More confirmation that ID creationism is dead

[exchemist]

Poor Phil...

Many in the YEC/IDC movement all but worshipped the guy. I read an interview with him many years ago with a forward by, I think it was Ray Bohlin? It was almost hard to read - he described Johnson as 'handsome' and 'intelligent' and that he married a 'supermodel wife', and he went on and on.... Really creepy.

Also, PJ claimed in his first book that he was no scientist (correct), but that because he was a lawyer he was able to dismantle evolution's arguments.
But he really couldn't - he took his layman's understanding of the science and then found those 'arguments' (that he couldn't understand) lacking. Golly, imagine that...

Anyway, glad the DI is defunct.

Lawyers in the USA think they are masters of the universe, don't they? I suppose it's because it is such a litigious nation. Everyone who is anyone seems to be a lawyer - if they're not in entertainment.

Johnson's error was to fail to understand what science is. You can argue until you are blue in the face - which is what lawyers do for a living - but until you have some observational evidence to back up your hypothesis, you've got nowhere in science. The lack of any evidence - indeed the impossibility of there being any, due to the untestable nature of the hypothesis - doomed ID to pseudoscience from the outset.

But actually, there will always be doubt in my mind as to whether Johnson deluded himself over this, or whether he knew all the time that ID could never be science and just exploited it for the social engineering ends that he had in mind. Some of the stuff that came out about his modus operandi (Wedge Strategy etc) suggests he could well have been that cynical. The adversarial mindset of the lawyer - to seek to persuade through argument, even when you suspect the proposition is faulty - would seem to lend itself to that.

 

[Shakeel]

They teach it in religious classes in public schools. Is religion also dead because it isn't taught in science classes? Is politics dead? It, too, isn't taught in science classes. Nor are arts, languages or philosophy. Seems the word dead has lost its meaning here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They teach it in religious classes in public schools. Is religion also dead because it isn't taught in science classes? Is politics dead? It, too, isn't taught in science classes. Nor are arts, languages or philosophy. Seems the word dead has lost its meaning here.

The difference is, off course, that none of those other things you mentioned ever pretended to be scientific.
It seems you are unaware of the fact that the entire purpose of ID was to fool people into thinking that religious beliefs are scientific.

 

[Shakeel]

The difference is, off course, that none of those other things you mentioned ever pretended to be scientific.
It seems you are unaware of the fact that the entire purpose of ID was to fool people into thinking that religious beliefs are scientific.

Yep, never heard of such a thing and am doubting your words.

 

[tas8831]

Lawyers in the USA think they are masters of the universe, don't they?

Many do, absolutely.

I suppose it's because it is such a litigious nation. Everyone who is anyone seems to be a lawyer - if they're not in entertainment.

Indeed - many Fox News hosts are or were lawyers. Twofer.

Johnson's error was to fail to understand what science is. You can argue until you are blue in the face - which is what lawyers do for a living - but until you have some observational evidence to back up your hypothesis, you've got nowhere in science.

Which is why he only ever attacked evolution. Which is what 99% of YECs/OECs/IDCs do - attack, never support.

The lack of any evidence - indeed the impossibility of there being any, due to the untestable nature of the hypothesis - doomed ID to pseudoscience from the outset.

Aye.

But actually, there will always be doubt in my mind as to whether Johnson deluded himself over this, or whether he knew all the time that ID could never be science and just exploited it for the social engineering ends that he had in mind. Some of the stuff that came out about his modus operandi (Wedge Strategy etc) suggests he could well have been that cynical. The adversarial mindset of the lawyer - to seek to persuade through argument, even when you suspect the proposition is faulty - would seem to lend itself to that.

Agreed. Ends justify the means and all that.

 

[tas8831]

They teach it in religious classes in public schools. Is religion also dead because it isn't taught in science classes? Is politics dead? It, too, isn't taught in science classes. Nor are arts, languages or philosophy. Seems the word dead has lost its meaning here.

Seems you didn't read the OP...

 

[firedragon]

"Intelligent design" creationism has been effectively dead for some time now.

Absolutely wrong.

Ill tell you what!! If I am the only one in the world, still I say "I am a creationist". Creationism is very much alive.

Recall that it was created as a means to skirt court rulings against the teaching of Biblical creationism in public schools, which the Dover ruling put a quick end to.

1. So lets say the others like Muslims are not "creationists" in your opinion?
2. How about Christians like ones in the 1st century AD? Did they create creationism "as a means to skirt court rulings against the teaching of Biblical creationism in public schools, which the Dover ruling put a quick end to"?

So all you advocates for ID creationism can stop pretending now. It's over. The professional creationists have moved on....probably a good time for y'all to do the same.

Everyone should stop pretending the whole universe revolves around you or/and around your vicinity. Its quite a big place with a lot of people around with a lot of ideas. There are creationists who are very different from the description you have given above. And mind you, creationism is very much alive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yep, never heard of such a thing and am doubting your words.

Obviously you are extremely unaware of what the ID movement is and what it's purpose was.
You should read up.

