What is ID?

[Kenny'sID]

I just didn't want to risk getting too personal with anyone's particular beliefs. But what about the Roman Catholics? That's a pretty large segment of the student body in most districts. They won't take well to having their children exposed to Evangelical Protestant doctrine and usages.

Ok, I see, any given sect. I'm thinking it's not so far fetched to think if we could get by the main obstacle, they may be able to come to some kind of agreement or make the kids aware of it all. One thing at a time.

Any suggestions of your own, or are you against even trying?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sure, very easy fix. People should simply not expect their personal faith beliefs, to be in schools where other people, of other faiths are present. Whether the faith belief be; muslim, christian, hindu or whatever.

One sided again. Those all cover the meaning of life from their own perspective, you don't want that yet you want to present something that many feel is unproven, that takes the place of that list, but says it's done with no meaning to life.

You aren't being fair.

 

[In situ]

I'm curious as to what ID proponents actually believe ID is

To understand what ID spokesmen believed you only need to understand the different flavour of (Christian) creationisms schools of thoughts. Today ID is used as an umbrella term for all forms of creationism beliefs. Its origin is good old stylish Young Earth Creationism. ID is in fact Young Earth Creationism, but since it been adopted by all form of creationism these days, the line has been blurred. ID is mainly a christian creation belief but have recently also been adopted by other religions like Islam. It is part of the agenda with ID - to blur the distinction to make it appear to be "objective".

The roots of ID movements can be found in the Wedge Document.

Your question about mechanism etc is pointless to ask, since the very claim ID makes proposes that such (natural) mechanism does not exists. ID spokesmen claims it was all "designed". How it was designed, or who the designer was, ID has no answer to that.

ID spokesmen mostly spend their time less on explaining ID and more asserting how evolutionary theory cannot work, in particular in areas where science have not provided with an answer yet. This includes Stephen Meyer and his "Darwin's doubt" and "Signals in the cell". In short, ID just whines how incomplete the theory of evolution is because we still does not know Everything that is to know. ID is nothing short of a gap of the god theory.

I.e. ID is the same old creationism rhetoric, if evolutionary theory fails then it must have been created (by God).

 

[In situ]

A modern cat evolving into a modern dog is not how evolution works.

The statement the theory of evolution make is stronger. It forbids it to happen, because it states that every creature is whatever is ancestors was and, according to the theory of evolution, the only way a cat can evolve into a dog is if a cat evolves into its common ancestor with a dog and the evolve into a dog. But evolutionary theory states evolution cannot run backwards, thus it claims it is impossible for a cat to evolve to a dog.

In short, evolutionary theory states you cannot escape your past. It states cat remains cats and whatever cats evolves to will still be cats because its ancestors was cats. That means every mammal is only a variation of the same kind, i.e. the mammal kind, and they shares a common ancestor (cynodonts), every bird is a variation of the same kind, i.e. the theropoda kind, and shares a common ancestors (dinosaurs) etc...

Rather, both of those modern species would share common ancestry; and such a common ancestor would be neither a modern cat nor a modern dog.

Biologist have a pretty good idea how that common ancestor looked like. If you look at the different groups in the group of carnivora: cats, dogs, bears, badgers, mongooses, civet etc and look what the common ancestors in each group, i.e "kind", would look like you will find that all the common ancestors from those groups in themselves will form its own group, i.e. its own "kind" with its own common ancestor. This is a pattern seen everywhere in nature, in every occasion. Which is only expected to be the case if the theory of evolution is correct.

 

[In situ]

yet you want to present something that many feel is unproven

"Many" means "many Christian fundamenatalists", which in no way even remotely represent a majority view.

You aren't being fair.

Nonsense. Science is not about majority votes or anything like that. What you or I "feel" is unproven is irrelevant. What is relevant is the consensus among experts.

The consensus has been sorted out by scientists in scientific debates in peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences over decades. Nothing of this ID or creationism have participate in, yet they expect their pseudoscience to be treated on equal ground, though they never been part of the scientific debate, and be presented in school as an "equal" alternative explanation in science classes. It is not how it works, and it would not be fair to science if ID and creationism had this special treatment of a free pass in science classes.

Evolutionary theory has earned it place in science text books on its own merits. ID has not.

Freak ideas in science, and their are many of them, never makes its way to science text books in school. So ID and creationism has been, and is, treated fairly. To claim anything else is pure nonsense and conspiracy thinking.

You and I do not have the (scientific) expertise to judge on these matters. But for some reason some non-expert believe they have the expertise, even know better than the experts does. Why is that? And why, if they now posses all that knowledge, do they not participate in the scientific debates, but rather prefer public forums?

Why is that? Is it because what you think is unproven does not hold water in an actual scientific debate and therefore the preference is to try to convince the gullible general public instead? Isn't you and the rest of your fellows actually making a political/ideological move instead of a scientific?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I prefer the honest approach here, but can't speak for others.

