Mike Dunford posted Entry 2334 on June 3, 2006 01:44 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2329

Casey Luskin, over at the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, has taken the time to redefine creationism for us:

Despite Holden’s editorializing, ID is not creationism because creationism always postulates a supernatural creator, and/or is focused on proving some religious scripture. But intelligent design does neither.

I’d like to thank Mr. Luskin for taking the time to clarify that point. I’ll try to remember to keep in mind the non-religious nature of the Discovery Institute in the future.

Oh, and by the way, Casey, whatever happened to that old logo you folks had? It was a lot cooler looking than the new one. I’ve got a copy, in case you lost it:

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #103632

Posted by Inoculated Mind on June 3, 2006 4:38 AM (e)

Bwa ha ha ha ha!

Comment #103633

Posted by Sounder on June 3, 2006 4:50 AM (e)

Poetic.

Comment #103641

Posted by a maine yankee on June 3, 2006 6:07 AM (e)

So much for that bearing false witness stuff. Must only be nine left …(I forgot, it’s not about “religion.”) Nice catch on the logo.

Comment #103642

Posted by keiths on June 3, 2006 6:11 AM (e)

What’s amazing is that Luskin actually quotes from Of Pandas and People in making his argument. Yes, the same Of Pandas and People that was systematically purged of the word “creation” to get around the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of 1987.

He might as well quote the Wedge Document.

Comment #103645

Posted by keiths on June 3, 2006 6:44 AM (e)

Here’s another quote from Of Pandas and People. Casey, for some reason, didn’t mention this one:

Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, Tiktaalik with fin/limbs, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.

Comment #103646

Posted by science nut on June 3, 2006 6:53 AM (e)

Casey also wrote in the same cited artcle:

“So Science, often via Constance Holden, has a history of a sarcastic, mocking, anti-scientific attitude when it talks about ID.”

…perhaps Casey should have more accurately said:

“So Science, often via Constance Holden, has a history of a sarcastic, mocking, anti-BS attitude when it talks about ID.”

Constance…anti-science???? Danger, danger….irony meter overload!!!

Comment #103647

Posted by Shirley Knott on June 3, 2006 6:55 AM (e)

So his point would be that ID is dishonest creationism?
If we take him at his word, the only appropriate rejoinder is that Creationism is closer to being science than ID is, for precisely the reason that it does deal with mechanism and the identity of the putative ‘causal agent’.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Comment #103648

Posted by Wheels on June 3, 2006 7:07 AM (e)

With Creationism, we know exactly what sort of Creator they’re postulating.
With ID, we know exactly what sort of Creator they aren’t posulating: any.
Yep, ID doesn’t posit any sort of Creator, just that there is any sort of Creator.
Apparently it’s intelligent, which we can infer about it by looking at the designed stuff. But we can’t infer anything about it by looking at the designed stuff, mind you.

Comment #103658

Posted by mark on June 3, 2006 8:51 AM (e)

Is Luskin surprised that anyone might have a mocking or sarcastic attitude toward Intelligent Design Creationism? Is he not only truth-challenged, but an idiot as well? ID is so mockable because so many of its proponents are dishonest (in some cases, on occasion, downright bald-faced liars) and stubbornly refuse to examine the evidence. Surely they are aware of how ridiculous their claim of scientific basis looks in light of their actual practice of avoiding scientific research and publishing in favor of public relations activities and preaching to the naive and gullible. As it is, they receive far more respect than they have earned.

Comment #103672

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 3, 2006 9:29 AM (e)

Gee, if ID doesn’t assert a “supernatural” creator, then, uh, why do IDiots like Donald spend so much time yammering to us about how science is a “materialistic” and “naturalistic” “worldview”, and how horridly unfair it is that science doesn’t allow us consider any “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” hypotheses?

Donald, perhaps you could answer that question for us on your next drive-by …

IDers are liars. Every single one of them. (shrug)

Comment #103673

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 3, 2006 9:43 AM (e)

ID is not creationism because creationism always postulates a supernatural creator, and/or is focused on proving some religious scripture.

