_BioProf
Guest
As others have stated, there are different forms of “creationism”. Historically, it is obvious that ID was developed as an attempt to sneak creationism into the public schools. Logically, it is a “God of the gaps” form of creationism, where the direct action of God is invoked to fill in any gaps in our scientific knowledge. This is illogical both scientifically and theologically, and a dangerous strategy doomed to fail.
D
Della
Guest
Not to be a pain in the derriere
, but is that really the case? That ID was specifically developed just to sneak religion into the classroom? If true (which I’d have to see evidence for–not to be nitpicky, but to be historically accurate), it didn’t arise in Catholic education for that purpose. Maybe in Evangelical circles–I’ll give you that.ID can be misappropriated by anyone with an agenda, just as scientific theories can be. It isn’t the theory that is subversive, it’s how it’s applied and for what motive.
I see nothing wrong with exploring the idea that an Intelligence outside the natural world designed everything. There’s plenty of evidence in nature for it. Nor do I see the harm of discussing the idea in science classes. If it’s just as likely as random selection (which cannot be verified or not verified, either), it should be discussed no matter who likes or dislikes the idea, IMHO.
E
edwest2
Guest
The Catholic Church does state quite clearly that the apparent design in nature is actual design. This is theologically sound and literally true. You are, however, confirming what I’ve read elsewhere: the concern is not over science but God and schools. Too bad science is being used to promote an ideology.
“dangerous” How?
Peace,
Ed
D
Don_Schneider
Guest
Should anyone be interested (and if not, fine), I wrote a philosophical proof of a creator which is based upon Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. This is most ironic in that I am attempting to use the theoretical framework of one of the most illustrious atheists in history to prove the existence of a creator (if not God per se). My line of reasoning has a direct bearing on the question posed by the OP. Here’s the URL:
wwwdnschneidercom.xbuild.com/#/miscellaneous-7/4526495432
Thanks.
Don Schneider
wwwdnschneidercom.xbuild.com/#/miscellaneous-7/4526495432
Thanks.
Don Schneider
M
Mike_BioProf
Guest
Della, Hi. I guess it goes back to how we are defining ID (see Rossum’s post above). I was referring to its current incarnation, as developed by Michael Behe and pushed by the Discovery Institute. Logically, this version of ID is a modern version of Paley’s watchmaker argument. I do not consider theistic evolution to be a version of ID. This is a common confusion; they are very different.Not to be a pain in the derriere
I don’t know about Catholic high schools, but I don’t believe there is a single Catholic university in America that teachers ID (again, not theistic evolution) as a legitimate scientific theory that has any supporting evidence. We teach standard evolutionary theory because it is the scientific theory that is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
I could not agree more!
Standard evolutionary theory is overwhelmingly supported by tons of evidence from multiple fields. The evidence in favor of evolution so completely outweighs any alternative theory that it is at this point absurd to consider them. That could, of course, change with new data but I would not hold my breath. As such, concepts like ID should not be taught alongside established theories in science class. This has nothing to do with whether anyone likes or dislikes the possible religious implications.
M
Mike_BioProf
Guest
Ed, thanks. I’m new at this so it took me a while to figure out the quote thing. The way I see it, any “God of the gaps” argument is dangerous because it uses a current gap in scientific understanding as evidence of the existence of God-- maybe not always explicitly stated as such, but the idea is always there. Then, when a new discovery is made filling that gap, that evidence for the existence of God disappears. A gap in our current state of knowledge is a silly place to look for God. If you teach your children that God exists because we can not document the transition from a large terrestrial mammal to a whale, as soon as we find that fossil, God disappears.
So yes, my concern is over religion, not science. ID, or any other version of creationism, poses no threat to science. It is easily dismissed on the grounds that it lacks any data to support it. But buying into the argument that it is God or evolution is unnecessary and, as I said, dangerous and doomed to fail.
Science has, and continues to be, used to promote the ideologies of atheism, agnosticism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Communism, Capitalism, Democracy, Fascism, Social equality, Exploitation, gay rights, denial of gay rights, … whatever.
Mike
R
rossum
Guest
It was shown to be the case by Barbara Forrest’s evidence at the Dover trial. She looked at the early drafts of what became “Pandas and People”, an ID school textbook. In 1987 the US Supreme Court decided against “Creation Science” in Edwards v Aguillard. Almost immediately the word “creation” was removed from the draft and replaced with the word “design”:Not to be a pain in the derriere
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
and
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Images from the Dover Trial transcripts Day 6 AM.
ID is just creationism in a lab coat trying to look sciency.
rossum
E
edwest2
Guest
Fortunately, a mere court trial will not make the reality of actual design in nature disappear. The Church acknowledges it and I agree that it is obvious by what we see. Getting design without a designer is a neat trick.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Hi Mike,
Too many people accept a slogan as a valid idea without examining it. I don’t believe in slogans but I do know there is actual design in nature. My faith doesn’t rest on science but science is a partly useful tool. However, when this tool is used to further the agenda of a secular belief system, i.e. evolution, the engine that builds itself, runs itself, and spits out functioning life forms, I think, no, that’s not possible.
Thinking is not dangerous. Dismissing ID is not possible. Calling it religion is not examining it. Getting actual design in nature without a designer is a neat trick. It is close to the idea that dirty rags generate flies. An intelligence is required for life to appear.
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
The assumption with this argument is that “science can possible, or will inevitably” fill all gaps in knowledge of the universe and nature. That is basically scientism, or materialistic philosophy. To quote you – not explicitly stated as such by the idea is always there.
ID theory has been around for some thousands of years – amplified by St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Design Argument. The core essence of the argument was stated infallibly by Vatican Council I, echoing St. Paul’s teaching in the Divine Word.
When the argument shifts to “theistic evolution” we will see a very large number of problems with that idea. One of the most famous “Catholic” promoters of theistic evolutionary theory had to create his own “god” in order to protect evolutionary ideas from being challenged.
The claims of evolutionists have been shown, very frequently, to be completely wrong – even using their own logic and findings (and upon their own admission, usually years after claims are made regarding the “certainty” and “fact” of evolution).
ID is far from “doomed”, not counting its long history and compatibility with Catholic theology. I think, on the contrary, the simplistic dismissals of ID theory as being “nothing but creationism, or nothing but religion” are certainly doomed. I think we’ll see the end of them in a very short period of time. Even some hard-core Darwinists are no longer trying to use that “argument”.
As for the ID “agenda”, its a bit strange that the same suspicion is not given to the Darwinian enterprise, since it is dominated by people with an anti-religious, anti-God agenda, and Darwin himself created the theory to remove considerations of God from the development of nature and human life.
Thus, we have “Catholics” thinking that the human soul, intelligence, consciousness, memory, imagination and spiritual capacity emerged from unintelligent, unconscious, accidental physical laws.
This is not only heretical, it’s completely illogical and absurd on the face of it.
So, I’ll suggest that something quite a bit more substantial than merely “ID is creationism” is needed as a reply.
To the OP, I hope you’re not surprised that atheistic-evolutionists have and show some hostility towards the truth of God our Creator. We do profess that truth every Sunday at Mass.
- Status