Is Intelligent Design different from Creationism?

[Steampunk Patashu]

Xiam

I know for a fact that Intelligent Design is bullshit.

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

Aaaaaah. That's why!

[Rose Amnell]

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.

Out of curiosity, are you an Evolutionist?

Like you, I'm very familiar with the "scientific evidence" for evolution and I know for a fact that Evo is as much bull s**t as ID. I have been debating Evo for around five years.

Ironically, I know more about evo than I do ID (mostly because evo is all that is ever publically discussed in the scientific community).

I skipped over the interview, that was about it. If there was something after that, I totally missed it.

The problem with comparing Creationism and ID (on a fundamental level) is that Creationism is a movement in the Religious community, while ID is a scientific movement (or pseudo-scientific, if you must). Granted, many of the main proponents of ID are card-carrying Christians and want to find God through science, but that is irrelevant. They HAVE found things that go against the standardly accepted theory of evolution and would seem to instead support some kind of guidance. Beside the point....

Your comparing a relious movement to a slightly misguided scientific endeavor.

I'll give you that the "framework" is flawed. But, I'd take the more mild flaws of ID over the very severe flaws of standard abiogenesis hypothoses.

[Fayiina]

Reading all of that wasn't enlightening nor new.

[EsgarBlackpoxs]

Rose Amnell

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.

Out of curiosity, are you an Evolutionist?

Like you, I'm very familiar with the "scientific evidence" for evolution and I know for a fact that Evo is as much bull s**t as ID. I have been debating Evo for around five years.

Ironically, I know more about evo than I do ID (mostly because evo is all that is ever publically discussed in the scientific community).

I skipped over the interview, that was about it. If there was something after that, I totally missed it.

The problem with comparing Creationism and ID (on a fundamental level) is that Creationism is a movement in the Religious community, while ID is a scientific movement (or pseudo-scientific, if you must). Granted, many of the main proponents of ID are card-carrying Christians and want to find God through science, but that is irrelevant. They HAVE found things that go against the standardly accepted theory of evolution and would seem to instead support some kind of guidance. Beside the point....

Your comparing a relious movement to a slightly misguided scientific endeavor.

I'll give you that the "framework" is flawed. But, I'd take the more mild flaws of ID over the very severe flaws of standard abiogenesis hypothoses.

Firstly, what the hell is an "evolutionist"? People who beleive in that aren't called "evolutionists". They're just people who beleive in a (heavily testeted, I might add) scientific theory (which isn't the same as a layman's theory). Now, what damning evidence is there against evolution, exactly? By calling it "bullshit" you just called 99% of the world's scientists ignorant as to the "truth", as defined by you (hear that VoijaRosa? She doesn't like you). What is there that points twoards a guidance?

[VoijaRisa]

Rose Amnell

Out of curiosity, are you an Evolutionist?

I'm a scientist. I go with whatever is supported by the falsifiable evidence. In other words, not creationism nor ID.

Rose Amnell

I skipped over the interview, that was about it. If there was something after that, I totally missed it.

It wasn't an interview. It was several quotes from all of the founders of the ID movement (Johnson, Dembski, Behe) showing that they admit that ID isn't about science, it's really a religious mission cloaked in scientific pseudo-babble. They also admit that the "designer" is God, or at the very least a magic supernatural being and as such, this disqualifies it as being testable, and thus, science at all.

Rose Amnell

The problem with comparing Creationism and ID (on a fundamental level) is that Creationism is a movement in the Religious community, while ID is a scientific movement (or pseudo-scientific, if you must).

Again, ID was founded by Phillip Johnson as a "big tent" to incorporate various branches of Creationism (his words, not mine). He, and all other main proponents have admitted that ID is not truly a scientific movement. If you'd have read the quotes I'd posted, you'd see this for yourself.

Rose Amnell

They HAVE found things that go against the standardly accepted theory of evolution and would seem to instead support some kind of guidance. Beside the point....

The best ID has going for it is Behe's IC. The problem with that is that it is essentially an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how this could have formed, thus magic." And given that every system he's claimed is IC has been shown to be reducable, even ID's best arguments have failed. But that hasn't stopped them from continually asserting that those systems are IC or just moving the goalpost to another system all together.

But as you said, that's beside the point of this thread. If you'd like to move this discussion to a proper thread for such things, feel free to do so and send me a PM to make sure I see it.

EDIT: Try this thread.

Rose Amnell

Your comparing a relious movement to a slightly misguided scientific endeavor.

