What is "Intelligent Design"?

[Phred]

With the threads that are going on re: Expelled and whether or not ID is science I'm wondering... What do you think ID is?

[Phred]

If you're going to teach this to your children, what do you teach?

[angela in ohio]

I am part of that group of people who think ID is bunk and believe in creation, plain and simple. :001_smile:

I don't know anyone who teaches "ID" IRL, actually. I know many creationists, though. That may explain a lack of answers...

[TXMomof4]

This is a little murky to me. I am a Christian. I believe God created the world. I always assumed (yes, I know what happens when you assume something) that ID meant that there was a creator and there is 'proof' of that. To me, evolution = creation from nothing. That doesn't settle well with me scientifically or spiritually. However, now the argument *seems* to me that evolutionist can't tell where we came from, but that we are different now than when we started. I think that's a given. I think genetics cause these changes. The terminology is what gets me. I call it adaption, in scientific lingo it's called microevolution.

When I teach this to my kiddos, I will be very honest. I believe God created the universe and everything in it. We are all descended from common ancestors, it's being proved genetically right now. God created those ancestors. I want them to be firm in their belief about God, and at age appropriate times be able to research and understand the arguments for and against both claims. But paramount to me is the understanding of God.

So much of ID completely discounts any adaptive changes that I have a hard time taking the 'theory' any more seriously than I do the idea that I am descended from an amoeba.

My 2 cents. I think the statement that the wisdom of man is God's folly is probably more true than we can begin to imagine.

[WTMindy]

I wonder why this thread has a one star rating when only one person had answered. That is odd. It is a fair question!

Here is my idea, although I make no claim to be an expert. ID is re-packaged creationism. Evolution has the reputation for being "scientific" while creationism is not. ID is an attempt to present scientific evidence for a creator. It attempts to take religion out and just go with scientific proof that the universe must have a creator. I personally don't know any ID supporters that are not Christian, but I know there are some.

Usually, I stay out of this topic because I think it is a pointless argument. The only thing I believe for sure is that God created the world. How he did it, or how long he took, I can't not say with any given certainty. Could he have done it in 6 short days? You bet! Did he? I don't know. The information on both sides is biased and difficult to sort through for truth.

Personally, I don't want to make the mistake of the early church, who refused to believe that the earth was not the center of the universe even when it flew in the face of scientific discovery. However, I also do not want to believe something that is contrary to scripture. So, I walk a fine line when I teach my children. I tell them I don't really know how old the earth is, but I believe God created it.

[Charon]

I wonder why this thread has a one star rating when only one person had answered. That is odd. It is a fair question!

Here is my idea, although I make no claim to be an expert. ID is re-packaged creationism. Evolution has the reputation for being "scientific" while creationism is not. ID is an attempt to present scientific evidence for a creator. It attempts to take religion out and just go with scientific proof that the universe must have a creator. I personally don't know any ID supporters that are not Christian, but I know there are some.


It is not re-packaged creationism. Creationism is really the christian fundamentalist view that the world is only however old it supposedly is in the bible based on a literal interpretation of the bible. That is "young earth" creationism and I am aware of other versions of it, but that is the source of creationism. It is an invention of certain groups of protestant Christians and it is derived from the bible and it is recent, relatively speaking.

Intelligent Design is more like re-packaged 3000 years of theology and metaphysics. Some people that adovocated intelligent design:

Plato
Aristotle
Cicero (author of the Sundial Analogy now going by "Watchmaker")
Augustine
Aquinas
Newton's watchmaker was blind but existed nevertheless
Descartes

Really, for that matter, almost everyone prior to 1800, say, unless they were noted atheists would probably agree with some sort of intelligent design theory of the universe.

In fact, we should probably all read the Discovery Institute FAQ (http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php) and get what Intelligent Design means from those that advocate it.


Usually, I stay out of this topic because I think it is a pointless argument. The only thing I believe for sure is that God created the world. How he did it, or how long he took, I can't not say with any given certainty. Could he have done it in 6 short days? You bet! Did he? I don't know. The information on both sides is biased and difficult to sort through for truth.

Personally, I don't want to make the mistake of the early church, who refused to believe that the earth was not the center of the universe even when it flew in the face of scientific discovery. However, I also do not want to believe something that is contrary to scripture. So, I walk a fine line when I teach my children. I tell them I don't really know how old the earth is, but I believe God created it.


Incidentally, you know why the early church made that mistake? It was because they were dogmatically using Plato's Theory of the Spheres. And the reason they were doing that is because they were largely noeplatonists (e.g. Augustine was a neoplatonist). All the way back in 200 BC Aristarchus of Samos had a heliocentric theory. It just didn't get selected for in the market place of ideas at the time. That may be because the market place wasn't as good back then at selecting good ideas. (In other words, it may be that people just went with Plato because he was the best all the way around as opposed to today where we can pick and choose more and go with Plato on Epistemology or something, maybe, but Godel on logic and Steven Hawking on cosmology and so on.)

In other words, it wasn't some sort of religious quackery that caused it. It was widely regarded as true contrary to other, better theories at the time and for some time, and they just built it into church doctrine. If you have to pick one person to follow, then I'll certainly tolerate something like geocentrism over not even knowing what constitutes knowledge, for instance. I would certainly take the mathematics and philosophy of the Platonists over the largely pervasive pseudo science and huckstery of the day. And, the choices were a lot more like that back then because there were no well established peer reviewed academic journals and what not. There wasn't a well established way of determining authorities or experts on things like there is today. And, everything tended to be highly philosophical.

[Peek a Boo]

i agree w/ Charon that it is always best to study the source of whatever theory is out there.

we will be studying the many current theories available WRT evolution and origins of the universe, both on teh secular and religious sides. I've already stated my opinion elsewhere, but I'll be teaching that God did it....whatever "It" turns out to be.

