Why do people confuse creationism with intelligent design?

Question

Yes the intelligent desing theory may prove that there is god, but if you study the theory closley it also proves that christianity is wrong, and that we as humans are insignificant. The theory simply states that something(god)set the mathamatical and physical constants during the big bang so as to allow evolution and life to happen.
Intellegent desing is incapatible with christianity.
Intelligent desing can't work without the theory of evolution!

Answer 1

Most proponents of ID are actually proponents of Creationism, and simply change the terminology so they get to refight the battle.

Yes, some ID theorists recognize that the model doesn't actually require the existence of a God at all. But those are few and far between.

Wil McCarthy wrote a great article on this topic in Sci-Fi Weekly (link). Essentially, the argument is that Intelligent Design could be a valid theory, but only when it can answer some foundational questions about how it works. Who were/are the designers? How does the process work? Show us an example of the process in action. Repeat the process under controlled conditions. These are the requirements for science. And these are the requirements that ID proponents have not yet satisfied.

Answer 2

From Wikipedia re Intelligent Design:
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[10]

From Wikipedia re creationism:
In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be specifically associated with the brand of conservative Christian fundamentalism which conflicts with various aspects of evolution, cosmology, and other natural sciences that address the origins of the natural world.

My own conclusion: I understand the technical differences between the two. But I also see fundamentalists so desperate to insert religion into our public schools that they have jumped on the Intelligent Design bandwagon. This makes it very difficult to make realistic distinctions in the practice of either one. Both are an end to the same thing - promoting the idea of God as a foregone conclusion. Intelligent design is a thinly veiled attempt to get around public schools eschewing a curriculum including religious ideals of one group of people. You can dress up a pig in a pretty costume, but it's still a pig.

As an aside, please reconsider your idea that Intelligent Design PROVES anything, it does not.

Answer 3

May I suggest another theory?

The 'days' mentioned in Genesis can be interpreted not as proper 24-hour days, but as indefinite lengths of time (this is the day-era theory).

This merges creationism and evolution nicely, I find. This way, science is happy (the world is in fact older than 4000 years old), and creationists are happy (God still created everything, just not in six days, but in six periods of time).

I am Christian, and have struggled with the creationism/evolution concept before, and I think that this makes a lot of sense.

Answer 4

Creationism is often confused with Intelligent Design (ID) because Darwinists have spread the mantra that they are the same. ID does not deal with the origens of life so it has nothing to do with the big bang theory. It basically states that there are things in nature that have evidence of being designed where natural or random causes cannot account for them.

Unlike Creationism, ID does not deal with any scriptural or Biblical content. Even in its conclusion, no specific designer is promoted although most people will conclude that God is probably that designer.

The Dover, Pennsylvania decision against ID is often cited but the reasoning behind that decision is not really disclosed. The Judge declared that ID was a religious view not so much due to the scientific evidence presented but because he precieved that most of the proponets of ID in the Dover community were fundamentalist Christians or Creationists. This was based partially on evidence submitted that showed local newspaper letters to the editor revealed that most of the Dover community believed that ID was a religious view. That is so unscientific and smacks of pure discrimination against people of faith especially Christians. Imagine using opinion letters in a newspaper as proof for something. If that judge was consistant, he would have to throw out Darwinism from the Dover schools on religious grounds also. Why, because a Federal appeals court last year decided that atheism is a religion and most proponets of Darwinism are atheists. Also you would have to throw out many of the main scientific disciplines or contributions by many creationists such as; bacteriology-Louis Pasteur, chemistry-Robert Boyle, electromagnetics-Michael Faradat, Galactic astronomy-Sir William Herschel, hydraulics-Leonardo da Vinci, law of gravity-Sir Isaac Newton, scientific method (yes the big one), Lord Francis Bacon and a great many others. And I have to mention that Darwin himself WAS A CREATIONIST based on his own written statment in his Origin of the Species (last chapter of that book) where he writes about a creator and laws of nature that are from that creator and other entries of his other writings.

On an even playing field ID will be accepted. Eventually the science behind ID will not be censored as much and it will be seen for what it is, a viable scientific alternative to Darwinism.

Answer 5

Well, for one thing evolution *is* compatible with Christianity in the minds of very many Christians.

For another, "Intelligent Design" has been ruled (quite accurately IMO) as an attempt to teach Creationism without calling it Creationism. Given that the vast majority of those promoting "Intelligent Design" identify themselves as Creationists and openly support Creationism, this is hardly surprising.

Still another point--the idea of "Intelligent Design" is basically an argument in circular logic. If something Intelligent designed the cosmos, then isn't it logical to presume that something likewise designed said Intelligence? And likewise something else designed *that* and so on?

Answer 6

Intelligent design doesn't prove the existence of God-no philosophical argument or theory does that. At most it provides evidence or an argument that God or Gods might exist. Intelligent design falls flat on its face when you realise that most of the species that have ever existed have gone extinct so maybe the "designer" was just careless.

Answer 7

the bible and evolution are not incompatible. Gods holy spirit is creating force. A day in the eyes of God can be a much longer period of time (also day should be eaon). Myself i did without the bible for that reason, now i use it as an ascension guide. just because people have not understood it on all levels, does not mean you should throw it away completely. look for yourself if you can find the meaning. much deeper then they told me back in church. you can pray for wisdom.

Love

Answer 8

ID will never prove the existence of a god. Rather is assumes the existence of a god and builds on that assumption.

Answer 9

People don't confuse them they are the same thing. You can blow as much smoke as you like but it won't change the fact that ID is creationism wrapped up in shny new pacaging to make it look and sound scientific.

Answer 10

I believe you assumtion isn't correct.


You are worth a Son to God.