ID battle in The Stanford Daily

I think, that to the extent creationism explicitly advocates a literal interpretation of Genesis (I'm not sure it does in ALL its flavors), and ID (in public) denies any relationship to the Bible or other religious texts, the two are "trivially" not the same.

What do people think?

Greetings,

ID certainly is creationism. It simply ignores the details of creationism. But when its core tenet, that biological systems -- read CSI and IC -- cannot have evolved and had to be created by a being, is examined, that is creationism pure and simple.

Finally, Rosenhouse's fine article in CSICOP should answer this question once and for all.

The content of ID is a subset of that seen in "creation science", "scientific creationism", and "creationism". Two boxes holding the same content are the same thing in my book, no matter how many different labels may get affixed to the second box.

Do you agree with the boldfaced statement, or do you think that ID is creationism (or at least a form of it)? Should ID critics nail them on this point (of which there is ample evidence), or concede it and move on? My personal opinion is that it's a semantic argument, depending on how "creationism" is defined. The more important issue is the close relationship between creationism and ID, which doesn't depend on whether or not ID is creationism. Like a wise PTer said (who disagreed with me on this issue), "A serpent is a tetrapod but not a quadruped."

wesley, why can't I log on to AtBC? Check these comments:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/new_csicop_colu_2.html#comment-83063

I just find it funny that the original letter writer complains about "stereotyping" in the same sentence he makes a blanket statement using the word "neo-Darwinists"...

"I think, that to the extent creationism explicitly advocates a literal interpretation of Genesis (I'm not sure it does in ALL its flavors), and ID (in public) denies any relationship to the Bible or other religious texts, the two are "trivially" not the same."

But creationism does not advocate the literal reading of Genesis. Muslim creationists don't believe in Genesis at all.

Dizzy writes "I think, that to the extent creationism explicitly advocates a literal interpretation of Genesis (I'm not sure it does in ALL its flavors), and ID (in public) denies any relationship to the Bible or other religious texts, the two are "trivially" not the same.

What do people think?"

I think you enjoy being deceived. Cuz if you read the Kitzmiller decision, you would know that IDers are lying thorugh there teeth when they claim that religion and religious texts have nothing to do with it.

But creationism does not advocate the literal reading of Genesis. Muslim creationists don't believe in Genesis at all.

Creationism is as creationism does. Once you invoke the supernatural, no matter how far you must regress silly arguments to get to that supernatural causation, you're dealing with creationism.

Do you agree with the boldfaced statement [that ID is not creationism], or do you think that ID is creationism (or at least a form of it)?

— Matt Inlay

1) That criticism of "neo-Darwinism" is equivalent to promoting ID

Oh my God! I must have seen the equivalent of Bigfoot! This guy must be totally ignorant of junk like the bogus statement that the 500 "scientists" signed in support according to the Discovery Institute, and he obviously hasn't read the Ohio model lesson plan.

2) That creationism is the same as ID

So what if it isn't identical. To the ID scam artists that he is defending there is no difference between ID and creationism except what they can use to scam people with.

3) That ID advocates advocate mandating the teaching of ID in high school biology classes

Gee, I wonder who wrote the Wedge document? Who cares about mandating? What did they try in Dover? Who was claiming that they were going to teach the scientific theory of ID on the Ohio state board? The Discovery Institute used to have essays from both Meyer and Dembski supporting teaching this junk, they just switched to the teach the controversy scam when ID turned out to be too bogus for even them to try and foist it off in the public schools.

The sad fact is that if ID had as much fact behind it as these "myths" we would already be teaching it.

Ron Okimoto

We know from the history of ID that it evolved as a means of presenting Creationism in the public-school forum where presenting Creatonism was prohibited. Now, just suppose Dembski was really as smart as he thinks he is, and actually developed scientific data, hypotheses, and explanations that made a new field of Intelligent Design scientific. Just like progress in chiropractic brought that field from a mystical subluxation-based practice to a modern medical endeavor (no, wait, bad example--it's still quackery). Um, just like progress in homeopathy (no, that's another bad example). Just like therapeutic touch (oh, hell, another bad example).

Let's face it, research in Intelligent Design has not progressed any further than where it was several hundred years ago when some people thought they could find indirect yet physical evidence of God by imagining aspects of the universe to exhibit design.

What aspect of ID are we talking about here? The situation is quite blurred due to the vacuity of ID and the motivations of its adherents.

I believe we can make a pretty good case that Dembskian ID concepts are derived directly from the late YEC Dr Henry Morris' musings on the probability of abiogenesis. This is by Dembski's own admission, when he wrote to Morris after the granddaddy of creation "science" expressed reservations about ID proponent's habit of concealing the Gospel to promote the ID agenda. CSI and all that are merely mathematical formalisations of Morris' far more mathematically immature proposals. They also don't correct the flaws that dog the premises surrounding the original creation "science" probability arguments.

Therefore, I believe that we can safely say that this particular aspect of ID is a subset of creationism.

However, it must be pointed out that "subset" != "the same as". Dembskian ID itself cannot fairly be called "creationism in disguise" because it makes no claims about Genesis specifics like the Global Flood, Tower of Babel, The Fall, Age of the Earth etc. All of these areas have been (deliberately) ommitted. A proper presentation of this form of ID would not raise these points. In fact, Dembskian ID cannot even state a single designer! For these reasons, creationist ID proponents are nervous about lesson plans teaching positive information about ID. ID = paganism is not a message that would go down well with their creationist flock!

This is where the water's are muddied and creationism gets more heavily involved. We don't see any positive proposals for ID being proposed for school lessons. Instead of teaching ID itself, the DI likes to push the "Teach The Controversy" (TTC) strategy. If this is all the public are going to see of ID, then there is no difference in their eyes between it and creationism. They both use exactly the same anti-evolution arguments.

The DI is creating a big problem for itself via TTC. The strategy is being sold under the ID banner, yet the TTC arguments are pretty much exclusively creation science. It's no surprise then, that creationsts as well as ID critics make the following connections, ID = TTC = Creationism! This farce has already come to get the DI in Dover. All it takes is a few deluded creationists not getting "the message" and starting to mandate creationist arguments under an ID banner. We saw this again in California and we'll see it again in other states make no mistake.

So, to sum my muddled thoughts up. ID itself is not creationism, although it can be shown to be derived from it. It is the DI's strategy of "Teach The Controversy" that has done so much to confuse the issue. So much so that their own supporters are out of control and getting themselves destroyed in court.

Clear as mud ;)

Andrew

RupertG: I don't know about now, but a very strong form of occasionalism (after a fashion) used to be found in parts of Islam. (In particular, the view that God moves each atom individually at each "tick of the cosmic clock".)

ID is creationism. It was deliberately crafted, packaged, marketed and sold by people interested in pushing the creationist agenda. It differs from creation science only in having been stripped of references that clearly tie it to Biblical YEC. But stripping the box of its labels does not change the contents.

