Do Dawkin's followers think ID is creationism?

You might surprise yourself.

- Absolutely, I would be very surprised of anything intelligent coming out of it.

You do not even raise your heads for a quick peek,

- I have thoroughly "peeked", in detail, and it is still absurd. You "assume" something supernatural, but refuse to call it that, and then do nothing to ever prove it, you just "assume" an expect that everyone will accept your absurdity.

because you're so convinced there is no God,

- You are the ones who keep saying it has nothing to do with god, so it is either a "supernatural force", which is usually called god, and it is creationism with another name, since it is "creation".

the same science applied in Darwinian studies is applied in ID studies

- You can "apply" it anywhere, that does not mean it is not absurd.

the philosophy of its discernment.

- Philosophy is questions that have no answers.

Brigalow, you are correct about Behe, and perhaps partially about the Discovery Institute, although not all the scientists there hold to a Judeo Christian view. Some are diests and theists who have come to convert to that conclusion by the work of Behe, and similar other efforts, following in the line of Wallace's view, and as C.S. Lewis suggested (when atheist) that one should follow "the Socratic Principle, and follow the evidence, no matter where it leads."

- You keep quoting people, but do not in any manner deal with facts.

I'm curious as to what you think a "Dawkin's follower", or a "Darwin's follower" actually is - I sincerely doubt that you will find a single person anywhere who takes what either has said "as gospel" (to coin a phrase). Some may follow Dawkins in the sense that they are interested in what he is going to publish next, or who he might debate, but that is about it. So who is your question actually targeted towards?

Personally I am well aware that "Intelligent design" can mean anything from the 'creation' of all forms of life in their existing state, through 'creation' of a few undefined "kinds" which then diversified, to 'creation' of a basic life form which was then developed via some sort of guided or pre-programmed evolution. ALL involve a creator (or designer) so ALL are forms of creationism.

Evolution and "old Earth creationism" (which allows an initial 'creation' of life which then develops with evolution) are not incompatible, and many people believe that this is how life on Earth came to be and then developed. However, it is NOT scientific to assume that there was a creator/designer because their is NO evidence of one - the "appearance of design" is NOT evidence of design. Honest scientists will openly state that they cannot be certain how life originated, but WILL say that they can be certain that once life was present on Earth (as very 'simple' organisms), it evolved.

Evolution IS science, attributing any part of evolution or the origin of life to a creator/designer is NOT.

Edit: ID does not necessarily have to be BIBLICAL creationism, but it IS creationism (and 99.99% of ID proponents will have started out with a belief in a deity - evidence on its own does NOT lead to that conclusion).

"Equating ID with creationism is like suggesting a human is not human if his skin is a different color than your own."

Not at all.

In 2005, in a court trial in Dover, Pa, Judge Jones gave his reasoned opinion that ID as proposed by the Discovery Institute was merely a recast of "creation science" and was religion, not science. This was based in part on excellent documentary evidence. The most memorable piece of evidence was a document in which a find and replace function had been used by the Discovery Institute or their agents to remove "creation science" and "creationists" from documents and replace it with "intelligent design" etc. In one instance, the function had not worked properly and the result was the combination "cdesign proponentists".

It was clear from a few generations of this and other documents that the words "creationism": had first been replaced by "creation science" and later by "intelligent design" leaving nearly all the remaining text the same. This successive replacement of terms was as a result of a series of court cases in various US states in which creationism, then creation science were ruled by judges to be religion and not to be taught in US public schools as that would breach the US constitution. Judge Jones found in turn that ID was merely another word for creationism.

The judge also concluded that members of the Dover school board had misused public funds and lied as they arranged to have publications from the Discovery Institute used as biology textbooks in Dover schools.

So, legally, ID as proposed by the Discovery Institute is identical with creationism. And I might add that in my opinion the Discovery Institute's tame biologist, Jonathan Wells, is a direct liar when he says there is no evidence of new species being formed. At least that's what I understood him to say

I am not aware that Prof. Dawkins had any influence on the Dover trial. The principal witness against ID from a scientific point of view was cell biology expert Prof. Kenneth Miller of Brown University, while the evidence about the documents came from other people.

However, it is true that ID as proposed by Prof. Michael Behe is pretty far from creationism. Prof Behe appears to think that there is occasional divine nudging of the evolutionary process, which mostly proceeds along well understood naturalistic principles. He's not the first to think that way and he probably will not be the last. That is a long way from the lying and chicanery from the Discovery Institute whose purpose is to confuse and preach for religious and possibly political influence.

"Do Dawkin's followers think ID is creationism?"

NO, we can actually differentiate between the varying levels of religious indoctrination.

Do Dawkin's followers think ID suggests evolution does not occur?

An ID created universe could also evolve (if that's was part of the design ).

the best things Dawkins has said so far is that the time for respecting religion is over.

there is simply no need to pander to a Jesus delusion.

!

I love it when the religious think atheists must surely follow somebody/something. I think you will find that we all have a very different outlook on life and what we are prepared to accept. I admire both Dawkin's and Darwin's work and knowledge of their subject. If I were to meet Dawkins I doubt I would like him as a person as I find him a little too evangelical and sometimes even patronising. I have no idea if I would like Darwin as his style of writing was so of the age and formal.

As for ID it is merely a salesman's foot in the door.

ID IS creationism. In one the first court cases about it the court laid a document describing creationism beside a document describing ID and the two were EXACTLY the same, minus the NAMING of the "creator/designer".

Edit: "Equating ID with creationism is like suggesting a human is not human if his skin is a different color than your own." Actually this is EXACTLY what YOU are doing in saying ID is NOT creationism.

I don't follow anyone....

Just cos you people can't make a move unless it's sanctioned by your masters.

"might want to give ID a second glance from time to time and see if there is a value in their analysis."

Sorry kid... god is imaginary...

‘Gods’ and magic are the most simplistic excuses ignorant primitives have ever imagined explaining anything.

We could just as well suggest The Rainbow Serpent, with or without the assistance of a mob of gum booted Pixies, did it cos there’s the same amount of evidence... NONE.

~

i do now no longer evaluate incest to be "incorrect" using certainty its rather used in nature, even between our closest genetic cousins (distinctive super apes), yet i'd desire to suggestion against it. Incest can smash family shape distinctly following a smash-up and there would desire to prefer to be obtrusive themes for the dimensions of toddler beginning at an identical time with beginning defects. I as with out postpone as learn a e book that suggested that a million/10 human beings in all races and coaching have participated in some form or yet yet another of incest. I rather doubt every person indoors the worldwide does no longer come from a minimum of one ancestor who replaced into born via incest.

Philosophy of discernment. That is how people who believe fairy tales to be true convince themselves their ridiculous beliefs are true, because they "discerned" it. More religious woo woo. Christians like you are some of the most intellectually dishonest people on the planet.

"Equating ID with creationism is like suggesting a human is not human if his skin is a different color than your own."

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why am I not surprised.

I respect and admire Dawkins, but I don't follow him.

ID is basically creationism designed to make Christians seem more rational.