I did not bring it up. I mentioned “ID is not good science” as a passing example of the sort of thing that a Wikipedia article might say. The remark was in the context of a discussion of the proper mode of writing for encyclopedias, and what I objected to about Wikipedia’s style of writing. I did not mention it to contest the question of whether or not ID is good science, or whether ID is science at all. But the moment I mentioned it, you started talking about ID not being science at all, about why ID hasn’t been generating more research, etc. So in my last post I responded to set the matter straight, i.e., that I have no intention of arguing with you or anyone else here about whether ID should count as science.
Whatever the earliest ID writers might have intended, Discovery has explicitly denounced any attempt to mandate the teaching of ID in schools. Repeatedly. Loudly. In articles that you could easily read (but apparently haven’t) if you made the effort to do, on their website. Since before the Dover trial. That’s more than 17 years ago. You’re living in the past. Your criticism is irrelevant to current reality.
Of course not. Creationists can and always have used arguments that do not make such assumptions. But what makes them creationists (aside from rejection of evolution) is that they insist on such assumptions – or, to be more precise (since merely believing that the Bible is true and that God exists are beliefs not specific to creationism), that they insist that Genesis is to be interpreted (more or less) literally-historically, that it’s (more or less) a news report on the order of events that produced the world, and that in any case where statements of Genesis appear to be in conflict with statements of current science, the Genesis statements overrule the conclusions of the scientists.
Thus, even the most wretched of the old batch of creationists, people like Gish and Morris, made use of arguments that came from outside of beliefs about a literal Genesis. When you’re trying to persuade people who are not of your camp, of course you will make use of any arguments, including purely secular arguments, that will help your case. I’ve seen Jehovah’s Witness tracts that make use of statistical arguments from non-creationist mathematicians about the improbability of a protein being formed by chance. Those arguments don’t depend on JW belief. They’re secular, scientific (or, if you insist, philosophical) arguments. They happen to pull in the same direction as JW religious beliefs based on faith in Genesis, but they aren’t faith-based arguments. There’s nothing new here. I don’t know what you’re trying to establish.
“Underlies and influences” is vague. My point is that belief that the Designer is God never influences the actual course of any ID argument. That the Designer is God is (a) a private belief of particular ID proponents and (b) a possible further inference (but not one made by using design-detection methods) once one has confirmed the existence of some sort of designer. You are welcome to take us through the pages of No Free Lunch or Darwin’s Black Box and show where any step in any of the arguments slips in “the designer is God” (either directly or slyly) as a necessary step in an argument for the existence of design. No one here has done it, since I posed this challenge a few years ago, found such a case, and one would think that the people here would have a very strong motive for finding such a case.
You are the great champion of “science” in this discussion, and one of the key aspects of science is empiricism – dealing with actual data. So produce some data from the texts that is supportive of your speculative hypothesis. Where are the passages where the argument for design slips in the premise that the designer is God? Not places where an ID proponent mentions that as a matter of personal belief he thinks the designer is God, but places where “the designer is God” is a necessary premise without which the argument cannot work.
You’ve provided no logical connection at all with criticisms of “junk DNA” and believing that the designer is God. Try again.
Again, you establish no logical connection. You’re listing points without articulating anything.
ID theory has no tools with which to characterize the designer, beyond something general such as, “whoever the designer was, he was pretty clever.” ID theory does not claim to be able to do anything other than detect design. Reflecting on the nature of designer belongs not to ID theory but to philosophy or theology. So no, “the designer is God” has no influence on the actual arguments offered.
You appear to be confusing the question of motive with the question of how ID proponents argue. It can be freely granted that the belief that the designer is God provides an underlying personal motive for most ID proponents as they think about God, nature, design, and so on. But it does not influence how they argue for design in the slightest.
Regarding the meaning of creationism, you seem to have a vague picture, judging from how you use the term in this discussion. I have a detailed study of the actual use of the term over the past century in popular discussions about origins, here:
The study is based on actual usage of the term, i.e., is empirically focused. And to ensure balance, it uses many examples from people whose positions I disagree with. I recommend that you read it. Knowing what I have in mind by “creationism” you might better understand some of my comments about the distinction between ID (as a theory, as distinct from a social movement) and creationism. You might even (gasp!) come to agree that on my understanding of creationism, it is indeed wrong to say that ID is creationism. I think you have already partly conceded this, but then with your left hand you have taken away what you gave with the right, by suggesting that the difference is so slight as not to be significant. Maybe after you read the article, you will grant that the difference is clearer than you have so far acknowledged. (By the way, the purpose for which I wrote the article was not to distinguish between ID and creationism, but it is clearly relevant to that distinction.)
I hope you find this current reply completely focused on the issues, and that it expresses no “hate” of anyone. 