Why is it always Darwinism?

[AvisG]

It is accurate. Intelligent Design was developed by the Discovery Institute as a "Trojan Horse" for biblical creationism. And no, that is not some conspiracy theory. They have been quite open about their intentions.

I'm quite familiar with the now 20-year-old Wedge Strategy memo. The Discovery Institute is not a monolithic entity or community of scientists. The Intelligent Design movement is not confined to the Discovery Institute. There is for obvious reasons a close affinity between biblical creationists (likewise not a monolithic community) and the ID proponents, but it seems to me that you are doing pretty much exactly what the OP complained about in regard to "Darwinism."

 

[Speedwell]

I'm quite familiar with the now 20-year-old Wedge Strategy memo. The Discovery Institute is not a monolithic entity or community of scientists. The Intelligent Design movement is not confined to the Discovery Institute. There is for obvious reasons a close affinity between biblical creationists (likewise not a monolithic community) and the ID proponents, but it seems to me that you are doing pretty much exactly what the OP complained about in regard to "Darwinism."

Quite right. And there are scientists still tinkering around with cold fusion who have no professional relationship with or any particular loyalty to Fleischmann & Pons. But by and large the people who are trying to use ID to discredit science are all biblical creationists. And a biblical creationist is one who denounces origins science because it disagrees with the Bible.

 

[AvisG]

Quite right. And there are scientists still tinkering around with cold fusion who have no professional relationship with or any particular loyalty to Fleischmann & Pons. But by and large the people who are trying to use ID to discredit science are all biblical creationists.

I don't know about "biblical" creationists, but it's hard to see how someone who finds the evidence and arguments for intelligent design compelling could be anything other than a creationist of some sort. The best of the ID proponents - Stephen Meyer, for example - don't seem to me to be biblical creationist wolves in scientific sheep's clothing or to be trying to discredit science but simply to be urging "This is legitimate science that deserves a fair hearing." I have a feeling we're watching The Structure of Scientific Revolutions play out before our very eyes (i.e., what Kuhn described as the dynamics of a paradigm shift).

 

[Hank77]

It is accurate. Intelligent Design was developed by the Discovery Institute as a "Trojan Horse" for biblical creationism. And no, that is not some conspiracy theory. They have been quite open about their intentions.

Intelligent Design has been a around since the 1600 - 1700s.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Intelligent Design has been a around since the 1600 - 1700s.

Not quite. The origin of the term may be from the Medieval Ages, but Intelligent Design as promoted by many people in the States and online is definitely a recent invention.

 

[Speedwell]

Intelligent Design has been a around since the 1600 - 1700s.

Citation? I don't see how the specific claims of Intelligent Design could be made before there was a science of molecular genetics.

 

[inquiring mind]

This is something I don't fully understand when I look on this forum.
Every time a Creationist of any stripe or someone who says they're 'critical of evolution' talks about the theory of evolution, they only ever refer to it as Darwinism.

Darwinian evolution is no longer the accepted model for the theory of evolution. It has been superseded by the modern synthesis, and there have been talks of replacing it with the extended evolutionary synthesis or even the post-modern synthesis.

So I have to ask: why is it always Darwinism that is railed against?

You can’t really blame Creationists for using inappropriate names, it’s like trying to hit a moving target… Lamarckism, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, natural selection, Theory of Evolution, modern synthesis, extended evolutionary synthesis, or the post-modern synthesis. It’s sort of like, when it gets enough holes shot in it, just change its name.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You can’t really blame Creationists for inappropriate names, it’s like trying to hit a moving target… Lamarckism, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, natural selection, Theory of Evolution, modern synthesis, extended evolutionary synthesis, or the post-modern synthesis. It’s sort of like, when it gets enough holes shot in it, just change its name.

Except the only holes are ones that you and yours imagine there to be. So... that explanation is bunk.

 

[Hank77]

Quite right. And there are scientists still tinkering around with cold fusion who have no professional relationship with or any particular loyalty to Fleischmann & Pons. But by and large the people who are trying to use ID to discredit science are all biblical creationists. And a biblical creationist is one who denounces origins science because it disagrees with the Bible.

Please describe one or two things that science has proven that ID discredits.

 

[Speedwell]

Please describe one or two things that science has proven that ID discredits.

"Proven?" I'm not going to play that game. That is one of the most blatant dishonest tricks in the creationists' playbook.

 

[pitabread]

It’s sort of like, when it gets enough holes shot in it, just change its name.

That would be a conspiracy theory entirely on your part.

 

[Hank77]

Citation? I don't see how the specific claims of Intelligent Design could be made before there was a science of molecular genetics.

Darwin had to stay at Cambridge until June 1831. He studied Paley's Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (first published in 1802), which made an argument for divine design in nature, explaining adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.
Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

 

[pitabread]

Intelligent Design has been a around since the 1600 - 1700s.

The modern ID movement as promoted by the Discovery Institute, et al., is only a few decades old (IIRC, it has its roots in the 1980's).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Darwin had to stay at Cambridge until June 1831. He studied Paley's Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (first published in 1802), which made an argument for divine design in nature, explaining adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.
Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

Not the same thing as Intelligent Design.

 

[Hank77]

"Proven?" I'm not going to play that game. That is one of the most blatant dishonest tricks in the creationists' playbook.

I'm not trying to trick you. So name two things that evolutionary science says that ID discredits.

 

[pitabread]

I'm not trying to trick you. So name two things that evolutionary science says that ID discredits.

ID hasn't officially discredited anything. They've *attempted* to discredit biological evolution insofar as being a natural explanation for the diversity of species, but they've thus far failed at that.

 

[Hank77]

Not the same thing as Intelligent Design.

What is it then?

 

[Hank77]

rewording

 

[pitabread]

What are two things that science says is true that ID ATTEMPTS to discredit.

I just told you: that evolution as a natural process is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is it then?

Intelligent Design (note the capitals) is the pseudo-scientific and the pseudo-religious belief that the Bible is a scientific text book and should be taken as such.

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

The 'argument for divine design in nature', the teleological argument, is different:
The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world.

Two different things entirely.