Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

Is Intelligent Design Such a Dangerous Idea That It Must Not Be Thought?

Robert Crowther

October 5, 2007


When it comes to teaching intelligent design in social studies classes, not science classes, mind you, but social studies, ID critics were for it before they were against it.

Their strategy of attack has been simple: equate ID with creationism because creationism isn’t allowed in science classes. Thus, for years we’ve heard things like: “it may be appropriate to discuss these beliefs in a comparative religion or social studies classroom”; and "to present it as a valid alternative to evolution in a science class (as opposed to teaching about it in a social studies class) is unconstitutional."

The Darwin only lobby group National Center for Science Education published a piece advocating exactly this approach in 2004:

Elementary teachers have backbones, inherited from the earliest fish in ancient seas. Teachers should use their backbones to stand tall and teach basic science. Tell the kids who object that they don’t have to accept it, but they do have to understand it to graduate. Teach students about the wide range of creation stories, too, but do it during social studies.

Clearly for such dogmatists, intelligent design isn’t fit for science classes. Their alternative was that it should be taught in classes like social studies, worldviews, comparative religions or philosophy (yeah right, when was the last time you heard of a public high school with a philosophy class?). This has been the mantra that’s been repeated by the NCSE, People for the American Way, and countless other Darwin only activists. But not any more.

Now that they think they’ve succeeded in suppressing ID and stifling any dissent from Darwinism from being discussed in science classes, it’s apparently time to rethink that idea of letting such ideas be discussed anywhere on campus at all. Three years after endorsing censoring science classes and relegating intelligent design to discussion in social studies, the NCSE is now flip-flopping and praising censorship of social studies classes as well.

Social studies may, at first glance, seem to be a better fit for this approach to teaching intelligent design, but the same constitutional issues arise whether religious beliefs are taught in science or in the social studies curriculum. -- National Council for Social Studies

The NCSE and the NCSS have made it quite clear that they see no room for any discussion of intelligent design anywhere in schools today. Not in science, not in social studies, and if the Darwinists have their way, not in lunchrooms, hallways or on the front steps either. It seems they won't be satisfied until non-Darwinian thoughts are banished from students' minds altogether.

Try as they might, they can’t ban thinking about intelligent design. Thoughtful students will continue to explore what is so dangerous about this idea that no one can even be allowed to whisper its name.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Teleologist:

Is Intelligent Design Such a Dangerous Idea That It Must Not Be Thought?

It is not so much that it must not be thought. Rather, it is the absence of thought. Faith (a.k.a. Intelligent Design) involves the suspension of critical thinking. Therefore, I suppose that Intelligent Design is something that you "feel" rather than actually think.

 

[10yrtrader]

I notice and think that proof of ID is found when I ponder that everything that is "manmade" cars, buildings, companies, etc. so and and so forth, occurs due to someone and someone's intelligence shaping it and making it from raw(er) materials.

I think its the same thing with all of creation. I think there is an intelligence creating and knowing all of creation. We will never truly know the person who has this supreme intelligence and knowledge without bhakti yoga, loving service to that person, some call this person Krishna. So all of this mental speculation does not solve anything, the goal of knowledge is love of God.

 

[Turok]

10yr:
>...the goal of knowledge is love of God.

Nyet!

My goals are much, much higher and far more significant.

JB

 

[stu]

Quote from Turok:
Whether people realize it or not, almost all arguments and disagreements revolve around definitions.
JB

Quote from Teleologist:
Yes, and notice that Stu refuses to give us his definition of creationist.

Um No tele. Notice that you ignore my definition after you you asked for it and my giving it you. It remains there about halfway down page 525

That might well be because it is a definition that in all honesty, you may well know should be conceded as it fits truly enough.

 

[stu]

• First it is "teleological causation" ....

Quote from Teleologist:
If a detective finds a dead body with a knife stuck it its back the detective is going to infer a design event. In other words, the person died because someone intented it. This is teleological causation.

• Then it isn't....

Quote from Teleologist:

You're confusing your scenario with mine. In my scenario the detective makes an initial inference to teleological causation which 99.9% of the time would be correct. But this is not the final conclusion. This is the beginning of an investigation. I never said a design inference is alway 100% accurate. The point of the illustration was that in certain cases a design inference is warranted and worth investigating. No one is saying that an investigation couldn't uncover evidence that would prove an initial design inference wrong.

