ID is a fraudulent means of promoting creationism, page 1

me

Anyways my friend i've enjoyed these conversations i've learned so much i think we've really grown together. But now it's time to say goodbye...surely somebody else will argue with you, but i just ain't interested. Like i said we go our seperate ways here my friend, enjoy your stay at ATS and GOD bless ya.[/tear]

OK, ok so i'm a tool too. I was having a bad day and took it out on you. Bad reaction on my part and i'll try an fix that here if i can.

Ok man i've been thinking about this and maybe i was too harsh. I haven't really talked about the ID "conspiracy angle" much and shouldn't have dismissed your post without commenting on the specifics... and actually from what i can tell Skeptic Overlord himself started this new origins forum because he believes in this conspiracy and thought it needed to be discussed. I disagree of course but who am i to say what you can discuss and where you can discuss it...

Although i feel that you've been more than a little antagonistic and i still don't think, based on what i've seen you post, your opinion is your own. Calling you a troll and totally de-railing your thread which is on the very topic this forum was created to discuss was uncalled for. So i'll try and make ammends and get out of the way after that... there's actually majority support for your position around here. *shrug*

Please read the links i provide to support my claims, i showed you that respect.

ID is a fraudulent means of promoting creationism

First i think you need to define what you mean by creationism. Most peoples definition would be something along the lines of; an attempt to defend the accuracy of the Genesis account of creation using science. Are you calling creationism something else? If not how/why do you feel that ID meets that criteria... making ID, creationism.

OK, let's evaluate the organization at the forefront of the ID "theory," the Discovery Institute...

First things first truthseeker, let's go to the source - www.discovery.org...

1)You used a 'wiki' to support the claim that they are a "conservative christian think tank", their not imo, although i was being misleading to suggest that's obvious. It's not and i can see why people take issue with some things that the 'Institute' does and says.

I still don't think it has jack to do with the science of ID, but i know nobody wants to hear that, especially the conspiracy theorists. The political goals and ambitions of the discovery institute are probably what started this controvercy and i'll be the first to admit that i don't like or agree with the political strategy... always have btw. I'll let someone else decide whether it's right or wrong, neccessary or not though, it's just not my style. It has nothing to do with ID as an origins theory imo and that's why i tend not to pay those issues much mind. But that's the issue here so i guess it's relevant... again.

Discover Institute and "Theocracy"
Overview: Periodically certain Darwinists make false and unsubstantiated claims that Discovery Institute advocates “theocracy” or is part of the “radical Christian right” or supposedly supports something called “Christian reconstructionism.” These charges are little more than smears, and they show the bankruptcy of the Darwinists’ own position. Rather than argue about the substance of the scientific debate over neo-Darwinism, all Darwinists can do is engage in baseless ad hominem attacks.

Also see The "Wedge Document": How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend

Here's their mission statement, where do you see the 'conservative christian thinking' that is pushing biblical creationism under the guise of a scientific ID or design paradigm?

Instead of the patient, mind numbingly slow process of gaining majority support they devised a strategy ("the wedge") and pushed the issue into the political arena. Although i understand why and i don't see the sinister ulterior motives that you guys do, i don't agree with this move. The mind numbingly slow process is just the way science has always worked and fundamental changes in the paradigm like ID proposes are not the type of thing i would like to see become political arguements because it only strengthens the opposition and forces them to hide behind dogma and not debate the science imho.

Discovery Institute link
Intelligent-design advocates have mixed reactions to the Christian right's support of their work. On the one hand, the movement is largely dependent on funding from wealthy conservative philanthropists. That, according to Meyer, is why a 1999 funding document from the Discovery Institute argued that intelligent design had "reopened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature", and would eventually lay the groundwork for a series of debates and legal challenges over what should be taught in America's classrooms.

Although Meyer is willing to promote such perceptions, he concedes that they can cause problems. For intelligent-design researchers who would like to see the concept peer-reviewed and accepted by the scientific community, the politics are frustrating, and potentially dangerous. The political goals associated with intelligent design lead many scientists to reject it outright as little more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo. "Some of the policy proposals that have been made, for example the Dover case, are frankly, from our point of view, distracting," says Meyer. "We want to focus on intelligent design as an emerging research programme."

According to the New York Times, many of the 50 books put out by the foundation were published by religiouspresses

You didn't want to comment on the content of any of the books published? How does the religion of the publishing company have any bearing on ID or whether it's creationism or not? The content may do that certainly but that's not what you're suggesting. So what's is your point here exactly... as it pertains to the topic at hand: ID is a fraudulent means of promoting creationism. You have yet to show ID as either fraudulent or creationism, only that it has support from some Christians... what do you think that means or proves?

