Not at all, which is why your alternative medicine argument is a failed straw man argument. See modification of post above.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Wow! Someone touched a nerve. The basic premise of the original post was that ID is not creationism. A couple of quick points:
1. ID is not ID and creationism is not creationism. By that obscure remark, I mean that some IDers are evolutionists but certainly not all and some creationists are new earthers but it would be a mistake to identify the doctrine of creation with fundamentalist "creationism." To elaborate: Denis O. Lamoureux may well be something of an exception in the ID world. And although many many people believe in a Creator they do not hold that this is an explanation of origins. Thomas Aquinas held, for example, that the doctrine of creation is compatible with the universe being eternal. The doctrine of Creation (held by Jews, Christians, and Muslims) acknowledges that the universe has some kind of dependence on a Creator. That the relation is a causal one, that it is 4000-6000 years old, that the Creator is "supernatural", etc. are all part of North American Fundamentalism, but not in any way part of the mainstream belief in a creator.
2. I have no problem with Denis O. Lamoureux's desire to see the universe bi-focally, so to speak. To elaborate on his example, one can say without contradiction "we made love and made a beautiful baby daughter" and "God gave us a child." The problem is the mixing of explantory/meaning frames. "God gave us a child" is doxology, worship, gratitude, wonder-talk. The language of embryological development is explanatory mechnaism talk. Both may be meaningful in their way but they cannot be meaningfully mixed. We can't talk about cell-division and DNA and then mix in a little teleological design talk in the same breath.
3. The challenge for this "complementarist" position is how to co-ordinate the multiple true descriptions. This is particularly acute when the faith language is about wonder and gratitude for the order and fittingness of things and the science talk is about random variation and natural selection. Lamoureux does not seem to me to take seriously the fact that there just is no room in evolutionary biology for intelligence, planning, or direction. So he happily mingles his vocabularies. This in my view is the crux of the matter.
4. The phenomenon of multiple true descriptions which are not mutually exclusive is a widespread feature of human knowledge. There is no room in therodynamics for distinctive biological functioning. We have no language in physics for gene expression or embryo. A hand shake can be described as energy transfer (physics) or as a gesture of friendship (ethics). The multiple vocabularies are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
5. The different ways of talking about the same phenomenon is only a problem of we can't keep our categories straight. Its fine to talk of energy transfer and fine to talk of friendship. But trying to explain as a physicist that gravity is really friendship is a bit of a muddle. Likewise, trying to exhort someone to be a true friend by appealing to gravitational bonds is equally a muddle.
1. ID is not ID and creationism is not creationism. By that obscure remark, I mean that some IDers are evolutionists but certainly not all and some creationists are new earthers but it would be a mistake to identify the doctrine of creation with fundamentalist "creationism." To elaborate: Denis O. Lamoureux may well be something of an exception in the ID world. And although many many people believe in a Creator they do not hold that this is an explanation of origins. Thomas Aquinas held, for example, that the doctrine of creation is compatible with the universe being eternal. The doctrine of Creation (held by Jews, Christians, and Muslims) acknowledges that the universe has some kind of dependence on a Creator. That the relation is a causal one, that it is 4000-6000 years old, that the Creator is "supernatural", etc. are all part of North American Fundamentalism, but not in any way part of the mainstream belief in a creator.
2. I have no problem with Denis O. Lamoureux's desire to see the universe bi-focally, so to speak. To elaborate on his example, one can say without contradiction "we made love and made a beautiful baby daughter" and "God gave us a child." The problem is the mixing of explantory/meaning frames. "God gave us a child" is doxology, worship, gratitude, wonder-talk. The language of embryological development is explanatory mechnaism talk. Both may be meaningful in their way but they cannot be meaningfully mixed. We can't talk about cell-division and DNA and then mix in a little teleological design talk in the same breath.
3. The challenge for this "complementarist" position is how to co-ordinate the multiple true descriptions. This is particularly acute when the faith language is about wonder and gratitude for the order and fittingness of things and the science talk is about random variation and natural selection. Lamoureux does not seem to me to take seriously the fact that there just is no room in evolutionary biology for intelligence, planning, or direction. So he happily mingles his vocabularies. This in my view is the crux of the matter.
4. The phenomenon of multiple true descriptions which are not mutually exclusive is a widespread feature of human knowledge. There is no room in therodynamics for distinctive biological functioning. We have no language in physics for gene expression or embryo. A hand shake can be described as energy transfer (physics) or as a gesture of friendship (ethics). The multiple vocabularies are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
5. The different ways of talking about the same phenomenon is only a problem of we can't keep our categories straight. Its fine to talk of energy transfer and fine to talk of friendship. But trying to explain as a physicist that gravity is really friendship is a bit of a muddle. Likewise, trying to exhort someone to be a true friend by appealing to gravitational bonds is equally a muddle.
James Bond 3rd:
ID is an alternative perspective on how evolution occurs. It is not an alternative to evolution.
James Bond 3rd:
SETI is not an alternative to astronomy. SETI does not contradict astronomy. SETI investigators employ the scientific method.
James Bond 3rd:
ID investigators subsume the facts of evolution (mutation, selection, common ancestry). They employ the scientific method as they research the evolutionary process from a teleological perspective.
The only purpose of ID is as an alternative theory for evolution.
