How can creationism counter evolution? What makes intelligent design so "plausible" to the majority of religious Christians?

5 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

How can creationism counter evolution? What makes intelligent design so "plausible" to the majority of religious Christians?

Your premise is faulty. It isn’t. Intelligent design only has traction in parts of the US Bible Belt and is fading out, now that its principal sponsor is dead.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Your premise is faulty. It isn’t. Intelligent design only has traction in parts of the US Bible Belt and is fading out, now that its principal sponsor is dead.

From a lot of media I have seen a decent portion of Europeans are creationists

1 minute ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

From a lot of media I have seen a decent portion of Europeans are creationists

Very few have even heard of intelligent design. It is mainly a US phenomenon.

And leaving aside ID specifically, creationism is not the teaching of mainstream Western Christianity (Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterianism). Such churches have no difficulty accepting the science. To the extent individual members of those churches may have creationist beliefs, it will because they don’t know or care much about science, not because this is what their pastors tell them.

I suspect we who do think about science sometimes have a tendency to overestimate the degree to which our fellow citizens think about it - or follow through its implications.

Edited April 29Apr 29 by exchemist

Just now, exchemist said:

Very few have even heard of intelligent design. It is mainly a US phenomenon.

And creationism, let alone ID, is not the teaching of mainstream Western Christianity (Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterianism). Such churches have no difficulty accepting the science. To the extent individual members of those churches may have creationist beliefs, it will because they don’t know or care much about science, not because this is what their pastors tell them.

I suspect we who do think about science sometimes have a tendency to overestimate the degree to which our fellow citizens think about it - or follow through its implications.

Intelligent design (ID) has gained some popularity in parts of Europe due to a combination of religious influence, public opinion, and international advocacy, particularly from the United States. In countries like the UK, religiously motivated organizations such as the Centre for Intelligent Design have promoted ID under the guise of scientific inquiry, appealing to those who view evolutionary theory as incompatible with faith (The Guardian). Public surveys, such as a BBC poll, have shown that a notable portion of Europeans support teaching ID alongside evolution, further fueling debate (ScienceBlogs)

I say its a mix of both

Just now, Sohan Lalwani said:

Intelligent design (ID) has gained some popularity in parts of Europe due to a combination of religious influence, public opinion, and international advocacy, particularly from the United States. In countries like the UK, religiously motivated organizations such as the Centre for Intelligent Design have promoted ID under the guise of scientific inquiry, appealing to those who view evolutionary theory as incompatible with faith (The Guardian). Public surveys, such as a BBC poll, have shown that a notable portion of Europeans support teaching ID alongside evolution, further fueling debate (ScienceBlogs)

I say its a mix of both

The centre for intelligent design has been moribund for the best part of a decade. I know because I’m in the UK and used to keep tabs on it. You are quoting a Guardian article from 14 years ago. There is no current “debate” worth mentioning in the UK today. Where are you getting this rubbish from?

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

The centre for intelligent design has been moribund for the best part of a decade. I know because I’m in the UK and used to keep tabs on it. You are quoting a Guardian article from 14 years ago. There is no current “debate” worth mentioning in the UK today. Where are you getting this rubbish from?

Ahem ✨Google✨

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The centre for intelligent design has been moribund for the best part of a decade. I know because I’m in the UK and used to keep tabs on it. You are quoting a Guardian article from 14 years ago. There is no current “debate” worth mentioning in the UK today. Where are you getting this rubbish from?

There are a few more sources I could list, but unfortunately I do not currently have the time.

https://humanists.uk/2023/06/02/children-taught-creationism-and-climate-change-denial-in-private-faith-schools/

Just now, Sohan Lalwani said:

Ahem ✨Google✨

Well check some dates and cross-check your sources, then. ID gained international notoriety around the time of the Dover School (Kitzmiller) trial in the US. That was in 2005. Since then there was an attempt to get it into the curriculum at certain government funded faith schools in the UK, which was roundly rejected by the Dept. of Education. That was well over a decade ago. Since then ID has faded from the scene. The c4id website which I’ve just checked, still shows a 2004 video by Phillip E Johnson, who has been dead for over 5 years. The “Events” section is empty. It’s kaput.

