What I mean to say is, have the proponents of creationism done a sufficiently good job in its marketing that they've succeeded in creating a false differentiation between ID and creation?

Last I checked, Intelligent Design was the same as creationism. It just had a more intelligent (lolpun) sounding name attached.

Yes. ID implies that there is an active role in the creation of each living thing giving it a design that is otherwise to coomplex to exist. Creationism is implying that God made the building blocks for life (thus including Earth/Universe) and also the laws that govern it (evolution).

In other words, Creationism works with evolution, ID does not. You can, however, sit between the two. People usually use them interchangably.

Also, creationism isn't 'shoving God through the back door', dear Dawkins, since no one has actually solved the origin of life itself. There is only a few options to solve that one anyways (and sorry, ambiogenesis (sorry if that's spelled wrong) is NOT an adequate explanation as it stands now).

Creationism speaks more towards how life got here rather than ID, which just doesn't like evolution.

rockytheboxer:
What I mean to say is, have the proponents of creationism done a sufficiently good job in its marketing that they've succeeded in creating a false differentiation between ID and creation?

No. Intelligent Design is just a way for dipshit fanatics to make themselves sound scientific. There's no difference and there's no science behind it.

Nibbles:
Creationism is implying that God made the building blocks for life (thus including Earth/Universe) and also the laws that govern it (evolution).

What you are describing is Deism, not Creationism.

Anyway, on topic: No, there's no real difference between the two. They are even based on the same book (Of Pandas And People, although its original title was different). They simply exchanged the words Creation/Creator with Design/Designer after a court ruling - Edwards v. Aguillard - that Creationism was not a valid topic for public school science classes. I'm not joking. Then they tried it again as Intelligent Design, a supposedly scientific alternative, which was dismissed as religion in disguise in the Dover trial.

EDIT: Look, I even found a graph about it. Graphs make everything better.

I didn't think there was any real difference between Intelligent Design or Creationism.
The phrase Intelligent Design implies quite strongly that someone designed the way life progressed. Which is, as far as I know, the exact same thing that Creationism is meant to convey...

Nibbles:
Yes. ID implies that there is an active role in the creation of each living thing giving it a design that is otherwise to coomplex to exist. Creationism is implying that God made the building blocks for life (thus including Earth/Universe) and also the laws that govern it (evolution).

I don't think you understand what Creationism means.

Nibbles:
In other words, Creationism works with evolution, ID does not. You can, however, sit between the two. People usually use them interchangably.

No, no, no.

either way its false. so to me there is no difference.XD

no seriously though, it seems to be the same, but im not really knowledgable in those areas, im sure they are different in some way.

rockytheboxer:
What I mean to say is, have the proponents of creationism done a sufficiently good job in its marketing that they've succeeded in creating a false differentiation between ID and creation?

Your concept is only supported by sterotyping.

Actually, there is a difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. It's actually a pretty big difference.

So, let's do some basic definition work.

Creationism: The concept that the Christian God created the world in a fashion consistent with a literal interpretation of the first few books of the Bible. ie. world created in seven days, the great Flood, ect.

Intelligent design: The concept that the world was created with an intelligent being in control.

So, all creationism is intelligent design, but not all intelligent design is creationism.

Intelligent design could mean aliens, great spirit, God, entity, or any other form of superior lifeform.

Your presumption about the exacting relationship between the two is analogous to saying " all peaches are fruit, so all fruit must be peaches."

Semitendon:
Intelligent design could mean aliens, great spirit, God, entity, or any other form of superior lifeform.

While that's true on the surface, it's important to note, that the ID-movement directly stems from the Creationist-movement and that one of the major organisations, the IDEA (an organisation of Casey Luskin's, one of the main proponents of ID), clearly stated that they believe this designer is supposedly the specific god of the Bible. Admittedly, they flip-flopped quite a bit in a vain attempt to cover their bases.

The center through most of its existence maintained a requirement that those founding new IDEA Clubs or running existing clubs, so-called "club leaders", be Christian. The reasoning was given as "the IDEA Center Leadership believes, for religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible." By January 2006 the requirement had been dropped and replaced by a requirement that club leaders accept the IDEA Center's mission statement which stated "we consider it reasonable to conclude that the designer may be identified as the God of the Bible." [7] As of June 2007 that mission statement had been removed, replaced by a message stating "The IDEA Center Mission Statement is Currently Under Construction pending Board Approval after some recent changes to IDEA Center policies. The mission statement will be re-posted when finalized." [8] As of March 2008, the statement includes both the statements "we consider it reasonable to conclude that the designer may be identified as the God of the Bible" [9] and "IDEA Center Leadership believes that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible" [10]

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Intelligent_Design_and_Evolution_Awareness_Center

All of these ID-people are always the same, small, uncritical and unscientific bunch, building these houses of cards and aiding and supporting each other in an attempt to give themselves an air of legitimacy.

