Does "Intelligent Design" Equal "Creationism"?

Right -- the church, under JP, has instead gotten into the pro-freedom, anti-death game.

Which is why, for all the flaws of the Catholic Church and its teachings, JP will go down as one of the greatest political and moral figures of the 20th century.

 

Oh, one other thing on ID.

There are two arguments, one pro and one con. The pro one is, as someone pointed out, is the St. Anselm argument -- the universe is moving, therefore there has to be a first mover. It's corollary is that universe and its components are SOOOOO complex and so aesthetic (subject to the rules of mathematics) that someone had to think it up.

The con argument is that "Monkey writing Hamlet" argument. That is, if you had a monkey who was at the keyboard long enough, at some point, Hamlet would come out of the printer. In other words, given matter and energy, and lots and lots of time, random events and activities can coalesce into patterns that SEEM designed, but are in fact, a bunch of thoughtless tap-tap-taps on the keyboard.

 

Two arguments both make a leap away from scientific methodology to rampant speculation.

For ID, you have to speculate that because all the universal constants are just right for human development, that the universe was created by an intelligent agent so that one of its subcreations would take the time to ask the right questions.

Against ID, you acknowledge that the various constants are just right for human development, and posit that there are billions of universes outside our vision, and of course there would be one where all the conditions are just right and logically those that can ask the right questions are in that universe.

The basic issue on constants, for background, is that if things were slightly different in the laws of physics, atoms more complicated than hydrogen are impossible, or that any atomic building blocks are possible, or that all the mass would instantly crash back into a black hole right after big bang.

 

These stories may conflict with current archaeological evidence, but that does not disprove anything. "Unambiguous archaeological evidence" is somthing of an oxymoron as well because the theories constantly change as more evidence is found.

*I know absolutly nothing about the particular archaeological finds you are referring too, just speaking of archaelogy in general.

 

Many of the stories in the Old Testament have definitely been proven wrong. While its not easy to see the apocryphal nature of a book like Tobit, the historical discrepancies of a book like Judith scream out to any semi-competent ancient historian.

 

Which Old Testament stories have been proven wrong? And who proved them wrong?

 

Yes, please enlighten us.

My Bible doesn't include either Tobit or Judith so I'm hardly convinced. If you're going to claim that the Bible is wrong because books which are not considered canonical, - see errant and fallible - by both Protestants or Catholics (though the latter leave them in their Bibles nevertheless) are wrong, then no semi-competent idiot will believe you.

Nevertheless, whether the Bible is inerrant or not has very little to do with intelligent design, if anything. Even if one might prove the Biblical text wrong, which one cannot, intelligent design of the universe is not ruled out.

 

I'm going to try and shed some historical perspective on this debate.

In 1925, the ACLU persuaded a high school biology teacher, John Scopes, to claim he taught evolution in violation of Tennessee law. Of course, the ACLU financed his defence to challenge the law. William Jennings Bryan led the opposition to teaching evolution and Clarence Darrow championed the ALCU's cause. He argued that public school should teach both theories or origins, arguing "For God's sake, let the children have their minds kept open - close no doors to their knowledge; shut no door from them. Make a distinction between theology and science. Let them have both. Let them both be taught. Let them both live."

This is the Scopes I trial, which eventually led to the 1968 Supreme Court decision that declared laws against teaching evolution were unconstitutional. On this matter, I agree with the Supreme Court, the ACLU and Clarence Darrow.

In 1981, the Arkansas legislature overwhelmingly passed an act to require "balanced treatment" of both evolution and intelligent design in public schools. The bill even forbade any reference to religious books, including the Bible, only permitting scientific evidence and inferences, even allowing the teacher to opt not to teach origins but stick only to observable science and avoid such speculation. Well, as fate would have it, the ACLU filed suit charging that the law would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion, and ultimately won the suit.

This is the so-called Scopes II trial, in which the ACLU hypocritically argued that only one theory of origin can be taught in public schools, despite teachers having the liberty not to.

