Stickin' with ID
by MikeGene"Hey Mike, since your views about Intelligent Design are so different from mainstream ID, why do you insist on calling them 'ID'? Why don't you come up with a new name?" For those who have these questions, I provide you my reasons.
1. It is logical to hypothesize 'intelligent design' when hypothesizing about the first life forms that were designed by an intelligence.
2. The basic idea of 'intelligent design' was hatched in the context of the origin of life.
3. Because there is no rigorous theory of ID, there is a good degree of plasticity associated with the concept. I view, and have always viewed, Intelligent Design as a part of a larger teleological viewpoint that extends back to the Ancient Greeks. This view is supported by mainstream university professors. On the other hand, Ken Miller asserts that ID was used as a reaction to Darwin:
A concept known as "intelligent design" (ID) has been used as an argument against Darwinism from the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859 right up to the present day.
4. If I were to change names, this would be viewed by many critics as an attempt to "evolve ID" for socio-political purposes. By retaining the label 'ID,' I am clearly acknowledging that I do not think my views deserve a place in the science classroom (as a Federal Court has ruled).
5. It's too late "“ the book is almost ready for the printer (okay, that one was just a shameless plug).
Now, someone may not agree with my reasons. Fine. But what they would need to show is that my reasons are unreasonable.
November 24th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
[...] Changing terminology Because there is no rigorous theory of ID, there is a good degree of plasticity associated with the concept. I view, and have always viewed, Intelligent Design as a part of a larger teleological viewpoint that extends back to the Ancient Greeks. [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Lineage of ID terms — November 24, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
November 25th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
In what ways are your views different than mainstream ID? Given that Dembski has given you a giant thumbs up, and your site is one of the top ID sites, I would find that as good evidence that this _is_ mainstream ID (though, as you've pointed out, not the IDM).
Comment by johnnyb — November 25, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Hi johnnyb,
Perhaps I should have worded my blog better "“
"Hey Mike, since your views about Intelligent Design are so different from the perception of mainstream ID,"¦.."
I don't think many perceive mainstream ID to be the same as the views I articulate. After all, this it what many critics have told me.
Comment by MikeGene — November 26, 2006 @ 1:12 pm