And I have my doubts their approach is really dishonest. It's a way to get the ball headed in a direction leaving out the conventional God, and if/once your ID is settled as that, without all the "you see it that way because you are religious" interfering, then it might be easier to present the conventional God. You see that as trickery/dishonestly, while it may only be an organized, way of removing complications so it's easier to come to an eventual conclusion.

No. It's not honesty. It's sneaky. It's dishonest. It's hidden agenda. It's, for lack of a better word, a con-man strategy.

Nevertheless, with or without them mentioning any god(s) specifically, their entire ID model is and stays nothing but a nonsensical gigantic argument from ignorance/incredulity.

You are assuming they are doing it under the pretense they think there is no God, when they are only willing to discuss it in that light in order to get at least one point settled.

You should read the leaked Wedge document. Their true intentions are right there, black on white. Yes, this whole "it need not be a god" thingy, is nothing but a strategy in an attempt to hide the fact that they are just presenting religion and not science.

Again, not that it matters because their model is nonsense - with or without gods.

Yes, really, and I gave you the reason, the real reason, it's simple, and makes perfect sense, spin it to whatever fits your agenda if you like.

Considering both your replies here, if you don't mind my saying so....nothing clinical, but I think you might be a little paranoid.

There's nothing "paranoid" about it. I just know the history of how this ID thing came to be, what the underlying motivations are and what the hidden agenda and strategy is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just a random comment, but it still amazes me haw people can't seem to see what happened once God was removed from the schools....baffling.

Why, what happened? What did I miss?

As to the totalitarian thing, it's total evolution now, so how is that OK and not the other way around?

Evolution is science.

Believe it or not, evolution is just as ridiculous to some of us as God is to others.

I think quantum physics is not only ridiculous, but plain absurd.
Nevertheless, it works and it is accurate and science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That goes both ways, what would you suggest? I'm, willing to listen.

Easy: keep religion at home.

Surely there is an easy fix for that.

There is. See above.

 

[Larniavc]

I went to Bible study class in public school in the 3rd grade in a small town in Virginia, the hometown of Thomas Jefferson ironically. Totally inappropriate! Can anyone imagine that today?

I had to do a similar thing in my C of E school in the early eighties.

Dunno if it still happens.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One sided again. Those all cover the meaning of life from their own perspective, you don't want that yet you want to present something that many feel is unproven, that takes the place of that list, but says it's done with no meaning to life.

Not sure what you are saying, but it sounds like you are taking a stab at biology again.

Here's the thing though: even IF religious classes were present in all schools...they don't "replace" biology. Biology is science. Religion is religion.

You aren't being fair.

I'm sorry, but you really do NOT get to talk about "fairness" if you wish to replace solid science with religious faith.

It is anything BUT fair to keep children ignorant about the world around us, about reality, about biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They've never tried to hide anything--it's all in their published materials.

Actually, that's not really true in context of ID.

It most definatly started out as a dishonest scheme to slip religion into science classes under the pretense that it wasn't religious.

 

[In situ]

I agree.

LOL, same old AV. You are funny but in a most positive way. I think you sense of humor stems from that you realize what nonsense creationism makes in the light of science.

It must be difficult to merge both view when you feel that both, somehow, are true. While I disagree, I can understand your choice. I also recognize that we, as people, in general don't seek what is true but what makes us live or lives as a better person. If you think your current faith believes make you a better person, I am all in for you to keep your faith as it is. But I am also of the opinion that it wont make you a worse person if you merged your faith with current view in biology. It might actually enrich your spiritual experience of reality. But that is, of course, only my opinion in the matter.

 

[Colter]

For me life patterns were created, implanted in the shallow briny seas, and evolved. The fossil record is the remnant of a fostered, evolution. Evolution demonstrates a purposive potential, the purpose of the Gods.

 

[In situ]

It most definatly started out as a dishonest scheme to slip religion into science classes under the pretense that it wasn't religious.

ID is still dishonest. It is very frustrating to listen to ID spokesmen, in particular Stephen Meyer, when they constantly says a half truth mixed with a half lie. The half lie cannot be spotted unless you actually posses expert knowledge in what are under discussion. I see this small little lies all the time by ID proponents...

Mayer often have opinions in areas of expertise in were he has no or little actual expertise in... having one(1) degree in Earth Science and philosophy does not make you an expert on everything - which Meyer pretend to be by often stating "I wrote a chapter on [subject] in my book [bla bla]". Meyer seams to believe writing a chapter in book on a subject make him an expert on that subject...

I believe educated people like Mayer are arrogant or overestimate their own capacity to understand things. Mostly it is my mode that decided whether I think educated ID advocates are dishonest and lying or honest and just plain stupid, since it is hard to tell what the case is when people who ought to know better says demonstrable incorrect things, i.e. "lies". But then again, human biases thinking works in rather complex ways so painting it as I do might also be a very black and white approach to it. All I can say is that this is how I feel about it, but that in itself might be a result of my own biased thinking about how an educated person ought to think and reason about things.

