<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Does ID = Creationism?

A Hip and Thigh Classic

I swear this is not a blatant example of monkey see, monkey do. Honestly.

I was thinking of re-visiting the first post I ever wrote for my blog because current events warranted a re-post. I mean it. I was thinking about it long before Phil re-posted his.

I digress.


A brief word from our founder:

Regular readers to my blog will note that I tend to write on current events dealing with evolution, intelligent design, and creationism. There are a few reasons for this. First, it is a subject I happen to find interesting. I like science stuff. Second, and more importantly, the debate of origins is a fundamental one in our society, and in fact, beyond our society to encompass the cultures of the entire world. Origins is a subject that enthralls humanity simply because I happen to believe the question of origins is a big part of man being created in the image of God. Additionally, a pronounced line sharply polarizes people into specific worldviews they attempt to defend with heated passions. What one thinks of origins, evolutionary theory, and creation, exposes what a person believes about reality and how to understand the world. Then third, the modern day Church is myopic to the fundamentals of the disagreement. They either think the debate with vehement haters of creation can be won by overwhelming these dissenters with evidence, or they may believe religion and science are to remain separated, with science being a neutral method of gaining knowledge with the two never mixing. Rarely do modern Christians realize the heart of the debate comes down to philosophical biases from both sides being injected into the discussion. Evolutionary proponents are hardly neutral in their evaluation of science and are just as much a religious fundamentalist as their creationist opponents.

In recent years, the ID movement, promoted primarily by the Discovery Institute, has attempted to challenge the philosophical strangle hold evolutionary theory has as the prevailing zeitgeist of our society, especially in schools. Their attempts to undo the grip of evolutionary thinking on the minds of people has sadly met with failure on the court level. The recent example being a case in Pennsylvania, and more than likely one which will take place in Louisiana due to the governor signing a bill to allow ID to be discussed in the class room.

One of the major talking points of IDers is that they are not religious and they certainly aren't creationists. The secular world who hate God refuse to accept their distinction and merely see IDers as being biblical creationists wrapped up in new clothes and this despite their protestations to the contrary. This rejection is held by both leftists, as well as conservatives, who would consider themselves "religious" as in being church attenders. As I noted in a post a week or so ago, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs represents the typical attitude of ID haters, painting them as the "new creationists" and dismissing them as cranks, kooks, and quacks, who promote a pseudo-science attempting to take us all back to the dark ages when people thought the stars and planets moved across the sky because angels were pushing them.

The first post I wrote when I entered the blog-o-sphere happened to be on the one issue I think defines my apologetics when it comes to the origins issue. It was a post interacting with, and dispelling, a newspaper article written by a Kansas City Star columnist who, like the vast majority of anti-ID advocates, believe ID is just another way of saying biblical creationism.

This month of July, 2008, happens to mark the 150th anniversary of when Charles Darwin began compiling his research into the earthshaking book On the Origin of Species by the Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. In light of this, I thought I would re-publish my original post. I reformatted the post a bit, the linksto the article I interact with no longer works, so I just removed them, but overall the material is still relevant in distinguishing between ID and biblical creationism.

Does ID = Creationism?

One of the biggest pieces of misinformation continually being passed along by the Main Stream Media as they print reports on the debate between Darwinian evolutionists and their critics, is the absurd notion that Intelligent Design (ID) proponents are really disguised fundamentalist Christians attempting to sneak religion into public schools.

This is a blatant falsehood.

Anyone who insists upon promoting this lie demonstrates either personal laziness with the ability to discover what ID adherences genuinely believe, or a willing duplicity to intentionally distort the facts.

For those unfamiliar with the ID movement, it is a grass roots effort among a growing number of scientists from a variety of scientific disciplines to challenge the sheer irrational implausibility of Darwinian evolution as the means of explaining the origins of life on our planet. They offer their challenge in a number of ways, but the most common is by acknowledging the obvious complexity of multi-cellular life; a fact either ignored by evolutionists, or dismissed out of hand with illogical explanations.

One of ID’s main talking points is the irreducible complexity of even the smallest microscopic organisms. Simply put, the tinniest bacteria have specifically complex parts that are necessary for the organism to function. Thus, if any one of those parts were “reduced” – taken away or lost – the bacteria would cease to function and could not survive. For example, on a larger scale, the common woodpecker shows such irreducibly complex parts. This unique bird has a specially shaped skull and a padded beak allowing it to take the impact of repeatedly beating its head against a tree. Additionally, the bird’s neck contains a spring loaded bone, providing it the ability of a jackhammer so as to punch holes in wood. Remove the special skull and padded beak and the shock of pounding its head will kill it. Remove the spring loaded neck bone and the woodpecker looses its ability to pound through wood. In short, all of these special parts that give the woodpecker its wood pecking abilities had to be in place at the start of the woodpecker’s existence or it would not be able to survive. Such evidence exposes the stark unreliability of evolutionists to explain the presence of all life on earth, let alone the woodpecker.

