But ID Isn’t Creationism, Nosirree!

IDists’ favorite pastime, apart from slagging evolution, appears to be distancing themselves from young-earth creationists, even though the differences are legion:

Age of the Earth:

YECs: 6,000-10,000 years old.

IDs: No comment.

Identity of the designer:

YECs: Jehovah, god of the Bible.

IDs: No comment.

Scientific merit of ideas:

YECs: Evolution is just as much grounded in faith as the belief in a magic man in the sky, so the two are equally valid.

IDs: ID is just as scientific as evolution, if not more so. Is too!

Does evolution occur?:

YECs: Only to a limited extent.

IDs: Only to a limited extent.

Common descent?:

YECs: Only to a limited extent. But there’s no way humans can be related to any other species.

IDs: No comment, though humans almost certainly aren’t related to any other species.

Resolving difficulties: how do you explain X?:

YECs: Evolution doesn’t explain X!

IDs: Evolution doesn’t explain X!


See? The two are worlds apart! There’s no way anyone could see any similarity between the two, unless maybe they had a few pounds of pattern-matching circuitry between their ears.

So anyway, a few days ago, the ID the Future podcast promoted a new edumacational web site, TrueU.

Which seems like the right time to bring up Dr. Sidethink’s corollary to Murphy’s Law:

Anything Labeled “Truth” contains more bullshit than stuff labeled “Bullshit.”

At any rate, the reason IDtF was promoting TrueU is that Stephen Meyer is one of the authors, in addition to being the director of the Disco ‘Tute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, ID’s main faith tank.

If you poke around TrueU, you’ll see that it’s mainly concerned with kids heading off to college and losing their faith (and selling DVDs in the process).

Oh, did I mention that it’s also a project of Focus on the Patriarchy, an explicitly-Christian, right-wing, homophobic organization?

Yeah, this is the sort of thing that makes it really hard not to crack up when IDiots claim not to be creationists, so I won’t even try. It’s like they’re saying “Sure, he’s fucking me in the ass, but he’s standing on the floor, so technically we’re not in bed with each other.”

This entry was posted in Creationism, Intelligent Design, Religion and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to But ID Isn’t Creationism, Nosirree!

  1. Pocket Nerd says:

    It’s worth pointing out the Dissembler Institute’s staff are generally lying when they insist they don’t have a position on who the designer was. Get them in front of a church audience and suddenly, hallelujah, the designer was God, praise Jesus amen!

    Also: Would the intersection of a faith tank and a think tank be a fink tank?

    Like

  2. David says:

    Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture
    http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp

    Like

    • arensb says:

      Thank you for proving my point: neither creationism nor ID has any data to back it up, so their proponents fall back on criticisms of evolution, as if disproving evolution would prove magic-man-done-it.

      Like

  3. David says:

    One is not obliged in science to come up with an alternative theory for a theory you are criticizing. There is no rule like that in science. That said, there is ample evidence and related inferences for creation/intelligent design, but evolutionists choose to ignore them because evolutionists interpret evidence and data through the lense of philosophical naturalism.

    Evidence for creation/intelligent design include:
    * the universe is a Tri-Universe, http://www.icr.org/articles/view/2590/215/
    * earth’s geologic features appear to have been fashioned by rapid, catastrophic processes on a global and regional scale,
    * the fossil record (eg. the Cambrian explosion), http://crev.info/index.php/content/110629-complex_arthropod_eyes_found_in_early_cambrian
    * man and apes have a separate ancestry
    * natural selection (a creationist’s idea)
    * the design inference
    * rapidly nuclear-decay-generated helium escapes from radioactive crystals http://www.icr.org/article/new-rate-data-support-young-world/
    * irreducible complexity, the complexity of living cells, etc.

    Like

    • Fez says:

      Evidence for creation/intelligent design include:

      These sacred chaos of ID have been slaughtered so many times the SPCA is starting to get suspicious of this blog. Do you have anything fresher?

      Like

    • arensb says:

      the universe is a Tri-Universe

      So the fact that there are three space-like dimensions, and that the stuff in the universe can be divided into three categories, means that it was created by the three gods of Christianity?

