Here’s a hint: calling natural selection “darwinism” is an extremely good way to piss people off. There is no such things as a “darwinist”, it is a derogatory term made up by Creationists as a insult to those who accept evolution, implying that they somehow worship Darwin or something. It implies that Darwin is somehow the focus of evolution, not the scientific theory itself. It implies people “follow the teachings of Darwin”. It also implies that evolutionay theory hasn’t progressed in the slightest since Darwin’s time. That perspective couldn’t be further from the truth.

The fact is that Darwin’s theory of natrual selection was ultimately wrong. It was closer than anyone had yet come to the truth, but we know know it had some serious flaws and limitations. Most, if not almost all, those flaws and limitations have been fixed since then. Some involved developing entirely new theories of evolution, some wich are somewhat similar to Darwin’s and others that aren’t. But even natural selection is very different today than it was 150 years ago. Science develops and progresses. That is one if its defining features. It would be like calling planetary astronomers “Galileoists” or “Keplerists”, it completely ignores the massive amount of progress in every imaginable aspect of the field since that time.

Calling it “darwinism” is an insult to all scientists and to anyone who accepts the truth of evolution. Using the term is not a good way to make friends.

As for you basic claim, evolution does not equal natural selection, you are missing a fundamental point. There are two aspects to evolution. One is that all populations of organisms change significantly over time, with one type of organism often changing into one or more others gradually over time. This is the fact of evolution. Lamarck supported this fact, as did Darwin and pretty much every scientist alive today. The other evolution is the collection of scientific theories that have been developed in order to explain why this fact is true. The fact is true to as much of a degree as anything possibly can be. What natural selection and other related evolutionary theories do is explain why this is the case. That is the theory of evolution, and natural selection is one of the central theories within the theory of evolution.

Delance Says:
“ID, as wrong as it might be, depends on the idea that species evolved, or else there’s no ID, there’s instant creation. ”

No, it doesn’t. The IDers directly state that evolution cannot form life as we see it today. They claim there MUST have been instant creation. That is the fundamental point of their argument. Your claim is flat-out wrong. IDers reject evolution as an explanation for life as it exists today.

Delance Says:
“You know, as Isaac Newton, the astrologer, understood it, unlike most religious people of his time!”

I’m sorry, I hve no idea what this sentence means. What is “it”? Natural selection? Instant creation? Evolution? Lamarckism? Astrology? You need to be more specific.

Delance Says:
“Anyways, vaccines were created some good 200 years before the darwnistic evolution reached mainstream.”

Technically, it was apparently about 2000 years, but they didn’t actually come into widespread use until about 50 years before Darwin wrote his book.

However, that does not change the fact that MODERN vaccines are planned, developed, and utilized based on knowledge gained from the study of evolutionary biology. If IDers want to scratch cowpox into their skin to fight a disease that doesn’t even exist anymore, that is fine by me. But it is hypocritical of them to protect themselves against modern diseases using modern vaccines developed using science they claim is false. I won’t legally force them to stop, but it is still extremely hypocritical.

Delance Says:
“I wonder if this means atheists can’t use scientific advanced because it was a deist jew who proposed the theory of relativity and a catholic priest who proposed the big bang theory.”

No, because athiests are rejecting those peoples’ religious beliefs (actually, I doubt many athiests would have much of a problem with Einstein). Athiests are not rejecting the scientific theories proposed by those people. They accept the science, thus they make use of the science. They reject the religion, but the religion is ultimately unrelated to the science. IDers and creationists, however, reject the science, but still want to make use of it. Once again, the religious side is irrelevant. If they rejected evolution on non-religious grounds the issue would still be the same. They are rejecting the science but still taking advantage of the benefits it brings them.

Delance Says:
“ID is not science, OK. ID is a philosophy.”

No, it isn’t. ID is religion.

From encarta:
re·li·gion
religion beliefs and worship: people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

phi·los·o·phy
philosophy examination of basic concepts: the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom

No whether something has to have a god to be a religion is a matter of debate, but something that is based on a god is definitely religion. ID, by its very nature, requires the existance of a god, an omnipotent, unprovable god. Therefore it is a religion. Not a science, not a philosophy, a religion. Materialism is not a religion in any sence of the word.

