My attempts at other such sites to establish the exact difference between these two expressions has met with little pertinent response, eg

http://www.wordwizard.com/ch_forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18766

Thanks everybody

Edited to report that, sorry folks you may not find it at the URL indicated above because it was too Politically Incorrect for that particular forum. However, here's a summary of the basic question:

1. In 25 words or less, what's the difference between "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design"--

2. Creationism evidently entails intermittent readjustment of things by the Creator so as to promote evolution. Assuming the progress of the Universe indeed to be intelligent,

a. Could Intelligent Design not take place in the first instant of Creation, adjusting the rules of physics so as to make subsequent progress fully automatic (until the next Big Bang), and

b. If so, isn't it eminently reasonable, almost obvious, that She would perform her Grand Experiment repeatedly

I am dalehileman@verizon.net

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

My understanding is that there is no difference: the phrase "intelligent design" was simply used to circumvent prohibitions on teaching "creationism". I gather (and you can google this) that one point in the recent court case was that the teaching text had simply been amended by substituting the former phrase for the later.

from The Onion:

God Wondering Whatever Happened To That Planet Where He Made All Those Monkeys

October 18, 2000 | Issue 36•37

HEAVEN– Reminiscing Monday, God wondered aloud what happened to "that one planet I made, like, four and a half billion years ago, the one with all the monkeys." "Man, I haven't thought about that planet in forever," God said. "I have no idea why it suddenly popped into My head. I remember it was really crude, one of My weaker early efforts, back when I was experimenting with the oxygen atmospheres and those ridiculous carbon-based lifeforms. And I was on that whole upper-primate kick. Huh." God said He couldn't remember the planet's name but was pretty sure it was "something like Ursh or Orth or maybe Ert."

neveu: Hilarious! but aren't you afraid the Politically Correct Crew will vilify you and tear you limb from limb

We don't do "politically correct" here. We believe in intelligent debate unstifled by individuals' notions of what is and isn't proper. We try our best not to offend anybody and we apologise if we accidentally do. That seems to do the trick well enough.

To the question though.

As an atheist I don't espouse any of these views but my understanding, based on watching a recent Sunday morning god-slot debate on this very topic is that

creationism : the belief that the world was made a few thousand years ago in its entirety complete with fake fossils

intelligent design: the belief that the world is simply too complex for it to have happened by chance and that there must be a creator who designed it all

You can find a very funny atheistic view of this - and of the doctrine of signatures - in The Science of Discworld III.

For those who say that chance and mechanistic processes won't do the trick here's a game you can play.

Take a pack of cards.
Take just the A-5 of each suit and one joker and thourougly shuffle them.

Turn them over counting out loud as you do so.
1-2-3-4-5-1-2-3-4-5-1-2-3 etc

If the card you turn is the same as the number you call put it in one pile. If not put it in the other. (The joker is just there to force the number counted off a multiple of five.)

When you are done without disturbing the piles turn them over and put one on top of the other.

Repeat starting where you left off. (eg 2 if you have only been through them once.)

It may take a very long time but you will eventually end up with the cards back in a 1-2-3-4-5-1-2-3-4-5-1-2-3-4-5-1-2-3-4-5 order.

A purely mechanistic process will have put a random series into order.

-------------

I am of course aware that the intelligent design people will say that even if this is what happens in the infinitely more complicated real world then someone has to be doing the dealing and that that someone is God.

quote:

I am of course aware that the intelligent design people will say that even if this is what happens in the infinitely more complicated real world then someone has to be doing the dealing and that that someone is God.

As an Olympian fundamentalist, I believe the Greek myths to be literally true. It is obvious to me that such a complex and idiosyncratic creation (what's with all the trilobites, anyway?) must be the work of many imperfect, capricious gods rather than a single perfect one.

Bob: From a scientific point of view I would agree that evolution is a natural process and proceeds without Special Intervention. However, it is also likely that it couldn't happen at all if the rules had been slightly different

For instance, it's likely that it would be impossible if Plank's of Boltzmann's constants had been different by a few per cent, whereupon the Universe would merely consist of matter flying about helter-skelter in the vacuum with no organization whatever

Hence there is a compelling argument that God set them up that way at the instant of Creation

neveu: The usual response to your argument is, as Einstein said, that explanations should be made as simple as possible

Though not simpler

nerd: I have heard that one also, and in fact it's one of the reasons I asked the question because the idea that their meaning is identical is so preposterous

I love you guys

quote:

The usual response to your argument is, as Einstein said, that explanations of Universe should be made as simple as possible

Einstein was talking about science. This is theology, where no such rule has ever mattered to anyone.

quote:

and in fact it's one of the reasons I asked the question because the idea that their meaning is identical is so preposterous

Not to me. I agree with Wordnerd. I think that intelligent design was invented as a more politically correct alternative to creationism, which wasn't doing so well in the courts...except of course in Kansas. But then I come from a scientific background and surely believe in evolution. Most scientists, no matter what religion, believe in evolution. The evidence is quite convincing. Many, however, have a mixed view that God (or whatever they call it) started it all, and then evolution began to play its role.

I agree with neveu that one is theology, the other religion.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
For those who say that chance and mechanistic processes won't do the trick here's a game you can play.

Take a pack of cards......