Wedge Document, put out by the institute in 1999, "sought 'nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies' in favor of a 'broadly theistic understanding of nature.'" So, even though they favor a "broadly theistic" view of nature, ID has nothing to do with religion.

It just means that we're not here as some sort of a cosmic accident (materialism) which is what ID proposes and is not some big secret and not denied by any ID advocates that i know of. Which religion do you think an "overthrow of materialism" supports exactly? What do you think of theistic evolution? Why do you feel materialism as an origins methodology is supported by the evidence and should be the only scientific consideration re: origins?

.... add that the institute is not solely concerned with ID, but ID is a big thing with them.

The discovery Institute has a program called The Center for Science and Culture which is the intellignet design think tank. They are seperate and deal with the science and not the political issues. htp://www.discovery.org/csc/aboutCSC.php

So, though this only 1 group, yet a sizeable one, that is clearly masking creationism with ID, I feel that the entire "theory" is doing this. According to Wikipedia, the scientific community agrees with my notion that ID is not a theory.

Just to be clear you have only shown that ID has support among some members of the Christian community which is not in dispute and seems to be expected of a theory that counters materialism... "no duh" comes to mind. Christian support does not make it a conspiracy, or creationism and certainly doesn't make it psuedoscientific either. Matt put up a good post in the testing IDT thread(pg3) on the troubles new theories, that contradict accepted dogmas, have being accepted. You still have to dispute the hypotheses put forward by the ID theorists, hiding behind a stealth creationism arguement or rejecting it based on the metaphysical presupposition or materialism is a pretty weak argument imo.

The Wedge Strategy
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). 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.

What specifically do you take issue with? Why is it dangerous, psuedoscientific or intellectual laziness that might strike down the fundamental nature of science and logic and send us back to the Dark Ages?

...peer reviewed research articles do not appear to exist for ID....

I covered this in the testing IDT thread(pg1) and provided some links to the troubles IDTists have been having even getting their papers read much less reviewed... there's a reason opponents have devised and anti-wedge strategy which is making it almost impossible for IDTists to get published in the peer-review literature and its not based on the merits of the research... they're trying to discredit them. It works too, guys like you are always using the fact that its not published as evidence enough the theory isn't sound.

Only ONE article, written by Stephen C. Meyer (affiliated with the Discovery Institute), was published. Subsequently, the publisher withdrew the article from Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington , the peer review journal in which it was published. The reason: circumvention of the journal's peer review standards.

You've got hold of some bad info, and used it without checking to see if it was legit because it backed your preconceived opinion. Did you read the paper? It's available online for free and i provided you a link in another thread.
Anywho i assume you would consider NPR to be an objective source, yes? They published a story about this www.npr.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">here

Sternberg was the editor of an obscure scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, where he is also a research associate. Last year, he published in the journal a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design, an idea which Sternberg himself believes is fatally flawed.

"Why publish it?" Sternberg says. "Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong."
...snip...
colleagues accused him of fraud, saying they did not believe the Meyer article was really peer reviewed. It was.
...snip...
McVay declined an interview. But in a letter to Sternberg, he wrote that officials at the Smithsonian worked with the National Center for Science Education -- a group that opposes intelligent design -- and outlined "a strategy to have you investigated and discredited."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

It's not so cut and dry as you think or you would like people to believe. I really suggest you do some of your own research before promoting such spurios allegations, in keeping with the ATS creed of "deny ignorance". I'm not calling you stupid by saying your ignorant about ID, but don't let your opinion be spoon fed to you by the mainstream media. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge... not a slam on your character.

Face it, the people primarily supporting ID, such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer, are openly Christian.

Irrelevant. By your logic any scientist who is also a Christian or person of faith is unreliable. I'll let you respond to that before i give you a list of Christian scientists or the theories they are responsible for.

In fact, Wikipedia maintains that most ID proponents are evangelical Protestants.

Find a new source. Wiki is a good place to start, but you have to be able to back up the OP's opinion on any particular subject.

So, it appears that, based on the evidence, ID is creationism in disguise. It may not be, but it sure as hell looks like it.

Again all you've done is shown ID has some Christian support... that does not make it creationism. I think if you knew what actual design theory was you wouldn't throw around those accusations based on such flimsy "evidence".

Creationism says an intelligent being created all life; so does ID.

