Thought Provoker
Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007
|
Hi K.E.,
You asked...
"ID" is the abbreviation for the term "Intelligent Design". It is a populous movement run primarily by the Discovery Institute and its fellows which includes Wells, Dembski and Behe. It is mostly, if not entirely, religiously motivated but has attempted to present Intelligent Design as some sort of scientific concept.
The capitalization makes it a proper noun and, therefore, distinguishes it from what people would think of as "intelligent design". The ID Movement leaders take advantage of this confusion by playing a shell game of what means what depending on the audience they are addressing. For example, when addressing religious organizations the ID Movement leaders count on the presumption that Intelligent Design implies an Intelligent Designer which implies an Intelligent Creator which implies God. However, when such implications would be detrimental to the movement (e.g. legal depositions), the movement leaders focus on things like innocuous questions and ID alternatives like "space aliens who seed the Earth, time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature".
While I believe the ID movement leaders are intentionally engaging in a shell game to further their agenda that was spelled out in the Wedge document, there are ID proponents who actually and earnestly see some potential scientific value in thinking outside the status quo box. Some of these ID proponents even disagree with the tactics employed by the ID movement leaders. I refer to these as ID Scientists even if they, themselves, agree ID has not yet reached the threshold of being called science.
Presuming you are asking this question for the purpose of understanding my position on this...
I am a vocal critic of the ID movement. However, I can understand and even support the ideal behind ID science. My discussions on Telic Thoughts (this thread is a sample) hits two birds with one stone. It forces thinking about the true motives of the ID Movement leaders since I am taking them at their word that ID isn't about religion and present a purely scientific alternative that presumes most, if not all, of their "scientific observations" and provides an realistic answer for them.
It also disarms those who claim it is unreasonable to ask ID proponents to provide a scientific hypothesis with a "pathetic level of detail" when I have provided just such an animal.
Finally, it is constructive enjoyment for me. I like to argue. I am a debater. I can take either side and present realistic, non-hypocritical arguments in support. It is constructive, because it forces me and others to research actual science.
It provokes thought on both sides of the question.
Do I believe all of this is true? What does that matter? I am not even a scientist by trade.
|