Yet more desperation at the DI

| 160 Comments

In the latest misaimed blast from the Whine and Cheese Division of the Discovery Institute, Michael Francisco expresses shock and dismay at the idea that people would actually claim that Intelligent Design and creationism are the same thing:

Finally, during the debate over [Kentucky Governor] Fletcher’s school board nominees, one House member argued they should “send a message that we are not a state that will fall prey to intelligent design, which is nothing more than creationism.” This argument merely repeats the common misconception that intelligent design and creationism are the same.

With all the effort that those dedicated Discovery Institute folks have put into trying to convince people that ID really isn’t creationism, what could possibly make people think that it is?

Read more (at The Questionable Authority):

160 Comments

How sad, not only are they denouncing God in their insistence that ID is not about God but they are also hiding the obvious fact that ID is all about the supernatural. Just as Minnich who testified at the Dover trial. Remember how Dembski was looking forward to put the vice on evolutionists when under oath? Seems that he sort’a got his wish. Only thing different is that it were the ID activists who had to ‘fess up’

Seems that someone took Dembski’s suggestion to heart and applied it quite effectively. Thank you Bill, Dover could not have been won so successfully without your assistance.

The support for ID from YECs will continue to be an insurmountable problem for IDists. Without YEC support ID would never have left the torpid backwaters of pseudoscience but, with it, they are saddled with a bunch of religious fanatics who will not and cannot toe the official ID party line.

Without YEC support ID would never have left the torpid backwaters of pseudoscience

… for the fetid sewers of pseudoscience, where it thrives now with help from the YECs?

Here’s a question: who is the bigger liar? Casey Luskin or his protege in propaganda, Michael Francisco?

I think Casey remains the master liar. Francisco, sadly, seems far too stupid to reach the heights of intentional misrepresentation scaled so ably by Luskin.

The only thing these two bozos seem capable of remembering is that they are, under no circumstances, allowed to engage commenters in this forum and answer direct questions.

How do I know this?

A little mole told me.

OK, ID is different to creationism - in word count. But when it comes down to detail where is there a difference:

Creationists: the designer did it not too long ago. IDots: the designer did it. Therefore ID=Creationism (but without the detail)

That must be one of those self-evident truths?

On conflating ID with creationism: http://www.idthink.net/back/idc/index.html

There’s the real deal.

FL

People who claim the ID is not creationism are either stupid or dishonest. Pick one.

Mike Gene Wrote:

After all, is it a coincidence that every one who uses the term “Intelligent Design Creationism” also just happens to think that ID is nonsense?

But alas, the converse is not true, since I don’t like to say “Intelligent Design Creationism” and I still think that ID is nonsense. And even more blatantly pseudoscientific than classic creationism. The latter at least makes testable statements about its own positions. But since the tests fail, and the positions are contradictory anyway, the ID scam was born to cover up such “minor inconveniences.”

Bottom line, I’d still prefer that we didn’t say that ID “is” creationism. But if you must say so, please clarify, or risk giving IDers more ammunition to impress their target audience.

Comment #96110

Posted by FL on April 12, 2006 05:12 AM (e)

On conflating ID with creationism:

http://www.idthink.net/back/idc/index.html

There’s the real deal.

Massively unpersuasive. In any movement there will always be fringe elements that gravitate to the cause for reasons that have nothing to do with the cause.

We see this in politics all the time. David Horowitz was a fascist Marxist before he became a fascist Neocon. Horowitz isn’t, nor ever really has been, about the underlying ideology spouting out of his mouth, but the power, fame and wealth he wanted.

In case Mr. Horowitz feels picked upon, he’s just a cliche. There are thousands upon thousands of examples of his kind through-out history. I just pick Mr. Horowitz because he’s one of the most obvious.

On conflating ID with creationism: http://www.idthink.net/back/idc/index.html There’s the real deal.

says FL, an ID-promoting creationist.

On conflating ID with creationism:

Um, hey FL, aren’t YOU a YEC . … ?

By the way, FL, since you’re back for another drive-by, would you mind explaining to me why your religious opinions are any more authoritative than anyone else’s?

Registered User, please email me at [Enable javascript to see this email address.]