Having done this, the apologists for ID have argued post hoc that ID is not creationism because it does not officially mention God and the Bible. But this presupposes that ID arose on its own, independent of creationism. As abundantly demonstrated, it did not. It has superficially abandoned direct reference to YEC, thereby tolerating acceptance by Old Earth Creationists and folks of other flavors and muddying the waters, but this in no way detracts from its heritage or purpose. The most telling point is that there is no reason to accept ID as valid unless one a priori accepts the proposition that God created things in one way or another. Thus, it is creationism.

I noted over at AtBC that Abbey's opinion piece listed, with great disdain, all the things that ID is supposed not to be, but you would think that in a piece defending the worthiness of ID as science, that somewhere he would get around to mentioning what it is. But he didn't. Why do you suppose that is?

Is ID == creationism? I think so. But I also think that question rapidly devolves into a not very interesting semantic distraction. So I'm in favor of not conceding the point, and moving on.

"I think, that to the extent creationism explicitly advocates a literal interpretation of Genesis (I'm not sure it does in ALL its flavors), and ID (in public) denies any relationship to the Bible or other religious texts, the two are "trivially" not the same." But creationism does not advocate the literal reading of Genesis. Muslim creationists don't believe in Genesis at all.

— hehe

I think you enjoy being deceived. Cuz if you read the Kitzmiller decision, you would know that IDers are lying thorugh there teeth when they claim that religion and religious texts have nothing to do with it.

— Stuart

I suppose I view this debate in a slightly different light.

ID and Creationism are both subsets of the "Determinstic God" viewpoint to me. Once you believe that a supernatural creator of any sort was directly responsible in a naturalistic manner, regardless of how you sort out the details, the end result is the same.

Thus, for me, I can toss ID and Creationism, Muslim or Christian, all into the same bucket. That is the "religion driving natural causation" bucket, and it's the one I'd like to see kept away from public schools.

The details may change, but the essential components of both ID and Creationism are "inherited" from their parent category, and those are the details we are concerned about. Thus, they are the same in the ways which are of relevance to me - religiously motivated and scientifically vacuous (or falsified).

The name of the newspaper is "The Stanford Daily", not "The Daily Stanford."

Grad

Thus, for me, I can toss ID and Creationism, Muslim or Christian, all into the same bucket. That is the "religion driving natural causation" bucket, and it's the one I'd like to see kept away from public schools.

— AD

Those myths were: 1) That criticism of "neo-Darwinism" is equivalent to promoting ID 2) That creationism is the same as ID 3) That ID advocates advocate mandating the teaching of ID in high school biology classes.

As Lenny Flank would be more than happy to say,IDiots just can not stop talking about their religious beliefs.
Consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological. These are not scientific words and this is not a scientific theory. As such, it should not be included in public-education science classes; such inclusion would give a false impression of scientific methodology
If you take the Biblical account of creation as literally true scientific fact, then yes, evolution contradicts the Bible, if you interpret the Bible as allegorical, as a product of human scribes, or as exclusively a work of theology, then perhaps evolution and the Bible can peacefully coexist.

Pernicious caricatures notwithstanding, the signatories to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism now stand at over 500 scientists, including several who earned their doctorates from Stanford.

Let's start with the most general definition of creationism as any explanation for the origin and diversity of life on earth that postulates the existence of a purposeful entity behind it. Is anyone prepared to split hairs about the difference between a "creator" and a "designer"? They have different connotations in common usage, but at core they refer to the same kind of entity--namely a purposeful entity behind whatever we observe, whether we call it "design" or "creation."

In the generic sense, ID is thus a kind of creationism, period.

In practice, ID happens to be a disingenuous offshoot of evangelical Christian creationism. It's a theory that virtually nobody believes, because the ones who proclaim it loudest really believe a lot more than ID states, while even the weakest statement of ID (encompassing, for instance a naturalistic designer) wins so few non-religious adherents as to be neglible.

By conceding a literal definition of creationism which ties it to the bible, we are setting ourselves up for trouble with the vedic creationists or any other non-judeo-christian flavour of religious group. This troubled me during Dover - by conceding that the generic term "creationism" which is not actually IN the bible or any other relgious text, is a unique set of beliefs tied to the Judeo-Christian bible is a trap. Creationism is ANY set of beliefs which posit that the universe and its inhabitants were created. It doesn't matter if you call it an intelligent agent, a giant turtle, a FSM or a god. It doesn't matter if you believe the literal truth of the bible or any other doctrine. It is creationism because it involves creation by someone/something. Just because the groups in the 1980s WERE western traditional biblical types doesn't mean that we need to continue defining creationism the same way.

If some group which did NOT have a history of christian evangelism (such as the people at the DI have) had came forward and pushed a theory similar to ID into Dover schools, could the legal strategy employed have prevailed? I ask this because throughout the trial ID was labelled as a descendant of creationism tied specifically to the judeo-christian accounts of genesis. Now here we are, considering conceding the DI's fine-line distinction that ID is not really creationism because it doesn't specifically identify the county where the garden of Eden was located.

Tristan Abbey was not even trivially correct that ID is not creationism - ANY idea which includes the bringing about by sudden creation is creationism

Creationism is ANY set of beliefs which posit that the universe and its inhabitants were created.

People who are critical of Natural Selection as the mechanism of speciation are free to design experiments or look for fossil or other evidence that puts the idea to the test.

How often have you seen someone ask to see the science provided by ID? Hmmm?

As I said before, if evidence showed creationism, if everyone could talk to god for example, then creationism would not be the sore subject it is today. But because, when we do talk to god, no one ever seems to hear the same thing, we can't nail down what it is that we should be teaching. But with regard to NS as the mechanism for speciation we can nail down what it is that we should be teaching because there is a long scientific history of evidence and experiments all indicating the same thing.

So, is ID creationism? Is ID trying to tell us that the evidence points to this entity that no one ever seems to agree on? As soon as the ID sciences provide us with a shred of evidence that we could empirically test for a designer, then ID becomes legitimate. Until then, whether creationism or just plain dishonesty, it is at the very least, lacking in any evidence whatsoever.

Moreover, have you been reading UD lately? THey are watering ID down so much that it is too fluid to even define. THe purists can point to IC or whatever but they are as much as admitting NS+RM over there where Dembski and DS hang. I'm not sure what they are trying to promote any more.

To use a specific example, suppose I wrote voluminous papers on a new "theory of burning" suppressed by the scientific establishment. My theory was that burning substances gave off a kind of essence of burning--that all flammable substances have, after the loss of which they cease to be flammable--and I kept using that phrase, and I identified myself as a burning essentialist (abbreviated BE).

If you retorted that this was phlogiston theory, long discredited, http://www.jimloy.com/physics/phlogstn.htm then how long could I get away with countering "No I am not a phlogistonist. I am a burning essentialist"? Ten seconds, a minute? Definitely not 15 years, right?

Why let the IDers get away with the same farce?