Gee, that’s not what the creationists themselves said:

‘Scientific creationism’ (no reliance on Biblical revelation, utilizing only scientific data to support and expound the creation model). (ICR Impact No, 85, “The Tenets of Creationism”, Henry Morris, July 1980)

Is instruction in scientific creationism an establishment of religion? Scientific creationism is not a religious doctrine, and unlike classroom prayer and Bible reading it can be taught in public schools. Instruction in scientific creationism involves presentation of the scientific evidence for creation rather than use of Genesis in the classroom. (ICR Impact #69, March 1979)

The theory of special creation is an alternative model of origins at least as satisfactory as the theory of evolution, and that theory of special creation can be presented from a strictly scientific standpoint without reference to religious doctrine (special creation from a strictly scientific standpoint is hereinafter referred to as “scientific creationism”), because many scientists accept the theory of scientific creationism, and because scientific evidences have been presented for the theory of scientific doctrine….We are not trying to bring the Bible or Genesis into public schools. (ICR Impact #71, May 1979)

Treatment of either evolution-science or creation-science shall be limited to scientific evidences for each model and inferences from those scientific evidences, and must not include any religious instruction or references to religious writings.

(a) “Creation-science” means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth’s geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds. (Arkansas Act 590)

Perhaps Luskin is referring to the fact that the courts ruled that YEC’s *DID* have a religious agenda – which they lied about by pretending it was really just “science”.

Just like Judge Jones concluded about, uh, ID.

Comment #103678

Posted by John Pieret on June 3, 2006 10:43 AM (e)

Just to show that he is absolutely tone-deaf to irony, Casey quotes Michael Ruse as saying:

Journals such as Science and Nature would as soon publish an article using or favourable to Intelligent Design as they would an article favourable to phrenology or mesmerism …

Well, yes! And, I might add, that goes for astrology as well.

Comment #103684

Posted by Todd on June 3, 2006 10:52 AM (e)

Right, so it doesn’t deal with a supernatural creator. Just one that has existed for all eternity, is omnipotent, is not bound by natural rules, and is completely seperate from and acts in a manner completely different from anything in nature. What definition of “supernatural” is she using?

Comment #103689

Posted by Les Lane on June 3, 2006 11:12 AM (e)

The Center for Removal of Science from Culture prefers to define creationism narrowly. By any broad definition intelligent design is clearly a subset of creationism. Thus we have classification wars. While DI propagandists constantly promote the narrow definition, we must constantly remind people of the broader definitions.

Comment #103690

Posted by steve s on June 3, 2006 11:38 AM (e)

Casey lied:

Despite Holden’s editorializing, ID is not creationism because creationism always postulates a supernatural creator, and/or is focused on proving some religious scripture. But intelligent design does neither.

The Wedge Document, internal Discovery Institute document marked “top secret”:

THE WEDGE PROJECTS

Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians….
GOALS

Governing Goals

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Nobody believes you, Casey. You just make yourself look bad.

Comment #103694

Posted by steve s on June 3, 2006 11:51 AM (e)

By the way, if you’ve never seen Casey, here he is.

Comment #103695

Posted by PvM on June 3, 2006 11:56 AM (e)

Casey wrote:

creationism always postulates a supernatural creator

And ID always postulates one or more supernatural creator(s). They even insist on placing their kind of intelligent design outside the realm of natural causes.

Comment #103697

Posted by Registered User on June 3, 2006 11:59 AM (e)

Little Lying Luskin

Journals such as Science and Nature would as soon publish an article using or favourable to Intelligent Design as they would an article favourable to phrenology or mesmerism …

Trust us, Casey.

You don’t really want to see an “intelligent design” article published in Nature.

Learn some recent history. Look up “Benveniste” and “infinite dilution.”

Comment #103698

Posted by steve s on June 3, 2006 12:08 PM (e)

By the way, Casey, how’s the fund-raising at DI going? Your checks still cashing?

Comment #103703

Posted by stevaroni on June 3, 2006 2:32 PM (e)

Casey wrote:

creationism always postulates a supernatural creator

Again, it always bears repeating that science has absolutely nothing against the supernatural, per se.

Science is perfectly happy to accept the concept of an afterlife, psychic pets, or giant apes in the Seattle suburbs.

All it asks is that anyone claiming such a thing put some evidence on the table that it actually exists.

The scientific term for supernatural events that are actually verifiable is “cool new sh** we get to go figure out!”

The power of the lightning gods ? Communication at a distance? Little bits of life? Bring it on! Today we call those things “electricity” “radio” and “viruses”.

Ya think you’re the next Edgar Casey?