Delance Says:
“A note: the avarge person knows that ID is the same as creationism.”

I will assume you mean “doesn’t know”. Otherwise this sentence directly contradicts the rest of the paragraph, leaving the paragraph nonsensical.

Delance Says:
“The fact that darwinists insists on this point to discredit their opponents makes it looks like a) darwinists have a weak case and b) they are trying to fool them.”

Perhaps, but it is extremely effective at keeping ID out of schools. That is where the thrust of the ID attack currently lies. Schools is the most important battlefield, if ID can get itself into schools and can indoctrinate today’s student’s with its BS, it will gain a major advantage. Arguing ID is the same thing as creationists, which SCOTUS has already ruled cannot be taught in public schools, has and will be extremely effective at getting pro-ID science curriculums thrown out in (or even before) court. If we can get ID science curriculums banned by SCOTUS, then that will be a major rout for science against antiscience. The general PR campaign is being waged in other ways by other people, but the creationism/ID link absolutely central to prevent ID from getting a foothold in science classrooms, that is why it comes up so often.

What I would like to remind all the happy ID-bashers (I’m not an ID man, so I don’t care) is: ID is not science, OK. ID is a philosophy. Good. Materialism, even methodological materialism are the same. Not science. Philosophy. So everyone can and should enjoy science, be them bag lady fire-and-brimstome atheists, deist jews, gnostic pantheists, gaia workshipers, shinto buddhists, orthodox christians or your avarege irreligious agnostic guy. Peace.

A note: the avarge person knows that ID is the same as creationism. The fact that darwinists insists on this point to discredit their opponents makes it looks like a) darwinists have a weak case and b) they are trying to fool them. But hey, I don’t pick sides, so go nuts and make more people sympathetic do ID by using a weak argument against them.

No matter how poorly a stick-to-your-guns approach works for a group extremists, there will always be those who reject, either verbally or in some cases violently, even the slightest effort to compromise even if only temporarily. That does not mean that anyone who is insulted by a group of extremists is really a member of the group, but it does mean that just because someone is insulted by a group of extremists does not mean they aren’t a member of the group, either.

Irishman, you express my own reaction to the debate as well as I could have myself

I have found evidence that ID leaders and proponents are motivated by Christianity and the Bible. I’m looking also at non-Christians (secularists, Jews) and non-Christian beliefs (ET) within the movement.

At the moment I remain disinclined to define ID as OEC, even if technically the definition could work. The reason for my skepticism is that I see two sides saying very similar things about each other. The common charge that ID is politically astute with its non-Christian vocabulary but motivated underneath by Christian fundamentalism is countered by the charge that those who affirm Darwin in any way are really motivated by atheism, social Darwinism, etc. As I say, there’s evidence that ID has Christian beliefs; and it’s also probable to the point of certainty that there must be atheists and secularists fighting ID and creationism who are more politick with their words, more respectful of religion, than they feel in their hearts.

So there’s truth, as I see it, when both sides speak of a wolf in sheep’s clothing; it’s just that I don’t like such ways of looking at things unless a full look at the evidence really justifies it. I prefer that people’s words be taken at face value, and that people be opposed for their actions or claims, not for their thoughts.

What is left to do now, for me, except to study more about ID? Thanks for the discussion, I’ve learned from it.

I agree. Too many disagreements on topics come from sloppy terminology and people using words differently. It would be fine, but people attach emotional evaluation to those interpretations. The value judgments make clearing up the definition discrepancies difficult, because poeple get worked up about the value judgements and don’t realize the disagreement on terminology. I think you are right, calling IDers “Creationists” without any clarification only inflames the middle ground people who don’t know the underlying context and only see rejection of their faith, so they swing to support the folks who share their faith rather than the perceived attackers. Thus it is critical that us Evolution supporters stop feeding the fire. We need to break in our discussions the topic of the science from the metaphysical implications. We need to stress the argument is not over christianity and God, but over slow change over time or instantaneous appearance. The science battleground is different than the belief battleground – we should be aware of and highlight that difference.