"Designer" is merely another word for "creator." Therefore, IDers are creationists. QED.

Matt

This article by Jason Rosenhaus answers the question, at least to my satisfaction.

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/differences.html

PaulC:

"Why let the IDers get away with the same farce?"

There aren't millions of people in the U.S. whose good relations with their family and friends and community hinge on a common belief in Phlogiston theory.

Modern physical/chemical explanations for burning don't come into apparent conflict with deep-rooted cultural and religious beliefs.

I don't think anyone is deliberately "letting them get away with it," but societal factors allow it to survive. ID's survival depends on an unhealthy mix of religion and ignorance in large swaths of the American public.

Dizzy: My question was intended rhetorically, but I agree with your explanation as to why it happens.

To restate more plainly: Let's resolve not to let IDers get away with the farce of claiming not to be creationists. A designer is just a creator by another name. Therefore ID is creationism.

Nobody gets to choose the name that others use to identify them, so if IDers are still getting away with this farce, it's because we are letting them.

If we take a moment to think, the word Creationism comes from the word Creator. Since ID nurtures itself out of the Creationism substance for its criticism over evolutionary theory, thus ID is simply another flavor of creationism.

Totally agree - I believe strongly that we can't address this issue by focusing exclusively on the science. For years the ID/Creationist movement has been pounding us in the public-relations department, mostly because we haven't bothered to fight back.

Fortunately, it looks like silliness in Dover and Ohio is mobilizing the scientific community to address the PR issues.

Why not use the correct terminology.

ID is related to Creationism by Common Descent with some PoMo lateral meme transfer.

So, to paraphrase, ID=Creationism.

To reply to Dizzy,
Just laugh at them out loud and often. Make a point of laughing at them (unless you live in a midwestern small town, in which case, become the town "atheist" and have religious discussions with the pastor). In no way am I promoting atheism but that seems to be a word that means "Doesn't subscribe to a specified, describable god".

Then, when you are done with that, laugh at yourself for whatever, just to be even handed.

"ATHEIST" A person whose worldview embraces Atheism [noun] [OW]. The natural condition of all humans at birth and prior to indoctrination in or self-invention of Theism. Atheists claim there is no proof for God[s]. "Strong" Atheists claim God does not exist. "Weak" Atheists do not deny the possibility of God[s], or that proof might eventually be discovered. Atheist and Atheist are Fundie synonyms of Atheist [SD]. The word Atheism [CE] derives from the Greek atheos, a = without, theos = God.
I live in a small town in the deep south,it's so much fun rattling the cages of the RWCF

ID is not creationism, nor is it a form of creationism; but it is more or less a variety of "creation science". That is: it is a superficially scientific cloak for a prior religious commitment to creationism.

Someone once described ID as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo". Rather, I'd say, ID is the tuxedo, and the creationism it clothes is the same as it always was.

Huh, amazingly (to me) dictionary.com gives a very restrictive definition of "creationism": http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=creationism
"Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible."

So by this definition, if I believed that the world was created by Tiamat as described in the Enuma Elish (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm) then I would not be a "creationist" according to the American Heritage Dictionary.

I think that this is a misleading definition. It does reflect common usage in American English in that virtually every American described as a creationist is in fact a biblical creationist, and I'm unaware of any currently living believers in Tiamat. But I don't see how it is possible to believe in a creator without being a creationist, and I have yet to see a credible distinction made between a "designer" and a creator.

If I say that IDers are creationists, one could counter that my usage was non-standard, but from a logical standpoint the statement holds. A creationist is simply someone who postulates a creator responsible for the world as we see it. This fallacy has occurred in many cultures, not just in those influenced by the Bible, so if we are not allowed to use the word "creationist" to identify the fallacy in its most general sense, then what alternative is proposed?

I'm not sure an alternative is warranted; you just need to be careful of context and make sure to spell out your alternate definition (as you did above) when you're using it in place of the popularly understood definition.

"Anarchy" kind of suffers from the same problem - in popular usage it's sort of synonymous with "chaos," but in the context of philosophy it refers to a specific political school of thought that relies on voluntary social structures and mutual aid in place of formal authority and laws (actually eerily similar to Confucianism).

Tristan Abbey wrote, "That criticism of "neo-Darwinism" is equivalent to promoting ID." and then brags that "the signatories to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism now stand at over 500 scientists, including several who earned their doctorates from Stanford." The vaguely worded Dissent from Darwinism has no scientific standing, of course, just as Abbey's whole logically mushy letter has no valid logic.

The ID meme derived from the creationist meme by the process of Darwinian evolution. Microevolution, of course.

Tangentially related to this thread is that Henry Morris, that grand Pooh Bah of scientific creationism, died last Saturday in Santee, California (as reported in this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer). I wonder how he and his creator are getting on, or whether he's found himself in that other place. Perhaps, Kitzmiller killed him. The obit, which was credited to the Washington Post, gives him far more credit than I think he merits saying among other things that he "...built it [the Institute for Creation Research] into an organization of far reaching influence." It also notes that his 1961 book, "The Genesis Flood", is still in print. Morris was, perhaps, Behe's model for acquiring a life long annuity.

Re "Let's start with the most general definition of creationism as any explanation for the origin and diversity of life on earth that postulates the existence of a purposeful entity behind it."

In practice it seems to be more like creationism involves being created in a way that contradicts scienctific results, i.e., belief in a creator that didn't bypass natural laws gets called something else, such as theistic evolution.

Re "Is anyone prepared to split hairs about the difference between a "creator" and a "designer"?"

Not me. I regard the word "designer" as used in this context as a ruse to trick people into not thinking about the fact that a "design" then has to be implemented aka manufactured aka created in order to actually exist.

Henry

Re "We know from the history of ID that it evolved as a means of presenting Creationism in the public-school forum where presenting Creatonism was prohibited."

It evolved? Ya mean ID wasn't intelligently designed?

:)

Depends on if you think its tenets are "irreducibly complex" or if parts of it originally served a different purpose (in Creationism).

Muahaha.

Let's start with the most general definition of creationism as any explanation for the origin and diversity of life on earth that postulates the existence of a purposeful entity behind it.

— PaulC

Is anyone prepared to split hairs about the difference between a "creator" and a "designer?

— PaulC

Not me. I regard the word "designer" as used in this context as a ruse to trick people into not thinking about the fact that a "design" then has to be implemented aka manufactured aka created in order to actually exist.

— Henry J

And here we have our first genuine difference. SC literature routinely extols the virtues of catastrophism and an instantaneous creation of the universe. The catch is that they claim to believe these things not because of any prior religious convictions, but solely because their interpretation of the evidence tells them that it is so. And ID does not reject SC arguments related to these assertions, it merely takes no stand on them. There is a difference here, but hardly one of any significance.

— Jason Rosenhouse

I think, that to the extent creationism explicitly advocates a literal interpretation of Genesis (I'm not sure it does in ALL its flavors), and ID (in public) denies any relationship to the Bible or other religious texts, the two are "trivially" not the same. What do people think?

