Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]

No one is confusing ID with young earth Creationism. But ID has always been a part of Creationism. It's the form of Creationism Behe has in mind when he describes those who think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." This is theistic evolution.IDists have little credibility within science because they are copying the previous dishonesty of young earth Creationists who removed mention of God from Genesis and claimed it was science. IDists are merely removing God from theistic evolution. It isn't fooling anyone.Dembski has provided theistic evolution a mathematical facade and called it intelligent design, but this can't hide the fact that they have no mechanism, no method, no observed event, and worst of all, no candidate for the intelligent designer.The best example of how fatal missing just one of these components can be is Wegener's continental drift theory. He had evidence that the continents of North America, South America, Europe and Africa had once been joined, but he had no mechanism. Scientists just couldn't imagine continents plowing through sea floor. There was no mechanism that could make this happen, and no evidence that it had happened. It took the discovery of subduction and production of sea floor for Wegener's ideas to suddenly seem reasonable and become accepted.IDists need to find evidence of what they claim has happened. That biological processes are insufficient to produce the variety and complexity of life is an unsupported assertion, yet it is the very foundation of ID. All the Dembski terminology of specified complexity, contingency, information and so forth is just so much mumbo-jumbo, for he defines them without any reference to the experimental studies that would have been necessary to develop them. Until this work is done, IDists are just building castles in the air.--Percy

An analogy that makes clear why ID is not science just occurred to me. Astrology is a very popular pseudo-science. It is pseudo-science, and not science, because they have never been able to experimentally verify any of their assertions. For the sake of discussion let's say that astrology asserts that Mars rising in someone's horoscope means that they will have a nasty temper. But where is the experimental data establishing this? There isn't any!It's the same for ID. ID asserts that biological organisms possess specified complexity in a contingent manner that could only be the product of an intelligence. But where is the experimental data establishing this? There isn't any!And that's why ID is a pseudo-science. Its purpose isn't to convince scientists. Without evidence it hasn't a prayer of doing that. Its purpose is to convince the faithful, but most of the faithful are evangelicals who will reject ID once they discover it denies Genesis, and Dembski himself is quite explicit that ID rejects the Genesis account.Yet the IDists and the young earth Creationists represented by organizations like ICR and CRS are in bed anyway, because they need each other. If it weren't for evangelicals latching onto ID as their only hope after the failure to move young earth Creationism into public schools, ID would be receiving extremely little attention.--Percy

But even more significantly, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. is quoted saying: No surprise there. I wonder if Dembski would agree? Anyway, it's his own fault for deciding to get in bed with these people and let them use ID toward their own ends without objection.And Dembski himself is quoted saying: No surprise there either.Though Dembski was at Baylor, a respected scientific institution, he wasn't in a scientific part of Baylor. They apparently had him squirreled away in Baylor University's Institute for Faith and Learning.--Percy

Ken Miller and Joe Meert do not believe evolution was guided by God. The many successes of the sciences based upon materialistic naturalism is one of the stunning achievements of the modern age. Until Creationism can cite similar successes they not only can't make any claim to scientific credibilty, but not even to being science. This assertion of ID is unsupported by any experimental or observational data. The passage merely describes a biological process. We already know you're claiming the process is designed, and a layman's level description of that process is not evidence of design. They evolved following the same processes we've observed and analyzed in the lab. Until ID finds observational or experimental evidence for the process of design and of the active element, force or entity behind design, you have nothing material. Antithesis toward methodological naturalism will only cement your attitude that evidence is unnecessary and guarantee continued failure to achieve scientific status.--Percy

