Intelligent Design and Creationism are basically the same. Both are the proposition that "God-dunnit".
As evidence, Wesley Elsberry cites Michael Medved at a symposium in Tampa:
Michael Medved dismissed accusations that the IDC movement was disguised religion as a "big lie". Elsewhere in his remarks, he claimed that the vociferousness of the attacks on IDC were because of belief. IDC advocates, Medved claimed, would have no change in their faith if "Darwinian evolution" were proved correct (to the satisfaction of their doubts, certainly), but that atheists would have to admit that they were wrong if IDC proved correct.
OK, so if IDC is correct, how would that change any atheist's mind about things? It seems to me that's only the case if one assumes that the "intelligent designer(s)" is/are identical to some conception of God(s). That rather diminishes the force of Medved's other assertion that IDC isn't about religion.
3 comments:
First, let's define ID. It is the proposition that bioforms show evidence of design. It does not deny evolution carte blanche, but questions the validity of evolutionary mechanisms as the exclusive source of protein structures, RNA/DNA coding, monocellular to higher orders, the origin of sexual selection and embryogenesis, and of radical speciation events. It's intent is to verify the design component(s) by the identification of design inferences due to structural features, cooperative systems that are not reducible (by reverse engeneering) via ancelstral step-wise alterations due to mutational variations (no selective advantages), and possibly other means yet to be proposed.
The above are my conclusions based on ten years of researching the subject. I reject natural selection of random variations as a viable or even statistically possible means to achieve the present order of bioforms. My conclusion at this point, is based not on faith or religious beliefs, but purely on 1) design inferences, and 2) the implausability of NDE mechanisms.
Now to your question:
"OK, so if IDC is correct, how would that change any atheist's mind about things? It seems to me that's only the case if one assumes that the "intelligent designer(s)" is/are identical to some conception of God(s). That rather diminishes the force of Medved's other assertion that IDC isn't about religion."
If ID is correct, and not IDC, an attempt to conflate ID with Creationism, would that change any Atheist's mind about things? Depends on what evidences were presented to support the ID hypothesis, and the strength of a particular Atheist's mindset.
Evidences supporting design are greater today than in the past. Abject denial of even the remote possibility of design constitues constrained reason, rather than rational thought, IMO. An agnostic position is more logical. But would even that position support religious acceptance? No it would not.
There will likely never be hard evidence (implied truth) for ID, nor for NDE as well. Both are forensic pursuits, and both entail inferences. The evidenc for common ancestry (genetic and homologous) is well established, but the mechanism(s) involved are not.
Actually, I submit the definition you offer for ID is only half the definition.
You define it as:
...the proposition that bioforms show evidence of design.
I submit that part and parcel of ID is the inadequacy of mechanistic natural laws to account for said design. Implicit in ID is the notion of an intelligent designer acting with intentionality.
Natural laws are not intelligent. Newton's second law has no choice but to act in accord with F = ma. As soon as you invoke an intelligent designer, you have abandoned science and taken up creationism.
Lee Bowman:
"If ID is correct, and not IDC, an attempt to conflate ID with Creationism, would that change any Atheist's mind about things? Depends on what evidences were presented to support the ID hypothesis, and the strength of a particular Atheist's mindset."
ID == IDC. There's no "conflation" going on, just documentation of deception on the part of the folks who came up with the "ID" label for existing religious antievolution arguments. See "cdesign proponentsists".
Is "ID" correct? So far, there doesn't seem to be much going in that direction, despite your cheerleading. I've been "researching" the subject longer than you have, just in case you want to reiterate an argument from authority. The philosophical legitimacy of "ID" hangs upon the work of William Dembski, and I've pointed out quite a number of intrinsic problems there, including an essay I co-authored with Jeffrey Shallit: http://www.springerlink.com/content/a1l08u041t72m227/
EvidenceS? The plural use is common in theology and rather rarely seen in the natural sciences.
The "ID" movement continues the deceptive practices of the religious antievolution effort, which went wrong after the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas decision. They decided then to try to falsely claim that the content they had was science, and could be taught as such. That sham has continued under different labels, of which "ID" is but one, right to the present day.
I can't speak to what an atheist's mindset might be. As a Christian brought up to revere truth-telling, I find the rampant falsehoods promulgated by the religious antievolution movement repugnant.
Lee Bowman:
"Abject denial of even the remote possibility of design constitues constrained reason, rather than rational thought, IMO."
Rationally, pointing out ordinary design inferences does not establish the validity of rarefied design inferences. See http://talkdesign.org/cs/theft_over_toil
Wesley R. Elsberry
Post a Comment