Creationism says that GOD created all and that the Genesis account is an acurate depiction of that creation, you're confusing the issue like so many, who don't know the actual theory, do.

People say creationism opposes and actually proves evolution wrong; same with ID.

Creationism stands in opposition to universal common ancestry, stating that all life evolved from seperate kinds instead of from just one. Evolution says nothing what-so-ever about how life got here (origins) it starts with the assumption that life is here (however it "became" is irrelevant to evolution) and then tries to show how organisms adapt and change over time.

Here's a short page you really should read:

But inclusion of design theory as part of the standard discourse of the scientific community, if it ever happens, will be the result of a long and difficult process of quality research and publication. It also will be the result of overcoming the stigma that has become attached to design research because of the anti-evolutionary diatribes of some of its proponents on the one hand and its appropriation for the purpose of Christian apologetics on the other. In these latter regards, the odds are stacked against it from the start.
...snip...
'design theory' is at best a means for mathematically describing, empirically detecting, and then quantifying teleology (goal-directedness) in nature, without prejudging where or whether it will be found. Secondly, if it is granted that teleology might be an objective part of nature, then it also has to be acknowledged that design research can be carried out in a manner that does not violate methodological naturalism as a philosophical constraint on science.
...snip...
In conclusion, it is crucial to note that design theory is at best a supplementary consideration introduced along- side (or perhaps into, by way of modification) neo-Darwinian biology and self- organizational complexity theory. It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful research paradigms, and to suggest that it does is just so much overblown, unwarranted, and ideologically driven rhetoric.

So, should ID be taught in schools?

I say no, it's incomplete and needs to find mainstream acceptance from the scientific community. Some seem to think the debate is already over and those people are who i take issue with. I say an objective look at the evidence from the larger community has yet to happen and if you spend anytime reading rebuttal information you'll see most objections to ID are philosophical and not scientific... but please man read some stuff from the ID theorists first.

So, there you have it. ID, the crafty phoenix of creationism. I gotta hand it to the IDers, though, they're pretty crafty.

I wonder who's being crafty here. You've made a pretty weak and circumstantial case completely negating the scientific arguments and instead shown how some Christians like it... therefore it must be bad.

Anyways man sorry again for losing my cool, insulting you and hijacking your thread. You actually did have some good questions... i still say you need to do some more of your own, objective, research before you present your opinion so boldly or matter-of-factly but many people share your concerns and if we few advocates ignore them or resort to throwing insults they'll never go away.

Originally posted by Zipdot
Brrr, it's cold in here!

Well my mom says that my smile lights up a room. So now you guys are calling my mom a liar. That's it!

*throws down his picture of Hovind, that he carries everywhere he goes, and puts up his dukes.* [/totally joking]

Rren, in any case, it's a fact that the Discovery Institute was created and funded by Christians - that's not really at issue

I conceded both those points, yes?

- but some people consider the organization to be affiliated with the "radical Christian right," which may or may not be true, or may be partially true.

What people constitute this "radical Christian right," do we have names? Can we make a plausible case, based on Discovery Institutes funding, for these radicals using the ID debate to sneak Creationism in the 'back door'? Say you're an ID researcher - trying to get funding - when nobody will touch ID with a ten foot pole. Have you seen what happens to a "respectable scientist" when they come out in favor of ID? I'm not saying you guys ain't on to something here, i really don't know. What would you do if you were in their position?

They go out of their way, ad nauseum, to say that religion plays not part in the scientific process or methodology of ID that they propose. But these guys are stuck in a bad place here. If they don't get their funding from these, as of yet unidentifed, 'radicals' then the ID movement dies because it was too controvercial and not because it's unscientific.

To say that this piece of information is without merit because Phoenix (man, he had quite a day today...) quoted WikiPedia to support this fact is kind of unfair to both Phoenix and WikiPedia.

All i was saying, as someone who uses wiki often, that if your going to make a controvercial statement you need to be able to back that up. Wiki isn't reliable in that aspect (not without merit, but not authoritative)... think i gotta stand on this.

I provided a link (.pdf above) titled "Dicovery Institue and Theocracy", which states this on the first page.

Discovery embraces the American Founding’s principles of representative democracy and civil and religious liberty, including the principle of the separation of church and state. It has never supported in any way the idea of theocracy.
Discovery Institute is not a religious organization. It is, and always has been, a secular public policy center . Accordingly, it has sponsored programs on a wide array of issues, including mass transit, technology policy, international trade, education, economics, and the environment.

Throughout its history, Discovery Institute Fellows and staff have represented an eclectic range of religious views ranging from Roman Catholic to Jewish to mainline Protestant to agnostic.

