thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
NewChapter:
You must live on this forum. But you could not have possibly looked at the information presented in the few minutes since I posted. I'm only still here because I just tried to correct some of the formatting that got messed up. (Btw, you kinda lost me a few months ago when you said modern homo sapiens sapiens were descended from Neanderthals. ;^)
~Binadub
thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
Cofty and NewChapter:
I just got home from work a little while ago and read over your reponses. I'll have to do the same as you, Cofty, and put together some response with a little time for preparation. Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring your thoughtful interest in the subject.
NewChapter: I looked over again the replies you have made in this thread and did not find evidence that you refuted what DI claims is their objective. I did see a number of times where you expessed your interpretation of what they are about. I hope you're not referring to the Irreducible Complexity rebuttal of the mouse trap . . . even I can refute that and I'm not a scientist (evolution in reverse?).
I have of course read the Wikipedia article; there was nothing new there. When it says "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated . . . ,"
that is correct. But that is not the new popular use of the term that you and Cofty and others are offended by, which now refers to (or implies) Young-Earth Creationists. I used to consider myself a "creationist" because I believe in a supreme intelligence, but that is what the word used to mean.
Most of the article is factual, although it can be a little misleading. As said, one of the terms that gets muddled is "creationism." It's like the word "theory"--it depends on the context whether it is the general meaning of the word or the new popular concept of the word. "Creationism" used to simply mean beliving in a Creator. It did not carry the stigma it does now as being fundamentalist-evangelical-young-Earth-hellfire-Bible-Genesis-literal-6000-year creationists as it does now. That's one reason the term creationism was replaced with the new term "intelligent design"; to distinguish it from the fundamentalists. The article you quoted says this:
It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".
This is what they claim is the ID objective, and I tend to agree with that. If you have any interest in a truely unbiased presentation of the subject, try this link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence":
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/
It is a bit long, unbiased neutral presentation of the subject, but here is a brief quote of the conclusion:
6. Conclusion
Perception and appreciation of the incredible intricacy and the beauty of things in nature—whether biological or cosmic—has certainly inclined many toward thoughts of purpose and design in nature, and has constituted important moments of affirmation for those who already accept design positions. The status of the corresponding arguments of course, is not only a matter of current dispute, but the temperature of the dispute seems to be on the rise. And regardless of what one thinks of the arguments at this point, so long as nature has the power to move us (as even Kant admitted that the‘starry heavens above’ did), design convictions and arguments are unlikely to disappear quietly.
I think it is an excellent fair presentation of the topic.
NewChapter wrote:
I'm reading a paper at the Discovery Institute---well I probably will not finsih it because it really is just a piece of propaganda---but I saw something that made me smile.
Again, my purpose has never been to deny that speciation can occur in nature, especially when speciation is defined by the trivial definition of a mere reproductively isolated population. Rather, my purpose is to test the FAQ’s claims. . . . .
Thank You NewChapter! What an excellent example of one of the points I'm trying to make about the word "creationism."
You are obviously not aware that "trivial" has a scientific meaning other than the popular meaning, just like "theory" and other science speak.
http://science.yourdictionary.com/trivial-name:
trivial name science definition1. A common or vernacular name as distinguished from a scientific name, as chimpanzee for Pan troglodytes.
2. A common, historic, or convenient name for a substance. The trivial name is often derived from the source in which the substance was discovered. It is not systematic and is not used in modern official nomenclature. Sucrose is the trivial name for β-D-fructofuranosyl-α-D-glucopyranoside. Compare chemical name.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trivial
. . .
3. Biology . (of names of organisms) specific, as distinguished from generic. 4. Mathematics .
a. noting a solution of an equation in which the value of every variable of the equation is equal to zero.
b. (of a theorem, proof, or the like) simple, transparent, or immediately evident. 5. Chemistry . (of names of chemical compounds) derived from the natural source, or of historic origin, and not according to the systematic nomenclature: Picric acid is the trivial name of 2,4,6-trinitrophenol.
=================
Cofty: I'll have to respond to your questions later. Probably tomorrow. I have another life. (For one thing I like to study the History of Civilization, and I just received a DVD from the Learning Company that I haven't had a chance to open.) I also want to watch the news.
But I will respond to your questions on what science I think the DI wants to include in academia--as I understand it. I just want to do it justice and I've just about exhausted my time today responding to NewChapter. My one request is to try to stay on track. We're not arguing whether DI/ID is right or wrong, or whether I believe what their members believe about religion. That's a known debate like a lot of things. The question is whether they are religion or not (which I don't regard "deism" to be religion, unless you want to also define "atheism" as religion). I do disagree that the scientific community rejects them as scientists. There is dispute between the scientists on both sides and on either side.
Btw, I didn't realize you are UK. (I just don't read the board enough to know the people like I did about 10 years ago.) So our cross communications here may stretch.
(Sorry about the edits--some of the formatting gets screwed up.)
Thanks for your interest,
~Binadub
thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
Cofty:
There isn't any difference.
Thank you. That's my observation too. Glad we agree on that.
In contrast Intelligent Design contributes nothing to science. It is a parastitic enterprise that tries to squeeze god into gaps in scientific knowledge.
ID is a broad church incorporating young earth creationists, old earth creationists and hybrid theories that teach evolution but insist on inserting god to explain all the really complex stuff.
Well I wasn't going to bring up ID again in your "theist evolution" thread, but since you did, I think you have already expressed that opinion and I disagreed with it. I presented some links to DI's own definition of what they are about, and you promised to present proof that they are liars. I was going to let it go, but since you brought it up again, where is the proof that they are liars? It's not very academic to just call them liars on your say-so. Like I said, that's what JWs do to us 'apostates.'
