Intelligent Design vs Theistic evolution

[Guardsman Bass]

The mildest version of Theistic Evolution is that God directs the evolution, but in a way that the evolution of species is essentially indistinguishable from not having a God direct it; basically, you rely on faith.

Intelligent Design can be a version of theistic evolution, in the case of Behe. It can also mean that evolution didn't occur, and so forth. Intelligent design, taken literally, is more broad. But the two (theistic evolution and Intelligent Design) overlap.

[Avalon616]

I would think Theistic Evolution would be more popular among other religions too. Christianity isn't the only religion that said "The world was created by <insert diety/ies>". Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see the validity of evolution. It seems like TE is the compromise state- someone who wants to have faith or spirituality in their life, but acknowledges reality too.

It's also great for us fence-riders! Agnostics point to TE and go, "Obviously Christianity is bunk, and evolution is real, but a higher power could have been using evolution as a tool... but there's no proof."

Oh, and thanks everyone for the clarification between the two terms. Up until this year, I took the idea of Intelligent Design as what the terms said- that people believed there was an intelligent design of this universe. Didn't realize it specified the fundy variant, and am glad to know.

[Darth Wong]

The simplest distinction is that ID says that evolution is wrong, while TE doesn't. The only difference between ID and full-blown creationism is that they don't identify the "designer".

[Surlethe]

I would think Theistic Evolution would be more popular among other religions too. Christianity isn't the only religion that said "The world was created by <insert diety/ies>". Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see the validity of evolution. It seems like TE is the compromise state- someone who wants to have faith or spirituality in their life, but acknowledges reality too.

It is a compromise state. I would think also think most educated Muslim and Jewish moderates (to specifically target the other two Judeo-Christian religions) adhere to some ideal of TE. However, especially in the Arab world (and also in the Bible belt...), most of the religious people are brainwashed from a young age, and don't get an education; thus, they believe in more literal creationisms.

[Guardsman Bass]

The simplest distinction is that ID says that evolution is wrong, while TE doesn't. The only difference between ID and full-blown creationism is that they don't identify the "designer".

Most of the IDers are like that, and claim evolution is completely wrong. But not necessarily; didn't Behe say that he believes in the evolution of species, but that he doesn't believe evolution can account for some of the mechanisms within cells? Although Intelligent design, taken broadly can exclude evolution, it can also include it (and overlap with "theistic evolution"); you'd just be playing an "arbitrary limits" game on where exactly the evolution started. But I think you were referring to Intelligent Design that is distinctly separate from Theistic Evolution, so I'm not correcting you. I'm just making a point.

[Darth Servo]

I have seen people define ID all across the board from TE to full blown creationism without specivically mentioning "God" as Mike describes. Thats why I started this thread. Its also yet another reason why ID is worthless--lack of a definition.

[Rye]

The ID that gets mentioned in the US all the time is pretty much ordinary creationism, though it takes pains to not mention God. That ID, from the statements of its proponents that I've heard, is that the different "kinds" were all designed, and do not share common ancestry, and evolution can't account for the differences whenever we don't understand something.

Behe actually accepts common ancestry of all life, including humans, just says that specific chemical parts were designed by an intelligent designer and not evolution. Behe-esque ID is much smaller scale, but still bunk. The ID attempting to be taught in schools is worse, and both are exponentially worse than TE, which doesn't contradict anything about evolution.

[Exonerate]

I have seen people define ID all across the board from TE to full blown creationism without specivically mentioning "God" as Mike describes. Thats why I started this thread. Its also yet another reason why ID is worthless--lack of a definition.

Typically, ID is basically saying that some unspecified power *coughgodcough* had designed us and is directly responsible for our current state of affairs. The degree of intervention is usually left blank, but the majority of the pro-IDers (Many, if not most of which are Creationists just trying to slip it into public schools) believed that we were created (Or designed, if you prefer) in our current state (Barring minor changes from "microevolution")

TE can range from the belief that some deity jump-started the process by creating the first cell to personally guiding the path of evolution. Technically, I suppose you could claim there is some overlap between TE and ID, but I've rarely seen a believer in theistic evolution describe themselves as believers in ID. Generally, TE affirms the existence of evolution (Not on just a "micro" scale), while ID denies "macroevolution" and may or may not accept "microevolution"

Personally, I'd much rather people accept TE rather than ID - at least they're not ignoring mountains of scientific evidence right in their faces. If they are uncomfortable with the concept of their deity of choice not being involved, then by all means let them keep it - at least it doesn't get in the way of properly educating children. Besides, it's unrealistic to expect religious people to just suddenly drop their religion just because of evolution. If I were forced between choosing TE or ID, I'd take TE any day of the week.