Since you reject methodological naturalism, naturally you're willing to consider perspectives for which you have no evidence from the natural world. Once you demonstrate that the approach you and IDists endorse can develop productive avenues of inquiry then you can legitimately challenge the monopoly of methodological naturalism upon scientific inquiry. But alternative approaches have not as yet demonstrated any such successes, and so challenges to evoutoinary interpretations simply because they were formulated within the framework of methodological naturalism have no validity at this time.The view that life came from non-life is simply a projection of our current understanding of natural processes onto the available evidence for the origin of life. In other words, our current level of knowledge forms an interpretive framework within which we analyze and make sense of the evidence, and this point leads into this next passage from your post: Evolutionary history is analogous to wordsmithing a paragraph like this one. After I've posted this message, how would you uncover the way that this paragraph evolved into its present form? Did I type it straight out from scratch without error? Were there typos that I fixed? Did I delete some sentences and add others? Did I combine it with other paragraphs? Did I change its position in the message? There's no way to know, is there?Evolutionary processes are very similar in that they do not leave much of a paper trail, so there is little evidence for the specific evolutionary pathways of the bacterial flagellum, or indeed of the specific evolutionary pathways for anything. All we can do is project our current understanding of how the universe works backward in time based upon the evidence.ID as a form of Creationism uses the same arguments of Creationism. In this case they take an evolutionary interpretation and challenge it as if it had been offered as a scientific theory. It isn't. We don't know how the bacterial flagellum evolved at this time. We may never know because science cannot analyze evidence that doesn't exist. We are limited to speculating on how it might have happened according to the processes identified by science so far.This is in stark contrast to ID, which in spite of the almost total lack of evidence is nonetheless certain the bacterial flagellum was designed. They don't how it was designed, they don't know how the design was implemented, they don't know who or what designed it, they have no observational or experimental evidence of any of these things ever happening, but they're sure nonetheless that it was designed. That's why ID isn't science.ID ignores methodological naturalism to create an interpretive framework based upon processes which are not natural and for which there is no evidence. Short any evidence, ID can't be legitimate science.Now, ID can certainly be legitimate speculation within science, but the claims to be legitimate scientific theory are simply overblown puffery. The foundation of ID is built upon the shifting sands of a denial of the sufficiency of natural processes to produce the complexity of life we observe today, but a science cannot be built upon simple denial, as traditional Creationism's denial of evolution has already amply demonstration. Yeah, I guess that pretty much sums up the science of ID, it's all just appearances. You need some objective evidence.Now that I'm at the tail end of this message, somewhat longer than I originally envisioned, it strikes me that this is somewhat tangential to topic. Weren't you going to make the case that ID and Creationism are distinctly separate in this thread?--Percy

Your reply doesn't address MrHambre's point. He said that both traditional Creationism and ID deny the legitimacy of the basis of scientific endeavor. That's an accurate statement, isn't it? Don't both traditional Creationism and ID object to methodological naturalism as an approach to explaining the universe? I think it is time to call your attention to rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

Moving on: Tentativity is one of the requirements of science, and science tentatively concludes the natural world is all there is. When evidence becomes available that this is not the case then science can change its view. There is as yet no evidence of the supernatural.--Percy

You question the Christianity of those who don't believe evolution was guided by God? Wow, you're one strict Christian! You'll have to quote me the Biblical passage on this one. I didn't say IDists believe evolution was guided by God. I said that IDists have copied the strategy of traditional Creationists in removing mention of God from their religous perspective and calling it science. You're serious? How about: Modern medicine. The computer you're typing on and the Internet. Meteorology. Metallurgy. Space science and exploration. Nuclear science. Particle physics. Lasers. Vehicle safety.We live in an era of unprecedented scientific benefits brought to us by procedures based upon methodological naturalism. Could I suggest possible adoption of an alternative perspective that views those on the opposite side of the debate as mistaken rather than lying?If ID is supported by observation, and if as required by science these observations are replicable, can you describe the observations of Newton and Pasteur whereby they concluded design so that we may repeat and evaluate them for ourselves? There's no need to bother doing this if in essence they were doing the same thing as modern IDists, which is to look at some aspect of life and exclaim, "This is obviously designed." I *did* falsify it. You said it was evidence of design, and I pointed out that it wasn't evidence but merely a layman's level description of a biological process. If we're talking about the origin of species and not the origin of life, then yes, biological processes through a process of descent with modification filtered by natural selection and drawing upon existing variability produce new and novel biological processes. I addressed this in an earlier message, so just to briefly summarize the explanation, just as we cannot go back and observe Washington crossing the Delaware, we cannot observe prokaryotes evolving into eukaryotes. All we can do is interpret the available evidence within a framework of our current knowledge of natural processes. Okay, fine by me. Can you provide definitions? The distinction seems slim to me, at least as it bears on this discussion. The difference in the inferences of IDists is that they infer agents and processes for which there is no observational or experimental evidence.I'd be interested in knowing more about the experimental and observational foundation that developed the techniques for detecting design. If this is what Del Ratzsch discusses in his book then perhaps you can open a thread where we can discuss it.--Percy

