|
Post by unkleE on Feb 19, 2011 6:31:53 GMT
I'm raising this topic again because it seems to keep coming up in other threads. Most of us here (including me) are not advocates of ID, but I am hoping this won't be a "bash the ID'ers" thread but a thoughtful discussion of what exactly we think is wrong with the ID movement and whether there are any significant variations in what people mean by intelligent design.
I have read only a little about ID, but my current view is based on separating science and faith issues. So for me:
1. I am not a scientist so I accept whatever science currently concludes about evolution, though I am sceptical around the edges, especially where metaphysical assumptions are sometimes disguised as science.
2. I believe God created, for a range of reasons I don't need to discuss here. I don't think evolution facts throw significant doubts on that belief. Therefore in that sense I believe there is an intelligent designer.
3. My problem with ID is that it seems to mix faith and science. Even if it was true that God 'interfered' to start life off or make evolution go a certain way, I don't see how science could ever detect that interference and know what it was; nor do I think it could distinguish 'interference' at the time from setting things up in the first place so they happened that way. So I can't see how ID can ever be science, even if it is right.
4. But I also cannot understand the incredibly nasty reaction some scientists have to ID. It does, after all (if I understand it rightly), accept the main tenets of evolution (old age of earth, gradual development of species, common ancestry, etc), just argues that some parts of the process are too complex to have occurred by natural processes. It seems to me to be evolution with added God-of-the-gaps, yet it is disparaged as 'creationism'.
Because of this guilt by association with young earth creationism, ID scientists are considered crazies, unfit for office, when that seems to me to be an over-the-top reaction to a view that I also consider mistaken but hardly crazy.
I have just been given a copy of Michael Behe's latest book by someone who no longer wants it, so perhaps I'll learn more from that. But what do other people think about all this? Please don't launch into a diatribe against ID or its critics, I am interested in understanding both, not demonising them.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Feb 19, 2011 15:31:32 GMT
Intelligent Design was invented by creationists so they could force US public schools to teach creationism. That is it in a nutshell. It is not science, but it does have the appearance of science to those who are not knowledgeable about science. That is the point that Numbers was making when he said fundamentalist Christians love science. The fundamentalists truly believe ID is authentic science, hence they love it. However they believe the science of evolution is not science, but that it is an evil precipitated by Satan.
Reading Behe is not going to get you the history of the ID movement. The court case is where it all becomes revealed as a smokescreen for creationism. While some ID proponents may agree with evolution to some extent, most of those who use the ID argument believe strictly in the young earth creationism as found in Genesis and use selected quotes from scientists that seem to support their views. I am particularly familiar with how the Jehovah's Witnesses do this. I can give examples if you are interested.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Feb 19, 2011 15:59:55 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean with "most of those who use the ID argument", but in any case ID is not a subgroup within YEC. Here's a piece from their site, a response to Jerry Coyne: www.discovery.org/a/2933So what do you exactly mean with the "ID argument"? Because ID is a specific movement alligned with the Discovery Institute.
|
|
|
Post by tertius on Feb 19, 2011 17:13:57 GMT
I'm new here but I see the same pattern that plagues every other "Christians in dialogue with atheists" forum.
First unkleE raies an interesting topic for discussion and specifically requests that commentators:
"Please don't launch into a diatribe against ID or its critics, I am interested in understanding both, not demonising them."
The first cab off the rank is a rabid conspiracy-theorising diatribe demonising ID- "Intelligent Design was invented by creationists so they could force US public schools to teach creationism."
Sheesh!
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Feb 19, 2011 17:18:21 GMT
Tertius - I agree, but remember that there are Christians (even on this forum) who behave in the same way. Also, please bear in mind James' post on forum conduct in the "Feedback, comments & questions" board.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Feb 19, 2011 19:01:00 GMT
Intelligent design was concocted by creationists to to give credibiltiy to their beliefs by making it appear to be scientific. Creationism = religion Intelligent Design = religion www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.htmlThis is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations.law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htmAfter a six-week trial, U. S. District Judge John E. Jones issued a 139-page findings of fact and decision in which he ruled that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional. Judge Jones's decision was surprisingly broad. He concluded that "ID is not science," but rather is a religious theory that had no place in the science classroom.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Feb 19, 2011 20:44:03 GMT
tertius wrote:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_designIntelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "creation science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state. The first significant published use of intelligent design was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement". They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 19, 2011 21:15:02 GMT
Reading Behe is not going to get you the history of the ID movement. I am aware, though not familiar, with the legal cases which are said to be the origins of the ID movement, but they don't interest me much unless they remain relevant to what is believed about intelligent design today. I think too we need to clarify definitions, as I think some words are used in several different ways: Creationism - can mean simply the belief that God created the whole system (something I imagine all believers would think) but can mean the teachings of young earth creationism that evolutionary science is wrong and Genesis is right. Intelligent design - again, can simply mean that God originated the process (a metaphysical rather than scientific belief), or can mean a whole set of beliefs relating to irreducible complexity, etc (which purport to be scientific). I think some of the court case quotes hover between meanings on "creationism", and so we need to be clear in drawing conclusions. Perhaps, instead of quoting about the court case, you could offer a view on what exactly you see as the problem with ID from a scientific rather than metaphysical viewpoint? Specifically, what scientific principles does someone like Michael Behe disregard? PS Remember, I do not believe in ID, I am simply trying to understand it, and to understand where the limits of freedom ought to be on scientists deviating from "orthodoxy".
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 19, 2011 21:22:58 GMT
That is an interesting piece. Some parts seem quite strong (some of the criticisms of the confidence evolutionary scientists have in the undoubted rightness of their conclusions) but other parts seem rather weak (lack of any means to demonstrate divine 'interference' rather than just claims; a somewhat carping tone). But I note they say Michael Behe accepts common ancestry but infer that others don't, which divergence may explain why there is some confusion about what IDers actually believe. I think part of the key to understanding ID is the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, and what conclusions can be drawn from each. I am still thinking ID is mistaken and its critics are right to criticise, but are sometimes too shrill and given to over-statement. But I'm interested in others' views.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Feb 20, 2011 4:21:50 GMT
UncleE wrote:From what I remember, he said there are living organisms that have multiple parts that cannot exist if any one of those parts are not present. His assumption is that all those parts had to have come together at the same time for that organism to exist. Even his own college faculty strongly disagrees with him: www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htmThe department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
|
|
|
Post by tertius on Feb 20, 2011 5:06:11 GMT
Assertions based on appeals to authority or consensus are destructive of free enquiry, innovation and freedom of expression. Historically so many "indisputable facts" of nature, of worldview and of science have crashed and burned one would think that we would desist from using the argument. Yet show trials, inquisitions, heretic burnings continue as before though in more subtle and Orwellian guise. Nothing to do with religious belief, everything to do with human nature.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 20, 2011 8:27:57 GMT
Even his own college faculty strongly disagrees with him So do you think that all departures from scientific orthodoxy should be disallowed, or only ones based on religion? If the latter, how would you propose to police that?
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Feb 20, 2011 13:06:17 GMT
UnkleE wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by 'disallow,' UnkleE. Scientists are allowed to do anything in the US as long as they don't violate ethics. The nice thing about science, though, is that it is self correcting.
What I disagree with is teaching junk science in tax funded public schools.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Feb 20, 2011 13:23:04 GMT
ignorantianescia wrote:
Sorry I was unclear. What I meant was that there are many conservative, fundamentalist, Christian denominations who use ID to prove that evolution is a product of the Devil. These people are very vocal in the US. I don't think there is anything like it in Europe, at least not on the scale that it is here. You can look at any creationist web site and there are many quotes from scientists who believe in ID. That's what I meant when I wrote this: most of those who use the ID argument believe strictly in the young earth creationism as found in Genesis and use selected quotes from scientists that seem to support their views. While not all proponents of ID are YEC, it appears that all YEC use the ID 'argument' to support their views. Either way, it's still religion supporting religion; it's not science supporting religion.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Feb 20, 2011 15:16:37 GMT
To my understanding, ID is a generally religious movement that asserts some biological features are too complex to have developed by methodological naturalism. The official institute of ID, the Discovery Institute, explicitly denies being a form of YEC.
I agree with you that ID is not science, though.
|
|