Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]

It looks like you missed my reply to you in Message 70.--Percy

This is a point that I've been making and you've been ignoring. The ultimate creator of ID is a divine being, but you prefer to ignore this obvious implication of ID because it reveals its religious foundation. As I said in Message 70, no scientific field puts limits on inquiry as ID does when it says that the active agent behind design is not an object of study. I, too, am a theist. But I don't believe a divine being directed the course of evolution, and I don't think Meert or Miller do, either, though now I'm not as sure as I once was.--Percy

How are you going to make people believe this? One of the first questions one thinks of when hearing of ID is, "Who is the intelligent designer?" When you respond that it's not important it raises alarm bells and makes people wonder what you're hiding. This isn't a formula for successful persuasion.Your approach contrasts distinctly with legitimate science, and you raise this issue next: But we do care very much how life started on Earth. Evolution and abiogenesis are both legitimate areas of inquiry within biology. For you to have an analogous situation you would have to claim that ID and the designer are both legitimate areas of inquiry, but that they are separate areas of research. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying intelligent design can be investigated but the designer itself is not of interest. If I find a minute I'll drop Joe a line. My own beliefs are far less specific. I believe in God, but I have no idea what his role is, what his plans are, and what our role in those plans are, if any.--Percy

Hi Joe!Good to hear from you. Thanks for the clarification. The hurricanes were so bad you fled to Finland, huh! --Percy

Now that we understand that ID Man defines Creationism synonymously with Young Earth Creationism, I think we can all agree that by his definition, ID is not part of Creationism.But like almost all words, Creationism has no single definition. The definition of Creationism used by this board includes Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism and ID. What Creationism means is a function of context, and by this definition, ID is part of Creationism.Some of the disagreement in this thread is a function of shifting back and forth between definitions. For example, I said that Creationism had been discredited as science by the US legal system. But what has really been discredited is Young Earth Creationism. ID very understandably wants to distance itself from Young Earth Creationism, and ID can very legitimately say that it has nothing to do with Young Earth Creationism.ID Man's preferred definition of Creationism also has a strong claim for precedence over the broader definition, because whenever the term Creationism comes up in conversation people almost always think of Biblical literalism and its accompanying science informed by flood theology. If one means Creationism in the broader sense then one should be clear about it, and we *have* done that for the most part in this thread.Theistic evolution is another term that turned out to have more than one definition. By one definition, Joe Meert is a theistic evolutionist, but by the definitions I cited from other websites he definitely is not.In my opinion, a lot of the disagreement in this thread derives from differences of interpretation of a very few words and terms. If we allow ID Man his definition of Creationism, then he is correct, we all agree, and the discussion is over. We're done, unless ID Man also wants to assert that ID is not part of Old Earth Creationism and not derived from the old arguments from design first popularized by Paley over a hundred years ago.--Percy

Just an aside first, and this isn't directed just at you: While I think a lot of the other discussion is useful and very interesting, a significant proportion doesn't seem to be on topic.The topic of this thread asserts that ID is not Creationism. To settle the issue we need a clear definition of Creationism. A resolution requires this. So work with me here so we can agree on a definition.Like almost all words, Creationism has no single definition, but it doesn't have very many. The most common use is Young Earth Creationism. Another common use refers to both Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism. If there are other definitions they're probably not relevant to this discussion.So when you say that ID is not Creationism, are you referring to both YEC and OEC, or just YEC?By the way, a clarification. When I stated before that we could agree that ID is not YEC, I only meant that we all understand that ID does not believe the earth is 6,000 years old with all the attendant flood geology mumbo-jumbo.--Percy

I'll readily concede that ID is not part of Creationism, as long as Creationism is defined as the belief that God created life and the universe according to the account in Genesis.But that isn't the only definition of Creationism. If we can't agree on this, then I'm flexible and will willingly use another term, but I have a different definition of Creationism in mind. It's the same one I used when I designed this discussion board, and it's the same one you used when you came to this board that has a "Creation versus Evolution" logo knowing ID was a valid topic here, as it is at all such boards.Here's my definition:' Under this definition, ID is just the latest tactic of the evangelical movement to get their religious views represented in science classrooms.Now, as I said, I'm not married to the term Creationism and will gladly choose another if you wish. The important issue isn't the actual name, but the motive and goals. ID shares the same motives and goals as all the other forms of Creationism, and that's what to me makes ID Creationism. But if for the sake of this discussion you prefer that I use another word, fine, no problem.--Percy

I'm going to stay focused on the topic.There's a movement that promotes the teaching of conservative Christian religious views in public school science classrooms. Usually they're referred to as Creationists. And it is conservative Christian groups, the same ones that first advocated the teaching of YEC, and then later of scientific creationism, that are now promoting the teaching of ID in the classroom, most recently in Ohio.It is certainly valid to argue that the attraction ID holds for conservative Christians does not bear on the scientific validity of ID, but this then makes ID's scientific foundation key to resolving the issue of whether ID is just part of Creationism. As one board member in Ohio said, "Somebody's dreamed up another way of expressing creationism, for heaven's sake." If this view isn't true, then someone should be able to describe ID's scientific foundation.Perhaps we should adjourn this thread until we complete other discussions of ID. If ID cannot produce a scientific foundation, then the motivations can only be theological and religious, and ID is part of Creationism. But if ID is scientifically valid, then ID stands apart from Creationism.So shall we adjourn to the other threads for now?--Percy

Message 123 is the latest information we have.--Percy