You now have this "teleological causation" as only sometimes correct. as against the actual cause which will be correct 100% of the time.
In this scenario it only requires accidental or natural death and your "teleological causation" is wrong 100% of the time.

The detective may just as well have made an inference of a divine intervention, or an inference of a malevolent spirit intervention , or an inference of a supernatural self-propelled knife force intervention.
They all would hold equally as much valuable conclusory evidence as a teleological causation design event That is to say, none at all.

In actuality, - Teleology/ID/Creationism - are no more than doctrines of imagined hypotheticals, of which there are countless others, Some of which being just as nonsensical though, at least sound a little more plausible..

Quote from Teleologist:
The point of the illustration was that in certain cases a design inference is warranted and worth investigating.

Unfortunately for your point tele, the point of your illustration completely fails.
Once you do actually look at evidence, and stop dreaming about possibilities of weird , irrelevant farfetched "teleological causation events", you may notice what is actually happening.
Furthermore it gets worse for teleology in your example. The detective later learns that the knife did not kill the guy, as he was already dead before it entered his back.
How? Do you think our brilliant sleuth now thinks "teleological causation" comes back into its own here ? If he did he would be wrong yet again! Would that reduce the thing down to 98% correct?

Quote from Teleologist:
The point of the illustration was that in certain cases a design inference is warranted and worth investigating..

In certain cases an accident would be described as " an act of god". But there has never been any substantial evidence whatsoever to justify any inference nor confirm there is any such thing.
More realistically these are now often described as natural events, and real reasons for warranted investigation of them are everywhere.
These events do have the added bonus of overwhelming evidence and a distinct advantage for all concerned by not being part of an ID'ers mind phantom.

Teleology/ID/Creationism, only ever warrants one circular question
Wot ID ID's ID?
only warrants one realistic but nonetheless useless answer
ID ID'd ID

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:
No, your argument is silly. Design is design. How does fairy design differ from human-like design? While there is an obvious connection between intelligent engineers and things like machines, I don’t see the connection between fairies and machines. Unless of course, you want to envision such entities as intelligent engineers, in which case, their fairyishness is irrelevant.

If my argument is silly it is only because it is structured exactly the same as yours. It exemplifies your own argument for ID. If mine is silly tele, then I'm afraid yours was silly first.

How does fairy design differ from human-like design?, The very nature of Fairy Design is that you cannot tell any difference. You can however tell the difference from natural design and intelligent design. Natural design does not require or necessitate a designer. Whereas intelligent design does. (it just so happens those intelligent designers are Fairy whereas Behe and his apologists think it as God)

So you agree there is an obvious connection between intelligent engineers and things like machines, but only because there is evidence which obviously and overwhelmingly supports specific cases of it.
So why don't you see the connection between Fairies and machines? Is it because you do not have any - what you like to call - inference - or any evidence for it.?
Contradictorily you say inference or evidence of Intelligent Design and (biological) machines can be made, even though you do not have any evidence for it.

When you say "design is design", why go on to argue for design by intelligence without the firm evidence for such a thing?
In that way , intelligent is just as irrelevant as fairyishness.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Stu wrote:


So you can never infer design in any case? You don't think this post is the result of a teleological process? I guess you think it best to stop the regress of explanation at the computer screen itself.

Your argument for intelligent design is nothing to do with specific provable instances of design you mention here. Yours is to argue that things which evidentially do not necessitate intelligent design right down to the nth degree, must still need intelligent design.

No I don't think your post is the result of teleological process. That is just wordplay. A "teleological process" will be a doctrine explaining events by their results or purpose. It would just as likely mean a non-intelligent computer designed everything so you had to eventually make the post. In all those sorts of "processes" I prefer the alternative explanations which Fairy Design provides. FD is after all, far more meaningful.

 

[stu]

Quote from 10yrtrader:

I notice and think that proof of ID is found when I ponder that everything that is "manmade" cars, buildings, companies, etc. so and and so forth, occurs due to someone and someone's intelligence shaping it and making it from raw(er) materials.

I think its the same thing with all of creation.

If that were the case, don't you think someone and someone's intelligence would likewise be needed to design the creator?
That someone would too need someone and someone's intelligence to design Itself.
Those ID infinite regress turtles are forever showing up.

 

[pattersb]

pretty god damn funny in the context of this debate:

I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange


one wonders if his artificial life will worship him as an omnipotent deity.

it wasn't long ago man was illuminating his homes with burning whale oil. It's amazing anyone has the balls to believe in anything, or rather, disbelieve in anything.