Sunday, May 27, 2007

Righting Wrong Conceptions About ID

Top Misconceptions about Intelligent Design is a short article that refutes some common misconceptions about intelligent design. Don't expect the errors to disappear though for those that propagate them have a vested interest in continuing the propaganda.

Addressed are the phoney standbys such as ID being creation in sheep's clothing or, as others would put it, a Trojan Horse. Another is the drummed up expectation of optimal or perfect design. Then there is the God of the Gaps cliche which opponents of ID are to utter from time to time like an initiation slogan. Finally, there is the allegation that ID and evolution are, of necessity, warring concepts. Critics mean philosophical materialism but that's another post. The article is available at the link.

5 Comments:

At 7:46 AM, Blogger dobson said...

I think what would help would be if you explain the points on which ID proponents and Creationists differ on.

Creationists often cite papers and books published by ID proponents as evidence for their own position. Can you explain if this is an appropriate use of ID research?

It has been said that the only practical difference between ID and Creationism is that creationists are willing to identify their "designer", and even claim to have read his book.

 
At 10:30 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Hi Dobson.

Creationists hold the position that God was the creator of the universe and the life in it. IDists hold that there are features of the universe and properties of life that support the notion of intelligent causality. IDists are the broader group and they include agnostics like Krauze at Telic Thoughts and David Berlinski who do not affirm the existence of a personal God.

Creationists may use ID to support their views of divine creation but will be unable to find much in the way of support for specific theological positions.

 
At 2:28 PM, Blogger William Bradford said...

Dobson, I rejected your last comment because of the personal and superfluous reference made to Denyse O'Leary. You are free to repost it without the reference and it would be approved. I cannot edit comments- only accept or reject them. BTW, although I am the moderator there are other contributors and they are not responsible for my comments or moderator policies.

 
At 4:16 PM, Blogger William Bradford said...

Dobson, concerning your second comment about O'Leary (which amounts to a private massage) I agree her views are relevant but she was not the focus of this post and if you wish to express your views about her go to her blogs and do it or go to UD where she also posts. If you get no satisfaction there, write about her on your blog.

 
At 1:45 AM, Blogger dobson said...

I'm glad you feel that O'Leary's views are pertinent to this discussion. My attempt was not attack Mrs O'Leary's character but to address the generally low standards of discussion amongst the ID community, and possibly to highlight a reason why most mainstream scientists who take an interest in ID cannot find any practical differences between ID and creationism.

You did not address my question; To what extent can one believe in ID without first rejecting what you call "materialism". Is ID a theory that is contingent on the existence of supernatural phenomena?

In Michael Behe's Dover testimony he strongly implied that one must first reject "materialism" in order to understand ID.

BTW, I've no plan to post on UD right now; I can just about cope with the flow of messages on this blog. Are you declaring discussion of the public statements of other ID activists off-limits here?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home