Why do people equate ID with Creationism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe_5859
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Joe_5859

Guest
Why does it seem that many people equate the Intelligent Design movement (ID) with Creationism? The people I know that subscribe to ID are pretty adamant that they are two completely different things.

Are they different or are they the same?

If they are different, what is the major difference?

If they are the same, why do proponents of ID insist otherwise?

I’m not trying to start an argument. Just trying to understand! 👍
 
ID is really God of the Gaps Evolutionism were you fill the gaps in scientific knowledge with “G-d did it”.
I dont now why young earth creationists are so in love with ID.
They use ID arguments to deny the randomess of Neo Dawinian Evolutionism but ID presumes and Old Earth, an Older Universe and God of the Gaps evolution. All are anathema for a YEC literalist or fundie.
 
inthecloud said:
ID is really God of the Gaps Evolutionism were you fill the gaps in scientific knowledge with “G-d did it”.
I dont now why young earth creationists are so in love with ID.
They use ID arguments to deny the randomess of Neo Dawinian Evolutionism but ID presumes and Old Earth, an Older Universe and God of the Gaps evolution. All are anathema for a YEC literalist or fundie.
Click to expand...
No.

ID is the search for design in nature. I think that at some level, even you believe that “God did it” and it’s possible that God did not go out of his way to hide his “tracks.”

So the search for design is not directly a search for God, but if design is found, it does beg the question of “who could possibly have done it?” And for most people (but not all), that would mean God.

Certainly, on the evolution threads, the folks who believe in “My way or the highway” in terms even of WHICH evolutionary model is correct tend to brand any opponent as a “creationist.” For them this is the highest form of insult, even when it isn’t true.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Why does it seem that many people equate the Intelligent Design movement (ID) with Creationism? The people I know that subscribe to ID are pretty adamant that they are two completely different things.

Are they different or are they the same?

If they are different, what is the major difference?

If they are the same, why do proponents of ID insist otherwise?

I’m not trying to start an argument. Just trying to understand! 👍
Click to expand...
Creationism says that the universe / earth were created 6000 years ago, over a period of 6 days. And that all living things were created instantly as they are now (no evolution).

ID agrees with generally accepted scientific facts that the universe is 13 billion or so years old, and the earth is about 4 billion years old, and that indeed, the further back you go, the more primitive the forms of life.

Where ID torques the evolutionists off is that they disagree with the contention that advanced life evolved through “random mutations and natural selection” with no additional guidance or “designer” involved. And that the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of nature could not have occurred by accident.

The scientific atheism community (which seems to include many who call themselves “Catholic”) will no doubt tell you that ID is not science, it is religion.

Some creationists have seen ID as “allies” in the fight against scientific atheism, and unfortunately have given ID a bad name as a result. It’s quite possible that they really don’t understand it, but it IS true that Creationism believes in God, and Design would certainly point to a pretty powerful creator.

You will no doubt get a lot of responses to this thread. I will bow out since I’m tired of arguing with the same atheistic Catholics over the same issues. But I hope that this gives you a bit of insight into this. I’d recommend the book “A Meaningful World” by Wiker & Witt if you want some more information.

Also, this is a good overview:

intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
 
Joe_5859 said:
Why does it seem that many people equate the Intelligent Design movement (ID) with Creationism? The people I know that subscribe to ID are pretty adamant that they are two completely different things.

Are they different or are they the same?

If they are different, what is the major difference?

If they are the same, why do proponents of ID insist otherwise?

I’m not trying to start an argument. Just trying to understand! 👍
Click to expand...
It depends upon who you talk to. The Pope has used the term Intelligent Design and he has no problem with it, but at the same time he appears to be a little confused when it comes to proofs of evolution. He said that proofs of evolution exist without mentioning what they were.

I don’t know of any poofs of evolution, but at least it is good to see that the Pope does recognize intelligent Design and is not afraid to use the term. Now if he could only see that ID presents serious problems to evolution having a viable mechanism. But, science isn’t his area of expertise. Maybe one day he will see it.
 
The problem with ID is that it has a fluid definition.

From a scientific point of view, many forms of ID are a disaster for the basic foundations of the scientific method. You can’t simply throw up your hands and say “God did it, no further explanation necessary.” Science REQUIRES the assumption that natual processes explain everything in the course of scientific inquiry. Note that this does NOT require that a scientist be an atheist, it merely requires him to conduct his RESEARCH as if he were.

