Should ID be taught in public schools?

[Autodidact]

He knows enough about his fields to know that they are not complete.

So does every other scientist in the world.

He is open to the possibilities that there may one day be better explanations which might be more accomodating of his religious beliefs, but in the meantime that in no way interferes with his operation of the scientific method and his conduct as an academic. There is no conflict.

Isn't there a conflict between at least the mainstream view, as taught in every university, that the universe is several billion years old, and the YEC belief that it is only a few thousand years old? Which one does he believe? Which one does he teach? Honestly, I'm curious.

Reading his entertaining smack-down of Hall's geocentrism shows that he has no tolerance for people who blatently deny scientific evidence.

If be believes that earth is 6000 years old, he is the functional equivalent of Hall. If not, then he's not a YEC.

Hardly the talk of someone who explicitely rejects all of science.

Maybe he only reject the parts that he thinks contradict his religious beliefs?

 

[Autodidact]

It doesn't make it otherwise either.

The idea itself is agnostic. Opinions about motivations are a seperate issue. You and the misinformed priest you quote seem to be confusing the idea-proper with everything else around it. One possible test of whether or not the philosophy is agnostic would be to see if any agnostics have taken up it's cause and have vigorously championed it. David Berlinski, Steve Fuller and Michael Denton spring to mind.

I don't think so. I don't think ID asserts that we cannot know who the designer is, otherwise it's proponents would not subscribe to a particular religion. Rather it just declines to investigate or at least to state that question.

Michael Denton has asked not to be associated with DI, although they keep his name on their website against his wishes. Steve Fuller is not a scientist of any kind; he is a post-modernist, and his agnosticism seems to be an extension of his general view that knowledge is impossible, everything is everything, and religion is just as good a way to understand the world as science. That is, he is an anti-scientist. I do not know his religious views; do you? David Berlinski is a philosopher. And here I thought the idea was that ID was a scientific theory.

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry, I don't think you quite got my point. Let me ask a question: Could an agnostic who supports ID also support YEC? The asnwer is an emphatic no. That's becasue the idea of YEC implicitely requires a deity, whereas the idea of ID does not, even though it is used by theists as well as agnostics. An idea can be agnostic when it doesn't require a necessary theistc or atheistic element. Technically speaking, the idea of ID is agnostic in the literal sense of the word.

No, but it permits it. That's why YEC is a subset of ID; not vice versa.

A very large number of theists and atheists would agree with you and your fellow agnostic friends TVOR. But that's quite beside my point that the actual idea itself is agnostic.

Why do you assert that ID is agnostic? Does it assert that it is impossible to know who the designer is? In that case wouldn't all its proponents be agnostics, not just a couple of weirdos and self-described cranks?

 

[Autodidact]

"Rhetorical value aside, such terms cause scientists and educators to assume that ID and YEC proponents (including students) adhere to the same systems of philosophy and theology. In fact, ID and YEC differ significantly. Failing to recognize distinctions between these and other teleological positions can create barriers to constructive discussion, not only in the classroom but also in policy-making public forums.."

The proper distinction is that YEC goes beyond ID, and is therefore only a subset of it.

"because YEC incorporates additional philosophical and theological claims that go beyond ID's minimal claims, the two are obviously not identical, or even strictly comparable."

Exactly. YEC is more specific than, goes beyond, encompasses ID. That's my point.

"Our friends in the IDM will hopefully understand that when we discuss these problems and issues, we do so not to discourage or obstruct, but simply to make it clear where we are coming from, why we do so, and why we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it."

Because no creationists ever lie; except when they're talking.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

because no creationists ever lie; except when they're talking.

:d


......

 

[tomspug]

(whistles to self)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That's a ridiculous attempt. They seem more interested in mockery and giving people a chuckle than anything.

Here is a much more professional attempt. It's one of the best I've seen (~approx 5.3mb)

http://nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf

And I quote:

"Rhetorical value aside, such terms cause scientists and educators to assume that ID and YEC proponents (including students) adhere to the same systems of philosophy and theology. In fact, ID and YEC differ significantly. Failing to recognize distinctions between these and other teleological positions can create barriers to constructive discussion, not only in the classroom but also in policy-making public forums.."