 

[In situ]

For me life patterns were created, implanted in the shallow briny seas, and evolved. The fossil record is the remnant of a fostered, evolution. Evolution demonstrates a purposive potential, the purpose of the Gods.

Evolution is implied in the laws of physics and chemistry. If you want to call the natural laws "God" or created by the "Gods", fine with me (I think it is, however unproven, a beautiful way to look at nature as a theist). But if you try to imply something else, I would beg a difference.

 

[In situ]

It is anything BUT fair to keep children ignorant about the world around us, about reality, about biology.

Or religiuose beleives. But that has its own place in school, and that place is not in science classes. That is, I am fine with teacher talking about ID and creatinims, but not in science classes. It, like alchemy, astrology and Flat Earth theory, has not earned its right to be discussed there.

 

[Colter]

Evolution is implied in the laws of physics and chemistry. If you want to call the natural laws "God" or created by the "Gods", fine with me (I think it is, however unproven, a beautiful way to look at nature as a theist). But if you try to imply something else, I would beg a difference.

The laws of physics and chemistry don't evolve mind on their own, they are the platform used by the Master Architects of creation. If I understand you correctly you are saying that life evolved by itself.

 

[In situ]

The laws of physics and chemistry don't evolve mind on their own

It is quite obvious so, and nobody claim this to be the case (beside such strawman attacks from the creationist camp). At any rate, I wonder why you feel the need to make this remark.

they are the platform used by the Master Architects of creation.

Perhaps so you can justify this speculative assertions?

If I understand you correctly you are saying that life evolved by itself.

Not sure what you mean with "itself". If you mean "sufficient", then yes. If you mean something else, then no. What I said is this; the natural laws make life possible to evolve, i.e. natural laws is sufficient as an explanation to the diversification of life and why it exists in the first place.

This is indisputable true, regardless of what creationists try to say. Creationists just don't like such explanations. However, what you feel about an explanation does not make it less plausible.

Notice, I do not say the natural laws is the whole explanation, I just say they are sufficient as an explanation for why life exists. This is as to say the minimum of what we know. If you want to add something to that, feel free. But in my opinion one then need to start to add from the minimum and be consistent with what we already know when doing it.

Why the natural laws are like they are I have no idea. And like I said, it is fine with me if you want to subscribe this fact to a deity, since I have no way to dispute it and it does not contradict anything I know of. However, unlike you, I see no need to subscribe unanswered question to some kind of deity, or anything else for that sake, unless presented some evidence indicating I would need to.

Do you feel you have some kind of evidence which indicates a deity is behind the emergence and diversification of life? If so, what are they and what do the evidence mean in your opinion?

 

[In situ]

I'm thinking it's not so far fetched to think if we could get by the main obstacle, they may be able to come to some kind of agreement or make the kids aware of it all. One thing at a time.

Any suggestions of your own, or are you against even trying?

Any religious, or non-scientific, viewpoint in science classes is obvious a no go. However, I see no problem with including a segment about Creationism beliefs in the teaching of religions. After all, various creation myths are already taught in religion classes. Creationisms is just a modern form of religious creation myths and beliefs and I see no reason for why not text books on religion should be updated just as any other subject are.

However, this is not the problem atm. The problem is that creationist, a.k.a. "ID'ist", realize they cannot get ID teaching into the science classes so instead they try to undermine the general public's confidence in actual science and get it out of the science classes - science which contradict their religious viewpoints. That is the main problem - and this is were the deception and dishonesty of the ID movements lies.

Undermining the general public's confidence in science has far more serious and dangerous consequences than I think creationists actually are aware of. People have forgot, or are not aware of, that it is thanks to science we can live our lives as comfortable we do today. Undermining science will hurt everyone!

 

[Speedwell]

One sided again. Those all cover the meaning of life from their own perspective, you don't want that yet you want to present something that many feel is unproven, that takes the place of that list, but says it's done with no meaning to life.

You aren't being fair.

No, you aren't being honest. The theory of evolution does not attempt or pretend to attempt to replace religion or to affirm or deny that there is meaning to life.

Ok, I see, any given sect. I'm thinking it's not so far fetched to think if we could get by the main obstacle, they may be able to come to some kind of agreement or make the kids aware of it all. One thing at a time.

Any suggestions of your own, or are you against even trying?

It's not worth trying. All the other sects are down with public schools being a religion-neutral zone. Only the Protestant Fundamentalists don't like it, and they expect that it will be their version of Christianity which would be imposed on the schools. That's what history shows us, anyway. During the 19th century (when your "God" was still in school) kids who weren't Evangelical Protestants were punished and ridiculed by their teachers for it. That kind of thing still goes on today in the Bible Belt. That's when why I asked you what you would do about the Catholic kids. They are a sizable minority if not a majority in many school districts and will no longer tolerate the kind of treatment Protestant Fundamentalists would expect do dish out, much less accede to being indoctrinated with Fundamentalist theology.