When the miraculous suffices as an explanation, then science cannot move forward and learn more. This is what scientists fear will result from ID. But they need not as long as religious people respect the scientific method within its own sphere of influence. The atheistic evolutionists commit the same offense they decry in ID and Creationists and confuse their research methodology with a philsophical/religious worldview. They fail to see that God is plenty big enough to have miraculously created the world entirely via processes that are rational and consistent. They are rational and consistent precisely BECAUSE He made them that way. Instead they fallaciously conclude that natural process explanations for things prove the non-existence of God.

I find the old saw “Similarity implies descent” hilarious, possibly because I work with the same architects on a frequent basis. I see the similarity of their designs, but I’m not so dumb as to believe that one building reproduced and mutated slightly into the next one!

Science has been an outstanding servant of humanity. But when it is allowed to be our master, it always becomes a cruel tryant. It should be valued highly and kept in its place.
 
“Why does it seem that many people equate the Intelligent Design movement (ID) with Creationism?”

Creationism was renamed to creation science in an unsuccessful attempt to force science teachers to teach magic. Then creation science was renamed to intelligent design in another unsuccessful attempt to force science teachers to teach magic. Now intelligent design is being renamed to “teach the controversy” to force science teachers to lie about evolution. So far that hasn’t worked either. Science teachers are not interested in lying to their students.

“Are they different or are they the same?”

Both creationism and intelligent design invoke God, except that the intelligent design proponents call God a “designer” in an unsuccessful attempt to disguise magic to look like science.

Intelligent design proponents invoke the designer, also known as God, also known as Magic, whenever they can’t figure out how something could have evolved. ID proponents invoke magic anytime they want for anything they want. They are always just guessing and they always prove their total ignorance of evolutionary science.

“If they are different, what is the major difference?”

Creationism and ID are the same because they both invoke God, however the creationists, to their credit, are at least honest about what creationism is. Unfortunately the ID creationists are not so honest. Every time they claim ID is science, everyone, even the creationists, knows they are lying.

“If they are the same, why do proponents of ID insist otherwise?”

Because ID proponents are LIARS. They won’t admit intelligent design is nothing more than a collection of magic tricks because they want to pretend ID is science. So far they haven’t fooled anyone. I have to wonder why intelligent design LIARS continue lying when everyone knows they’re lying. What do they expect to accomplish when it’s a well known fact they are compulsive LIARS.

By the way, creationism, whether it’s called intelligent design or creation science, is most definitely totally false. The god hypothesis is not required to explain the diversity of life. For more than a century biologists have accepted evolution as a fact, as much as a fact as our planet’s orbit around the sun. New evidence from DNA analysis is so powerful an educated person would have to be completely out of his mind to deny all life evolved and all life, including people, is related to all other life. Even the most religious biologists completely accept evolution because they can’t deny the powerful DNA evidence they can see with their own eyes. Also competent religious biologists don’t call it “theistic evolution” because they know the god hypothesis is not necessary to help and/or invent evolution. They also don’t call themselves theistic biologists because they know theism has absolutely nothing to do with science.
 
manualman said:
The problem with ID is that it has a fluid definition.

From a scientific point of view, many forms of ID are a disaster for the basic foundations of the scientific method. You can’t simply throw up your hands and say “God did it, no further explanation necessary.” Science REQUIRES the assumption that natual processes explain everything in the course of scientific inquiry. Note that this does NOT require that a scientist be an atheist, it merely requires him to conduct his RESEARCH as if he were.
Click to expand...
At the heart of ID is the concept of irreducible complexity. This is more of an engineering concept than a scientific one but engineering is applied science or as I like to see it, real science. Irreducible complexity looks at the different functions in a design to see how they interact. This can be done with living organisms. By looking at the interaction of functions one could draw logical conclusions about what functions are interdependant and what functions are not. The interdependency of functionality of different processes makes a process of slow gradual evolution not plausible by logical observation.

The term intelligent design says that these interdependant processes and functions were designed to work together within the organism and would not work or would be functionally imparied if the different functions that work together were not always there together . Since there is no gradual mechanism that can explain this irreducible complexity we have to conclude that the organism was designed and built that way from the beginning.

You do not have to believe that God did designed and built it to recognize irreducible complexity and obvious concurrent dependant functionality, i.e. intelligent deisign.
 
Bobx2x2 said:
"

Because ID proponents are LIARS. They won’t admit intelligent design is nothing more than a collection of magic tricks because they want to pretend ID is science. So far they haven’t fooled anyone. I have to wonder why intelligent design LIARS continue lying when everyone knows they’re lying. What do they expect to accomplish when it’s a well known fact they are compulsive LIARS.