Well, science may not want to believe you can see the future, may not be able to explain how you possibly could see the future, but if you could reliably produce tomorrow’s Dow-Jones number today, then science would certainly accept that such an ability really exists, which is what you seem to want. (Then, of course, they’d go on to figure out how it works and someone would win a Nobel prize for time travel)

Likewise, science has it’s pet theory, called evolution, about the diversity of life, but if you could produce some real, unambiguous, evidence of ID/Creation, something that didn’t rely exclusively on a personal interpretations of a 3000 year old book, “science” would certainly sit up and take notice.

Comment #103714

Posted by guthrie on June 3, 2006 4:35 PM (e)

Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Thats a great way to end the evening. Its so funny. They even go on to say
“intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot.…”

Which basically suggests to me that they have embraced postmodernism, or else their god keeps changing…

Comment #103718

Posted by Wheels on June 3, 2006 4:56 PM (e)

Now now, ID (The Logos of John) doesn’t rely ENTIRELY on The Good Book.
It also relies on completely subjective ideas about complexity, design inferences, and unfounded assertions that certain things simply cannot evolve.
The fact that ID is an attempt to posit theistic Christian explanations doesn’t mean it’s ALL based on the Bible. After all, the Bible has some fairly explicity rules about false witnessing, so obviously the ID movement can’t claim to be inline with that.
Seeing as how science has repeatedly rejected the “A WizardGOD did it” idea as a viable research program, and since the supposedly secular-by-law US Caesar demands religious freedom for its citizenry and therefore no attempts to sneak theism into schools, you’d think that by now certain folks would simply shake the dust from their feet as they walked out the door. I guess some folks just can’t let go.

Comment #103722

Posted by Andrew McClure on June 3, 2006 5:55 PM (e)

Journals such as Science and Nature would as soon publish an article using or favourable to Intelligent Design as they would an article favourable to phrenology or mesmerism

I wonder if there’s a reason for that.

Comment #103724

Posted by Don S on June 3, 2006 6:26 PM (e)

“Two-thousand years ago a man died on a cross for us. Isn’t anybody going to stand up and not postulate exactly who that man was?”

Comment #103729

Posted by chemical odie on June 3, 2006 6:47 PM (e)

Can it be that this is really Casey’s personal website?? The design is so terrible I think it gave me glaucoma

Comment #103730

Posted by ben on June 3, 2006 7:01 PM (e)

Can it be that this is really Casey’s personal website?? The design is so terrible I think it gave me glaucoma

If you’re that sensitive you should be careful never to click the link at the bottom of each of Glen Davidson’s posts, it may be fatal.

I like the fact that caseyluskin.com has a section for “Facts.” Which is completely empty. One big clue that it is the “real” Casey Luskin.

Comment #103739

Posted by steve s on June 3, 2006 8:53 PM (e)

IDEA Club FAQ
(Answers to Frequently Asked Questions)

Fear not the creationists!!!: Hi there, thanks for coming to our FAQ page. IDEA exists on the UCSD campus to serve those at our school interested in having meaningful, critical, friendly, and informed discussion over issues related to creation and evolution among people of many viewpoints. Those from “both sides” of the creation-evolution issue at our club are dedicated to truth, friendship, and self-criticism above all things. As creationists, we have nothing to hide… If any of this appeals to you, we hope you would come to the club! Please read on as this FAQ tries to explain more about the club:

From Casey Luskin’s IDEA club website, with the boldfacing added by me.

Comment #103749

Posted by Wheels on June 3, 2006 9:55 PM (e)

Steve Number S, I think that deserves to be posted in giant letters somewhere highly public and visible.
Be sure to get an archived copy of the page before it goes down.

Comment #103754

Posted by steve s on June 3, 2006 10:09 PM (e)

They’re not going to take it down. They’ve been down this road before.

“Just because we occasionally refer to ourselves as creationists, and just because we global-searched-and-replaced “Creationism” with “Intelligent Design”, and just because we’ve said Intelligent Design “Really means the reality of God”, and just because we said christians are our ‘natural allies’, and just because we said our goal is to promote “traditional doctrines of creation”, and just because I personally happen to be a creationist, and just because we called Intelligent Design “the Logos theology of John’s Gospel”, and just because the Intelligent Design club used to be named the Creation Science club, and just because we require the club officers to be christians, and just because we said the Intelligent Designer created the universe, is transcendent, and a subject for theology, and just because our theorists all happen to work at bible colleges, and just because we used to represent the Intelligent Designer as the christian god in our logo, that does Not Mean Intelligent Design is creationism at all, it’s entirely different, purely scientific, no relationship to christianity. I don’t even know how you got that idea.”

