More confirmation that ID creationism is dead

[Jose Fly]

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.

That's been among the leading questions from science advocates for decades now.....do creationist leaders really believe the nonsense they peddle, or are they just fleecing the rubes to make a buck?

IMO it's a mixed bag. I think most of them actually do believe what they say, but I think some of them (albeit very few) are just cons.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Not really. Or not fully, at least.

ID has a very specific meaning, relating to a particular pseudoscientific hypothesis. Has Islam really embraced the ideas of "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" and does it seek to give it scientific credentials, through scientific-seeming exercises, like computer simulations?

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

If you don't mind.....where specifically? I'd be curious to see how it's actually taught.

 

[firedragon]

ID has a very specific meaning, relating to a particular pseudoscientific hypothesis.

Not really. That is your anecdotal experience.

ID goes back to lets say the 10th century. Even the 14th century. You have a particular frame of mind, that is your anecdotal fallacy. I understand it, but its not quite right.

 

[Yazata]

You've missed the point. He said ID creationism.

I agree that Biblical creationism and ID creationism are distinct.

But I think that Jose grievously misconstrued what ID is.

ID notes various features of the natural realm (such as Behe's "irreducible complexity", Aristotle's arguments that Aquinas worked into his "five ways", the fine-tuning arguments and others) and argues that an intelligent designer best explains them. People can argue about how good those arguments are, but not about whether they have been made. The nature and identity of the hypothetical intelligent designer remains unknown. It needn't have anything to do with the Bible or with Christianity. Or the Quran, Vedic tradition or any of the religions of man. The ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and the later neoplatonists speculated about origins. The deists of European history were skeptics about traditional Biblical Christianity but they still believed that the design argument had tremendous persuasive force.

ID isn't merely a wedge strategy concocted in the last few decades to force the Bible into public school science classes, even if some of its proponents clearly hoped to use it that way. It's a set of questions and hypothetical metaphysical answers that have a long historical pedigree dating back thousands of years.

That's Jose's first mistake, in my opinion.

It is this variety of creationism that is effectively dead now, in the sense that its leading protagonists have given up.

When one erects a straw-man, it's easy to knock it over.

My point is that there's a legitimate and very real philosophical question here. The closure of one branch of the Discovery Institute in no way answers the underlying ID question, discredits it, or makes it go away.

That's what I take to be Jose's second mistake.

The observed universe is orderly. There are the "laws of physics", There is the applicability of mathematics to reality. And there is even the fact that science employs reason to form its conclusions. Which in turn suggests that reality itself is in some large part rational such that reason can accurately model it.

We can certainly ask the question why that is. What explains it?

I'm not trying to argue for any particular answer to that. (I remain an agnostic regarding the most fundamental questions.) I'm just trying to argue that fundamental questions remain. The fate of the Discovery Institute doesn't tell us anything about what the answers to those questions might be.

Jose can't just dismiss them with an airy "So all you advocates for ID creationism can stop pretending now. It's over."

The underlying issues aren't even close to resolution. And a rational source for reality does seem to be one of the remaining possibilities. It doesn't seem to be eliminated yet, even if strictly speaking it is outside the scope of science.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

How is it still "alive"? By what measure?

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"?

Um.....you do realize this is specifically about intelligent design creationism, right? And even more specifically, this isn't about ID creationism being "dead" in the sense that no one believes it or advocates it anymore. Rather, it's about how ID creationism is "dead" in that there's no effort to get it into public schools any more (which was its original purpose), and with these latest revelations there's not even a façade of a "research program".

So again, by what measure is it still "alive"? Because some folks still believe it? By that measure, flat-earthism is equally "alive".

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.

Nah, it's dead. It's about as "alive" as beliefs in reptilian aliens secretly controlling the government, chemtrails, and other fringe nonsense.

Sorry that it's so personal for you, but that's just reality.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Yep, and one of the results that I've wondered about is whether that process will produce a Christianity in the US that is mostly made up of right-wing crazies. If most of the normal, sane people leave, isn't that who'd be left?

 

[firedragon]

How is it still "alive"? By what measure?

People still believe it. So its still alive. Wrong or correct.

Um.....you do realize this is specifically about intelligent design creationism, right?

I understand that you are referring to this particular brand that you know of, but your post was general. This goes much further than what you are speaking of by definition and scope.

So again, by what measure is it still "alive"? Because some folks still believe it? By that measure, flat-earthism is equally "alive".

Of course it is alive. Correct or wrong.