On conflating ID with creationism: http://www.idthink.net/back/idc/index.html There’s the real deal.

idthink.net? id*think*? Isn’t that kinda like amish.com?

People who claim the ID is not creationism are either stupid or dishonest. Pick one.

That seems to restrictive. I think in some cases it is both.

Creationists think they can put their Sky Pappy as a cause in our cause and effect multiverse.All they are saying is”SKY PAPPY did it . That is a pseudo-explanation.

On conflating ID with creationism: http://www.idthink.net/back/idc/index.html There’s the real deal.

Should Tiktaalik be classified as a tetrapod? Should Elginerpeton? Panderichthys? Is ID, the spawn of creationism put under selective pressure to adapt to negative court rulings, itself creationism? Nothing like a Lumpers vs. Splitters cladistics fight! …over arbitrary definitional linedrawing for traits’ inclusion/exclusion.

Dictionaries regard definitions as determined by public use; ID Lumpers’ trait choice is today more popular than Splitters’. There’s the real deal, regardless of Splitter Mike Gene.

Well, you don’t have to look any further than the evidence presented at Dover that showed that the book “Of Pandas…” was originally written with Creation and then after the court decision, the term Intelligent Design was substituted without any other change to supporting content.

Mike Gene said it best, Rev. Lenny:

Yet as far as I know, all “Creationists” accept some kind of Intelligent Design, as all Creationists believe God is both “Intelligent” and the “Designer.”

(snip)

Yet the inverse is not true. That is, not all Intelligent Design proponents are Creationists.

Think about his point there. As a biblical creationist who accepts Genesis as historically accurate and factual, I can certainly accept and support the ID hypothesis.

Why? Because Scripture DOES present God as both “Intelligent” and a Designer”, and so does ID, clearly.

And unlike naturalistic evolution, the ID hypothesis does NOT conflict with Scripture at any point (try it and see!).

BUT.…. the inverse is not true, like Mike said. Not everyone who supports ID is a creationist nor even a Christian. (Agnostic David Berlinski, for example). So Mike Gene’s quotation above is totally accurate.

**********

And even ID advocate Michael Behe. though a Christian, is still okay with common descent. On what basis would you call ~him~ a creationist, then? How about ID-friendly theistic evolutionists like biology guys Michael Denton and Gordon Mills? Are they creationists?

***********

Which brings up Mike’s point:

Of course, this all turns on how we define “Creationist.”

I remember the previous discussions you PT folks had on that subject. You all had something to say, but you NEVER DID arrive at a standardized single definition of creationism. To this day, you’re collectively unable to unambiguously delineate just who is a creationist and who is not.

Which means that evolutionist attempts to conflate ID and creationism are, ummm, worse than useless, and that’s why you’re seeing a few PT posts right here and now that don’t support conflation.

***********

By the way, FL, since you’re back for another drive-by, would you mind explaining to me why your religious opinions are any more authoritative than anyone else’s?

.

Well, okay. Now I have never claimed that my “religious opinions” are more authoritative than anyone else’s. That statement is honestly yours, not mine.

However, I honestly do believe that my religious opinions may SOUND more authoritative than ~yours~ in particular.

You know why? Because I sit down and make an effort to SUPPORT whatever religious opinions I offer you, from the Scriptures and/or whatever Non-Christian sources may be available.

(Such as with the UU thread, for example. Btw, I asked you if you had followed a similar process of study and visitation regarding UU’s as I had. You never did answer me. You avoided the question entirely. Why?) And so, if it looks or sounds as if my religious opinions may sound better ‘n’ yours, well that’s why. Not because I say so, but because I try to support what I say.

In the meantime though, for the most part, I still don’t know what you believe nor why you believe it.

My “religious opinions” are on the PT table for your examination and critique, but for some reason you are still afraid to place your own “religious opinions” on the PT table likewise. That is what I’d like to see more of.

FL

The Questionable Authority Wrote:

And then there’s that letter that he sent to the Kentucky Academy of Sciences, in response to their rejection of Intelligent Design:

My educational background provided me with thorough understanding of science [sic] and the theory of evolution. Our nation, however, was founded on self-evident truths. … From my perspective, it is not a matter of faith, or religion, or theory. It is similar to basic self-evident objective truths that are the basis of knowledge.