There’s been a debate for a few years about whether Casey is lying, or crazy and stupid enough to believe what he’s saying. Nobody else does, though, and continuing just makes him look bad.

Comment #103770

Posted by 386sx on June 4, 2006 3:50 AM (e)

Right, so it doesn’t deal with a supernatural creator.

I think some of their theorists kind of look at it as analogous to a giant game of scrabble. Yes, undirected natural causes can put the scrabble pieces on the board, but if you want meaningful words or sentences you need a directed natural cause, or an undirected unnatural cause, or some directed natural event that was uncaused.

Comment #103786

Posted by djmullen on June 4, 2006 9:55 AM (e)

Please use the Discovery Institute’s real name. It’s “The Discovery Institute’s Center for the Removal of Science from Culture”.

Comment #103788

Posted by Frank J on June 4, 2006 10:03 AM (e)

Unfortunately IDers will be able to get away with not being creationists as long as the public has one definition in mind (YEC), and ID critics have another.

That’s why I say that we must be clear what we mean by creationism if we are to include ID. The “default” definition is this:

Creationism is any strategy to misrepresent evolution that is based on an irrelevant and scientifically useless argument from design.

Thus a “creationist” can privately believe anything from 100% of evolution, to a flat earth, to “man-as-old-as-coal,” and that the designer is anything from an almighty everlasting God to a deceased alien. What separates him from science is intentional or unintentional spreading of pseudoscientific misinformation.

Comment #103790

Posted by Frank J on June 4, 2006 10:09 AM (e)

Lenny,

Check out this “Creationist theory.” Then get your pizza delivery boy to deliver Luskin some antacid.

Comment #103798

Posted by Genie on June 4, 2006 11:25 AM (e)

As deniers of evolution (except for within the created kind, of course) the C[R]SC nonetheless is an exemplar. See “Evolving Banners…” at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8325_e…

Comment #103802

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 4, 2006 11:39 AM (e)

Check out this “Creationist theory.” Then get your pizza delivery boy to deliver Luskin some antacid.

Well, Nando’s elevator doesn’t quite reach the top floor, anyway. (sigh)

Comment #103831

Posted by Wheels on June 4, 2006 5:45 PM (e)

When it comes to defining Creationists, why don’t we just throw Phil Johnson’s definition around? “…the concept of creation can mean simply that we are here as the result of a preexisting intelligence which planned our existence for a purpose–whether through instantaneous creation or 4.6 billion years of gradual development, to which you could attach the word ‘evolution.’ The length of time and the nature of the mechanism is not the key issue. It’s whether there’s an intelligence and purpose behind our existence–or our existence is random and accidental. I’m on the former side of that, and if that’s creationism, let them make the most of it,” while Evolutionists are evil secular humanist atheist materialist communist Nazi eugenicist Spencerists.
Under the ID movement’s own definition, ID is definitely Creationism.
I’ve not heard anything from Mr. Johnson lately. Is he being shuffled off a bit in the wake of the Dover ruling, or is he too busy fighting the myth of AIDS?

Comment #103873

Posted by Frank J on June 5, 2006 4:58 AM (e)

Wheels wrote:

Under the ID movement’s own definition, ID is definitely Creationism.
I’ve not heard anything from Mr. Johnson lately. Is he being shuffled off a bit in the wake of the Dover ruling, or is he too busy fighting the myth of AIDS?

Johnson has delegated a lot since his stroke a few years back. But his early definition of “creationism,” like Behe’s “YEC only” definition are not “official” definitions. In the early days they weren’t worried about conflicting definitions or admitting an old earth and common descent. But the “big tent” strategy has forced them to be increaingly evasive, and to downplay internal differences. Of course that characteristic of a political movement undermines their pretense at being scientific - to long-time critics if not the general public.

Comment #103878

Posted by Joe G on June 5, 2006 7:29 AM (e)

According to the posts we could say that Darwin was also a Creationist:

“On the Origins of Species…” 6th edition

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

And for those of you who don’t understand the debate it is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes. Supernatural is irrelevant for the simple fact that nature could not have originated via natural processes as natural processes ONLT exist IN nature, Therefore even the anti-ID position requires something outside of nature.

Why is it that Creationists and IDists understand the differences between the two and the people who know the least about either are the ones who conflate them?

Comment #103887

Posted by Tyrannosaurus on June 5, 2006 8:20 AM (e)

Well, well, well.
Luskin not only presented a new definition of ID but with the same stroke he defined Creationism as well.
Hey Casey, tell us again why ID/Creationism is not the one and the same?
These guys are such IDiots. Unbelievable.