>As for the formal term “creationist,” I acknowledge that it has a wider meaning. And I think the defining characteristic is the Bible. Creationists of all stripes don’t seemed concerned with opposing evolution that has occurred in the last 6,000 years. Their guiding principle is Genesis, and that seems to be the safest way to judge whether someone is a creationist: whether they’re concerned with validating the specific claims of the Genesis creation story. If they do so literally, they’re YEC. If they do so flexibly, they’re OEC.

I would quibble that there are a few out there who would reject evolution of any sort and define “microevolution” as minor variations within a constrained framework. In other words, it’s not really evolution, it’s just variance within a standard. But the essence I accept – the distinction is over how literally they take Genesis. Creationism as a blanket is defined by the need to conform to Genesis.

>ID is not, for all I can see, involved in the claims of Genesis.

This is a little more subtle. The framing and approach of the ID movement is to limit the scope of the particular arguments and frame them in a scientific manner. Effectively, they want to bypass all the philosophical underpinnings while addressing the explanations involved. However, their motivations and philosophical underpinning is driven by Biblical belief. They just skip that part of the talk when addressing “scientific” audiences. But peruse the Discovery Institute site and read the articles (especially by Demski) there and you will see the motivations are definitely driven by OEC premises about Genesis and rejecting Evolution on those grounds. Ask yourself why do they think Design is necessary? They reject that Evolution is sufficient. Why do they reject Evolution as sufficient? Not because there’s any evidence, though they come up with fancy arguments to suggest that there is evidence. But the reason they reject Evolution as sufficient is because it conflicts with the Bible. Ergo, they are Creationists. Mostly OEC, but still C.

The guiding principle you seem to be using is whether a person claims a magical “poof” (as you said, God making each species instantly “from his bag’o’parts – that is Creationism”). You contrasted this with evolution, and presented it in the form of a question with a Yes or No response possible:

“are we as humans able to explain and understand the mechanisms of how life became diverse? Yes, through Evolution – that is not a Creationist. No – there is some other intervention that we can never explain or understand, that is God intervening – that is Creationism.”

I think it’s a useful contrast that highlights two very different things, though I’m confident you would agree that the degree to which people invoke divine intervention varies greatly.

YEC does not come about by merely adding an intervention to evolution. It comes when interventions are added massively and always at the cost of rejecting major conclusions from evolutionary science. If a person does that, I’d call them “creationist”, which is the usual term for YEC.

As for the formal term “creationist,” I acknowledge that it has a wider meaning. And I think the defining characteristic is the Bible. Creationists of all stripes don’t seemed concerned with opposing evolution that has occurred in the last 6,000 years. Their guiding principle is Genesis, and that seems to be the safest way to judge whether someone is a creationist: whether they’re concerned with validating the specific claims of the Genesis creation story. If they do so literally, they’re YEC. If they do so flexibly, they’re OEC.

ID is not, for all I can see, involved in the claims of Genesis. Perhaps ID’s leaders are Biblical creationists of the Old Earth variety. But if ID grows, I can’t see how it wouldn’t evolve from its OEC roots (that is, presuming that these are in fact its roots). I have to study the movement more.

For now, I’m confident that even if ID has OEC roots, it’s very different from YEC, and from what most of understand by the term “creationist.” Formal uses of the term notwithstanding, the public at large understands “creationism” to be a literal embrace of Genesis and a basic rejection of Darwin. I suggest that if ID is to be compared to or included within creationism, that “Old Earth Creationism” be the term. Simply using “creationism” will inflame the conversation; and any useful part of the conversation will end when an IDist points out the many ways in which ID is not young earth creationism. An IDist can easily do that; and the argument will be considered won or lost on those useless terms. At least using “OEC” will get people thinking about specific terms; and if the idea is to get people to see that ID is Old Earth Creationism, then that full term should be used. Otherwise the idea will never successfully get across.

For the moment, however, we should be quite satisfied with the practical point of view, namely that the scientific method functions most splendidly, as empirically demonstrated by our ever-increasing knowledge and mastery of Nature.

