As the title implies...
Is there a difference?
My understanding is that Creationism is pure magic, the hand of God, literal Biblical belief, that kind of thing.
Int. Design would be more of a guiding hand creating in a scientific manner, right? Like, "God, the ultimate chemist".
My thought is that ID actually recognizes science, acknowledges the fossil record, and astronomy, cosmic science, genetics, etc. ID just believes...BELIEVES...that there was, at some point, an intelligence that "got the ball rolling", or flicked the switch that set off the big bang.

So, there is a huge difference, right?

With these differences in mind, is there harm in ID being acknowledged in schools? Does it matter if we teach all this hard science, and when a kid says "Yeah, but what was there BEFORE the big bang?", the teacher says, "We don't know. Maybe it was...ID. Maybe it was...chance."

I added a poll, just for the heck of it.

There is a difference. I.D., in the way it is currently being presented, is Creationism in a nice bowler cap and a fake mustache. Its not much of a disguise. If we acknowledge ID at all in schools it should be in a philosophy classroom, not a science class. ID is a philosophical concept. It CANNOT be proven using the scientific method.

For those of you who disagree, look at it this way.
Science observes those things that are directly observable, namely empirical things.
Our understanding of God, or the "intelligent designer" tells us that pretty much whatever you believe about God, hes not materially observable
Because God is not materially observable, and is, in fact, non-empirical, science can tell us nothing about God aka the "intelligent designer".
Therefore, God (ID) does not belong in a science class.
Its that simple. Argument over.
Put ID in a philosophy class. No ones going to argue against putting it there. I know I wont. In a weird way, I actually do believe in some sort of "design". I believe in God too. But God does not belong in a science classroom.

It's "a rose by any other name" The change of name is merely a transparent ploy to give it some credibility The motto of ID proposers is "Whatever you do, don't mention God"


fullywired

Amen to that.

Im going to repeat this one more time for the doubters out there:

Intelligent design IS NOT SCIENCE. IT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT. It doesn't belong in a science classroom anymore than my cosmological argument does. It belongs in a philosophy class, if anywhere.

Intelligent Design is Creationism, rebranded into a wide tent, so that every religion can group together to try and usurp the First Amendment.

Are true god is capable of both, intelligent design and to create by simply willing it.

I disagree, i think god does belong in a science class, because gods design has signature all over it. From a molecular level to the planetry level. Its all got intelligent design and creation written all over it. While science claims its amazing but coincedental and then when one applies science to the claim of chance and probability, its a mathamtical impossibility, yet they ignore such science. Ironic.

Intelligent Design is not limited to the United States. Some only know about ID through the political debate that rages on within the US but it is actually a much broader issue. The political debate over it is rapidly becoming stale.

Even if it is not a scientific theory it should be introduced within discussion of evolution in class to foster a deeper liberal education of our students. So they can think and learn through discussion and debate instead of just rote facts. The whole issue of standardized testing and the way education is geared around standardized test has to change first. As it stands now if that were to happen, a reintroduction of a well balanced general education, then students could be informed of the broader cultural aspects of ID.

At least 1/3 or more of scientist believe in God so ID should become more than part of a mere world view and have some scientific value...this is still to come in the future. No, it should not be taught as a competing theory to evolution because it is not. For those who believe in God and understand evolution they believe God works through evolution. The concept though in whatever context it now is considered and shall be in the future should be understood by students instead of just ignored on mere political opposition.

Some will remain stuck in a state of conflict attempting to make others pick sides between science and God. Others though as myself would rather see a consensus because we see no competition between science and God. Evolution is a scientific fact. A belief in a designer while not proven fact is still believed by many so it is a part of the culture. These are two things that should be taught in school for their value.

Yes. Intelligent Design requires one or more intelligent designers. Nothing that really exists, and has actually been observed, requires any intelligent designer.

Maybe there were designers, maybe there weren't. Nothing that is said in science class tells you one way or the other.

No, it doesn't. There is no reason to believe that god exists. God doesn't belong into any classroom.