I hadn't thought of drawing distinctions between these terms until you mentioned it. To me "materialistic naturalism" seems a redundant phrase meaning the same thing as "naturalism". "Methodological naturalism" is just the study of the natural world using the scientific method. To me, anyone working within a framework of methodological naturalism must also be a materialistic naturalist, but if you want to point out errors in this perspective then please go right ahead. Well, yes, of course, though I wouldn't describe my views in those terms. I accept that for which I have evidence.There is little evidence for the evolutionary pathways leading to the bacterial flagellum. Evolution proposes that the well established processes of descent with modification filtered by natural selection and fed by mutation and inherent variation were what produced the bacterial flagellum. In stark contrast, ID proposes the bacterial flagellum was designed and constructed by a never observed agent through a never observed process. Sure we do. Descent with modification filtered by natural selection of inherent variation fed by mutation. The same processes we see driving evolution today drove evolution millions and billions of years ago. Unlike ID, we do not postulate any unknown and unobserved processes. I've already addressed this point in messages earlier today, so just to briefly summarize the explanation, evolutionists are committed to work within a scientific framework, and that means we can only postulate mechanisms for which we have evidence. While IDists may not find evolutionary explanations to be satisfactory, evolutionists at least have the advantage of remaining scientific in their approach. I also addressed this point earlier today. Extremely briefly this time, if the evidence doesn't exist then it doesn't exist, and science cannot change that. All we can do is project current knowledge onto the evidence and see where it leads. If the evidence is extremely thin then any speculations would have to be very tentative. Well, I don't think my position was that "ID = Creation". In my view, ID just another perspective within Creationism designed to promote theistic views in the science classroom alongside evolution.--Percy

Hi ID Man,Just wanted to acknowledge I've seen this post. I think my immediately previous messages address your points, let me know if not.Well, this ilk is going to get some lunch! --Percy

The AIG link contrasted Young Earth Creationism with ID. We're talking about Creationism, which includes Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, ID, and any other theistic approaches to biological origins.You then provide this link in support of your argument: However, Morris actually makes the opposite point, and this happens to be the same webpage I referenced last week (see Message 70)when I provided evidence that ICR views ID as part of Creation. Here's what I said once again: Moving on: This appears to be an open issue between you and Holmes at the moment. You seem to be using "Creation" as a synonym for "Young Earth Creationism". I grant that YEC denies common descent outside the Biblical "kind", but other perspectives beneath the Creationist umbrella accept common descent. Drawing analogies with people and their constructions is simple anthropomorphism. You can't conclude design from a description of biological structures and processes that happens to use an anthropomorphic perspective. You need evidence of the designer, of the design process, and of the implementation process. The explanation in the following paragraph wasn't very clear, and so I have improved it. The content hasn't changed. --PercyActually, despite the denials, ID is strongly metaphysical. In fact, that's one of it's most apparent characteristics. If life arose and evolved with the help of intelligent assistance, then one must inquire about the origin of that intelligence. By similar logic, that intelligence itself must also have arisen and evolved with intelligent assistance, and so you must inquire again about the origin of this prior intelligence. And then you need to know about the origin of the intelligence before that, and so forth. Obviously this can't be repeated ad infinitum, because the universe has a finite history, and so there must have been a first intelligence.There are two possibilities for the origin of this first intelligence. One possibility, namely that the first intelligence arose naturally, contradicts your original assertion that life cannot arise and evolve without intelligent assistence, so we must eliminate that possibility. And so that leaves only the remaining possibility, which is that under an ID perspective the first life in the universe must have arisen supernaturally. And it is primarily this fact that makes ID just a more intricate form of theistic evolution, and therefore a part of Creationism.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 09-19-2004 09:11 PM

I would also be interested in this information.--Percy

I didn't do the lumping, and my opinion is shared by many. The lumping is already inherent in the nature of ID. It is instead IDists who are delumping, trying to distance ID from the now-discredited Creationism. As I said at the bottom of my message, "The article concludes that is important to promote both ID and Biblical arguments simultaneously."I wonder why you left that out? You're just repeating your original assertions. The problem with your position is that the appearance of design is simply a subjective opinion. You need a foundation of research establishing objective criteria for deisgn. Dembski proposes some objective criteria, but has not connected that criteria to the real world. We've asked you a few times now for some pointers to the work establishing this connection, and if it exists I suggest you respond. I was responding to what I quoted from you, where you said, "ID does not care IF it has metaphysical implications." The point I was trying to make is that ID, despite the denials, cares deeply about its metaphysical implications. To repeat what I said earlier, if life arose and evolved with the help of intelligent assistance, then one must inquire about the origin of that intelligence. By similar logic, that intelligence itself must also have arisen and evolved with intelligent assistance, and so you must inquire again about the origin of this prior intelligence. And then you need to know about the origin of the intelligence before that, and so forth. Obviously this can't be repeated ad infinitum, because the universe has a finite history, and so there must have been a first intelligence.There are two possibilities for the origin of this first intelligence. One possibility, namely that the first intelligence arose naturally, contradicts your original assertion that life cannot arise and evolve without intelligent assistence, so we must eliminate that possibility. And so that leaves only the remaining possibility, which is that under an ID perspective the first life in the universe must have arisen supernaturally. And it is primarily this fact that makes ID just a more intricate form of theistic evolution, and therefore a part of Creationism.--Percy

