An atheist defends ID? Check the temperature in Hell!
University of Colorado Professor of Philosophy Bradley Monton has openly criticized the decision in the famous Dover case over Intelligent Design.
He has also argued that Intelligent Design is a valid form of philosophical and scientific inquiry that should be undertaken rather than dismissed.
He is also an Atheist.
Yes, you read that last sentence correctly!
Most people, familiar only with the sound-bytes and talking points of the debate believe that ID equals "Creationism" and only Fundamentalist Christians and those with a specific agenda support it.
For instance, philosopher Barbara Forest has stated the prevailing view succinctly:
In promoting “intelligent design theory”—a term that is essentially code for the religious belief in a supernatural creator—as a purported scientific alternative to evolutionary theory, the ID movement continues the decades-long attempt by creationists either to minimize the teaching of evolution or to gain equal time for yet another form of creationism in American public schools.
But Monton is actual living proof that this is simply not the case. A review of his book "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design" by Tom Gilson states the following:
A new book challenges those assumptions, arguing that ID actually is science, that it is not necessarily tied to belief in God, that it is distinct from creationism, that it is not primarily politically motivated, that it can be appropriate for inclusion in public school science curricula, and that it is not the basis of some deep theocratic conspiracy.
The book argues further that for those who are primarily concerned with the pursuit of truth, those cultural hot buttons are the wrong issues to worry about anyway. Intelligent design is a valid and genuine search for explanation, a quest for understanding, a pursuit of truth; and it is manifestly worthwhile for those reasons regardless of what social issues may be attached to it.
A book like this must have been written by one of the presumed anti-science religious ideologues against which Forrest was warning, probably one of the “creationists” at the Discovery Institute. Right?
It is certainly true that the author has been called a creationist. But he is not a Discovery Institute fellow; he is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. And he is an atheist.
Quoting Monton, Gilson continues:
“I’ve been told that the battle over intelligent design is like a war between two camps,” he writes, “but one of the purposes of this book is to transcend that.” Perhaps that sounds idealistic. An early reviewer warned him that if he tried to remain neutral on the “cultural war” represented by ID, he would necessarily “serve one side.” Monton responds, “my goal is simply to evaluate the arguments on both sides as objectively as I can. If this ends up serving one side more than the other, I don’t care; my goal is to do the best I can to get at the truth.”
It is hard to describe how refreshing that feels to an ID supporter such as myself. As a writer on science and faith issues, I find that when it comes to intelligent design, most of my energies are focused on getting opponents to see ID for what it is, not as they have misunderstood or distorted it in their own thinking. John G. West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, says, “Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the discussion over intelligent design is that it is hampered not just by ignorance, but also by serious misunderstandings about what the theory proposes and what its supporters want.”
Monton is willing to evaluate ID according to what its proponents actually affirm about it. He devotes most of a chapter to working through what the Discovery Institute genuinely means in its most basic statement of the theory. Unlike many others, he sees no reason to suppose--at least until proven otherwise—that ID proponents are mendacious conspirators. He argues effectively that opponents’ most frequently-stated dismissals of ID (“it’s purely religion,” for example, or “it isn’t science”) fail when subjected to thoughtful analysis.
One can only hope that Monton is not alone in approaching the ID-Darwinist debate from as objective a point of view as possible. The debate needs a lot more light and a lot less heat. Skeptics like Monton are a much needed example of such light.
Comments
Monton's opinion holds as much weight as William Dembski's. Two words for these "ID isn't Creationism" folks: "cdesign proponentsists"...keep trying to push "Of Pandas and People" and tell us it's not "creationism":
Before: "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
After: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
The ID dishonesty campaign continues. Why don't they try experimenting and testing this "Intelligent Designer" and show their results in a paper open to peer review. If an ID "scientist" doesn't want to, he/she is a coward. Even those opposed to human-caused climate change models still go through the process.
Even atheists are wrong sometimes.
I haven't read the book, but the idea that Intelligent Design *COULD* be scientific has long been recognized. The simple fact is that none of its proponents follow through with actual science, and it's always tied directly with metaphysical concepts of God which are developed a priori through religious instruction.
