Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same

Discovery Institute ^ | January 9, 2003 | John G. West, Jr.

[Aric2000]

Hey G3K, I'll just tell you this.

I believe that Jesus DID NOT die on the cross, it was a sham to get he and his family out of Roman influence and danger. The royal bloodline had to be preserved.

I have had access to the geneaology of said bloodline and it is VERY convincing, I may be wrong, and will rot in hell forever, but I don't think so. I have stated outright that I do not have the proof, YET. I have not been disegenuis about that at all.

You on the other hand have yet to give proof of anything about evolution as unscientific, you state your personal psycho rants about it, but I have seen no proof.

Give me proof, the proof is on you, because you are the one that claims it.

I can give you links and scientific opinions on the validity of the Theory of Evolution all day long, but you CANNOT come up with one that will state what you want. Therefore you tell me that it is up to me.

Well sorry G3K, defacate or get off the pot.

[Aric2000]

belligerence? I like that...

I'll wear that badge!! ;)

you're all right Dallas, even if I think your theory of ID is religion and not science. And most scientists agree with me.

I'll agree to disagree with you, you have been fairly civil, even after I pissed you off, so, you're not a total lost cause...;)

[Aric2000]

You caught me in a good mood tonight, I don't feel like being belligerent tonight.

tomorrow, on the other hand.....

You never know what tomorrow will bring.

[Lev]

Here's the dispute: ID says that evolution can't work with random variations.

Where does it say that?

Can't create an eye by chance, etc.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

If our discussion is a good indication, it appears there is hope in lessening the contention between the theory of evolution and intelligent design.

This segment of the discussion starts at 451 where I remarked to you that:

the very strict definition of the term evolution as it applies to biological systems, i.e. the theory of evolution, requires that the process never be directed and that it have no purpose.

Doctor Stochastic was quick to pick up on that, and at 454, remarked:

Evolutionary theory does not require that either mutation nor selection be undirected.

I had already posted several times on this thread, the definition of the intelligent design from the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. Since the major players in the intelligent design movement are fellows it must be definitive:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." So, I read the Doctor Stochastic remark as an excellent opportunity to move for peace and replied at 456 as follows:

Then there is no substantive dispute between the theory of evolution and intelligent design. That statement in K-12 textbooks would make all the difference!

You reacted immediately after, at post 457, by saying:

Here's the dispute: ID says that evolution can't work with random variations. That was a rather sweeping statement considering the website uses the term certain features so I followed-up by asking you at 458:

Where does it say that? And this morning, you answered my question by giving an example:

Can't create an eye by chance, etc.. I’ve gone through this recap to illustrate to the lurkers that the difference between the two is not substantive and thus the contentiousness must be a matter of prejudice or ideology:

The intelligent design side only claims that certain things can best be explained by intelligent cause rather than undirected process --- and, according to Doctor Stochastic, evolutionary theory does not require that either mutation or selection be undirected.

Since the two views are not mutually exclusive, in any normal intellectual debate, one would expect the issue to center on the certain things (such as the eye) rather than the label worn by the scientists engaging in the debate. But even in such a narrow dispute, each side will dismiss the other out-of-hand simply because of the label worn. And how can that be anything less than prejudice and ideology?

My prediction is that all the contentiousness will be brought to a sudden end simply because of the epistemological zeal which was brought to the table by the mathematics, physics and information theory disciplines which have become involved. Prejudice always yields in these disciplines.

Just my two cents...

[Doctor Stochastic]

Actually, ID requires an "outside entity" to direct things, although the IDers are not very forthcoming about what things need guidance. Current evolutionary theory makes no such requirement.

[DeathfromBelow]

:0 - Secret Documents that only wittle aric can read, sounds like Joseph Smith and the translating glasses. lol

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

Actually, ID requires an "outside entity" to direct things, although the IDers are not very forthcoming about what things need guidance. Current evolutionary theory makes no such requirement.

Er, the term used is ”intelligent cause” and not ”outside entity”. The difference is not moot since the term intelligent cause neither implies an entity nor its location: inside, outside, neither or both.

Presumably, intelligent cause could be anything - including transcendent collective consciousness, extra dimensional beings, free will, etc. I of course believe God is the intelligent cause but to personify the phrase ”intelligent cause” would be beyond science. That is the domain of theology or metaphysics, IMHO.

Getting back to the bottom line, which to me covers all of it though the intelligent design movement only narrows in on certain things:

[it] is either guided or not. If guided, it may be by deterministic laws or by intelligence. If it is guided by deterministic laws, then the goalpost has moved, the question will come up again. Ultimately, one can either choose intelligent design or anthropic principle or the plenitude argument to resolve the issue to one’s own, personal ideology. One final point, IMHO if Intelligent Design were pedaling only one meaning to the intelligent cause term - it would not be science, it would be ideology.

[DeathfromBelow]

I also know a scientist in the field of evolutionary science, 2 archeologists, 1 paleantologists, 3 biologists, and 1 geneticist, oh, and an astronomer, and radioastronomer makes 2, and of course physicist, that's 3 physicists that I know, oh and a nuclear scientist as well. I find the physicists and paleantologist the most interesting of them all though...

I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express Last Night. Guess that explains it.

[longshadow]

chaotic placemarker

[Condorman]

Dead thread