David, I would like to offer my encouragement for your proposed endeavor. I am not a scientist, but I can tell you that I believe there a lot of other people like me, who enormously appreciate you and other scientists sharing your insights about ID from a science perspective. It would be a great deal more difficult to persuasively discuss the subject in the public arena without the valuable information and insights you provide. I would like to encourage other like-minded scientists to join you in this effort.
sal | 04.19.06 - 8:38 am | #

David,

I'm never sure where I stand when I read you saying, "ID is not science. ID is Christian apologetics." (paraphrased.)

This seems to lead /me/ into a world view conflict.

If ID is not science, then ID ONLY exists because of my presuppositions concerning creation. If that's true, all of the ID books have to be moved to the section next to Numerology. At that point, we should admit that design isn't really there, we only see it because we want/need to.

If ID does actually, really and truly occur in nature, then it must be, by definition, science. If science is the study of nature, and ID truly exists there, then science can find it, test for it, verify it. If it does not exist, we're just playing word games, and trying to look smarter than we are. If design is a real property to be found in nature, we will be able to make predictions based on the principles of design.

Evolution is certainly not science. Abiogenesis has never been observed, but it's proponents accept it as an article of faith. Macro evolution has never been observe, but it's proponents accept it as an article of faith. The fossil record does not explicitly require evolution for an explanation, it has been /interpreted though the lens of evolution presuppositions/ to confirm evolution, but that is simply an /interpretation/, not actual /confirmation/. "Progressive creationism" fits every bit as well with the fossil record, but it is rejected and scoffed at - not because it doesn't match the facts, but because it conflicts with the most widely held presuppositions.

I do not agree that presuppositions dictate the science/non-science nature of a proposition. If ID does exist in nature, it must be science. If ID is only a product of our presuppositions, then it is simply wishful thinking, and we shouldn't be wasting time or bandwidth on it.

And then, maybe I just have my head screwed on backwards....
havoc | Homepage | 04.19.06 - 10:47 am | #

Havoc,
Care to elucidate us all on what the "evolution presuppositions" are?
GCT | 04.19.06 - 11:23 am | #

Interesting post. I'm probably heading out of the door on ID at the moment - precisely because I'm unconvinced of its scientific credentials - but will be interested to read your proposed blog once it gets going.

BTW, have you considered turning on turning on the "Enable Post Pages" feature in Blogger (Settings --> Archiving)? It would make it a lot easier to link/bookmark your posts.
John H | Homepage | 04.19.06 - 12:02 pm | #

John H,

I made the change--do you see a difference?
heddle | 04.19.06 - 12:25 pm | #

David,
I’m new to your blog and am unable to find a succinct statement of your origins beliefs. From what I can gather; you are a huge proponent of fine-tuning, you think ID needs work and you seem to dismiss YEC arguments but embrace its proponents. Are you a Hugh Ross guy or some variation?

You wrote:
A scientist at (some respected research university) has been awarded a grant to do experiment X. ID predicts the result of the experiment will be Y. Non-ID predicts the result will be Z.

I don’t know about all the work being done with fine-tuning but has your above criteria been met? Can we substitute fine-tuning for ID and answer one way or the other? Or is fine-tuning currently in the same boat as ID?

Thanks
JES | 04.19.06 - 12:27 pm | #

JES,

In my opinion, yes. The parallel universe explanation of fine tuning will always be another religious idea that is impossible to rule out.

havoc,

Because I do not at the moment consider ID as science, does not mean that I rule out the possibility.

GCT,

I think science--including evolution-- does have presuppositions, namely 1) that the universe is orderly and, 2) given time, the human mind is capable of detecting and comprehending that order. If it wern't so, why would anyone do science? If it is not so, then science is a fool's errand. So another way to put it: I believe the presupposition of every scientist is that science is not a fool's errand.
David Heddle | Homepage | 04.19.06 - 12:40 pm | #

Thank you for your post. It is a serious challenge that ID proponents must consider.