After all, it’s precisely due to logical tools and methodology, like the concepts collectively named the ‘scientific method’, that we are even able to reliably reason about things such as the Earth not being flat. If the methodology needs fine tuning, it is not immediately evident. It’s hardly rocket science, after all – anyone with common sense can understand the principles

You do realize that the scientific method can’t be proven as a true scientific tool by the scientific method? In essence, the scientific method is simply assumed to be the best way. However, that cannot be proven, and is just an accepted method. Don’t forget that it was long accepted that the world was flat.

“the thought of Bible-thumping illiterates having control of all aspects of today’s technology, including our weapon stockpiles, even while refusing to understand the very principles on which this technology was based, is surely enough to give anyone pause.”

err.. checked the whitehouse lately?

pause hell.. it’s a thunk on the head with a big pipe.

great site, great commenters

TheBlackCat already gave a good explanation of the error here (the CSI analogy was particularly spot-on), but to summarize: these two groups may be looking at the same data, but one is applying the scientific method to all available evidence, while the other is selectively choosing pieces of evidence that would favor his pre-conceived religious faith. While the latter method may be comforting to some people, it is definitely *not* science. See the tidbit I posted above about the lack of any peer-reviewed research supporting ID, and for better measure, read the transcript and the judge’s decision in the recent Dover trial.

The question of the ultimate existence or non-existence of a Deity isn’t exactly a scientifically testable hypothesis (it isn’t falsifiable, any more than the existence of Russell’s Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is falsifiable). Thus, most scientists don’t much concern themselves with it, letting the theists and philosophers argue it out ad nauseam.

However, the notion that life on Earth was designed by a Creator is a somewhat more testable hypothesis, and has been tested by science time and again, and found wanting: if the life forms inhabiting this planet indeed were designed, somebody did a mighty botched job at it (well, He was supposedly on rather tight deadline, but that’s no excuse). ID might as well stand for Incompetent Design. The “Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins is a concise layman’s introduction to the subject.

Now, as for the scientific method. It’s often overlooked that the current results of science (say, the fact that we know the Earth is round, or the fact that we know we evolved from primaeval slime) don’t *really* matter, which is why they aren’t holy, and why there can be no dogma in science.

The one and only thing “sacred” in science is the *scientific method*. It is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth and facts about reality from lies, delusion, superstition and wishful thinking.

Even if all our current scientific knowledge were to be inexplicably and irretrievably lost, and we had to start from a blank slate, that wouldn’t necessarily be tragic as long as we preserved the idea of the scientific method. Since our scientific knowledge, as embodied in our scientific theories, describe *reality* (you know, the thing that exists whether you believe in it or not), they could – and would, eventually – be rediscovered provided the right tool for probing that same reality.

Forget about trivial details like the theory of gravity. The discovery of the scientific method is the most important single development in mankind’s history so far. It’ll help us, as a species, to gradually outgrow our small-minded delusions and mature to face the universe as it really is, in all its immensity and majestic, chaotic glory.

Is there any beer left?

Anyway, here I go…
Sticks, you said:
“Some of the creationists I have encountered held science qualifications in their own right, and one I used to know was a food micro biologist. Strange though it may seems there are some who look at what they find , and their scientific training takes them away from evolution.”

Yes, Sticks, some creationists do understand bits of science. Even Michael Behe (ID proponent) has a PhD in biochemistry (I don’t know which institution awarded it to him). This doesn’t prove that the arguments are correct, however. (That is a logical fallacy known as the argument from authority). Note also that a food microbiologist is not necessarily any kind of expert on evolution.

I fundamentally object to your phrase “their scientific training takes them away from evolution”, because you give us no context in which to judge such a brash claim. My own interpretation divides into two possibilities: (1) their scientific training was woefully lacking, or (2) it was not their scientific training, but possibly some theological preconceptions. A good scientist will examine the evidence impartially, and will favour whichever theory most credibly explains all of the evidence. I have been reading around the topic of creation “science” recently, and so much of it seems to rely on ignoring whole swathes of contrary evidence, while loudly claiming that two or three observations support the creationist position. And in this case, it was mostly YECs.

YEC’s begin with the premise that the Bible is literally true. 6 days of creation = 6 rotations of the Earth (6 light/dark cycles). Anything in science that directly contradicts the Bible is wrong. Therefore, data must be reinterpreted to match that assumption. It may be a reinterpretation of the data, but the two interpretations are not of equivalent worth. One has the underlying assumption that a certain story is true and all data must fit that story. The other does not have that assumption, it does not assume any story, and lets the data lead the interpretation.

>The Evolutionist when they look at the logical conclusion of evolution is that nature does it all by itself with no god.

No, Evolutionists begin with the assumption that the processes of the universe are understandable, studyable, and that they are consistent. There is no assumption about God or no God, just that the processes can be understood and described. God can be the cause of those processes without invalidating those processes.

There are Atheists who take the understandability and explainability of nature and these processes (including Evolution) to help justify their non-belief. That is the “God is not necessary” argument. It is not, though, a premise for Evolution.

I suppose some concern is focused on the differences between OEC and YEC, versus Theistic Evolution. From what I see, OEC is still Creationist – they still reject the mechanisms of Evolution accounting for the diversity and development of life, and insert God in the process with some magical intervention. Theistic Evolution takes Evolution as God’s method, no magical intervention required.

In other words, are we as humans able to explain and understand the mechanisms of how life became diverse? Yes, through Evolution – that is not a Creationist. No – there is some other intervention that we can never explain or understand, that is God intervening – that is Creationism. OEC may accept that the Earth isn’t just 6000 years old and try to meld their belief structure with the findings of science in general, but they still want to insert magical intervention in the process. Theistic Evolutionists are comfortable going the extra step to say magical intervention isn’t necessary, and God is still there. That is why I see ID as OEC. They allow much of scientific evidence to stand, they accept the mechanisms of Evolution in a limited sense, but still want to interject something else. That something else they interject is still magical intervention. It goes by the name of “Design by some unidentified Intelligence” rather than “God’s Will”, but it is essentially the same thing. They don’t explain what Design is, how it works, or how it helps us understand all the variations and changes that were made. It explains nothing, ergo it is magic, just magic with a scientific sounding name.

>There are many connections, historical and philosophical, etc., between ID and creationism; I wouldn’t dispute that. But following Wikipedia’s links, I even found this statement seemingly rejecting ID, at an OEC site (the wolf rejecting the wolf):

The distinction here seems to be more over the methods employed rather than the reasoning or beliefs. It boils down to a difference of approach between two organizations – “Intelligent Design proponents” (aka the Discovery Institute) and “Reasons To Believe” (aka Hugh Ross). The Discovery Institute has come up with this new label and new approach which RTB thinks is wimping out. But that doesn’t make the beliefs different, only the approach to arguing them. RTB wants to address the religious claims directly because they also wish to fight “vague spirituality”, or essentially the not-True Christians. Thus they don’t want to cling to the Discovery Institute’s label that uses a different approach.

>But I’m skeptical of the charge that ID is a new form of OEC which does not openly declare itself in order to curry favor with YEC (that is, an OEC wolf in sheep’s clothing).

If you look at writings on the Discovery Institute website aimed at the religious believers, rather than the supposed papers aimed at the critics and scientists, you will see that they play down any conflict with YECs and state at most that the primary goal is getting God back into science, and later the Christians can debate the merits of any particular versions of how God did it. They are catering to the YECs to get support from the YECs, just like they are muddying terminology so that they can get support from regular christians who aren’t fundamentalists. But William Demski is very much Creationist, which is clear from his writings on the Discovery Institute website. He seems to accept Old Earth, but still fights Evolution on religious and not scientific grounds.

And YECs do reject science. In order for the YECs to be right and that the world was created less than 4 billion years ago and all creatures were created in their present state, besides rejecting evolution (and thus the rest of biology which is fundamentall based on this principle) pretty much everything we know about physics, relativity, quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, chemistry, geology, climatology, anthropology, paleontology, astronomy, astrophysics, planetary science, mineralogy, biochemistry, meteorology, oceanography, taxonomy, zoology, microbiology, genetics, particle physics, cosmology, seismology, materials science, ecology, anatomy, cladistics, cytology, epidemiology, linguistics, and sociology must also be wrong (as well as some areas I might have missed). Additonally, if all these are wrong than the scientific method that was used to develop these branches of science must also be invalid, so that would mean all the rest science (the little that is left) would also have to be wrong. In order to continue holding their beliefs, YECs much reject all these areas of science and reject the scientific method. I do not see how rejecting all of these areas of science and completely rejecting the scientific method that is the cornerstone of all science could possibly be construed as not rejecting science itself. Lets also not forget that absolutely all our knowledge of ancient history must also be wrong.