Comment #103892

Posted by Raging Bee on June 5, 2006 9:25 AM (e)

steve s: well, that photo explains a lot. Their latest propaganda has the same tone we heard from Baghdad: transparent denial of the transparently obvious.

chemical oldie: that’s the lamest website I’ve seen outside of Myspace, and some sites cobbled up by obvious loonies. I notice that, in the upper left corner, the “Casey Luskin” text links to “www.caseyluskin.com/”, but the little “.com” oval right next to it links to “www.caseyluskin.com./”. Just one of those minor typos that nonetheless make me say “WTF??!”

Anyone who wants to deny a link between “ID” and “creationism” will always have that transitional form of “cdesign proponentsists” to contend with.

Oh, and if ID merely disputes the YECs’ beliefs about the age of the Earth, does that mean they have a methodology for establishing it? Pray tell, have they published any papers stating how old the Earth is? And how have their supporters responded to such papers?

Comment #103894

Posted by Joe G on June 5, 2006 9:52 AM (e)

PvM wrote:
And ID always postulates one or more supernatural creator(s).

ID does no such thing. IDists may do that but no one should conflate what IDists do with what ID is. That is like saying the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because of the likes of Dawkins and Dennett.

PvM:
They even insist on placing their kind of intelligent design outside the realm of natural causes.

That is also false. Both intelligence and design are natural. The ONLY way to determine if they are outside of nature is by following the data. And as every objective person understands it all, even the anti-ID position, comes down to something outside of nature as natural processes cannot account for the origins of nature (natural processes only exist in nature).

Comment #103897

Posted by William E Emba on June 5, 2006 10:19 AM (e)

Mike Dunford wrote:

Casey Luskin, over at the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, has taken the time to redefine creationism … I’d like to thank Mr. Luskin for taking the time to clarify that point. I’ll try to remember to keep in mind the non-religious nature of the Discovery Institute in the future.

I have not seen anyone point out the real significance of the removal of “Renewal” from the name of their center. “Renewal” is a big-tent name for numerous Christian movements that practice high-energy prayer services and the like. They thought it was real subtle at first, but at some point, they decided it was perhaps too obvious, like the picture of Michelangelo’s God. So it was Judas denial time yet again.

The 26 May 2006 issue of “The Chronicle of Higher Education” has a cover story on the new neurotheology. A side box quotes Dembski as praising one speaker at a recent Biola conference. So maybe he’s looking for a different scam, less likely to get Waterlooed?

Comment #103898

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on June 5, 2006 10:27 AM (e)

WAE:

So it was Judas denial time yet again.

I think they see this more as Peter’s “strategic withdrawal”.

You know, “the better part of valour…” etc.

Comment #103900

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on June 5, 2006 11:07 AM (e)

Note to stevaroni:

He spelled it “Edgar Cayce”. I don’t know why.

Comment #103902

Posted by Raging Bee on June 5, 2006 11:23 AM (e)

In response to PvM:

PvM wrote:

And ID always postulates one or more supernatural creator(s).

And JoeG wrote in “response”:

ID does no such thing. IDists may do that but no one should conflate what IDists do with what ID is. That is like saying the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because of the likes of Dawkins and Dennett.

Sure, Joe, and we shouldn’t conflate what the Nazis did with what Nazism is, right?

Many ID “scientists” have said, over a long period of time, that ID is indeed pretty much the same as creationism. Read their own documents (cited and quoted above for your convenience) if you doubt me on this.

On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of evolutionary biologists, and scientists in general, have explicitly stated that science is agnostic, not atheistic, because science does not attempt to rule on the existence of any god or gods. That is where your analogy fails. (Yes, there are indeed atheistic scientists, but their opinions are not shared by the majority, nor are such opinions woven into their actual work or reasoning.)

Comment #103903

Posted by Raging Bee on June 5, 2006 11:26 AM (e)

PS to JoeG: the link between creationism and ID is firmly established by the discovery of the transitional fossil known as “cdesign proponentsists.” Any comment on this find?

Comment #103904

Posted by Frank J on June 5, 2006 11:28 AM (e)

Joe G wrote:

And for those of you who don’t understand the debate it is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes.

While that may be a debate, it is not the debate of interest here. IDers and classic creationists insist that their arguments are alternatives to evolution, not just complementary ideas, as your debate (placing Darwin in the “creationist” camp) entails.