Edited April 29Apr 29 by exchemist

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

Well check some dates and cross-check your sources, then. ID gained international notoriety around the time of the Dover School (Kitzmiller) trial in the US. That was in 2005. Since then there was an attempt to get it into the curriculum at certain government funded faith schools in the UK, which was roundly rejected by the Dept. of Education. That was well over a decade ago. Since then ID has faded from the scene. The c4id website which I’ve just checked, still shows a 2004 video by Phillip E Johnson, who has been dead for over 5 years. The “Events” section is empty. It’s kaput.

Ok will do.

Just now, Sohan Lalwani said:

How can creationism counter evolution? What makes intelligent design so "plausible" to the majority of religious Christians?

Which question do you want answered ?

14 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Intelligent design (ID) has gained some popularity in parts of Europe due to a combination of religious influence, public opinion, and international advocacy, particularly from the United States. In countries like the UK, religiously motivated organizations such as the Centre for Intelligent Design have promoted ID under the guise of scientific inquiry, appealing to those who view evolutionary theory as incompatible with faith (The Guardian). Public surveys, such as a BBC poll, have shown that a notable portion of Europeans support teaching ID alongside evolution, further fueling debate (ScienceBlogs)

I say its a mix of both

Yeah that is really unspecific as it does not specify time frame nor actual numbers. During the heyday of the debate in the 2000s and to some degree in the 2010s it was an outcrop of the US creationist movement that for a while got some traction. In my memory the movement had its gravitational center around the Discovery Institute and was basically just a way to try to give some fake scientific sheen on creationism.

Now, while there are also creationists in Europe, the scale is very different. Depending on the precise phrasing, support for creationisms in the USA was slightly above 40% in the 2010s and the last one I have seen on Gallup was around 37%, but I have seen numbers suggesting support comparable to values back in 2010 (so, around 40-ish). Most surveys put the UK among the highest levels with creationist beliefs but I have rarely seen anything much about 20%. It is somewhat lower in countries like France or Spain.

A comparative study from 2020 from a Pew poll allows a direct comparison, putting creationist responders at around 32% in the US and between 10-21% in Western Europe. More religious countries such as Russia and Poland are higher (24%/29%) but still lower than the US. Considering that the proportion of religious folks in the respective countries is higher (in some cases way higher) than the belief in creationism, it suggests that most religious folks do not actually believe in creationism. Surveys in the USA suggest around 69% of folks considering themselves religious (majority Christian) so about half are likely creationist. In contrast, Spain has about 55% considering themselves religious but only 10% hold creationist beliefs. So as a whole, the creationist argument is not plausible for the majority of Christians. It should also be noted that specifically the Catholic church does not endorse the literal creationist argument and has accepted evolution as real process. I believe John Paul II may have formalized the notion that there is no conflict between evolution and Christian faith, something that was reinforced by Pope Francis. That further diminishes the proportion where we should expect a strong adherence to creationism.

Edit: found a graph that shows the point a bit clearer. Here you can see that Christians have lower acceptance of evolution, but with the exception of Malaysia, they are not in the majority.

39 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Ahem ✨Google✨

There are a few more sources I could list, but unfortunately I do not currently have the time.

https://humanists.uk/2023/06/02/children-taught-creationism-and-climate-change-denial-in-private-faith-schools/

This is a princely 11 schools, in the whole UK.

46 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This is a princely 11 schools, in the whole UK.

Let me correctly rephrase the question:

What makes intelligent design so "plausible" to some religious Christians

Just now, Sohan Lalwani said:

Let me correctly rephrase the question:

What makes intelligent design so "plausible" to some religious Christians

Without a doubt it is both rational and scientific to consider the question "Does our experience and observation support or lead to intelligent design ?"

The short answer is that ID can explain at least some of it, but it is not the only possibility and further enquiry is necessary.

However the idea of an all powerful being leads to a self contradiction, so any designer has limited capability.

