ID is not creationism

Everyone who wants a philosophical discussion of ID(intelligent design) should go to Thinking Christian. I really respect Tom Gilson's wisdom and patience in talking about this subject, especially considering how excited people tend to get. He is in general much more coherent than I am, these are just some thoughts I've had in reading comments about this debate.

I just wanted to address something that has been confusing me for a while. Often when people are talking about ID they say something like "It's just creationism" or "It's creationism dressed up to be more palatable for the general public." Here's the definition of creationism from answers.com:

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

Here's a definition of intelligent design (I think from the Discovery Institute):

certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection

Here's what I don't understand. If ID were proven correct, it would not prove creationism. Creationism implies the God of the Bible, creating in the way Genesis implies (separate species, that order, some people saying 6000 years ago in 6 24 hour periods, no macro-evolution,). ID just implies some intelligence but says nothing about how it was done, who did it, and what happened after that intelligent cause.

The reasons many people give for confounding ID and creationism seem to be:

• the ID movement sprang from creationist sources (the textbook with "creationism" changed to "ID", for example)
  
• many ID supporters are also religious
• ID is not science, therefore it must be religious.
  

Of the three reasons, only the last holds any water at all, although many people who have studied ID and the philosophy of science say that ID is possibly a science but is certainly not being given a chance. The first two imply that all science performed before this century is suspect, since the motivation for studying the earth was inherently creationist, and the scientists were overwhelmingly religious.

It seems to me that the two are the same only if you define creationism and ID using circular reasoning. According to the definitions above, they are related but not the same.

Another thing I don't understand is that people say that ID proponents are trying to get their fake science taught in schools. From what I have read, most of the proponents are trying to get the difficulties in evolutionary theory taught in schools. Why would this be a problem for evolutionists? It seems to me that presenting the difficulties might even inspire a budding scientist (sort of the way I was inspired by the idea of the "missing link:" Wouldn't it be cool to be the one to find it!) When evolutionists say that ID is just a way to get religion into schools, they are worse than creationists who say that evolution is just a way to get atheism into schools, since Dawkins for example explicitly says the latter, while ID supporters deny the former.

Many people seem to imply that if you support ID, you are somehow denying that evolution ever takes place. Then they talk about viruses, or finch beaks, or some such thing that obviously has taken place, and say that the ID proponent is an idiot. Here's the truth: many people who support ID (and in fact, many creationists) do not deny these types of evolution.

I personally have no trouble accepting evolution as it has been studied. However, the evolution supporters have not shown (and cannot show) that God did not create the world. They cannot prove through scientific means the idea of Philosophical Materialism, which says that matter is all that exists.

I would be happy if PM were gotten out of the schools, and if there were a statement that while science studies only material things, (scientific materialism), it cannot make any statements about the existence of something in addition to matter. I wonder if the combatants in this debate would be satisfied with this. Probably not.

To my father-in-law

My husband's father called last night, and after talking about the kids for a long time, he started talking about one of his new favorite topics, the economy and how bad it was. I became a bit snarky (for me, he may not have noticed) and started playing devil's advocate for a while. I should not have done that, it was not helpful for either of us I think. I'm sorry. But I have been getting more and more annoyed about the discussion on the radio of the economy, and I've tried to figure out why.

Here's what I've come up with:

• Everyone seems so surprised that there is likely to be a recession. I personally have been predicting this recession since I was in seventh grade and the stock market crashed. Occasionally it looked like one of the past recessions was going to be The One, but they never ended up as terrible as I thought they would. If a seventh grader can look forward and say, "sometime in my lifetime the country will go through horrible economic trouble," why do all the radio experts seem surprised?
  
• Many people seem to think that this is going to be the worst downturn ever. It is possible that this is true: however, I don't think we are in nearly as dire straits as we were in the Great Depression. On the other hand, it is not likely that the worst economic problems our country has had are behind us, just statistically speaking (of course, this depends on whether you think the world is coming to an end imminently or at some time in the long distant future). Every serious downturn is the worst for some reason. That said, the downturn that affects you personally is the worst ever.
  
• When people disagree about the causes or solutions for the economic problems, they imply that the other side is immoral, stupid, greedy, and has no understanding of what the real problem is. Here's some news: intelligent people can take the same inputs, mix it with some of their own analysis of the past, and come to different conclusions without any moral implications. Everyone has their own presuppositions (like, "Government is the only actor big enough to solve this problem" or "Government is historically very bad at solving huge economic problems") but most analysts are not trying to help out their friends in big oil, for example, they are trying to figure out what is the best course for the country. You might disagree with their conclusions, but at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they came to them honestly.
  
• When people talk about solutions for the problem, they assume that their solutions will work. My father-in-law pointed out that one of the reasons we may have gotten into this mess is the loosening of trade restrictions. On the one hand, the global boat rose and we in the US have access to cheaper clothes, electronics, and useless junk. On the other hand, sectors of the US economy are completely broken, and it is unclear how to fix it. The economy is complicated, and what seems like a simple solution will almost definitely fail or cause some other unintended consequences. On the other hand, we can never know what would have happened if we hadn't pursued that policy...
• The media is calling this a crisis. What word will they use when unemployment gets to 10 percent and the economy has been shrinking for 2 years? My grandma once told me that the stock market always seems to be falling. This was when the market was hitting record highs! But she only saw (and the media only reported on) market drops. I am very frustrated with the apparent glee with which the media is over reporting on every slight problem, while ignoring bright spots (like the foreclosure rate falling in NC...) My husband would tell me not to be surprised, why should I expect anything different. I suppose he has a point, but it is still frustrating.
  

I come out of this discussion confused and a bit hopeless. Here are my conclusions, for what they are worth:

• In general, recessions are caused by sin (or greed or other moral failings, if you don't believe in sin) committed by everyone (including me) and are not avoidable, although it may be possible to mitigate the ending.
  
• My major responsibility for this recession is to look after my neighbor (i.e., individual people (who I know personally or through organizations) who need my help) and not to try to solve the global problem.
  
• I have a responsibility to live frugally, which I am not living up to at all right now (but I'm working on it!)
  
• That said, I do have a responsibility to look at what the global leaders are doing and point out things that will make things worse, when they are obvious.
• We need to teach more personal finance in schools. Anyone who gets an adjustable rate mortgage when interest rates are historically low is not thinking clearly (ok, almost anyone---I can see that there are some situations where it might be necessary.) Right now I'm trying to teach my 5-year old that you can't spend money twice. Many college students (and older people ) haven't learned this lesson.

So the other problem with my posts is that I feel the need to add the kitchen sink. I think I'll stop here, even though I'm sure there is more I could have said. I'm also not editing it closely, since I need to shower before my 1 year old wakes up. Take it for what it's worth.

WARNING!

What you are about to read is probably poorly written, badly expressed, and hard to understand. It's the best I can do on my schedule, between watching 3 kids, trying to keep the house in order, and playing sudoku.

I only have two qualifications for writing any opinion: I listen to a lot of radio, and I am trained as a mathematician. The combination means that I get fed up easily with bad arguments that I hear day after day. It does not mean that I have a deep understanding of politics, economics, science, or religion. But if something does not logically follow from the premise, I can point that out and maybe try to figure out where the disconnect occurs. Unfortunately, since I don't write as well as I'd like, it may be that my explanations are less coherent than the original argument.

In addition, I reserve the right to be illogical on my own blog.

The other qualification I posses is a willingness to be wrong. Feel free to point out flaws in my own logic, but please be kind to me or I will stop writing.

You have been warned. Happy reading.