Since evolution makes no comment either way about intelligent vs. unintelligent, “goal-oriented” or not (in the teleological sense at least), IDers and classic creationists misrepresent evolution. And they do it regardless of their position regarding design, intelligence, “what happened and when”, or the increasing evasion from the latter.

Although I would prefer “anti-evolution” to “creationism,” the fact is that my definition in comment 103788 is how it is usually meant by critics (when they don’t fall for the bait-and-switch). The operative feature is “misrepresentation”, employing the typical pseudoscientific tricks of quote mining, switching definitions, cherry picking evidence, arguments from incredulity, etc.

Whatever you call it, it’s a scam.

Comment #103908

Posted by Joe G on June 5, 2006 12:26 PM (e)

Raging Bee wrote:
Many ID “scientists” have said, over a long period of time, that ID is indeed pretty much the same as creationism. Read their own documents (cited and quoted above for your convenience) if you doubt me on this.

Read “Darwin’s Black Box” and you find that ID is NOT Creation- From Dr. Behe:

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.” Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier’s in the journal Cell: “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human” (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?

And again why is it that the top Creation organizations denounce ID? Because the two are NOT the same! Duh.

“Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”

Comment #103909

Posted by JAllen on June 5, 2006 12:33 PM (e)

Joe G wrote:

ID does no such thing.

ID does no such thing. Fixed.

Comment #103911

Posted by k.e. on June 5, 2006 12:42 PM (e)

Aye Corumba!
Joe G(hosavant)
Quotes the ONE guy who F#$%ed ID royally in Dover.

(shakes head)

They ARE from another planet.

Comment #103912

Posted by PvM on June 5, 2006 12:49 PM (e)

Joe G wrote:

PvM wrote: And ID always postulates one or more supernatural creator(s).

ID does no such thing. IDists may do that but no one should conflate what IDists do with what ID is. That is like saying the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because of the likes of Dawkins and Dennett.

I understand that ID claims that it does no such thing but logically they must be discussing one or more supernatural designers. You seem to have accepted their claim uncritically, which I can understand since it is made with such ‘sincerity’

Joe G wrote:

PvM:
They even insist on placing their kind of intelligent design outside the realm of natural causes.

That is also false. Both intelligence and design are natural. The ONLY way to determine if they are outside of nature is by following the data. And as every objective person understands it all, even the anti-ID position, comes down to something outside of nature as natural processes cannot account for the origins of nature (natural processes only exist in nature).

You may check up on how ID is inferred, when natural processes (regularities and chance) have been eliminated, what remains is considered ‘designed’. Again, ID may object to the implications of their arguments but that does not mean that these implications are erroneous.
You seem to have accepted ID’s claims somewhat uncritically and are repeating the party line so to speak. Perhaps you should make your best case and we can see where the data leads?

Perhaps you can start by explaining how ID explains the bacterial flagellum?

Comment #103913

Posted by Raging Bee on June 5, 2006 12:49 PM (e)

JoeG qhoted Behe thusly:

Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible…

Design by WHO, exactly? And what sort of power would it take to design – AND ACTUALLY CREATE(*) – such wonders? The creationists quoted above have explicitly admitted that the “creator” – oops, I mean “designer” – would have to be supernatural. Repeated statements of denial do not trump the observable fact of what creationists/IDers have written and said.

…The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier’s in the journal Cell: “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human[.]”

“Resemble” is a subjective term, and its use in a sentence proves nothing. Has any actual scientist PROVEN that the flagellum was actually DESIGNED and CREATED by ANY intelligent being?

Antother question, while you’re here: what, exactly, does ID “theory” say about the age of the Earth?

*You IDers seem to avoid words like “create” like the plague, even though it’s perfectly obvious that a designed object must also be created, otherwise it can’t exist. Why is that, exactly?

Comment #103915

Posted by Raging Bee on June 5, 2006 12:51 PM (e)

Yo, JoeG, you forgot to answer my question about the phrase “cdesign proponentsists.” Running from something, are we?

Comment #103918

Posted by Jim Wynne on June 5, 2006 12:57 PM (e)

Joe G, I have to hand it to you. You keep outdoing yourself, just when I’m sure it’s not possible.

Joe G.: ID is not creationism. Look here–Behe says so!

Behe: I am not a creationist, and ID is not about religion. I believe in evolution guided by the hand of Jebus! But I’m not a creationist!