From that POV, it will be treated as scientific in our household as God is The Ultimate Scientist :D But they will be told that what we consider truth and what Others consider Truth are not necessarily going to mix, so they will be prepared to let terminology reign supreme in whatever scientific community they end up in. Kinda like even tho i am staunchly pro-life, i believe the scientific terms actually bolster the pro-life movement-- that we don't need to shy away from terms like blastocyst, embryo, and fetus.

it all eventually points to God, so it's all good ;)

[Jill, OK]

Personally, I don't want to make the mistake of the early church, who refused to believe that the earth was not the center of the universe even when it flew in the face of scientific discovery. However, I also do not want to believe something that is contrary to scripture. So, I walk a fine line when I teach my children.

Exactly how I feel.

The Bible says in Genesis 1: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

So...did life form in the ocean, and move onto land? Did the 'ingredients' for life come from the ocean, and coalesce on land? What the heck is an 'open firmament'? Was the atmosphere different then? Did it affect creation?

I don't know. And the Bible doesn't go into any more detail, so I don't attempt to perform any further exegesis on those verses.

But I think it's interesting to investigate what people have discovered about the origins of life, scientifically. As long as it's kept in context, and taken with a grain of salt.

And the 'taking it with a grain of salt' isn't just because I have a faith that tells me it's okay not to know everything, and whatever happens, God is in control. That's a part of it, but even if I wasn't a Christian, I'd look at the past, at stories of the greatest scientific minds of a particular age believing in weird humors, or that bloodletting was a great cure-all, and I'd think "What are folks going to be laughing at us about, in 150 years?" ;-)

Although I should qualify that by saying that as time goes on, I believe we get further and further away from the GOOFY ideas that seemed to be great scientific discoveries at one time; Eliana's post (in the other thread) about how science has developed to the point of helping humans raise their quality of life, and extend the life span, itself, was a great one, and I agree with it, totally.

But I also agree with one of the world's most famous scientists, and what he said, which is repeated in my signature line. :-)

And I'm comfortable admitting that, because of my faith. I think that sometimes, there are folks who place that same kind of faith that others have in God, in science, itself, which I think is tricky, because when it comes right down to it, it's a human construct. Something we've defined ourselves, as we struggle to understand the world we live in. It's a worthwhile pursuit, and I'm glad for those who have made it their lives' work, because it's making the world a better place...but it ain't the end all, be all, when kept to itself, without the context of the rest of the world, and the "Big Picture".

Back to the original question...I teach my kids the Bible, I teach them science (to the best of my ability; outsourcing in high school, although I'm going to try to continue to learn, too), and I tell them that somewhere, somehow, these two things intersect, just like everything else in the world.

I just don't know exactly where, or how. It's a work of discovery in progress, for us, and the rest of the word.

[Charon]

If you're going to teach this to your children, what do you teach?


Intelligent design represents little more than a certain kind of argument for the existence of god. If you taught it, you could probably teach an enormous volume of philosophy as it turns out. So, it is hard to answer just what you would teach beyond just questioning certain arguments for atheism, materialism, empiricism, and/or postivism. It could be all sorts of things from ancient times to this very day.

Now, I should come out and confess that I do not actually advocate intelligent design, myself. However, its intellectual roots are indisputable. It may not be science, but science is an unreliable Jonny-Come-Lately to intellectual life. It really is. I'm not talking about Newtonian Mechanics being overturned by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I'm talking about a great deal of pseudo-science becoming widely accepted into mainstream "science", about how science is strongly susceptible to political and social influences, about stuff that scientists say and that their books say that are fallacious and internally inconsistent. But, above all, I am talking about how the advocates of science, materialism and empiricism seem to go around absurdly dismissing long well-established intellectual and academic traditions and entire fields of inquiry that have more than adequately withstood scrutiny and the test of time in a way that many of their ideas cannot and have not.

I would say that there does seem to be a larger agenda of the Intelligent Design movement. It is not to teach young earth creationism. It is much more about stamping out positivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism). And, personally, I don't really contest that. In my opinion, positivism is a bunch of bad, poorly thought-out ideas based on philosophical skepticism which is ironically the antithesis of science and knowledge usually dessed up to look like science. In fact, positivism is one of the few things in the world that makes me wonder if there really isn't a diabolical demon or devil insidiously working behind the scenes to orchestrate mankind's downfall. (No offense to any positivists out there.)

[Phred]

So really, we've gone back and forth for several days about Intelligent Design and not one person out knows what it actually is.

[Charon]

So really, we've gone back and forth for several days about Intelligent Design and not one person out knows what it actually is.


It is the view that some structures that would otherwise seem to occur naturally (i.e. were not created by man), specifically with regard to biology, are so complex and/or sophisticated that they must have been designed by an intelligent designer (which we refer to as God or some have imagined that it was multiple such designers). (This is a common and ancient argument for the existence of god.)

What do you think it is?

[Peek a Boo]

In fact, we should probably all read the Discovery Institute FAQ (http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php) and get what Intelligent Design means from those that advocate it.


um, the definition was linked, so apparently there's at least ONE person who does know. I thought Charon gave a pretty well summed-up answer. Did you want a string of dittos to that? [no snark, just a simple question --promise!]
I just answered a bit more in response to what was shared in subsequent posts from your OP :)

I'm sure there are some Trekkies who might want to use the ID idea to say that we were all created by aliens.

I'm sure there are some w/ a misunderstanding of ID, Creation, God, and evolution. That happens. Like when you mentioned elsewhere that reading scripture as literal or not is basically a power trip: not really, but ok, that's what you think :)

But if you want to make sure that a specific person understands the definition, I would suggest you simply clarify the idea with them before continuing the discussion: establish a frame of reference.

would you feel better if we actually spelled out the definition? So it was in plain sight on This Board?



1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS's "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.

3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.

4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director's piece " Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same"in Research News & Opportunities.

[Jill, OK]

...I said "back to the original question", and didn't answer part of it; What do I understand ID to be?

