Why do people equate ID with Creationism?

[rossum]

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.

You are incorrect. Irreducibly complex systems can and do evolve. Lenski et al’s paper The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features shows the evolution of Irreducibly Complex systems. The supplementary material includes a mutation by mutation line of descent from a non-IC system to an IC system, see Line of Descent.

Even Professor Behe, who rediscovered the concept of IC, agrees that IC systems can evolve, see Behe and Snoke Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. To quote from the abstract:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10[sup]8[/sup] generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10[sup]9[/sup].
To put those figures in context, for bacteria 10[sup]8[/sup] generations can take 20,000 years and a ton of soil has a population of 10[sup]16[/sup] bacteria - that is 10,000,000 times larger that the population Behe is talking about in just a single ton of soil. In evolutionary terms, Behe is saying that IC systems can evolve in small populations and in the blink of an eye.

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

Behe’s original IC argument was:

• IC systems cannot evolve.
• Living things contain IC systems.
• Living things cannot have evolved.

It is now realised that the first step of this argument is incorrect. The revised version goes:

• IC systems are unlikely to have evolved.
• Living things contain IC systems.
• Living things are unlikely to have evolved have evolved.

The argument now centres on exactly how unlikely it is that IC evolves. Even Behe’s own work shows that the evolution of IC systems is reasonably likely. The observation of IC does not invalidate evolution.

there is no viable or plausible mechanism of evolution which can explain the interdependant functionality within living organisms.

You are incorrect, evolution provides a perfectly good explanation, and Behe agrees that it can.

rossum

 

[Steve40]

Steve40:

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.”

Why are we so arrogant that we can not say that we do not know. The process of evolution is disputed even with those who believe in evolution. Many of them believe in miraculouse time periods where things changed differently than we observe right now. The mechanism is completely theoretical and the interacting functionality within living organisms does not present a mechanism for gradual change.

Yes, I believe in God but I recognize the faith is a gift and not everyone has been given it. Therefore, if you don’t want to believe in God don’t believe in God. There isn’t much I can do about.

Unfortunately your attitude makes me want to do nothing about it. If you want to say that I am lying, fine, say it and believe it. It is not my responsibility to correct you. I leave you to your ignorants.

 

[rossum]

The process of evolution is disputed even with those who believe in evolution.

This is a dangerous argument for you to use. Is Christianity invalid because there are disputes between Christians about what Christianity really is? Almost any group of people will have disagreements between themselves, including biologists and including Christians. There are disagreements between Historians about the exact details of the Fall of the Roman Empire; that does not invalidate the fact that the Roman Empire did indeed fall. Evolution happens, biologists disagree on some of the details of how it happens.

Many of them believe in miraculouse time periods where things changed differently than we observe right now.

Who? Names and examples please.

The mechanism is completely theoretical

False. Random mutation has been observed in the laboratory - see the Luria-Delbrück experiment. You really need to learn more about evolution before you criticise it. How can you criticise something you know very little about? The argument “I have never read the Bible, but I know that it is wrong” is not very convincing. You appear to be in a similar position.

and the interacting functionality within living organisms does not present a mechanism for gradual change.

Incorrect. There are indirect evolutionary paths to Irreducibly Complex systems. Two common examples are co-option or scaffolding. Co-option takes a system used for one purpose and adapts it for another purpose, scaffolding develops a system with many parts and then removes some parts (the “scaffolding”) so that what is left is IC.

rossum

 

[Steve40]

This is a dangerous argument for you to use. Is Christianity invalid because there are disputes between Christians about what Christianity really is? Almost any group of people will have disagreements between themselves, including biologists and including Christians. There are disagreements between Historians about the exact details of the Fall of the Roman Empire; that does not invalidate the fact that the Roman Empire did indeed fall. Evolution happens, biologists disagree on some of the details of how it happens.

My point is that the mechanism of evolution is not known. It is important to separate in your mind what is based upon belief and what is based upon known fact. Christianity is based upon faith/belief and faith is a gift. You can site facts within history but ultimately you can not be a Christian, i.e. one you places is their hope of salvation in Christ Jesus as God without faith.

Who? Names and examples please.

I was refering to the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. See

pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html

False. Random mutation has been observed in the laboratory - see the Luria-Delbrück experiment. You really need to learn more about evolution before you criticise it. How can you criticise something you know very little about? The argument “I have never read the Bible, but I know that it is wrong” is not very convincing. You appear to be in a similar position.

Who said I’m trying to convice you? You need to study and learn for yourself. I’m not your teacher.