Joe G.: See, I told you.

Comment #103927

Posted by Wheels on June 5, 2006 1:33 PM (e)

Joe G, you have a point about ID itself not positing a supernatural designer, and the comparison between IDists and their Creationism with Evolution and it’s supporters’ opinions. However, it is a weak point.

For one thing, not every researcher to operates with and contributes to the Theory of Evolution is an Atheist, and many (probably most) of them would deny with good reason that atheism is a consequence of the Theory of Evolution. Yet IDists are not analogous. Its “researchers” are almost universally Creationists (I cannot think of one who isn’t, but I’m sure there must be some out there). They also conclude almost universally that a supernatural designer is the best inference from their “theory.”
The ID movement also actively supports other, more explicitly Creationist efforts, and it recycles nearly all of its arguments from previous Creationist literature. In fact, some of their literature IS Creationist literature, with an editing job that was performed with the intent of putting on a secular facade. Cdesign Proponentsists, and all that. Evolutionary researchers do not recycle atheist arguments and texts to make the case for Evolution.
As outlined in the Wedge Document, the entire basis for doing ID “research” is to further the cause of theism in cultural and scientific circles. I’m not aware of any sort of Evolutionary research program which is designed to further the cause of atheism in any venue.
By the very definitions of ID leaders like Phil Johnson, ID is Creationism.
So let’s review:
-IDists get their argumentative content from Creationist sources and actively support Creationist organizations.
-IDists are by their own guiding principles doing ID research to promote theism.
-IDists conclude that ID is ultimately caused by a supernatural agency, which is almost universally recognized as the Abramic God (Although ID arguments also line up well with those of Deism, nobody has seemed to exploit this link yet, another reason for thinking that IDists may be selective in those religious beliefs to which they appeal).
These are all significant points of disanalogy between IDists vs. mainstream scientists and others who accept the fact of evolution and its Theory as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. What does all this say about ID?
It’s not enough to put a secular window dressing on your Creationism and say that the “theory” of ID is not Creationism.

Comment #103944

Posted by Frank J on June 5, 2006 4:04 PM (e)

Joe G. quotes Michael Behe:

“Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent.”

So why aren’t Behe and Johnson vigorously debating the definition of “creationism,” or common descent (CD), for that matter (Johnson appears to reject it)?

Note also that Behe recently added the caveat that some people (mostly just a handful of DI fellows) who deny (or pretend to deny) CD, understand it better than he. But for years Johnson has been crowing about how someone outside the field can provide a better, less biased perspective. So why isn’t Behe similarly claiming that he provides a “better, less biased perspective” with regard to CD. Why the double standard?

The answer is simple. ID is a scam.

Comment #103945

Posted by Frank J on June 5, 2006 4:07 PM (e)

Raging Bee wrote:

Antother question, while you’re here: what, exactly, does ID “theory” say about the age of the Earth?

Why, “don’t ask, don’t tell” of course.

Comment #103947

Posted by Henry J on June 5, 2006 4:14 PM (e)

Or just count (or measure) the number of candles on the cake. The actual measurement is left as an exercise for the student. :)

Henry

Comment #103948

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 5, 2006 4:24 PM (e)

(Although ID arguments also line up well with those of Deism, nobody has seemed to exploit this link yet, another reason for thinking that IDists may be selective in those religious beliefs to which they appeal).

lines up well with the Raelians too, IIRC.

Comment #103949

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 5, 2006 4:31 PM (e)

And again why is it that the top Creation organizations denounce ID? Because the two are NOT the same! Duh.

actually, that’s not the reason they do so.

the arguments are essentially the same, but the [i]approach[/i] is far different.

while “creationists” are honest about their motivations, many creationists see the leaders of the ID camp typically are not.

The wedge document makes it clear what the basis for ID really is, but the fact that the Disco Institute chooses to represent themselves with lies and deceit tends to turn many honest folks off.

Even creationists.

Comment #103955

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 5, 2006 5:49 PM (e)

And for those of you who don’t understand the debate it is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes.

Here, let the Discovery Institue explain their “governing goals” in their own words.

*ahem*

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.

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.

* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Any questions?

Comment #103956

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 5, 2006 5:51 PM (e)

even the anti-ID position, comes down to something outside of nature as natural processes cannot account for the origins of nature (natural processes only exist in nature).

Huh?

WTF are you yammering about?