I thought that it was simply adding in the possibilty that an outside (intelligent) force might have been involved in creating the universe (beginning life on Earth, whatever).

From what I'm understanding, from those who explain 'real' science, and say that such an insertion makes it 'not science', the premise that there absolutely could NOT have been an outside force involved seems to be every bit as philosophical as Intelligent Design. If you're not able to exclude such a premise...can't it be possible, or allowable (there's my 'able' words, again)?

If that's not accurate, or 'sciency'...I'm sure someone can tell me why, lol. ;-)

(That's good-natured kidding, btw).

[pixelroper]

It is the view that some structures that would otherwise seem to occur naturally (i.e. were not created by man), specifically with regard to biology, are so complex and/or sophisticated that they must have been designed by an intelligent designer (which we refer to as God or some have imagined that it was multiple such designers). (This is a common and ancient argument for the existence of god.)


Have to be lame and ditto this, thank you-- Charon & Peek for their posts and the spirit in which they posted.

The points being made have only bolstered my original stance on any of this. I found the inclusion of 1930/positivism by Charon the most helpful.

As far as what I am teaching my dd, well, I'm hopefully teaching her to think and to have faith, and that neither excludes the other.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

So really, we've gone back and forth for several days about Intelligent Design and not one person out knows what it actually is.

I wouldn't exactly say that. Some of us are ID'd out right now. :)

When I speak of ID, I think of a Prime Mover. But I think others define it with the Mover showing up later than at the Beginning -- later than the "Where did all the Stuff come from" beginning.

[Phred]

Here's the thing. If I ask, "what is evolution?" I should get pretty much a bunch of the same answers. If I ask, "what is the Theory of Evolution?" I'd bet that I'd get pretty much the same answers with some inconsistencies mostly due to the controversy that's going on right now. Either way it could be simply and easily clarified. If I ask, "what are you going to teach your children?" it would be pretty straightforward.

Now, here I ask the same question and several of the answers are about creationism. All well and good but not Intelligent Design. A couple are about how they thought it was evolution but with a guiding hand. Again, fine but not Intelligent Design. Charon asks if ID is really something Dr. Behe came up with called Irreducible Complexity. No, it's not. Charon also brings up many years of philosophy which doesn't really qualify ID as modern science. But let me address that for a moment.

Many scientists and philosophers thought that they saw complexity in biology and therefore called for the need for a designer. These same items that they saw have been shown to have evolved. So we can't continue to call for this "God of the gaps" designer while using their names to lend credence to the concept.

So again, the question still stands... what is Intelligent Design? When I first studied this the question of Mt. Rushmore came up. If the human race suddenly left the earth and aliens then arrived, how would they know that Mt. Rushmore was designed and constructed rather than created by natural processes? Without ever seeing a human how would you know a building wasn't natural? A statue? How do you then apply this sort of logic to biological processes? What are the parameters? In the beginning ID was a mathematical/logical exercise. Then the fundamentalists jumped all over it. They took it away from the scientists.

This all culminated in Dover, PA when the school board tried to insert ID into the classroom. ID eventually lost. A "textbook" in that case, "Of Pandas and People" was of particular note: From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People):

The judge in the Dover trial specifically referred to Pandas in his decision, stating:

“ As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:

(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;
(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times, were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and
(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.

This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content .... The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision.”

—Judge John E. Jones III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Jones_III), Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

So as you can see... ID and Creationism are the same thing in the eyes of those that write the textbooks which is the same as those that have been linked to here. Discovery.org gives no different definition than that of "And Pandas and People".

Lastly, Dr. Behe was a witness in the Dover trial. Here is the summary of his testimony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District):

October 17-19
Michael Behe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe) was the first witness for the defense. Behe is professor of Biochemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry) at Lehigh University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehigh_University) in Pennsylvania, and a leading intelligent design proponent who coined the term irreducible complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity) and set out the idea in his book Darwin's Black Box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#cite_note-15)As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_examination), where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred", and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology) would qualify as a theory by definition as well. His simulation modeling of evolution with Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute) amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design", but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.
For more details on this topic, see Michael Behe#Dover testimony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony).

So I don't know that I could teach my kids "Intelligent Design". "Goddidit" I could teach... but ID is so undefined and basically just a cover for creationism.

[Texas T]

[quote=Jill, OK;171328]Exactly how I feel.

And I'm comfortable admitting that, because of my faith. I think that sometimes, there are folks who place that same kind of faith that others have in God, in science, itself, which I think is tricky, because when it comes right down to it, it's a human construct. Something we've defined ourselves, as we struggle to understand the world we live in. It's a worthwhile pursuit, and I'm glad for those who have made it their lives' work, because it's making the world a better place...but it ain't the end all, be all, when kept to itself, without the context of the rest of the world, and the "Big Picture".

quote]

<Bold emphasis above is mine> Precisely!!! I agree with all you said and WTMindy's post was great too. I have a hard time jumping in with both feet to something that counters God's Word...I've seen scientific theories of the past blown out of the water too often. I realize fully that humans don't have it all figured out, even extremely intelligent scientists. Today's great discovery might be discovered to be wrong next century (or next year) :)

[Charon]

...I said "back to the original question", and didn't answer part of it; What do I understand ID to be?

I thought that it was simply adding in the possibilty that an outside (intelligent) force might have been involved in creating the universe (beginning life on Earth, whatever).

From what I'm understanding, from those who explain 'real' science, and say that such an insertion makes it 'not science', the premise that there absolutely could NOT have been an outside force involved seems to be every bit as philosophical as Intelligent Design. If you're not able to exclude such a premise...can't it be possible, or allowable (there's my 'able' words, again)?

If that's not accurate, or 'sciency'...I'm sure someone can tell me why, lol. ;-)

(That's good-natured kidding, btw).