The human body and its complexity in comparison to today intelligently designed technology is far more, even on a molecular level, the cells in the body are like factories even more complex than what we have. This happened by chance?

Yes it does.

ohhh ok then if you say so!!

No it did not. And you know perfectly well that that is not what natural selection means.

That's not true.

No, it shouldn't. Just like it shouldn't be taught that 1+1=3

These things are decided in the academic arena, not by ignorant students. Remember, truth is not a democracy, you can't "choose" what is true.

Again, creationism is not true. Why teach it?

Where did you get those statistics?

And again, for the millionth time, creationism is not true, so there is no point in teaching it.

Why would you teach it to students then, if it isn't true?

And once more, you can't "choose" or "decide" what is true.

And yet:

Over 90% of scientists say they are not aware of any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution. Over 90 percent of the scientists also said that intelligent design is primarily a religious belief and not a scientific tenet, and that forms the basis for why it should not be taught in public school science courses.

What does that tell you?

Then provide some evidence.

You first, since you claim there is no god. The world population at large believe so, along with many academics, you show me he does not.




Its tells me that 90% of scientists are starting to believe a theory is fact, when in reality its a theory and there is plenty of evidence contrary to it, but ignored. Evolution serves the capatalist philosophy, materialism and survival of the fittest.

Which part of "not aware of any scientifically valid evidence" are you having trouble grasping, exactly?

I can't say that god doesn't exist, because he isn't falsifiable. What I can say, however, is that there is no evidence, and therefore no reason to think that he exists.

Now you claim that there is evidence for his existance. Provide it, the burden of proof is on you. Do what every theologian for the last 2000 years has failed to do.

And truth is not a democracy. Even if I was the only person in the universe that didn't believe in god (and I certainly am not), then god would still have no evidence on his side.

Anyway, the majority of the world population is absolutely ignorant, half the world population has never used a telephone, let alone get an education.

A scientific theory is not what you think it is. It doesn't mean "guess", like in normal language use. For example, gravity and heliocentrism are theories. Read what a scientific theory is on wikipedia.

And evolution is an absolute undisputed fact, supported by everything that we understand.

This is ridiculous. Evolution is true. It doesn't imply any philosophical ideas. And survival of the fittest is also undisputably true - unfit species go extinct.

What you have there is a logical fallacy called appeal to consequence. Even if evolution was the most evil and diabolical idea ever, it would still be true. But it isn't evil. It is just a fact about our world, just like the ellipsoid shape of the earth.

I posted this response to the same question in a different thread and it was ignored.....maybe this one will have better luck in giving me an answer.....

I know wiki is not the best source but I just have to say that I think this first line of an article sums up how I feel about ID/evolution/abiogenisis

"Abiogenesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For religious beliefs about the creation of life, see creation myth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

I am not opposed to a liberal education at all. ID is not science, so it has NO place in a science course. I have no problem with all the ideas on creation being taught in a philosophy class or a comparative religions class. That is where creationism belongs. With the religious beliefs, not the facts of science.

What I don't understand is if creationism was taught, what about all the other creation myths out there? Do they all get taught? or just the ones you want taught? And by you, I don't mean you as an individual but your religion/belief systems idea of how life got here.....

Here is a brief list of creation myths - which of these belong along side the bible in a science class? My personal favorite involves a giant trout....does that fit in a science class?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

While I have already explained through PMs my proof of God to you Ozi, this is where I would have to disagree with you on this. The burden of proof is on the believer. I, as a believer, can defend my beliefs using my own proof, as can you. However, we both use non-empirical methods. Science deals purely with the empirical, and as God is not directly observable (empirical) science can never actually comment on God. Therefore, God does not belong in a science class room. A philosophy classroom, however, is more than ripe soil for God to be talked about, because God is within the realms of philosophy to discuss. Theological matters are not, however, within the realm of science.

Another thing I must disagree with you on is your comment about the majority of the world. This is a common sense thing, Ozi, and a bad example. No offense. The majority of Americans, way back in the day, believed that slavery was good. Did this make it true? Certainly not, and certainly no more than a majority opinion makes it true that God exists. Just because a majority believes something does not automatically make it true.