The IDEA Center board of directors has an unusual concentration of members from the same families serving; of the three founders, two have family members serving as directors, Eddie Colanter and Brit Colanter, and Steve Renner and Lynette Renner. In addition, Ryan Huxley and Stephen Huxley are board members as well. The majority of the advisory board are Fellows of the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the intelligent design movement, or affiliated with the institute in some way.

I think it's the other way round: Intelligent Design is a subset of creationism.

This is because creationism is not restricted to Christianity. Some Muslims, for instance, believe God created the world (I'm not sure of the detail); some Mayans still believe a bunch of gods made the world and then humans out of maize; some Hindus believe it's up to their three main gods (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva?) who make, maintain and destroy as appropriate.

Thus ID is creationism, it's just not necessarily Biblical Creationism. At any rate, ID, Biblical creationism, or any other form of creationism are antithetical to science.

there are certain insinuations with Intelligent Design that make it SEEM different then creationism, but in practice, they're the exact same thing.

There IS a middle ground, which is something referred to colloquially as "Guided Evolution" which some people use to explain the purpose of life on earth, and when you hear it explained, it's what you THINK intelligent design is - God created everything, not in 7 days, but in millions of years. Dinosaurs can have existed, because the book of Genesis is largely allegorical and symbolic rather then real. God is in everything, and using his "intelligence", he "designed" things to evolve in certain ways, to arrive at where we are today, as intelligent beings ourselves.

Intelligent Design however, is nothing like that and is used as a phrase only to trick schools into teaching Creationism in schools. And I do mean tricking. When they were writing up their Creationist texts, and decided to relabel it Intelligent Design to get it past the scientific community, or at least trick people, they didn't even correctly edit their files. In some Intelligent Design documentations, the word Creationism is still in it. Intelligent Design says that some force, we don't know who, may have created the world in 7 days, using whatever intellect they had to do it.

It's a really thin veil.

Alex_P:

Skeleon:
EDIT: Look, I even found a graph about it. Graphs make everything better.

Spoiler: Click to View

That graph is incomplete.

It should also be counting the number of instances of "cdesign proponentsists" in each version. ;)

-- Alex

that's awesomely true. They weren't even trying hard to hide the fact that it was creationism.

Altorin:

Alex_P:

Skeleon:
EDIT: Look, I even found a graph about it. Graphs make everything better.

Spoiler: Click to View

That graph is incomplete.

It should also be counting the number of instances of "cdesign proponentsists" in each version. ;)

-- Alex

They were trying, though like everything else they try, they failed.

that's awesomely true. They weren't even trying hard to hide the fact that it was creationism.

I find the debate of ID and creationism trifle. There is always too much emotional weight to the debate since people seem to get so sensitive on the subject. Someone may yell 'SAME' while another may yell 'DIFFERENT'. Personally, I think they are different. Nevertheless, why debate definition when they are right here.

Main Entry: intelligent design
n. The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

Main Entry: Creationism
cre⋅a⋅tion⋅ism  /kriˈeɪʃəˌnɪzəm/ -noun 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

Also I found this video interesting.

Mansur:
I find the debate of ID and creationism trifle. There is always too much emotional weight to the debate since people seem to get so sensitive on the subject. Someone may yell 'SAME' while another may yell 'DIFFERENT'. Personally, I think they are different. Nevertheless, why debate definition when they are right here.

Main Entry: intelligent design
n. The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

Main Entry: Creationism
cre⋅a⋅tion⋅ism  /kriˈeɪʃəˌnɪzəm/ -noun 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

Also I found this video interesting.

Spoiler: Click to View

If Intelligent were only postulating that we can't prove something right now so SOMEONE might have designed it, then there'd be little issue. Saying someone "might have" done something is a workable hypothesis, you can then attempt to test that.

But the problem is, it often becomes "we can't ever prove that, so someone MUST have designed it".. that's a hard line and often ID people will not hear anything against it.

It also stops thought. If you can just write everything off as being some greater plan of some greater being, then you can stop thinking. You don't need to find out WHY a bee flies, if you can just say "There's no way I could figure that out, a magical space god must have made it"

Altorin:
If Intelligent were only postulating that we can't prove something right now so SOMEONE might have designed it, then there'd be little issue. Saying someone "might have" done something is a workable hypothesis, you can then attempt to test that.

But the problem is, it often becomes "we can't ever prove that, so someone MUST have designed it".. that's a hard line and often ID people will not hear anything against it.