So, just so that I can make sure and disagree with everyone, I will say a few things about evolution and ID. It is true that ID has a long and venerable history in Academia. However, I do think that it is not a scientific theory and I do think that evolution -- all of evolution, even macro-evolution -- is such a theory. ID is more of a meta-scientific theory which is why it belongs in philosophy. On the other hand, "There exists an external world" -- is that a scientific question? Or do you need to already know that to do science? "The external world is deterministic" -- again, I would argue it is a tenet of science (the standard ripost concerning Quantum Mechanics, notwithstanding), but does the proposition really belong to science? In a regular high school science class, a lot of these things are just kind of taken for granted. In fact, these issues are so ignored that one could get a PhD in physics or chemistry or biology and never even know what sorts of (very plausible) assumptions go into forming the basis of their scientific pursuits.

Nevertheless, evolution is scientific. Macro-evolution is like astronomy. We don't really do experiments so much as make observations and predictions. That really is quite a bit different than firing electrons through slits or introducing a chemical to a bacterial culture or even breeding fruit flies. Nevertheless, it is part of science, I think, because it is empirical and "testable" in the sense that one can provide evidence and reason to form strong arguments in defense of various propositions that eventually even become widely accepted while others become "debunked". Intelligent Design could be a scientific assertion inasmuch as perhaps some bological experimenting demonstrates some of this "irreducible complexity" the modern day proponents keep talking about. It largely has not been, though, and there really isn't much accepted in mainstream science along those lines. Conversely, evolution is all over the place.

Now it is worth noting a couple more things here. If you read the sources on this, they will say that they aren't necessarily at odds with evolution, in general -- just neo-Darwinism. While I do think that is a plenty salient point, I would also counter that there isn't a bright line between evolution-inspired non-science and just the regular scientific evolution like there is between the science part of evolution and the intelligent design that may be compatible with it. Even neo-Darwinism has more going for it specifically as science than Intelligent Design does (at least going by the literature). And, it does make a lot more specific and measurable (and far less grandiose) assertions. In fact, the very principle of Intelligent Design is that we stop looking for causes and reasons for outcomes and explain it all away with the designer. That is antithetical to the very idea of science. And, I think it, inherently, will take a metascientific (i.e. philosophical or mathematical) argument to show such a thing has happened -- that we have, indeed, gotten to a point that we can no longer do science. So, I really don't see how ID can ever be science by its very nature. And, conversely, no matter how sophisticated of a process we concoct for how natural selection produces the outcomes we see, does it not just Beg the Question to deny Intelligent Design? The process of natural selection, itself, is a complex outcome, for instance.

(Now, I will also give the disclaimer that I do not adhere to Intelligent Design, so obviously I think there is a pretty good rebuttal, for instance, to that last remark. Ultimately, I do not believe ID works out as an argument. I just respect it is all....)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

So I don't know that I could teach my kids "Intelligent Design". "Goddidit" I could teach... but ID is so undefined and basically just a cover for creationism.


Wait... please clarify. You say you could teach that God did it -- and by the way, "Goddidit" would be over the top offensive and dismissive to me if I were a "God did it" person, sorta like people who write "Jeebus" in the way that tries to make people of faith look all stupid -- but you could not teach creationism?

You couldn't teach six day creationism? But you could teach that there may have been something or someone "in the beginning," i.e. "God did it"?

I could discuss both -- have, do -- but I don't much see the difference. Is it simply that ID has been co-opted by people who are using a deliberate wrong to try to teach in a backdoor way what they believe is right? I can see this being an issue at school, say, but less so in a home school setting. It seems that all the bases (and specifics of one's own faith) would be covered in a home education environment.

[Eliana]

I've heard the term used so many ways!

Sometimes I hear it used in ways that are indistinguishable from creationism, but not always.

In trying to frame a discussion about it, I used the definition given by the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/):


The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study an analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research begins by observing the type of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists investigating design then seek to find objects which have the same type of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

[Charon]

So I don't know that I could teach my kids "Intelligent Design". "Goddidit" I could teach... but ID is so undefined and basically just a cover for creationism.



Well, that's just not true. Intelligent Design is the teleological argument for the existence of God. It goes all the way back. That a bunch of creationists champion that agrument now is irrelevant. That there are all these legal battles surrounding it is also irrelevant. What intelligent design is may even be more well-established than what science is, for that matter.

If you ask the Intelligent Design advocates what they would teach (i.e. what they are apparently fighting in court for) then I think they will give as good of an answer as what people who want to teach evolution would give. And, I don't think that anyone's answer is really all that straight forward. It is less straight forward than what you teach to teach math or even to teach geometry or even just to teach the pythagorean theorem -- one specific thing in one specific subtopic of the subject. And, we have, indeed, ended up in quite distinct multiple outcomes because of its lack of straight-forwardness. What you would teach in history -- even less straight forward.

People saying that "Intelligent Design" is just creationism or even as you say "goddidit" is a pretty obvious bastardization of it. You cannot dismiss 3000 years of the greatest minds to walk the Earth that easily. But, you will definitely have to crawl out of your nich of science and do something probably quite alien, namely philosophy, to really be able to understand it at all.

Widespread disagreement about a topic just shows a lack of understanding of a topic -- not that the topic is subjective or undefined.

[Peek a Boo]

If you're going to teach this to your children, what do you teach?


I think it was the quote above that pretty much shut down any real answers, lol. It doesn't sound like many people ARE teaching ID. At least, none that have seen or chosen to respond to this thread ;) The weekend's still young! The answers you've received are about people who will be teaching Creationism *instead* of ID: angela in OH clarified that. Charon offered more info.

you posted "So really, we've gone back and forth for several days about Intelligent Design and not one person out knows what it actually is." after getting only, what....5 responses? after you clarified yuor question w/ 'if you'll be teaching this...." ---that sounds *to me* like quite a few people teaching Creationism actually DO know there's a difference, and since this thread wasn't directed at them, they chose to not respond. The board rules state to not butt in to a thread if it isn't directed towards you and you can't offer anything about the specific intent. Since I intend to teach it, I don't mind posting :)


I mean, I'll teach it cuz as you mentioned --people need to understand exactly what it is that is out there, no matter how far out there it is. I believe it is absolutely important to represent an idea faithfully, even if i don't agree with it. And i prefer to use original source material for that.

and Pam, i have to say I thought the Goddidit wording was great, but I don't find euphemisms to be troubling either. Whole nother thread there......euphemisms and humor don't bother me. Even some irreverent humor. The One True Faith thing? that was classic. I absolutely believe God has a sense of humor --He gave us atheists ;P


ok, ok, not that I'm laughing AT atheists, but I like the irony of the joke.....

go ahead and smack me now!

