ID'ers

[marc]

With regard to YEC, OEC, Theo-evo's. What is an IDer?

 

[marc]

Nevermind, I figured it out. Intelligent design'ers

 

[Dracil]

An IDer would be classified as a sub-type of OEC I think. Definitely not a TE.

 

[Ark Guy]

Actually IDers are on their way to becoming YEC's

 

[Bushido216]

Ark Guy, where do you get that little hypothesis from?

 

[seebs]

Well, that's neat! It's like he's invented an entire new kind of evolution!

 

[notto]

Actually IDers are on their way to becoming YEC's

http://www.counterbalance.net/id-wd/index-frame.html

First off, let me come clean about my own views on intelligent design. Am I a creationist? As a Christian, I am a theist and believe that God created the world. For hardcore atheists this is enough to classify me as a creationist. Yet for most people, creationism is not identical with the Christian doctrine of creation, or for that matter with the doctrine of creation as understood by Judaism or Islam. By creationism one typically understands what is also called "young earth creationism," and what advocates of that position refer to alternately as "creation science" or "scientific creationism." According to this view the opening chapters of Genesis are to be read literally as a scientifically accurate account of the world's origin and subsequent formation. What's more, it is the creation scientist's task to harmonize science with Scripture.

Given this account of creationism, am I a creationist? No. I do not regard Genesis as a scientific text. I have no vested theological interest in the age of the earth or the universe. I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. What's more, I find the arguments of astrophysicists persuasive when they argue for a universe that is approximately 14 billion years old. I believe they got it right. Even so, I refuse to be dogmatic here. I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Yet to date I've found none of the arguments for a young earth or a young universe convincing. Nature, as far as I'm concerned, has an integrity that enables it to be understood without recourse to revelatory texts. That said, I believe that nature points beyond itself to a transcendent reality, and that that reality is simultaneously reflected in a different idiom by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

--

William Dembski

 

[lucaspa]

Ark Guy, Notto has pretty well finished that hypothesis.

This is complemented by another prominent IDer -- Michael Behe.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/288/5467/813#EL71
Michael J. Behe,
Professor of Biological Sciences
Lehigh University

Send dEbate response to journal:
Re: Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism

Email Michael J. Behe:
mjb1@lehigh.edu

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."

 

[Ark Guy]

It only makes sense....if the ID'ers believe that God created these complicated and complex organisms..then why not create just as he said he did in Genesis?

 

[notto]

It only makes sense....if the ID'ers believe that God created these complicated and complex organisms..then why not create just as he said he did in Genesis?

Because as their statements say, as scientists, they do not discount unrefuted scientific evidence and have not seen any valid YEC arguments for a young earth or special creation. My guess is that they see no advantage in supporting or adhering to already falsified scientific theories as they struggle to have their own hypothesis qualified.

 

[Bushido216]

It only makes sense....if the ID'ers believe that God created these complicated and complex organisms..then why not create just as he said he did in Genesis?

Anyone else notice this? Ark Guy is using the same extension of other people's logic to come to the conclusion that IDC's are logically YEC's as he does to say that TEC's are logically heading towards atheism.

 

[Ark Guy]

Nope...I just mentioned that the next logical step is a belief in YEC

 

[notto]

Why would the next logical step be to accept already falsified scientific theories?

 

[Bushido216]

Nope...I just mentioned that the next logical step is a belief in YEC

Exactly. You constantly tell TEC's that the next logical step of what we accept is that the Ressurection never occured, when we tell you over and over that it's not true. Just because it "logically follows" doesn't mean that it will come to pass.

 

[Ark Guy]

Why would the next logical step be to accept already falsified scientific theories?

sigh

 

[lucaspa]

It only makes sense....if the ID'ers believe that God created these complicated and complex organisms..then why not create just as he said he did in Genesis?

One more time: because God's Creation shows He didn't create by your literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

 

[notto]

I always find it interesting when YEC's back IDers when IDers push ID at the school board level. The most promintent IDers and the ones that we always read about from The Discovery Institute, etc, do not seem to be much different than theistic evolutionists in their beliefs of an old earth and Genesis as an alegory.

Why do they get a pass from the YEC's? Even in this forum? I would think that Dembski and Behe's ideas would be seen as dangerous as mine are as a theistic evolutionist.

 

[lucaspa]

I always find it interesting when YEC's back IDers when IDers push ID at the school board level. The most promintent IDers and the ones that we always read about from The Discovery Institute, etc, do not seem to be much different than theistic evolutionists in their beliefs of an old earth and Genesis as an alegory.

Why do they get a pass from the YEC's? Even in this forum?

Because IDers are at least saying that science "proves" the existence of God and are anti-evolution. Thus YECers will take the anti-evolution arguments and pass over the rest. Sometimes.

However, they don't always get a pass from YECers. Remember, Ross gets regularly insulted by AiG and Hovind.

 

[Ark Guy]

One more time: because God's Creation shows He didn't create by your literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

So then God lied in his bible?

I think you ought to watch out for what you are really saying.

 

[notto]

Because IDers are at least saying that science "proves" the existence of God and are anti-evolution. Thus YECers will take the anti-evolution arguments and pass over the rest. Sometimes.

However, they don't always get a pass from YECers. Remember, Ross gets regularly insulted by AiG and Hovind.

But what I don't see is AIG and Hovind trying to keep ID out of the classroom even though the theology is the same as theistic evolution. I guess it is just the enemy of our enemies is our friend mentality at its best.