Again, if you'd read the quotes, it's not a misguided scientific endeavor because it's not science at all. It's religion masquerading as science.

Rose Amnell

I'll give you that the "framework" is flawed. But, I'd take the more mild flaws of ID over the very severe flaws of standard abiogenesis hypothoses.

I'd consider an unfalsifiable hypothesis based solely on logical fallacies and admitted religious motivations to be far more than a "mild flaw".

Again, please read through the first post so you know what you're arguing against.

[Steampunk Patashu]

Rose Amnell

Out of curiosity, are you an Evolutionist?

Evolutionists don't exist.
If I accept the theory of relativity, am I a Relativist? Einsteinist? If I accept gravity, does that make me a Gravitist? How about the BBT? I'm a Big Banger now?

Quote:

Like you, I'm very familiar with the "scientific evidence" for evolution and I know for a fact that Evo is as much bull s**t as ID. I have been debating Evo for around five years.

Oh, oh.
Prove evolution's crap.
Please, I'd love to hear it. *grins*

[Ashley G Williams]

one is crap, th other is crap covered in chocolate.

[VoijaRisa]

Lygophilia

Reading all of that wasn't enlightening nor new.

Congratulations on being an already enlightened individual then.

EsgarBlackpoxs

Now, what damning evidence is there against evolution, exactly?

Not the topic of this thread.

EsgarBlackpoxs

By calling it "bullshit" you just called 99% of the world's scientists ignorant as to the "truth", as defined by you (hear that VoijaRosa? She doesn't like you).

Of course. It's a gigantic Darwinian conspiracy by a whole bunch of evil atheist scientists intent on getting rid of God because we don't want to have to bear responsibility for our reactions.

rolleyes

[VoijaRisa]

The Shadow Knows

one is crap, th other is crap covered in chocolate.

PPOGTFO.

[Rose Amnell]

EsgarBlackpoxs

Firstly, what the hell is an "evolutionist"? People who beleive in that aren't called "evolutionists". They're just people who beleive in a (heavily testeted, I might add) scientific theory (which isn't the same as a layman's theory). Now, what damning evidence is there against evolution, exactly? By calling it "bullshit" you just called 99% of the world's scientists ignorant as to the "truth", as defined by you (hear that VoijaRosa? She doesn't like you). What is there that points twoards a guidance?

An evolutionist is a proponent of Evolution Theory and abiogenesis.

Heavily tested? Dusting off and carbon dating a fossil is not testing. And, since Evolution requires millions of years to happen, there is no way for us, as humans, to observe it. Hence, untestable. And since Abiogenesis has so far been impossible to simulate or recreate, it, too, is untestable. Anything that is untestable is also unfalsifiable. Thus, by definition, not a scientific theory.

If abiogenesis is indeed impossible, then that means that for evolution to work, an external force had to have created (or planted, if you believe in aliens) life on this planet.

Yes, EvT is bullshit. And, no, 99% of scientists aren't ignorant, they're indoctrinated. Two different things. Ignorance equates to stupidity. Indoctrination is curable. Sadly, they have very similar effects on one's perception and interpretation of what they see.

The fact that abiogenesis has yet to be succesfully demonstrated as possible suggests that there was an external force. Irreducible complexity is commonly cited as evidence for design. I know that's become cliche now o_O . I prefer to look at the holes in EvT.

VoijaRosa, I went and read further in the OP. Indeed, you were aiming your attack more at individuals and citing some of the things they have said. While it's true (and I said this) than many of the leading proponents of ID are Christians and some aren't even scientists, their ideas did bring out some people who ARE scienteists to take a look. Again, I agree with you that movement began as a religious endeavor, but there is some science to it now.

For the record, I did not come to believe in ID because of the Discovery Institute or because of a church. I simply fail to see how Evolution Theory holds any water at all. There is no logic to it, and it's as much a black cat in a dark room that isn't there as Creationism or, for that matter, Theology.

[Redem]

Rose Amnell

Out of curiosity, are you an Evolutionist?

He is someone who accepts the validity of the theory of evolution, and of science in general. more specifically, someone who understands it.

The term as used in this context is loaded, and carries an implication that "evolutionsts" have as much "faith" in the "theory" as creationists do in theirs.

Rose Amnell

Like you, I'm very familiar with the "scientific evidence" for evolution and I know for a fact that Evo is as much bull s**t as ID. I have been debating Evo for around five years.

And yet you've learned nothing, it seems.

Rose Amnell

Ironically, I know more about evo than I do ID (mostly because evo is all that is ever publically discussed in the scientific community).