Mutation is great at resulting in cancer. What is more likely cancer or new complex functionality? The random mutation to new complex functionality has not been observed in the laboratory. Your bar of success is too low and you beleive in the unconservative extrapolations of non-objective scientists. Mathimatically the mutation to complex functionality is incredible. Mathimatics is not in the favor of evolution. Notice how the evolutionary time scales have increased as we learn more about Genetics. If you say to an evolutionist that mathimatics does not support their random assertion they just throw more time at it.

Incorrect. There are indirect evolutionary paths to Irreducibly Complex systems. Two common examples are co-option or scaffolding. Co-option takes a system used for one purpose and adapts it for another purpose, scaffolding develops a system with many parts and then removes some parts (the “scaffolding”) so that what is left is IC.
rossum

What about when the purposes of functionality counter act each other as in a control system? Development of these types of functionality can not be explained by incremental process because the complexity within control systems are irreducible.

 

[zian]

"rossum:

False. Random mutation has been observed in the laboratory - see the Luria-Delbrück experiment. You really need to learn more about evolution before you criticise it. How can you criticise something you know very little about? The argument “I have never read the Bible, but I know that it is wrong” is not very convincing. You appear to be in a similar position.

To which was replied -

Who said I’m trying to convice you? You need to study and learn for yourself. I’m not your teacher.

Steve - seriously, that response is beyond weak. Do you have a counter to rossum’s claim or don’t you?

Mutation is great at resulting in cancer. What is more likely cancer or new complex functionality?

Most mutations are neutral

More here -
talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

 

[rossum]

My point is that the mechanism of evolution is not known.

The mechanisms (plural) are known: random mutation, natural selection, neutral drift, sexual selection, founder effect and others. There may possible be more we have no found yet, but these are enough to be going on with for the moment.

I was refering to the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.

You referred to “Many of them believe in miraculouse time periods where things changed differently than we observe right now.” To me that is not Punctuated Equilibrium, there is nothing miraculous about punk eek - it is just the observation that evolution can run at different speeds in different circumstances. Your link gave a good example of this, nothing miraculous about it.

Mutation is great at resulting in cancer. What is more likely cancer or new complex functionality?

The majority of mutations are neutral having no effect on the phenotype. Of the remaining mutations the majority are deleterious in most circumstances, a small minority will be beneficial in some circumstances. Over many generations the deleterious mutations will be suppressed in the population and the very few beneficial mutations will be amplified in the population. This differential amplification repeated over many generations (think of compound interest) will spread the beneficial mutations through the population. A beneficial mutation only has to happen once in the population.

The random mutation to new complex functionality has not been observed in the laboratory.

False. I referred to the Lenski paper in my other response to you in this thread. That paper shows random mutation and selection leading to new complex functionality in the laboratory. To copy my paragraph there:

You are incorrect. Irreducibly complex systems can and do evolve. Lenski et al’s paper The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features shows the evolution of Irreducibly Complex systems. The supplementary material includes a mutation by mutation line of descent from a non-IC system to an IC system, see Line of Descent.

Note the title of Lenski’s paper: “The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features”. Please do check that what you are saying is true before you say it. Posting incorrect statements does not make your argument look good.

Mathimatically the mutation to complex functionality is incredible. Mathimatics is not in the favor of evolution.

Mathematics is only as good as the model you are using. Does your mathematical model take into account the effects of natural selection? If it fails to account for natural selection then it is not a model of evolution. Most creationist mathematical model are of the “tornado in a junkyard” variety and include random mutation but not natural selection. For an example of a better mathematical model of evolution I refer you to my piece on The Evolution of Boojumase. Using a better model shows that the mathematics is in favour of evolution.

If you say to an evolutionist that mathimatics does not support their random assertion they just throw more time at it.

Evolution is not entirely random - natural selection for one is a highly non-random process. Randomness does form part of evolution but it is not all of it. Any mathematical model that omits the non-random elements of evolution is faulty and should not be used.

What about when the purposes of functionality counter act each other as in a control system? Development of these types of functionality can not be explained by incremental process because the complexity within control systems are irreducible.

Why not? The lens of the eye has a control system to focus it. In other living organisms we see eyes with lenses alone - no focusing like a Box Brownie fixed focus camera, we see eyes with crude control systems, we see eyes with better control systems than our eyes (eagles can focus their eyes more sharply than we can). Are our eyes useless because we cannot focus as well as eagles? Of course not. Our eyes are good enough for our purposes as we do not need to see a mouse in undergrowth from 1000 feet in the air. An incremental process can develop a crude control system into a better control system. At each stage the eyes are good enough for the organism using them.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Why does it seem that many people equate the Intelligent Design movement (ID) with Creationism?

