Are Intelligent Design and Creationism the same?

[LogansPapa]

Why would He do this?

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/cour...ures/whale.gif

[wilbur]

Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.

http://www.discovery.org/a/1329[/SIZE]

Like creationism, ID has already fallen on its own merits (lack-there-of really). Its supporters are just to woodenheaded to acknowledge it.

[LibraryLady]

I got it; I just felt he was beating around the bush.

He has angered a bunch of Republicans here with the big pay raise the legislature is voting on. I keep telling my friends, the representatives need some money to make up for the corrupt $ he has cut off!!

[jinxmchue]

Michael Behe has admitted that his definition of a theory is so broad that under it astrology could be defined as theory. Funny stuff.

Uh, not quite. I responded to this claim on the IMDB discussion board for "Expelled." Here's what I wrote (for the most part):



Here's what Behe actually said UNPARAPHRASED AND IN CONTEXT:

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

...

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?

A Yes.

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."

That's the scientific theory of astrology?

A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

...

Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

A That's correct.

Q Not, it used to be, right?

A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.

Not quite the same is it? In fact, it's totally different from what people are claiming Behe said.

[The Night Owl]

Jinx,

Implicit in the ID concept is the idea that mankind may have been designed by aliens. Do you believe that mankind may have been designed by aliens?

[LogansPapa]

Jinx,

Implicit in the ID concept is the idea that the mankind may have been designed by aliens. Do you believe that mankind may have been designed by aliens?

I saw that movie: 5 Million Years To Earth.

http://www.horror-wood.com/pit_qu6.jpg

:eek:

[wilbur]

Uh, not quite. I responded to this claim on the IMDB discussion board for "Expelled." Here's what I wrote (for the most part):

Here's what Behe actually said UNPARAPHRASED AND IN CONTEXT:

Not quite the same is it? In fact, it's totally different from what people are claiming Behe said.

Still seems a valid comparison. Theory as it's used today in science has a specific meaning. Behe wants to redefine the word to mean something else... something much more loose, and much less useful. In his new definition, pretty much any crackpot idea someone may conjure up could be called a scientific theory. In short, he wants ideas to be understood as scientific theories, before they have evidence to support them. It's a fairly self-serving idea. He wants to give ID an illusion of credibility. But this redefinition of science and theory has implications beyond just the inclusion of ID a valid theory. Scientists will still know its bunk, but this is all about marketing. He wants to castrate the word theory to have the same weak meaning that creationists generally imply it has when they cast aspersions towards evolution (ie. "Its just a theory!").

He's referring to a time when there was no such thing as the scientific method, or what we would understand as science today. He's trying to make a fallacious connection between the science of today and a notion that astrology may have been considered a valid 'theory' at one time. However, the science of the middle ages is not very comparable to the science of our time, and its misrepresentative to suggest that science as we understand it today held astrology to be a valid theory.

He admitted as much in his little Q&A, that his redefinition of 'theory' and 'science' would include ideas like astrology... heck.. perhaps even tarot cards and other mystical crap would get caught under the umbrella too. He just tried to convince us that that is a good thing

[The Night Owl]

Not quite the same is it? In fact, it's totally different from what people are claiming Behe said.

What I claimed is that Mr. Behe's definition of scientific theory is so broad that under it astrology could be classified as scientific theory. That claim is confirmed in the exchange you cited...

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

What more do you need?

[The Night Owl]

Jinx,

Take as much time as you need to answer the question in post #15.

[Aklover]

Yes, backdoor creationism.