“Self-evident truths”?? You mean like that the Earth is flat, the sun and stars revolve around us, and that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects?

See Bart Ehrman’s ‘ Misquoting Jesus to see that scribes changed your fables. And see WHO WERE THE EARLY ISRAELITES ANDWHER DID THEY COME FROM TO FIND OUT THERE NEVER WAS AN EXODUS AND THAT MUCH MORE OF YOUR FABLES ARE JUST LEGENDARY.S EE ALSO BIBLICAL NONSENSE AND THE BORNAGAIN SKEPTICS GUIDE TO THE BIBLE FOR TRUTH ABOUT YUR FABLES. I DON’T FAVE ENOUGH FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST MAKES ME LAUGH1 SUCH GIBBERISH!

Morgan-LynnLamberth, you’re making my ears hurt!

BUT.…. the inverse is not true, like Mike said. Not everyone who supports ID is a creationist nor even a Christian. (Agnostic David Berlinski, for example).

So Mike Gene’s quotation above is totally accurate.

What does Christianity have to do with it? Surely you acknowledge that one could be a Muslim or an adherent of certain Native American religions, or a Hindu, or a Jew and be a Creationist? The definiton of “Creationist” seems to be key, and you haven’t addressed that at all.

Berlinski? What about him? He is on the record (Knight-Ridder article of September 27, 2005) with this bit:

But in an e-mail message, Berlinski declared, “I have never endorsed intelligent design.”

How can you say Berlinski is a “supporter” of ID when he says himself that he does not “endorse” ID? Are you using oh-so-clever definitions of those words as well?

FL Wrote:

As a biblical creationist who accepts Genesis as historically accurate and factual, I can certainly accept and support the ID hypothesis.

Why? Because Scripture DOES present God as both “Intelligent” and a Designer”, and so does ID, clearly.

And unlike naturalistic evolution, the ID hypothesis does NOT conflict with Scripture at any point (try it and see!).

So ID “clearly” presents God as the “Intelligent Designer.”

What about all of those ID promoters who claim that ID isn’t necessarily about God? Are they lying?

Apparently, some people who endorse the ID “hypothesis” have trouble following the 9th commandment. It’s almost as though they are forced to bear false witness in order to conceal the obvious identity of the “Intelligent Designer.” That’s a definite conflict with Scripture.

FL claims that God is mentioned in the Bible as a Designer. I could not find the term Designer in reference to God, so this appears to be a heresy of his (and others) making.

“Bottom line, I’d still prefer that we didn’t say that ID “is” creationism.”

I see your point about ID being even less science that YEC. But since ID very obviously is a form of creationism, I don’t see how we can avoid saying ID is (a) creationism? The basic problems (unambigious delineation, in FL terms) of demanding nonnatural creators and giving nonfalsifiable creation is the same. To say ID is creationism isn’t conflating, it’s placing it in a larger set.

FL Wrote:

Well, okay. Now I have never claimed that my “religious opinions” are more authoritative than anyone else’s. That statement is honestly yours, not mine.

Yet, that is what you do when you claim ID is science and should be taught in schools. You’re claiming your “religious opinion” is more authoritative than that of the Vatican (ref1 and ref2) and the Archbishop of Canterbury (ref3).

How can you say Berlinski is a “supporter” of ID when he says himself that he does not “endorse” ID?

Oh, sure, Wamba, point taken. I’m willing to retract that label given the quoted information you provided; and sincere thanks for the correction. Berlinski is much better described as a ‘critic of Darwinism’, based on his remarks posted at ID the future:

I agree with some things that my buddies over there at the DI advocate–giving Darwinism a remarkably swift kick in the pants, for example–and I disagree with other things.

So, point taken, shouldn’t call Berlinski a supporter of ID yet.

Which still doesn’t establish any kind of evolutionist rationale for conflating ID with creationism, not even slightly. The rest of the post still stands.

