Who is an IDist?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
It was my understanding that the Intellegant Design movement is very vauge. Basiclly, it argues against Atheistic Evolution.

If a person is a Christian, including of course Christian TEs, wouldn't they actually belong in the Intellegant Design crowd? Being that God could have designed through evolution just as much as he could have designe through special creation?

I'm asking, because I see a lot of people list YECs, OECs, and IDs together in this forum.... and I really thought ID was so vauge, it could be Martians who designed us under that theory.

I just thought it basicly argued against atheism more than anything.
 

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Pats said:
If a person is a Christian, including of course Christian TEs, wouldn't they actually belong in the Intellegant Design crowd? Being that God could have designed through evolution just as much as he could have designe through special creation?

Since TEs believe in a creator God who designed the process of evolution -- which itself creates design -- you would think TEs and IDs would have a lot in common. Some IDs do accept evolution to the point they could be described as TEs. Yet few TEs self-identify as IDs.

The crucial difference, it seems to me, is that ID is wed to the concept that some features of living things could not possibly have evolved and are therefore evidence of an intelligent designer who created them whole.

In general TEs do not agree with this position for two reasons:

1) Theologically it is a god-in-the-gaps argument which is rejected by most TEs.
2) Scientifically, no proposed example of intelligent design has been shown to be unevolvable. Several that were suggested (blood-clotting cascade, bacterial flagellum) are now known to have plausible evolutionary pathways.

This doesn't mean TEs reject the notion of design by a creator, but that they do not pinpoint it to specific biological features or speculate on what mechanisms, if any, God may use to guide the historic pattern of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Pats said:
It was my understanding that the Intellegant Design movement is very vauge. Basiclly, it argues against Atheistic Evolution.

If a person is a Christian, including of course Christian TEs, wouldn't they actually belong in the Intellegant Design crowd? Being that God could have designed through evolution just as much as he could have designe through special creation?

I'm asking, because I see a lot of people list YECs, OECs, and IDs together in this forum.... and I really thought ID was so vauge, it could be Martians who designed us under that theory.

I just thought it basicly argued against atheism more than anything.
It's bad science and bad theology.
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
It just seems to me that the under lying belief is that God is the designer, no matter wich way he carried out the task.

But, admittedly, I haven't talked with many folk who identify themselves as IDists, and know little about that crowd.

I really thought the entire movement was more of an idea to get public schools to teach that a higher power sort of God might of created us, or engineered evolution.

~Pats~
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Dover School Board trial pretty much crushed any notion that ID only vaguely relied upon a generic deity as opposed to the Christian God.

I personally reject ID not just because of its bad science, but because its notion of God comes across to me as way too deist to be orthodox.

I believe that God is still in the act of creating, and as a part of that is the sustaining force of the natural laws that we see in force in the universe.

God is very much present tense in my world view, whereas ID tends to speak in the past tense.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
chaoschristian said:
I believe that God is still in the act of creating, and as a part of that is the sustaining force of the natural laws that we see in force in the universe.

God is very much present tense in my world view, whereas ID tends to speak in the past tense.

I would agree that God is the sustaining force of the natural laws in the universe, and very much present tense. :)
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Pats said:
It just seems to me that the under lying belief is that God is the designer, no matter wich way he carried out the task.

But, admittedly, I haven't talked with many folk who identify themselves as IDists, and know little about that crowd.

I really thought the entire movement was more of an idea to get public schools to teach that a higher power sort of God might of created us, or engineered evolution.

~Pats~

Yeah, I think it's a good thing to put that out there. It is apparent to me, too, that God is the Lord of nature. But ID isn't a general term for anybody who thinks that God is the First Mover. It really is specific to certain biological processes that are thought to be "irreducibly complex."
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Willtor said:
Yeah, I think it's a good thing to put that out there. It is apparent to me, too, that God is the Lord of nature. But ID isn't a general term for anybody who thinks that God is the First Mover. It really is specific to certain biological processes that are thought to be "irreducibly complex."

ID and Creationism are so conflated in my mind now that I forgot about that point. Thanks for bringing it up.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
chaoschristian said:
ID and Creationism are so conflated in my mind now that I forgot about that point. Thanks for bringing it up.