No where did I ever say they were the same. I said they were proponents of ID. They believe a god, specifically, the god in the bible as the creator who in their minds is the (Intelligent Designer)....

"because YEC incorporates additional philosophical and theological claims that go beyond ID's minimal claims, the two are obviously not identical, or even strictly comparable."

Yep and this piece you've quoted is exactly what Autodidact has been saying. The YEC claims go beyond ID but still asserting an Intelligent Designer. So again, as I said in post 156.... You may not agree with the YEC view but they are proponents of ID...(in that they believe a god is the designer).

"Our friends in the IDM will hopefully understand that when we discuss these problems and issues, we do so not to discourage or obstruct, but simply to make it clear where we are coming from, why we do so, and why we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it."

All this makes them is a subset of ID. YECers are not alone here. All those who believe in gods, alien creator(s)...polytheist etc.. fall under the broad spectrum of ID.

Who are you quoting, besides yourself?

I think that was in the first link I posted. I don't make it a habit of quoting myself.

 

[rocketman]

I understand what you are saying. I can follow the distinction you are making between ID and the position taken by a YEC'er. I appreciate your position.

Let me help you understand mine, a little more clearly.

No matter how you spin it, ID is a completely unfalsifiable concept, which is nothing more than creationism, dressed in secular clothing.

You have gone to great lengths to quote a handful of scientists that embrace it, as a blatant appeal to authority. I don't care if Albert Einstein himself had been a devout proponent of ID - it still isn't science, it never will be science, and no amount of "spinning" can change that fact.

In my opinion, anyone that claims that the designer isn't the God of the Abrahamic faiths is simply lying, in an attempt to obscure their true intention.

TVOR, I am not advocating ID. I'm not sure where that came from.

You are right in saying that I am making a distinction between YEC and ID though, and I'm happy that you can follow it.

 

[rocketman]

You aren't seriously suggesting that ID can propose any "natural" causes for design, are you? That would sort of go against the definition of the term. Now if a cause must be supernatural and intelligent, doesn't that pretty much qualify as theistic?

I honestly wasn't aware that ID-proper required a supernatural creator. Perhaps you could show me where it does.

This is the standard response from them:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=565

 

[rocketman]

Explain to me how the idea of intelligent design could possibly not include an intelligent designer.

I don't understand your question.

You originally wrote:

"Just because those behind ID choose not to explicity identify the designer doesn't make the theory agnostic."

The opposite opinion of which would be:

"Just because those behind ID choose not to explicity identify the designer doesn't make the theory non-agnostic"

Which is what I meant when I replied to you:

"It doesn't make it otherwise either."

Makes sense now?

 

[rocketman]

Hidden within the term "Intelligent Designer" is the option (actually, the closet assertion) that the designer is named Yahweh, and had a baby boy named Yeshua.

It's not about terms. The idea is seperate from the people involved. By using the word 'option' you have all but admitted that the idea itself is agnostic, or 'nuetral' if people prefer that term. What individuals then do with it, whether they be theists or agnostics or whatever, is a seperate issue.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Explain to me how the idea of intelligent design could possibly not include an intelligent designer.

I don't understand your question.

Which word do you not understand?

 

[rocketman]

Isn't there a conflict between at least the mainstream view, as taught in every university, that the universe is several billion years old, and the YEC belief that it is only a few thousand years old? Which one does he believe? Which one does he teach? Honestly, I'm curious.

When you read through his answers about what creationists call the 'starlight problem' for example, you can see that he rejects the obviously silly ideas but gets interested in Humprey's idea, which although I happily concede may be wrong, nevertheless largely attempts to incorporate current observations (like relativity) to explain observed ages vs actual ages of the universe. So, much to his credit, he is trying to find an explanation for his theistic beliefs that does not in turn violate his scientific and academic instincts. Most will probably call him a wishful thinker, but he seems to be a good example of managing such thinking while getting on with a mainstream teaching life.