(1) 'Scientific creationism' (no reliance on Biblical revelation, utilizing only scientific data to support and expound the creation model). (ICR Impact No, 85, "The Tenets of Creationism", Henry Morris, July 1980) we turn to the other major work of creation "science", the book Scientific Creationism, published by the ICR in 1974 (Henry Morris, ed., Scientific Creationism, Creation Life Publishers, San Diego CA, 1974). This book, the ICR informs us, was written by "the scientific staff of the Institute for Creation Research" (p. i). It is, the editor declares, a work of science, and "makes no reference to the Bible or other religious literature as its authority, but only on the facts of science" (p. v): "It is possible to discuss the evidences relating to evolution versus creation in a scientific context exclusively, without reference to religious literature or doctrine." (p. 3) "The purpose of Scientific Creationism (Public School edition) is to treat all of the more pertinent aspects of the subject of origins and to do this on a scientific basis, with no references to the Bible or to religious doctrine." (p. iv) Morris emphasizes again that the book treats creationism in "a strictly scientific context" (p. iii) and as a "scientifically sound alternative to evolution" (p. iii). "There is nothing inherently religious about the terms 'creator' or 'creation', as used in the context of Act 590. Act 590 is concerned with a non-religious conception of 'creation' and 'creator', not the religious concepts dealt with in the Bible or religious writings... All that creation- science requires is that the entity which caused creation have power, intelligence and a sense of design." (Defendant's Trial Brief, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)

Published statements by DI associates confirm that "renewing our culture" by replacing "scientific materialism" with "God" or a "theistic understanding of nature" is indeed the only aim and purpose of "intelligent design theory". DI associate George Gilder wrote an entire piece entitled "The Materialist Superstition" which decries "the Darwinian materialist paradigm", and advocates replacing it with "intelligent design", which, Gilder implies (but is very careful not to explicitly state), is non-materialistic. ("The Materialistic Superstition", Discovery Institute Website, 2005). Other ID advocates, however, have at times been less circumspect. Phillip Johnson, who talks much more openly than the others about the explicit anti-atheistic goals of "intelligent design theory", specifically contrasts "scientific materialism" with "divine intervention"; "It is the alleged absence of divine intervention throughout the history of life --- the strict materialism of the orthodox theory --- that explains why a great many people, only some of whom are biblical fundamentalists, think that Darwinian evolution (beyond the micro level) is basically materialistic philosophy disguised as scientific fact." (Johnson, "The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism", First Things, November 1997, PP 22-25) "Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God.... The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe." (Johnson, "The Church of Darwin", Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999). "For now we need to stick to the main point: In the beginning was the Word, and the 'fear of God'- recognition of our dependence upon God-is still the beginning of wisdom. If materialist science can prove otherwise then so be it, but everything we are learning about the evidence suggests that we don't need to worry. (Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship; A Call to Separate Materialist Philosophy from Empriical Science", address to the 1996 "Mere Creation Conference") Johnson explicitly calls for "a better scientific theory, one genuinely based on unbiased empirical evidence and not on materialist philosophy" (Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship). Johnson doesn't tell us what this non-materialistic philosophy might be that he wants to base science on, but it is clear from the rest of his statements that he, like every other IDer, wants to base science on his religious beliefs. DI associate Michael Behe also makes the connection between fighting "scientific materialism" and "theistic understanding of nature" explicitly clear. "Darwinism is the most plausible unintelligent mechanism, yet it has tremendous difficulties and the evidence garnered so far points to its inability to do what its advocates claim for it. If unintelligent mechanisms can't do the job, then that shifts the focus to intelligent agency. That's as far as the argument against Darwinism takes us, but most people already have other reasons for believing in a personal God who just might act in history, and they will find the argument for intelligent design fits with what they already hold. With the argument arranged this way, evidence against Darwinism does count as evidence for an active God, just as valid negative advertising against the Democratic candidate will help the Republican, even though Vegetarian and One-World candidates are on the ballot, too. Life is either the result of exclusively unintelligent causes or it is not, and the evidence against the unintelligent production of life is clearly evidence for intelligent design." (Behe, "The God of Science", Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999, p. 35) "Naturalism is a philosophy which says that material things are all that there is. But philosophy is not science, and therefore excluding ideas which point to a creator, which point to God, is not allowed simply because in public schools in the United States one is not allowed to discriminate either for or against ideas which have religious implications." (Behe, Speech at Calvary Chapel, March 6, 2002) Another DI associate, William Dembski, makes the connection between ID and Christian apologetics even more explicit: "Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." (Dembski, "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution", Designinference.com website, February 2005). Indeed, Dembski titled one of his books Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology (Dembski, 1999). In that book, Dembski makes the religious basis of ID "theory" explicit: "The conceptual soundings of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." (Dembski, 1999, p. 210). Other statements by Dembski make it clear that his designer cannot be anything other than God: "The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." (Dembski, "The Act of Creation", ARN website, Aug 1998) "From our vantage, materialism is not a neutral, value-free, minimalist position from which to pursue inquiry. Rather, it is itself an ideology with an agenda. What's more, it requires an evolutionary creation story to keep it afloat. On scientific grounds, we regard that creation story to be false. What's more, we regard the ideological agenda that has flowed from it to be destructive to rational discourse. Our concerns are therefore entirely parallel to the evolutionists'. Indeed, all the evolutionists' worst fears about what the world would be like if we succeed have, in our view, already been realized through the success of materialism and evolution. Hence, as a strategy for unseating materialism and evolution, the term "Wedge" has come to denote an intellectual and cultural movement that many find congenial." (Dembski, "Dealing with the backlash against intelligent design", 2004) "But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting it." (Dembski, address given at Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004) "Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (Dembski, Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design, 2005) As the Wedge Document puts it: "We are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (Wedge Document, 1999)

Perhaps if we considered what most IDists would do if an advanced alien race actually turned up on our doorstep and admitted to designing all the life on this planet (i.e. seeding Earth with DNA billions of years ago), it might be enlightening. I guess a few IDists would claim victory, but the vast majority of those involved with the Disco Institute would feel as utterly defeated as their fellow creationists by the revelation that it was not God but aliens who had "designed" us.

I'd say that ID is of the biblical "kind". Microevolution on front loaded variability may have resulted in the changes from creationism to scientific creationism to intelligent design, but they are still the same kind! ;-)

I think, that to the extent creationism explicitly advocates a literal interpretation of Genesis (I'm not sure it does in ALL its flavors), and ID (in public) denies any relationship to the Bible or other religious texts, the two are "trivially" not the same. What do people think?

— Dizzy

Major IDers know that classic creationism is nonsense.

Dizzy writes "There was an article (on PT?) about how this presents an inherent difficulty for IDers: they need to tell the public it isn't rooted in religion, but they need to tell their supporters it is"

THe very essence of being caught on the horns of a dilemma

Here's the American Heritage Dictionary definition of creationism:

"Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible."