If you would like to discuss contrary evidence to evolution, please see the Applying Occam's Razor to the Cosmological argument thread. On the last page you will see that i refuted, successfully, all of WWF's ridiculous claims about the validity of creationism and the false nature of Cetacean evolution.

Back to the subject matter, however, you have clearly mixed up biological Darwinism (the theory of evolution), with social Darwinism. Evolution shows us that indeed, survival of the fittest, in the biological sense, is true. The animal that is stronger, faster, and smarter is more likely to survive. This is common knowledge. Social Darwinism, however, is a long outdated social theory. I agree that social darwinism is wrong, but you've completely mixed up Biological Evolution and Social Darwinism.
See the following links
Biological Evolution
Social Darwinism
Yes yes, I know its wikipedia, but on the definitions it IS correct, and its a good start.

Good point. If you are going to teach lies in school, how do you decide which lies to teach? There are literally infinite falsehoods that you can teach.

Remember- Abiogenesis is NOT a Creation Myth- There is SCIENCE around it.
EVERY other Creation Myth HAS NO SCIENCE- It simply says 'something happened'.


Examples?
Hmmm?



Actually, THERE IS NO PROBABILITY INVOLVED!
Here's the Reality:
Given BILLIONS OF YEARS(Which is impossible for humans to comprehend), AND BILLIONS OF PLANETS, LIFE IS GOING TO ARISE.
The Probability is, oh, I'd say about 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to 1 in favor of Life occuring in the universe.

And once you have life, IT COULD EVOLVE IN ANY WAY. It simply happened to evolve here the way we see it.

QED. THERE IS NO incredibly small probability.


Show me your math that explains this 'impossibility'.




IT HAD TO HAPPEN SOME WAY.
Look- if you get the first few cells, which I've already explained is extremely likely, there is a 100% CHANCE that Life will evolve in SOME WAY. It just happened to evolve in this way.

QED, the HUMAN BODY is not 'too complex' for chance.


LOL NO IT DOESN'T!!!!!111
/sarcasm


The world population at large once believed that the sun went around the Earth.
Did that make it true?
The majority of people are simply duped into believing in God, and never truly question it.


THEN SHOW US THE BLOODY EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!

DID YOU HEAR THAT?
HMMMM?
SHOW US BLOODY EVIDENCE, AND STOP MAKING BASELESS CLAIMS!

And Evolution IS a fact. It happens. Get over it.
The theory IS A DIFFERENT THING. The theory is the 'how and why' behind the FACT.

IN THE SAME WAY GRAVITY IS.


So. I HOPE WE'LL ALL STOP MAKING BASELESS CLAIMS, HMM?
Cheers,
SQLserver

Yikes. That caused some heat.
I hope this doesn't degrade to a believer/non-believer debate. My real intent was to explore the difference in creation vs. ID.

I do see that ID is used by some to push an underhanded creationist agenda. But in my opinion, a very broad ID approach that embraces science (like the fossil record and evolution) very nearly negates the tradition of organized religion. It actually does away with a need to worship a "God" as if they were a being that meddles in the affairs of men.

I guess that would be as much ground as I would be willing to give creationism in general. Sure, the stuff we DON'T know, the sub-atomic, big-bang, dark matter stuff...sure, MAYBE there is something there we don't know, MAYBE it could be chalked up to some form of intelligence.

Thats' why I brought this up, to explore that difference. Dogmatic creation versus scientific ID. Is there a way to look at ID from a scientific standpoint?

I agree with you mate and also believe that it deserves a deeper exploration than the dreaded believer vs non-believer debate. I suppose I am like you wanting to meet in the middle and truly want answers to questions, whateverr questions might be asked. Not just in this field but in every what if that a scientist can come up with. If science stops asking questions then how will science itself continue to evolve. Equally fascinating to me is the question of if we will be able to recognize another life form if it is not carbon based. Would we even see it? Another thread I suppose.

the problem i have with the creation model is that the backers assume the universe was and is a dried lifeless husk outside of mankinds feeble grasp.

the problem i have with the science geeks is they too avidly worship incomplete data as perfect.


one stands in a dark room
there is nothing wrong with guessing and hoping.
and there is nothing wrong with searching and remembering.

i just hope you realize that there is a time for thought and a time for action. without either you learn nothing.