Nah, it's dead. It's about as "alive" as beliefs in reptilian aliens secretly controlling the government,

Even that is still alive. Lol. I think David Icke still believes that.

The problem is you are limiting your scope though you are intelligent in my opinion. IDC may not be correct in your perspective, but it has existed for a long long time, and is not some recent response which means you are only focusing on this recent apologetic, Christian, YEC splinters who were fuelled by desperation after the Darwinian boom. Thats just in your vicinity. Maybe in the UK, US, and a tad in Europe which emerged later. And this type of Intelligent Design YEC types are not everything.

I hope you try and understand.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

I'm talking about the ID creationism as defined and advocated by people like Michael Behe and organizations like the Discovery Institute.

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.

You're talking about a general belief, which is not what this thread is about. This thread is specifically about the ID creationism that creationists crafted in the 1990's to subvert court rulings.

[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.

But it obviously set a significant precedent and was a devastating ruling for the movement. It was such a public disaster for them, it completely ended their efforts to push it into classrooms (which again, was the entire point of the movement).

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

The case wasn't about philosophy. It was about what gets taught in public school science class.

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.

The teacher better not start off that way, just as geography teachers don't start off by saying that some folks believe in a flat earth. Class time is limited, and therefore too valuable to waste on anti-scientific nonsense.

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.

Given it's specific anti-science and anti-evolution content and agenda, I don't think it's appropriate to include in any public school class (talking specifically about the ID creationism as advocated by the Discovery Institute).

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.

This wasn't a philosophical controversy. It was an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to sneak their anti-science and anti-evolution talking points into public school science classes. That's all completely dead.

 

[exchemist]

Not really. That is your anecdotal experience.

ID goes back to lets say the 10th century. Even the 14th century. You have a particular frame of mind, that is your anecdotal fallacy. I understand it, but its not quite right.

This is what we mean when we speak of ID: Intelligent design - Wikipedia

So this is not just my anecdotal experience.

ID was a specific movement, developed and promoted in the USA, to get creationism taught in US schools, by pretending that it could be put onto a scientific footing that was independent of religious belief in any specific god.

 

[Jose Fly]

People still believe it. So its still alive. Wrong or correct.

By that measure, chemtrails, flat-earthism, and all sorts of other nonsense are "alive". So to repeat, when I say that ID creationism is "dead", I'm not saying that no one believes it anymore. I'm saying that no one is trying to get it into public schools and no one is doing any research on it, which means it is effectively "dead".

Understand?

I understand that you are referring to this particular brand that you know of, but your post was general. This goes much further than what you are speaking of by definition and scope.

Read the OP again. I specifically stated that I was referring to the ID creationism that was the subject of the Dover court case.

Even that is still alive. Lol. I think David Icke still believes that.

See above.

The problem is you are limiting your scope though you are intelligent in my opinion. IDC may not be correct in your perspective, but it has existed for a long long time, and is not some recent response which means you are only focusing on this recent apologetic, Christian, YEC splinters who were fuelled by desperation after the Darwinian boom. Thats just in your vicinity. Maybe in the UK, US, and a tad in Europe which emerged later. And this type of Intelligent Design YEC types are not everything.

I hope you try and understand.

Again, you're conflating ID creationism with creationism in general. You're also assuming that "dead" means "no one believes it".

 

[firedragon]

This is what we mean when we speak of ID: Intelligent design - Wikipedia

So this is not just my anecdotal experience.

It is. I dont know who you say by "we" but I presume you are referring to those who believe the same anecdotal information gathered from your region, and maybe this wikipedia page you provided which is pretty primitive.

You should know that there is a world outside yours. Dont take offence, but try to open your mind to possibilities. And dont create groups based on a belief of "what I think IDC is". Rather, get out of that group mentality.

Anyway, its your prerogative. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Again, you're conflating ID creationism with creationism in general.

Not really. I am specifically referring to ID creationism but you are making it about your modern post YEC experience.

Cheers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really. I am specifically referring to ID creationism but you are making it about your modern post YEC experience.

Cheers.

Sorry but Intelligent Design is a modern term. You might want to rethink your terminology.

 

[exchemist]

People still believe it. So its still alive. Wrong or correct.



I understand that you are referring to this particular brand that you know of, but your post was general. This goes much further than what you are speaking of by definition and scope.



Of course it is alive. Correct or wrong.



Even that is still alive. Lol. I think David Icke still believes that.