Sticks says: The YEC starts with a premise of there being a creator god,

Correct, YECs start with a conclusion and find (or more often make up) evidence to support that conclusion. That is not a valid method of reaching conclusions about the natural world. They are not reaching their conclusion by looking at the data that scientists look at. They had already reached their conclusion long before they even began to look at the data. They simply cherry-pick, modify, or outright fabricate data to make it fit the conclusion they had already reached. That is not how science works.

Sticks: The Evolutionist when they look at the logical conclusion of evolution is that nature does it all by itself with no god.

NO THEY DON’T! No matter how many times you make this claim it is still completely and utterly wrong. Evolution does not say God was not involved. It makes no statement regarding God whatsoever. This is a lie pushed by the YECs in order to fabricate a science vs. religion controversy that does not exist! God may have been involved. All evolution says is that God did not HAVE to be involved, nature COULD have done it on its own. But it in no way, shape, or form rules out the possibility that God may have been a guiding force in the history of the world.

Sticks says: There was an episode once of CSI where the evidence of what seemed like an attempted murder could be interpreted two ways. … So who, in that episode was anti-science?

Neither. In many situations there is ambiguity, there are more than one conclusion that are all fit the facts equally well. However, it WOULD be anti-science for one of the CSI agents to come in and say “God killed him”. That is what the IDers claim. It would also be anti-science for a CSI agent to come in and claim that God killed him just seconds before the CSI agents arrived, then arranged his body, modified the wounds and state of decay, and arranged all the evidence to make it look like he was killed in a completely ordinary and very specific manner years before with the express purpose of tricking the CSI agents. That is what the YECs claim. Do you really see CSI agents trying to make those arguments in court?

There was an episode once of CSI where the evidence of what seemed like an attempted murder could be interpreted two ways. A passenger or a car jacker. When ther guy woke, it turned out it was just a RTA with no one else involved. I showed a good example of a case where data could be interpreted more than one way. So who, in that episode was anti-science?

The YEC starts with a premise of there being a creator god, The Evolutionist when they look at the logical conclusion of evolution is that nature does it all by itself with no god. These two groups look at the same data, with different preconceptions, and come to two different conclusions.

“Old Earth Creationism” is another problem, though. I’m reading at Wikipedia that OEC is the term for a phenomenon I’ve seen before, namely the non-literal reading of Genesis in order to reconcile it with scientific knowledge. I have never equated that practice with the term “creationism” (which I think nearly everyone, for better or worse, takes to mean YEC). OEC and YEC are hugely different. One is highly flexible with the Bible because it means to accept the findings of modern science even when they seem to conflict with Christian belief; the other totally rejects modern science wherever it conflicts with a strict fundamentalist reading of the Bible.

I see a huge difference, at any rate, between fundamentalist Christianity and any Christianity which reads the Bible without strict literalism. The contrasting views between these groups, on the widest variety of issues, could not be more different. And even from the perspective of a scientist defending evolution, they should look different. I’ve heard frustrated Darwinists say often that creationists in debate will not listen. I’ve experienced similar things in debating creationists, and I presume it’s because they hold a strict commitment to the Bible that they don’t intend to break. You just don’t have that with ID (or with OEC).

One benefit of defining ID as a new form of OEC creationism, as you have, is that it makes evident at least two degrees of separation between YEC and ID. It avoids simply defining ID as a new form of “creationism”, since that word, for me and countless others, is a synonym for the 6,000-year-old earth and the complete denial of Darwinism, astronomy, the Big Bang, etc.