It also stops thought. If you can just write everything off as being some greater plan of some greater being, then you can stop thinking. You don't need to find out WHY a bee flies, if you can just say "There's no way I could figure that out, a magical space god must have made it"

I could be wrong but I think that was more of an Agnostic tone that you had.

A theory is a theory, and as good as one as any other. I honestly do not care of the matter of what others opinion on the subject lies. I just get tired of hearing people say that Creationism and ID is exactly the same thing.

I am personally a Deist. One may wonder why I would believe something as the sort, but it comes down to 'because I can'. I have yet to see a religion, or non, that has 100% proven everything. (And if some thinks they have a answer, please don't tell me.)

rockytheboxer:
What I mean to say is, have the proponents of creationism done a sufficiently good job in its marketing that they've succeeded in creating a false differentiation between ID and creation?

All they've succeeded in doing is creating a pseudo-science of intelligent design to try and get a version of creationism taught in schools alongside or in replacement of the theory of evolution. It may differ slightly from creationism, as it tries to use some scientific principles, but the entire point is to promote creationism in education. Fortunately, most people have seen through this ploy and it isn't being taught in schools.

Mansur:

Also I found this video interesting.

Spoiler: Click to View

You know, no matter how much I may agree (or disagree, depending on the specific case we're looking at) with Dawkins' views, I hate how he speaks. It just grates on my nerves.

As for the video: I despise how people seem to think that the idea that the answer "I don't know" is somehow a bad thing.

Alex_P:

Mansur:
Main Entry: intelligent design
n. The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

Main Entry: Creationism
cre⋅a⋅tion⋅ism  /kriˈeɪʃəˌnɪzəm/ -noun 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

Those definitions describe the same concept. If complex biological or physical systems can't come about through an undirected process of evolution, then the supposedly ambiguous "intelligent being" of intelligent design must be an eternal being, i.e. God (or, at most, God designed some aliens who designed us, which is not something that any ID evangelists even say or believe).

Indeed, dig into intelligent design arguments even a little and you'll find that the only viable "designer" is some kind of "supreme being". Nothing else can really plant so much false evidence of evolution or continually intervene in Earth's history to throw in new species while covering its tracks.

The main difference, going by those definitions, is that intelligent design allows for evolution and natural selection, as a result of the intentional action of "a designer" (which we all know means "God".) Unlike creationism (defined here as the belief that all forms of life were directly created by God), it does not directly contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting evolution. Of course, neither theory is anywhere close to being scientific, and therefore neither has any place in a scientific education.

In short, yes, there is a nominal difference between the two, but it's immaterial to the political debate.

I retract my earlier statement, because i am an idiot. shows how much thought i put into ID.

Semitendon:

Your concept is only supported by sterotyping.

Actually, there is a difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. It's actually a pretty big difference.

So, let's do some basic definition work.

I'm going to take this section by section, just for clarity's sake.

Semitendon:

Creationism: The concept that the Christian God created the world in a fashion consistent with a literal interpretation of the first few books of the Bible. ie. world created in seven days, the great Flood, ect.

Sort of. Most religions have a "creation myth", so I would probably define "creationism" as a belief in a formation of the universe and life directly and instantaneously (or, at least, over a very short term) by a divine being.

Semitendon:

Intelligent design: The concept that the world was created with an intelligent being in control.

So, all creationism is intelligent design, but not all intelligent design is creationism.

Intelligent design could mean aliens, great spirit, God, entity, or any other form of superior lifeform.

Eh... Yes and no. Again, you're kind of oversimplifying to create a distinction without a difference. The fact that one can say "ID doesn't have to be 'god' per se" doesn't mitigate the fact that it's de facto divine intervention. If the results are the same (a "higher being" directing the creation of the universe and of life), let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

Semitendon:

Your presumption about the exacting relationship between the two is analogous to saying " all peaches are fruit, so all fruit must be peaches."

Well, no. It's more like saying:

"A banana has a yellow, rubbery, peel and a white center which is edible, and has a distinct taste. This fruit I'm holding has a yellow, rubbery, peel and a white center which is edible, and has the same distinct taste. Therefore, this fruit I'm holding must be a banana". We could call the second fruit a strawberry, and say that because it also has a few brown spots on it, where my original banana definition required the peel be pure yellow, but that's semantic bullshit.

Mansur:

I could be wrong but I think that was more of an Agnostic tone that you had.

A theory is a theory, and as good as one as any other. I honestly do not care of the matter of what others opinion on the subject lies. I just get tired of hearing people say that Creationism and ID is exactly the same thing.

I am personally a Deist. One may wonder why I would believe something as the sort, but it comes down to 'because I can'. I have yet to see a religion, or non, that has 100% proven everything. (And if some thinks they have a answer, please don't tell me.)