Have you heard the parable of the puddle ?

Edited April 29Apr 29 by studiot

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Without a doubt it is both rational and scientific to consider the question "Does our experience and observation support or lead to intelligent design ?"

The short answer is that ID can explain at least some of it, but it is not the only possibility and further enquiry is necessary.

However the idea of an all powerful being leads to a self contradiction, so any designer has limited capability.

Have you heard the parable of the puddle ?

I see

7 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Let me correctly rephrase the question:

What makes intelligent design so "plausible" to some religious Christians

ID purported to offer scientific evidence that aspects of the development of life were miraculous.

Which, being intrinsically fraudulent, it actually did not, but the idea was obviously appealing to scientifically ignorant US legislators in the Bible Belt, who were persuaded to include the ideas in some school biology teaching, for a while.

ID was a social engineering project, developed by an America lawyer called Phillip E Johnson, now deceased, under the guise of science.

Edited April 30Apr 30 by exchemist

13 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

What makes intelligent design so "plausible" to some religious Christians

Because some people want simple answers to questions they don’t want to think about very much. Others are uncomfortable with the notion that there isn’t some grand plan - probably the same set that proclaim that without a supreme deity life can have no purpose. ID is just an offshoot that tries to leverage the credibility of science and get past any gatekeepers trying to keep religion separate.

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because some people want simple answers to questions they don’t want to think about very much. Others are uncomfortable with the notion that there isn’t some grand plan - probably the same set that proclaim that without a supreme deity life can have no purpose. ID is just an offshoot that tries to leverage the credibility of science and get past any gatekeepers trying to keep religion separate.

Indeed, but I think Neitzche and many other's would argue that science is the gatekeeper, that prevents the necessary leverage that religion offers, and science can't/won't...

9 hours ago, exchemist said:

ID purported to offer scientific evidence that aspects of the development of life were miraculous.

Which, being intrinsically fraudulent, it actually did not, but the idea was obviously appealing to scientifically ignorant US legislators in the Bible Belt, who were persuaded to include the ideas in some school biology teaching, for a while.

ID was a social engineering project, developed by an America lawyer called Phillip E Johnson, now deceased, under the guise of science.

He (Phillip) promoted ID as a challenge to naturalistic evolution, but it’s misleading to say he alone "developed" it or that it was solely social engineering.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Because some people want simple answers to questions they don’t want to think about very much. Others are uncomfortable with the notion that there isn’t some grand plan - probably the same set that proclaim that without a supreme deity life can have no purpose. ID is just an offshoot that tries to leverage the credibility of science and get past any gatekeepers trying to keep religion separate.

Whenever I do debate with one, the alternate to metaphysics and say "well then what was before the big bang?"

I reply quantum fluctuations, then they state "what was before that?"

I have no response to that, what occurred before quantum fluctuations, timelessness?

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Whenever I do debate with one, the alternate to metaphysics and say "well then what was before the big bang?"

I reply quantum fluctuations, then they state "what was before that?"

I have no response to that, what occurred before quantum fluctuations, timelessness?

It’s OK to say “we don’t know” Science finds stuff out, but there’s still stuff out there we don’t know. It’s why scientists still have jobs

“Science can’t (yet) explain it, therefore God” is the god-of-the-gaps. As Neil deGrasse Tyson put it (paraphrasing) it makes God an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance. I.e. the more we learn, the more God diminishes. Not very omnipotent.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s OK to say “we don’t know” Science finds stuff out, but there’s still stuff out there we don’t know. It’s why scientists still have jobs

“Science can’t (yet) explain it, therefore God” is the god-of-the-gaps. As Neil deGrasse Tyson put it (paraphrasing) it makes God an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance. I.e. the more we learn, the more God diminishes. Not very omnipotent.

I see, thank you

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

He (Phillip) promoted ID as a challenge to naturalistic evolution, but it’s misleading to say he alone "developed" it or that it was solely social engineering.