But I’m skeptical of the charge that ID is a new form of OEC which does not openly declare itself in order to curry favor with YEC (that is, an OEC wolf in sheep’s clothing). YE creationists, and at least one Roman Catholic cardinal who wrote that Op-Ed in the times, will support ID for battling naturalism; but supporters are not the same as proponents. YEC has “jumped on the ID bandwagon”, as you say, but in a supportive role (I think you hold the same premise). Young Earthers have not given up their Biblical literalism (and if they did, as I said, it should be a plus in their favor; such a concession concerning a religious conviction is huge).

There are many connections, historical and philosophical, etc., between ID and creationism; I wouldn’t dispute that. But following Wikipedia’s links, I even found this statement seemingly rejecting ID, at an OEC site (the wolf rejecting the wolf):

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id

>You also speak of being Creationist “at heart.” Some examples you offered included the insistence that Darwinian evolution was not the whole story. Yes, that is a commonality between ID and YEC. Another is the lack of true science, which you note. But you also mention the idea that “God is behind it” and “God intervened here.” That would cover every Christian who believed that “God did it” (I’m quoting another of the comments in this post), as well as Christians who believe either that God performs miracles to intervene in history (a staple of Judeo-Christian theism) or that God somehow guides their personal lives and is responsible for things that happen to people.

No, I don’t equate God guiding personal lives or being ultimately responsible for life origins and diversity with Creationism. I equate God’s direct intervention in the form of instantaneous appearance as Creationism. I very definitely am making the distinction between that God did it and how God did it.

Evolution as God’s mechanism, his tool, his method is NOT Creationism. God snapping his fingers and *poof* a hamster appearing fully formed, right next to the rat and the gerbil and the Guinea pig, each being a unique creation of God’s, a unique design, a unique plan that he drew up on paper and listed out the particular and unique features of each and then made each one from his bag’o'parts – that is Creationism.

The act of insisting Darwinian Evolution isn’t the whole story isn’t what makes them Creationist. It is the specifics of why they believe that that makes them Creationist. That is the distinction I am trying to make.

IDers and their followers try to argue that Evolution is a dogma because the essential question is off limits in science. That just isn’t true. The essential question of whether Evolution occurs is a valid science question, it’s just that it has already been answered by volumes of data. Mountains of data. Change over time is essentially proven, as much as anything can be proven. The open scientific question, though, is whether there are any other mechanisms contributing to Evolution other than Mutation, Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, and gene resequencing in meiosis? Or whatever the actual list identified by biologists (of which I’m not certain I’ve included). That question is NOT off limits. However, to make the case one needs more than speculation based upon faulty interpretations of what Evolution does say and lack of information in specific cases.

>Why no distinction between creationism and ID?

Their philosophical roots are the same. Their motivations and intentions are the same. Much of the evidence and many of the arguments they use to justify their position are the same. There is a distinction between Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism – ID is mostly OEC that doesn’t quite state that declaratively to allow some wiggle room for support from the YEC’s. ID has a new veneer with some new terminology and new scientific sounding arguments, but it’s still just a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Phil said that the caption referred to creationists, and that YEC was a black-and-white issue, in the sense that all the belief in the world would not make the world 6,000 years old. I heartily agree that the question, whether the earth is not billions but rather 6,000 years old, is a black-and-white question. Andy was trying to get at where the debate, as a whole, was not so black-and-white. I agreed with him, and you, too, have said that the link between IC and YEC is “subtle.” I couldn’t think of a better antonym than “subtle”, for the phrase, “black-and-white.”

You also speak of being Creationist “at heart.” Some examples you offered included the insistence that Darwinian evolution was not the whole story. Yes, that is a commonality between ID and YEC. Another is the lack of true science, which you note. But you also mention the idea that “God is behind it” and “God intervened here.” That would cover every Christian who believed that “God did it” (I’m quoting another of the comments in this post), as well as Christians who believe either that God performs miracles to intervene in history (a staple of Judeo-Christian theism) or that God somehow guides their personal lives and is responsible for things that happen to people. Such a wide umbrella could even encompass astrologers, in the sense that they, too, believe that spiritual energies, and not modern science alone, can account for the whole story.

Yet that would not make astrologers Creationists at heart. This site has certainly kept a distinction between astrologers and creationists.