I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just think you should back up your claim since it is quite denigrating about some people with impressive academic and scientific credentials. Fwiw, I happen to disagree with the DI folks that ID should be taught in schools for exactly the same reason I believe atheism should not be taught in schools, but I do think the science they present should be included strictly on its own scientific merits. I am definitely not what has been popularly termed a "creationist." I am also a far cry from agreement with evangelical scientists like Collins on their religion. I was in agreement with you that I cannot see how they can reconcile evangelical religion and a "personal god" with evolution.
As you can see, I don't post much here (259th post in over 10 years). So you may have already said before, but considering this kind of topic, I'm curious what your degree is in?
Peace,
~Binadub
thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
What is the difference between "theistic evolution" and neo-Darwinian evolution?
~Binadub
thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
Cofty:
I don't usually spend this much time on the forum, but stopped by again because I thought you might have made a reply. Thanks.
Are you familiar with the terms "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity". You should also research the phrase "wedge strategy".
Yes, as well as the rebuttals. They actually appear in some of the links I posted above.
I am a little rusty on "wedge strategy" so I'll review that again awaiting what you will present.
[Stephen Meyer's video] it is not impressive.
Hopefully you'll do better than that. Any rebuttals to the science he presented?
I promise I will find time to respond to your support of ID later.
Please do not confuse the issue here. The issue is NOT whether I support ID or not. The issue is whether ID is Christian-Bible-based-Genesis-Young-Earth-Creationism. It is not. You say you can prove that it is. That's what I want to see. It's immaterial whether I agree with ID or not. I can guarantee you I do not agree with the "Creationists."
Evidently some YECs have made contributions to DI. That does not prove they are Creationists any more than TeaPartyers contributing to Mitt Romney proves he is an Evangelical. What I want to see from you is evidence that the DI--the institute's objective (not individuals who may support it)--is about religion, in particular Christian, and not about science.
You will be able to show that ID is not atheist--that is true. ID simply believes that creation is directed by some kind of superior intelligence.
~Binadub
thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
Cofty:
I'll be most interested in the Discovery Institute's lies.
I have to admit though--without seeing what you present--that it rings a bit of JWs claiming that us apostates are all liars. But I'll be happy to look at what you present. Did you look at anything I referenced above. (No--you haven't had time. It was only about 5 minutes ago.)
Edit: Okay, about 15 minuites ago.
~Binadub
thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
Wow, when do you have time to study science? :-)
I said "credible" references. I'm aware that the courts decided against having ID taught in schools as science. I agree with the court decision. That doesn't make ID YEC religion.
~Binadub
thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
It was not my intention to hijack this thread for another topic.
I happen to agree with Cofty that I see no rational logic between “theistic evolution” (neo-Darwinian evolution in disguise) and fundamentalist/evangelical “born-again” Christianity.
I would like to make it clear that I’m not about arguing religion, or against atheism, or any other precept people choose to adopt.. It’s like refuting a Southern Baptist’s arguments to refute the Watchtower religion, you can’t take their definition of the WT, you have to refute the WT on the merits of what is true about it. Same with ID.
NewChapter:
You’re simply wrong. You cite no reference to back up your claims. If you can provide some credible references to refute the following, I’ll be glad to consider them. Creationism used to mean simply a belief in a Creator, as opposed to atheism, but no longer. Evangelical young-Earth creationists usurped the definition "creationism" and that is one reason why the term "intelligent design" was created to distinquish between people who simply believe in a Creator as opposed to atheism. "Creationism" has changed meaning in the past couple of decades, just as words like "gay" and "discrimination" have changed meaning. ID is not confined to Christian, young-Earth creationism, nor does it deny observable evolution theory. From their own definition:
http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs
From Discovery Institute Web site:
http://www.discovery.org/about.php
Questions about Science Education Policy
1. Does Discovery Institute favor including the Bible or creationism in science classes or textbooks?
No. Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.
2. Is Discovery Institute trying to eliminate, reduce or censor the coverage of evolution in textbooks?
No. Far from reducing the coverage of evolution, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. The true censors are those who want to stop any discussion of the scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
3. Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?
No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.
===================
~Binadub
thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
Cofty and NewChapter:
I disagree that ID is Creationism. Some Creationists may have subscribed to ID in the past (I think), which has given it a bad name in some circles.
I'm familiar with the Dover case and some others. I agree that ID should not be taught as science for the same reason it should not be taught as history or archeology--because it is not.
But ID is not evangelical Genesis "young-earth" creationism and they do not subscribe to literal Genesis (unless they are total liars of what they are about). You're describing the Creationists. ID does not even discount the evolution hypothesis of common descent. They do debate with Dr. Francis Collins' view on his website, but the debates are over scientific theories, not anything close to young-Earth creationism.
But that is not what your thread is about, so I apologize for getting off-topic. My bad. :-) Perhaps ID in another thread.
I'm not as familiar with TE, but I think it probably makes less sense to my reasoning than deism, the kind that influenced Anthony Flew to change his mind.
~Binadub
thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
Maybe I misunderstood the question. I thought it was more about whether ID is creationism or not.
It's not. It's more about Darwinian evolution vs. Deism if I understand it, and how it is different than "theistic evolution."
That's not saying that some of the ID proponents are not religious, but some are simply deists.
Did I misunderstand the issue?
~Binadub