I suspect (judging merely from your quotations), this point has been lost on Mr Monton. Even a casual glance at any of the Intelligent Design literature shows it to be the case that ID is repackaged Christian apologetics coupled with nonsense pseudo-science and a touch of conspiracy theory.
If ID is a valid concept...the idea that a giant penguin exploded and created the universe could also be a valid concept, the idea that the universe was created from a giant sneeze from a supernatural being is just as 'valid'.
Is this guy a little hard up and after the Templeton Prize? After all the prize is a cool million pounds.
It is given to any scientist who says nice things about religion.
There was a joke that "If times ever get bad..." for Richard Dawkins it would be easy money to mutter lip service to the religious. :) I think he should for a week, get the money and then invest it in camp quest.
Evidence for the overtly religious nature of the Discovery Institute and ID from the introduction to their "Wedge" document:
"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built."
"Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism."
ID = Repackaged Creationism ... it's religion. Stop lying for Jesus.
It might be interesting to read Monton's thinking. Let's hope its not like Dembski. Aside from the Wedge Document is relatively recent discussion in which he persists in furthering the myth that science requires metaphysical naturalism rather the methodological. That's a show stopper right there.
Then there's the fact that with all the hoopla, nothing of any merit has come out of this "research".
"Unlike many others, he sees no reason to suppose--at least until proven otherwise—that ID proponents are mendacious conspirators."
Wedge Document = smoking gun.
I presume next in your series on freaks, you'll be featuring Gerardus Bouw, who holds degrees in astronomy and astrophysics, and who supports geocentrism.
from dictionary.com:
mendacious - telling lies, esp. habitually; dishonest; lying; untruthful: a mendacious person.
Most of the major proponents of ID have indeed been proven to be mendacious, including Wells, Behe, Dembski, and Meyer. If Monton is not well-informed in these matters, it is no fault of mine.
"Monton is willing to evaluate ID according to what its proponents actually affirm about it."
I am told that if one goes to a prison and interviews inmates, a majority of them will actually claim to be innocent. When given a choice between what "ID proponents affirm" and cold hard facts (such as the early manuscripts of Of Pandas And People with 'cdesign proponentsists'), I will go with the facts. That's what Judge Jones did when he tried Ktizmiller v. Dover Area School District. He even felt compelled to comment on the dishonesty of the defendants during the trial, during which several school board members contradicted their own testimony and perjured themselves on the stand.
Some quotes from Monton's article"
"...it’s a dangerous practice to try to impose rigid boundaries on what counts as science. "
"...scientists should be free to pursue hypotheses as they see fit, without being constrained by a particular philosophical account of what science is."
"...I have not given a definition of “supernatural”, I take it that the Christian God counts as supernatural. "
I guess it makes philosophy easier if you don't bother with the definitions of words....
There's lots of stupid atheists, this isnt news.
I've heard Monton a time or two on the "ID the Future" podcast. He's frustratingly vague; I can't imagine reading a whole book of his.
My take is that he thinks ID *could* be scientific, but he definitely doesn't think that any efforts thus far have been so. Which is basically what everyone else says. Let the DI thinkers actually do the math and science, publish it in actual journals, get it accepted by peers, then we can talk more.
ID is not a theory; it's not even a hypothesis. It's a vague outline of a direction that some think may someday produce a hypothesis. But the ID proponents have been declaring it a done deal, that the existence of God is proved, AND THEY WANT TO TEACH IT AS SCIENCE TO KIDS. They deserve to be fought. Do the science first, then we'll talk.
ID is not science. It is a philosophy about the implications of the observations science has made and draws conclusions about the origins of life. Evolution does not do this. Evolution is a widely accepted theory on how genetic diversity arose. An honest IDer has to accept evolution as the most logical theory we have regarding this subject. Then, he can say how this all could point to an existence of a "designer".
This is not to say that philosophy has no merit. However, when proponents of ID want their philosophy taught in science class they are simply wrong. For the same reason, Objectivism is not taught in Economics or Government classes.
Firstly in the forward to his book it states "Monton does not defend intelligent design as true-he thinks it is most likely false" Still ID not being scientific can never be proven false.