They provide no secondary definitions. This is also how the term is used by those who identify themselves as creationists. The only people who try to lump them together are those outside the camp. Intelligent design is something different, the notion that living things are so complicated that there must have been some kind of designer. I'm astonished that an intelligent person, ostensibly an advocate of rationality would claim that the difference between the two is trivial.

There are plenty of people who support ID but not creationism. Michael Behe, to my knowledge, has never uttered a word in support of the biblical view of creation, but he is one of the leading lights of the ID movement. And there are an awful lot of ordinary people out there who agree with him.

Arguing against ID because of the "close relationship" between ID and creationism is guilt by association. If you think that ID is wrong or that it's not science, you should be able to argue against it on its own terms.

Arguing against ID because of the "close relationship" between ID and creationism is guilt by association. If you think that ID is wrong or that it's not science, you should be able to argue against it on its own terms.

— rachelrachel

Dear rachelrachchel,

I find it impossible to believe YOU believe, to the smallest degree, in the assertions you made in the recent post above. Neither do I believe you are, like many of the actively Creationist crowd on the Net, a completely gullible, self-deceiving Xian or a crank.
Further, I don't believe you have what could be the only remaining excuse for having written such obvious nonsense: an absolutely total lack of knowledge about the activities, history, methods and people of the ersatz brand of neo-Creationism that promoted itself as "Intelligent Design."
You are not only offering up a rational of transparent bullshit and claiming it to be rational thought, but do not yourself believe an atom of what you wrote yourself.

Shame on you.

Here's another way of thinking:

ID is a superset of different forms of creationism, as well as the idea of guided evolution; Biblical creationism is a subset of ID. Creationism implies ID, but ID does not necessarily imply creationism.

Charlie B wrote:

The global search-and-replace of creation with intelligent design in Pandas means the link is far stronger than you say. It's not "guilt by association", they just renamed it.

I say:

Pandas is one thing, and Behe's Darwin's Black Box is another. Both are considered to represent intellgent design. I haven't read Pandas except for the excerpts in the Dover transcript, but I have read Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Pandas might very well be a creationist tome. Probably (from what little I've read) its creationist content means that it shouldn't be used as a supplementary text in science class. From that it doesn't follow that ID shouldn't be taught, only that Pandas shouldn't be taught.

If you read Behe's testimony at the Dover trial, you'd know that there was plenty in the Pandas text with which he disagreed. He believes in common descent, which puts him at odds with the creationists. His position, so far as I gather, is closer to that of theistic evolution.

I think Behe is a crank, and I think his argument is full of holes, but is there any reason to believe he's secretly a creationist, other than guilt by association? I tend to think that he arrived at his conclusions by himself, that he really believes them, and that his position is sincere, not a cunning attempt to avoid constitutional challenges.

Maybe I'm wrong about Behe, but nobody's shown me any evidence to the contrary.

The argument from design has been around a lot longer than any constitutional challenges, and is at least as old as St. Thomas Aquinas. It's older than our constitution, and will probably be around long after our constitution is gone.

Charlie again:

Also, I think it's successfully been argued against on its own terms.

Me again:

Of course it has. But that doesn't mean it's the same thing, or almost the same thing, as creationism. If you've got good arguments, why not use them?

Frankly, I have no problem with teaching ID in science class, if it's handled in the right way. We could explain what scientists think about ID, why it isn't science, etc. The topic is hard to avoid, and I don't think keeping silent on it is the best option. When I was in school, we learned theories that the sun revolves about the earth, that when heated metals give off phlogiston, and that maggots arose spontaneously from rotten meat. There was never any controvery about teaching these outmoded theories, and to this day I don't hear people getting worked up over them. It's only creationism and intelligent design that gets everybody worked up. In biology class, we learned about Bishop Paley and his "watchmaker" argument. We also learned, in our unit on Charles Darwin, that he had been a creationist before he went on his Beagle voyage. It is impossible to understand Darwin without understanding where he came from. Without understanding the argument from design, The Origin of Species is incomprehensible. If the "don't teach ID" crowd has their way, young science students would never be able to properly understand Darwin.

One more thing: arguing against intelligent design because of the activities of some of its supporters is the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. It's like arguing that vegetarianism is bad because Hitler was a vegetarian. Maybe vegetarianism is good, maybe not, but Hitler's eating habits have nothing to do with it.

One more thing: arguing against intelligent design because of the activities of some of its supporters is the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. It's like arguing that vegetarianism is bad because Hitler was a vegetarian. Maybe vegetarianism is good, maybe not, but Hitler's eating habits have nothing to do with it.

"Yes and no. Scientifically, to argue against ID based on the activities of its supporters would be ad hominem. But ID's lack of scientific content is transparent and there is no need to go to motive in order to discredit it; its own lack of falsifiability discredits it, as well as its complete lack of explanatory power. There's no research program and no potential for research, ergo no science. Unfortunately ID is really a political movement against science, and in politics what one does is at least as important as what one says. So I think the activities of cdesign proponentists---starting with the pathologically-repeated lie that there is science there to begin with---are quite relevant to whether their ultimately-political arguments have integrity."

I quite agree. The older theories mentioned in rachelrachel's class (Spontaneous Generation, Phlogiston) were actual scientific hypotheses, out of which grew experiments. The theories were finally discarded when testing was able to invalidate them. Bringing up older explanations in science class is useful; Phlogiston was around a long time until the discovery of oxygen finally allowed a better explanation of combustion. Another contrast: If Malaria was thought to be caused by evil spirits, that would be impossible to test. If it was thought to be caused by "bad air", that is testable. ID and IC are not scientific; they cannot be used by teachers as examples to show how science advances. As the Dover trial shows, the whole premise of ID is religious/political.

But what if the hypothesis is that malaria is caused by bad air from the flatulence of evil spirits? Gotcha! Godless evilutionists.

I'm not sure what I think of teaching ID in science class specifically to demonstrate why it's not science...on the one hand, we do teach things like the Ether and leeches/mercury and demonstrate why they're wrong. But these things were actually the best *scientific* (at least in the case of ether) explanations at the time, and new experiments/observations caused scientists to adjust or abandon them.

ID isn't science, but it is something that's going to smack students in the face at some point, often while they are still in school. Would including it in science class be better for kids educationally, by helping them to identify "junk science"?

I should add to that last part (identifying junk science) that a large chunk of the American public currently seems to have difficulty with that task...

rachel: Um, ID proponents do NOT want their theory to be taught as something people erroneously believed in the past!

(which is already in effect with many of their "arguments", and, after all, belongs more in the teaching of History of Science than Science itself)

"Controversy", remember? They want their "theory" to be taught as a viable alternative to evolution. THAT'S what all the fuss they make is about.
Now, please don't tell me that's how phlogiston and ether were taught in your school...

This issue can actually be attacked quantitatively, using simple principles of mathematical probability. The problem is simply whether a complex system, in which many com- ponents function unitedly together, and in which each com- ponent is uniquely necessary to the efficient functioning of the whole, could ever arise by random processes.

— Morris, in _Scientific Creationism_ 2nd edition p 59

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." [emphasis in original]

— Behe, in _Darwin's Black Box_ p 39

I think Behe is a crank, and I think his argument is full of holes...

— rachelrachel

... it doesn't follow that ID shouldn't be taught, only that Pandas shouldn't be taught.

Yeah its plainly obvious to all that neoCreationism aka Industrial Deception is just neoPalyism ....and boy was he an absolutely unrepentant wet squib ....I mean the least one could expect is that he would recant on his deathbed and become an agnostic.

God must have been playing golf the day Paley was dreaming about watches heck maybe the old guy was just in a bad mood from loosing a bet with you know who when he decided to take sides with Darwin and let him win.

k.e.,
You use some seriously non-linear thinking.

If you read Behe's testimony at the Dover trial, you'd know that there was plenty in the Pandas text with which he disagreed. He believes in common descent, which puts him at odds with the creationists. His position, so far as I gather, is closer to that of theistic evolution.

— rachelrachel

k.e., You use some seriously non-linear thinking.

Nearly every comment in this thread conflates two senses of the words "creationist" and "creationism", one being about the belief, and one being about the misrepresentation.

steviePH,
LOL

isn't it "non-sequiteur linear non-thinking..."

BWE
oh well ...no horizons
Hey... who are you to talk!
Love your 'work' BTW.
Ever heard of Sun ra and his "The Solar Myth Arkestra" my kinda guy.

Steviepinhead
I don't know whether to take that as an insult or a compliment.

OH ....I get it

I'll do a Larry and take it as a compliment...#/...dang.... he takes insults as compliments...shudder...I'l take it as an insult ...much better. :)

Now was that linear enough ?

I used to play an online game shootemup under the title of duckmysick it took them months to work it out.

Re "If you think that ID is wrong or that it's not science, you should be able to argue against it on its own terms."

What are its own terms?????

Henry

Maybe ID is creationism. And maybe ID is "unscientific". And ID certainly does invoke the supernatural. None of that is reason to believe that ID is false.

"Maybe ID is creationism. And maybe ID is "unscientific". And ID certainly does invoke the supernatural. None of that is reason to believe that ID is false."

Agreed. Also, maybe Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is creationism. And maybe FSM is "unscientific". And FSM certainly does invoke the supernatural. None of that is reason to believe that FSM is false, either.

In regard to comment about the flying spaghetting monster: I agree.

FSM is just a label, though. Call it God, call it FSM, call it "the force", call it Brahma, call it whatever the hell you want. It doesn't matter. Labels are all interchangeable.

Theonomo sorry to hear that
but "electric snakes color furiously" has as as much meaning as your statement

By the way do you know what a double negative is?

You said

belief in a "non existing thing i.e. supernatural,or more correctly a personal subjective idea" is a not a reason to believe (carry a subjective idea) that ID is false."

effectively you are saying "a belief in a belief is not false"

It is also true that "a belief in a belief " is completely optional and if one chooses to then feel free ...good for you, just don't expect the whole world give a sh*t.

Maybe ID is creationism. And maybe ID is "unscientific". And ID certainly does invoke the supernatural. None of that is reason to believe that ID is false.

Maybe ID is creationism. And maybe ID is "unscientific". And ID certainly does invoke the supernatural.

What if ID were true. Forget about whether it is scientific or not. Let's just suppose that someone was able to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that ID is the correct story.

Would it still be illegal to teach it in the public schools?

What if ID were true. Forget about whether it is scientific or not. Let's just suppose that someone was able to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that ID is the correct story.

What if ID were true.

I'm astonished that an intelligent person, ostensibly an advocate of rationality would claim that the difference between the two is trivial.

Arguing against ID because of the "close relationship" between ID and creationism is guilt by association.

If you think that ID is wrong or that it's not science, you should be able to argue against it on its own terms.

Frankly, I have no problem with teaching ID in science class, if it's handled in the right way. We could explain what scientists think about ID, why it isn't science, etc. The topic is hard to avoid, and I don't think keeping silent on it is the best option. When I was in school, we learned theories that the sun revolves about the earth, that when heated metals give off phlogiston, and that maggots arose spontaneously from rotten meat. There was never any controvery about teaching these outmoded theories, and to this day I don't hear people getting worked up over them. It's only creationism and intelligent design that gets everybody worked up. In biology class, we learned about Bishop Paley and his "watchmaker" argument. We also learned, in our unit on Charles Darwin, that he had been a creationist before he went on his Beagle voyage. It is impossible to understand Darwin without understanding where he came from. Without understanding the argument from design, The Origin of Species is incomprehensible. If the "don't teach ID" crowd has their way, young science students would never be able to properly understand Darwin.

One more thing: arguing against intelligent design because of the activities of some of its supporters is the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

What if ID were true. Forget about whether it is scientific or not. Let's just suppose that someone was able to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that ID is the correct story. Would it still be illegal to teach it in the public schools?

"Intelligent Design" is Creationism for Cowards.

Hang on, folks.

theonomo is Larry.

Check out the argument. It's Larry all over again. Suppose this, suppose that.

Suppose Larry wasn't a twisted, lonely old crank. Would it be illegal to teach Larry? Not illegal, but impossible.

Yes, theonomo, if ID were true it would be illegal to teach it, you miserable fungus.

Re "I am SHOCKED. SHOCKED, I say. Utterly SHOCKED."

Electricity will do that. Be more careful next time. ;)

Re "What if 1+1=3? Let's suppose. What would follow?"

Only for very large values of 1.

Henry

What if ID were true. Forget about whether it is scientific or not. Let's just suppose that someone was able to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that ID is the correct story. Would it still be illegal to teach it in the public schools?

Maybe ID is creationism. And maybe ID is "unscientific". And ID certainly does invoke the supernatural. None of that is reason to believe that ID is false.

theonomo is Larry.

Check out the argument. It's Larry all over again. Suppose this, suppose that.

A quote that Elvis Presley reputedly once said comes to mind: "And if my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle".

theonomo is NOT Larry.

he's posted here well before Larry made his appearence on PT.

onomo's drivel is typically shorter in length than Leisure suit Larry's tho, thank the FSM.

Sheesh.

In "INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE OVER EVOLUTION: A REPLY TO HENRY MORRIS" (not my caps), Dembski says:

"Moreover, no one in the ID movement claims that ID is the Gospel. If you want the Gospel, read the Bible and especially the New Testament."

The beginning of the very next paragraph:

"ID is part of God's general revelation."

But ID is not creation science. Nosiree bub.

Maybe ID is creationism. And maybe ID is "unscientific". And ID certainly does invoke the supernatural. None of that is reason to believe that ID is false.

— theonomo

Theonomo is definitely not Larry/Andy. Theonomo has been around far longer, and their styles are totally different. Larry specializes in verbose pseudolegalistic meanderings, often several in a day, and he avoids direct references to religion. Theonomo tends to post no more than about once a month, he's more belligerent, his messages are far more terse, and he seems to specialize in trollish little creationist drivebys.

Theonomo is very likely an evangelical. Larry is more an attention-seeking crank.

Do you agree with the boldfaced statement, or do you think that ID is creationism (or at least a form of it)? Should ID critics nail them on this point (of which there is ample evidence), or concede it and move on? My personal opinion is that it's a semantic argument, depending on how "creationism" is defined.

I would agree with so many of you that IDer's are pretty much creationists. I don't think there's anything wrong with that except for those who deny it. What I find confusing is that evolutionists are guilty of the same thing. If called a 'neo-Darwinist', there are those who claim pigeon-holing, when, in reality, the term is correct in categorizing their beliefs. At that incredible moment in time when this whole universe of ours began, something happened (I know, how brilliant of me). Some put their faith in the natural, and some put their faith in the supernatural. Either way we're talking about faith. Seems to me like with either theory we go with, we've got an element of 'religion'. Why's that so hard to admit? All the evidence in the world doesn't mean diddly-squat since we don't have a clue where all the 'stuff' came from to eventually form this existence. So go grab a cool one to get the hot out from under your collar. The universe got here, we got here, so enjoy it!

Livewire,
Except that "neo-Darwinism" isn't a belief as such - it's an acceptance of a conclusion based on the data. It's conceivable (if highly unlikely) that new data could change the conclusion.

Re "All the evidence in the world doesn't mean diddly-squat since we don't have a clue where all the 'stuff' came from "

Why exactly do you think that a scientist has to know exactly where things were several billion years ago in order to study the interrelationships of the last few billion years?

Consider an analogy: Chemists can study reactions without knowing where those molecules came from in the first place, can't they?

Henry

Henry J. wrote:
"Why exactly do you think that a scientist has to know exactly where things were several billion years ago in order to study the interrelationships of the last few billion years? Consider an analogy: Chemists can study reactions without knowing where those molecules came from in the first place, can't they?"

I agree with you completely. Of course scientists can and should study the elements of the beginning of the universe. My question is, where did those elements come from? How did they get there? Obviously that 'stuff' was there. But how? Why? If there was a beginning to our universe, where did the elements come from from which it was made? If our universe did not have a beginning, then what do we conclude from that? Do you think we can ever really know?

My question is, where did those elements come from? How did they get there?

Obviously that 'stuff' was there. But how?

Why?

If there was a beginning to our universe, where did the elements come from from which it was made? If our universe did not have a beginning, then what do we conclude from that? Do you think we can ever really know?

Some put their faith in the natural, and some put their faith in the supernatural.

— Livewire

Flint,

Thanks for the honest responses. Those questions I have about what came before our universe and where the 'stuff' from which our universe came are burning questions for me. Though 'why' may be a useless question, it's one I've been asking since I can remember. I realize that science is in the business of answering 'how', but I'm not sure I'll ever be able to ignore the 'why' question. In any event, you've responded respectfully as opposed to the flippant, smart-aleck comments I read so often here. I thank you.

Livewire
Unlike biblical interpretations of nature which are totally free from any tests for their actual truth and rely on force of personality and imagination of the preacher and the gullibility of the audience science is dynamic and aggressive in its search for how things work.
Just do a google search on "Dark Matter Gravity neutrinos" it may not be too long before we know a lot more about the big bang (and have a lot more questions).

k.e.,

Thanks for the search topic on Dark Matter Gravity Neutrinos. It looks like an exciting area for discovery potential. I'll keep reading. I still have that nagging question of how did what came first get there. Where did the neutrinos come from and what came before them and what came before that? Do you think that there has to be a beginning to existence or do you think that the elements for life have been around eternally? Do most people not think that's an important question? It truly perplexes me.

Livewire, you sound like a sincere person, and ordinarily we give sincere-seeming persons a couple of "bites" before concluding that they may, after all, be cranks or trolls and possibly deserving of wisecracks and ridicule.

I'm sure virtually all of us have wondered how existence came to be and "what came before that."

The word "before" in your questions, however, assumes a sequential time frame. According to Big Bang theory, however, time itself came into being only with the "bang" or emergence of the physical universe.

The same is true for space, matter, energy, the four "fundamental" physical forces, and the other physical laws science is in the process of elucidating. Thus, there may literally come a point as we progress backwards in time when there was no "before." Likewise, the "elements of life" that you're talking about (whether you're talking about the actual elements that we are made up of, like carbon, which would not have existed for hundreds of millions of years after the Big Bang, since it was forged in exploding stars, or matter itself, which did not immediately "condense" from the energies unleashed by the Big Bang until the universe had had time to cool) have not been here forever--they too emerged as part of the process.

It is certainly challenging to try to mentally stand "outside" of all that exists--all of the things that give our thought processes themselves their ground of meaning--and try to imagine what or when or who or how kinds of questions that retain any conceptual meaning.

(As you may know, physicists have speculated that "our" universe may exist in some sort of higher matrix of universes, of which ours may be a product or a part. Forces from other "nearby" universes may "leak" over into ours. Of course, it remains possible that the emergence of our entire reality is the result of a miracle, an inexplicable act of grace. The former speculations may someday be testable by science, however, while the latter--even if it is correct, and even if it ultimately "underlies" the testable explanations and speculations--is not one which, at any rate, science has yet figured out any approach to testing.)

In any event, it doesn't really work to conceive of the non-existence "before" our universe as being the equivalent of an emormous featureless emptiness, in which ordinary time and ordinary spatial extent were already on hand, but simply had nothing to do--and were just waiting around for matter and energy and stars and carbon and people to come on stage.

Non-existence (or "pre-existence," or however you wish to think of it) did not feature time or space either. Or, as far as we know, "non-time" or "non-space." In other words, non-existence doesn't just mean something like "empty" or "nothing" or "immanent" or "it's really extremely boring here, would something please start happening."

I could easily be wrong here, but it sounds to me like, before you start tackling more advanced topics like dark gravity neutrinos, you may wish to read a good general science-type introductory book about the Big Bang...

Steviepinhead,

I don't think you are a pinhead. You are correct in assuming that I could use further schooling in the theories of the beginning of time. You have given me possible explanations that are food for thought. My frustration with both Darwinian evolution and creationism/ID is the "we know the truth for sure and you're an idiot if you don't believe us" attitude. I think that no one, in science or religion, can give a definitive answer as to the beginning of the universe or other universes before ours and whatever came before them and so on. Perhaps my exploration of this has as much to do with philosophy as it does with science, however I have been taught since childhood to look to science for the answers. You stated that perhaps before the Big Bang that the non-existence of all things stood outside of time. (Sorry if I've paraphrased incorrectly) That leads me back to that struggle with eternity which bewitches me so. In any event, thanks for taking the time to respond kindly. I appreciate it.

Ambiguity about the origin of the universe 13.7 billion years ago does not make evolution ambiguous. Doubt that evolution has occured is not reasonable for a person educated in the relevant science.

As far as wanting to know and understand The Truth about where everything came from, and how it did that, I hate to say that I don't think there'll ever be a sufficient answer. We're talking about a once-in-a-universe event 100 million lifetimes ago, in which the laws of physics were seriously different. That's not the kind of thing we can grok on a satisfactory, intuitive level. One of the things a physics education did was strip me of the hope that The Truth could be found.

Re "I still have that nagging question of how did what came first get there."

If it came first, the only answer is it was always there. But aside from that, when talking about physical objects (matter or energy), there will always be something that's known only by observation, since any explanation (in contrast to mere description) has to be based on something that preceeds (or is more fundamental than) the thing being explained. That's how I see it, anyway.

Re "My frustration with both Darwinian evolution and creationism/ID is the "we know the truth for sure and you're an idiot if you don't believe us""

Well, one thing I can't grasp is how somebody could believe that tens of thousands of biologists could work for several decades, producing a huge amount of research results, if there really was some fundamental "flaw" in the concept.

Near as I can tell, evolution is supported in really the same way as anything else in science:
(1) It's consistent with observation (i.e., no verified contradictions reported within the area to which the theory applies).
(2) There's lots of places and ways in which contradictions would be expected to have been found (or be found in the future) if it weren't a good approximation of what happens in nature.
(3) Finding a verifiable contradiction would mean putting limits on the applicability of the theory, like was done with Newtonian mechanics after relativity was established.

Henry

Steve s wrote:

"We're talking about a once-in-a-universe event 100 million lifetimes ago, in which the laws of physics were seriously different. That's not the kind of thing we can grok on a satisfactory, intuitive level. One of the things a physics education did was strip me of the hope that The Truth could be found."

I don't know what kind of physics education you got and where you got it, but the goal of physics is to frame ALL events, including "creation", within one set of laws that are broad enough to encompass all phenomena. Perhaps you meant to say that "conditions" were seriously different then. The laws certainly were not.

er....Carol what about the "phenomenon" that some people believe they were abducted (and probed...ugh)by aliens is that the purview of physics ?

Or the "phenomenon" that some humans confuse a desire for life after death, no matter how ridiculous that is, with with an ancestors belief in a proto human sexless male (without a female partner) as the father of all existing things both living and not, within their limited view and unknowable of what all reality may be.

And that for all reality (not history since time does not exist in the past only in the 'now' a point moving forward) to be knowable would require the ability to place ones mind into (a fictional) mind of a humanly created god like entity-any one will do, and thus is beyond what humans can perceive as reality and that entity is limited only by human creativity and IS limited TO human creativity.

Speaking of Lao Tse's "eggshell" what is your take on your concept of what "god" might be, not creating water?

Really interesting. Maybe our universe exists in a type of star, so we might be part of a bigger universe...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925423.600.html

and, as a bonus, this theory gets rid of some singularities...

and, as a bonus, this theory gets rid of some singularities...

But not Carol or Larry it would seem.

Yes, infinite ignorance, infiniate arrogance and infinate...

I propose they use 'n cocktail of some SSRI, lithium, codein and infinate vodka to assist them.

Larry is really freaking me out. It is hard to diagnose what is wrong with him, but I'll bet it is even harder to pronounce.

Renier Who was it that said "A dog need fleas to remind them they are dogs"
I suppose it helps to keep in mind what that a singularity exists as a time and matter free zone.

One could of course fix all this by redefining time and saying existence is collectively moving backwards in anti-time powered by the Behe and Blast inductive reasoning principle.

Like the "new logic" in the MP Holy Grail where the next hypothesis from the logician at the witch dunking was to use sheep's bladders to prevent earthquakes. (Its at the end of the act)

Demonstrating believability only needs to sound slightly more plausible to the brightest person in the audience to be accepted by all those easily influenced.

The beauty about science is that the practitioners are the hardest audience to convince and the least easily influenced, the EXACT OPPOSITE(totally orthoganal) to literal readers of Genesis or promulgators of creationist clap trap.

D'oh
what that

thats what !

k.e, I know, I used to be a fundie. People will believe any junk if they think the source is a trustworthy one, like the pulpit, or books by other Christians.

Tis really funny, fundies call people like me "back-sliders". It never occured to them that we might just be "front-sliders". :-D

Speaking of MP, I think I'll watch "Life of Brian" again tonight... it's just that the girls in that movie are REALLY ugly... and they got these deep voices... lol At least it's educational. Romanii... hehehehe. latin lessons at the tip of a sword. Could we teach some people the basics of science like that?

Yeah the MP "Cannon" total genius.
Every time I reread or see it, a new "view" pops "into existence".
I especially like it when someone "corrects" me with and MP quote.

The crazy thing is the MP crew knew more about philosophy,religion and history than most people ever will. They must have had some interesting teachers all raised on classical and modern liturature but it takes a good mind to come up with what they did.

Not all the women were ugly ...there was Judith at the 'games'.
And the classic dig at postmodernism.
Where Stan wants to be a woman and uses postmodernist rhetoric to argue that he should be able to have a baby because "It's my (Stan's) right as a man"

Of course what would a Western European view be without the concluding alien rescue scene ....."Deus Ex Machina".

Renier said
Larry is really freaking me out. It is hard to diagnose what is wrong with him, but I'll bet it is even harder to pronounce.

A neurosis definitely. I had some fun with searching on fundamentalist insert any neurosis
a while back, it is a pretty widely recognized and serious problem including some wacko psycho sexual problems.

Larry like Stan in TLOB is a victim OF his own mind.

To rationalize the lies that were told to him in his childhood and his own constant repeating of them he HAS to change truth/reality and for a literal objectivist it's simple ....the Goebbles two step.
Good old identity politics and literal objectivism leading to a hyper rationalistic technocratic tyranny...hint its been done before.

He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future!
--- Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichsparteitag, 1935

Have a look at this
Discussion about orality and literacy

Customer: It's not much of a cheese shop scientific theory, is it? Shopkeeper IDiot: Finest in the district! Customer: (annoyed) Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please. Shopkeeper IDiot: Well, it's so clean, sir! Customer: It's certainly uncontaminated by cheese supporting evidence.... [snip] Customer: Have you in fact got any cheese science at all? Shopkeeper IDiot: Yes,sir. Customer: Really? (pause) Shopkeeper IDiot: No. Not really, sir. Customer: You haven't. Shopkeeper IDiot: No sir. Not a scrap. I was deliberately wasting your time, sir. Customer: Well I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to shoot you.

Hmm try this.
Discussion about orality and literacy based on Murray Jardine's Sight, sound, and epistemology: the experiential sources of ethical concepts.