Nice view and I cannot wait myself until this debate gets played out. Another generation and they will be sick of this as some already are about hearing about global warming. Though in the case of global warming more is truly at stake and the bickering heads can only ruin the warning from getting out faster. The backlash to the global warming debate is more and more being noticed.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april...ickandtired.htm

The real problem you should have is that nothing that they say can be supported by any evidence of any kind, and that everything we know disproves what they believe.

Science does not do that. Science, for philosophical reasons, never claims to be absolute truth.

You can't comprimise when it comes to the truth. It's not like one person says that 1+1=2, and another person says that 1+1=3, so we decide that 1+1=2,5.

You are right or you are wrong. Creationism is absolutely wrong and doesn't have a single scrap of evidence to back it up. Evolution is absolutely undisputed fact.

By defenition, creationism denies and contradicts science. You can't have it that way, you can't comprimise on the truth.

Dogmatic creation and "scientific ID" are one and the same. ID isn't scientific, it is dogmatic BS with no evidence to support it.

And no, creationism has absolutely no merit what so ever.

Explain how it doesnt..give prime example on creation..that holds no water..thank you

ID has no place in the Science classroom for the simple reason that it is not Science. Whatever else it may be, even correct (although I doubt this), it just does not conform to the structure of a scientific theory. Science operates from the assumption that the universe is an orderly place whose operation is governed by consistent and understandable physical laws. Science tries to get as far as it can working within the confines of that assumption. (And, given the many successes science has enjoyed, its assumption does not seem to be such a bad one.) The idea that conscious, supernatural, entities (Intelligent Designers) can violate the laws of nature in any arbitrary way they might like so as to produce the world around us isn't Science-period. Call it Religion or Mysticism or something else. Maybe it's even true. But it's just not science. For one thing, theories built around that assumption are not falsifiable. If an "Intelligent Designer" whipped up life as the IDers would have us believe, the fossil record could look like anything at all. DNA sequences of seemingly related oganisms might show a common descent or they might just as easily not, etc. Theories that invoke miraculous suspensions of natural law make no testable predictions or retrodictions since, for them, anything is possible.

While it is is certainly important for science classrooms to teach the nuts and bolts of science-how many electrons there are in a carbon atom, how viruses infect cells, etc.-it is every bit as important, I think, that they teach what Science itself is-what its methods and assumptions are, how it functions as a world view. Student who leave school confused in this regard have been poorly served by their educators.

intelligent design? hmm?
i doubt god designed us unless hes an alien

although i can see the sense the intelligence one sees in things design. but it is the intelligance of survival. "adapt or die".
little is wasted when life is at stake. ex you become homeless your new choice of food is discards from others or starvation. obviously you become the human trash compacter.

if a god designed anything it was simply the rules that govern evolution.

No. Science and Religion (and that's what Intelligent Design is) don't play well together.

Maybe an Intelligent Designer did create the Big Bang. It's not something that Science will be able to prove, or disprove, since there is no evidence prior to the Big Bang.

Science doesn't disprove that there is a God. It doesn't even try to. What it does disprove is the idea that Humanity popped into creation intact. Unfortunately, due to this violating core religious beliefs, this causes fundamentalists to implode. The current backlash against Science (and evolution in particular) isn't because Science disproves that a God exists. Science just disproves that their particular idealised version of God exists.

What do you mean "how it doesn't"? Creationism simply doesn't have any evidence to support it.

Dear god.
LOOK:
YOU shouldn't CARE if Global Warming is just 'liberal propaganda'.
IT DOESN'T MATTER!
Besides stopping insane ChristoFascists, our most important goal as a world MUST be to stop using fossil fuels, and hurting the environment.

If global Warming is exaggerated Propaganda, then it is the BEST use of Propaganda I've ever seen.