Concerning your statement that ID proponents are religiously motivated, I think that I might be able to offer a clarification.

Throughout my entire life I have been in pursuit of truth. Believe it or not this has been a passion of my since very early childhood. For many years I understood that my Christianity and truth were separate compartments. It was not until later that I discovered that "Truth" had a name and his name is Jesus. Thus, my passion for truth and my passion for religion merged. True, religion has a significant philisophical side and the quest for truth in a modern society relies heavily upon science. But I think it is inaccurate to say that ID is ad hoc religiously motivated. No, as it concerns myself, an understanding of the universe as not random, but displaying a great deal of purpose and design is an issue of truth. If that truth causes me to have a religious response that is great. But I can say with a clear conscience that my quest for understanding the origin of the universe and that quests resolution in Intelligent Design is a quest for truth. Is it any less noble if I discover that Jesus is the most likely candidate to be that Intelligent Designer?

A final note: throughout most of scientific history most scientists have been primarily motivated to pursue their scientific quest because of their religious conviction that the universe and its laws are knowable. This does not make their discoveries "religiously" motivated. It just means that their religious convictions led them to go and discover.

I think that this is the crux of the matter. I have discovered that my pursuit of truth was actually God's work in my life that I would find him. My search for truth is then religiously motivated, but that does not make my discovery less truth or more religious. Nor does it make the puruit ad hoc less scientific. I have been "religiously" motivated to use science, philosophy, sociology, psychology and many other avenues to discover truth. The trouble is when we begin to separate and compartmentalize the validity of truth based upon the motivations of the people who seek to find it.

Again, thank you for your article. It makes me think and in that it has great value. I want to encourage you as you seek to begin the new blogging team.
Jeremiah Fyffe | Homepage | 04.19.06 - 12:56 pm | #

Mr. Heddle,
Are those presuppositions, or are they a posteriori? No one went out and said that the universe is orderly, so we will find such and such. We decided the universe was orderly because we continued to make findings that supported the idea that the universe is orderly.

In any case, even if those were the suppositions made by scientists, are they different for evolution? Would those suppositions applied to one science make it non-science, but be fine for other fields? Would those suppositions rule out or necesitate god? Of course not, on all counts. So, havoc is still on the hook to tell us all what specific suppositions evolution makes, that differ from other sciences, that cause evolution to not be science.
GCT | 04.19.06 - 1:33 pm | #

As a non-Christian, I mean this with 100% sincerity: bravo, David. Your coreligionists could learn a lot from your honesty, and I wish you the best of luck in so persuading them.
Andrew | 04.19.06 - 1:36 pm | #

GTC,

Naturalistic materialism is the presupposition that everything is the result of the outcome of prior conditions, and that there is no supernatural entity that can effect those outcomes. Naturalistic materialism is presupposition, not science, not observation, not fact. It is "truth" only in the sense that "truth" can be defined as "generally accepted among a group." It is not fact, but it is generally taken as fact.

One problem we have is that David, Jeremiah and I are aware and admit that we do have presuppositions. You appear to believe yourself immune to them. This condition of illusionary presuppositionalisticly free thinking is leads to a false sense of security in one's perception of truth, reality, facts and the world in general. This leads to a baseline of semantic incompatibility.

We all have presuppositions, but we don't all know that we have presuppositions.
havoc | Homepage | 04.19.06 - 1:55 pm | #

Havoc,
First of all, methodological naturalism is used by all science, not just evolution. Second, it is used in an a posteriori way (or did you think that searching for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin was some sort of naturalist presupposition?) Third, it is used because it works. Fourth, and most importantly, no one has come up with a way to do science that includes supernatural entities, mechanisms, or anything else of that kind. So, if you can come up with a way of doing that, do so and collect your Nobel prize. Until then, you might want to learn the difference between a priori and a posteriori.
GCT | 04.19.06 - 2:20 pm | #

GCT
"So, if you can come up with a way of doing that, do so and collect your Nobel prize."

