Intelligent Design proponents spend a great deal of time trying to separate itself from religion, and creationism in particular…Dave Scott who frequently writes blogs in Uncomon Decent writes…
“ID doesn’t try to find material evidence for and explanations of things like a global flood, a young earth, the parting of the Red Sea, people turning into pillars of salt, or any of that stuff.”
I like to know which creation scientist does Dave think is looking for scientific evidence for people turning into “pillars of salt.” As far as I know, there are none in the mainstream who are trying to find such a discovery using science. Dave Scott is trying so hard to separate ID from creationism, that he goes out of his way, to insult them which is just as bad as militant Darwinists who do the same thing.
It’s true that ID doesn’t try to find material evidence for a flood, and how old the earth is, generally they get their information from ones who they fight with in other areas, evolutionists. IDers for the most part agree with evolutionists on these issues.
Now Casey Luskin who is one of the leading proponents of ID, and I have of course written about him before in a previous post, states in his podcast on 12/29/2008…
“ID theorists argue design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arises by intelligent cause.”
What we find in this particular podcast is basically making a case for ID as being a valid non-religious scientific proposal. Casey Luskin goes on to discuss about how ID scientists compare “intelligent agents” and the study of their behavior when they design things whose origin is unknown.
This might be a little confusing for some Christians who believe in just one Creator, and it’s a huge distinction between creationism and ID. Instead of natural selection which an unthinking process that supposedly chooses a wide range of possibilities of favorable traits, an “intelligent agent” supposedly accomplishes this task. In creationism, God doesn’t select favorable traits with such options of possibilities presented to Him.
Macro evolution is viewed as having an intelligent cause. ID says naturalism cannot create new information which is correct. So then they claim “intelligent agents” are able to create new and specified information in order to create such things as different species.
Macro evolution in any form, intelligent or not, is rejected by biblical creationism. Only small changes within the species kind which we see is an acceptable conclusion which confirms the Bible.
Many from the evolutionist side have attacked intelligent design for being creationism. This is because creationism was ruled against the law to teach in public schools so they try and discredit it that way…
But they are right about one thing, ID has it’s own problems with origins because it has no history neither does it look for any explanation regarding the origin of it’s so called “design agents.” This is why they rather not go that far because it’s goes outside the limitations of science. There is no way they can prove or disprove the intelligent cause, similar to that of a multi-universe hypothesis which is not testable either.
In conclusion, their fight with Darwinists some IDers like Dave Scott go out of their way to distant intelligent design from creationism as a way to try and prove it’s scientific. It’s not a good way to go about it. But he is right, ID doesn’t come from creationism, it resembles more of evolution than creationism except for the cause being intelligent, but still what they believe as an intelligent agent is not God.