Why do people equate ID with Creationism?

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

Could you give the number of the post you’re responding to in Post #140? Thanks.

Don
+T+
 
Bobx2x2 said:
“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.
Click to expand...
that’s simply rediculious, Francis C. Collins is quite competent and a theistic evolutionist.

as for the EMPHESIS on “LIAR” typing in CAPS dosen’t make your claims CORRECT

Now to say that ID and Creationism are the same because they both invoke God is silly, that’s like saying Cantor’s work and Zermelo’s work are the same because there both about set theory.

Firstly we must make a distinction, a creationist is simply someone who beleives the universe was created or some variant of that fact, in this sense Einstein would be something of a creationist despite the fact that anything he had like religious beleif was drastically different from anything like a Christian fundamentalist would consider religious beleif, it is an extreamly broad aggregate, now a Creationist generally refers to a Young Earth Creationist, Creationism is a subset of creationism, as are varients of ID theory and theistic evolution.

Now Creationism and ID theory are vastely different ideas, they are both most likely wrong, but wrong for different reasons, ID theory generally involves an error of logic, or a “god of the gaps” error, Creationism generally involves some radically different metaphysical basis of assumptions than any naturalist, or really any really sane persone, would make.

Now, I would not say that Creationism is false, I don’t see any strictly logical errors or any evidence that would refute it(naturally, as it is distinctly non-falsefiable), but it just seems like an absurd idea, but I don’t think you can say anything more about it.
 
Bobx2x2 said:
“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.
Click to expand...
If an elaborately constructed, metallic object was found on Mars, what would scientists think? They would think that an intelligence made it even though they had no other information about this intelligence. There is no need to suggest God made the object. This is the essence of intelligent design. Just as an archaeologist can tell the difference between a triangular rock and an arrowhead, that’s an example of clearly identifying intelligent design.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
If an elaborately constructed, metallic object was found on Mars, what would scientists think? They would think that an intelligence made it even though they had no other information about this intelligence. There is no need to suggest God made the object. This is the essence of intelligent design. Just as an archaeologist can tell the difference between a triangular rock and an arrowhead, that’s an example of clearly identifying intelligent design.
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
That is exactly right. When the Rosetta Stone was found in Egypt it had to be evaluated as the product of intelligence and then as a key to hieroglyphics. The researchers knew it was the product of intelligence – even though they didn’t know precisly who created it.

It’s the same with intelligent design theory. It observes indications of intelligence in nature and the universe. This argument is not meant to prove the existence of the Blessed Trinity, for example. It just offers the reasonable conclusion that there are aspects of nature which cannot be explained by blind, purposeless, unintelligent forces like those of Darwinian evolution.
 
everything in science is always on trial, if the ID crowd actually brought any evidence they would be taken seriously, but irreducible complexity was shown to be reducible and most everything else they brought to the table is just wishful thinking.

ken miller bacterial flagellum
youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4&feature=related

Why teaching creationism is a horrible idea:
youtube.com/watch?v=dYphna9UTCk

“Its the opposite of fair, evolution and any other scientific theory has to go through rigorous testing, but creationism just gets to jump to the head of the line because its different?”
 
There is living design all around us. Even Richard Dawkins said that life appeared to be designed, but he made the unscientific leap to the conclusion that this design was not actual design.

The Church has concluded the opposite – there is design in nature and design requires a designer.

Peace,
Ed
 
I guess a good thread never really dies. It just goes away for a time. 😉
 
Actually, NO.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

You are being mislead by a Seattle based think tank called the Discovery Institute. They arnt holy, they arnt scientific and they certainly arnt looking out for your best interests.

now as far as dawkins, he sure says alot of stuff doesnt he? how about a link to what he said specifically? did he just say nuh-uh and run away flailing his arms, or did he prattle on for half an hour about examples of why he thinks so?
 
I have no idea who runs any of these Institutes.

See the article: Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn. It appeared in the New York Times and is available online.

Peace,
Ed
 
curioosbadger said:
Actually, NO.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

You are being mislead by a Seattle based think tank called the Discovery Institute. They arnt holy, they arnt scientific and they certainly arnt looking out for your best interests.

now as far as dawkins, he sure says alot of stuff doesnt he? how about a link to what he said specifically? did he just say nuh-uh and run away flailing his arms, or did he prattle on for half an hour about examples of why he thinks so?
Click to expand...
You didn’t sign your religious affiliation. What are your qualifications to speak about what Catholicism teaches?
 
curioosbadger said:
None. do you have anything which contradicts my assertion?
Click to expand...
No qualifications to speak about Catholicism … ok, I can’t see any evidence that you have a sincere enough interest in the topic. I’ll be glad to help you learn about the Catholic faith, but again, it does not appear that you want to do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top