I'm not making up my own views, just reflecting common views within science. It was Sternberg's defense against scientists' characterization of him as a Creationist that led to the discussion that prompted you to begin this thread. If it were really true that evolutionists accept that ID isn't part of Creationism then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I meant discredited as science, of course, and you answered your own question. Elaborating a little, not only has Creationism been rejected by science, here in the US Young Earth Creationism has been judged to be thinly veiled Genesis in legal court proceedings. This is the failure that is causing Young Earth Creationists to embrace ID as their next horse of choice to carry their religious ideas into science classrooms. Actually, Henry Morris contradicts you on both points. The link again is ICR's Henry Morris on ID, and near the end of the article he says: Moving on: You're repeating the same thing you've said already several times before, and each time it was pointed out that a simple description of a biological process is not evidence. What you need is a foundation of research establishing a connection between your criteria for design and the real world. We've asked you to provide references to this research, if it exists. What denials? Uh, specifically, your denial in Message 36: Moving on: Interesting way to phrase this. Do you think discussion board denizens must have some sort of credentials before venturing an opinion?Anyway, as I already explained, it is the ultimate metaphysical implications of ID, namely that the first life was created by a divine being, that Creationists find so attractive and so dear. Ultimately, ID is just a complicated form of theistic evolution. It is self-evidently just reformulated God of the Gaps. Naturally IDists prefer that the obvious implication of the divine not be explored, else its religious motivations will be revealed. In other words, we're not to look at the man behind the curtain. Can you name any field of science which puts on blinders like this? Does cosmology say, "We're not to inquire about what came before the Big Bang?" Does geology say, "We're not to inquire about what came before the earth?" For ID to eventually become science it must give up the obvious connections to conservative Christian religion and open its mandate to exploring any and all implications of its ideas. Not sure what you mean. What does my faith have to do with science? I don't think science has an answer to this question yet. But unlike ID's ultimate creator, it is an active area of inquiry. You've said this before, it was wrong before, and it was rebutted before. You cannot equate being a Christian with being a theistic evolutionist. Joe's a member here. Shall I send him an email and let him address this himself?--Percy

This is a side-issue, but after checking into what Joe Meert actually believes I've uncovered his own words at ChristianForums in the thread Say Hello to an EX-YEC!! describing himself as a theistic evolutionist: I can only conclude that Joe is using a different definition than the one I've been using. Here's a quote from an article about theistic evolution at a website that I once read a long time ago (http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html), and it describes pretty well how I think of theistic evolution: To me this says that God was a driving force behind evolution. I don't think I'm misinterpreting this article, and this is only one place where you can see this view of theistic evolution expressed. Under this definition, ID is a form of theistic evolution, and Joe Meert and Ken Miller are definitely not theistic evolutionists.I can see that another possibility is that I'm missing a distinction, that believing God guided evolution at the margins of probability is not the same thing as believing God directly installed the DNA for microbiological structures like the bacterial flagellum. But this seems a distinction of degree and not of form. But if it's a distinction that everyone else is making then I'll get on board.--Percy

Here's the definition I quoted from http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html: But this is no different than ID. ID proposes that God directed at least some evolution, and this definition says that God directed at least some evolution. The only difference I can see is that IDists think divine intervention is detectable, and theistic evolutionists think it is not. The only way for Joe Meert and Ken Miller to be theistic evolutionists by this definition and maintain themselves distinct from IDists is to understand that such views are not scientific. And if they don't, then they're just closet IDists.Here's another definition of theistic evolution from http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/origins.htm that doesn't hold that God intervened in evolution: He later calls Behe a theistic evolutionist, and I certainly agree. I'm just having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that Meert and Miller are theistic evolutionists, too.--Percy