There was a whole trial about it with folks like Michael Behe desperatly trying to "prove" that ID is a proper scientific theory.

Off course, he had to redefine "scientific theory" to be able to call ID a "scientific theory". It was rather funny that during the trial, he also had to admit that under his "revised" definition, astrology (you know like... horoscopes) would also qualify as science

Anyhow, yes: ID was invented, literally, to try and smuggle creationist ideas into science classes. That was its sole purpose. As the infamous "wedge document" has shown. This was a document that leaked out of the "discovery institute", where it was pretty much literally stated that this is the case.

Then there's also the infamous term "cdesign proponentsists" that was found in a new edition of the book "of pandas and people" (if memory serves me right). This was an older creationists propaganda book which was edited to remove all references to "creationism" and "creationist" etc and replaced by "Intelligent design" and "design proponents". The "find and replace" function that they used on the book to dishonestly edit it to make it sound more "sciency" went wrong in a couple of places, which gave us the term of "cdesign proponentsists".

That to was brought forward at the trial, as evidence of the dishonesty of these people.

The whole trial was quite embarrassing for those dishonest creationists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ill tell you what!! If I am the only one in the world, still I say "I am a creationist". Creationism is very much alive.

We've been over this already and yet here you are again trying to muddy the waters.

To you, a "creationist" includes everyone from the most hardcore YEC to the mega-deist who believes some entity kickstarted the universe and then went on his way and let the entire thing unfold naturally from that initial trigger.

This is not what is meant by the word "creationist" in topics such as this one, in a subform called "EVOLUTION VERSUS CREATIONISM"

You are smart enough to figure out your mistake, from the subforum title alone.
That, and the fact that SO MANY people have informed you of your mistake already.

So please, go derail some other thread.

 

[metis]

"Intelligent design" creationism has been effectively dead for some time now. Recall that it was created as a means to skirt court rulings against the teaching of Biblical creationism in public schools, which the Dover ruling put a quick end to. And after that ruling, ID creationist leaders pretty much gave up their efforts to get it into schools. So in the context of its original purpose, ID creationism died a very quick death.

Since ID creationism was first and foremost a social/political strategy, any scientific aspects to it were mostly just window dressing in an attempt to give the movement a veneer of scientific credibility. It never did generate its own science or lead to any new discoveries, so in that sense ID creationism didn't really die, it was kinda stillborn.

Well if there was ever any doubt about that status, now we have further confirmation.

Biologic Institute Closes (pandasthumb.org)

Appears the Biologic Institute [An enterprise of the Discovery Institute] is history, green screen and all. On their 2019 990, Director Axe will no longer draw a salary, but will be a prof at Biola “Univ.” Office space is for rent. Location is listed as “permanently closed.” Their final 990 showed a loss of $133,000.​

So all you advocates for ID creationism can stop pretending now. It's over. The professional creationists have moved on....probably a good time for y'all to do the same.

Beside losing some of their congregants because of their anti-scientific positions, fundamentalist have also been taking a hit because of their rather extreme positions, and one hypothesis has it that they may be losing a lot more because of their overwhelming backing of Trump and the lunacy that this created.

 

[Valjean]

Good points, Firedragon. Creationism might be outside the purview of science but it's alive and well in the world.

We have to realize that humans are not naturally reasonable. Maths and logic are recent developments, and science is something entirely new.

For millions of years Hominids lived hand-to-mouth in small, family groups. Abstract reasoning, logic, research, critical analysis and long term planning were useless, often counter-productive traits. Useful features were existential fear, jumping to conclusions, knee-jerk panic, and worst-case presumption, and anything promising some control over life was welcomed uncritically.

Most of humanity is still motivated by the emotion and conventionalism. Most don't relate to abstraction. Most find complexity and multi-step explanations annoying, and intellectuals indulging in them effete élitists.
Religion is natural. Intellectual thought -- unnatural.

Religion offers community, simple answers, simple rules, reassurance, hope, and existential significance. Until humans evolve out of their need for these, I expect religion and mythology to persist,

I see no selective advantage to abstract reasoning or creativity. Any useful technologies developed by the scientific community are quickly adopted by the hoi-polloi, who are happy to use or abuse them but reluctant to understand them or see any long-term downsides.

 

[Yazata]

"Intelligent design" creationism has been effectively dead for some time now.

Maybe, maybe not, depending on how one defines it.

Recall that it was created as a means to skirt court rulings against the teaching of Biblical creationism in public schools

I think that intelligent design ideas date back to ancient and perhaps even prehistoric times. The ancient Greeks wrote about it. Intelligent design ideas were held almost universally until the second half of the 19th century and into the 20th century, when atheism became more widespread and popular. Prior to that, in the early 19th century and back into the 17th and 18th centuries, many of the avant-garde intellectuals in the Western world were deists. They questioned revealed theology (the Bible etc.) but accepted natural theology, more or less. And the design argument seemed self-evident and unassailable to them.

Far from being a recent innovation crafted by Biblical creationists to skirt court rulings, ID is a philosophical idea with a centuries long pedigree.

which the Dover ruling put a quick end to.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was a US district court decision, decided by a single judge. It doesn't have binding force outside that district, and certainly not outside the United States.