Or at least a Templeton prize.

David, Good luck with your honest assessment of ID. I don't think it will make you popular with it's promoters. DS
dogscratcher | 04.19.06 - 2:38 pm | #

havoc said

"If ID is not science, then ID ONLY exists because of my presuppositions concerning creation. If that's true, all of the ID books have to be moved to the section next to Numerology."

They're already there. Check out the Library of Congress's catalog. The majority of ID books are in the BSs (e.g., BS651, Creation and Science) and BLs (e.g., BL263 Religion and Science, Natural History, Evolution). That's not far from Numerology, which is BF1623.9.P9.

The Dewey Decimal classifiers at LC are a bit kinder. They classify ID books in science (500s) a bit more often, but even they seem to prefer numbers in Religion (213, 215, 231.7). Those numbers aren't "the section next to numerology", but they're closer to Numerology (133.335) than to any Science class.
bcarson | 04.19.06 - 3:10 pm | #

To all: deleted comment from "Dracula" and reported it as spam--it had nothing to do with this post.
David Heddle | Homepage | 04.19.06 - 3:56 pm | #

*sigh* Unfortunately, David's commitment to the truth lasted several hours. Mr. Heddle is well aware of the "Wedge" document; citing to the DI's press release issued as a CYA after that document surfaced is disingenous at best.

We all know the DI wants to wedge intelligent design into the public schools even when (wink, wink) it says otherwise, in the same way that even David knows the DI has a religious agenda, even when (wink, wink) it insists otherwise.

I'm disappointed. Why bother to defend these charlatans as "almost not lying on one of three points," when you've already indicted them on the most serious one (pretending that apologetics is science)? Seriously: you're not going to get any love from DaveScot, Bill Dembski, Sal Cordova, Casey Luskin and crew now anyway -- why try to suck up to them halfheartedly?
Andrew | 04.19.06 - 4:56 pm | #

Andrew,

This post was not to made to gain your approval. I have not read the wedge document. It was pointed out to me that what is presently on the DI site is not in conflict with my point 2; this I deemed worthy of an update. As for the people you mentioned, I believe it is true that I have exchanged email only with Sal Cordova, and have never met any of them. You overestimate the size of my blip on the ID radar.
heddle | 04.19.06 - 5:17 pm | #

Serious questions: shouldn't you be actively criticizing the DI for pretending that religious apologetics is science? Isn't that a serious offense against honesty? And isn't that dishonesty far MORE important than whether their current press release jives with your beliefs?
Andrew | 04.19.06 - 5:25 pm | #

Andrew,

Of course not. We have substantive differences of opinion. The DI position, as I understand it, is that even if ID is religiously motivated for most advocates, that does not change the fact that the evidence may be evaluated without bringing religion into the mix, and that this point should be emphasized. My view, quite different, is that this is a failed message. However, I do not and will not question their honesty--I simply disagree with the strategy, as my post indicated.
heddle | 04.19.06 - 5:43 pm | #

Hi David,
Whilst I don't necessarily agree, I find your first point interesting. You say "The first strategy I disagree with is proclaiming ID as science. Philosophical discussions aside, I will accept ID as science when I read something like this:

A scientist at (some respected research university) has been awarded a grant to do experiment X. ID predicts the result of the experiment will be Y. Non-ID predicts the result will be Z."
Why does it need to be at 'some respected research university'? Is this some new demarcation criteria for science that I haven't heard about? And having received a grant?? How many previous scientific theories have arisen and been tested from activities that do not meet this requirement?
Alan Grey | Homepage | 04.19.06 - 5:59 pm | #

Mr. Heddle,
Why haven't you read the Wedge Document?
GCT | 04.19.06 - 6:28 pm | #

David,

Do you see the various interpretations of QM as philosophy?
Qualiatative | Homepage | 04.19.06 - 6:32 pm | #

As I understand your position, it's not too far from my own beliefs about evolution and creation, and you're not part of the ID movement at all. The more I read about it, the more I get the impression that ID is first and foremost a politically motivated lobby group with the intent to discredit honest science, stop the pursuit of knowledge and corrupt the education of American children (and possibly a few other countries). Most of it seems to be based on intentional lies.

