More confirmation that ID creationism is dead

[TagliatelliMonster]

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



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



No problem.

One more time.

What is discussed in this thread is a very specific idea brought forward by specific people who NAMED their idea Intelligent Design. Note the capital letters.

It is a NAME that refers to that specific idea from those specific people.

How many times must it be repeated?

 

[exchemist]

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



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



No problem.

Yes, I am well aware of Ibn Khaldun. What this thread is about is something entirely different, as I and various people have tried to point out.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I am well aware of Ibn Khaldun. What this thread is about is something entirely different, as I and various people have tried to point out.

So was Ibn Khaldun an IDC or was he something else?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So was Ibn Khaldun an IDC or was he something else?

He was not a cdesign proponentsist, which is what this thread is about.

How many times must it be repeated that this thread is about a very specific idea brought forward by a very specific group of people?

 

[exchemist]

So was Ibn Khaldun an IDC or was he something else?

See post 64.

 

[firedragon]

See post 64.

No. Its alright. Cheers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. Its alright. Cheers.

 

[Yazata]

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

Can you point me to a place where Michael Behe or the Discovery Institute define what they mean by "intelligent design"?

I'd rather hear it from them than read it in Exchemist's wikipedia article, which was obviously written by an opponent of ID and seemed to me to be (intentionally?) trying to confuse "Intelligent Design" as a possible explanation for the order observed in physical reality, with a particular legal strategy in a particular court case. With the implied conclusion that if the strategy fails in the court case, then the hypothetical explanation for cosmic order must be abandoned as well.

While we are at it, can you explain precisely what you meant by this remark: "So all you advocates for ID creationism can stop pretending now. It's over"?

What's supposedly over? In your own words, what?

My guess is that you (and exchemist) are defining "Intelligent Design" very differently than Michael Behe (and the Discovery Institute) define it.

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.

The United States Constitution has its "establishment clause". That says that the US government (and by extension state and local governments including public school districts) can't favor one religion over others, in the manner of European state churches. The argument was made, and sustained in an earlier Supreme Court case, that Biblical creationism favors Biblical Judeo-Christian tradition and hence violates the Establishment Clause. (I agree with the Supreme court about that.) It should be noted that case revolved around the Establishment clause and didn't concern what is and isn't science.

Then the individuals that you seem to be talking about argued that the idea of "Intelligent Design" is much broader than Biblical tradition. It's found in Islamic and Hindu tradition. It was a major topic of ancient Greek philosophy. It was generally accepted in Western culture until maybe 150 years ago. It's an idea found world-wide in many/most cultures and dates back thousands of years. It isn't the product of or unique to any particular religion. (I think that's all true.)

If the broader idea of "ID" isn't tied to any particular religion, then (so it was argued) it should pass the Establishment Clause.

The point that I want to make is that Behe and/or the Discovery Institute didn't invent "Intelligent Design" out of whole cloth in the 1990's. That's just false. They were pointing to Intelligent Design's thousands of years old history and world-wide distribution in many different traditions.

I agree that strictly speaking Intelligent Design isn't science and shouldn't be taught in public school biology classes. But I think that it remains a possibility. It might even be true. So it wouldn't be out of place discussing it in other classes, classes of a more philosophical or historical nature perhaps. It certainly is a topic of discussion in university classes, even at state universities.

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

But the arguments about what should and shouldn't be taught in public school science classes revolve around philosophical issues, don't they? (Every question is a philosophical question. All you have to do is ask "why" a few times about anything.) About what is and isn't science for instance. About the science/"pseudoscience" demarcation problem. And about whether or not the question whether the observed order of physical reality has a supernatural source is a philosophical question as opposed to a faith-tenet of a particular religion.

And we return once again to your own words in the OP: "So all you advocates for ID creationism can stop pretending now. It's over"

If you are saying that people should stop advocating for the proposition that the perceived order in the natural universe has a supernatural origin, then you are the one making the philosophical assertion.

I suggested that a highschool science teacher might start by saying that evolution isn't the only possible explanation for the order observed in nature, but that those alternative explanations aren't strictly scientific and won't be discussed in science class. Students could be told that if they are interested in pursuing those other possibilities, that philosophy (or theology) might be where they should direct their attention.

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.

It would just take a few seconds to say what I suggested. The rest of what you say there is an expression of your own atheistic bias. It's also self-contradictory, since you seem to be making an implicit philosophical assertion (about "anti-scientific nonsense") without arguing for it or even realizing you are doing it.

What I'm arguing for is intellectual honesty. We don't know what the answers are to the deepest and most fundamental questions. In particular, we don't know where the perceived order of natural reality comes from and what explains it. It's probably best to admit that we don't know the things that we don't know, rather than pretending that we do.

That's the essence of agnosticism and where it differs most obviously from atheism.