Card tricks,Bob? Card tricks?! Tut, tut, tut. Kinda shallow. Reminds me of the guy who was so into Scrabble that when he discovered the anagram ELEVEN + TWO = TWELVE + ONE he was convinced thereby of God's existence. "God put that there" he said. "There is no other explanation!" (See Word Freak by Stefan Fatsis. Page 33.)

As a theist, I'd suggest we go DEEPER.....
Let's see...there's the Ontological Argument, the Cosomological Argument, the Teleological Argument....Oh, hell let's try the first one...

The Ontological Argument of Anselm of Canterbury (11th century C.E.): 1.God is that than which nothing greater can be imagined.(My note: Anselm contended that atheists and theists agree on this point) 2.That which exists in reality is greater than that which exists only in the imagination. 3.Therefore God exists in reality.

Over the centuries this has stood up well to criticism because it is hard to pinpoint exactly what's wrong with it. Neither St.Thomas Aquinas nor Immanuel Kant accepted it but no less a logician than Rene Descartes (he who invented analytical geometry) thought it was the bee's knees. Descartes approved of it not only on the philosophical level but, since it is in the form of a syllogism, on the mathematical level. Rene's guiding principle in life was that he would accept no idea that was not clear and distinct to him. He thought Anselm was an O.K. guy. Descartes also had a gut feeling that God exists. That part I can relate to!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Duncan Howell,

I don't want to debate theology. Returning to the word question about what "intelligent design" (ID) means: ID used as a synonym for creationism, to circumvent prohibitions of teaching "creationism".

To show this I offer an extract from a very recent court opinion striking down an ID program. The extract confirms that this program, at least, merely substituted the phrase ID for "creation", as soon as the Supreme Court barred teaching of "creation".

quote:

Pandas [the textbook] went through many drafts, … prior to and … after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards, which … forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:

1. the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;
2. cognates of the word creation …, which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and
3. the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science … cannot be taught in public school science classes.

This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content …

This passage is at page 32 of the opinion, which you can view here. If this link doesn't work, just google kitzmiller dover and look for www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller; in my google preferences it is the first ghit.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wordnerd,

I'm not intending to get into the discussion. There are some topics of discussion that it's logically impossible for either side to win. This is one of them.

I find it odd that a word WIZARD would delete a post, since such folks are the very types burned at the stake by the Calvinists.

I agree with Bob. In fact, if this topic veers towards a debate on religion or theology it will be deleted.

There has to be a difference. Could it be that "Creationism" is a subcategory of "ID"

ID then would encompass any system set up at any time (even if only during the first 10 to the -34 second of the Big Bang) by any sort of intelligence...

...either supernatural or entirely natural, but arising from a purely logical principle of some sort

For example, there has arisen just lately a perfectly serious scientific theory that when the Universe finally shrinks into a a singular black hole and finally poof--just disappears--that no "information" is lost as was previously assumed

Thus at the instant of the succeeding Big Bang, this information is somehow involved in tweaking of the physical constants in order to promote subsequent developments

Presto, one meaning of ID without the necessity of a creator. Pure Science. No Theology at all

quote:

There has to be a difference.

No there doesn't. Some items are fungible.

And even if there is a difference, that difference need not be material.

Independent people have evaluated the terms, and found that ID is used to mean, in material regards, the same thing as creationism.

Others may or may not use the terms differently. Whether they do so is a factual question of language (not a suppositional question of cosmology) and is perfectly legitimate for this board, but I see no way of carrying it further. There's no benefit to veering into cosmology/theology, which is outside our function and our expertise.

Asa: Actually my suspension had nothing to do with theology but a remark I had made to the effect God was probably not yet entirely satisfied with the evolution of Her Universes, as evidenced by the recent activities of "Bush and the Muslims"

Well, one Muslim participant of WW took umbrage at this; so I edited the thread to explain that no offense was intended either to a specific ideology nor to any individual. I explained that the remark had been submitted in a polito-humorous vein...

...that I was merely elaborating on one possible definition of "Intelligent Design"

...that "Muslim" was intended only as a sort of icon or symbol for all the unwarranted warfare (read "Iraq") and current polito-religious turmoil worldwide (eg, in Denmark)

But in a flurry of Political Correctness they nevertheless suspended me for the next 3 months "as a disciplinary measure" in an outrage somewhat reminiscent of the uproar about certain political cartoons though not nearly as destructive nor violent

Which is ok of course as my persiflage often annoys the hypersensitive or overcritical and it's their prerogative. However, in a rush of Neocon-fundamental umbrage they also deleted the offending thread...

...a form of censorsip not far removed from the thinking behind all the recent religio-extremism that She would have so deplored

...which disappointed me as it contained several additional questions pertinent to the difference between the expressions "Creationism" and "ID", which I might otherwise to have presented here for your evaluation

Thanks to WS for tolerating a bit of OT and Political Incorrectness, you are truly Unique. In spite of its prissyness, I also recommend visiting wordwizard-com as well as wordorigins-org phrases-org and wordsmith-org

I am dalehileman@verizon.net

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

quote:

In spite of its prissyness, I also recommend visiting wordwizard-com as well as wordorigins-org phrases-org and wordsmith-org

I'm signed up on wordorigins, but haven't poked around in wordwizard at all. Wordsmith is a former haunt, but no longer. It's a sad, sordid story...

Asa: We should all get together and exchange or sad, sordid stories