The Darwinian philosophy of alleged “common ancestry,” adaptation through mutation and gradual change over long periods of time (or short periods of punctuated equilibrium, depending upon your philosophical, evolutionary leanings), does not even begin to adequately explain the origin of biological life we observe. Intelligent Design proponents are honestly evaluating the evidence and recognize the interpretative conclusion of the evidence drawn by evolutionists is primarily driven by their presuppositional commitment to materialistic atheism and not everyday, applied science.

Scientists in the ID movement dissenting from the “norm,” as it were, believe the fundamental flaws of evolution should be discussed in the public arena, especially the public schools, where these flaws have gone unchallenged for years and are passed along as “fact” by shallow minded biology teachers who forbid students to even consider the problems inherent with evolutionary philosophy. Intelligent Design wishes to provide students with all the available information and points of view interpreting the information so they can learn to think critically; the “status quot” wishes to censor them.

Now granted, ID has the word “design” in its self-description, and that in turn implies some recognition of an intelligent cause to do the designing, but this non-descript intelligence does not equate the God of revealed scripture who created the universe and all that it contains in 6 days as the Genesis narrative tells us. There is nothing necessarily “fundamentalist Christian” with ID’s intelligent cause.

Yet, in spite of the disconnect between the ID’s “intelligent cause” and the revealed, biblical God, witless reporters and writers in the secular media insist upon equating the two. One of the most recent examples is from an article written by Mary Sanchez, a regular opinion writer at the Kansas City Star. In her article, Democracy Under Assault in Schools, originally published on May 3rd, 2005 and re-published in the L.A. Daily News on May 27th, where I read it, Mary tells the tale of one Pedro Irigonegaray, a Cuban immigrant who fled with his family from Castro’s Cuba when he was a boy. Pedro grew up loving the freedom of democracy this wonderful country provides and he eventually became a defense attorney (as all democracy loving immigrants from Communist countries aspire to be) so as to be a crusader defending everyday freedoms in jeopardy of being taking away from the common man. According to Mary, one of those precious freedoms Pedro is involved with defending in Kansas is the freedom from the tyrannical ideas of Intelligent Design. In one of the more strained comparisons I have read in some time, Mary believes that teaching students to critically analyze the philosophical claims of origin science is an assault on American democracy and is akin to full blown communism, albeit, “fundamentalist Christian communism.”

Putting aside her bizarre defense for freedom from religion, I gave up on Mary being a credible editorial opinion maker when she wrote:

As a defense attorney, Irigonegaray’s client was mainstream science, the theory that life evolved through the ages. It was sort of a modern-day Scopes Monkey Trial. The Kansas Board of Education listened to the arguments. Proponents of Intelligent Design (a new way of saying creationism) want the scientific theories of evolution downplayed in the public classrooms. Intelligent design argues that nature is too complicated to be the result of natural causes and is best explained by creator.


One is at a loss where to begin in correcting the distorted ignorance contained in this paragraph, but her comment that Intelligent Design is a new way of saying “creationism” is inexcusable and the easiest to answer if one were to simply do a quick Internet search, an ability Mary apparently does not have. A cursory reading of one of the main websites of the ID movement, The Center for Culture and Science, clearly states ID has revulsion towards any form of biblical creationism. Under their questions section they write this in response to whether or not ID equals creationism:
4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.

The difference could not be any plainer. The most noteworthy distinction between ID theory and biblical creationism, as the paragraph explains, is creationism’s recognition of the biblical God who has revealed Himself in the pages of Holy Scripture. Moreover, creationists acknowledge and uphold the authority of the Bible as the infallible source of divinely revealed information telling mankind where life came from and who created it.

Intelligent Designers, on the other hand, believe in some non-descript intelligent cause and are agnostic as to who or what this “cause” is. It could be anything from aliens living in another dimension who created our universe using high energy particle accelerators to a super intelligent galactic turtle. Sure, there are some muddle-minded Christians who have latched onto ID theory with an attempt to “Christianize” it. I, as a biblical creationist, recognize the important worth of ID’s task of tearing down the ideological stranglehold evolutionary theory has on the academic mind. But, the fact of ID not being grounded in the true and living God who has clearly revealed Himself only allows any person with a wacky belief about a creator and creation utilize ID arguments.

Many of the promoters for ID are non-religious, non-practicing Catholics. Others are somewhat atheistic. Dr. Jonathan Wells, who wrote a tremendous book exposing the outright scientific fraud published in high school science texts books called The Icons of Evolution is a Moonie. That means he believes a squat, little Korean man is the Son of God. Even the famed, former atheist, Anthony Flew, acknowledges how ID arguments changed his mind about the plausibility of materialistic atheism to explain the world’s origin so that now he believes in some form of deism. Yet, he still reviles the living God, shaking his fist in His face, and he continues to hate Christianity as a revelatory, religious system.

These key distinctions are glaring. Any time a Galileo-like high school biology teacher challenges evolutionary dogma with ID arguments that results in him being brought up on charges of scientific heresy, reporters in the MSM, along with opinion writers like Mary Sanchez, trot out some fossilized biology professor from a local community college who quickly renounces him as promoting religion in public schools. Do these people truly believe they are doing genuine reporting? Defending American liberties from the onslaught of theocratic minded Christians?

Please.

How long will these folks persist in their embarrassing ignorance by passing along the same boring, anti-religious clichés comparing ID to fundamentalist Christians desiring to rob Americans of democracy and impose a theocratic government? It is becoming wearisome and unoriginal.

Labels:

21 Comments:

Blogger Peter D. Nelson said...

Nicely written Fred, as I may say are all your writings. As a long time subscriber to Fred's Bible talk I'm impressed that you have taken upon yourself another task like blogging.

6:42 AM, June 03, 2005  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

Perhaps you can name some folks who are secular and who support ID. That would surely prove your point beyond question.

While you are about it then perhaps you could also explain why the creationist book "Of Panda's and People" was turned into an ID book simply by changing the word creationist in the words intelligent design.

Thanks,

Psi

1:13 PM, July 05, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Well Psi,
David Berlinski is probably the most notable because he is an atheist or agnostic or something. Why is he not credible?

As I understand it, the men who wrote the so-called "creationist" book "Of Panda and People," which I am sure you read with scrutinizing detail, taught biological Darwinianism for years before they recognized the bankruptcy of the system as an explanatory tool for the origin of life.

A much better challenge is to have those who claim ID is the same as creationism to name any of the key folks who promote ID as being 6 day, biblical creationists. I grant there are some who may hold to 6 day creationism, but they are a clear minority in the movement. The vast majority of them are old earth, non-creationists, even theistic evolutionists.

Fred

1:29 PM, July 05, 2008  
Blogger sealawr said...

"name any of the key folks who promote ID as being 6 day, biblical creationists. I grant there are some who may hold to 6 day creationism, but they are a clear minority in the movement."

Paul Nelson, Nancy Pearcey, Phillip E. Johnson, John West, Salvador Cordova, all of Answers in Genesis, Marcus Ross, Kent Wise,Ray Bohlin, Jonathan Safarti,...the list is long.

Within 100,000 years, how long ago do you think the earth was created?

1:50 PM, July 05, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Ummm...
This will sound snarky, but did you even bother to read what I wrote? Or are you reacting with a knee jerk to the RSS tags that come to your computer?

First off, a good many of those folks, like Jonathan Sarfati, the AIG crowd, and Kurt Wise (not Kent, but I will excuse that) are creationists, not ID proponents connected to the Discovery Institute. Nancy Pearcy and Philip Johnson don't advocate biblical creationism. In fact, Pearcy, in her book, "Total Truth," distances herself from any creationism while advocating ID. Wildly inconsistent on her part, but that does not make her a 6 day creationist.

Of all the IDers, the age of the earth issue has never been one of their talking points, nor do they wish to make that a talking point. Those who believe they are closet creationists are paranoid delusionals, but that is typical of the atheistic mind.

I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old, my primary reason for believing that is because I have a written, trustworthy revelation from God that reveals as such.

Fred

2:55 PM, July 05, 2008  
Blogger bob said...

Does ID = Creationism?

Intelligent design, also known as intelligent design creationism, is a version of creationism.

The designer of intelligent design is God (despite what the liars of the Discovery Institute say) and this God magically creates creatures and other things. Does the God say "poof" or "abracadabra" is a typical ID research project. Just kidding. There is no research. ID is nothing more than a childish belief in magic, just like Bible creationism. It's impossible to research or test for magic. The whole thing is idiotic and it doesn't belong in the 21st century.

fred butler, you said "I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old, my primary reason for believing that is because I have a written, trustworthy revelation from God that reveals as such."

What makes you, a Bible creationist, different from the Intelligent Design Magic creationists, is you admit who the designer is. The Intelligent Magic creationists don't want to admit the designer is God, because they are trying to disguise supernatural magic to look scientific. They are fooling nobody. Even the creationists, if they are honest to themselves, know the designer magic man is God. The many years of this idiotic dishonesty about who the designer is became boring a long time ago. Real scientists laugh at the stupidity and dishonesty of the Discovery Institute lawyers and fake scientists, who have never discovered anything.

What can I say about your 6,000 year old earth? You probably believe the entire universe is 6,000 years old. Your belief in a earth that's just a few thousand years old requires the complete rejection of every branch of science. A young earther has to go way out of his way to know nothing about science. Instead of telling you what I think about these people including yourself, I'll just let you use your imagination. Let's just say I couldn't possibly have a lower opinion of anyone.

What about biological evolution? Well, real biologists, biologists who have actually made important discoveries in biology, biologists who actually improve our knowledge about the natural world instead of spending their time lying about it, completely accept the basic facts of evolution, including the fact that human apes and chimpanzee apes developed from the same ancient ape species.

Why are they so certain about evolution? It's because they have something the ID creationists and Bible creationists don't have. Evidence. Tons of it. Evidence that's growing every single day. Powerful evidence from molecular biology and genetics. Evidence that ID creationists and Bible creationists don't even know about.

I would suggest you study this evidence, but I know creationists are not interested in science and they are too lazy to study it, and not likely to be able to understand it.

What creationists should do, if they refuse to study the massive scientific evidence for evolution, is admit they know nothing about science, and they should let science teachers do their jobs, instead of trying to stick supernatural magic (Intelligent Design is supernatural magic) into science education.

Creationists should have nothing to say about science curriculums for the same reason people who can't add two numbers together should have nothing to say about mathematics curriculums.

Let the experts make these decisions. Creationists can abuse children with their ignorance in Sunday school. They have no right to abuse other people's children in public schools. Besides, no competent biology teacher would ever agree to teach idiotic creation myths, including intelligent design magical creation.

8:08 PM, July 05, 2008  
Blogger bob said...

"Many of the promoters for ID are non-religious, non-practicing Catholics. Others are somewhat atheistic."

This kind of dishonesty is one reason I have no respect for creationists. (The other reason I don't respect them is their refusal to educate themselves.)

Let's talk about some facts. Invoking intelligent design is the same as invoking supernatural magic. There is no atheist in the world who thinks supernatural magic is real. If they thought supernatural ideas had any value they wouldn't be atheists.

Believe whatever nonsense you want, nobody cares. But for God's sake stop lying about it.

8:13 PM, July 05, 2008  
Blogger bob said...

"These key distinctions are glaring. Any time a Galileo-like high school biology teacher challenges evolutionary dogma with ID arguments that results in him being brought up on charges of scientific heresy, reporters in the MSM, along with opinion writers like Mary Sanchez, trot out some fossilized biology professor from a local community college who quickly renounces him as promoting religion in public schools. Do these people truly believe they are doing genuine reporting? Defending American liberties from the onslaught of theocratic minded Christians?"

Galileo-like? You got to be kidding. Somebody who tries to stick intelligent design magic into science education is like Galileo? What a terrible insult to Galileo, who if he lived today would laugh at the stupidity of the everything-is-magic creationists, and he would be disgusted by the dishonesty of the intelligent design magical creation creationists. Galileo died long before Darwin was born, so he probably knew nothing about biological evolution, but I'm sure if he was alive today he would completely accept evolution. Galileo liked to say, and I don't remember his exact words, "The Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go." He understood the importance of keeping religious ideas and science completely separate. Despite what the compulsive liars of the Discovery Institute say, intelligent design magical creation is a religious idea.

ID is religious because the designer is God and the "design" in intelligent design means "magically create". Magic is not science. Supernatural is not science. Invoking intelligent design = invoking supernatural magic. If you want to disagree, then I know for sure you're just as dishonest as the Discovery Institute morons.

Evolutionary dogma? That's like saying gravity dogma. It's just plain dumb to say that. Nothing in science is sacred. If new evidence requires it, old ideas will be thrown out or modified. Evolution has been tested for 150 years and it's passed every test. New evidence will require modification of some the minor details of evolution, but nobody expects the basic facts of evolution will change. However, that's no reason to talk about evolutionary dogma. It's as dumb as calling our planet's orbit around the sun "dogma".

ID arguments = MAGIC arguments.

This is why scientists laugh at the worthless Discovery Institute. Their ideas are all based on magic. Everything they say can be translated to "We're too dumb to understand how this evolved, so it was magically created." Pure stupidity. The Discovery Institute (and all other Christian creationist organizations) don't belong in the 21st century.

8:36 PM, July 05, 2008  
Blogger bob said...

I'm sorry about all these comments, but I never saw so much dishonesty in one place before.

"Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism? No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations."

Translation: "Is intelligent MAGICAL CREATION RELIGIOUS BELIEF the same as creationism? No. Intelligent MAGIC is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent MAGIC" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine MAGIC (the product of a MAGIC MAN) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations."

Design (MAGIC) in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists?

That's pure lying. No competent biologist in the world would say that.

I can't stress strongly enough that the dishonesty of creationists is many times worse than their total ignorance of science. Their dishonesty, not their stupidity, is the reason creationists are constantly ridiculed.

8:50 PM, July 05, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Wow Bob,
A secular fundamentalist extremist. You're like a atheistic version of Kent Hovind, only more profoundly ignorant than he is. Utterly amazing. I bet you even secretly like the idea of eugenics don't you Bob? Come on, you can tell us.

So I suppose you believe like Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick that the first replicating molecules were put here by aliens?

Let's see what sort of magic you accept, Bob. I imagine you believe dinosaurs magically turned into birds, right? That fish magically willed gills into lungs? Fins into legs? The so-called ape/human ancestor magically developed the ability to walk up right, and later became Bach?

Face the facts Bob, you believe just as much in magic as the next guy.

Fred

8:52 PM, July 05, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Bob,
You like to use the word "Dishonest" a lot in your John Brown style rant. "Dishonest," however, is a moral term, implying there is some standard of absolute truth from which one departs, or in this case, mishandles for the purposes of deceiving. But according to your rant, we live in a strictly naturalistic world with only scientism ruling. If we are then all the product of biological randomness, selfish genes, and so forth, how exactly am I, or any IDer for that matter, being dishonest? Maybe dishonest to you, but not to someone else. Why should I except your terms of what qualifies as "dishonest?"

Fred

9:13 PM, July 05, 2008  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Fred,

I will stick to my initial two questions for now.

I asked for a secular ID supporter and you suggested Berlinski. According to Wiki he has the same relationship with I D as he might with an ex wife. Perhaps you can show us that he does support ID with some other evidence? If not then perhaps you can give us someone else?

You didn't answer my second question at all.

Thanks,

Psi

11:06 PM, July 05, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

PSI,
My initial contention is that Intelligent Design theory, though similar in some ways to biblical creationism, is not equal to it on many fundamental levels. The biggest being that the proponents of ID from the Discovery Institute have an open hostility toward biblical creationists. The core of their religious values are more akin to a deistic paganism. Their main emphasis has been to challenge the presuppositional axioms of evolution by opening up the possibility of dissent in the academic realm where evolution fails to offer any meaningful explanations to difficult problems, like that of irreducible complexity.

For evolutionary dogmatists to insist there is some black ops movement on the part of ID to sneak biblical creationism in the back door of the public school is, as I told Bob, paranoia. To me it demonstrates the inability of evolutionists to win the hearts and minds of regular folks. If a system has to be so insulated that it can't be challenged on its own grounds in the class room, in spite of its adherents claiming it to be infallible and all the evidence supports it, this shows a fragility in the system and its supporters are attempting to protect from exposure.

As to your questions. First, I don't need to name someone who is secular to solidify my point. All a person needs to have is a basic understanding of ID theory and biblical creationism to see the two systems merely share some similarities but are hardly equal at the foundational level. If anti-ID people would actually read their stuff this would help clarify much.

You asked who is a secular person who supports ID. I define secular as someone who is certainly non-religious, which Berlinski is. Many of the lapsed Catholics and even Jonathan Well's "moonieism" I would place in that category, or at least these folks aren't any more religious than the most ardent evolutionary dogmatist.

As for the Panda book, I have no idea why the publishers did what they did, nor do I care. I have never read the book. I do know that the authors, or at least one of the authors, were at one time leading evolutionary theorists who changed their position. As I ask again, why are they no longer credible as scientists? Because they are now apostates from your "religious" secular convictions?

If I am not mistaken, their change was due to a religious conversion, which speaks to me that this debate is one of the heart, not one of evidence. Evidence has to be interpreted. Both sides have the same evidence. The evidence is then interpreted through a filter of presuppositions which under gird a model, or worldview: Materialistic naturalism, which the vast majority of evolutionists adhere to, or revelatory supernaturalism, which creationists, and some IDers adhere to, and then determine which worldview best explains the nature of the evidence we observe.

Fred

6:44 AM, July 06, 2008  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Fred,

Perhaps you have not read the Wedge document by the Disco Tute - they share your religious opinion in every way other than in the courtroom.

Perhaps you could name a few folks there who you can quote as supporting your assertion.

Berlinski does not support ID. He says he has a similar relationship to ID as he would to an ex-wife.

The folks who wrote Of Panda's and People originally wrote the book as a creationist book and then did a simple cut and paste job to replace creation with Intelligent design.

How would that count as a religious experience?

Perhaps you should read the Dover vs Kitzmiller details/transcript or judgment to clarify as you seem to have that one back to front.

Regards,

Psi

9:15 AM, July 06, 2008  
Blogger Joe Blackmon said...

Bob

Thank you very much for a good laugh. I needed a good chuckle to start the morning right.

Regards

5:18 AM, July 08, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Perhaps you have not read the Wedge document by the Disco Tute - they
share your religious opinion in every way other than in the courtroom.


(Fred) I read all through that document and nothing in it comes remotely close to suggesting they support 6 day, biblical creationism. You have some specific citations you want me to look at? Pull it from the Discovery Institutes site, because the atheist sites tend to exaggerate things.

The closest they even come to a religious comment in that document is speaking of being Christians, which is left rather vague, and they invoke the word God when speaking of the roots of Western society. The roots of Western society can include Greek philosophy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestants. The IDers are more akin to the Greek philosophy than my position.

Perhaps you could name a few folks there who you can quote as
supporting your assertion.
Berlinski does not support ID. He says he has a similar relationship to
ID as he would to an ex-wife.


(Fred) If Berlinski is so hostile to ID theory as you suggest (wikipedia being hardly a reliable source), why is he a fellow with their group?

Repeatedly throughout their site they take great pains to separate themselves from the talking points of what biblical creationism is. Why you refuse to take them at their word is beyond me, and rather baffling. Being a biblical creationist, I can tell you they most certainly do not share any of the convictions I hold, yet you claim they do. Additionally, I happen to know some of the folks who are involved in the work of the Discovery Institute and most of them are progressive creationists (which is utterly different from my convictions) or theistic evolutionists. There are only a handful of biblical creationists involved with the group and most of them rarely if ever talk about their convictions in the area of the age of the earth, etc. I personally wish those guys would talk about biblical creationism more, because I see them as individuals ashamed of the Gospel. But that is a discussion for another day.

The folks who wrote Of Panda's and People originally wrote the book as
a creationist book and then did a simple cut and paste job to replace
creation with Intelligent design. How would that count as a religious experience?


(Fred) And your documentation for that is?...

If you do a search for Dean Kenyon, one of the authors of the book, he originally was a major writer for neo-Darwinianism, having written a book called Biochemical Predestination. It wasn't until he was confronted by the works of AE Wilder-Smith that he realized his views on Darwinianism had severe problems.

Perhaps you should read the Dover vs Kitzmiller details/transcript or
judgment to clarify as you seem to have that one back to front.


A few things here:

First, you need to provide me with some specific citations and quotations within that documents that demonstrates that ID, as it is promoted by its chief proponents, advocates biblical creationism. You seem to labor under the mistaken understanding that if one adheres to some supernaturalism or attends church or claims to be a Christian, that automatically makes the person a biblical creationist. This is hardly the reality of the situation. Certainly there are individuals who participate with IDers, but the principles of biblical creationism is something held out at arm's length, if not outright rejected by the key proponents of ID.

Second, I have always found it amusing how Darwinians have had to run to the law courts in order to censor and silence any opposition and dissent from their wordview. It is like a secular form of extremist fundamentalism. Religious issues aside, I would think that if you believe your system is utterly infallible and is the best there is for interpreting the world, any competition, regardless of what the system advocated, would be welcomed. If ID is so bankrupt as is claimed by evolutionists, then they would want to have it taught along with biblical creationism, so that they can debunk it. Rather, I see any professor or teacher who advocates ID or creationism being labeled a secular heretic and burned at the academic stake.

Using the courts as a defense filter reveals two things to me. Either evolutionary defenders have failed with making a compelling case for their position, or there are heart issues at stake. Seeing that evolution is without fail the prevailing interpretive world view taught through out the entire western culture, in education and media, and great sums of money is spent putting together magazines and documentaries to teach evolution, and many of the proponents of evolution are its fiercest defenders, I find that first reason lacking. That means there is something deeper going on. Evolutionists have to use the law to censors its critics, using the a phony appeal to the 1st amendment as a shield, because their system is woefully inadequate as a means to explain the big issues in life. Certainly it can maybe explain how a group of animals adapted to their changing environment, but it can't explain where life came from or where it is going, why men are here, etc. People cling to evolution as a religious worldview, not because overwhelming evidence demands it, but, as Richard Lewontin explained, "we can't allow a divine foot in the door."

