Is Intelligent Design different from Creationism?

[maybecca]

Kimihiro_Watanuki

if Intelligent Design is just a dolled up version of Creationism, then so be it. But you can at least give us credit for trying.

No, because Intelligent Design proponents don't try. They just use the same old arguments, refuted a thousand times, and try to rephrase them to sound more sciencetastic.

Kimihiro_Watanuki

I mean, instead of going "God did it!" and providing no explanation, at least we're trying to find out how God did it. I'm trying to find out even if he did it.

No, you are not. Scientists studying evolution and so on are trying to find out how the world was made. Many of them believe that they are trying to find out how god made the world.

Creationists, and cdesign proponentsists, are not. They are deliberately trying to distort the evidence and prevent people from finding out "how God did it".

Kimihiro_Watanuki

If he didn't, then consider me a convert.

But I mean seriously, give us some credit for trying.

When you try, sure. I suggest you start with a reality-based biology textbook.

[A Lost Iguana]

Kimihiro_Watanuki

But I mean seriously, give us some credit for trying.

No.

ID is crap theology and a debasement of science. One can be religious and scientific, ID is not the way.

[VoijaRisa]

Kimihiro_Watanuki

But you can at least give us credit for trying. I mean, instead of going "God did it!" and providing no explanation, at least we're trying to find out how God did it. I'm trying to find out even if he did it. If he didn't, then consider me a convert.

But I mean seriously, give us some credit for trying.

You must not really pay any attention to what ID and creationism says. To quote Behe:

Michael Behe (1987)

As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration. Sisyphus himself would pity us.

In other words: Behe claimed that it was impossible and not to even waste time trying to figure out how things evolved. Just toss your hands up in the air, say "God did it", and you're done.

So no, I can't give ID credit for anything except their blatant lies.

[Scazrelet7]

LtEarthworm

Scazrelet7

Well spoken.

Honestly I have less of a problem with ID, even though it is obviously Christian, because for the most part it is taught along-side evolution and not counter to it. So, basically, its "evolution guided by divine hands". If a religious person wants to believe there is divine work being done, thats fine by me, as long as they understand that evolution is for all intents and purposes a fact.

What bothers me is when people use ID as a direct replacement for creationism, ie anzimals just appeared as is fully formed. Thats just flawed imo.

Oh don't worry. ID proponents would rather it be taught instead of evolution, not along side it.

Luckily for us there is no way in hell that they could ever get that through court.

But its true, I have seen many proponents of a form of ID that basically says, yes, evolution happened, but it was guided by God and not by chaos. These people are usually the more intelligent, educated Christians, from what I have found.

[maybecca]

Scazrelet7

But its true, I have seen many proponents of a form of ID that basically says, yes, evolution happened, but it was guided by God and not by chaos. These people are usually the more intelligent, educated Christians, from what I have found.

That would be theistic evolution. You could describe it as "intelligent design", but it's not "Intelligent Design" in the sense that is being discussed here.

Of course, the Intelligent Design folk absolutely love this confusion, for the obvious reason suggested in your post - intelligent, educated Christians tend to accept theistic evolution, and Intelligent Design (being all about marketing and branding) benefits by association.

[Westenblum]

Kimihiro_Watanuki

VoijaRisa

Wow. Dead thread already? Creationists are more pathetic than even I gave them credit for.

if Intelligent Design is just a dolled up version of Creationism, then so be it. But you can at least give us credit for trying. I mean, instead of going "God did it!" and providing no explanation, at least we're trying to find out how God did it. I'm trying to find out even if he did it. If he didn't, then consider me a convert.

But I mean seriously, give us some credit for trying.

As VoijaRosa pointed out, you don't even do that - ID still operates on the base assumption that "God did it," and nothing else. No proper research has been file; no models have been propose; nothing even remotely scientific has been carried out. If ID shows any willingness to even attempt those, then we will consider it for scientific review. As it stands, however, it is as unscientific as you can possibly get.

[Kimihiro_Watanuki]

chrisoya

Kimihiro_Watanuki

if Intelligent Design is just a dolled up version of Creationism, then so be it. But you can at least give us credit for trying.

No, because Intelligent Design proponents don't try. They just use the same old arguments, refuted a thousand times, and try to rephrase them to sound more sciencetastic.

Kimihiro_Watanuki

I mean, instead of going "God did it!" and providing no explanation, at least we're trying to find out how God did it. I'm trying to find out even if he did it.

No, you are not. Scientists studying evolution and so on are trying to find out how the world was made. Many of them believe that they are trying to find out how god made the world.

Creationists, and cdesign proponentsists, are not. They are deliberately trying to distort the evidence and prevent people from finding out "how God did it".

Kimihiro_Watanuki

If he didn't, then consider me a convert.

But I mean seriously, give us some credit for trying.

When you try, sure. I suggest you start with a reality-based biology textbook.

First of all, stop assuming I'm a Creationist. I may have implied such, but I will not pretend to know what I don't know. In this case, that is how the universe and life began. I will tell you what I am. I am confused.

I do not believe in creationism, I do not believe in ID, and I do not believe in evolution as far as the beginning of life goes. I have been given no evidence from any of these ideas to support the beginning of life.

I do try however, to understand how it came about. At least, I try to the point I can still comprehend what I'm researching. I'm no scientist, but it would be fulfilling to know how life came about.