Comment #103957

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 5, 2006 5:53 PM (e)

o

Read “Darwin’s Black Box” and you find that ID is NOT Creation

Then read the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Documewnt, and you find that ID *IS* Creation:

*ahem*

Governing Goals

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

* Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)

Any questions?

Comment #103959

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 5, 2006 5:59 PM (e)

Another question, while you’re here: what, exactly, does ID “theory” say about the age of the Earth?

They say that the earth is anywhere from 5,000 years old to 4.5 billion years old, but that it’s an unimportant detail that shouldn’t be discussed.

Comment #103967

Posted by Raging Bee on June 5, 2006 6:25 PM (e)

Now now, Arden, Frank and Henry, let the boy speak for himself. He’ll never get social skills if everyone’s doing his talking for him.

Of course, he’ll never get social skills if he insists on running away from questions either…

Comment #103993

Posted by Henry J on June 5, 2006 10:47 PM (e)

Re “It’s whether there’s an intelligence and purpose behind our existence — or our existence is random and accidental.”

A few thoughts on that - evolutionary biology certainly implies that the details are in some ways random (details = exact arrangement of parts and organs, specific chemicals used in metabolism, arrangement of genes in the DNA, etc.).

It doesn’t however imply that our very existence is accidental (I’m assuming that’s accidental as opposed to deliberate). After all, if we can use processes that make use of random events, than any universe engineer(s) could presumably also do so.

Henry

Comment #104002

Posted by Chiefley on June 5, 2006 11:41 PM (e)

Isn’t creationism implicit in ID? If one claims that an organism did not evolve from a previous one, then where did it come from? If not from a previous organism, then it must have been created. Or am I missing something?

Comment #104046

Posted by JIm Wynne on June 6, 2006 8:07 AM (e)

Raging Bee wrote:

Of course, he’ll never get social skills if he insists on running away from questions either

Joe hasn’t completed his normal posting cycle yet:

1) Post self-contradictory, addle-pated nonsense

2) Hurl epithets, sarcasm and invective when refuted

3) Disappear

Maybe he skipped #2 this time.

Comment #104051

Posted by Henry J on June 6, 2006 10:20 AM (e)

Chiefley,

Re “Isn’t creationism implicit in ID? If one claims that an organism did not evolve from a previous one, then where did it come from? If not from a previous organism, then it must have been created. Or am I missing something?”

You’re using logic. You’re supposed to use how you feel about the conclusion. ;)

Henry

Comment #104212

Posted by wamba on June 7, 2006 9:49 AM (e)

Joe G whinged:

Read “Darwin’s Black Box” and you find that ID is NOT Creation- From Dr. Behe:

Sure, Joe, let’s look at what Behe has said. Here’s a nice summary from the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision:

ID is predicated on supernatural causation, as we previously explained and as various expert testimony revealed. (17:96 (Padian); 2:35-36 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). ID takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural. (5:107 (Pennock)). Further support for the conclusion that ID is predicated on supernatural causation is found in the ID reference book to which ninth grade biology students are directed, Pandas. Pandas states, in pertinent part, as follows:

Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly, through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.

P-11 at 99-100 (emphasis added). Stated another way, ID posits that animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designer. Defendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point. (21:96-100 (Behe); P-718 at 696, 700 (“implausible that the designer is a natural entity”); 28:21-22 (Fuller) (“… ID’s rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism …”); 38:95-96 (Minnich) (ID does not exclude the possibility of a supernatural designer, including deities)….

Comment #104213

Posted by wamba on June 7, 2006 9:59 AM (e)

Behe’s own testimony

Q “… it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture.

“I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. The chemistry and physics that we do know weigh heavily against it. If natural intelligence depends on physical organization, then the organization seems likely to have to be enormously complex and stable over reasonable periods of time. While simpler systems may perform the tasks that irreducibly complex systems perform a terrestrial life, they would likely perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so that the complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be achieved. Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity.”

You don’t absolutely rule it out, but you’re not taking it very seriously, are you?

A Well, I’ve said that quite a number of times. I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that I think in fact from – from other perspectives, that the designer is in fact God. But if you turn back to page 699, there’s a section entitled, “Is it possible that the designer is a natural entity?” And I won’t quote from it, but I come to the conclusion there that sure it’s possible that it is, but I do not – I myself do not find it plausible.

Comment #104487

Posted by Henry J on June 8, 2006 3:50 PM (e)

Re Behe’s “ I myself do not find it plausible.”

Trying to resist the obvious comeback to that straightline…
Resist…
Resist…