Yes you're right he relied on people like Stephen Meyer, Bill Dembski and Michael Behe to dream up the pseudoscience to underpin it. But the drive behind the ID movement and the strategy to get it into the schools was largely Johnson's, as laid out in the Wedge Document which Johnson authored and was accidentally leaked to the public. This makes clear the object was to combat what Johnson saw as a the march of "materialism" in society, by reintroducing the idea of God into school teaching, without actually calling it that. As such this was pure social engineering. Johnson's Wiki entry starts as follows:

Phillip E. Johnson (June 18, 1940 – November 2, 2019)^[1] was an American legal scholar who was the Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.^[2] He was an opponent of evolutionary science, co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC), and one of the co-founders of the intelligent design movement, along with William Dembski and Michael Behe.^[3] Johnson described himself as "in a sense the father of the intelligent design movement".^[4]

I think it is important to note one key feature of ID which is distinct from creationism in general is its intrinsic deceitfulness. Run of the mill creationism simply denies the science, preferring to rely on the creation accounts in Genesis. That is ignorant, but at least honest. ID tries to go along with most of the science but simultaneously introduces the bogus notion that certain features of life could not, scientifically speaking, have arisen by natural means, thereby implying a role for a supernatural creator. It thus pretends to be science when it is nothing of the kind. In fact, it is a "science stopper" because it suggests certain features of biology have no natural explanation, so we should just accept they are due to miracles, give up researching them and go home. It's God of the Gaps*, dressed up in sciency concepts.

*a term invented by Prof. Charles Coulson, whose lectures on theoretical chemistry I attended at uni, who was well-known as a Methodist lay preacher. Coulson, a committed Christian, had no time for the Argument from Design.

Edited April 30Apr 30 by exchemist

36 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes you're right he relied on people like Stephen Meyer, Bill Dembski and Michael Behe to dream up the pseudoscience to underpin it. But the drive behind the ID movement and the strategy to get it into the schools was largely Johnson's, as laid out in the Wedge Document which Johnson authored and was accidentally leaked to the public. This makes clear the object was to combat what Johnson saw as a the march of "materialism" in society, by reintroducing the idea of God into school teaching, without actually calling it that. As such this was pure social engineering. Johnson's Wiki entry starts as follows:

Phillip E. Johnson (June 18, 1940 – November 2, 2019)^[1] was an American legal scholar who was the Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.^[2] He was an opponent of evolutionary science, co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC), and one of the co-founders of the intelligent design movement, along with William Dembski and Michael Behe.^[3] Johnson described himself as "in a sense the father of the intelligent design movement".^[4]

I think it is important to note one key feature of ID which is distinct from creationism in general is its intrinsic deceitfulness. Run of the mill creationism simply denies the science, preferring to rely on the creation accounts in Genesis. That is ignorant, but at least honest. ID tries to go along with most of the science but simultaneously introduces the bogus notion that certain features of life could not, scientifically speaking, have arisen by natural means, thereby implying a role for a supernatural creator. It thus pretends to be science when it is nothing of the kind. In fact, it is a "science stopper" because it suggests certain features of biology have no natural explanation, so we should just accept they are due to miracles, give up researching them and go home. It's God of the Gaps*, dressed up in sciency concepts.

*a term invented by Prof. Charles Coulson, whose lectures on theoretical chemistry I attended at uni, who was well-known as a Methodist lay preacher. Coulson, a committed Christian, had no time for the Argument from Design.

Agreed :)

Every time you turn on, for example, a Minecraft server, a unique world/universe is created in which artificial intelligences live.

Now you have a situation where these AIs are starting to ask who created us.. ;)

Even better - the artificial intelligences create their own AIs (from which they can't break away and ask everything and treat as oracle).

5 hours ago, Sensei said:

Every time you turn on, for example, a Minecraft server, a unique world/universe is created in which artificial intelligences live.

Now you have a situation where these AIs are starting to ask who created us.. ;)

Even better - the artificial intelligences create their own AIs (from which they can't break away and ask everything and treat as oracle).

What is minecraft if you don't mind me asking? I looked it up and it is a gaming site, am I correct?