I have much more to say concerning whether or not Creationism / intelligent design is science or, for that matter, whether macroevolution is science. However, I must clear up a few matters.

There seems to be confusion between Paley's watchmaker argument and Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence. Also, it was Aristotle who spoke of the "unmoved mover", which is a third, cosmoslogical argument for God's existence.

Anselm's ontological argument has little or nothing to do with intelligent design. His forms of the argument was:
1. God is a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
2. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
and
1. God must be a necessary being.
2. It is logically necessary to affirm what is necessary to the concept of a necessary being.
3. Existence is logically necessary to the concept of a necessary being.
4. Therefore, a necessary being, God, necessarily exists.

This argument was debunked by Immanuel Kant who correctly pointed out that existence is not a great-making attribute or property. However, modern philosopher Alvin Plantinga has restated the argument in which existence is not an attribute or property, but rather necessary existence is and thus God must necessarilly exist.

Paley concerns himself with the argument with which this debate is concerned. Paley supposed that if he encountered a watch in a field, he would naturally assume it had a watchmaker because the watch possessed great design, teleology. Thus, since the cosmos also posseses great design, it must have a great designer - an intelligent design. Basically, design implies designer.

David Hume famously objected to this argument on the basis of chance. Such that, given enough time the appearance of teleology might naturally occur or evolve and the existence of an intelligent designer isn't the only possible conclusion.

Aristotle's "unmoved mover" is based on the principle of causality, from which all science stems - something cannot arouse from nothing or every effect has a cuase. This argument is the one evolutionists and secularists love to ignore.
1. Everything that has a begining has a cause
2. The universe had a begining
3. Therefore, The universe has a cause.

Objections to this follow two paths: either the universe didn't have a begining or that God would also need a cause. The first is scientifically incorrect (Big Bang, Laws of Thermodynamics), the second theologically.

Basically, empirical science says nothing of metaphysics - existence, principally why anything actually does. Intelligent design and evolution are competing theories of origins and both questionable as to their "scientificness". At the very least, the two should be openly considered and taught.

 

You're right that the incorrectness of these texts would not mean anything with regard to ID. However, yes, parts of the historical sections of the Old Testament can be proven wrong. When my g/f and I were looking at sections from the Tanakh (Samuel and Judges), she pointed out stories that are directly contradicted by historical evidence. I wish I could be more specific, but again, this is not my area of expertise. The stories in these books are fables, not history.

For the record, my fiancee has a PhD in Biblical Studies from one of the top programs in the country, and she reads several ancient languages. This is not something she learned from a blog.

 

Her creditials are impressive and relavent for this conversation, but I'm still waiting for some examples. Only after you can demonstrate that the truth of one passage, rules out the truth of another passage, can you justify the claim that the Bible contradicts itself.

Many passages which seem to be in conflict are easily resolved by simply reading the text more carefully. In addition, an understanding of Greek or Hebrew, as well as a knowledge of geography and customs would be extremely helpful.

 

I think you misunderstood me: she tells me that historical/archeological evidence contradicts the events described in sections of Old Testament, not that passages contradict one another. (That's true as well, but it's also a different subject.)

 

First, I never said the entire Bible is wrong. Nor would I ever make such a statement. Second, why in the world can't Biblical text be proven wrong???

 

First of all, to say that mortal man can prove that the Supreme Creator's words (or portion of) are wrong, mistaken or whatever is a arragant human flaw that has been around since the begining of man. Throughout history man has tried to outwit God, hide from him and seek our own ways over his, and over history we have failed miserably. I know it sounds cliche', but we cannot prove His word wrong if we cannot see the entire BIG picture. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are eyewitness accounts of the same event and naturally told from different perspectives. We certainly will encounter things that don't make sense or that we don't understand, but to declare them as "wrong" based on our mortal limited knowledge is a pretty bold statement.

I'm certainly interested though, in what you have read in the Bible that appears to conflict with other information that you may have.