ID is an alternative perspective on how evolution occurs. It is not an alternative to evolution.
James Bond 3rd:
I don't have a problem with the following:
"(Knowledge of astronomy). By the way, there is SETI and it's not science."
SETI is not an alternative to astronomy. SETI does not contradict astronomy. SETI investigators employ the scientific method.
James Bond 3rd:
.Neither would I have a problem with this:
"(Knowledge of evolution). By the way, people have proposed an alternative theory called ID, but there is no scientific basis for it."
ID investigators subsume the facts of evolution (mutation, selection, common ancestry). They employ the scientific method as they research the evolutionary process from a teleological perspective.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Would this be akin to saying that evolutionary theory doesn't always work and that is why we have a revival of design theory? You would not prohibit someone who needs help from seeking alternative medicine would you? You wouldn't prevent a doctor from learning about it would you? Yet you would prohibit ID theory to students in public schools?
LOL!
Another strawman argument bites the dust...
Speaking of strawman argument, where did I say that ID theory should be banned from school? It's perfectly ok to teach the ID theory so long as you make a clear distinction between that and science.
When you teach alternative medicine, you also make it clear that it is NOT conventional medicine (ie, no clinical trials, no evidence of effectiveness, etc).
By the way, has some scientific body officially declared that SETI isn't science? If it's not science does that mean it is useless? Are scientists that claim SETI has merit putting their reputations and careers in jeopardy? Are scientists demanding that SETI not be mentioned in science classes? Does anyone care if teachers discuss SETI without the disclaimer that it isn't science? I don't think so as I'm sure such discussions go on all the time and the ACLU hasn't filed any lawsuits.
Many AyurVedic doctors think that western medicine is actually an alternative to AyurVedic medicine, an alternative approach which is filled with negative side effects.
I can agree with your position on teaching ID, with the disclaimer you offer, as long as the students are thoroughly educated in what the philosophy of science is, they history of theories that were popular later discarded, so that they understand that theories are essentially just "best guesses" and that there is no way to falsify Darwinism, that logically it is an argument from ignorance, assumes chance with no proof, has tremendous holes in the theory, that scientific opinion is not fact, etc.
Level the playing field is what I ask, let the students make their own decisions and reach their own conclusions.
I can agree with your position on teaching ID, with the disclaimer you offer, as long as the students are thoroughly educated in what the philosophy of science is, they history of theories that were popular later discarded, so that they understand that theories are essentially just "best guesses" and that there is no way to falsify Darwinism, that logically it is an argument from ignorance, assumes chance with no proof, has tremendous holes in the theory, that scientific opinion is not fact, etc.
Level the playing field is what I ask, let the students make their own decisions and reach their own conclusions.
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Speaking of strawman argument, where did I say that ID theory should be banned from school? It's perfectly ok to teach the ID theory so long as you make a clear distinction between that and science.
When you teach alternative medicine, you also make it clear that it is NOT conventional medicine (ie, no clinical trials, no evidence of effectiveness, etc).
neophyte321
Guest
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Speaking of strawman argument, where did I say that ID theory should be banned from school? It's perfectly ok to teach the ID theory so long as you make a clear distinction between that and science.
When you teach alternative medicine, you also make it clear that it is NOT conventional medicine (ie, no clinical trials, no evidence of effectiveness, etc).
Come on, Man ... Trace back the roots of this argument... I'll give you a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Here's what I find gut-wrenchingly, hilarious ....... what-ever nob put together this Wiki entry, decided to put "explanation of the origin of life" IN QUOTES!!
Does anyone besides me find that truly hilarious?
That dingbats wish to stifle anyone who attempts to offer another version of reality than the "scientifically" accepted version that the origin of life, IN TRUTH, is a giant explosion?
THE BEAKER IS GOD! .........
Quote from neophyte321:
Come on, Man ... Trace back the roots of this argument... I'll give you a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Here's what I find gut-wrenchingly, hilarious ....... what-ever nob put together this Wiki entry, decided to put "explanation of the origin of life" IN QUOTES!!
Does anyone besides me find that truly hilarious?
You have a very strange sense of humor.
Quote from neophyte321:
That dingbats wish to stifle anyone who attempts to offer another version of reality than the "scientifically" accepted version that the origin of life, IN TRUTH, is a giant explosion?
THE BEAKER IS GOD! .........
Typical symptom of a cookoo.
No, ID/Creationism is just useless. It's not science, it's poor philosophy and religion is arguably a better art form.Quote from Teleologist:
By your logic the same goes for methodological naturalism. It's not science therefore it's useless.
As ID/Creationism is not science , by all means try it out in the Philosophy class. and if you want intelligent design to be held without the supernatural, put it up with methodological naturalism in there. But you will need a working idea, which "it looks designed" does not supply as, "It looks like it designed itself" carries the weight once you observe the processes. But even then if you get past that with some fancy wordplay misdirection and boatloads of asserted conjectures, it wouldn't last long. Just a few seconds until some bright spark sees through the smoke and mirrors of ID pretence to pose the question " what designs the designer ".,... then its elephants all the way down, which is only what ID can ever be. It takes a very short while to describe infinite regress. Producing yet another vehicle for it in the shape of ID/Creationism really isn't necessary.
However, as ID IS Creationism by another name, I suggest religious studies would be a more suitable place for it . Both good and bad art form sells in there.