**handing out chocolate to my atheist and pagan boardies**

[Eliana]

. I have a hard time jumping in with both feet to something that counters God's Word...I've seen scientific theories of the past blown out of the water too often. I realize fully that humans don't have it all figured out, even extremely intelligent scientists. Today's great discovery might be discovered to be wrong next century (or next year) :)

But this is why (in the other ID thread) I said:

"What I *believe* about creation, evolution, and the origin of species is entirely separate from what I accept as scientifically sound. I wouldn't say that I 'believe' in Darwinian evolution, nor would I say I 'believe' in the Theory of Relativity. They are sound scientific theories and provide good models and frameworks for scientific learning and research. They *work* - for now. No one can say that we might not need to revise or replace either of them (the Theory of Relativity is at greater risk of extinction at the moment than that of evolution, though), but that possibility doesn't lessen their validity at all."

Accepting that the Theory of Evolution is the scientific model to explain certain aspects of what we know and understand about the universe does not mean we accept it as Truth. Science is, and always will be, a work in progress; it is, as Jill said, a human construct - our imperfect, but, imho, beautiful attempt to comprehend G-d's Creation - and an ever evolving one, but that does not mean it is valueless. Recognizing the limits of scientific understanding, of human understanding, doesn't make high standards and rigorous study purposeless.

I think that harm enough has been done in the past by religious opposition to science it found threatening. Science cannot threaten G-d! ...and if there are those who put the faith some of us believe belongs to G-d in science, that doesn't make science itself wrong.

[Peek a Boo]

OH! and i guess, if you want to find out what Creationists think/thought of ID, starting a thread that asks "If you teach Religious Creationism, what were your assumptions about ID?" I've seen plenty of evidence out there that many gals and guys on this board are willing to share how their opinions and knowledge have changed and grown. Shoot, I've had plenty of questions and assumptions about a lot of things. Still do on some subjects/topics. i mean, I'll bet that at one point even YOU had assumptions about ID ;)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

and Pam, i have to say I thought the Goddidit wording was great, but I don't find euphemisms to be troubling either. Whole nother thread there......euphemisms and humor don't bother me. Even some irreverent humor. The One True Faith thing? that was classic. I absolutely believe God has a sense of humor --He gave us atheists ;P


ok, ok, not that I'm laughing AT atheists, but I like the irony of the joke.....

go ahead and smack me now!

**handing out chocolate to my atheist and pagan boardies**

I think Phred was looking for a simple answer when he asked what one would teach children. Instead of, say, the complicated one from DI, or whatnot.

The idea of a god without a sense of humor is more than my agnostic mind can wrap around.

And I, of course, hating humor as I do, didn't get the joke.

Ok, actually, I think humor is funny as long as the person being poked at is also laughing. (ETA: I wasn't talking about your joke about athiests, though. I'm not laughing, but only because I'm not in the mood, not because it was particularly offensive. ETAmore: And dangit, that still sounds snarky. It isn't meant to be. I'm just tired. I slept almost the whole day to day and am counting the hours until I can go to bed again and not risk waking up at 3 a.m. What am I going to do when I start having to work 12 hour shifts? Arrrghhh!)

[Peek a Boo]

And dangit, that still sounds snarky. It isn't meant to be. I'm just tired. I slept almost the whole day to day and am counting the hours until I can go to bed again and not risk waking up at 3 a.m. What am I going to do when I start having to work 12 hour shifts? Arrrghhh!)


No problem, lol!

sweet dreams pam :)

[Tami]

naturalism. ID answers the questions, "How did we get here?" or "How did dthe universe begin?" with the answer with "an intelligent designer."

ID opens up the possibility of an open system in which it may be possible that the world as we know it was not made by random chance and time alone.


This topic is getting a little beaten, as in to death. :001_smile:

[Phred]

Wait... please clarify. You say you could teach that God did it -- and by the way, "Goddidit" would be over the top offensive and dismissive to me if I were a "God did it" person, sorta like people who write "Jeebus" in the way that tries to make people of faith look all stupid -- but you could not teach creationism?

You couldn't teach six day creationism? But you could teach that there may have been something or someone "in the beginning," i.e. "God did it"?

I could discuss both -- have, do -- but I don't much see the difference. Is it simply that ID has been co-opted by people who are using a deliberate wrong to try to teach in a backdoor way what they believe is right? I can see this being an issue at school, say, but less so in a home school setting. It seems that all the bases (and specifics of one's own faith) would be covered in a home education environment.
I do apologize if I offended anyone. What I meant was that I could easily teach evolution or I could easily teach that a god guided evolution. I can't teach something that isn't defined.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I do apologize if I offended anyone. What I meant was that I could easily teach evolution or I could easily teach that a god guided evolution. I can't teach something that isn't defined.

Yeah, me too. I could easily discuss it with my older kids, though.

[mcconnellboys]

I'm an old earther who believes in "evolution" or "natural selection" in that I do believe that things have changed form and function over time and continue to do so. I believe that the account in Genesis jibes remarkably well with the fossil record that exists today, save that I do not interpret "day" to mean the 24 hour solar day that we currently use in our calendar (but only since relatively recent times). Not that I think it *has* to correlate, but I happen to think that it does.