Welcome to what I like to call "the end of any thread discussing religion". Once you pull out the old chestnut of "nothing can account for 100% of everything, therefore I'm justified in believing whatever wacky stuff I like", you've ended the possibility of having a substantive discussion of the merits.

No, not all "theories" have similar levels of validity, nor is creationism/ID a "theory". Nor, frankly, is it a matter of opinion. In order for something to be a "theory" it must be a consistent and complete explanation of observable physical phenomena which is backed up by substantial evidence. We all got misled in middle school, when they taught us that a hypothesis with some evidence becomes a theory, and a theory everyone agrees on becomes a law. That's not how it goes. An explanation which is accepted, but cannot be tested in all possible circumstances, is a theory. An explanation which can be tested in all possible circumstances is a law. It's the theory of universal gravitation, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution. Theory doesn't mean "we're not sure".

Alex_P:
Core tenets of ID, such as "irreducible complexity", deny the possibility that the basic mechanisms of evolution can work at all.

Exactly.
They only acknowledge "microevolution" but not "macroevolution" which are, to all real scientists, the exact same thing. There's just evolution.
ID directly contradicts evolution as it only allows for "adaptations within a species". This is obviously crap since species aren't carved in rock.

Seldon2639:
snip snip

I said the whole '100%' argument so no one would reply to me about it, as someone always tries to tie me down to the image that I am trying to prove some drastic point. Which I was not, just stating that there was a contextual difference between ID and Cre. I believe it is pointless to debate 'why' on the internet (Especially when it comes to religion), I rather work with 'how'.

In addition, you generalized what my stance was, and I never created a false dilemma you seem to believe I have.

I understand the fact that theories are not based on opinion, but evidence collected over many trials and observation. Maybe I am just so used to philosophical theory debates that I said 'theories are theories' without truly thinking into context.

The short end of it, is whenever anyone in today's world mentions "Intelligent Design", they MEAN "creationism". Honestly, that's true. They might use tricky language or tricks to attempt to make their idea sound like anything but creationism, but the Intelligent Design movement is a direct response to the Creationism movement losing momentum in placing Creationism in schools.

Creationism lost a lot of ground, and so they counterattacked with this "new" theory of Creationism, which is Intelligent Design, and they SLOPPILY threw it together out of nothing, and called it scientific, and it's just not, no matter what people think, the fact of the matter is that it is just Creationism hiding behind smoke and mirrors.

I mean, if you want to believe the creationist argument, that's fine. Even if you want to teach it to your kids - they're your kids... and if you REALLY don't want your kids hearing the truth about how their species came to be, that is your prerogative as well. You should have an option as a parent to remove your child from a science class if for whatever reason you feel threatened by. But don't try and get your bible into a Biology classroom by using tricky language.

ID is just the suggestion that Evolution, or Creationism was inspired by an intelligent force. For instance, logically, you can have a God-less Creationism scenario.

zehydra:
ID is just the suggestion that Evolution, or Creationism was inspired by an intelligent force.

Really, you should differentiate.

A god-inspired Evolution is Theistic Evolution.
And a god-made (or, theoretically, "some intelligent designer-made") Creation is ID.
ID is in opposition of Evolution as it doesn't acknowledge the possibility of complex organisms developing by themselves through natural selection and is also contrary to speciation.

Please do not mix up the two because one (Theistic Evolution) is a valid (though unnecessary) position to take, while the other (ID) has been shown numerous times to be a rebranding of Creationism.

Well, regardless of what I think, the US Supreme Court decided they were the same in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Skeleon:

zehydra:
ID is just the suggestion that Evolution, or Creationism was inspired by an intelligent force.

Really, you should differentiate.

A god-inspired Evolution is Theistic Evolution.
And a god-made (or, theoretically, "some intelligent designer-made") Creation is ID.
ID is in opposition of Evolution as it doesn't acknowledge the possibility of complex organisms developing by themselves through natural selection and is also contrary to speciation.

Please do not mix up the two because one (Theistic Evolution) is a valid (though unnecessary) position to take, while the other (ID) has been shown numerous times to be a rebranding of Creationism.

No. Intelligent Design, is the suggestion that life was Intelligently designed. Nothing more. And I can prove if I must that You can intelligently design life through evolution.

zehydra:
No. Intelligent Design, is the suggestion that life was Intelligently designed. Nothing more. And I can prove if I must that You can intelligently design life through evolution.

Read up on ID. It's opposed to "macroevolution" (speciation, complex structures and so on).
It only accepts "microevolution" (changes within species-boundaries).
What you mean isn't ID. Unless I misunderstood you, you are talking about a concept that Evolution happened and that it was guided by a supreme being. That's NOT ID.