Why no distinction between creationism and ID?

ID has to be defined more precisely than merely anyone who believes that God created the world at one time and continuously participates in the larger work of creation today. No doubt you would agree, and in your post you defined the specific work of IDists; I’m just pointing out that some of the things you offered as making people “creationist at heart” would make many more millions of people also creationist at heart.

I might call myself “creationist at heart” in the sense that I believe there is a Creator. (Someone else in the comments mentioned this possible definition of the word “Creationist”). But “creationist” really has an agreed-upon meaning of someone who rejects modern scientific discoveries wherever such are incompatible with a literal reading of the Bible. I don’t see how that applies to ID, despite the commonalities that exist between ID and creationism.

This is what I was trying to address. The main ID proponents are essentially Creationists at heart. True, they accept old Earth and limited Evolution, but they reject Evolution as they complete story and seek to inject God into science. However, there is more to the ID movement than the main proponents.

ID speaks to the common christian even more than Creationism, because it wears the guise of science. It pretends to be science, and uses science terminology. There is limited acceptance of science so it circumvents the Young Earth stance, which makes regular christians more comfortable with it. That makes it more accessible, while still validating the “God is behind it” precept. However, it is still wrong, still bad science, and still Creationist at heart.

Buried in the ideology of ID there is an actual scientific question. True, their motivation and intent is not scientific, and their modus operendi is to circumvent the methods and standards of science and jump to publicity and politics, but the one element that is actually scientific is asking the question, “Are the known mechanisms of Evolution sufficient to account for all the variation of life, or are there other mechanisms that we haven’t identified yet?”

Unfortunately, that’s where the valid science ends in ID. The proposed means for justifying the incompleteness and identifying the missing mechanisms are scientifically unsound. Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity are founded on incorrect understanding of how Evolution works and what it says. They are built on bad assumptions, flawed logic, and poor reasoning. They have been informally reviewed scientifically (as opposed to formal peer review), and the results show they are faulty. They just don’t justify that there is anything missing, much less that their proposed means are able to fill in the missing elements. Bad science isn’t valid and shouldn’t be taught. Religious agendas shouldn’t be taught under the guise of science, especially when built upon bad science.

Everyone here will agree that the Darwinian discovery that the earth is not thousands of years old counts as one of the great revolutions of Western society. Not to be bombastic about it, but it’s true. Another great part of that revolution is common descent. Yet by that perspective, young earth creationists are holdouts, while the ID movement concedes both the age of the earth and common descent.

I am not plugging ID. I don’t see any science in it; I regard it as theology; and in my opinion it’s bad theology. But there is a large distinction between ID and creationism. Sometimes I read that ID is the successor to creationism, and in some ways I agree with that. But in my own circles I know Christians who find ID attractive, because it tries to inject God into science and does not require a proponent to deny such well-evidenced theories as evolution and the age of the universe. These Christians are not onetime young earth creationists who have changed their minds and conceded some great facts.

And if there are former creationists in the ID movement who accept these great facts, that would be a plus in their favor. In most debates I’ve seen, when people make such great concessions, that’s a big deal; and when people’s views change on hugely important conclusions, such as the age of the earth and the evolution of life, you no longer put them in the same category as before.

I meant to say “non-PC”, I don’t know whether that’s any better than “no-PC”. Then it’s of course “energy”, not enery .. that much I was able to sort out myself.

A (hearts) B

There’s no such thing as a verb “to heart”. This is just a stupid habbit that resulted from stickers a la “I [HEARTSYMBOL HERE] NYC” and “I [HEARTSYMBOL] U”. What this sticker actually said was “I LOVE NYC”, or “I LOVE YOU”.

Or do I miss the point and it has become no-PC to use the word LOVE when speaking about anything else but your (one and only) legally married wife? Has the word LOVE been sorted into the same category as ‘accidental’ nipple-slips during Superbowl events?

I am fighting for LOVE! Let LOVE be your enery! Nobody hearts anything, not in brackets and not without brackets. IT’S LOVE!

Ah, if you came across spelling mistakes, grammer problems etc. .. please ignore them, since english isn’t my mother-language