 

[Jose Fly]

Can you point me to a place where Michael Behe or the Discovery Institute define what they mean by "intelligent design"?

Here: What is Intelligent Design? | Discovery Institute

"The theory of intelligent design simply says that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."​

I'd rather hear it from them than read it in Exchemist's wikipedia article, which was obviously written by an opponent of ID and seemed to me to be (intentionally?) trying to confuse "Intelligent Design" as a possible explanation for the order observed in physical reality, with a particular legal strategy in a particular court case.

Those are not mutually exclusive. As the judge found in the Dover case, the creationists crafted ID creationism as a means to sneak creationist talking points into the classroom, while also concealing that agenda.

With the implied conclusion that if the strategy fails in the court case, then the hypothetical explanation for cosmic order must be abandoned as well.

Nope. The judge even stated that his ruling did not prevent ID creationists from exploring and developing their ideas, which they didn't do (and have completely stopped pretending to do, as the OP describes).

While we are at it, can you explain precisely what you meant by this remark: "So all you advocates for ID creationism can stop pretending now. It's over"?

What's supposedly over? In your own words, what?

The scheme for which ID creationism was created, namely to serve as a means to get creationist arguments and talking points into public schools despite court rulings banning it. A big part of that scheme was to strip out all the overt references to the Bible and the Christian God, and replace it with vague references to a "designer", in the hopes that doing so would skirt establishment clause issues. Thankfully, the judge saw right through that.

My guess is that you (and exchemist) are defining "Intelligent Design" very differently than Michael Behe (and the Discovery Institute) define it.

The way they define it is scientifically meaningless. It's a negative argument with too many vague, undefined terms.

The United States Constitution has its "establishment clause". That says that the US government (and by extension state and local governments including public school districts) can't favor one religion over others, in the manner of European state churches. The argument was made, and sustained in an earlier Supreme Court case, that Biblical creationism favors Biblical Judeo-Christian tradition and hence violates the Establishment Clause. (I agree with the Supreme court about that.) It should be noted that case revolved around the Establishment clause and didn't concern what is and isn't science.

Then the individuals that you seem to be talking about argued that the idea of "Intelligent Design" is much broader than Biblical tradition. It's found in Islamic and Hindu tradition. It was a major topic of ancient Greek philosophy. It's an idea found world-wide in many/most cultures and dates back thousands of years. (I think that's all true.)

If the broader idea of "ID" isn't tied to any particular religion, then (so it was argued) it should pass the Establishment Clause.

That's the scam. "If we just change 'God' to 'designer' and don't quote scripture, then it's not religious", which is nonsense.

Since you seem to be interested in the case, I suggest you read the ruling: O:\Jones\Neiburg\Dover Area School District\Final Dover Opinion.wpd (ncse.ngo)

The point that I want to make is that Behe and/or the Discovery Institute didn't invent "Intelligent Design" out of whole cloth in the 1990's. That's just false.

Correct. They took many of the same arguments from Biblical creationism and watered them down, relabeled them as "intelligent design", and tried to pass them off as something new.

They were pointing to Intelligent Design's thousands of years old history and world-wide distribution in many different traditions.

Religious traditions, yes.

But the arguments about what should and shouldn't be taught in public school science classes revolve around philosophical issues, don't they? About what is and isn't science for instance.

Interestingly, Behe was forced to admit on the stand that if ID creationism is science, then so is astrology.

About the science/"pseudoscience" demarcation problem. And about whether or not the observed order of physical reality has a supernatural source is a philosophical question as opposed to a faith-tenet of a particular religion.

As soon as you try and inject "supernatural sources" into science, you've left science.

And we return once again to your own words in the OP: "So all you advocates for ID creationism can stop pretending now. It's over"

If you are saying that people should stop advocating for the proposition that the perceived order in the natural universe has a supernatural origin, then you are the one making the philosophical assertion.

Nope, that's not what I meant. See above.

I suggested that a highschool science teacher might start by saying that evolution isn't the only possible explanation for the order observed in nature, but that those alternative explanations aren't strictly scientific and won't be discussed in science class. Students could be told that if they are interested in pursuing those other possibilities, that philosophy (or theology) might be where they should direct their attention.

There's no more point to that than there is to a geography teacher saying that some people believe the earth is flat.

The rest of what you say there is an expression of your own atheistic bias.

Why do you think I'm an atheist?

It's also self-contradictory, since you seem to be making an implicit philosophical assertion (about "anti-scientific nonsense") without arguing for it or even realizing you are doing it.

Your error seems to be in not understanding the history of the specific issue being discussed here.

What I'm arguing for is intellectual honesty. We don't know what the answers are to the deepest and most fundamental questions. In particular, we don't know where the perceived order of natural reality comes from and what explains it. It's probably best to admit that we don't know the things that we don't know, rather than pretending that we do.

Which is exactly what ID creationism tried to do....it tried to assert that it was all from a god....er....um....I mean "designer"....wink, wink.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He was not a cdesign proponentsist, which is what this thread is about.

How many times must it be repeated that this thread is about a very specific idea brought forward by a very specific group of people?

At least one more time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

ID is nothing more than what they already believe but inside a different package.

 

[exchemist]

ID is nothing more than what they already believe but inside a different package.

The point, though is that it is creationism masquerading, cynically, as science, to achieve a political end. Ordinary creationists just reject parts of science, which is a bit silly but does no real harm.

 

[Valjean]

The belief in magic is nothing new, nor are magical origin myths. When the mechanism of something is unknown, people make up stories, which become part of the culture and, eventually, are incorporated into a culture's religious mythology.

So, as the Dragon points out, creationism, or "Goddidit," is nothing new.

"Intelligent Design," though, as the Monster and Chemist have pointed out, was a 20th century stratagem invented by Christian religious apologists to justify creationism in the face of mounting evidence and widespread acceptance of a scientific explanation of origins -- which excluded magic.

The most flagrant example of this conspiracy was a creationist book called "Of Pandas and People," intended to be used as a school textbook. But when the US Supreme Court ruled that creationism was religion and could not be taught in schools, the publishers switched every mention of creation or creationism in the book to "Intelligent Design," hoping to skirt the prohibition and get their book into biology classrooms.

This clear and obvious substitution was discovered, though, and "intelligent design" was included in the injunction.
Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia

 

[tas8831]

... 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.

Which is spectacularly insane to me - the guy embodies almost everything evangelical bible worshippers CLAIM the bible teachings are AGAINST. Unless, of course, that veneer of righteousness is just a veil for their actual bigotry and hatred and... no, that can't be....

 

[metis]

Which is spectacularly insane to me - the guy embodies almost everything evangelical bible worshippers CLAIM the bible teachings are AGAINST. Unless, of course, that veneer of righteousness is just a veil for their actual bigotry and hatred and... no, that can't be....

Yep.

And everyone by now should well know that Trump spews hatred over and over again against anyone who gets in his way, and yet we call Jesus the "Prince of Peace" who said "love one another as I have loved you". Thus, so many in this "religious right" element have seemingly done what Gandhi had condemned, namely in regards to what Jesus taught, "forgetting his message".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The point, though is that it is creationism masquerading, cynically, as science, to achieve a political end. Ordinary creationists just reject parts of science, which is a bit silly but does no real harm.

"Ordinary creationists" do believe in ID. And it's nit cynical. They truly believe this. They are true believers when they say evolution is "just a theory." "Ordinary creationists"/ID proponents truly believe theirs is science. Yes, ID is also an attempt to get their religious views taught in science classrooms. However that is not where ID actually begins or ends. Such as, the "first cause" argument that is a part of it is going nowhere. The argument the universe was fine tuned is going nowhere. These are their religious beliefs. At most they'll slap another label on, tweak a few things, and try again.
As for rejecting parts of science, ID, amd "ordinary creationists" (that does really exists as there are both YEC and OEC), they reject the same parts as their beliefs come from the same source. Mainly, they accept microevolution but reject macroevolution. Other forms of science they don't really reject but oppose (when they accuse scientists of playing god. They don't reject what happens is happening, they just believe many things are reserved for god).
And, ultimately, American Evangelical Protestantism (and the views of Creationism here are an abnormality for today) is heavily rooted in the church history of America. This is where ID was repackaged, and why those beliefs are going nowhere even if the label ID does.

 

[Jose Fly]

And another log goes on the funeral pyre....

Uncommon Descent is dead (or maybe undead)

pandasthumb.org

 

[exchemist]

And another log goes on the funeral pyre....

Uncommon Descent is dead (or maybe undead)

pandasthumb.org

Good stuff, if not unexpected. I recall taking on that ghastly O’Leary woman on a few occasions. I also remember Elizabeth Liddle as a beacon of reason and politeness.

What’s Dembski up to these days?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good stuff, if not unexpected. I recall taking on that ghastly O’Leary woman on a few occasions. I also remember Elizabeth Liddle as a beacon of reason and politeness.

What’s Dembski up to these days?

The Discovery Toot has been spamming Facebook for the last month or so. That means that they are probably hitting other social media sites too.

 

[Jose Fly]

Good stuff, if not unexpected. I recall taking on that ghastly O’Leary woman on a few occasions. I also remember Elizabeth Liddle as a beacon of reason and politeness.

What’s Dembski up to these days?

Last I heard, while working at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he irked young-earth creationists by saying an ancient earth and localized Noah's flood were compatible with the Bible. But that was in 2009, and I haven't seen or heard much of anything from or about him since.