If it quacks like a duck …

The people I know that subscribe to ID are pretty adamant that they are two completely different things.

ID people tend to say that when talking to secular audiences. When talking to religious audiences they can sound different:Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

William Dembski - Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999

Are they different or are they the same?

Some of both. After the US Supreme Court turned down “Creation Science” in Edwards v Aguillard, creationists looked for a new way to get creationism into publically funded schools. ID was devised by Philip Johnson, a lawyer, as a sort of “creationism lite” with even less God (sorry, ‘Designer’, nudge, nudge, wink, wink) and even more scienciness to try and cover up the religious ideas underpinning ID. So ID is creationism in a lab coat.

If they are different, what is the major difference?

Creationism tends to be very explicit about its religious motivation and also tends to be Young Earth: 6 x 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago. ID is a “big tent” with a great deal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. It is not specific about the age of the earth as it needs the money coming in from the YECs and it wants to look sciency at the same time. It refuses to discuss the nature of the Designer while YECs are very explicit that they are talking about God. ID tries to hide its religious motivations behind an appearance of science, YECs are much less concerned with the appearance of science.

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

Political reasons. YEC and Creation Science have both been rejected by the Supreme Court. ID has to at least look different in order to have any chance of winning in court. Remember that at heart ID is a political movement, not a scientific one. They spend a lot more time and money on their politics than they do on their science.

I’m not trying to start an argument. Just trying to understand!

Try reading about The Wedge Document for the background on the aims and motivations of the ID movement.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

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?

“God says that it did”? Said what? You’re kidding, right? God created everything from nothing by the power of His Word. There was nothing natural about that. He uses “nature.”? Nature is a concept.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

I will bow out since I’m tired of arguing with the same atheistic Catholics over the same issues.

Ricmat, you gave a good and accurate summary of what ID is and what creationism is, as well as why creationists sometimes appeal to ID and the consequences of their contradictory embrace of ID.

I must, however, correct you on one point: ID is neither religion nor science. It is philosophy.

I don’t know what you mean by “atheistic Catholics” - obviously I think we can both agree that that is an oxymoron - but I hope that you would not slander with that title Catholics who acknowledge that ID is not science, but rather very good philosophy.

Bobx2x2:

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.

“Creationism” and so-called “creation science” are not the same thing as “intelligent design.” Get your facts right before you embarrass yourself.

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.

Creationism claims that God created the earth and everything on it in six periods of twenty-four hours just a few thousand years ago. Intelligent design does not. To pretend otherwise is to be either ignorant or deliberately misleading.

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.

In light of the attitude revealed by your snide tone, your inaccurate understanding of intelligent design does not come as a surprise to me.

Intelligent design is not based on aspects of the material world that we don’t understand. We don’t look at the “gaps” in scientific theories and say, “Gee, I guess God is the cause of this and there’s no material explanation!”

Rather, we look at what we do know and conclude from that that such complexity - even when already fully understood - is far more likely to have been intended than unintended.

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.

Most real proponents of intelligent design do believe in evolution. So how exactly are we “ignorant” of evolutionary science?

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.

Any claim that creationism and intelligent design are the same when the former says the earth is only a few thousand years old and everything was made in six periods of twenty-four hours, while the latter does not, is either intended to mislead or is the product of obstinate ignorance.

Unfortunately the ID creationists are not so honest. Every time they claim ID is science, everyone, even the creationists, knows they are lying.

Intelligent design is not science. It is philosophy.

Bob’s argument, boys and girls, is an example of the straw man fallacy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy.

Do not misrepresent other people’s beliefs, Bob.

ID proponents won’t admit intelligent design is nothing more than a collection of magic tricks because they want to pretend ID is science.

I believe in intelligent design, and I don’t think it’s science. It’s good philosophy, but it’s not science, because the existence of a divine designer is not empirically falsifiable. That is why it should not be taught in public school science classrooms.

But it is true.

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.

Maybe if you took the time to figure out exactly what the people you’re arguing with actually believe, you wouldn’t be so angry about it.

ID is truly more rational and solid than you’re acknowledging.

artsippo:

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.

Thank you for posting this.

When I first heard of “intelligent design,” I realized that it was nothing new. Somebody, somewhere, had simply discovered Aquinas’ design argument and was excited about it. It’s nothing new. It is a philosophical argument for the existence of God, and it works.