Also from this link i provided (.pdf above) titled: "The "Wedge Document": How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend". (They go through "The Wedge" point by point for those of you still take issue with it)

Discovery Institute, the supposed mastermind of this “religious” conspiracy, was in fact a secular organization that sponsored programs on a wide array of issues, including mass transit, technology policy, the environment, and national defense.
o At the time the “Wedge Document” was being used by Darwinists to stoke fears about Christian theocracy, the Chairman of Discovery’s Board was Jewish, its President was an Episcopalian, and its various Fellows represented an eclectic range of religious views ranging from Roman Catholic to agnostic. It would have been news to them that they were all part of a fundamentalist cabal.
o Far from promoting a union between church and state, Discovery Institute sponsored for several years a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation between church and state.

If we are to believe these guys are liars/conspirators, which is the allegation here, then i'm gonna need more than a 'wiki' to back it up. It doesn't pass the smell test imho. If you believe that's unfair to Phoenix or Wikipedia so be it... I think i got the high ground here mate. Gonna be hard to prove a negative, all i got is pointing out the logical flaws in this conspiracy "theory" or the "any one can edit it" source used to support it.

Also, I wanted to point out that scientific positions do not use phraseology including words such as "accident" or "mistake" in regard to the creation of matter and life: this is perhaps solely a theistic colourization of the "scientific view." I think it's safe to say that in the vast sea of cosmic possibility, there may be a degree somewhere between "accidental" and "intentional" formation, and most scientists view natural processes as neither intentional (relative to an outside perspective) nor accidental.

While all of this is of course arguable, I think that whenever someone says something similar to "science says (lol) that we were made by accident," it's really not accurate - science is neutral and not philosophical.

While i grant you that "science says" was improper, but many scientists do. If your saying that there is no need, or cause based on evidence, to invoke the Divine or super-natural in the creation or origins of life than aren't you saying indeed that it was accidental or random (not goal directed) chance? Semantics aside of 'course, as a layman i often muck up the jargon but i believe i understand the concept. I agree science should be nuetral, but it's not. The very debate over ID is that science is biased towards metaphysical naturalism or materialism... you disagree? Not what it should be mind you, but what it is.

If you were right i wouldn't expect all this hulabaloo over ID. Why not let ID theorists attack the many questions science still has from a different perspective (design not chance)... nobody is suggesting replacing NDT. I've read that IDTists believe the scientific process had been stymied by this dogmatic constraint on the metaphysical presuppositon used to formulate hypothesis. (i probably just butchered their position there, maybe Matt can clear it up

)

From a scientific standpoint, it is assumed that life was created as part of a natural process, so to be consistent, the creation of life would have to be no more "accidental" than precipitation cycles. Words such as "accident" and "mistake" have no scientific value.

We're not arguing about the cycle (evolution) so much as the origin of that cycle, no? Evolution still works, the supposition has just changed... how would you describe naturalistic (by that i mean not goal directed) origins, other than accidential or random chance? You're saying the ID hypothesis is flawed, it's a "blind watchmaker"... things just look designed even though they are not. If you rule out a designer or Creator all you're left with is accident or random chance. I don't think i ever said "mistake" tho, that would imply a purpose or a missed objective in order to "make" a mistake... "nothingness" can't really make a mistake, i think. *Oh dear, i've just gone cross-eyed*

As well, it could be said that science holds a philosophical view by virtue of its presupposition that we live in a natural universe. This may or may not be true, depending on your personal semantic approach to the idea, but I've yet to see it play an important role in effectively undermining or negating any scientific conclusions.

Zip

Like Matt pointed out and in the paper i linked above by Bruce Gordan, ID doesn't violate methological naturalism. But yes the argument is over; "science holds a philosophical view by virtue of its presupposition ". The presupposition is key here imho, they (IDers) are putting forth hypotheses that are testable and don't violate the methological constraints on what science can investigate. Don't make them right or wrong necessarily, but give these guys a break already. Let 'em get their stuff published and peer reviewed. nobody is asking for a free pass here. If the scientific community is uneasy with the relationship between "the radicals" and the ID community than let them in the door... they could find some funding or credibility if they didn't have to fear for their jobs and reputations for daring to challenge the likes of Dawkins and his ilk.

Anywho that's enough of that... but hey am i a "debunker" now? Man this is nice, come on in the mainstream fellas - water's fine. "Man the road less travelled sure got alot of stones" [/Whitey Ford]

Eh tin hatters?

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours Zip.