Dear god- BM, I'll have to PM you.

Cheers,
SQLserver

You answered my question WITH a question...so again I ask you...please post up prime examples OF creation that holds NO water

ohh and BTW I already support evolution...but please its not about me I am asking you ..but if you cant answer, just say so..

Nice description

I would agree that ID shouldn't be taught in a science classroom in any way for the reasons others have described.

I will say that on a purely conversational level - finding common ground with those who subscribe to ID instead of pure creationism is a much easier feat when discussing things such as the fossil record. The conversation can actually go somewhere semi-interesting - you got a little more to work with

I see what you are saying here, but I think you misunderstand my point or my intent. Creationism DOES INDEED contradict science. But does ID? Maybe ID does as SOME describe it. But I can see an alternative. It does of course require belief (or faith if you insist). I really don't see dogmatic creation and ID as one and the same. It just isn't so. One of them denies the fossil record, and claims Noah had dinosaurs on the ark for Pete's sake! The other does NOT, but rather embraces science and the fossil record. But like Tiggs said here:


Even a hardened scientist will admit that a lack of evidence prior to the big-bang would leave it wide open to speculation as to what caused it to go BANG to begin with. (Thanks for that Tiggs by the way ).

And this from Nix Xues:



And this from Sagredo:
*snip**snip*

The only answer would be that this "intelligent designer" simply created the laws we call science.

Yeah, what you said.
I don't make any argument that creationism should be taught in any class room other than private schools if that's their choice. I just wanted to explore the difference between the two.

Very well said Tiggs, I think that religion is concerned with losing followers to athiesm and extintiion, there is no war in academia between religion and science other than the one the fundamentalist movement has created for the reasons I inferred............

No supporting evidence is enough to mean it holds no water.

Are we going down the "prove a negative" road again? I hate when that happens...see the "psi" threads for huge debates on that issue.

I think it's beyond clear that any true creation belief is just that, a belief, whereas the evolution of the universe and our solar system is supported by sound evidence and science.

Remember though, what we see as hard science today, can be turned around tomorrow.


http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/...2.asp?sitearea=

What was that, only 62 years ago? Imagine what we might understand about our universe in a hundred or more years?

I have seen the "psi" annoying teenagers who want everything disproven.

From what I understand it, Creationism suggests "God created the world miraculously and there is no scientific evidence that can show how". On the other hand, I don't actually know what most people mean by ID - quite frankly, in Australia it's not a big deal (or atleast, I haven't noticed it to be a big deal). To my best understanding (and I could be wrong), Intelligent Design states "God created the world throughs scientific means (eg, evolution)". In short, that's my general belief - I don't know specifically about Evolution, but it could very well be the case (probably the case, even).

For me, if I were to get a science teacher to teach what I believe in a classroom it would look virtually identical to normal science in every way, except tagged on to the end of it would be a sentence along the lines of "this is the way the world works, and God was the creator behind all of it".

Just a few thoughts,

~ PA

I think your statements here sum up what I have been saying is the difference between ID and pure creationism. I am really stunned that so many argue that ID and creationism are the same. Now, I will freely admit that there are SOME creationists that will cloak their belief in the ID trappings to make it seem more acceptable. That is their agenda after all, to have creationism on par with or equal to science. To have their belief validated by the law of the land, and therefore make it criminal to contradict their beliefs.

It appears as though religious fundamentalists have tagged evolution with a divine creator. Nothing more.

Alas, it says:

Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command); He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command). They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."

Actually, you will find no religion that says it's GOD(s) put forth the make-up that spawned life as we see it today.
It simply says man, woman, animals, etc. etc. were created. No room to add evolve in there.

bingo~



bingo bonus round!!!

Both are religious beliefs. Both have absolutely no evidence. Both are vehicles to teach religion as Science. Intelligent Design is the Evolution of Creationism - a way to state that evolution is wrong and God created Man by evolving their argument into pseudo-science - irreducible complexity, for example.

To understand the roots of Intelligent Design, and an idea as to where its heading - I strongly suggest you read the Wedge Strategy, a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the Intelligent Design movement.