It's not Behe. It's mostly the philosophy that gets written about ID, and most of the lay supporters. Again, I don't think Behe is right, and at this point I can't see any good reason for him to continue saying what he's saying, but, on the other hand, he does think evolution is the general way of things. I wonder how many "ID"ists would agree.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Some observations:
1. ID has been accused (either rightly or wrongly) of being Creationism in disguise
2. Despite claiming to be "religiously neutral", ID proponents have been accused (either rightly or wrongly) of being Christians in disguise
3. ID, like YECism, is an almost purely American movement
4. ID seems to be more about the politics of education than anything else. (See point 3)
5. ID gets bashed by both YECism and TEism
6. ID seems to be full of sincere but misguided people.
7. ID seems to be going the way of YECism -- i.e. discredited amongst the general public, rejected by the courts, laughed at by scientists... and believed on in the Church
8. The Flying Spaghetti Monster demonstrates how problematic ID is


Make of these what you will...
 
Upvote 0

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
gluadys said:
The crucial difference, it seems to me, is that ID is wed to the concept that some features of living things could not possibly have evolved and are therefore evidence of an intelligent designer who created them whole.

This is what I really cannot understand about IDism, YECism and OECism. If God created the "natural laws" of the universe, why couldn't he have designed these "laws" so that after running for 13.7 billion years, out pops living things?!??!??
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
ID is basically a belief that says God couldn't design a natural system sophisticated enough to produce evolving life forms. It really doesn't say very much for their view of the intelligence of the designer.

I would be very happy to describe myself as believing in intelligent design, or as a creationist, but the movements that bear those names spent their time and energy trying to prove God made the world in a way very different from how the scientific evidence says it was made. Basically it is down to deep seated conviction that evolution is an evil deception, therefore God obviously could not have used evolution.

But if we believe God made the world, surely we have to accept that he probably made it pretty much the way the evidence says it was made.

Assyrian
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
The whole problem is that a term which, at face value, could be supported by all Christians, has been hijacked by a specific group of Christians and taken to mean far more than it means at face value. For example "creationist". Ideally we could all call ourselves "creationists", even TEs believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but the term has been taken to mean creation not only in the ontological aspect (that God created) but in terms of a certain methodology of creation (God created in six days, six thousand years ago). So although it would be entirely honest for TEs to call ourselves "creationists" in the brute literal sense of the word, we cannot really call ourselves "creationists" in the sense of identifying with those who specifically label themselves creationists.

The overall TE position with respect to IDism is pretty much the same. If the word were being used for the very first time without any baggage whatsoever TEs should be quite happy to say "yes, God designed all life, and He did it through evolution". Nowadays, even we humans (following in God's footsteps? :p) use evolutionary ideas - genetic algorithms - to design things. The problem is that most people who call themselves IDists today are not just subscribing to the term in a general, ontological sense (God designed, it didn't all just fall together) but to a specific methodology (God designed mechanisms for which there are no possible evolutionary pathways of origin). So while TEs wouldn't mind being called IDists in the sense of being opposed to the atheistic implications of atheistic evolution (as you rightly noted), it would be misleading for us to call ourselves IDists if that would imply that we support the ideas of others who call themselves IDists.

Labels, labels. The lesson is that we cannot just put people in boxes; we need to listen and learn before we know where someone is coming from and blast in the direction.

And you are right, IDism does not necessarily invoke Christianity. In fact, it is compatible with practically anything. IDism even works with atheism. Either through panspermia (intelligent lifeforms independently evolved elsewhere, designed us, and then left us on Planet Earth), or through weird sci-fi ideas (humanity at the end of time becomes so powerful that they reach back in time and seed the planet with its first life-forms). The fact that most ID people are Christians is quite telling in terms of the movement's intellectual loyalties.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
shernren said:
Labels, labels. The lesson is that we cannot just put people in boxes; we need to listen and learn before we know where someone is coming from and blast in the direction.

That was one of my thoughts in starting this thread. :)

And you are right, IDism does not necessarily invoke Christianity.

Nor do any of our titles. Muslims and Jews are creationists, and all theistic evolution means is that one god organized evolution.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.