Maybe he only reject the parts that he thinks contradict his religious beliefs?

Now you are getting the hang of it. But I think with him in particular it's more of a case of holding things out there for further consideration and possible modification rather than rejecting them totally. Compare his writings with Hovind for example, it's like night and day.

 

[rocketman]

I don't think so. I don't think ID asserts that we cannot know who the designer is, otherwise it's proponents would not subscribe to a particular religion. Rather it just declines to investigate or at least to state that question.

Something in your words reminds me of when some people say that evolution is false because abiogenesis hasn't been proven. ID does not have to deal with the question of who the designer is, that's not what it's about.

Michael Denton has asked not to be associated with DI, although they keep his name on their website against his wishes. Steve Fuller is not a scientist of any kind; he is a post-modernist, and his agnosticism seems to be an extension of his general view that knowledge is impossible, everything is everything, and religion is just as good a way to understand the world as science. That is, he is an anti-scientist. I do not know his religious views; do you? David Berlinski is a philosopher. And here I thought the idea was that ID was a scientific theory.

Indeed. I mentioned those three because they are agnostics, not because they may or may not be scientists.

 

[rocketman]

Why do you assert that ID is agnostic? Does it assert that it is impossible to know who the designer is? In that case wouldn't all its proponents be agnostics, not just a couple of weirdos and self-described cranks?

Because it is. The idea that is. When I say agnostic I am of-course refering to the adjective, not the noun, that is: noncommital, undogmatic etc. And no, I don't need to be told who might try to take advantage of a neutral idea.

 

[rocketman]

Which word do you not understand?

I meant I didn't understand the question as a response to my assertion, but that should be obvious from the rest of my reply.

 

[rocketman]

The proper distinction is that YEC goes beyond ID, and is therefore only a subset of it.

YEC also goes beyond BD (beautiful design) and CD (cool design) and even SD (suave design). Lol. I could whip up any concept based on infered design and it would be nothing more than what is already described by infered design. The difference here, and this is the bit you don't seem to understand, is that ID has been pulled out of the infered design world and specifically been given an agnostic straightjacket and a premise that design can be proven by experiment, even where the experiment is by definition allowed to contradict the book of Genesis. This means it is not a part of the strictly theistic world of YEC. (In fact, one of the knockdowns for the few rogue YECers who boasted about ID in the early days was that there were agnostics involved with it in a big way.) That is why it isn't right to say that "all YECers subscribe to ID" unless you want to differentiate the minimal aspects of ID that overlap. This talk of subscribing to ID can be offensive to many YEC theists, in fact it is offensive to many theists, regardless of the infered design overlap. That's all I'm on about.

To put it all another way, if I may mention some political parties from your great nation, it occurs to me that over the years that both sides of politics over there have occasionally found themselves with policies that were at one time or another part of the platform of the opposite side. So from that I could well say that, for example, "all democrats subscribe to republicanism", couldn't I? Somehow I don't think it would be received as intended. If you really want to say that "all YECers subscribe to ID' then fine, but at least I tried.

Because no creationists ever lie; except when they're talking.

And with charm like that you'll have them eating out of hand in no time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I meant I didn't understand the question as a response to my assertion, but that should be obvious from the rest of my reply.

The rest of your reply was at best sophomoric. ID implies a preternatural and intentional agency. The ID effort is nothing more than an attempt to argue God from effect.

 

[rocketman]

All this makes them is a subset of ID. YECers are not alone here. All those who believe in gods, alien creator(s)...polytheist etc.. fall under the broad spectrum of ID.

The problem with this statement is that a great many people, including theists, would be upset and offended to be told they are a subset of ID. You are focusing on the words and not the substance. The designer could also be flamboyant or artistic or whatever. Stop using a coincidence of words to imply a coincidence of substance. What I am trying to do here is not to split hairs as you say, but to point out that we need to be careful before we make sweeping declarations about other people's beliefs. That's all.

 

[rocketman]

The rest of your reply was at best sophomoric. ID implies a preternatural and intentional agency. The ID effort is nothing more than an attempt to argue God from effect.

Don't confuse the effort with the idea.