I do not believe, and see no evidence of, life having begun "spontaneously" at some point in time. What is life at its most basic level? I don't think we've found anything more basic as a controlling unit than DNA. I don't think we have any sound evidence that DNA spontaneously or otherwise came together on its own to form the foundation for life.

I'm not necessarily advocating Behe's position, either, but tend to think that there may be particles even smaller than the basic DNA unit that we cannot yet see or understand. We don't understand thoroughly the workings of the larger organs of the human body, and we certainly don't fully understand the body at the molecular level. I simply do not think there's enough evidence to make a definitive statement that life on earth arose spontaneously.

I think God's hand is in every aspect of the universe, from the big bang through the creation of DNA, and every higher level organism created from that point on, to the changes that are ongoing within living organisms today. I do think that DNA (or some smaller, as yet unidentified unit that makes up DNA) is the map, brain, or coordinating unit for this change. But I believe that God is woven into the very atomic structure of DNA....

[Phred]

I've heard the term used so many ways!

Sometimes I hear it used in ways that are indistinguishable from creationism, but not always.

In trying to frame a discussion about it, I used the definition given by the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/):
Wow... Let's examine that, shall we?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,
That's not a 'theory' it's an idea. What features of the universe and living things? Where, when and why? What is the "intelligent cause" and where can it be found?

not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Natural selection is hardly an "undirected process". It's just not directed by a deity.

Through the study an analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.
Except when they can't. Which is most of the time. That isn't to say they aren't working on it...

Such research begins by observing the type of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists investigating design then seek to find objects which have the same type of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.
Which doesn't always apply to other objects, as we've seen.

Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures,
And failed miserably. As we've seen in the Dover, PA trial.

the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
530 million years ago when organisms finally developed bodies hard enough to fossilize.

[mcconnellboys]

As you point out, ID did not begin as a "cover" for creationism. You are correct that this is what it has become. It's only been within the past year, I guess, that I realized that the meaning of ID was being coerced and changed. Until that time, I had identified myself as ID for several years; but I can't do that any longer.

[mcconnellboys]

Try to bring back the god in you to the Divine in the All......

[Phred]

As you point out, ID did not begin as a "cover" for creationism. You are correct that this is what it has become. It's only been within the past year, I guess, that I realized that the meaning of ID was being coerced and changed. Until that time, I had identified myself as ID for several years; but I can't do that any longer.
Amen sistah!

[mcconnellboys]

Now, see, this is what I always *thought* when I said ID; so how has it gotten so mixed up with creationism?

[nancypants]

Oops.

[Phred]

Now, see, this is what I always *thought* when I said ID; so how has it gotten so mixed up with creationism?
To answer your question I send you here.
(http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html)

[CLHCO]

Speaking strictly from what I understand based on the scientists I've read who have studied this, not personal opinion, when you get to the place where people really are at a loss for how the first life began and scientists start to speculate how these astronomically impossible odds of lots of things coming together just right and one scientist says "Maybe it was planted here from outer space", the ID person would say, "Looks like it may have been designed."

When there is a question as to how you make a leap from a reptile to a warm blooded mammal, some will speculate evolutionary ways it may have happened with mechanisms we don't yet fully understand, others will say, "there was a mechanism, perhaps it was natural, but it looks like a more likely explanation was intentional manipulation because I can't see your explanation even being possible."

Until we can turn a reptile into a mammal with only manipulation that could have happened by itself, we are all guessing. Until we can line up those DNA molecules ourselves from nothing but the amino acids (that we've made also) without unreasonable manipulations that could not have happened by themselves (allowing for experiments to speed up those millions of years), with the available atmosphere and ingredients from millions of years ago, we are speculating, no matter how smartly we're doing it. For some, the leap is just too out there mathematically and say, "it looks manipulated intentionally."

For what it's worth, I don't think ID really does meet the criteria for a solid scientific theory. What it often is, is one possibility for the fillers where things just look pretty far fetched in the Darwinian model because in truth, I don't think the Darwinian model makes the scientific theory in a rock solid way something like gravity does either, though I agree it is science where some say it's purely religion of a different type. Darwinism has too much speculation and problems without something that has been tested on the macro level to the same consistency and success as other scientific theories can be. It's 99% observation and sometimes even the observation has holes in it that gravity does not. Gravity is pretty darn clever stuff that holds up mathematically.

That's my science brain talking. I haven't sifted through Darwin in years, though I was once an agnostic who used to swear by it.

My Christian brain, which I don't separate in science because it does not contradict, says, in faith, it was God. For me, when I look at DNA, I see something that looks very planned out. When I think of the atom and how most things are empty space I think, "Wow". When someone describes hemoglobin, I go "wow". It's all one big "wow" to me and the more I study the more I am amazed. Despite what I've heard many atheists/agnostics say, I don't believe for a second it halts scientific inquiry.

If we found that elusive missing link that some say is still out there and others say was found long ago, it's not about to rock my world even a little. If we find life on Mars it's not going to rock my world either. I believe we have a Creating God and I don't get upset if there are different speculations on how much of it He does and where. I think the study of "how" is amazing and should be continued, but I don't let any one find shake me up.

I'm not a 6-day creationist but I'm not against it and give grace to those who are, which I hope they extend to me, since I have seen how sometimes scientists and theologians get things wrong, even very wrong in their excitement or zeal. I've seen enough of the young earth science to see why some would be able to see through the lens of a world wide flood to explain everything. However, after hearing Ken Ham speak several times at the last homeschool conference, I fear I did not find his Biblical mandate to view creation in 6 days necessary to push all Christians into. There are a few holes in his argument Biblically, though I can't remember off my head what it was that grabbed me at the time. It was a year ago.

I teach all models to my children, not to confuse them, not because I am one who believes truth is relative, but simply because I believe in a bit of humility over all the questions still out there. I also want them to have grace to those who may see it differently. In the end, I lean toward old earth creation but keep my mind open to the possibility I'm wrong and it's young.