So please, at least give me credit for trying, if no one else.

[Lykus]

Kimihiro_Watanuki

I do not believe in evolution as far as the beginning of life goes. I have been given no evidence from any of these ideas to support the beginning of life.

DUH.

The beginning of life is scientifically described either by abiogenesis, not evolution. "Origin of species" means a wholly different thing than "origin of life."

If you were really trying, you'd at least know that evolution says nothing about the origin of life for the same reason that gravitational theory says nothing about fluid dynamics.

[Kimihiro_Watanuki]

Lykus

Kimihiro_Watanuki

I do not believe in evolution as far as the beginning of life goes. I have been given no evidence from any of these ideas to support the beginning of life.

DUH.

The beginning of life is scientifically described either by abiogenesis, not evolution. "Origin of species" means a wholly different thing than "origin of life."

If you were really trying, you'd at least know that evolution says nothing about the origin of life for the same reason that gravitational theory says nothing about fluid dynamics.

And if you were really reading, you wouldn't be such an a** about my being misinformed. Just because I haven't studied the topic as extensively as you doesn't give you the right to say I'm no trying to understand things.

Excuse me for getting something confused.

[Lykus]

Kimihiro_Watanuki

And if you were really reading, you wouldn't be such an a** about my being misinformed. Just because I haven't studied the topic as extensively as you doesn't give you the right to say I'm no trying to understand things.

Excuse me for getting something confused.

I don't care that you're misinformed. I'm actually rather glad that you're willing to learn. However, I do care and I'm not glad that you said you're trying (indicating that you claim to have done some learning) but are misrepresenting the concept in such a fundamental way. It "validates" the misconception, and in this case it is one that creationists love to twist.

[maybecca]

Kimihiro_Watanuki

First of all, stop assuming I'm a Creationist. I may have implied such, but I will not pretend to know what I don't know. In this case, that is how the universe and life began. I will tell you what I am. I am confused.

Oh, excuse me for assuming that when you referred to yourself as a creationist that you were including yourself in that set.

Kimihiro_Watanuki, earlier,

if Intelligent Design is just a dolled up version of Creationism, then so be it. But you can at least give us credit for trying.

I'm trying to see it, but there is no way to read that which does not make you a creationist, and it's hard to imagine how that could have been a typo, since your post consistently referred to yourself as part of the group.

[Rose Amnell]

I'm curious as to how many people who do not support ID actually take the time to look at what the IDists say is their evidence.

Most people I have talked to in person haven't actually looked. Judging by what I read of the OP (I didn't read the part with all the quotes--I assumed it was an interview and didn't need the ten minutes it would have taken to read), it seems that OP has not looked at the science, but is merely attacking an organization.

Which is kinda pointless.

I'm not going to jump into an argument with someone about the science behind ID or Evo'ism because, ultimately, I can't change anyone's mind and no one can change my mind. I know this from experience.

Before Darwin, they called this situation "religion." Now, it's "ideology."

[Inactive Accounted]

Kimihiro_Watanuki

VoijaRisa

Wow. Dead thread already? Creationists are more pathetic than even I gave them credit for.

if Intelligent Design is just a dolled up version of Creationism, then so be it. But you can at least give us credit for trying. I mean, instead of going "God did it!" and providing no explanation, at least we're trying to find out how God did it. I'm trying to find out even if he did it. If he didn't, then consider me a convert.

But I mean seriously, give us some credit for trying.

No, you're not supposed to push a conclusion in the scientific world.

[Xiam]

I know for a fact that Intelligent Design is bullshit.

Why, you ask? Because everybody knows that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything.

[VoijaRisa]

Rose Amnell

I'm curious as to how many people who do not support ID actually take the time to look at what the IDists say is their evidence.

Most people I have talked to in person haven't actually looked. Judging by what I read of the OP (I didn't read the part with all the quotes--I assumed it was an interview and didn't need the ten minutes it would have taken to read), it seems that OP has not looked at the science, but is merely attacking an organization.

Which is kinda pointless.

I'm not going to jump into an argument with someone about the science behind ID or Evo'ism because, ultimately, I can't change anyone's mind and no one can change my mind. I know this from experience.

Before Darwin, they called this situation "religion." Now, it's "ideology."

You must not have read the last several paragraphs. Since I showed that ID is actually just another form of Creationism, that means that it posits supernatural explanations, which are, by definition, non-testable, and thus, not science. As such, it doesn't really matter what the "evidence" is because it won't be able to hold up to scientific scrutiny since it can't be tested.

I'm not attacking the organization (the Discovery Institute). What I'm attacking is the conceptual framework that underlies the entire philosophy.

If you'd actually been in any of the other ID/Creationism threads, you'd also know that I'm one of the most knowledgeable people on Gaia in terms of the "scientific" claims of ID/Creationism. I've been debating the topic for almost 5 years now. So I'm well aware of the claims and the flaws with all of the "evidences" they try to offer. But there's dozens of threads for picking apart individual arguments. This one was intended to be more of a broad assault against the foundations.

But since you didn't bother reading the first post (although I can't completely blame you since it was 8 pages), you wouldn't have known what the argument was. As such, you're doing little more than spamming. Please don't bother posting again until you read the first post.