The problem is you are limiting your scope though you are intelligent in my opinion. IDC may not be correct in your perspective, but it has existed for a long long time, and is not some recent response which means you are only focusing on this recent apologetic, Christian, YEC splinters who were fuelled by desperation after the Darwinian boom. Thats just in your vicinity. Maybe in the UK, US, and a tad in Europe which emerged later. And this type of Intelligent Design YEC types are not everything.

I hope you try and understand.

What? It makes no sense to speak of "Intelligent Design YEC types". Young Earth Creationism is quite different from Intelligent Design Creationism. YECs do not pretend their ideas are science. They simply reject any science that contradicts the literal words of the bible. Which they are free to do and we can let them go on their way. Nobody tries to teach that in science classes in a school.

The whole point about ID - and this is why those of us with a science background are so hostile to it - is that it quite ingeniously masqueraded as science, in spite of not being scientific. This fooled a lot of people, as it was intended to do, and many US politicians started agitating to add it to the science curriculum in schools.

ID was an attempted corruption of science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not really. I am specifically referring to ID creationism but you are making it about your modern post YEC experience.

Cheers.

Huh? I'm talking specifically about the ID creationism as advocated by Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and the Discovery Institute.

 

[exchemist]

It is. I dont know who you say by "we" but I presume you are referring to those who believe the same anecdotal information gathered from your region, and maybe this wikipedia page you provided which is pretty primitive.

You should know that there is a world outside yours. Dont take offence, but try to open your mind to possibilities. And dont create groups based on a belief of "what I think IDC is". Rather, get out of that group mentality.

Anyway, its your prerogative. Cheers.

Look mate, I've quoted you a detailed Wiki article about what ID is. That is proof that what I say is not just a matter of my opinion. Read the link.

If you want to tell us that ID as described there is alive and well in Islam, that is fine. Some links or a short summary to back up your claim would be nice, for our edification.

But please don't try to tell me that what I've been saying is just my personal narrow-minded opinion, when I've just shown you a whole on-line description of what I am talking about for you to read.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not really. That is your anecdotal experience.

No. It is the actual topic of this thread.
"intelligent design" is the name that these con-man have given to their "theory" which they pretended to be science.

Did they invent the words "intelligent" and "design"? No.
It's also not "intelligent design". It's "Intelligent Design". It's a NAME of a VERY SPECIFIC IDEA.

Clearly you are not up to speed with this topic.
I suggest you read up instead of continuing this charade of muddying the waters.

Everybody here understands what this is about, and is correcting your mistake.

Take a hint.

ID goes back to lets say the 10th century. Even the 14th century.

It does not. Genetics wasn't even known then.
Again, clearly you have no clue what this is about.

I suggest you read up first.

You have a particular frame of mind, that is your anecdotal fallacy. I understand it, but its not quite right.

The irony here is through the roof. You are literally accusing others of your very own sins here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is. I dont know who you say by "we"

The OP and all those who participate in the thread, except you. And @Shakeel to an extent, although he was honest enough to simply acknowledge he didn't know what this about.

Seriously, how many people must point out your obvious error before you'll accept it?

but I presume you are referring to those who believe the same anecdotal information gathered from your region, and maybe this wikipedia page you provided which is pretty primitive.

No. We are talking about the dishonest people from the discovery institute (like Michael Behe) who came up with this supposed scientific "theory", which they named Intelligent Design (it is THE NAME of their idea). There's nothing anecdotal about this.

There's just your inexplicable stubbornness to understand this simple point.

You should know that there is a world outside yours

You should take your own advice. And read up.

. Dont take offence, but try to open your mind to possibilities. And dont create groups based on a belief of "what I think IDC is". Rather, get out of that group mentality.

Anyway, its your prerogative. Cheers.

This is not about group mentality.
This is about people who came up with an idea and NAMED IT "Intelligent Design". Again, note the capital letters.

This is like complaining that "Evolution Theory" uses the word "evolution" and that in some completely different context, it doesn't refer to biological evolution - or biology at all.

It's the NAME of a SPECIFIC SET OF IDEAS

Please open your mind for a quarter of an inch to let this basic information through.

 

[firedragon]

Look mate, I've quoted you a detailed Wiki article about what ID is.

Thats very primitive. I told you already. Broaden your scope.

If you want to tell us that ID as described there is alive and well in Islam, that is fine. Some links or a short summary to back up your claim would be nice, for our edification.

Ibn Khaldun. Not the version you know though. So broaden your scope.

But please don't try to tell me that what I've been saying is just my personal narrow-minded opinion, when I've just shown you a whole on-line description of what I am talking about for you to read.

No problem.