.
Click to expand...
No, you are incorrect. Irreducible complexity is a reality in any design and as much as people want to ignore it, it is the truth.

The complex interdependant functionality within your body can not be explained by an evolutionary process. This is strictly based upon an engineering analysis of how your body works.

Commonly you can also think of this as reverse engineering. Where you take an existing design and you evaluate it by understanding the interdependancies of functions within the design.

Intelligent Design as a conclusion of observing irreducible complexity and is not a lie.

If you have a hard time with God having done it, believe the alien designed and built us. Some people choose this belief, but either way there is no viable or plausible mechanism of evolution which can explain the interdependant functionality within living organisms.
 
Steve40:

“At the heart of ID is the concept of irreducible complexity. This is more of an engineering concept than a scientific one but engineering is applied science or as I like to see it, real science. Irreducible complexity looks at the different functions in a design to see how they interact. This can be done with living organisms. By looking at the interaction of functions one could draw logical conclusions about what functions are interdependant and what functions are not. The interdependency of functionality of different processes makes a process of slow gradual evolution not plausible by logical observation.”

“The term intelligent design says that these interdependant processes and functions were designed to work together within the organism and would not work or would be functionally imparied if the different functions that work together were not always there together . Since there is no gradual mechanism that can explain this irreducible complexity we have to conclude that the organism was designed and built that way from the beginning.”

“You do not have to believe that God did designed and built it to recognize irreducible complexity and obvious concurrent dependent functionality, i.e. intelligent design.”

Steve40, that was a good explanation of ID.

I would like to point out of few things that ID proponents don’t like to talk about.

The first paragraph I quoted might sound like science to a non-scientist, but a real scientist would look at the same paragraph and say “what a bunch of baloney!”

“Irreducible complexity” is an invention of Michael Behe who is a laughing-stock of the entire scientific community. For example Behe claims the bacterial flagellum couldn’t have evolved, therefore it was magically created by the designer (God!). At the Dover trial powerful evidence was provided that demonstrated bacterial flagellum most definitely did evolve. Every single claim Behe has ever made was proved to be wrong at the Dover trial. Did Behe throw out his ideas? No, of course not. Behe is a professional liar and he continues to promote the same lies he was not able to get away with in Dover.

Your “Since there is no gradual mechanism that can explain this irreducible complexity we have to conclude that the organism was designed and built that way from the beginning.” should be changed to make it more honest to this: “Since BEHE INCORRECTLY CLAIMS there is no gradual mechanism that can explain this irreducible complexity we have to DISHONESTLY conclude that the organism was MAGICALLY CREATED that way from the beginning.”

With all due respect, Steve40, this is LYING: “You do not have to believe that God designed and built it to recognize irreducible complexity and obvious concurrent dependent functionality, i.e. intelligent design.”

ID proponents are most certainly invoking a magician here, and everyone knows, including you, the magician is God. ID proponents don’t want to admit their magician is God because then ID couldn’t be called science. They are not fooling anyone.

I’m all in favor of people believing anything they want. However, they should not lie about it. ID is a religious belief, and it’s most definitely not science. In fact, ID is anti-science. People should believe in the nonsense of ID if they want, but for God’s sake they shouldn’t lie about what it is. I pretty sure one of the Ten Commandments says something about lying being wrong.
 
“Irreducible complexity is a reality in any design and as much as people want to ignore it, it is the truth.”

No real scientist would agree. Actually a real scientist would laugh at what you just said.

However, even if you were right, ID is still nothing more than a collection of magic tricks. Design is just another word for “magically created”. Magic is not science. It’s religion.

“If you have a hard time with God having done it, believe the alien designed and built us.”

Aliens? Do you think anyone here is stupid enough to believe that?

Aliens? Is this your attempt to make ID look like science? Try telling a scientist that an alien did it. He would laugh at you for a very long time. I’m still laughing myself.

ID isn’t religion because maybe an alien did it. Right. That’s very funny, but how can anyone take anything else you said seriously?
 
Bobx2x2 said:
Design is just another word for “magically created”.
Click to expand...
As a retired electrical “design” engineer, I assure you, design has nothing to do with magic. Nor tricks. It has to do with applied science.

You sound bitter.
 