 

[ricmat]

I must, however, correct you on one point: ID is neither religion nor science. It is philosophy.

I don’t know what you mean by “atheistic Catholics” - obviously I think we can both agree that that is an oxymoron - but I hope that you would not slander with that title Catholics who acknowledge that ID is not science, but rather very good philosophy.

I agree however I disagree.

Isn’t philosophy the study of everything?

To the extent that ID uses scientific methods to determine the existence (or non-existence) of design in nature, or uses scientific methods to calculate the probability of life occurring by random processes, or uses scientific methodology to understand other aspects of nature, then it is science.

When conclusions are drawn that the designer is God, then of course it becomes religion.

There are Catholics here who deny that ID has any scientific merit strictly because ID is done by people who are religious, or have openly religious motives (How terrible! Trying to better understand the glory of God’s creation using reason and science! Since they have religious motives, what they’re doing is religion, not science!) Surely you’ve heard this before. If not, you’ll hear it here before this is all over. I see that you’re a new poster.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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?

“God says that it did”?

Yep:

"Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done."

You’re kidding, right? God created everything from nothing by the power of His Word.

He says otherwise. You should let Him decide. Some things were created ex nihilo, but other things were created from nature.

You and I for example.

 

[wildleafblower]

(msg. 28) Responding to The Barbarian
The Barbarian;3297760:

(msg. 17) 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?

“God says that it did”? Said what? You’re kidding, right? God created everything from nothing by the power of His Word. There was nothing natural about that. He uses “nature.”? Nature is a concept.

God bless,
Ed

Barbarian REPLIES to Ed:

(msg. 31)Barbarian observes: Replying to Ed’s msg. 28]

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?

“God says that it did”?

Barbarian, I don’t personally know of anyone including myself and scientists that agree with or take literally with what you have presented, “Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.” And there is absolutley not anyone I know that agrees with or takes literally Genesis 6:5-8,19And God said to Noah: ‘I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark of gopher wood’" (Genesis 6:13-14)… “‘For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground’” (Genesis 7:4) …“And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth” (Genesis 7:10)."

Barbarian, please correct me if I’m wrong, Barbarian you believe to be the literal truth **Genesis 1:24 ** “And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.” and **Genesis 6:5-8,19 **“And God said to Noah: ‘I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark of gopher wood’” (Genesis 6:13-14)… “‘For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground’” (Genesis 7:4) …“And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth” (Genesis 7:10).

 

[Teflon93]

Intelligent Design is creationism in that the design it posits is the design of the universe, especially the creation of man. It is the opposite of materialism, which propounds that the random interaction of elements over time produced all we see.

ID proponents are too clever by half sometimes, pretending to be agnostic on occasion as to the nature of the Creator implied by the evidence they present. This is unfortunate, because it undermines their credibility with both Christians and atheists.

Their argument is twofold:

1. Evidence points to the universe being created.
2. Creation requires a Creator.

In advancing the first argument in hostile secular territory, they sometimes evince that the second isn’t obviously to follow.

I have great respect for William Dembski, Philip Jenkins, Michael Behe et al but wonder why they insist on soft-pedalling their faith. It gains them nothing from the atheists, certainly.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, I don’t personally know of anyone including myself and scientists that agree with or take literally with what you have presented, "Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done

."

I don’t take it literally, but it is true. Remember, Biblical allegory is still true, just not literal. And God here was telling us that He is the author of life, but that nature brought forth living things as He intended.

I don’t know if there was a specific flood to which God refers in Genesis. Maybe so; there certainly was such a flood in the ancient Middle East, a flood of Biblical proportions that flooded a huge area when the Mediterranian broke through into what is now the Black Sea.

Does it matter?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I agree however I disagree.

Fair enough.

Isn’t philosophy the study of everything?

Not in any practical sense of the term. We have different names for different studies and different ways of studying precisely because the methods and extent of different fields of study truly do differ.

Of course, I fully acknowledge that philosophy is quite rational and “scientific” in the broadest sense of the term.

To the extent that ID uses scientific methods to determine the existence (or non-existence) of design in nature, or uses scientific methods to calculate the probability of life occurring by random processes, or uses scientific methodology to understand other aspects of nature, then it is science.

True, but the ulimate conclusion of intelligent design is that there is a Designer. Without that conclusion, ID is not ID. That there is a designer is not empirically falsifiable, so in your own words:

When conclusions are drawn that the designer is God, then of course it becomes religion.

I don’t think ID is ever religion, per se, because it doesn’t rely on any religious teachings or on divine revelation. It is based on observation and reason, so I would argue that when that conclusion is reached, ID becomes philosophy.

And I think that conclusion is what makes intelligent design what it is, so if you keep the study of the probability of complex life occuring through chance and other such topics confined to empirically falsifiable hypotheses, then I agree that it is science, but not that it is truly the idea of intelligent design.

There are Catholics here who deny that ID has any scientific merit strictly because ID is done by people who are religious, or have openly religious motives (How terrible! Trying to better understand the glory of God’s creation using reason and science! Since they have religious motives, what they’re doing is religion, not science!) Surely you’ve heard this before. If not, you’ll hear it here before this is all over. I see that you’re a new poster.

Ick, I would of course disagree with them fervently. One’s motive in proposing an argument has no effect on that argument’s validity, nor do the characteristics of the person who happens to be making the argument. If the arguer’s characteristics were relevant, then of course ad hominem arguments would be valid.

I do not believe it is science, because it is not empirically falsifiable. But I don’t wish to detract from its rational validity or its compelling nature as an argument. I fully accept and believe intelligent design, but don’t see it as valid to teach it in public school science classrooms.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Intelligent Design is creationism in that the design it posits is the design of the universe, especially the creation of man. It is the opposite of materialism, which propounds that the random interaction of elements over time produced all we see.

But creationism by definition is not first and foremost something that “posits the design of the universe.” Creationism does assume that, but central to the definition of “creationism” is the idea that our world and everything on it was literally made in six twenty-four hour periods just several thousand years ago.

Without that belief, one is not a creationist.

ID proponents are too clever by half sometimes, pretending to be agnostic on occasion as to the nature of the Creator implied by the evidence they present.

I don’t think they “pretend to be agnostic,” they simply admit that ID does not prove that the Designer proven by its arguments necessarily has all the characteristics that Christians believe it has based on what they believe to be divine revelation.

It is entirely consistent and rational to say, “I, as a Christian, believe many things about the nature of God. But I fully acknowledge that intelligent design does not prove any of these ‘divine attributes,’ and I am not pretending that it does. Intelligent design simply provides evidence for the existence of a Designer of the universe. Though this does not prove the existence of my Christian God, it is enough to refute atheism.”

This is unfortunate, because it undermines their credibility with both Christians and atheists.

I don’t understand why it would undermine their credibility. Surely intelligent Christians wouldn’t be irritated by the admission that ID does not prove all the attributes of the Christian God. I certainly am not irritated by that.

Their argument is twofold:

1. Evidence points to the universe being created.
2. Creation requires a Creator.

I agree that those are the two premises of the design argument.

In advancing the first argument in hostile secular territory, they sometimes evince that the second isn’t obviously to follow.

I could easily misunderstand you, so forgive me and simply correct me if I do. But what it sounds like you’re saying to me is that the second premise, which is needed for the argument to work, is not necessarily true. If that premise is indeed false, it would negate the argument. But why would it be false?

Again, if that’s not at all what you were saying, then never mind.

I have great respect for William Dembski, Philip Jenkins, Michael Behe et al but wonder why they insist on soft-pedalling their faith. It gains them nothing from the atheists, certainly.

Again, I don’t think they’re “soft-pedalling” their faith so much as admitting that intelligent design doesn’t prove Christianity, it simply refutes atheism.

Why can’t a rational Christian say, “These are the things I believe. The following philosophical argument does not prove everything I believe, it only proves one element of my beliefs”?

 

[edwest2]

Barbarian observes:
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?

Yep:

"Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done."

He says otherwise. You should let Him decide. Some things were created ex nihilo, but other things were created from nature.

You and I for example.

God did not use something outside of Himself. Nature is God’s creation. Almost all scientists agree with Genesis? Can I see that in writing? I’ve been reminded numerous times that God, much less Genesis, never appears in scientific papers/studies/journals.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Teflon93]

Without that belief, one is not a creationist.

Unfortunately, that’s not how materialists define creationism. They tend to define it as “believing a supernatural entity caused the universe to come to be,” a broader definition. That doesn’t stop them from making hay out of the fundamentalist/literalist interpretation, however.

I don’t think they “pretend to be agnostic,” they simply admit that ID does not prove that the Designer proven by its arguments necessarily has all the characteristics that Christians believe it has based on what they believe to be divine revelation.