Personally, as a Christian, I am not afraid to teach my kids evolution. In fact, I will probably use much of that slick evolutionary propaganda put out by NOVA and Eugenie Scott and her NCSE crowd. We will study everything we can get our hands on about evolution ... Then we will debunk it.

7:03 AM, July 10, 2008  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Fred,

Thanks for this comprehensive reply. To cover things off in order;

Here is the full text of the Wedge - you can find it elsewhere.

Your original contention that ID is not religious but is purely science and by impication that the Disco Tutes motives are not religious or politico/religious are contracdicted by the document thoroughly.

Here is the intro;

"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism."

I am quite happy to accept that the Disco Tute folks are not people with exactly the same belief as you. I never claimed they were. I simply point out that their motivations are religious and that ID is not science.

- - -

I don't know why Berlinski is in the Disco Tute and yet says he doesn't support ID.

- - -

Re the book - see this quick summary.

Or if you don't trust the makers of this clip then read the trial transcriptes on line they are easily found.

Or search for the phrase "cdesign propentsisits" in google and pick your own source.

- - -

Ok I'm up for a challenge - pick your best bit of debunking and fire away. I will tell you what I think.

Regards,

Psi

2:09 PM, July 10, 2008  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

oops

"cdesign proponentsists"

2:11 PM, July 10, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Your original contention that ID is not religious but is purely science and by impication that the Disco Tutes motives are not religious or politico/religious are contracdicted by the document thoroughly.

(Fred) Psi, this may be where you are missing what I am saying. Did you even bother to read carefully what I wrote? Or are you knee-jerk reacting to only the post title itself. At least crazy Bob took the time to read what I wrote.

I never said the ID guys weren't religious. My contention is that they are not biblical creationists. There is a huge difference. The media contention, and that of their evolutionary detractors, is that ID is stealth creationism. Who ever believes that is woefully ignorant of biblical creationism, and if they continue to persist in such ignorance, then they are intentionally blinding themselves to the facts.

IDers being religious, however, is an entirely different matter and one I never claimed.

I am quite happy to accept that the Disco Tute folks are not people with exactly the same belief as you. I never claimed they were. I simply point out that their motivations are religious and that ID is not science.

(Fred) I am glad you finally came to see that. Good grief.
I would contend, however, that religion or a person's religious convictions, do not make or break "science" or how they do science. The idea that science must be separated from religion is a phony dichotomy. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is not only flawed logically, but is a flat denial of scientific history. All men are "religiously" committed to their chosen framework, a philosophical authority, as to how they understand the world.


Ok I'm up for a challenge - pick your best bit of debunking and fire away. I will tell you what I think.

(Fred) The "debunking" doesn't center around evaluating pieces of individual evidence. Both groups have the same evidence to consider. The debate is around which framework is best to interpret the evidence. Evolutionist begin with the presupposition that denies the role of God in the universe. Creationists - and to a limited degree, ID - accepts God's role, particularly as it is revealed in scripture. The naturalistic foundations of evolution are irrational, because it suggests self-replicating matter can arise on its own and can increase the genetic information necessary for organisms, especially higher ones, to develop complex systems in order to function in and adapt to their environments. Additionally, the concept of the human mind, expressions of love, morality, and even the laws of logic, are not rationally explainable by evolutionary theory. Oh yes, I realize many of them try to provide explanations, but they strain at credulity, and are fanciful tales of conjecture that don't even begin to touch what is truly experienced in the real world, Dawkins absurd meme theory for example.

Fred

4:22 PM, July 12, 2008  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Fred,

I see what is happening here. You say that because the Disco Tute and other ID types are not exactly the same kind of creationist as you that they are not fundamentalist christians trying to sneek etc etc.

Well perhaps you are not aware but there are several flavours of christian fundamentalists, all claiming to be the only true ones. The Disco Tute as evidenced by their own words in the wedge and their own words around the world when speaking to Christian Audiences shown them to be exactly what you claim they are not.

Here in the UK we have aour own brand of openly christian fundamentalist supporters of creationism/ID, who conveniently hide their true beliefs when not talking to religious audiences.

If ID is science then give us the science Fred.

Anything at all?

Thought not.

The Disco Tute don't do any either. The Templeton foundation characterised them as political.

I am not religious committed to anything. Don't claim to know all men's minds Fred.

- - -

You obviously have a different dictionary defintion of debunking to the rest of the planet.

Evolutionists don't start with a presuppostition that denies god role in the universe. What about Ken Miller? What about the clergy letter project? 10,000 ministers disagreeing with you should slightly dint your implications that you have to deny god to accept the evidence which supports evolution theory.

Are they not religious folks?