      Isn’t it just as plausible that the three dimensions of space correspond to papa bear, mama bear, and baby bear, while time corresponds to Goldilocks?

      Honestly, dude. If you’re trying to make a serious argument, you may not want to lead with an argument this stupid.

      earth’s geologic features appear to have been fashioned by rapid, catastrophic processes on a global and regional scale,

      Already addressed here.

      the fossil record (eg. the Cambrian explosion), http://crev.info/index.php/content/110629-complex_arthropod_eyes_found_in_early_cambrian

      If I understood you correctly, you’re saying that an article showing that eyes can evolve rapidly is evidence for creationism. Is that correct?

      rapidly nuclear-decay-generated helium escapes from radioactive crystals

      Ooh, there’s a blast from the past. I haven’t seen argument CD015 in years.

      At any rate, why did you post this here? Didn’t you already get spanked enough when you posted the exact same drivel over at winnipegskeptics.com? You could at least have linked to that.

      (I think I’ve just coined a word for someone who believes in magical creation, and copy-pastes arguments from elsewhere: Copypastafarian.)

      Like

      • Eamon Knight says:

        Didn’t you already get spanked enough when you posted the exact same drivel over at winnipegskeptics.com?

        Ah, our old friend Buckna! I should have recognized the style. It’s been like, 15 years since I first encountered him on talk.origins, and he’s still posting the same tired bullshit, apparently incapable of learning that it’s all bullshit, or even that copypasta is an ineffective form of argumentation.

        Sheesh, David: don’t you ever get bored of being you?

        Like

      • arensb says:

        Ah, yes, I thought his arguments and style had a 1990s-t.o feel to them, like running across a Geocities or Angelfire page with animated gifs.

        Unfortunately, I think 1990s retro won’t be in fashion for another decade or so: we’re still in the 1980s-retro phase. Or at least I am.

        Like

  4. David says:

    Hey, thanks for linking the thread from winnipegskeptics.com. Now I can spend my time more productively elsewhere. arensb wrote: “If I understood you correctly, you’re saying that an article showing that eyes can evolve rapidly is evidence for creationism. Is that correct?” The article just confirms there’s no fossil evidence for any series of transitional forms leading up to trilobites, Hallucengenia, Anomalocaris, jellyfish, etc.

    http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
    Gould wrote “Wonderful Life” to reassure the public that evolution can accommodate such drastic revision, and suggested that many-celled animals, early in their history, were especially prone to develop variety. However, there are no known mechanisms which could produce such a rapid development of complex creatures.

    Darwinists believe the Cambrian explosion of new life began about 525-550 million years ago. In Time magazine’s cover story, “Evolution’s Big Bang” by J. Madeleine Nash (December 4, 1995) (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/0,16641,1101951204,00.html) it was reported that John Grotzinger and his team used zircon dating to recalibrate the geological clock, “chopping the Cambrian period to about half its former length”, and “announced that the interval of major evolutionary innovation did not span the entire 30 million years, but rather was concentrated in the first third”. Nash reported this “explosion of biological diversity” occurred “within the span of no more than 10 million years” (p.40).

    Stephen Jay Gould reduced this figure even further, and wrote: “…an elegant study, published in 1993, clearly restricts this period of phyletic flowering to a mere five million years.” (Scientific American, October 1994, p. 89).

    However, if the Cambrian explosion is now deemed to have occurred within a time frame of no more than 10 million years [Gould was convinced it was “a mere five million years”] then how does Grotzinger (or any other evolutionist for that matter) know with certainty how long the Cambrian period was, or that the Cambrian explosion happened “almost exactly 543 million years ago”? It all depends on the assumptions built into the dating methods used.

    For example, all radiometric dating methods assume a) that no decay product was present initially or that initial quantities can be accurately estimated b) that the decay system was closed through the years and c) that the decay rate was constant over time.

    One question that needs to be asked is: What conditions could invalidate these assumptions?

    As Sam Bowring (one member of Grotzinger’s team) commented in the Time article: “And what I like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before they start feeling uncomfortable?”

    I would add: Is it at four million, three million, two million, one million years?

    [snip]

    And Fez asks: “Do you have anything fresher?”

    See:

    http://www.icr.org/article/6239/

    http://www.icr.org/article/6237/

    Like

    • Eamon Knight says:

      For example, all radiometric dating methods assume a) that no decay product was present initially or that initial quantities can be accurately estimated b) that the decay system was closed through the years and c) that the decay rate was constant over time.

      This is a grossly simplistic dismissal of isotope dating, to the point of qualifying as a lie. I’m sure that by now you know where to find the t.o FAQs on the subjects, which amply refute the above.

      Like

    • arensb says:

      In addition to Eamon Knight’s comment about radiometric dating (look up isochron dating, for one: it doesn’t assume that there’s been no gain or loss of material), I’ll add a more serious critique:

      Once again, you’re wasting your time bitching about evolution, instead of presenting evidence for creationism. Why is that?

      Like

    • Fez says:

      The article just confirms there’s no fossil evidence for any series of transitional forms leading up to trilobites, Hallucengenia, Anomalocaris, jellyfish, etc.

      What is a “transitional form”? What are the characteristics of one?

      Like

  5. David says:

    If molecules to man evolution were true, some examples of transitional forms would be fossil evidence of non-winged pterosaur-like creatures gradually developing fully functional wings, and gradually showing the development of the long bony fourth finger; another example would be fossil evidence showing the gradual, step-by-step development of wings from a supposed non-winged bat ancestor. What are the “oldest” bat fossils? 100% bat (with wings)

    And where’s the fossil evidence for the origin of the insect wing?

    http://crev.info/content/110720-fossil_finds_feed_facile_fables

    [snip]

    Somehow, these specimens also promised to “clues to the long-standing controversial debate of the evolutionary origin of the insect wing,” even though these fossil insects already had fully formed, functioning wings. Can evolutionists watch wings evolve in a fossil sequence? Apparently not; “The scientists presume that wings originated from thoracic backplates, while leg genes were recruited for their developmental control.” That’s a lot of beneficial mutations. “Overall,” the skeptical reader is reassured, “the exciting discovery of Coxoplectoptera contributes to a better understanding of insect evolution.”

    Like

  6. Fez says:

    some examples of transitional forms would be fossil evidence of non-winged pterosaur-like creatures gradually developing fully functional wings,

    Aka CC214.

    Like

  7. David says:

    And you referenced CC214 because…..? I was discussing peterosaurs and bats. Where are the transitional forms in the fossil record leading up to pterosaurs or bats? I thought a good theory was based on evidence. Not an absence of evidence.

    And as for the claim of transitions between reptiles and birds….

    check out:

    http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp

    and

    http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp

    Like

    • arensb says:

      And you referenced CC214 because…..?

      I’m guessing it’s because you haven’t come up with an original — or, indeed, non-copy-pasted — argument yet, so there’s no point in spending a lot of time or effort rebutting you.

      Like

    • Fez says:

      And you referenced CC214 because…..? I was discussing peterosaurs and bats.

      I referenced CC214 because that was specifically what you requested in your response to my question. Let’s replay, since you appear to be unable to use the threaded reply feature of arensb’s blog.

      Fez asked:

      What is a “transitional form”? What are the characteristics of one?

      This, I thought, was clear. I was asking for the defining characteristics of a “transitional form”. You responded with an example combined with a qualifying “if-then” lead:
      David responded:

      If molecules to man evolution were true, some examples of transitional forms would be fossil evidence of non-winged pterosaur-like creatures gradually developing fully functional wings

      And I have given you the truth for your if, CC214, a series of fossil forms that demonstrate one transition from non-winged to fully functional wings.

      Then you go on to completely misrepresent the question that was put to you in your response to arensb (as if the entire conversation wasn’t immediately visible to him or the other readers here):
      David mistates:

      Fez asked me to give some examples of what I would consider transitional forms.