[Charon]

To answer your question I send you here.
(http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html)


Why do you think this makes ID out to be creationism? For instance here is an excerpt from the document:


Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.


Is what leads you to believe that ID is just a cover for creationism alluded to or articulated here in this paragraph? Is it that it is the Discovery Institute or something?

[mcconnellboys]

Well, perhaps I'm missing it, but I really don't see them tying ID into creationism at that site. I'll go back and read again....

What I do see from this is that with regard to our talk of "theory", perhaps we have a semantics issue. It seems to me that these ID folks (I'm assuming this Discovery group *is* an ID group, right, and not a creationist group?) are using the term "theory" in the sense of the way physicists work on theories in their minds as ideas; works in progress - rather than the material way in which biologists and chemists test their sorts of "theories"....

I think Einstein perhaps pioneered this way of thinking for physics, but I don't really see it as that different from what the philosophers of ancient Greece were doing a few thousand years ago.... I really tend to think that we will *have* to begin to theorize in this way, using the language of the universe, mathematics, in order to find any meaningful answers to origins - because I think that these will only be found at a sub-sub-atomic level.

[Phred]

It's that in that one document they changed ID from a scientific pursuit to a political/religious one. That's when the fundamentalists took it over. DI is a cover for creationism 2.0.

I'm sorry, we've wandered far afield. I'm still seriously wondering how this can be taught. There isn't enough of it to elucidate it so how can it be taught? All I can see is creationism (old, young or the various flavors) or evolution, atheistic, agnostic or guided. There just isn't an ID anymore. It's a political term nowadays that simply has no meaning outside of discussions such as our other threads.

Am I wrong?

[mcconnellboys]

Okay, is this it?

"5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism
Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God"

I'm not sure that by "traditional doctrine of creation" they mean the literalist approach (i.e., young earth, etc.) to creation..... So I really don't see this as tying ID into creationism.

[pixelroper]

I'm sorry, we've wandered far afield. I'm still seriously wondering how this can be taught. There isn't enough of it to elucidate it so how can it be taught? All I can see is creationism (old, young or the various flavors) or evolution, atheistic, agnostic or guided. There just isn't an ID anymore. It's a political term nowadays that simply has no meaning outside of discussions such as our other threads.

Am I wrong?

I lean in the other direction, there is too much of it, in too many areas to put a fine point on it.

It doesn't matter who is borrowing it.

[Charon]

It's that in that one document they changed ID from a scientific pursuit to a political/religious one. That's when the fundamentalists took it over. DI is a cover for creationism 2.0.

I'm sorry, we've wandered far afield. I'm still seriously wondering how this can be taught. There isn't enough of it to elucidate it so how can it be taught? All I can see is creationism (old, young or the various flavors) or evolution, atheistic, agnostic or guided. There just isn't an ID anymore. It's a political term nowadays that simply has no meaning outside of discussions such as our other threads.

Am I wrong?


In a word, yes. LOL. You don't think that the teleological argument for the existence of god can be taught? Really? Maybe you don't know how to teach it, but it has been taught for a whole lot longer than any kind of modern day science or evolution has. Perhaps the reason you don't know how to teach it is because it is like asking how would you teach someone the use of "diagonal proofs by contradiction" in mathematics such as for the uncountability of the real numbers. Most people don't even know what that is let alone how to teach it. And, it is also not entirely specific. You could teach the specific proof that the real numbers are uncountable, and that may be the most straightforward way to go about it. The Intelligent Design analog would probably be to teach Aquinas' fifth way, I bet. That is sort of the most famous and prolific version of it. But, in both cases, it is one specific argument when the general mode of argumentation is what you are really trying to get at. You could certainly elaborate from there, though, to reading up on the other philosophers that have proposed such arguments of which there are a multitude.

How would you teach evolution (like the theory of the descent of man from apes)? You would do the same kind of thing. It is true that you would use things like fossil evidence that is specifically dug up and analyzed by scientists as opposed to the sundial or watch or something like that which doesn't take a specialist to uncover and analyze. But, you would cover essentially other people's arguments and interpretation of the evidence just like you would with the teleological argument for the existence of god.

In regards to the nature of what you are teaching, they are completely identical. What intelligent design is and how you would go about teaching something like that seems pretty transparent to me, frankly. It is true that it falls more in the field of philosophy than biology, but other than that, I truly don't see what the problem would be.

[mcconnellboys]

I've not advocated attempting to teach in schools that there is a "theory of ID" that we must seriously consider and it's this: x, y, z. I would agree that ID seems to be gaining usage as a political catch phrase.

All I've said since our initial discussion was that I think scientists need to be allowed to pursue their research wherever it leads them without being pressured into towing any sort of party line.

With regard to schools, I also don't think that texts used should be so hardcore in stating "this IS the way it is", which is misleading, as we don't have a complete enough record yet to know precisely how it was..... And if teachers wish to include that there are other thought processes about origins, then I don't think they should be fired for doing so. Now, that doesn't mean I believe that they should be preaching in the classroom, either, but I think some school districts in some states have gone a little overboard with the hard party line regarding neo-Darwinism.

I think you're absolutely right in that you can't teach something that hasn't been solidified enough yet to have any firm things *to* teach. I'm not advocating that we start requiring Behe's very boring Black Box as reading for high school biology (although my son did read it). But I think we do need to allow work to progress, give it serious consideration, and allow teachers the freedom to express that there is work in another area of thought ongoing. When there's more ready, then I think that needs to be presented to the public for review.

I don't know at this point what the original point of the ID movement was, in detail. I know that I always *thought* that it meant creation by a Creator, rather than through random occurrences. I know that some were of the deistic bent and believed that there was no direct involvement from this Creator after the creation point. I have never believed that, as I believe that God is very real and constantly present in all aspects of my life and of all life. I absolutely believe in evolution - or natural selection - that is, slow change over time (or fast, when the need arises, as with the Galapagos finches). And I thought ID believed in that, too. Why couldn't God be directing that? Why would that have to be random?