********

And, while we’re at it, it’s precisely because you CAN be an ID supporter and also Muslim, or a Moonie, or Jewish, or a Hindu, or any other Non-Chritsian religion, that evolutionist attempts to conflate ID with “creationism” are fatally undermined.

ID does not take the Genesis creation story (nor any other religion’s creation story) as it’s foundational starting point nor as its prior assumption, therefore—- (1) ID is compatible across the religious board, and more importantly, (2) there’s honestly no rational way to tack the label “creationism” on the ID hypothesis, since it’s neither locked into, prior-assuming, or dependent upon anybody’s creation story.

***********

And when it comes to defining the term “creationism”, since you guys are the ones doing the conflating of ID and creationism, it’s ~~you guys~~ whose inability to define creationism in a standardized way comes back to haunt you, and visibly disembowel your attempts at such conflation.

FL

It’s not just that ID activists tend to be mostly Christians, it’s that logically there is a requirement that the Intelligent Designer is supernatural

And unlike naturalistic evolution, the ID hypothesis does NOT conflict with Scripture at any point (try it and see!).

BUT.…. the inverse is not true, like Mike said. Not everyone who supports ID is a creationist nor even a Christian. (Agnostic David Berlinski, for example).

a) It’s not an hypothesis because it’s not falsifiable. If you can present an experiment that would falsify “Goddidit”*, or a more detailed explanation that is itself falsifiable, I’ll be happy to call it an hypothesis, but until then the appropriate word is “conjecture”.

b) David Berlinski explicitly doesn’t endorse ID.

c) The reason the ID conjecture doesn’t conflict with Scripture is because it doesn’t conflict with anything except atheism. If your origins conjecture doesn’t even conflict with Raelianism, that’s a good sign you’re doing something wrong.

* Experiments that would falsify arguments in support of “Goddidit” rather than the claim itself don’t count

Let me explain: If regularities (natural laws) and chance cannot explain ‘X’ then ‘X’ must have a supernatural origin. Natural intelligence is in other words reducible to regularities and chance: For instance we have information on how humans typically go about making stone tools and using this knowledge combined with additional knowledge and evidence we can conclude that the chipped pieces of stone were in fact tools.

ID may ‘argue’ that intelligence is not reducible to regularities and chance but that goes against for instance the polling efforts, the crime profilers etc… ID activists have tried to claim that there is no difference between a regular design inference such as performed in criminology, archaeology etc and a supernatural or what Wilkins et al call, ‘rarefied design’ but there is obviously a very big difference, namely that such a designer is not constrained in any way by natural law or chance.

So a revision to Dembski’s filter is required beyond the first “Don’t-know” branch. This sort of knowledge of designers is gained empirically, and is just another kind of regularity assignment. Because we know what these designers do to some degree of accuracy, we can assess the likelihood that E would occur, whether it is the creation of skirnobs or the Antikythera Device. That knowledge makes E a HP event, and so the filter short-circuits at the next branch and gives a design inference relative to a background knowledge set Bi available at time t. So now there appears to be two kinds of design - the ordinary kind based on a knowledge of the behavior of designers, and a “rarefied” design, based on an inference from ignorance, both of the possible causes of regularities and of the nature of the designer.

Hope this clarifies these issues.

FL,

“Due to the Kitzmiller case, it is now becoming widely known that the modern “intelligent design” movement originated as nothing more than a new label for 1980’s creationism. The intermediate form was Of Pandas and People, which was originally written as an explicitly creationist book, but when published in 1989, became the first book to systematically use the term “intelligent design.”

You are being totally disigenious. Explain please.

You remind me of someone caught in a lie.…all of the sudden…”it was declassifed”.

Typical.

Not to belabor the point, but the two examples you cited are best known for ‘putting others before themselves’, rather than merely ‘being themeselves’.

FL

(For example, I can see your emphasis on raw individualism—“be yourself”—and there is a place for ‘being yourself’, but I don’t see any mention of community, of putting others BEFORE yourself.

I think that’s a bit of a stupid thing to say (really dof, or just a lack of understanding). You can “be yourself” and put others BEFORE you. You can “be yourself” and care about the community. In fact, caring for other people can be very much part of yourself, so some people, by being themselves goes out of their way to care for other people.