I’ve read all of the major ID books and follow their interviews pretty closely; I have to disagree with you. Dembski and others tend to play cute when it comes to the religious implications of their work. They do so I believe because they want ID to be considered science and taught in schools as such.

It is entirely consistent and rational to say, “I, as a Christian, believe many things about the nature of God. But I fully acknowledge that intelligent design does not prove any of these ‘divine attributes,’ and I am not pretending that it does. Intelligent design simply provides evidence for the existence of a Designer of the universe. Though this does not prove the existence of my Christian God, it is enough to refute atheism.”

That is indeed consistent and rational, but not very helpful. Newton was a Christian, Copernicus was a Christian, Mendel was a Christian—their work, while motivated to a large degree by their faith, stands on its own. There is no need (as Catholics well know) to maintain a fiction that Creation is somehow divorced from Creator. Indeed, I believe we do much harm when we surrender science to atheists. After all, science is in large measure the product of the Catholic Church.

I don’t understand why it would undermine their credibility. Surely intelligent Christians wouldn’t be irritated by the admission that ID does not prove all the attributes of the Christian God. I certainly am not irritated by that.

Red herring. I’ve never claimed ID proves or disproves all the attributes of the Christian God. Neither have I claimed to be irritated or not by this “fact”.

It undermines Dembski and Behe’s credibility with the atheists and agnostics; it reinforces the notion that they’re trying to pull a fast one.

I don’t think they are, nor do I think they’re playing “God of the gaps” (the inverse of which atheists play all the time, “Science of the gaps”—just look at the stem cell debate, where they claim all these miraculous things “science” will do with embryonic stem cells without a single example of an application today (whereas there are dozens for adult stem cells). “Irreducible complexity” is a good example—Behe claims that there are biological constructs which simply cannot be produced through intermediary stages and serve a useful function, a requirement for Darwinist claims to be true. One need only find plausible examples of this (not the just-so theories the Darwinists trade in, which are no different than the fairytale approaches they accuse Christians of taking) to refute Behe. The fact that the Darwinists have had to resort to inexplicable computer models (boy, they’ve worked well for global warming, haven’t they?) is an indication that Behe’s no easy mark.

Still, I’d prefer ID advocates to unabashedly state that they’re seeking to advance their faith. After all, that’s why Copernicus set out to study the solar system.

I could easily misunderstand you, so forgive me and simply correct me if I do. But what it sounds like you’re saying to me is that the second premise, which is needed for the argument to work, is not necessarily true. If that premise is indeed false, it would negate the argument. But why would it be false?

I’m not stating that at all; merely noting that when ID advocates pretend as though they’re advancing the first exclusively, and are agnostic on the second, they undermine their credibility. There’s no need to fudge things here—if ID proves correct, then we have evidence of the Creator. Sure, all the atheists would then swarm to posit the existence of an advanced civilization of interstellar Johnny Appleseeds—all of which happen to closely resemble atheist scientists in temperament and philosophy, of course—but the rest of us will recognize the hand of God when we see it.

Again, if that’s not at all what you were saying, then never mind.

No worries.

Again, I don’t think they’re “soft-pedalling” their faith so much as admitting that intelligent design doesn’t prove Christianity, it simply refutes atheism.

Why can’t a rational Christian say, “These are the things I believe. The following philosophical argument does not prove everything I believe, it only proves one element of my beliefs”?

That’s perfectly fine. Anyone can of course say anything they wish, and argue anything they like.

My preference is simply that the faithful be open about it. Being squirrelly on the topic only makes laymen question whether the evidence provided is real or not, a point the atheist materialists are only too happy to exploit, having come up way short in the evidence category themselves.

But I’ll stop and wait for one of them to deride “God of the gaps” while whistling past the lack of transitional fossils and all the other evidentiary problems which force them to resort to “Science of the gaps.”

It’s a lot like that MST3K episode where radar was supposed to be capable of magical feats (the movie they were ridiculing was made in the 40s, right after radar came on the scene).

“Sure, we can’t prove that NOW, but science will surely prove that Tuesday if you give us a hamburger today…”

 

[crowonsnow]

Some things were created ex nihilo, but other things were created from nature.

Is this where scientific and religious explanations diverge? I ask because it seems to me that at this point a double standard has been introduced.

Good discussion.

 

[joeybaggz]

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.

He, isn’t this rich, an atheist invoking God’s sake and the Ten Commandments. Bobby, you’re a funny guy.

Never thought I could find a good laugh in a discussion of atheism.
Wonders never cease.