I don't see any conflict whatsoever between christian faith and honest science. Well, there is if you take the 168 hours of creation literally, but in my opinion, you're not doing the bible any justice if you treat it as a simple science text book. The bible tells us God created the world, but it doesn't really go into a lot of detail about how he did that, just like it doesn't go into any detail about general relativity or quantum mechanics.

God gave us more than just the bible. He gave us this world, his creation. And if you study it closely, the conclusion that evolution plays a big role in it is unavoidable. And that makes sense; evolution is a very powerful mechanism that can be used to create wonderful things. I come from an artifical intelligence background, and I've used genetic algorithms, a technique that applies the exact same principles as evolution (truly random mutation, selection, and sexual reproduction) to solve complex problems. John Koza uses a more generic technique caled "genetic programming" to make even more amazing things. And what is the role of the programmer in all this? Fine tuning. Not fiddling with individual genes, not steering mutation one way or the other, but setting the mutation rate just right, deciding on the basic building blocks, controlling the environment, fine tuning everything so that evolution can run its course and create exactly what the programmer wants.

Evolution is a very, very powerful tool and it works. And if I can use it, then so can God.

Ofcourse this doesn't mean God exists. I think he does, but I've been known to be wrong before. It would be arrogant to claim to know the ultimate truth about things that are way beyond my reach and understanding, and I try to avoid falling into that trap.
mcv | 04.19.06 - 8:09 pm | #

Alan,

It needn't be at "some respected research university" I'm not sure why I used that phrase. Fair point.

GCT,

Because it seems really boring and related to politics, of which I have little interest.

Qualiatative,

Maybe--I only an familiar with the Copenhagen view, which I primarily view as calculational, but I am aware that people often look into the philosophy of QM--I don't find that to be of interest.
heddle | 04.19.06 - 8:25 pm | #

David: thanks for trying out that change. I think to make it work you need to add something along the lines fo the following to the byline for each post in your blog template (replacing the curly brackets with angle brackets):

{a href="{$BlogItemPermalinkURL$}" title="permanent link"}Permalink{/a}

e.g. by changing the target for the timestamp hyperlink to "$BlogItemPermalinkURL$" rather than "{$BlogItemArchiveFileName$}#{$BlogItemNumber$}"

This will mean you then have a separate page for each post, with URLs like this: helives.blogspot.com/2006/04/ blog_title_in_lower_case.html (example)

Check out this page on Blogger Help for more details.
John H | Homepage | 04.20.06 - 3:56 am | #

Having read a few more articles on your blog, I'm getting the impression that you're using a very different definition of ID from the rest of the world.

On 11 januari 2005 you claim that the statement "It is possible to believe in God and not believe in ID" is incorrect. I disagree completely. Every single ID proponent I've heard tries to claim that evolution is false, even though the vast majority of christians I know have no problem with evolution whatsoever. Your "cosmological ID" is a totaly different subject. It deals with questions like "why are the natural laws the way they are?", which is totally different (and much more reasonable - not too mention philosophical) from common (and easily refuted) ID claims like "evolution can't result in irreducible complexity" or demands that every creature that ever lived fossilised for evolution to be true.

I think it would be smarter for you to distance yourself from the ID movement than to try to redefine ID to something that you can agree with.
mcv | 04.20.06 - 10:06 am | #

mcv,

What I meant by that statement:

If you believe in God, then it follows that you believe God created the universe, if only, at a minimum, to set the initial conditions. Ergo He designed the universe.

