In fact there IS an important issue relating to the age of the Earth.
ID claims to be science.
ID's aim is to establish an alternative explanation for the history of life on Earth. And the age of the Earth is relevant to that.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Earth is very old.
So ID SHOULD be taking a clear old-Earth stance as a movement, right ? But they don't. In fact the ID movement refuses to take a position. Aren't they just pandering to Young Earth Creationists by trying to smooth over the gap between OEC and YEC ?
So ID SHOULD be taking a clear old-Earth stance as a movement, right ? But they don't.
Well, that depends on who they are. Behe is very definitely old-earth. And believes in common descent ...
Aren't they just pandering to Young Earth Creationists by trying to smooth over the gap between OEC and YEC ?
I think it's more basic than that --- in order to be a "movement" at all they have to ignore their differences and focus on what appears to be the only thing they agree on. A friend of mine told me the other day about when he was a Mormon and found himself in the same demonstrations as radical lesbians ... when, and only when, the issue was pornography. Obviously when they were standing side by side waving the same banners there were some things that they tacitly agreed not to discuss.
Stephen Meyers is one of the most prominant ID'ers out there and he believes in an old earth. The point of ID is to simply SHOW design. It had NOTHING to do with the age of the earth. It's not an important issude when it comes to ID.
That depends a lot on which cDesign Proponentist you talk to. Yes, some ID supporters will agree completely with the scientifically-accepted age estimate of the Earth. Some will even agree completely with the Theory of Evolution, and simply tack on "...and that was guided by an intelligence with a specific goal."
But there is also a subset of ID supporters who are just standard Young-Earth Biblical Creationists under a different name. They make no secret that the "intelligence" in question is the Christian God, and they believe that "proof of design" means "proof of literal Genesis, with no evolution involved."
The two can be separate, just as abiogenesis and evolution are separate...but not every supporter does so.
The point of ID (which is seperate from Creationism) is to SHOW design. Not how old the earth is. Intelligent Design shows the complexity of life. Michael Behe for instance makes a great case for ID. Kenneth Miller summed it up to a mouse trap. ALL that work Behe has done and Miller think's he refuted it in 5 minutes with a mouse trap. Silly. Cells are complex no way around it. Age of the earth doesnt matter. If it does for some, so be it. There are some Creationist who believe in an old earth to, so what. It doesn't discredit the movement because the main point of ID is design, not age.
The point of ID (which is seperate from Creationism) is to SHOW design
ID is not separate from creationism. ID started as a new name for creationism, as is well known since the Dover case.
Not how old the earth is.
Agreed. The age of the Earth is not part of ID. Therefore if ID is scientific it should accept the scientifically established age of the Earth. So why does the ID movement refuse to take a stand on the matter ?
Michael Behe for instance makes a great case for ID.
Off topic, but no he didn't. In fact he never finished his irreducible complexity argument and seems to have given up working on it. Please start another thread if you wish to discuss it further.
Topic: Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
I was sucked in my the topic heading. In the OP ID isn't mentioned, only Creationism. Maybe it was included in the heading because people think they are one in the same? They aren't. Just like The TOE and Abiogenesis are different, so are ID and Creationism. Im not sure this is the right thread to discuss the matter ( the difference between ID and Creationism). Is there one?
Anyway, ID would have no need for new dating techniques as it deals with complex biological structures and so forth. Not Age.
The problem you are going to have, Chuck77, is that the history of ID as a creationist subterfuge is well documented. That history and the evolution from creationism to creation science to intelligent design (and the legal reasons for the changes) will be impossible to deny.