I think there's something that needs to be clarified here. When you say "ID," it appears to me that you are referring to the notion of cosmological intelligent design. However, what I mean by ID is the idea of biological intelligent design. These two views need to be separated. The thesis of cosmological intelligent design has little to do with science, and lies more in the realm of philosophy.
Christian Creationism evolved into ID because of the Dover Trial. If you don't want to be associated with Christian Creationism, then stop using the ID moniker.
That's beside the point, but what's your definition of a "biological intelligent design" paper?
A biologist publishing a paper on intelligent design in biology.
They rightly associate the ID movement with Christian creationism. The phrase "intelligent design" is generally thought of as the general idea that parts of biology were designed, so I fall within that camp.
What I'm trying to tell you is that the phrase "intelligent design" is generally thought of as the obfuscation that Christian Creationists invented after that court case ruled they couldn't teach creationism in the classroom.
The reason I use the ID moniker is because it's a phrase that accurately describes my general position.
But you've changed it from what it originally was. People aren't just going forget about that creationist fiasco. And you're going to continue to be associated with them.
I have not changed the original meaning of intelligent design.
The meaning, yes you've changed it. Intelligent Design did not exist before the Discovery Institute created it. They created it to mean Christian Creationism.
There has never been a set definition of intelligent design other than the broad idea that teleology has, in some way or another, played a role in the origin of biological complexity.
Of course they hid their meaning behind a more sophisticated definition, because they had just been caught violating the constitution. They had to make up something that wasn't obviously religious.
This has always been its meaning. The Discovery Institute adds its own baggage to the idea of intelligent design in biology,...
No, the DI build it from the ground up, they didn't just add baggage to it. It has always meant creationism, they just dressed it up to hide the religious aspects.
but that baggage is not a necessary part of ID.
Not since we now have guys like you that aren't religious but still want to look into the possibility of life being created. But I do think you should realize that ID wasn't something that the DI just added baggage to, they outright invented it to hide the religious aspects of creationism.
Only those unacquainted with the broader contex t of the ID debate would immediately jump to the conclusion that any ID proponent is a creationist. And, of course, since all of you here know I'm no creationist, there's precious little reason for you to associate me with creationists. Just sayin'.
This came up because the new guy was associating ID with creationism and you interjected that they didn't have to be related. I'm trying to point out that associating them is reasonable, though I agree it isn't necessary.
Also, if you don't want to continue to be associted with creationism, then back away from the whole ID thing. Come up with something else. Ancient Genetic Engineering, or something, I dunno. Hey alright, that one spells AGE.
The argument that teleology has played a role in biological history has been around for centuries. The modern argument is called intelligent design.
No, that's just not true. Sure ID is teleology, but not all teleology is ID. A portion of the modern arguments are called ID.
This is why, very simply, I fall into the intelligent design school of thought.
But you may very well hold teleological views that do not fall under the ID portions, and are even excluded from them. Further, if you're unfamiliar with its roots and are only aware of the latest popular representations of ID, you might even think that some of your teleological views are ID ones when they really are not. For example, if you're not secretly arguing for the Christian God, then the folks who invented and poularized ID aren't going to accept you.
Did the Discovery Institute create intelligent design such that it would be creationism in disguise? This may very well be the case (and probably is, as the evidence indicates), but that would not affect the meaning of the term "intelligent design," as currently defined.
Words are defined by how people use them. Look up "intelligent design" on wikipedia. You're free to mean what you're saying here, but you're fighting the status quo and you're going to continue to be, reasonably, associated with Christian Creationists.
I am a relative late-comer to the intelligent design debate. I was not involved with intelligent design in any way until several years after Dover.
Have you read the Wedge Document?
Thus, at the time I approached the subject, intelligent design was defined as the thesis that the origin of certain features of the biological world were better explained by intelligent planning. And so I adopt this meaning of intelligent design.
Yeah, but you fell for the ruse. You've been hoodwinked.