Scientists? Publishing science? Surely not? D=

ID is not science, and no one has ever published a paper supporting ID. Even when given a chance for funding from an organisation sympathetic to their claims, they never even submit proposals for research into ID. Why? Because it is scientifically vacuous.

Rose Amnell

I skipped over the interview, that was about it. If there was something after that, I totally missed it.

It's not an interview. It's quotes from prominent ID supporters showing exactly what their motivation is in promoting ID.

Rose Amnell

The problem with comparing Creationism and ID (on a fundamental level) is that Creationism is a movement in the Religious community, while ID is a scientific movement (or pseudo-scientific, if you must). Granted, many of the main proponents of ID are card-carrying Christians and want to find God through science, but that is irrelevant. They HAVE found things that go against the standardly accepted theory of evolution and would seem to instead support some kind of guidance. Beside the point....

Actually, if you had bothered to read the post, you would see that the entire point is that ID is NOT a scientific movement, it is creationism in secular clothing.

Rose Amnell

Your comparing a relious movement to a slightly misguided scientific endeavor.

A religious movement cloaked to look like a misguided scientific endeavour.

Rose Amnell

I'll give you that the "framework" is flawed. But, I'd take the more mild flaws of ID over the very severe flaws of standard abiogenesis hypothoses.

The very foundation of is that "I cannot imaging how this is possible with a super-intelligence making it happen, thus.. a super-intelligence made it happen. *Wink* and it rhymes with cod."
This is anti-science. It proposes only an end to all scientific search for a proper answer.

[Rose Amnell]

Redem

Rose Amnell

Out of curiosity, are you an Evolutionist?

He is someone who accepts the validity of the theory of evolution, and of science in general. more specifically, someone who understands it.

The term as used in this context is loaded, and carries an implication that "evolutionsts" have as much "faith" in the "theory" as creationists do in theirs.

Rose Amnell

Like you, I'm very familiar with the "scientific evidence" for evolution and I know for a fact that Evo is as much bull s**t as ID. I have been debating Evo for around five years.

And yet you've learned nothing, it seems.

Rose Amnell

Ironically, I know more about evo than I do ID (mostly because evo is all that is ever publically discussed in the scientific community).

Scientists? Publishing science? Surely not? D=

ID is not science, and no one has ever published a paper supporting ID. Even when given a chance for funding from an organisation sympathetic to their claims, they never even submit proposals for research into ID. Why? Because it is scientifically vacuous.

Rose Amnell

I skipped over the interview, that was about it. If there was something after that, I totally missed it.

It's not an interview. It's quotes from prominent ID supporters showing exactly what their motivation is in promoting ID.

Rose Amnell

The problem with comparing Creationism and ID (on a fundamental level) is that Creationism is a movement in the Religious community, while ID is a scientific movement (or pseudo-scientific, if you must). Granted, many of the main proponents of ID are card-carrying Christians and want to find God through science, but that is irrelevant. They HAVE found things that go against the standardly accepted theory of evolution and would seem to instead support some kind of guidance. Beside the point....

Actually, if you had bothered to read the post, you would see that the entire point is that ID is NOT a scientific movement, it is creationism in secular clothing.

Rose Amnell

Your comparing a relious movement to a slightly misguided scientific endeavor.

A religious movement cloaked to look like a misguided scientific endeavour.

Rose Amnell

I'll give you that the "framework" is flawed. But, I'd take the more mild flaws of ID over the very severe flaws of standard abiogenesis hypothoses.

The very foundation of is that "I cannot imaging how this is possible with a super-intelligence making it happen, thus.. a super-intelligence made it happen. *Wink* and it rhymes with cod."
This is anti-science. It proposes only an end to all scientific search for a proper answer.

Whoa, reading your post was like a step back in time.... You sounded EXACTLY like Risa's response to my post. Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but that was wierd razz

[VoijaRisa]

Rose Amnell

Heavily tested? Dusting off and carbon dating a fossil is not testing. And, since Evolution requires millions of years to happen, there is no way for we, as humans, to observe it. Hence, untestable.

You seem to have a warped definition of how testing works in science. We don't have to watch every step unfold to test something. What we need is a model, and we check the model against the steps we can observe. This is how evolution is tested. Additionally, it's also how we can test stellar evolution since stars change over billions of years. Are you wanting to tell me that's not science either? If so, that'd be a fun game since I'm an astronomer wink

Rose Amnell

And since Abiogenesis has so far been impossible to simulate or recreate, it, too, is untestable.