And I think that the whole idea of "solving" philosophical problems with court decisions is unclear-on-the-concept.

And after that ruling, ID creationist leaders pretty much gave up their efforts to get it into schools. So in the context of its original purpose, ID creationism died a very quick death.

It would be hard to keep it out. I expect that many high-school biology instructors point out when they are beginning their evolution segment, that there are other proposed explanations for the order perceived in reality and for the origins of biological organisms in particular, but that those proposed explanations aren't strictly scientific and while they might be covered in a philosophy class, they won't be discussed in that particular science class.

Even if the instructor doesn't want to add that little disclaimer, he might be forced to talk about it if one of his students mentions ID.

It never did generate its own science or lead to any new discoveries, so in that sense ID creationism didn't really die, it was kinda stillborn.

Yes, that's always been my own biggest objection to considering ID a science. It lacks content and a research program. Given science's methodological naturalism, it's hard to see how it could have one.

But that being said, it still remains a legitimate metaphysical possibility. It might actually be true, even if it posits something outside the scope of science. That's why I think that it's more appropriate in philosophy class than in biology class.

Well if there was ever any doubt about that status, now we have further confirmation.

So all you advocates for ID creationism can stop pretending now. It's over. The professional creationists have moved on....probably a good time for y'all to do the same.

I don't think that the closure of one arm of the Discovery Institute (which is still very much alive) means that "ID creationism is dead". That's not how philosophical controversies end.

 

[exchemist]

Absolutely wrong.

Ill tell you what!! If I am the only one in the world, still I say "I am a creationist". Creationism is very much alive.



1. So lets say the others like Muslims are not "creationists" in your opinion?
2. How about Christians like ones in the 1st century AD? Did they create creationism "as a means to skirt court rulings against the teaching of Biblical creationism in public schools, which the Dover ruling put a quick end to"?



Everyone should stop pretending the whole universe revolves around you or/and around your vicinity. Its quite a big place with a lot of people around with a lot of ideas. There are creationists who are very different from the description you have given above. And mind you, creationism is very much alive.

You've missed the point. He said ID creationism. It is this variety of creationism that is effectively dead now, in the sense that its leading protagonists have given up.

Creationism, more broadly, is another story entirely.

 

[Yazata]

They teach it in religious classes in public schools.

Public school in the UK and many other countries perhaps. Public schools in the US are forbidden from having religious classes. (Which is both a good thing and a bad thing, perhaps.)

Is religion also dead because it isn't taught in science classes? Is politics dead? It, too, isn't taught in science classes. Nor are arts, languages or philosophy. Seems the word dead has lost its meaning here.

Yes, that's where Jose's implicit argument falls apart in my opinion. Just because something lies outside the scope of science doesn't in and of itself make it impossible, untrue or unworthy of discussion.

It just suggests that it might be inappropriate content in a science class.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep, never heard of such a thing and am doubting your words.

I cannot say that I use your knowledge of things as a standard to weigh the validity of information, but what he said is correct.

 

[firedragon]

You've missed the point. He said ID creationism. It is this variety of creationism that is effectively dead now, in the sense that its leading protagonists have given up.

Creationism, more broadly, is another story entirely.

Intelligent Design Creationism.

You see Exchemist, I believe you missed my point in the midst of all the banter. IDC if I may shorten it to, is exactly the concept of other theologies including Islam. And I say this with confidence because I am a Muslim.

The point is that the OP has taken for granted that his anecdotal idea from the vicinity is what it defines. It is not. IDC if you wish to call it as some kind of calling name has been there for a long time, and is absolutely different from what this OP portrays it to be.

I hope you understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Public school in the UK and many other countries perhaps. Public schools in the US are forbidden from having religious classes. (Which is both a good thing and a bad thing, perhaps.)



Yes, that's where Jose's implicit argument falls apart in my opinion. Just because something lies outside the scope of science doesn't in and of itself make it impossible, untrue or unworthy of discussion.

It just suggests that it might be inappropriate content in a science class.

I am pretty sure you missed the actual point.

 

[Yazata]

I am pretty sure you missed the actual point.

Perhaps you should read my post #32 in this thread, where I responded to Jose's OP.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Intelligent Design Creationism.

You see Exchemist, I believe you missed my point in the midst of all the banter. IDC if I may shorten it to, is exactly the concept of other theologies including Islam. And I say this with confidence because I am a Muslim.

The point is that the OP has taken for granted that his anecdotal idea from the vicinity is what it defines. It is not. IDC if you wish to call it as some kind of calling name has been there for a long time, and is absolutely different from what this OP portrays it to be.

I hope you understand.

I don't think that you understand what ID is. It is a creationist belief that claims there is scientific evidence for creationism. Of course we know that there isn't any. Your run of the mill creationist believes the magical story of the Bible. ID believers try, and fail, to justify their beliefs with science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps you should read my post #32 in this thread, where I responded to Jose's OP.

I did read it.