Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

quote:

---

Perhaps a bit unfair. The majority of people who consider themselves ID proponents are likely either deists or theistic evolutionists, and they do not spend any time attacking evolution, nor do they try to inject their ID views into the classroom.

---

I would like to know which ID proponents you have in mind. Certainly not Jonathan Wells, or Michael Behe or William Dembski or Philip Johnson - or David Berlinski. Indeed it seems that the original point of ID is to get its ideas into schools.Indeed, ID has retreated from that, instead favouring the "teach the controversy" strategy. Which involves teaching anti-evolution arguments instead of pro-ID arguments. Hardly something that supports the idea that ID is not anti-evolution.

All evidence must be interpreted. Some bring a straight foreward conclusion. Much does not. This is the case only for this group of people. It is not the case for the concept itself. The concept itself simply looks into the question of intelligence in the process. It is an idea quite worthy of scientific pursuit. Up there with the SETI project.

Actually I would guess that most are like myself. I can't truthfully call myself a theistic evolutionist because I don't have a background that gives me sufficient knowledge to either support or argue against evolution. I am however prepared to agree to the fact that the majority of the scientific community supports it so I'll accept it as having considerable merit.My approach to ID is that reason alone leads me to believe in a metaphysical designer.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Your earlier post was a response to GDR. There must be many like him who believe that there was an intelligent designer, but who do not attack evolution. Come now. There were people who believed in an intelligent designer, long before Philip Johnson was born.Sure, ID as a right wing political movement is new and dishonest. But when most people hear the term "ID" they think of it as belief that there was an intelligent designer. Such a belief, if not connected to the political movement, is innocuous. Those in the political movement were cunning when they chose the term "ID". Let's avoid falling into the trap they have set for us, by clearly distinguishing who we mean and not giving a blanket condemnation to all who would believe in an intelligent designer.

SETI is based on one known example of intelligent life. Humanity.We have no known examples of a God. Would you be happy for ID to explore the possibility that evolution is intelligently designed? ID followed to its ultimate conclusion might consider this.

quote:

---

Your earlier post was a response to GDR. There must be many like him who believe that there was an intelligent designer, but who do not attack evolution.

---

But he is hardly a proponent of ID. He may beleive that the universe is intelligently designed but he isn't - so far as I know - involved at all in the ID movement.

quote:

---

Come now. There were people who believed in an intelligent designer, long before Philip Johnson was born.

---

But there wasn't an Intelligent Design movement. That was essentially founded by Philip Johnson.

quote:

---

Sure, ID as a right wing political movement is new and dishonest. But when most people hear the term "ID" they think of it as belief that there was an intelligent designer.

---

I really find that hard to believe. There is a very vocal Intelligent Design movement, and to the best of my knowledge that specific term originated with them. I don't believe that anyone would be referring to Intelligent Design as such without the movement. And I should add that William Dembski has stated that Intelligent Design is "no friend" to theisttic evolution so it is at the least questionable whether people whose views tend more to the latter should be counted as believing in Intelligent Design.

How can you say that memes are scientific. What scientific testing has been done for them. Here is the what wikipedia has to say about memes. The link Meme - WikipediaWhat is scientific about that? As an Atheist he assumes that there is a natural way that cultural information is passed between generations. He used his reasoning to come up with the idea of memes.As a Theist I believe in the concept of there being intelligence outside of the physical world. My reasoning leads me to suggest that we have "spiritual genes" that are part of our consciousness that pass inter-generational information on. One concept is just as scientific as the other but I'm not trying to pass my ideas off as being scientific. Random chance and natural selection can only provide opinions on why things are as they are. What scientific evidence is there that random chance or random selection is responsible for the first cell. There is considerable evidence of the evolutionary chain of events but there are only opinions of why the process even exists.One can look at the evidence and reason that random chance is responsible for the universe, life and consciousness but that is no more scientific than using reason to come to the conclusion that there is an external intelligence behind all that we see and experience.I have decided that Theism is a much more reasonable conclusion than is Atheism. You have concluded otherwise but neither conclusion is scientific.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I have to say that this conclusion is belied by your actual arguments.

quote:

---

As an Atheist he assumes that there is a natural way that cultural information is passed between generations. He used his reasoning to come up with the idea of memes.

---

You could substitute "scientist" for atheist in that sentence and it would be equally reasonable - and true. If Dawkins view were as unscientific as YEC you certainly couldn't do that. And I would be very surprised if you truly beleive that there is no communication between generations using natural means (such a view is clearly false - if there were no such communication, education would be impossible).Moreover Dawkin's idea is NOT restricted to inter-generational communication - the examples given certainly do not recognise such a limit. Which leaves you with the prospect of either arbitrarily assuming that inter-generational communication is fundamentally distinct from communication within a generation or suggesting something like the idea that God personally propagates catch-phrases and popular fashions.

Memes are NOT the topic of this thread. I think we've had enough digression.You might note that I am in a mean mood regarding topic violations. (just ask NosyNed -- when he can reply)

Why would that be? If a scientist is simply agnostic why would he be any more likely to propose something as unscientific as a meme than he would a hypothetical spiritual gene.Here is what Dawkins writes in "The Devil's Chaplain". Doesn't this sound like believers talking about God? Something that is invisible, unverifiable and is beyond empirical investigation.My point is that Atheism, which Dawkins tries to sell as being scientific, is no more scientific than Theism. Science is agnostic. To go beyond Agnosticism to either Atheism or any form of Theism is a decision based on reason and faith. (I would also add to that, from a Christian perspective, spiritual experience but that is also of course outside of science.)

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Sorry. I posted the last before I read your post. I didn't mean to take the thread off track.Greg

I'm not sure that it is off topic on second thought. Here is a quote from the OP Dawkins is probably the main proponent of methodological naturalism. His explanation for that is his theory of memes. Percy's point here is, I think, that science embraces methodological naturalism as being scientific but it does not see design that way.I have been arguing that neither is scientific and as Dawkins idea of memes is central to that discussion I think that our discussion was on topic. I think that I'm just coming at the discussion from the other side as I agree that ID should not be considered scientific but that the discussion is still on topic.I will of course go along with whatever you decide.

quote:

---

Dawkins is probably the main proponent of methodological naturalism. His explanation for that is his theory of memes. Percy's point here is, I think, that science embraces methodological naturalism as being scientific but it does not see design that way.

---

Quite frankly you are talking nonsense. Memes are not an explanation for methodological naturalism. Even if your criticism of memes as unscientiifc were valid - and it is not, you would still need to take into account the actual claims that are made for memes before you were in a position to make a valid classification.

GDRAs nosy has said this is off topic and should be halted. That said however I will endevour to put together a thread seperate from this one to discuss. I will try my best to put this together as soon as possible but I am in a quite maddening game bureaucratic chess with the provincial government so please be patient while I try to find the time.

No.