Unfortunately, the embrace by Christians of I.D. probably doomed its consideration by scientists.
Larry Thompson | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 1:15 pm | #

In order to show that "God not only created the universe but left evidence of His creation" one has to show both that god exists and that the evidence of his creation is there. You can't show that evidence of his creation is there before showing that he exists. Therefore, ID will never get off the ground so long as it is wedded to god.

Also, ID needs to come up with testable hypotheses THAT ACTUALLY FLOW FROM ID. Finding another universe does nothing to counter ID since god could still have created this universe and left evidence behind of that creation.
GCT | 12.21.05 - 2:12 pm | #

Your prescription is dead on, regardless the disease.

I hope IDists will listen to you and take your advice. The hard-backed, stiff-necked ones won't. Too bad.
Ed Darrell | 12.21.05 - 4:14 pm | #

My big concern is that IDists haven't yet done this. The Judge wrote that ID hasn't yet generated a peer reviewed paper. Darwin's Black Box was written, what, seven years ago? So ID has been around that long.

Does ID have a next generation of supporters that can build a scientific basis for it that will pass muster? I'm increasingly becoming convinced that there is something critical missing from ID that makes this not possible.

The big loss is that those of us that are trying to balance scientific knowledge and faith have to continue to compartmentalize, instead of having these beliefs support each other. Bleh.
JER | 12.21.05 - 4:39 pm | #

'Tis a pity Dave. You will have to get used to the "obnoxious loudmouths," as they have the science and the guys on the ID side like this person don't

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/fa...culty/ behe.html

OK then if you think they are obnoxious loudmouths how about presenting your theory where it matters like here
http://www.phys.cwru.edu/events/...ts/ cosmol03.php
shiva | 12.21.05 - 5:13 pm | #

Bear this in mind, David:

No matter what IDers prove, they can't use evidence for design in nature as evidence for intelligent design, unless they can provide direct proof, like a very old alien space-ship with the blueprints for human design haning from the drawing board.

All other forms of purposeful design in nature can be explained via natural mechanisms.

Don't be lulled into believing that purpose in the constants of nature can be evidence for intelligent design just because antifanatics enable the false belief to perpetuate that *purposeful* design in nature requires an intelligent designer...

This won't save the theory once push comes to shove and they are forced to admit that there really is a purposeful method to the structuring of nature that requires intelligent life to arise to fulfill a very specific thermodynamic need.

What you now witness is a common reaction out of fear of the slippery sloap... but they'll be more than willing to give that inch when it means the whole enchalada is on the line.

So you'd better come up with some direct evidence, or you'll still lose.
island | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 5:19 pm | #

David

This is the best Idea I have heard concerning ID to date. Lets hope that your peers think along the same lines.
Frank | 12.21.05 - 5:35 pm | #

David's doesn't have any peers because his approach is more honest than Bill Dembski et. al., ever will be.

And he's closer to the truth than chaos whorshipers ever will be, so I'm betting that IDers by majority will continue to try to provide evidence for a natural design theory that's actually about grand scale entropic favoritism... in spite of themselves.

So be IDt.
island | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 5:51 pm | #

Unfortunately, the embrace by Christians of I.D. probably doomed its consideration by scientists.

No, its use as a fallback position by Young Earth Creationists when their Six-Day-Zap couldn't get past the courts. So from here on, a 400-year tradition of natural theology as philosophical underpinning for science becomes nothing more than a camouflage for Six-Day-Zap Creationism.
Ken | 12.21.05 - 6:11 pm | #

JER said:

Does ID have a next generation of supporters that can build a scientific basis for it that will pass muster? I'm increasingly becoming convinced that there is something critical missing from ID that makes this not possible.

---

Here are a couple things that IDers could use:

A solid foundation in probability.
A solid foundation in population genetics/evolutionary biology.
A strong dose of skepticism - about ID.

I wouldn't recommend getting this training by reading Darwin and solely looking for holes in the theory. The IDers should read Darwin with an open mind.

If Dembski keeps cultivating a cult of personality rather than a cult of rigor, he is going to doom ID completely on his own. He needs to fess up to his logical mistakes and encourage people to hold the feet of ID to the fire.
bloomer | 12.21.05 - 6:20 pm | #

Dave, your comment that "Those discussions are now effectively, if not actually, illegal—at least if they are initiated by the teacher. (If initiated by a student, a teacher will, most likely, feel compelled to stifle the thread.)" is hyperbole and simply not true. But, of course, you already knew that.

The fact of the matter is that you can talk about ID all you want in a classroom, provided that either (a) it's not a public school classroom, or (b) you make it clear that this is your personal view and not the curriculum.

If any school board tells you that you can't talk about your religious beliefs, you can rest assured that the ACLU will jump in . . . on your side, this time.
Steven | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 10:14 pm | #

Steven,

Yes I meant in a public school classroom. And since religion does not belong in a science class, and Judge Jones has equated ID to religion--well I doubt you'll get very far talking about ID in science class--even if it is not in the curriculum.
David Heddle | Homepage | 12.22.05 - 5:10 am | #

Since when is it okay to teach your personal theories in on public time?

I'm thinking that the ACLU isn't gonna say squat.
island | Homepage | 12.22.05 - 5:52 am | #

A more valid question might be why do proponents of neo-darwinism insist on promoting common falacies?... like...

'there are many creationists in the evolutionary biology'

'the ACLU is here to serve all sides in an unbiased fair and balanced manner'

'science is on our side when we say that life occurs accidentally'

'science is on our side when we knee-jerk react to global warming with extremely short-range projections'

etc...

Oh that's right... it's because they NEED to prove that they are completely right about everything and there can be no happy in-between because the "left" is actually the center...

lol

...and yet... they never get it all their way... instead of getting a clue when Dubya got elected... they went even further to the left, because they KNOW that they are right, so they have to try harder to motivate people to the correct way of thinking.

Excuse me... I need to go spit.
island | Homepage | 12.22.05 - 6:18 am | #

"They are doing politics"

The issue is politics. A universe created without God has no moral requirements. The state can mandate at will. Human life has no value and can be removed as a matter of someone else's convenience. It doesn't take a family to raise a child, it takes a village. Sexuality has no limits. Maybe you heard these things.

Ultimately, the social or philosophical conclusions of atheistic origins are more important than the science of the atheistic origins. How many people who believe in atheistic origins do so because they have the slightest understanding of the science? In my experience with non-scientists, almost none. The most passionate defenders of atheistic origins do so because religious morality seriously cramps their lifestyle. Most people accept or reject a theory of origins because it matches a particular lifestyle. Belief will determine behavior, and those that spend 6-8 hours a day with our children have a lot of impact on their beliefs.

The solution? Reduce the impact of theologically neutral or even hostile public schools. School vouchers will change a lot of school board opinions when they see the cream of the crop move on to quality education instead of crappy indoctrination.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe only us fundies will move on, and remove the religious irritation from the classroom.
Scott | 12.22.05 - 11:31 am | #

Scott,
You are so wrong, I don't know where to begin.

First of all, can you generalize any more? Atheists are all a bunch of amoralists, sex fiends, illiterates, who are only concerned with what is expedient? Please. Get off of your holier-than-thou high horse and get a perspective. If you want to get your morality from a god that promotes genocide and other heinous crimes, be my guest, but I will get it from the culture that actually produced it and I will continue to follow the morality that I was raised with, even though I realize that it is relative. It doesn't make me amoral or some demon.

Also, do not accuse me of being illiterate when it comes to the science. Do YOU know the science?

Let's also not forget about the many Christians that ACCEPT evolution and abiogenetic theories, because they are smart enough to realize that science and theology share completely separate realms. They realize that when science doesn't mention god that it isn't a specific endorsement of "not-god."
GCT | 12.22.05 - 11:52 am | #

The case in Dover shows that ID really need to drop this whole notion of a supernatural designer and look for a natural designer. Life is not supernatural, so there is no need for a supernatural designer.

I think that if ID has any scientific valid position it needs to come from research on the boundary between biology and informatics. Only there I can see a chance to demonstrate that it could not have be made in any other way then though the actions of an purposeful intelligent agent.

A open and clear demonstration of evidence is the stuff science is made of. Scientists need to stop pretending to be politicians, science is not a popularity contest and there is no safety in numbers when the theory is wrong. Just follow the evidence to its logical conclusion, whatever it may be.
gmlk | Homepage | 12.22.05 - 2:57 pm | #

GCT, actually, it isn't a high horse. The question of origins has only one of two answers. It is either totally random, without any divine intervention, or it is the work of a diety. Therefore it is either atheistic (a theos, without God), or it is theistic, the work of God. Don't know any other options.

Further, the post was not about the science of evolution or ID. Rather, it is what is done with the non-theistic evolution, the "politics", as it were. That's how I started the post, using the quote from the original article. I said, "In my experience with non-scientists, almost none". "Non-scientist". And I have no clue as to your competence in science. I could go further and say that I have met very few people, atheists or Christians, who spend a lot of time on the science. We have jobs, families, Sunday School classes, and so on. But every one, on both sides of the aisle, understand that the argument has ramifications beyond the science.

But start an ID/Creation/theological conversation with most non-theistic evolutionists, and the conversation almost immediately turns to the restrictive nature of Christian morality and how much influence it should have in society. Not a word of science. Notice the word "most".

To be fair, most theistic originists (is that a word) don't care about the science, either. Their concern is spiritual and moral. "Most of them", in my experience.

Which is the point of the post. It's the politics. Not the science.

Don't quite get the genocide thing. I read my post again, didn't see it. And you may not be a demon. Most non-theistic evolutionists aren't. "Most". And some theistic originists are demons, especially those genocide guys. As for whether you are amoral, we could argue whether relative morality is actually morality or simply going with the herd. That's probably a different post.

But for the time being, I can accept that you are culturally moral. There seems to be a lot of wiggle room there, however, which was why I listed those issues that I feel are destructive: state control, abortion, euthanasia, unrestrained sexuality, and so on.

And I have never understood the idea that science and religion are completely separate realms. I really don't understand any concept of God that has Him wake up one day and say, "Where did that Universe come from? And who are all of those people? That's certainly not what I had in mind." While there may be many Christians that accept gradual creation, I doubt that many of them think it took God by surprise. Or that humans have no moral obligations, even if their origins were gradual.
Scott | 12.22.05 - 3:35 pm | #

I would argue that ID is, strictly speaking scientific, but then metaphysical naturalism isn't either. Both are metaphysical theories about science rather than scientific theories within science.

The biggest problem I have with all of the debate is that it seems to be by people who have little understanding of the difference between metaphysics and science.

Especially frustrating are those on both sides of the debate who spew forth invective about how the opposition falsely argues from metaphysics to science while doing exactly that themselves.

Everyone could do with some basic training in onotology, epistemology and logic.
matt | Homepage | 12.22.05 - 7:20 pm | #

Behe put forward a good test in the flagellum. Evolutionist have tried to debunk it. So far, they have not. They can only speculate.

It is open to experimentation and validation.

God loves scientist by the way, Isaak Newton, Mendel, and thousands of others who created, contributed and gave science its direction it has today.

God is a scientist, he also loves music and evidently loves beautiful color, rainbows, butterflies....

smiles.... everyone gets so cranky

Science will go where the evidence leads it. One judge does not make science.

As for peer review David, its been done over and over. Also, remember who controls those journals and what they do to anyone who goes outside Darwin's macro-evolution. They ostricize them, blackball them.

The Smithsonian incident was like being under Stalinist rule. They took the poor guys keys from him, moved him out of his office, threatened him. It was like living in China or something. I could not believe that scientist would behave in such a manner. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they're not. Eugene Scott just chalks it up as part of her position, which it is, she's a paid for atheist who's job is to 'ENFORCE' neo-darwinite views on the nation of America.

There is no freedom in this country without the ACLU approval, or a few judges.

Meanwhile, the fruit of the tree of public schools hangs lower and lower.

1) Free sex, just use condoms, no responsibility
2) Get pregnant? Get an abortion
3) Boys have no responsibility
4) Girls must make a 'choice'
5) The child gets none - dead or alive
6) Parents? Why should they know?
7) The school has more rights than parents today.

Personally, I would never put my child in a public school today. It stifles the mind, they're not allowed to think about any idea other than materialistic world views, they have not a clue what our greatest philosophers thought, great leaders such as Lincoln, Washington, Franklin - thought about Creation, God - becaust they are taught 'falsley' they are not allowed to discuss such things.

Truly, I'd pull my kids out. Sex and MTV, that where it be.
Michael | 12.23.05 - 4:30 pm | #

Michael,

Were the public schools as you describe them, no one would put their kids there. Of course, you're not really advocating they improve, either.

1. "Abstinence only" programs explicitly deny male responsibility for sex. That's why pregnancy rates are higher in schools that teach abstinence only without condoms. Give the kids accurate information and instructions, and sexual activity drops.

2. Abortion is chosen by women outside of public schools. The vast majority of women in public schools who get pregnant have the unwanted child. By the way, did you know that being unwanted is among the top predictors of future criminal activity of a child? Still, I'll bet your church doesn't welcome those kids. I'll bet you still try to shame pregnant, unmarried women. Why do you think they'd want to get abortions?

In any case, in the public schools, kids have babies. Your aim is off, again.

3. See #1. In contraception, boys must take responsibility. If there is no contraception, boys get off without the price women pay. Do you demand boys take responsibility? Put your actions behind your words.

4. Everybody must make a choice, boys and girls. The issue is, will the choices be informed or not? Choices made in the dark are usually bad ones.

5. Every child a wanted child, that should be our goal. Bush has been working to make most children unwanted for six years, with way, way too much success. Hello, crime wave.

6. Parents? They're the kids abstinence-only programs failed to inform. That's the goal of current policy. It's a drag on our economy, a contribution to our crime rate, and just plain evil. But you like it. I imagine abstinence-only advocates cry at the end of "A Christmas Carol" -- they liked Scrooge before, not after.

7. Well, schools have more duties than some parents. Schools have duties to prevent child abuse, despite conservative efforts to protect child abusers from scrutiny in recent cases in California.

Child abuse has been on the downswing ever since we first passed laws against child beating; I think you may have misread that verse in the NT -- Jesus tells us to suffer little children; that means tolerate and love them. You seem to have read it as "make them suffer."

Or did you think that was mere translation error?
Ed Darrell | 12.26.05 - 1:34 pm | #

Scott, it is a high horse you are sitting on, and it is you introducing political issues (abortion, etc.) to the conversation.

Your straw man characterization of keeping science and faith separate is way off the mark. Science doesn't say anything about god because it can't. There is nothing, however, that says that god doesn't choose all of it to happen, or sits back and watches her handiwork, exists, or doesn't exist. Simply because science is separate and can't talk about god (since it is outside the realm of science) doesn't mean that in science god is relegated to watching and being impotent to influence the world.


@ Matt,
Nice to see the same drive by posting once again where you spew out the same arguement once again without ever addressing the criticisms of it. You'd make a fine spokesman for ID.
GCT | 12.30.05 - 8:05 am | #

David, I'm new to your blog (came here from Josh S. on metalutheran), and to the study of this issue. What is your opinion of Behe's "Black Box"? It was given to me and I haven't read it yet; wondering if that's a good primer on the issue or if there's something better.
Kibble | 12.31.05 - 6:53 pm | #

Kibble,

I have not read Behe's book. I have heard many good things about it--but my interest is in the physics/cosmology side of the debate, as opposed to biology.
David Heddle | Homepage | 01.01.06 - 1:54 pm | #

Kibble,
Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, is a worthwhile read. It goes into extensive detail on several biochemical structures and pathways in order to demonstrate “irreducible complexity.” If you are unfamiliar with molecular biology and biochemistry, those parts may be slow reading. However, he does a very good job of highlighting his central point-that there are problems reconciling the theory of evolution with our present day understanding of molecular mechanisms. He considers the problems serious enough, based upon scientific principals alone, to seek alternative explanations for the origin of species.
John | 01.01.06 - 8:48 pm | #