Yet another conversation about how to define the Intelligent Design perspective

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Patrick

So Theistic Evolution and ID are the same thing? Then Discovery and Biologos should merge and pool resources together.

@Patrick

Patrick… the difference between the two groups is:
one is YOUNG EARTH and the other is OLD EARTH.

If you INSIST on Evolution being completely random without any direction from God, then I would conclude
(and perhaps others?) that you have no pressing interest in the spirituality of the Bible anyway.

BioLogos is ‘intelligent design’ for people who think God used Evolution to accomplish his ends.

George Brooks

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Patrick

really? how many? I bet you couldn’t come up with a list of more than 100 alive today.

@Patrick

Pro-Evolution Scientists devout in their Christianity have been trained not to use the phrase “Intelligent Design”.

Contained in that label is usually the general impression of Young Earthism.

But fundamentally, there isn’t much of a difference between God using Intelligence to create life or humanity … (Intelligent Design)

vs.

God using evolution in divinely intelligent ways to create life or humanity (Theistic Evolution ).

Follow me?

George

[Patrick]

Which one is YEC? And which one is OEC?
Biologos mission is to harmonize science with faith. From what I see is that harmonizing science with ID is impossible because ID is not science and residing in the gaps of scientific unknowns.

[Patrick]

@gbrooks9

Contained in that label is usually the general impression of Young Earthism.

Oh, and the grand wizard of YEC Ken Ham and AIG is going to harmonize science with Christianity. LOL

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Patrick

Which one is YEC? And which one is OEC?Biologos mission is to harmonize science with faith. From what I see is that harmonizing science with ID is impossible because ID is not science and residing in the gaps of scientific unknowns.

@Patrick

Mannnn … you are really missing my point.

I can understand why you think ID, as it is usually described, is just dead wrong.

But if you dig into Theistic Evolution … it’s just Intelligent Design PLUS MORE EVOLUTION.

It is really more concise to criticize ID folks for their Young Earth position - - rather than for their
positions that God intervened in the pure randomness of Evolution.

Theistic Evolutionists ALSO believe God intervened in the pure randomness of Evolution.

George

[Patrick]

@gbrooks9

I can understand why you think ID, as it is usually described, is just dead wrong.

Because ID as usually described describes nothing. It is mumbo-jumbo nonsense. It is not science nor Christianity nor any religion, just hand waving nonsense. Why do you think it is something of substance?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Patrick

Because ID as usually described describes nothing. It is mumbo-jumbo nonsense. It is not science nor Christianity nor any religion, just hand waving nonsense. Why do you think it is something of substance?

@Patrick

I am not discussing ID as preached by the creationists. I am discussing ID IN PRINCIPLE - - what it means. It’s
position is that there HAD to be a God to create moral humans.

The only difference between the camps usually labeled ID, and the camps usually labeled Theistic Evolution,
is that the former USUALLY teaches Young Earth, and usually thinks LOTS of biological riddles require
God’s assistance.

Theistic Evolutionists teach OLD EARTH, and usually thinks SOME biological/mental riddles require
God’s assistance.

There is really only a “difference in degree” between the principles of ID and TE (once you remove
the Young Earth elements).

George

[Patrick]

@gbrooks9

It’s position is that there HAD to be a God to create moral humans.

Now you’re getting into morality? Christianity has no lock on morality, values, ethics and certainly ID doesn’t.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Patrick

Now you’re getting into morality? Christianity has no lock on morality, values, ethics and certainly ID doesn’t.

Patrick … please don’t get distracted by my use of “moral” humans. I’m simply using it to distinguish
between non-humans and humans, in the Biblical scheme of things.

If you don’t believe God was involved in SOME part of human evolution - - I don’t know what
you think you are going to get from BioLogos.

George Brooks

[Patrick]

@gbrooks9

Patrick … please don’t get distracted by my use of “moral” humans. I’m simply using it to distinguish between non-humans and humans, in the Biblical scheme of things.

Hey, quit calling my ancestors immoral. They may have had a smaller brain than me but they took care of their young so that I could live. Pre-humans get no respect anyone since egoistical homo sapiens took over.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

Something like 800 or 900 scientists have signed Discovery’s “Dissent from Darwin” list. Not all of them are ID proponents, but many of them are,

@Eddie

I don’t see how mentioning “…800 or 900 scientists” have signed Discovery’s ‘Dissent from Darwin’ list… "
helps your case at all.

Anyone who supports Discovery’s list is not going to be “BioLogos kind of people”.

What you need to do is identify “Old Earth” ID people - - to support your point.

But I can see that disputing “labels”, while at times inane, is rather key to understanding GOD behind the
plan for humanity.

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

However, if you are asking me for the names of some ID people who are, or at times have been, Old Earth creationists, they include Stephen Meyer, Bill Dembski, and David Snoke – and thousands of others who are less well-known.

If I had to guess, based on my personal acquaintance with quite a large number of ID folks, I’d say that ID supporters (including not just the leaders but thousands of supporters) are about 80% creationist, and about 20% evolutionist. And I’d say the creationists are split roughly evenly between OEC and YEC. But those are not meant as hard numbers, and I won’t defend them. I’m just painting a very rough picture of the composition of ID as a group.

@Eddie

Yep… I was following the discussion without any confusion. I posted not because I thought you were
contradicting anything I had posted - - but because I don’t think Patrick would be very impressed with
a list of scientists who signed onto Discovery’s list.

Generally speaking, if you want to convince folks in BioLogos about the relevancy of ID, you really
need to stick with the OLD EARTH ID folks . . .

But even with that … the reflex is to reject any ID-connections … just because “ID” has become
so vilified.

As to your last comment:

"Obviously, as you can see, if 80% of ID folks are creationists, 80% of them are
not going to be supporters of “theistic evolution.” The overlap between ID and TE
is relatively small. However, it is there. "

Yes … in terms of how we normally distinguish between ID and Theistic Evolution
(which we do MOSTLY by comparing positions on OLD vs. YOUNG EARTH).

My overall point is that once you remove the OLD vs. YOUNG EARTH
factor, there isn’t much difference between ID and Theistic Evolution.

George Brooks

[Patrick]

Eddie,
Thanks. Do all ID supporters have Christian backgrounds? Or are there other religions represented? Jews, Buddist, Hindu’s and Muslims, even atheists. I guess you can believe in some kind of Deepak Chopak kind of spiritual intelligent designer, even a non-theist intelligent designer.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

Now to the theology side. Because TE/EC assumes that evolution is an established fact, and because most TEs (in BioLogos and the ASA, anyway) are Protestant evangelicals, TE/EC it must find a way to harmonize evolution with the evangelical faith. On the other hand, ID, not assuming that evolution is an established fact, is under no pressure to harmonize Christian faith with evolution.

@Eddie

I found this discussion to be very helpful.

Obviously ID Old Earthers would be more interested in Evolution that ID Young Earthers.

George