Intelligent Design and Creationism

[PotLuck]

What is the difference between a proponent of ID and the creationist?

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

i am a creationist but i call myself an id theorist as well. many others do it as well.

 

[PotLuck]

I was just wondering because I'm a bit new to the labels used here and it looked like ID fits me too I think.
Man, I thought I "found myself" years ago!

 

[mhess13]

WEll I believe the biggest difference is that ID people try and distance themselves from YEC and the Bible too. They concentrate more on the fallacies of evolution, but may tend to accept long ages for the earth. ID is probably the best route for combatting evolution in schools, but ID (imho) is not a very good approach in the church because the age of the earth is seen kind of as a "non-issue". In fact a lot of ID promoters consider YEC a stumbling block.

There are pros and cons to ID. I endorse it for secular settings, but in the church YEC must be aggressively taught and preached to turn the tide of compromise

 

[Tachocline]

In fact a lot of ID promoters consider YEC a stumbling block.

Gee, I wonder why?

 

[mhess13]

Gee, I wonder why?

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, because they are scoffers who believe man more than God's word...They are embarassed by those of us who refuse to doubt God

 

[Tachocline]

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, because they are scoffers who believe man more than God's word...They are embarassed by those of us who refuse to doubt God

Oh is that why. I just thought it was because they thought a young Earth viewpoint was childish pseudoscience and obviously would detract from any reasonable points they may have. Guess I was mistaken.

 

[mhess13]

Oh is that why. I just thought it was because they thought a young Earth viewpoint was childish pseudoscience and obviously would detract from any reasonable points they may have. Guess I was mistaken.

whatever...a man being raised from the dead is WAY harder to believe in than biblical creationism. We don't need to compromise the Bible to evangelize. How will scoffers like you feel when you stand before God and have to explain why you were ashamed of His word and went around insulted brothers who believe what He said? shame on you

 

[PotLuck]

Tachocline,
Your childish insults aren't going to help. I asked a valid question and there are those who genuinely wanted to answer it.


Thank you mhess13 for a mature answer.

 

[notto]

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idcomingclean.htm

First off, let me come clean about my own views on intelligent design. Am I a creationist? As a Christian, I am a theist and believe that God created the world. For hardcore atheists this is enough to classify me as a creationist. Yet for most people, creationism is not identical with the Christian doctrine of creation, or for that matter with the doctrine of creation as understood by Judaism or Islam. By creationism one typically understands what is also called "young earth creationism," and what advocates of that position refer to alternately as "creation science" or "scientific creationism." According to this view the opening chapters of Genesis are to be read literally as a scientifically accurate account of the world's origin and subsequent formation. What's more, it is the creation scientist's task to harmonize science with Scripture.

Given this account of creationism, am I a creationist? No. I do not regard Genesis as a scientific text. I have no vested theological interest in the age of the earth or the universe. I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. What's more, I find the arguments of astrophysicists persuasive when they argue for a universe that is approximately 14 billion years old. I believe they got it right. Even so, I refuse to be dogmatic here. I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Yet to date I've found none of the arguments for a young earth or a young universe convincing. Nature, as far as I'm concerned, has an integrity that enables it to be understood without recourse to revelatory texts. That said, I believe that nature points beyond itself to a transcendent reality, and that that reality is simultaneously reflected in a different idiom by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.


[size=-1]William A. Dembski[/size]

 

[PotLuck]

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idcomingclean.htm

First off, let me come clean about my own views on intelligent design. Am I a creationist? As a Christian, I am a theist and believe that God created the world. For hardcore atheists this is enough to classify me as a creationist. Yet for most people, creationism is not identical with the Christian doctrine of creation, or for that matter with the doctrine of creation as understood by Judaism or Islam. By creationism one typically understands what is also called "young earth creationism," and what advocates of that position refer to alternately as "creation science" or "scientific creationism." According to this view the opening chapters of Genesis are to be read literally as a scientifically accurate account of the world's origin and subsequent formation. What's more, it is the creation scientist's task to harmonize science with Scripture.

Given this account of creationism, am I a creationist? No. I do not regard Genesis as a scientific text. I have no vested theological interest in the age of the earth or the universe. I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. What's more, I find the arguments of astrophysicists persuasive when they argue for a universe that is approximately 14 billion years old. I believe they got it right. Even so, I refuse to be dogmatic here. I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Yet to date I've found none of the arguments for a young earth or a young universe convincing. Nature, as far as I'm concerned, has an integrity that enables it to be understood without recourse to revelatory texts. That said, I believe that nature points beyond itself to a transcendent reality, and that that reality is simultaneously reflected in a different idiom by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.


[size=-1]William A. Dembski[/size]

oops!
didn't see the link.