(2017-10-26, 04:21 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Angry attacks on the Discovery Institute and Michael Behe won't accomplish anything but reduce your credibility even more (as if that were possible). Â
On the other hand, aligning yourself completely with the Discovery institute also does not help ones credibility too much either.
What are you suggesting? We ignore the DI's anti-scientific, theistic, political, goals? Their feeble attempts to mimic peer review?
Their deliberate, and repeated, misunderstanding, and misrepresenting, of what evolution by NS actually means?Â
Do we believe what they say without any doubt? Is there any shred of scientific evidence for what they say?
How do we know there something beyond their pointing at a gap in the knowledge and simply stating "that'st design"?
Â
From their founding document, the one that laid out theirÂ
"wedge strategy":
Quote: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 human beings are created by God.
(bolding of these last words mine)
I can sympathize with your wish not to be called a creationist, but then why only quote from discovery sources, an obvious creationist organization?
That does not help your point at all.
And if you want to know whether intelligent design is creationism, please do not go to another DI source,Â
that sounds like Philip Morris saying smoking is good for you.
from another DI page, the source of your copy and paste:
Quote:"Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
The answer is No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Platoand Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world."
"Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
The answer is No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design†in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? It is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case."Â
"Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.†If one simply means “change over time,†or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.†(2000 NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges." Â
Quote:But you don't care. You persist in using a fallacious straw man argument (attempting to refute an argument that was not presented by that opponent). You absolutely exemplify this. Here's the definition: "Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position" Actually, you have thoroughly discredited yourself.
Are you not putting up a bit of a straw man up yourself?
Whenever someone uses the term "creationist", the ID believer immediately goes to indignation about  being called a bible thumping, young earth, creationist.
I can not speak for Steve, but that is not what i mean when i say that the DI is a creationist organization.
I simply mean that they think the universe is created, which is undeniably what they think.Â
Calling it "intelligent design" does not make any difference.
Saying species are created by God, or intelligently designed by a some Generic Omnipotent Designer, is functionally exactly the same.
Hastily retreating into indignation, is ignoring the real problem of ID/creationism, namely that it is based on a completely illogical premise.
It is based on the faith based believe for a supernatural cause, no matter how you name it, and therefore simply not science.
A very interesting documentary on the DI style ID/creationism is this NOVA film about the Dover trial: