"Intelligent design" in the contemporary sense is not compatible with the theory of evolution. It is a faux theory which purports that everything was designed as is, and that macroevolution does not alter the tides of biology. A select few intelligent design advocates say macroevolution occurs, but did not design humans. Either way, it is incompatible with evolutionary theory.

If you mean that you believe that evolution could be guided by an intelligent creator, and that evolution could be the mechanism by which the designer creates, that is a perfectly reasonable and common statement, but it is not what is meant by "intelligent design." It is the "teleological theory," which means that the biological aspects of nature are working towards a specific end goal (such as humanity in God's image).

It was responding to the second interpretation, which is the one I've encountered more frequently from people. Even if it is not the technical definition churches and the like wish to teach, it seems to be the more common.

Sorry, Raining. I was responding to this (I hadn't seen your post yet):
Now that we're all on the same page, I will reiterate: "intelligent design" is "creationism" in different language. It was created after creationism was taken out of schools for not being scientifically stated, so they stated creationism with scientific language.

It is creationism.

From my understanding, they were different things.

I don't believe in creationism, but I believe in the possibility of some intelligent being(s) creating life and stuff, as well as scientific principles allowing for evolution.

Not vaguely intelligent design then, okay. Thanks.

Yeah, that is the "teleological theory" or the "teleological" view of evolution.

=).

So it's unnatural selection?

Do you have any evidence to support this viewpoint?

When people say they are 'creationists' does this just mean that they believe in the stories in the bible?

It depends. "Creationism" can simply mean belief that God created everything, or (more likely) belief in Six-day Creationism or some other specific creation mythology.

Oh okay, thanks.

When I read "Creationism" I read "a deity or deities created the universe". I don't read it as inherently Judeo-Christian.

I don't think I need any to call it a "possibility".

Creationism is more than "diety or dieties created the Universe." Creationism is the belief that a diety or dieties created the Universe consciously, purposefully, and typically "as is."

In modern social context, it is the Abrahamic or other belief that God created the world and that His/Her/Its/Their design does not include macroevolution.

Oh, well if you're calling it a possibility without reason to think that it's probable, then your statement doesn't mean much. It's a possibility that a magical unicorn puked out the universe over the course of three days, but I don't go around stating that it's a possibility because there's absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

To Gorgon, typically "as is", yes, but not always. Creationism is broader than anti-evolution creationism. Theistic evolution and old-earth creationism are also forms of creationism. To be clear, one should use the term young-earth creationism (YEC) when speaking of the literalist/fundamentalist form of Christian (and Islamic and Judaic I suppose) creationism.

And to LiV, yes, creationism applies to non-Abrahamic religions as well.

Doesn't matter much to me. I'll think what I want. I don't really care what you think about it. I'm not ruling it out because I have no reason to, and I think it makes life more interesting to think of it that way.

@Aviel, Redirect.

That has nothing at all to do with a belief that lacks reasoning.

Doesn't it? I thought that opinions were accepted as long as they weren't said as if they were facts and provided no evidence.

EDIT: But I know nothing about TS, so ignore me.

If you don't care what I think about your opinion, why did you announce it here to everybody? And if you are okay with stating that your belief is entirely baseless and that you hold it for purely personal reasons, that's fine, but also pointless to share.

We can't disprove opinion, but if you don't believe your beliefs convey meanings, or that your belief or story for creation is real enough to prove, why believe it at all? If you have an answer like "this is my truth" good for you, but it's about as useful as tits on a bull for a discussion. Truth is universal, truth isn't subjective, you can't believe something you do not believe to be universally true. Which is what Aviel and I are objecting to.

Yes, sorry. I forgot the context in which this was being argued in.

You cannot say, "I believe this is fact." And then say "I have no evidence, so it's only my fact." There needs to be some reason for the belief in the first place.

I don't think they said that it's fact. But yes, I understand your argument now.

Saying that you believe in something syntactically necessitates that you think it's a fact.