By the way evolution is not abiogenesis. Do you explain that to your kids?

How does evolution not fully explaining something count as supporting your argument, unless you god is a god of the gaps?

Regards,

Psi

PS good grief yourself ;-)

2:48 AM, July 13, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I see what is happening here. You say that because the Disco Tute and other ID types are not exactly the same kind of creationist as you that they are not fundamentalist christians trying to sneek etc etc. ...
Well perhaps you are not aware but there are several flavours of christian fundamentalists, all claiming to be the only true ones. The Disco Tute as evidenced by their own words in the wedge and their own words around the world when speaking to Christian Audiences shown them to be exactly what you claim they are not.


(Fred) That is exactly what I am saying. Fundamentalism in the generic sense of the concept affirms the authority of God's Word. Affirming God's authority certainly means affirming it with regards to the biblical historical record of Genesis as it informs and shapes a person's worldview. There are only a handful of prominent ID supporters who figure Genesis into their understanding of the world. Most of them adhere to a Greek philosophical view of intelligent design, rather than a biblical one as taught in Genesis, which is my main problem with ID apologetics in whole.

Here in the UK we have aour own brand of openly christian fundamentalist supporters of creationism/ID, who conveniently hide their true beliefs when not talking to religious audiences.

(Fred) I can't speak to individuals you have encountered in the UK. I know lots of ID proponents, if they are creationists, who will hide their convictions, which is a travesty in my mind, not even so much because it is dishonest with the audience, but because it dishonors God whom they claim to serve.

If ID is science then give us the science Fred.

(Fred) ID isn't "science" any more than Darwinian evolution is "science." Both "theories" are expressed worldviews that interpret the evidence by means of specific philosophical assumptions. Like I stated in my last comment, Darwinian is driven by the assumptions of naturalistic materialism which insists no supernatural has or can intervene in the world. I find such an unquestioned insistence to be absurd.

I am not religious committed to anything. Don't claim to know all men's minds Fred.

(Fred) Psi, if you believe this, you are seriously deluded. Which is typical, anyways. Those who claim to not be religously committed to anything are usually the ones who are the most religiously committed to their chosen beliefs. If you weren't religiously committed to Darwinianism, you wouldn't care what ID and creationism taught in the class room.

You obviously have a different dictionary defintion of debunking to the rest of the planet.

(Fred) A different definition from the rest of the entire planet or just from atheists committed to anti-supernatural materialism?

Evolutionists don't start with a presuppostition that denies god role in the universe.

(Fred) Of course they do, or there wouldn't be an issue with teaching any creationism or ID in a public school, at least here in the U.S. Because they are so violently opposed to God's role in the universe is the reason why evolutionists have to create a phony dichotomy between a belief in God and what they define as "science" as if a committed creationists cannot do science. I mean, you have heard of Eugenie Scott and Barbara Forrester, right?

What about Ken Miller?

(Fred) Ken Miller, as far as I know, is a moderate Catholic who denies the authority of scripture which places him outside the realm of being a biblical Christian. Additionally, he is just as dishonest as you claim the IDers are because if he is committed to a biblical understanding of God, in order to consistently maintain that commitment, he has to affirm God created as God revealed he created. But he doesn't do this.

What about the clergy letter project? 10,000 ministers disagreeing with you should slightly dint your implications that you have to deny god to accept the evidence which supports evolution theory. Are they not religious folks?

(Fred) So what about it? Are you telling me truth is now determined by a majority consensus? I imagine you believe because there are thousands of scientist signing a document affirming man-made global warming, it makes it true? Questions I liked to have answered would be who are these ministers? Denominational affiliations? What is their commitment to biblical authority? I would imagine a good portion of them deny fundamental Christian doctrine, the historicity of the Bible, and other foundational truths pertaining to what defines biblical Christianity. As for accepting their religiosity as some sort of affirmation of Darwinian theory, is like you accepting the Ph.D.'s of the numerous IDers as affirmation for ID.

By the way evolution is not abiogenesis. Do you explain that to your kids?

(Fred) Evolution is just a means to explain how species can adapt to survive in their environments. Creationists don't have a problem with that. However, being a committed evolutionist, it is imperative to your idea to have a workable explanation as to where the building blocks of life came from, and all evolutionists have now are concepts of abiogenesis, unless you want to say they came here from outerspace by either aliens or comets.

How does evolution not fully explaining something count as supporting your argument, unless you god is a god of the gaps?

(Fred) And how does it count as supporting yours? Evolutionists all the time have to appeal to a blind faith in the "science of the gaps" or the hope that "one day we'll know" all the time.

7:47 AM, July 14, 2008  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home