Miller-Urey anyone?

Rose Amnell

And, no, 99% of scientists aren't ignorant, they're indoctrinated. Two different things. Ignorance equates to stupidity. Indoctrination is curable.

In my field, indoctrination is rather hard. We all like to work as hard as we can to overthrow the current theories because doing so is a sure fire way to a nobel prize. Unfortunately for Creationists, it's been rather hard to overthrow evolution. It just works too damn well.

And ignorance doesn't equal stupidity. Ignorance is just a lack of knowledge.

Rose Amnell

Irreducible complexity is commonly cited as evidence for design. I know that's become cliche now o_O . I prefer to look at the holes in EvT.

Again, IC is itself a logical fallacy. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore that as you look at the "holes" in evolutionary theory.

Rose Amnell

While it's true (and I said this) than many of the leading proponents of ID are Christians and some aren't even scientists, their ideas did bring out some people who ARE scienteists to take a look. Again, I agree with you that movement began as a religious endeavor, but there is some science to it now.

No. There is still no actual science to it since it cannot be falsified.

Rose Amnell

For the record, I did not come to believe in ID because of the Discovery Institute or because of a church. I simply fail to see how Evolution Theory holds any water at all.

In other words, your belief in ID is an argument from ignorance. Typical. sad

[VoijaRisa]

Rose Amnell

Whoa, reading your post was like a step back in time.... You sounded EXACTLY like Risa's response to my post. Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but that was wierd razz

It happens. Redem, Steampunk, Me and several others have all been around these threads for a looong time and are very familiar with Creationist arguments. As such, we can all easily see the same flaws in them and tend to respond the same way.

[Redem]

Rose Amnell

An evolutionist as a proponent of Evolution Theory and abiogenesis.

Loaded term, useless. May as well call those who accept gravity gravtyists.

Rose Amnell

Heavily tested? Dusting off and carbon dating a fossil is not testing.

No, bloody good evidence of evolution through history, however.

Rose Amnell

And, since Evolution requires millions of years to happen, there is no way for we, as humans, to observe it.

Evolution on amassive scale takes millions of years for large animals. Not true of simpler ones, or ones which have small lives and huge numbers of offspring. Bacteria, for example. We can watch them evolve penicillin resistance in mere days.

Rose Amnell

Hence, untestable. And since Abiogenesis has so far been impossible to simulate or recreate, it, too, is untestable. Anything that is untestable is also unfalsifiable. Thus, by definition, not a scientific theory.

Evolution is testable, and observable.
Abiogenesis is testable and observable.
Thus both are scientific, although evolution is by far the best supported one. Abiogenesis is still a work in progress, as far as making a complete model is.

Rose Amnell

If abiogenesis is indeed impossible, then that means that for evolution to work, an external force had to have created (or planted, if you believe in aliens) life on this planet.

Yes. Your point?

Rose Amnell

Yes, EvT is bullshit. And, no, 99% of scientists aren't ignorant, they're indoctrinated. Two different things. Ignorance equates to stupidity. Indoctrination is curable. Sadly, they have very similar effects on one's perception and interpretation of what they see.

Yess... the people who are highly intelligent, and are taught to tear apart scientific theories as much as they can, are the ones who are indoctrinated.
That's not even slightly plausible.

Rose Amnell

The fact that abiogenesis has yet to be succesfully demonstrated as possible suggests that there was an external force. Irreducible complexity is commonly cited as evidence for design. I know that's become cliche now o_O . I prefer to look at the holes in EvT.

Irreducible complexity is, frankly, bullshit.
None of the proposed systems have been shown to be IC in the sense that they are unevolvable.
And as I said, Abiogenesis is a work in progress. The model is not yet complete.

Rose Amnell

VoijaRosa, I went and read further in the OP. Indeed, you were aiming your attack more at individuals and citing some of the things they have said. While it's true (and I said this) than many of the leading proponents of ID are Christians and some aren't even scientists, their ideas did bring out some people who ARE scienteists to take a look. Again, I agree with you that movement began as a religious endeavor, but there is some science to it now.

The leaders of the movement set it up as a religious movement, coated in scientific drivel.

Rose Amnell

For the record, I did not come to believe in ID because of the Discovery Institute or because of a church. I simply fail to see how Evolution Theory holds any water at all. There is no logic to it, and it's as much a black cat in a dark room that isn't there as Creationism or, for that matter, Theology.

What is wrong with evolution? it is a natural consequence of mutations, hereditary, and natural selection.