"Is intelligent design the same as creationism? No."

[Skwim]

I came across the chart below and thought the linked comment immediately below was a typical, and amusing, attempt to spin ID away from creationism. An ongoing effort by the ID camp to legitimize its position.

"The theory of intelligent design 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 typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
source​

​

source
​

The spectacular change in wording that took place in "Pandas (1987), version 2" was a direct result of the Louisiana "Balanced Treatment Act" case — Edwards v. Aguillard — decision by the Supreme Court in 1987. The court determined that teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the United States constitution,

So, whether referred to as "ID" or "creationism" make no doubt about it, it's the same thing.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

In practice yes ID is the PC version of (Christian) creationism. In theory however ID is very different; it could have actually been a relatively scientifically sound examination of [ed: aspects of] reality for a very specific purpose - the identification of [ed: phenomenon] in the hope of identifying sufficient evidence to support a hypothesis of the existence of some form or mechanism of intervention by some sort of designer (about which ID should be theologically neutral unless the evidence proves certain traditions false - remembering that science cannot prove them true). There are a number of rather dubious elements in the above description that could easily undermine the scientific process if not careful, but in theory it could be done.... the theory however is far from the practice.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Wait, so the creationists who incessantly and dogmatically oppose evolution and constantly bring up the same dumb questions that have been answered a hundred times, are the same people as the IDers who incessantly and dogmatically oppose evolution and constantly bring up the same dumb questions that have been answered a hundred times?

It's pretty shocking.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Philosophically, I think Intelligent Design is different from Creationism. In reality, however, the two are so interchangeable that they have, in many ways, inadvertently become synonymous.

 

[idav]

I am gonna have to go with unintelligent design which unfortunately still isnt testable but more believable.

 

[Magmagirl]

Isn't Intelligent Design the happy marriage of Creationism & Evolution? am I oversimplifying?

 

[outhouse]

So, whether referred to as "ID" or "creationism" make no doubt about it,

it's the same thing.

Exactly. :yes:

 

[Parsimony]

Isn't Intelligent Design the happy marriage of Creationism & Evolution? am I oversimplifying?

I believe that would be theistic evolution.

 

[outhouse]

Isn't Intelligent Design the happy marriage of Creationism & Evolution? am I oversimplifying?

ID i smaking stuff up as you go that doesnt even follow the original mythology.


Evolution is based on observed facts


ID is a modern desperate attempt to keep biblical mythology alive against all the facts that show creation is mythology.

 

[LuisDantas]

Isn't Intelligent Design the happy marriage of Creationism & Evolution? am I oversimplifying?

I don't know about simplifying, but that just ain't right.

 

[Sha'irullah]

In short they are the same. Although I do like the new ID campaign since they are more easily refutable.

 

[fantome profane]

Isn't Intelligent Design the happy marriage of Creationism & Evolution? am I oversimplifying?

Actually you are not simplifying enough. Intelligent Design is Creationism.

 

[ruffen]

They are very much the same yes. Both claim that non-natural processes and an intelligent thought is behind the complexity we see in the world today, and both are wrong on that account.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

Both the young-Earth creationism espoused by the Creation Research Institute and the old-earth creationism espoused by the Intelligent Design Movement are deemed pseudo-scientific by most biologists, because neither movement can support its claims empirically, because both movements make false claims about evolutionary theory, and because both have been proven to be religious rather than scientific in nature. The so-called science in the ID movement has been proven to be a dressed-up version of the Argument from Design. See this link for more about ID: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Although not irrefutable evidence, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the "cdesign proponentsist" gaff.

 

[Skwim]

Although not irrefutable evidence, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the "cdesign proponentsist" gaff.

Oh, it's been done a number of times. Here's one I posted some years ago.

​

 

[Zen Sensei]

Wait, so the creationists who incessantly and dogmatically oppose evolution and constantly bring up the same dumb questions that have been answered a hundred times, are the same people as the IDers who incessantly and dogmatically oppose evolution and constantly bring up the same dumb questions that have been answered a hundred times?

It's pretty shocking.

Shocking! Not really it's insane. A definition of insanity is repeatedly doing something over and over and failing and redoing it in the hope that this time the result will be different.

 

[Bunyip]

I would say that ID is just creationism with a hat and a moustache as a disguise.

 

[Sapiens]

No hat, wrong color mustache glued on askew.

 

[LuisDantas]

Isn't Intelligent Design the happy marriage of Creationism & Evolution?

No, it isn't. In practice it could not truly be, simply because such a happy marriage is indistinguishable from evolution.

am I oversimplifying?

Or buying the line, perhaps.