No, you are incorrect. Irreducible complexity is a reality in any design and as much as people want to ignore it, it is the truth.
Click to expand...
ID took two major hits on this one:
  1. An irreducibly complex enzyme system was observed to evolve in a culture of bacteria.
  2. Behe now admits that irreducible complexity can evolve. He still thinks it’s rare, but has no evidence to support that belief.
The complex interdependant functionality within your body can not be explained by an evolutionary process.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a testable claim. Name something in the human body you know couldn’t have evolved. That’s not a rhetorical question. I’m willing to remind you, if you don’t answer.
This is strictly based upon an engineering analysis of how your body works.
Click to expand...
Very cool. Show us your “analysis.”
Intelligent Design as a conclusion of observing irreducible complexity and is not a lie.
Click to expand...
According to the guys who invented it, ID is to establish their particular brand of theism. It is, for example, the official doctrine of the Unification Church.

Anyway, I’m sure we’ll all be happy to see your answers and evidence to support them.
 
Bobx2x2 said:
“If you have a hard time with God having done it, believe the alien designed and built us.”

Aliens? Do you think anyone here is stupid enough to believe that?

Aliens? Is this your attempt to make ID look like science? Try telling a scientist that an alien did it. He would laugh at you for a very long time. I’m still laughing myself.
Click to expand...
It’s the scientists that came up with the Aliens Planting Life on Earth (and presumably elsewhere) Theory (sorry, don’t remember the exact name of the theory), after those scientists realized that the chances of life occurring “naturally” on Earth were pretty much 0.

Of course, that just leads to the next question, “Where did the Aliens come from?”

And it’s also scientists who came up with the multi-verse theory, after realizing that the fine tuning of the universal constants of nature pretty much ruled out “happenstance” as the cause. Unless you have an infinite number of universes, then of course anything is possible, like THIS universe.
 
Bobx2x2 said:
"Aliens? Is this your attempt to make ID look like science? Try telling a scientist that an alien did it. He would laugh at you for a very long time. I’m still laughing myself.

ID isn’t religion because maybe an alien did it. Right. That’s very funny, but how can anyone take anything else you said seriously?
Click to expand...
“Leslie Orgel, the Salk Institute theoretical chemist was the father of the RNA world theory of the origin of life and who joined with Nobel laureate Francis Crick to postulate that life might have been brought to Earth by an extraterrestrial intelligence, a process called directed panspermia.”
 
It’s the scientists that came up with the Aliens Planting Life on Earth (and presumably elsewhere) Theory (sorry, don’t remember the exact name of the theory), after those scientists realized that the chances of life occurring “naturally” on Earth were pretty much 0.
Click to expand...
All the evidence so far, indicates that it did occur naturally. And of course, God says that it did, in Genesis. He uses nature for most everything in this world.

You’ve been misled about what scientists have found. Almost all of them agree with Genesis on this issue.

Why does that bother you so?
 
If you read the ID literature they give a brief preamble about design being found in the universe and then start with the same old tired arguments of Creationism: the "incompleteness "of the fossil record, the impossibility of natural selection, “irreducible complexity” etc. I was VERY disappointed in the ID stuff. I think it is a big sham trying to sneak creationism into science through the back door. i do not support ID.

There is a valid argument from design. It comes from St. Thomas Aquinas. He argued that the laws of nature conspired together towards certain ends and that these ends indicate an underlying design. Technically speaking, he believed that for created things 'potency logically precedes act." That means that before you can actually have a brontosaurus, it must first be possible to have one. As such, everything in nature has been present potentially in every single hydrogen atom from the moment of creation. Stars, flowers, dinosaurs, people, CD players, chocolate sundaes were all logical present from the very beginning 14 billion years ago along with pi and E=mc(squared). That is a coincidence that needs explanation.

art
 
Joe << Forgive my slowness, but what exactly does this mean regarding Creationism and ID? Is it supposed to prove something? I’m missing the link, I think! >>

Here, let me help you out. Which way did you come in? 😃

CREATIONISTS (Creation Biology, 1983, early draft which eventually became Of Pandas and People, 1989, 1993)
CREATIONISTS (Biology and Creation, 1986, early draft which eventually became Of Pandas and People, 1989, 1993)
CREATIONISTS (Biology and Origins, 1987, which became Of Pandas and People, 1989, 1993)
CREATIONISTS (Of Pandas and People, 1987, early “creationist” draft)
CDesign ProponentISTS (Of Pandas and People, 1987, early “intelligent design” draft)
Design Proponents (Of Pandas and People, 1989, current version, also 1993 version)

Of Pandas and People was the first “Intelligent Design” textbook. It originated in a series of drafts on creationism with just a few word changes. Therefore, it is creationism evolved. 👍 The missing link or transitional word is “CDesign ProponentISTS” – a creature that talks a lot about “intelligence” and “design” but uses long discredited creationist arguments against evolution. :eek: 👍

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top