[Stealth3si]

I was always under the impression that Intelligent Design was a different 'form' of Creationism that branched off of it. For instance, the former is based on science, or so it claims to be by some/many, while the ladder relies on religious faith(?). But after watching this video I suspect that they are inherently the same, despite the attempts made to differentiate them. For example, two things that differentiate "I.D." from "Creationism" are to replace all instances of "Creationism" with the words "Intelligent Design" and all instances of the word "God" with the word "Designer".

IOW, the claim made here is: "Intelligent Design" IS "Creationism." Has it not been proven in a court of law, like the Dover case, but also stated as fact by Phillip E. Johnson, inventor of "I.D.?" As his quote says, "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

[doulos14]

Creationism often refers to God being our creator as opposed to the ID which says that something created us, normally as long as its not God(aliens).

[JerryLove]

Historically you are dead on: ID is what happened when the Creationist movement got shot down and so did a "find and replace" to create a creationism that didn't mention Christianity.

[athanatos]

Creationism points to which creator, ID points to _a_ creator.

Creationism says God created and sustains the universe a certain way. ID says that some purposeful maker with enough power created the universe, and sustains evolution by purpose and intervention _rather_ than by Natural Selection.

Teaching Creationism supposedly is a breach of the constitutional right that the government will not "respect an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof." Teaching ID, since it points to no religion in particular, supposedly dodges that entire problem legally.

Creationism requires that science be defied because of a series of miracles. ID requires that science complies (or does not ignore) some of the major religions with the inductive support for a deity's existence (Teleological argument, or rather Paley's Watchmaker argument).

[Stealth3si]

But why would the ACLU do rewrites of the book, "Of Pandas and People," to prove that ID was innately a "repackaged" creationism when they are inherently different?. The alternative we have left is a dichotomy of either ID has always been creationism from the git-go under the mask of Christianity or creationism has now become ID cloaked under scientific philosophy. I think it can't be both.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

But why would the ACLU do rewrites of the book, "Of Pandas and People," to prove that ID was innately a "repackaged" creationism when they are inherently different?

Most ID proponents are Christians who want to get it in the science classroom. I presume that the only reason the ACLU is involved is because this has become a legal issue (as in, if state schools teach ID is it promoting a religion). They don't seem to be interested in pure philosophical discourse.

The alternative we have left is a dichotomy of either ID has always been creationism from the git-go under the mask of Christianity or creationism has now become ID cloaked under scientific philosophy.

Regardless of the intentions of ID proponents I deny it as being Christian at all.

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Most ID proponents are Christians who want to get it in the science classroom. I presume that the only reason the ACLU is involved is because this has become a legal issue (as in, if state schools teach ID is it promoting a religion). They don't seem to be interested in pure philosophical discourse..

I think the ladder would, or should, be an alternative for them, don't you think?

Originally Posted by slap_j

Regardless of the intentions of ID proponents I deny it as being Christian at all.

But how about if 'Christian' is replaced with 'Creationism?' Would you still deny it?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

I think the ladder would, or should, be an alternative for them, don't you think?

For classrooms?

But how about if 'Christian' is replaced with 'Creationism?' Would you still deny it?

ID implies some sort of creationism. But not necessarily a Christian brand of creationism.

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by slap_j

For classrooms?

Originally Posted by slap_j

ID implies some sort of creationism. But not necessarily a Christian brand of creationism.

Makes perfectly sense.

[JerryLove]

ID is elements of Christian Creationism repackaged to remove buzzwords (replacing "God" with "creator"). In doing so, it becomes generic enough to apply to more than one religion (certainly the Abrahamic religions).

It's major problem is that ID isn't science. Non-Emperical history = mythology = religion.

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by athanatos

Teaching ID, since it points to no religion in particular, supposedly dodges that entire problem legally.

Well I don't think teaching ID shouldn't point to Christianity in particular either, despite the defendants' claims that their intentions were to bring Christianity into the science classroom via ID and Judge Jones' ruling in the Dover case that "it describes ID as a religious argument....[and,] in that vein, [that] the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

ID is elements of Christian Creationism

Are you speaking "entirely" or "non-entirely?"

Originally Posted by JerryLove

In doing so, it becomes generic enough to apply to more than one religion (certainly the Abrahamic religions).

So when the ID proponents intended to bring Christianity into the science classroom via ID, ID would still be "essentially" the same had it been Islam replacing Christianity?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

Are you speaking "entirely" or "non-entirely?"

There really isn't anything in ID, to my knowledge, that isn't a subset of the creationism argument.

So when the ID proponents intended to bring Christianity into the science classroom via ID, ID would still be "essentially" the same had it been Islam replacing Christianity?

ID it an attempt to bring Christian creationism (which is the same in Islam). It is a "foot in the door" strategy.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

ID is elements of Christian Creationism repackaged to remove buzzwords (replacing "God" with "creator"). In doing so, it becomes generic enough to apply to more than one religion (certainly the Abrahamic religions).

It's major problem is that ID isn't science. Non-Emperical history = mythology = religion.

ID isn't science? TOTALLY depends on what you mean by science.

And ...Uhh, what? Each of those are not equiv's.

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

But why would the ACLU do rewrites of the book, "Of Pandas and People," to prove that ID was innately a "repackaged" creationism when they are inherently different?. The alternative we have left is a dichotomy of either ID has always been creationism from the git-go under the mask of Christianity or creationism has now become ID cloaked under scientific philosophy. I think it can't be both.

Because Of Pandas and People was originally a Creationist book and literally said God created [x], and they went through and replaced "God" with "Intelligent Designer" in many passages. There was no re-writing, it was simply text-replacement. I am not sure the entire book was like that though.

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's major problem is that ID isn't science.

One should be careful with using the words "science" and/or "scientific." Please explain, if you will.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

There really isn't anything in ID, to my knowledge, that isn't a subset of the creationism argument.

ID it an attempt to bring Christian creationism (which is the same in Islam). It is a "foot in the door" strategy.

Alright. So basically you're saying that ID is exclusively Creationist but it is inherently inclusive to more than one particular religion's "creationism?"