By all means, look for design. My advice to you is to stop using the ID moniker if you don't want to be associated with Christian Creationists. Come up with something new that Christians haven't tainted. You may want to fight the status quo, if so have fun with that, but these are the conversations you can expect to be having.
Naturally, it is understandable that people would be inclined to label me a "creationist."
Well, its a simple question: was life created or not?
Fair point. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the modern meaning of intelligent design is a bit different than what it meant in the late 80s and early 90s. Put differently, in the late 80s and early 90s, you had almost only creationists who were arguing in favor of intelligent design (Behe being an exception), but in this post-2000 era, you have a lot more non-creationists who are interested in the possibility that terrestrial life was intelligently designed.
You guys need to come up with your own club. Hell, I'd probably join. Just don't latch onto the popularized ID moniker, that ones got a secret history of lying for Jesus.
I've often been associated with creationists merely for being an ID proponent, but even if I argued for teleology without calling myself an ID proponent, I bet a lot of people would still associate me with creationism.
Well, apparently you do think life was created (engineered), so I'd call you a creationist too.
By "created," do you mean a term synonymous with engineering? Or do you mean something more similar to a magic-poofing-mechanism?
Doesn't matter. Did life emerge all by itself or did something make it?
Again, I understand where you're coming from. I don't blame people who would jump to the conclusion that I'm a creationist, but when I say "intelligent design," I'm using the definition that states that intelligent design is the view that life was designed.
What about theistic evolutionists? "Life evolved and that's how God created it". Creationists or not, in your opinion? I'd say yeah.
Now, given all that: I wouldn't have a problem, for the purposes of sites like this one, with defining creationism as mututally exclusive with evolutionism. That is, if you're willing to accept that life evolved, then you're not a creationist. But that's more of a practical thing than anything else.
As I understand it Geno is suggesting that life as we know it was engineered by some prior form of life that wasn't itself engineered.
I haven't seen him go so far as to describe any of the qualities of the engineers other than assuming some amount of intelligence in them.
I suspect he would accept that they might be engineered as well, but you're going to have to get to a point at some time when there's no prior beings who could've done the engineering.
But all that is beside what I meant to be saying, which is, as you said, life as we know it. That is, the question is was the life that is here on Earth created or not, as opposed to whether or not the ancient alien engineers were created or not. We certainly don't have any data on those guys.
But I'm interested to know what signs of design he would be looking for in life as we know it......
Didn't you see his Front Loading thread?
It didn't suck and he's definately trying, but it didn't really "get there" to the meat of the data.
So, when I tell you that your not using a word as other people use it, then you go into how it doesn't have to mean that and you can use it other ways. But then when I go and use a word another way, you throw the dictionary at me. Don't find that a bit hypocritical?
Doesn't matter. Did life emerge all by itself or did something make it?
It does matter, though. If life was engineered by the aforementioned metaphorical wrench, then we could plausibly detect this through the methods of science. But the idea that life was magically poofed into existence is not testable.
You don't know that. And maybe we could test whether the magic poofing results in purple smoke for some thing but green smoke for others. When things go poof, do the atoms form together from the surrounding ones or are they emerging ex nihilo? Does the poofer use somatic components, or is it by will alone? How fast do things poof into existence? How often? And so on. Just because you call it magic doesn't mean its not testable.
See, some of you seem to think that design by physical tools and methods is indistinguishable from design by a magic wand. This is not correct. If life was engineered by specific mechanisms (e.g., rational design of proteins), then we can plausibly detect hallmarks of this within genomes.
What if the magic wand used specific mechanisms?
What about theistic evolutionists? "Life evolved and that's how God created it". Creationists or not, in your opinion?
Well, the wiki page on creationism that I got to from your link has a list of Types of creationism. Not only is theistic evolution on there, but so it Intelligent Design.
Your definition of creationism seems to be a bit idiosyncratic IMHO, and not one that will be found in dictionaries of the English-speaking world. Just sayin'.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. My usage of the word creationist includes people like you.