Christians are not more moral or immoral than non-believers. Christians do not care more or less about other people than non-believers. The same goes for, say, atheists, or pagans.

We could also say that Adolf Hitler was just being himself too.

Or Tim McVeigh. Just being himself.

That’s right.

Evil exists in the world. It always will. (shrug)

Anton, I agree with what you are saying. The redefinition game and use of nonrealistic IC modeling is the ID way of making IC nonfalsifiable. My comment regarding falsifiability was directed to realistic concepts of IC. Realistic IC is falsified, but ID goes on and pretends it is not by making new and thoroughly unfalsifiable versions of it.

FL, “No time to explain it now, but if somebody wants to drag up the old moldy “deceiver” argument, be aware that Dr. Kurt Wise has completely killed that argument stone dead in his excellent YEC book “Faith Form and Time.””

The philosophical deceiver argument and its good use of lawfulness has its scientific complement in that theories such as “miracle” YEC that have an unfalsifiable and unnecessary basis is not usable (nonscientific).

Since you agree that a scientific theory must be testable, you should see that your YEC deceiver/second old universe theory isn’t something that can be used in this argument.

“We could also say that Adolf Hitler was just being himself too.”

Ahh, nazis… this thread is officially dead now.

FL Wrote:

We could also say that Adolf Hitler was just being himself too.

So the Nazis weren’t just devotees of Darwin, they were champions of “raw individualism!” You learn the most interesting things from creationists.

Torbjörn Larsson Wrote:

I agree with what you are saying. The redefinition game and use of nonrealistic IC modeling is the ID way of making IC nonfalsifiable. My comment regarding falsifiability was directed to realistic concepts of IC. Realistic IC is falsified, but ID goes on and pretends it is not by making new and thoroughly unfalsifiable versions of it.

True; and even though they still have to risk a falsifiable statement now and then just to keep up the appearance that they’re doing something vaguely scientific, they don’t bother making such statements connect to ID. E.g. Behe claiming that no transitional forms in the whale fossil record would ever be found. It was falsifiable, and it was falsified, but since it didn’t actually follow from anything to do with ID, the latter was unaffected.

Considering who we’re dealing with, I don’t think we should count this one as a Godwin-ing.

FL Wrote:

Plus I simply like looking at the moon through my small telescope and looking at Vorticella and Paramecium through my small microscope, and knowing the labels and descriptions for what I am seeing.

Who could possibly choose Atheism or Agnoticism after seeing such wonders?

Me, for one. Your religion [readslowly]doesn’t make sense[/readslowly]. That moon and those microbes [readslowly]do make sense[/readslowly]. And since I have no psychological/emotional need for magic, I dispense with it. The world is no different without it. You say that you are a theist because of the world. I say that you are a theist because the world is not enough for you.

By the way, being myself involves a certain amount of putting others before myself. Clearly I was touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Anton Mates Wrote:

So the Nazis weren’t just devotees of Darwin, they were champions of “raw individualism!” You learn the most interesting things from creationists.

That’s how Nietzsche always gets dragged into it, too. Some people translate Ãœbermensch as “OMG Hitler!!!”. Hitler was a Nietzschean Ãœbermensch to the same degree that I am a bald Inuit rugby player.

Nope, nope, nope. I do not live within the boundaries of Judge Jones’ district, which covers Dover and vicinity.

Um, neither did the El Tejon school district. Or the Ohio curriculum board.

But if you’re so confident about it, FL, then get off your ass and TRY it. (shrug) Or is your mouth just bigger than your gonads?

Talk is cheap, FL. Particularly coming from a guy whose side has managed the spectacular feat of losing every Federal court case they have ever been involved with. Every one. All of them. Without exception.

Wait, wait – let me guess . … . the judges were all out to get you, right?

(snicker) (giggle)

Anton Mates:

I am a bald Inuit rugby player.

Dang! And all along I thought I was the only one…

I’ve managed to save up roughly $47363 in my bank account, but I’m not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mike Dunford published on April 11, 2006 11:34 PM.

Rio Rancho Policy Amended was the previous entry in this blog.

Tangled Bank #51 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter