The Big Difference Between Creationism and Intelligent Design

"Spiritually, what happens next? We must continue to serve God day by day. We really honestly believe that when we pray for a miracle in our case, we are not just praying for selfish reasons. We earnestly believe that the cause of Christ is at stake. We really believe that souls are hanging in the balance because of God's continued choosing to use this ministry to bring others to Himself. We honestly believe that HIS name and HIS glory are at stake."

Creationism is certainly explicitly based on the Bible,

Sorry Sal. Not revealing your moitives is not the same as not having them. As for arguing from empirical evidence, to do that you have to explain all the evidence. Coming with some possible anomalies that are presently difficult to explain, or merely suggestive, isn't enough. By the way, any scientific references for that stuff? You might want to check the Talk Origins archive before trying to peddle it around here.

Sal's nonsense is destroyed on a thread at After The Bar Closes http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46b50084037ab27b;act=ST;f=14;t=5144;st=30

Thanks Zarquon, very enlightening. Also interesting that Sal says that "if" the YECs make a convincing case they will have a "solid empirical footing". So I guess he admits that they don't yet have one. What are they waiting for? They have been at this for hundreds of years. Why no empirical support yet? And apparently, the fact that they have not yet succeeded in "making a convincing case" has not stopped them from arguing from empirical evidence. Gee, wouldn't most scientists wait until they had a case before they started arguing?

Materialists enjoy arguing against Creationism because it's so easy to win. Intelligent Design theory, on the other hand, is not nearly as much fun to argue against. The mathematical and scientific arguments are difficult, for everyone, and neither side can claim to have proof.

So of course you like Creationists better than ID theorists. The Creationists don't care about truth or evidence or science. They are obviously harmless fools. You despise ID theorists, but it isn't because they're dishonest or devious. It's because they, some of them, are highly educated experts who do care, very much, about science.

It is possible to be scientific without despising the idea of religious faith. It is possible to question materialist philosophy without being a gullible, unscientific, fool.

That's what you're really worried about. You know that, in the long run, scientific arguments are decided by evidence and logic, not politics. Right now, your victories are only political. You decide the truth about evolution by counting Steves, as if math and logic were irrelevant. All that counts, to you, is how many close-minded establishment experts you have on your side.

I have thought, that Creationism C Intelligent Design

That means, Intelligent Design is a group/big tent, in
which is many ideologies. And ONE of them is YEC. There is many "parts".
(You can be YEC and support ID at the same part. ID did not tell that YEC with 6000-10 000 year old earth/life/universe is wrong. It jus not say is it old or not.)

And that makes it so soapy;
If you show that something in ID is wrong, you are not critizing ID, you jus debunk "one irrelevant part". And there is nothing that is outside, if all of these "irrelevant parts" are removed. So everything you actually can do is debunkin those "irrelevant parts" and claims..

You know that, in the long run, scientific arguments are decided by evidence and logic, not politics.

— a troll who gets it right for once

Right now, your victories are only political.

— ...and immediately proceeds to place foot firmly in mouth,

Creationism is about the BIBLE, see?

It's not about intelligent design theories like Behe's* Edge of Evolution or Dembski's design inference.

Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

— Dembski

RealUneducableNewAgePillock wrote:

Materialists enjoy arguing against Creationism because it's so easy to win. Intelligent Design theory, on the other hand, is not nearly as much fun to argue against. The mathematical and scientific arguments are difficult, for everyone, and neither side can claim to have proof.

Still pretending no one knows nothin' 'bout nothin'? Sorry, Skippy, that fish don't hunt. "Intelligent Design 'Theory'" has been repeatedly proven to be vacuous at best, and (more often than not) blatantly dishonest at worst. Your attempt to pretend both sides are equally in the dark only shows how consistently uneducable you are. You're the only one in the dark, because you're the only one whose head is still firmly jammed up your bum.

The only difference between creationism and ID is that the latter desperately tries to pretend it's something else. (BTW, Sal, care to explain the significance of the phrase "cdesign proponentsists?")

It is possible to be scientific without despising the idea of religious faith. It is possible to question materialist philosophy without being a gullible, unscientific, fool.

That's what you're really worried about. You know that, in the long run, scientific arguments are decided by evidence and logic, not politics. Right now, your victories are only political. You decide the truth about evolution by counting Steves, as if math and logic were irrelevant. All that counts, to you, is how many close-minded establishment experts you have on your side.

Hmm, one statement I agree with, one I definitely do not. I agree it is possible to be scientific without despising the idea of religious faith. However, the "victories" of evolution are far from political. In fact, in all honesty I am not entirely sure what "political" victories evolution has actually had. Ton's of scientific ones. At least one legal one. But political?

On the other hand, what few successes ID and creationism have managed have been political, and not scientific.

In the same blog, Denyse also wrote:

"Those who dissent respond by building - at their own expense - a museum to tell their side, do the public a service by making their religious agenda clear to all."

This seems to be a typical response to creationism by IDers - they don't want to outright admit that it is a falsehood, but instead want to dance around it, even to the point that, bizarrely, this is some kind of 'public service'. So O'Leary thinks promoting pseudo-science developed on the basis of a very questionable set of scriptures, in which a tribal God heartlessly massacres millions of people - this is a public service.

I once tried to challenge O'Leary on her blog about how exactly old the Earth and the Universe are - but as usual, rather than getting into any real discussion, she just simply ignores the question. If you go to her blog, you will find very little comments, partly because O'Leary has no intention of getting into any actual debate with anybody. No, nobody is allowed to challenge the Queen of Snarkiness.

BTW, is it me, but do others find O'Leary the most irritating, and smug of the ID bloggers? She labels herself as a "journalist" but really all she does is mass-produce propaganda fodder to keep the faithful satiated with blind assertions and falsehoods.

Great post Mike. You're totally one of my favorite PT authors.

from Stochastic Electrodynamics that the speed of light has decayed and there was accelerated radioactive decay (as suggested in the above link),

RealPC blathers... The mathematical and scientific arguments are difficult, for everyone, and neither side can claim to have proof.

Funny, I always thought that the main difference was spelling.

"Creationism is about the BIBLE, see?"

Creationism is certainly NOT about the Bible.

Christian Fundamentalist creationism is based on the Bible.

Islamic Fundamentalist creationism is based on the Quran.

Hindu Fundamentalist creationism is based on Hindu scriptures.

ID creationism is based on theistic presuppositions.

Etc.

One must be dumb not to understand such a simple point.

The mathematical and scientific arguments are difficult . . .

You decide the truth about evolution by counting Steves, as if math and logic were irrelevant.

Salvador,

I haven't yet read your links or those refuting them, but if there's anything other than the usual cherry picking or "reinterpretation", the research will take off. If results are promising and independently verifiable, the proposals will be funded. There is no bias against those who believe that the Universe and its life are designed, and you know it.

Of course all that "research" could just as easily refute YEC as easily as confirm it. What if the origin of the Universe converges on 1955, for example? The ages are converging, aren't they? No cover-up of disagreements, I hope. There's no better indication that one is trying to pull a pseudoscientific fast one that that, you know.

And even in the remote chance that those lines of "research" do confirm YEC, they will only add to the evidence refuting several mutually contradictory OEC accounts. Including Behe's version that includes common decent, which is, ironically the only position any major IDer ever admitted. If the "research" is successful, most IDers might mutter a pathetic "we suspected that all along," but Behe will really have egg on his face. As will Ray Martinez, whose paper supporting an old-Earth-young-life "theory" is due any minute now.

In the meantime, can we finally expect some debating among IDers that favor Behe's position, progressive OEC, and your YEC (or pseudo-YEC) position? Even if none of you are fully confident in your positions, debating can help your scientific credibility even if the research doesn't pan out. That's the way to put an end, once and for all, to the claims that your ideas are strictly motivated by religion. But I understand, like those Roswell people in the news lately, you don't care much about impressing mainstream scientists.

BTW, do you have an idea when that "research" will be ready to be taught in high school science class? That would solve all the problems with the current "critical analysis" approach, not just the link to ID and creationism that gets it in legal trouble, but the fact that it exempts any potential competing hypothesis from "critical analysis." IOW, do you have any idea when IDers, if not classic creationists, will truly be confident that evolution is not the only idea worth teaching (and misrepresenting)?

Richard Simmons,

Dembski didn't make any obvious math mistakes and you know it.

Pastor Bentonit,

You have not followed the evolution debate. ID theory accepts evolution and common descent. So evidence for evolution and common descent are not relevant to the debate.

The questions are not simple and no one has the answers.

Realpc,
You said in a previous thread...
"Yes Randi has debunked a lot of nonsense. There will never be a shortage of ridiculous paranormal claims. But he goes way beyond the data in saying no paranormal claims can possibly be valid."

When and where did Randi say this?
Either quote your source or admit you just made it up!
This is about the fourth time (on this site) I've asked you this question, realpc.
What's your problem?
Too ashamed to answer?

Re "ID theory accepts evolution and common descent."

Then why is it that so many ID advocates don't?

Besides, if ID really doesn't conflict with evolution, then what the heck is the argument about?

AFAIK, common descent is the principle reason for the denial of evolution; accept it and the argument is only about the details.

Henry

ID theory accepts evolution and common descent.

Dembski didn't make any obvious math mistakes and you know it.

Dembski didn't make any obvious math mistakes and you know it.

Dembski didn't make any obvious math mistakes

. . . Dembski didn't make any obvious math mistakes and you know it.

— realpc

. . . ID theory accepts evolution and common descent.

So evidence for evolution and common descent are not relevant to the debate.

The questions are not simple and no one has the answers.

ID theory accepts evolution and common descent

I have explained this repeatedly at this blog. ID is a theory of evolution, it does not contradict evolution in any way. ID is an alternative to the currently accepted theory of evolution -- neo-Darwinism.

Blogs like PT do their best to confuse the controversy, to make you think ID opposes evolution and agrees with Christian creationism.

Darwin's theory was not the first theory of evolution. Neo-Darwinism is not the only theory of evolution NDE says random mutations acted on by natural selection are enough to explain the origin of new, and increasingly complex, species.

ID agrees that random mutations occur, it agrees that natural selection occurs, and it agrees that these together can cause species to adapt to changing environments. It does not agree, however, that macro-evolution works this way.

I'll say it again -- ID agrees that species evolved. I don't think it expresses an opinion on common ancestry, but it would not deny it. Do we really know that life originated just once on earth and all species evolved from the same source? Anyway, ID has nothing to say about that.

The whole controversy involves information theory and the detection of design.

ID does not say a god person came down every once in a while to create a new species. It says nothing about god. In my opinion the universe is intelligent and intelligent machines, like ourselves, naturally evolve. It does not happen by chance. It is not a mechanistic, mindless, process.

ID is a theory of evolution

RealUneducableSelfImportantWanker blithered thusly:

I have explained this repeatedly at this blog...

And we have refuted it repeatedly. The fact that you continue to repeat the same old discredited crap only proves how complacent, self-important, uncaring, unengaged and uneducable you are. You thought you knew everything, and stopped learning, while the rest of us moved on and left you bloviating in the dust. Get your head out of your ass and face the facts: you're just not equipped to contribute anything to this debate, or learn anything from it.

realpc wrote:

"ID is a theory of evolution, it does not contradict evolution in any way. ID is an alternative to the currently accepted theory of evolution --- neo-Darwinism."

Well, if ID does not contradict evolution, how can it be an alternative? Logically it can't be an "alternative" if it completely agrees with the accepted theory.

What this guy is probably trying to say is that ID is an add on to evolution. He seems to accept everything that evolution explains, presumably because he finds the evidence convincing. But he desperately needs to believe that the universe is too complicated for mere science to understand. So, if there is something that is difficult for him to understand, he simply claims that evolution cannot explain it, therefore there must be something more to it.

Of course, the problem with this approach is, as always, a complete lack of evidence. Believing that evolution cannot explain something is not the same as demonstrating a deficiency in the theory. Making up stuff about supposed constraints on evolution is not the same as demonstrating those constraints. And claiming that there is a guiding force that directs evolution for it's own goals is not the same as demonstrating that force.

OK, so what is this guiding force? Is it the "intelligence of the universe"? Where did it come from? What are it's goals? What will be the end result of evolution? Why? Of course, if you answer "increasing complexity" then you must realize that that is one of the possible outcomes of "mindless" evolution. So what predictions does this hypothesis make? How can we test this? Where is the evidence? How can it be distinguished from "natural causes"? What new things does it predict? How does it increase our understanding? Why do we need this addition? What good is it? Does it make you feel better to think that there is some intelligence behind everything that happens? Sounds more like religion than science to me.

Realpc--
I read your post repeatedly. You seem to be saying that ID differs from modern evolutionary theory on the subject of macroevolution, by which you seem to mean speciation. Fine. All you have to do is present a testable alternative hypothesis of how macroevolution occurs. What are your variables? How do do measure them? What independent evidence can you present (beyond the obvious fact that speciation occurs) that a designer is at work? What test can you come up with that would falsify your theory? If you do that, you'll be doing science. If you don't, you're not doing science. It's as simple as that. You can repeat 'yes, evolution occurred' until you're blue in the face. But if you're only presenting vague, untestable claims, you have no right to expect those claims to be taught as science in America's public schools.

ID is a theory of evolution, it does not contradict evolution in any way. ID is an alternative to the currently accepted theory of evolution --- neo-Darwinism.

" All you have to do is present a testable alternative hypothesis of how macroevolution occurs."

Neo-Darwinism does not present a testable theory. Experiments have not been done to support it. It's only claim is that given long enough periods of time anything can happen, however improbable. No one can test or deny that claim.

You test the ID theory by finding some agreed on definition of information and you analyze living things to see if they in fact contain information. If we can manage to agree that information is the result of intelligence and purpose, and we find evidence of that in living things, maybe we can conclude that the evolution of life demonstrates the work of some (unknown) kind of intelligence and purpose.

The controversy is philosophical and the concepts are impossible to define perfectly. No one has the answer at this time. ID advocates merely want biology students to be aware that neo-Darwinism, the currently accepted theory, has not been proven scientifically, and that there is a controversy.

This controversy is not new, but has entered public awareness only recently. People are utterly confused, thanks in part to blogs like this one. The debate is over whether the universe is inherently purposeful and meaningful or not. Evolution is an accepted fact, but its cause is still unknown.

All the evidence you hear about that supposedly supports neo-Darwinism actually supports evolution in general, not any particular theory of evolution.

Their mission is to destroy good science education for every child in the public schools of America, and they can't do that if they are obviously driven by religious motives.

Romans1:20 - "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they ["they" includes homosexuals] are without excuse:"

Just one more point---how many Jewish or Christian theistic evolutionists would suggest that the "theistic" part of their position isn't Biblically based? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that it would be a small, for both faiths.

As one theistic evolutionist physics teacher of mine told me, he doesn't take the Bible literally, he takes it seriously. And by my experiences with theistic evolutionists, they really do take the Bible seriously, in part because it is not an easy fit to science.

So are we to the theistic evolutionists who state that they base their position on the Bible, as well as in science, and we are also to believe the IDists when they claim that their own beliefs about origins do not come from the Bible?

Surely Dunford needs to explain to us why we should believe that ID isn't based on the Bible, when theistic evolutionists frequently admit that their beliefs (beyond the science) are Bible-based, even though they're willing to let God tell of the "how" via "creation".

Furthermore, why on earth would IDists be so concerned about atheists and "materialists" if ID were not an apologetic for a set of writings (which include the Bible) and beliefs that proclaim miracles that cannot be supported by the scientific method? If they were promoting science, even bad science, they wouldn't oppose the scientific method. That they want an epistemology that is so loose as to include (at least the earlier form of) astrology, is precisely in order to exempt their religious claims (which are mostly, but not exclusively, based in the Bible) from the kinds of questions that science asks.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

realpc--
Why don't you read up on the controversy between Darwin and Fleeming Jenkins? That was a real, testable hypothesis that COULD have disproven evolution by natural selection. It just didn't because Jenkins was wrong.
Come up with one hypothesis for ID that's anywhere as good as Jenkins's was, and you'll be taken seriously. Even if you're proven wrong you'll have regained your honor.

realpc:

"ID advocates merely want biology students to be aware that neo-Darwinism, the currently accepted theory, has not been proven scientifically, and that there is a controversy."

...

realpc:

"ID theory accepts evolution and common descent. So evidence for evolution and common descent are not relevant to the debate."

WTF?

"Why don't you read up on the controversy between Darwin and Fleeming Jenkins?"

There is nothing in ID theory that opposes modern genetics, or natural selection. ID does not deny the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and survival of the fittest. It just does not accept that this mechanism alone can account for the generation of new information.

Martial law:

"ID theory accepts evolution and common descent. So evidence for evolution and common descent are not relevant to the debate."

"WTF?"

Maybe you are surprised to learn that ID does not in any way deny evolution. If you read PT and similar web sites you are told that ID rejects evolution, but that is false. When people use the word "evolution" as a synonym for "neo-Darwinian evolution" they create confusion. NDE is one of several theories of evolution, and ID is another. Actually, ID is mainly a criticism of NDE.

Yes I am wery suprised;

Is ID nowadays something like:

"Evolution can not generate A!, so Intelligent Designer didit"

"But it can!,
we 'accidentally' made A in lab!"

"It was not 'random evolution', it was directed evolution! And there is not direction without ID!"

So how in hell we can empirically see which mutations are random and which are not?

What else "proof" you actually have but your model? And I am very curious to know what it is. (Now you jell that "X is irrelevant", but you don't actually tell what it is then". And before you do so, there is not a "alternative model" -> NO controversy! It is just "ad hoc" (it's may be something else = if we are talking about random mutations, off course "something else" on "not random"...)

And so, untill that, those your 2 sentences are contradictional..

Realpc: "ID theory....ID theory....ID theory....ID theory....ID theory....ID theory....ID theory....ID theory....ID theory....ID theory....ID theory...."

Hey! I have a new theory, too! It is alternative theory about the origins of life... and everything!

It's core is the idea;
Evolution is wrong, life... and everything is too "bizarre" and "fuzzy", so behind can not be natural law nor random mutations. And it looks so bizarre, that any intelligent agent skillful enough can not have done anything so odd (becouse I say so in my unfalsifiable premises, which i made up + correct calculations which i build over them.) So there be "something else". And it is not natural law nor random mutation nor direction. I have even en eliminative filter, which I build.
If not random, not law, not direction => bizarreness.

And I use many fine words + I have get a funny hat, so I must be almost a genius!

So, buy my book, and support me in my battle against darwinists and "direction believers"! They are too limited by their worldviews to understood my geniusses!!

realpc wrote:

"Neo-Darwinism does not present a testable theory. Experiments have not been done to support it. It's only claim is that given long enough periods of time anything can happen, however improbable. No one can test or deny that claim."

This is absolutely wrong and you know it. Even if we were completely ignorant of any mechanism by which "macroevolution" could occur (which we decidely are not), that doesn't mean that we could not determine if it in fact had occured. The nested hierarchy found in the tree of life is sufficient evidence that all life forms are related. That this hierarchy is in complete agreement with all of the anatomical, genetic, developmental and palentological data is confirmation that the hierarchy is real. Ignorance of this evidence is proof of nothing but the ignorance of those making the claim.

realpc also wrote:

"If we can manage to agree that information is the result of intelligence and purpose, and we find evidence of that in living things, maybe we can conclude that the evolution of life demonstrates the work of some (unknown) kind of intelligence and purpose."

Well no one will never agree that information is the result of intelligence and purpose, since it demonstrably is not. So no one will ever grant your faulty assumptions. The generation of information does not require intelligence. The interpretation of information is what requires intelligence. Such intelligence is not indentifiable in your faulty assumptions.

"Neo-Darwinism does not present a testable theory. Experiments have not been done to support it. It's only claim is that given long enough periods of time anything can happen, however improbable. No one can test or deny that claim." This is absolutely wrong and you know it. Even if we were completely ignorant of any mechanism by which "macroevolution" could occur (which we decidely are not), that doesn't mean that we could not determine if it in fact had occured. The nested hierarchy found in the tree of life is sufficient evidence that all life forms are related. That this hierarchy is in complete agreement with all of the anatomical, genetic, developmental and palentological data is confirmation that the hierarchy is real. Ignorance of this evidence is proof of nothing but the ignorance of those making the claim.

You know that, in the long run, scientific arguments are decided by evidence and logic, not politics.

ID theory accepts evolution and common descent. So evidence for evolution and common descent are not relevant to the debate.

There is no scientific theory of ID, so please either stop yammering about it or prove me wrong by telling us what it is or providing a link to where someone else does.

Intelligent Design is a form of creationism and you could say that creationism is an intelligent design hypothesis.

I say that creationism is any hypothesis that states that life was created by some intelligent being(s). Intelligent design is another way to say this.

Now most people think of creationism as "directly from the Bible" but there are Muslim creationist, Hindu creationists, etc.

They all have one thing in common. They believe that life was intelligently designed by some being.

Creationism = Intelligent Design = Creationism

[ID] does not agree, however, that macro-evolution works this way.

That's like saying it's physically possible to walk from Dallas to Ft. Worth, but not from Dallas to Toronto. And it's crap: once we've described the process of walking, we understand that there's no theoretical limit on distance covered. SAme goes for evolution.

It just does not accept that this mechanism alone can account for the generation of new information.

Has anyone proven that evolution alone, as described in the whole of modern evolutionary theory (not just your simpleminded and outdated opinions), cannot account for life on Earth today, including humans? No.

Has anyone actually described any specific mechanism that could account for any phenomenon for which evolution cannot account? No.

Has anyone even defined "information" or described how to quantify or measure it, a step that must be taken BEFORE anyone can say whether or not "new information" is being "created?" No. YOU YOURSELF admit that "information" has not been quantified; therefore your whole General Theory of Unspecified Complex Information and Stuff is nothing but brown air.

Maybe you are surprised to learn that ID does not in any way deny evolution. If you read PT and similar web sites you are told that ID rejects evolution, but that is false.

Actually, plenty of IDers do indeed deny evolution, and pretend they've come up with all manner of "proofs" and "explanatory filters" to try to pretend to have proven that evolution cannot have happened, or cannot have led to life on Earth today. So yes, IDers DO deny evolution, and when you say otherwise, you're either incredibly stupid or lying. Or both.

NDE is one of several theories of evolution, and ID is another. Actually, ID is mainly a criticism of NDE.

You're talking out of both ends of your ass, and both ends are shitting falsehoods. ID is not a "theory" of anything, and all its "criticisms" of "NDE" have been addressed and refuted long ago.

When people use the word "evolution" as a synonym for "neo-Darwinian evolution" they create confusion.

No, YOU are the one trying to create confusion, by pretending there's a difference and not describing what it is. Once again, you have posted a lot of nonsense that we've painstakingly refuted several times, with no modification to accomodate the new information we've offered you. And once again, you've thus proven yourself both ignorant and uneducable, as well as a tiresome self-important bore. Now go back to bed.

First of all, I don't believe in intelligent design, but a question that I have is how do animals develop instincts? For instance, how does an organism develop the habit of depositing semen on eggs? It seems that there should be preconceived knowledge of round objects to fertilize to begin with, otherwise the organism would deposit its semen anywhere and everywhere. The same thing goes for all instincts. How can an organism respond to a certain stimulus in a certain way without having a concept of that stimulus to begin with? Does anybody here grasp what I'm trying to say and does anybody have an answer?

"I've seen plenty of IDers deny evolution and common descent. Are they not really IDers, even if they wave around Dembski & Behe's books to bolster their cause?"

It is possible for people to believe more than one thing at the same time. You can believe in ID plus creationism, or ID plus atheism, or ID plus anything at all. It has no impact on what the theory says.

ID does not make any claims whatsoever that support Christian creationism.

First of all, I don't believe in intelligent design, but a question that I have is how do animals develop instincts? For instance, how does an organism develop the habit of depositing semen on eggs? It seems that there should be preconceived knowledge of round objects to fertilize to begin with, otherwise the organism would deposit its semen anywhere and everywhere. The same thing goes for all instincts. How can an organism respond to a certain stimulus in a certain way without having a concept of that stimulus to begin with? Does anybody here grasp what I'm trying to say and does anybody have an answer?

Herb said: How can an organism respond to a certain stimulus in a certain way without having a concept of that stimulus to begin with? Does anybody here grasp what I'm trying to say and does anybody have an answer?

Re "For instance, how does an organism develop the habit of depositing semen on eggs?"

Seems like that would be part of the original evolution of sexual reproduction, and not something that an already sexually reproducing species would develop.

Henry

"I've seen plenty of IDers deny evolution and common descent. Are they not really IDers, even if they wave around Dembski & Behe's books to bolster their cause?"

or ID plus anything at all. It has no impact on what the theory says. ID does not make any claims whatsoever that support Christian creationism.

Realpc,
You said "Actually, ID is mainly a criticism of NDE."
So, is ID a theory or not?
If it is a theory, then PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE!
If you can't, then shut up about ID being a theory when it's clearly not!

Thanks for ignoring this post too and proving that you're a predictable, stupid troll.

You can believe in ID plus creationism, or ID plus atheism, or ID plus anything at all. It has no impact on what the theory says.

realpc--
The basic premise of science is that it proceeds by disproof. So, of course, you're technically quite correct that "neo-Darwinism has never been proven."
But it does not follow that Neo-Darwinism is "not a testable theory." In fact, it has been tested thousands upon thousands of times. The entire field of modern genetics is an implicit test of Neo-Darwinism. Although the theory has been repeatedly modified (the very term NEO-Darwinism should tell you that)it has never been disproven. That's why Neo-Darwinism, and not ID, belongs in our public schools.
If you want ID in the schools, here's the procedure;
1.) Come up with an hypothesis which would differentiate between ID and Neo-Darwinism.
2.) Test the hypothesis.
If the test favors ID, you'll be doing science. If the test favors Neo-Darwinism --and you admit it-- you'll still be doing science. If you come up with anything interesting, it will eventually be put in the public school curriculum with any political pressure.
Until you're willing to do that, stop trying to weasel into our public schools, and LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE.

ID does not make any claims whatsoever that support Christian creationism.

— realpc

ID is not a theory.

Please note, that I did not restrict that by saying that ID is not a scientific theory.

There is an ongoing problem for philosophers of science to give a precise description of what makes a theory scientific, called the "demarkation problem". We don't have to get into those difficulties with ID, because ID is not a theory, scientific or otherwise. And ID is so far from being a theory that we don't have to concern ourselves with a "demarkation problem" for "theory". There are some very general characters of theories (scientific and otherwise) which show that ID is not a theory.

One of them I mentioned above is that a theory must be able to distinguish between things that are covered by the theory, and things that are not. If every conceivable state of affairs is just as much likely under the would-be theory, then it is not a theory. (This is a kind of generalization of the "falsifiability" criterion of Popper. But this generalization works also for historical theories, esthetic theories, legal theories, and so on.)

Another general character of all theories is that they have to have some structure to them. For example, there should be some kind of connection between the principles of the theory (explanatory factors, or whatever) and the things covered by the theory (the things being explained, or whatever). This connection may be logical, mathematical, causal, or whatever, but there has to be something like a chain from one part to the other, some kind of structure. ID deliberately excludes any such chain - there is no method by which things are "designed". There is no structure to our description of the "designer(s)" - we don't even know how many of them there were - or are.

There is no theory of ID.

Just a note of appreciation to "hoary puccoon".

How many of the complaints that we hear, supposedly about evolutionary biology, are more relevant (if they are relevant to anything at all) to reproductive biology.

"Intelligent Delivery" - that variation on Scientific Storkism which avoids naming the Stork - Intelligent Delivery is an "alternative theory of reproduction".

Troll post removed, responses moved to the Bathroom Wall.

All these interactions with realpc end the same way. We will eventually determine that what he calls ID has nothing to do with ID as espoused by its primary proponents. When forced to state it, he'll come up with "ID predicts increasing complexity-which-I-can't-define-right-now over time."

So stop feeding

Our "mission is to destroy good science education for every child in the public schools of America"? Dunford's assertion is...well... paranoid. Most intelligent design advocates are teachers --- science professors in universities --- and it's fair to say that most are parents with children in the public schools.

— Egnor

Darwinists will do anything to avoid debating the science.

— Egnor

On the other hand, Darwinists are almost all atheists, and are on the fringe of American religious belief.... In reply to Dunford's allegation that I lie about my faith:

Phillip E. Johnson, a law professor at University of California, Berkeley, and one of evolution's most aggressive critics, spoke of a sweeping struggle at a Feb. 6 conference of religious broadcasters in California, one that goes far beyond biology lessons in public schools. "Christians in the 20th century have been playing defense," Johnson explained, framing his concerns in a good-versus-evil context. "They've been fighting a defensive war to defend what they have, to defend as much of it as they can.... It never turns the tide. What we're trying to do is something entirely different. We're trying to go into enemy territory, their very center, and blow up the ammunition dump. What is their ammunition dump in this metaphor? It is their version of creation."

"Christians in the 20^th century have been playing defense," Johnson explained,

"Christians in the 20th century have been playing defense," Johnson explained, framing his concerns in a good-versus-evil context. "They've been fighting a defensive war to defend what they have, to defend as much of it as they can....

An organism deposits its semen anywhere and everywhere. Sometimes it gets lucky and happens to deposit it on eggs. It has an offspring that only deposits its semen on eggs. Naturally, this would have reproductive value and more offspring would inherit this habit. I understand this, but I still don't understand what would lead the organism to only deposit its semen on eggs unless an intelligent force had a preconceived concept of depositing semen on eggs and planted that behavior on the organism's genes. Another way around this problem would be Lamarkism where an organism develops a habit of depositing semen on eggs and the behavior somehow changes the organism's genes to where the organism passes off this behavior to its offspring.

I know that intelligent design is no solution to this problem because it just opens more questions such as how does a spirit entity think without brain cells and how does it create without hands?

I'm not saying I believe in Lamarkism either. I'm just having a hard time grasping this matter.

It never turns the tide. What we're trying to do is something entirely different. We're trying to go into enemy territory, their very center, and blow up the ammunition dump. What is their ammunition dump in this metaphor? It is their version of creation."

Re "but I still don't understand what would lead the organism to only deposit its semen on eggs"

It looks to me like your 3rd and 4th sentence answer the question: "It has an offspring that only deposits its semen on eggs. Naturally, this would have reproductive value and more offspring would inherit this habit."

Presumably, the behavior of emitting semen is triggered by some sensory input, perhaps by smell (i.e., a chemical emitted by the eggs). Mutations that improve the efficiency of that behavior would tend to spread within the species.

Henry

I understand this, but I still don't understand what would lead the organism to only deposit its semen on eggs unless an intelligent force had a preconceived concept of depositing semen on eggs and planted that behavior on the organism's genes.

There are also sexual creatures who don't deposit semen on eggs. They squirt both into sea water and let them take their chances. To understand this, Herb, I'd look at marine invertebrates. I'll bet if you get into the details you'll find there are likely intermediates between setting the genetic material completely adrift and carefully placing sperm on eggs.
One of the reasons evolution is so hard to grasp is that the transformations are so gradual that you have to know a lot of detail about different organisms to see how plausible they are.

I'll bet if you get into the details you'll find there are likely intermediates between setting the genetic material completely adrift and carefully placing sperm on eggs.

— hoary puccoon

Some types of fish basically... the males don't release (milt, technically, not semen) ON eggs, specifically. They release the milt on the *nesting area they've spent hours or days preparing, and where they just saw their partner deposit reproductive material*. Also, some mouthbrooding cichlids: the fish "shimmy" at each other. The female releases eggs, then picks her eggs up in her mouth. The male has been "leaking" milt most of this time--he has markings on his fins called "eyespots" right below his vent. The female goes to pick up the fake "eggs" off the male's fins, and in doing so, grabs a mouthfull of milt which fertilise the eggs in her mouth. Some fish, like bettas and other bubblenest builders, have a "spawning embrace". The male wraps around the female so their vents line up. He squeezes her, squeezing eggs out of her, and that same movement causes him to release his milt as well. The eggs only get fertilised because they're released right next to where the milt is being released. If the fish get lined up wrong--even a small amount--the eggs and milt don't touch and don't fertilise. I've had a betta pair--small male with a large female--where he couldn't squeeze around her quite properly. I tried the pair twice, totally infertile eggs, no hatching. But neither fish was infertile--I bred each, later, to a different, more similarly sized mate, with successful hatches. And after the male grew a bit, I spawned him to the original female again. The later hatch worked. But because they didn't "line up" right, there was no fertilisation. There's no intentional "sperm on egg" there, just two animals releasing reproductive product at the same moment in the same vicintity.

Herb Schaffler said: An organism ... has an offspring that only deposits its semen on eggs. Naturally, this would have reproductive value and more offspring would inherit this habit. I understand this, but I still don't understand what would lead the organism to only deposit its semen on eggs unless an intelligent force had a preconceived concept of depositing semen on eggs and planted that behavior on the organism's genes.

# MetaRule 1) DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages with a message. # MetaRule 2) DO NOT enter inappropriate messages.

"The robots in my example above had no intelligence telling them how to get out of the maze."

But somebody programmed them, somebody that had a preconcieved concept of left and right.

Herb Schaffler said: But somebody programmed [the robots in the maze example], somebody that had a preconcieved concept of left and right.

I still don't understand what would lead the organism to only deposit its semen on eggs unless an intelligent force had a preconceived concept of depositing semen on eggs and planted that behavior on the organism's genes.

My latest 2c on ID and Creationism

Due to various factors, including JAD's exploits and the difficulties in monitoring comments both here and at The Questionable Authority, I'm closing the comments here. The comments section on my own blog will remain open.