If you do not believe that God designed the universe, then whatever or whoever you are pfrofessing belief in is not really God.

God, in my definition, implies sovereignty.
David Heddle | Homepage | 04.20.06 - 10:50 am | #

Ergo He designed the universe.

Trivially true, of course. The question is: can evidence of that design be discerned through scientific observation? That's the real point at issue between IDers and proponents of some form of "theistic evolution".

Which makes me wonder whether your version of ID might not be rather closer to theistic evolution than anything that the likes of Behe or Dempski might be about?

*runs away quickly*
John H | Homepage | 04.20.06 - 1:08 pm | #

Ergo He designed the universe.

Trivially true, of course. The question is: can evidence of that design be discerned through scientific observation? That's the real point at issue between IDers and proponents of some form of "theistic evolution".

Which makes me wonder whether your version of ID might not be rather closer to theistic evolution than anything that the likes of Behe or Dempski might be about?

*runs away quickly*
John H | Homepage | 04.20.06 - 1:08 pm | #

As a former diesel mechanic and current pretender to programming, I am not qualified to enter into this discussion. Nonetheless, I am a big fan of ID, with just a toe or two left in the YEC camp.

Your 3 points of disagreement with the ID camp are like a balm to my soul. Praise the Lord someone out there is willing to call a lie a lie. Trying to get ID into the schools is self-defeating on its face, and calling it non-religious is so absurd as to be embarassing.

I have tremendous respect for the science and philosophy that have gone into ID, but to characterize it as apologetic is just honest.

I wish I could contribute to ScienceAndGodBlog, but I would about kill your credibility. When it's live, I will subscribe and comment.
Kevin | Homepage | 04.21.06 - 12:51 pm | #

Which makes me wonder whether your version of ID might not be rather closer to theistic evolution than anything that the likes of Behe or Dempski might be about?

That's exactly my point. I think the American ID movement is corrupt, and they're abusing honest christians' faith to undermine science. To me, ID will always remain associated with that.


I do believe God created the universe, but I also believe he did so in a logical manner, and we can learn something by studying it. And one of the things we've learned is that evolution works and needs no guiding hand to create wonderfuly complex creatures. That guiding hand may still exist (I certainly believe it does), but from a scientific point of view, there's no need for it.
mcv | 04.22.06 - 3:16 am | #

David,

I find your comments on this subject refreshing for their honesty. I'm a Christian (don't think you and I would agree on many theological issues), and I'm also a biology grad student. I find it incredibly maddening that so much of what I see coming from the ID community is dishonest. By dishonest, I mean they claim they have a theory, they claim that evolutionary theory is in its death throes, many of them are highly suggestive of a conspiracy theory within science, etc.

I would suggest one thing to you... Yes, the Wedge Document is a tad boring, but it's not that long. You really owe it to yourself to read it, if you're view of the Discovery Institute is to withhold any judgement of their motivations.

When you read the wedge document, combined with the "evolutionary history" of the DI's name and banner, I think any reasonable person can conclude that they reach the pinnacle of dishonesty with what they say about ID, schools, and religion.

I long for the day when people who dislike Christians do so just because they disagree with our reasons for belief, not because we're a bunch of lying snakes.
Ocellated | Homepage | 04.25.06 - 9:25 am | #

A strange happenstance brought me to your blog today and I am thankful for it.

I agree with your view of ID completely and would be interested in your team blog idea. My own blog experience consists mostly of a personal journal, though I have posted frequently on the intersection of science and christian theology, including some posts on ID, and I and have been toying with the idea of 'going pro' in the blogophere for some time.

My science field is theoretical linguistics (I'm what you might call a Chomskyan syntactician) and I'm starting my first university faculty position in the fall. I'm an evangelical involved in the Vineyard church movement.

Shoot me an email.
harambee78 | 05.01.06 - 1:05 pm | #