      Never once did I ask for examples, I asked for defining characteristics. I never ‘switched’, as you accuse me of, to anything. The deception and deflection has been all your doing. Nobody is interested in playing your childish game of “gotcha” so you can find another gap to insert your god into.

      So, do you have anything fresher?

      Like

  8. David says:

    Fez asked me to give some examples of what I would consider transitional forms. I said if molecules to man evolution were true, some examples of transitional forms would be fossil evidence of non-winged pterosaur-like creatures gradually developing fully functional wings, and transitions showing the development of wings from a supposed non-winged bat ancestor. And what about an insect that was transitional between a non-flying insect and a flying insect?

    http://www.icr.org/article/insect-fossil-flies-face-gradual-evolution/

    Not providing evidence for any of these, Fez switched to the claim of transitions between reptiles and birds. I provided 2 links that countered such claims. And now arensb says there’s no point in spending a lot of time or effort rebutting me. Why? because I didn’t come up with an original argument? If my arguments aren’t original, then you should be able to refute them easily.

    Why doesn’t someone pick one of the 31 questions I asked in the article:

    http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp

    and answer it. If necessary, back up your answer with references to the scientific literature. Having said that, don’t include references to articles that are “Just-So” stories–speculations about how evolution may have worked in the past. Separate the empirical science from the philosophical naturalism.

    Like

    • arensb says:

      some examples of transitional forms would be fossil evidence of non-winged pterosaur-like creatures gradually developing fully functional wings

      And if you had bothered to look up on Wikipedia the various species listed there, that’s exactly what you would’ve seen.

      Why doesn’t someone pick one of the 31 questions I asked in the article:

      Because they’re FAQs that have been answered a thousand times on talkorigins.org and elsewhere (and, if you’ll glance above, I’ve already covered #5). You’re not actually looking for answers to these questions, or else you would’ve asked a biologist or picked up some books on evolution at the library. But no, you’re just playing stump-the-heretic. So if you’re not interested in having a serious discussion, neither am I.

      Like

  9. David says:

    arensb wrote: “And if you had bothered to look up on Wikipedia the various species listed there, that’s exactly what you would’ve seen.”

    Really. OK. I went to:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur

    Can you please show me anywhere on this page the ***fossil evidence*** for the series of transitions going from a pter0saur-like creature (without wings) to a pterosaur (with wings)? As for cladograms, they certainly look nice on a chart, but I could take out a variety of small to large knives, forks, spoons, scissors, screwdrivers, pens, pencils, etc. and make a nice chart showing different “species” ,and how one evolved into the other. See, showing evolution is easy!

    Like

    • arensb says:

      I could take out a variety of small to large knives, forks, spoons, scissors, screwdrivers, pens, pencils, etc. and make a nice chart showing different “species” ,and how one evolved into the other.

      Would you get the same chart regardless of which trait you used to construct it?

      Like

  10. David says:

    arensb wrote: “So the fact that there are three space-like dimensions, and that the stuff in the universe can be divided into three categories, means that it was created by the three gods of Christianity?”

    From the book “The Creator Beyond Time and Space” by Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler (1996):

    In the very first verse of the Bible we find remarkable evidence of supernatural authorship.

    “In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).” Genesis 1:1

    For thousands of years scientists and philosophers have speculated about the basic components or makeup of the universe. In the twentieth century, physicists have confirmed that the universe, at its foundation, consists of space, time and matter. In fact, space and time are so tightly linked that astrophysicists now speak of space-time. While scientific and philosophical speculations about the basic structure of the universe has varied widely, the fact that the universe consists basically of space, time and matter was clearly forseen in the very first verse of the Bible.

    Like

    • arensb says:

      In the very first verse of the Bible we find remarkable evidence of supernatural authorship.

      “In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).” Genesis 1:1

      I realize that it is perfectly acceptable within the time-honored mainstream practice of exegesis, to just make shit up, but out in the real world, that just doesn’t fly. Do you have a link to this text so I can submit it to FSTDT?

      Like

  11. David says:

    You can purchase the book (paper) or on CD-ROM

    http://resources.khouse.org/products/cd103/

    See also:

    http://www.khouse.org/6640/CD103/

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s