 

Premise A: The Bible is written by man.
Premise B: Man is imperfect
Conclusion: The Bible is written imperfectly.

Sachin

 

Maybe in text translation, but not in message. The same message has survived thousands of years.

 

You're presupposing the divine nature of the Bible, and thus no rational conversation can exist. In order to have a conversation which evaluates the Bible as a historical source, you cannot begin with the presupposition that it is infallible. It would be an attempt to prove A once you admit A exists. Yes, from that point, it shouldn't be difficult.

Historians disagree with you. Starting from Von Ranke, who institutionalized history into a social science, no one would regard different parts of the New Testament as different sources. Given the nature of their compliation into what we now call the New Testament, they are one source, and a professional historian would treat them as such. (With exceptions of trying to reconcile any potential contradictions within the New Testament itself.)

Again - once you acknowledge the perfection of the Bible, this discussion is irrelevant.

I will endeavor to see if I can find my notes. They may be boxed up in Ohio, but I'll give it a go. Sadly, I'm not as fluent on this subject as I am about "secular" Roman history (and ancient history generally).

A. The survival of the message is irrelevant as to the accuracy of the events in the Bible.
B. The message depends on the text. For instance, should it read "all the earth shall be burned up" or "all the earth shall be revealed"? There are two different version out there, depending on a small change in the Greek. Who's to know which one is correct? Because it certainly makes a difference to the message! But don't take it from me; take it from the December 29th edition of the Economist:

 

Premise A: God cannot err.
Premise B: The Bible is the Word of God.
Conclusion: The Bible cannot err.

 

The point of this thread really shouldn't be whether or not Creationism or Biblical inerrancy hold water, but the travesty that such things cannot be even seriously discussed in a public school classroom.

You can study Jesus and Mohammed historically without making any personal commitments to them. In this scenario, whats being considered is the first cause or orgin or things not an object of devotion.

Second, the source of a theory, like Creationism or "intelligent design" from the Bible does not discount the evidence for it, which we've established. Nevertheless, presenting the theory of "intelligent design" in a public classroom hardly constitutes any violation of the separation of church and state.

Finally, macroevolution is not empirically scientific, and isn't any more "scientific" than a theory of "intelligent design". Both make inferences from evidence, one from the alleged origin of species and the other from the appearance of design in nature. Macroevolution doesn't fit the scientific method. It cannot be observed, tested or repeated.

Nevertheless, my three reservations for the staunch evolutionist are:
1. Why does something exist rather than nothing?
2. How does life come from non-life?
3. Why and how does man possess "mind" - rational and moral faculties?

 

Do you believe that if God were to deliver the same message right now using new prophets that it would be the same text?

This comes down to my own spitituality, but I believe that our minds were meant to discover things. Nothing would make God happier than for man to actually figure out his plan and prove it through philosophy, science and research. God also made man sceptical such that he would ask questions (right or wrong) to lead the species toward discovering the mysteries of the universe.

But then again, that's just how I see it.

 

Except that by strict logic, your premises are empirically unprovable. You take them on Faith, which is your right to do so. Don't forget, God, by definition is emperically unprovable. You can't design a control for God.

Sachin

 

This is absolutely, totally incorrect. Evolution can absolutely be observed, tested, and repeated at the cell level and even with animals. What is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection if not the result of evolution? What is dog breeding if not evolution? The use of the term "macro" is a sleight of hand you're using to discount these findings.

 

By that token, would dog breeding and plant breeding, for lack of a better term, also be products of intelligent design?

Sachin

 

I believe it would not be the same text but the same message.

If God would want only the intellectual to figure out his plan then his word is not for everyone, but only for those intelligent enough to figure it out. That is clearly not what he wants. The Bible states that we should humble ourselves and come to him like children. Yes, we should study his word and marvel in it's majesty of scripture. Man cannot comprehend his plans. It will be revealed in the after life.

It does all boil down to faith. God wants us to have faith in him.

 

Mutations and adaptations of species is not evolution. When was the last time we created a new species?