I believe Him to be the master astrophysicist/ molecular biologist/ and supreme chemist extraordinaire, all rolled into one. I believe that He *is* time, space, energy, motion and body, both corporeal and spirit. I believe that He made the big bang, and laughed. I believe that He has enjoyed every experiment he's conducted on earth since He caused it to coalesce. I believe that He lovingly directs necessary change for good, for survival, of all his creatures. I believe that Cro-Magnon man burst onto the scene in Europe and was different from anything else ever seen before for a reason. I believe that the history of the young earth as our world coalesced comports beautifully and poignantly with the account we are given in Genesis. I believe. And that's what I teach and how I teach it. I teach the Genesis account side by side with a geological account of how the earth became and how early life began. I do not find them to be in disagreement. My high school biology teacher did the same.

[Eliana]

It's that in that one document they changed ID from a scientific pursuit to a political/religious one. That's when the fundamentalists took it over. DI is a cover for creationism 2.0.

I'm sorry, we've wandered far afield. I'm still seriously wondering how this can be taught. There isn't enough of it to elucidate it so how can it be taught? All I can see is creationism (old, young or the various flavors) or evolution, atheistic, agnostic or guided. There just isn't an ID anymore. It's a political term nowadays that simply has no meaning outside of discussions such as our other threads.

Am I wrong?

My first reaction is, yes, I think you are wrong. (But your rebuttal might well convince me otherwise! ;))

Intelligent design holds, aiui, that there are aspects of life which are too complex to have just happened, and that, with enough searching, these will eventually be identified and won't be refutable by "Neo-Darwinian" evolutionary theory (as the examples they've come up with to date keep being).

I also think that the institute promoting ID is pursuing a political rather than scientific process and set of goals, but I believe that ID has met a need in many people... people who recognize and, for the most part, accept evolution as the scientific position (and who may be scientists themselves), but who share that gut-level 'it couldn't have just happened'.feeling, and like the idea of having that validated by scientific seeming language.

[I do not mean that condescendingly... I realized that that is what *my* motivation was for being drawn to ID at first. It was a 'there we are! Science is finally acknowledging what I *knew* for truth...' reaction. Until I began studying it carefully...]

I think it is a very important position to have my children learn about here and now, where we can examine the claims together and see them for what they are.

I know this isn't what the DI has in mind when they lobby for teaching about ID in classrooms... :)

Anyway, I think it is its own category, and, as a philosophical issue Charon is absolutely right, it isn't a new argument... but, as you observed, the old arguments were clearly not scientifically valid (with today's knowledge), so this reincarnation answered an unmet need.

I'm not covering it with my elementary age kids, at the middle school level it depends on the child and the other discussion we end up in as offshoots of our science study, but I feel it is important in high school.... it doesn't take very long, but it serves a useful purpose.

[Virginia Dawn]

If you're going to teach this to your children, what do you teach?

How do I teach it to my children? I say, "I believe God did it." That's it. I tell them that I cannot unequivocally state that I know how and when this universe came into being. Then we move on to the science that is in the (secular) textbooks that we use. I let them make up their own minds as to which philosophy they wish to embrace.

Do I believe there are mistakes in modern science textbooks? You betcha. Just like most history books are woefully one sided and leave out so many details, it's just not possible for every historian, and every scientist, to see the whole picture. There is just too much for any one person to digest. But since we are going for a general educational experience, rather than specific, a textbook is good enough.

I would like to say that this discussion is fundamentally more than the question of origins and processes. It is about humankind. It is about the idea that we are special, set apart, created for a purpose.

You see, behind both the creationist and intelligent design philosophies, as different as they are, is the common belief that everything truly revolves around us, not literally but figuratively. That humankind is the magnum opus of the physical realm. That the universe, the galaxies, the solar system, and the earth are all in place to support our existence. That without the elements being exactly the way they are, where they are, and even the age they are, we would not be here-- which can be proven true by anyone. The question then arises is there a point to existence or isn't there? If there is, what is the point? These are some of the most debated philosophical questions of all time.

Do you see how important the question of origins can be to someone who wants to be able to say, " I am more than the sum of my parts." So important that categorical statements are made in order to avoid losing that which is held so dearly.

[Michelle in MO]

McConnellboys did:

Okay, is this it?

"5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism
Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God"

I'm not sure that by "traditional doctrine of creation" they mean the literalist approach (i.e., young earth, etc.) to creation..... So I really don't see this as tying ID into creationism.

I still don't think you've proven, unequivocally, that creationism is intrinsically linked to ID, specifically in terms of creationism being taught in the schools (as opposed to ID). In my mind, it certainly isn't. There is one phrase in that entire article on The Wedge Theory that mentions this---this one that Mcconnellboys has quoted. Taking that one point and extrapolating it to mean the two are intertwined is quite another leap to make. Now, I would agree with Eliana that there does appear to be an objective, an agenda, behind this. Without further proof that creationism and ID are linked, the argument is marginalized.

However, Phred, you have brought up a very good thread in that we do need a working definition of what intelligent design is and what it isn't.

[Amy in MS]

Hi Phred,
Yeah, ID is tricky. I tend to look it as re-packaged creationism. The term is used, mostly by Christians, from what I can see, to mainstream creationary ideas (perhaps not 6-day, Young-Earthism, but it could easily segue to that sort of thing--which is the point, I believe.) I happen to believe God created the universe. I'm a Christian. But I'm not into ID at all.

Amy

[nmoira]

I still don't think you've proven, unequivocally, that creationism is intrinsically linked to ID, specifically in terms of creationism being taught in the schools (as opposed to ID).But many of the same groups that failed to get creationism into public schools are now pushing ID. The concepts may not be exclusively linked historically and ID may not be inherently a Christian concept, but here and now, in the US, ID is being pushed as a way to bring god into the SCIENCE classrooms of the public schools.