A Quiz for ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory Proponentsists

A Quiz for ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory Proponentsists

(Even for those IDist outliers like nullasalus at UD who don’t think IDT is scientific, but who think they are tricking people that logically & responsibly reject IDT)

 Another simple YES/NO exercise.

Acronyms:

IDM = Intelligent Design Movement

IDist = Intelligent Design ideologue

DI = Discovery Institute

IDT = (Uppercase) Intelligent Design theory

USA = United States of America = )

 

Questions:

 1. Is the DI-led IDM making a concentrated, dedicated effort to distinguish good science from bad science by actively and publically rejecting the outdated ‘young Earth’ views of many undereducated, anti-science, evangelical Christians in the USA?

2. Have IDM leaders Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski and Phillip Johnson *all* linked their own version of IDT to their personal Christian faith in public statements, interviews and/or articles?

3. Have several prominent Abrahamic theists (particularly those active in science, philosophy & theology/worldview conversations) openly rejected IDT on the basis of distinguishing Uppercase ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory (the Discovery Institute’s ‘strictly scientific’ theory) from lowercase ‘intelligent design’ (aka the non-scientific, theological/worldview ‘design argument’)?

4. Does it make sense for IDists to openly admit that IDT is more properly viewed as an interdisciplinary topic for ‘science, philosophy & theology/worldview’ discourse rather than as a ‘strictly scientific’ theory?

5. When the ‘Wedge Document’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) was leaked by the Discovery Institute, did it specifically stipulate that IDT was to be restricted *only* to natural-physical sciences?

6. Has anyone in the IDM come up with an IDT where the ‘Designer/designer(s)’ can actually be studied?

7. Are any of “the most noteworthy ID proponents” (as ‘nullasalus’ calls them) atheists? If so, who (please don’t count David Berlinski; he is self-confessed “warm, but distant”)?

8. Do any of “the most noteworthy ID proponents” (as ‘nullasalus’ calls them) outright reject the category ‘supernatural’ or not personally believe that the Uppercase ‘Designer’ behind the so-called ID in their IDT does not transcend the merely ‘natural?’ If so, who?

9. Does the DI receive a vast majority of its institutional funding from right-wing conservative evangelicals (e.g. Ahmanson, the Maclellan Foundation) in the USA?

10.  Do any non-IDists (read: normal people) educated beyond the high school level actually accept the argument by some IDists that ‘aliens’ is really what they mean ; ) when they posit that IDT has *nothing* at all to do with their personal/community religious worldview?

0

12 thoughts on “A Quiz for ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory Proponentsists

  1. Gregory: 160 posts to one.

    I suppose you are comparing the responses to your quiz here, with the responses to the UD quiz (by nullasalus).

    And perhaps you were making a point, though that is not at all clear.

    0
  2. Both quizes seem to favor questions in the form of “Have you stopped beating your wife.”

    0
  3. Neil Rickert: I suppose you are comparing the responses to your quiz here, with the responses to the UD quiz (by nullasalus).

    I think he is complaining that 159 of the posts at TSZ were not written by him.

    0
  4. 1. Is the DI-led IDM making a concentrated, dedicated effort to distinguish good science from bad science by actively and publically rejecting the outdated ‘young Earth’ views of many undereducated, anti-science, evangelical Christians in the USA?

    You are assuming that they can distinguish between good and bad science, and that they share your view of evangelical Christians. But if both those were true, no. Even if the evangelicals are dullards they are better than those atheists. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    0
  5. I think one aftermath of the Nye/Ham debate is that the debate is increasingly seen as science vs religion. or more to the point, science vs biblical literalism.

    The years since the Dover trial have been interesting. I think this may be another page turner.

    0
  6. To what do your “160 to one” and “222 to 1 and 1/10” remarks refer, Gregory? You are apparently counting two different things (or perhaps more than two?), but it’s not at all clear what those things might be. Perhaps you could provide some background information to clarify your meaning?

    0
  7. 10. Do any non-IDists (read: normal people) educated beyond the high school level actually accept the argument by some IDists that ‘aliens’ is really what they mean ; ) when they posit that IDT has *nothing* at all to do with their personal/community religious worldview?

    It would not require a high level education , the answer is no. However their argument is not aliens did it,only that aliens could have been the proximate cause. Ultimately ID requires a non living undesigned designer to be coherent. Most religions do.

    222 to 2.

    0
  8. No = Right, velikovskys.

    That makes 222 to 2/10 (still 8 more remain to meet a whole 10/10). At least someone here can almost count!

    0
  9. That makes 222 to 2/10 (still 8 more remain to meet a whole 10/10). At least someone here can almost count!

    Glad to be of service.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.