Monton is a professor of philosophy not science his interests include "philosophy of religion" so likely he is an atheist in name only. He has an opportunity to sell books to the Christian Right who just love a repentant atheist. At this stage ID is truly all about selling books.
Anyone who claims to be unaware of the evolutionary connection between creationism and Intelligent Design are either ignorant (the readers of these books) or dishonest (those who write pro ID books).
"Let the DI thinkers actually do the math and science, publish it in actual journals, get it accepted by peers, then we can talk more."
As a materialist and an atheist who supports a strong interpretation of the anthropic principle, this one always cracks me up. Might as well say...
'Let the DI thinkers actually do the math and science, and then submit it to a bunch of Copernicanism practicing liberal fanatics, and see what happens... lol
"Anyone who claims to be unaware of the evolutionary connection between creationism and Intelligent Design are either ignorant (the readers of these books) or dishonest (those who write pro ID books)."
And anyone who thinks that the motives of IDists mean diddly-squat to science is more interested in fighting culture war than they are about the integrity of science.
This guy almost made it:
"ID is not science. It is a philosophy about the implications of the observations science has made and draws conclusions about the origins of life. Evolution does not do this."
TILT... that bogus lie is commonly put forth by neodarwinians who most definitely are predisposed to willfully ignore, rationalize, and deny evidence that appears to indicate that we're not here by accident.
But Monton makes the same unfounded leap of faith that creationists do, because evidence that can and does often appear to indicate that we are not here by accident does not constitute evidence for intelligent intervention without something more that this because it is still more plausible that there is simply a law of nature that requires carbon based life for whatever physical reason might produce such a need.... period.
Find a very old alien spaceship that crashed on Venus with the blueprints for humans hanging on their drawing board... and then we'll talk.
Somethings a bit fishy about Island.
He writes "TILT... that bogus lie is commonly put forth by neodarwinians who most definitely are predisposed to willfully ignore, rationalize, and deny evidence that appears to indicate that we're not here by accident." and then "As a materialist and an atheist who supports a strong interpretation of the anthropic principle, this one always cracks me up. Might as well say..."
Doesn't seem too consistent. Aside from that both statements actually make little sense as written. No scientist is willfully ignoring "evidence that appears to indicate that we're not here by accident." There isn't any. What one assumes he means as evidence is that there are many things not yet understood (whether or not they will ever be is irrelevant to the logic).
Its sort of like saying that the murdered corpse whose killer is unknown is evidence for some particular criminal, God or an alien from outer space being the perpetrator.
Interestingly, the Monton article referenced in the review of his book, and supposedly a good representation of the ideas gives us a flavor of the strange sort of logic Monton employs. He argues that the question of ID being science is secondary to the question of it being "true", and questionning methodological naturualism in what I think is a fallacious way.
He contructs the, admittedly, highly unlikely fantasy of an event in which something representing itself as God demonstrates highly intelligent behavior which would suggest, not prove that it was derived from a deity. He poses this as an extreme example to illustrate that ignoring the possibility of its being supernatural is detrimental to ascertaining truth.
But it is it? After all, whatever it is, IS observable and hence not supernatural. What we'd then be examining is something in the natural i.e. observable domain. We might not understand it, but its not supernatural.
So what's his point?
Bla bla bla about how the commenter can't read and then...
"No scientist is willfully ignoring "evidence that appears to indicate that we're not here by accident."
No, that is a lie and scientists are historically recorded, (by atheist physicists), to do just that.
Look this up and educate yourself... if you can manage to comprehend it:
google knol anthropic principle richard ryals
Sarah, do you know whose work kick started the modern ID movement? Your comment about 'evolving' from Creationism betrays your ignorance on this issue, I believe. But please prove me wrong.
Al C,
Why do you assume that "supernatural" is by definition that which is not observable?? This is a false distinction. It doesn't really matter to the overall point of ID, because "supernatural" is not something that ID theory can detect. It can only detect whether design is in fact present. Period. If it is, then that opens a new area of inquiry that people are free to follow however they wish. But the objective reality of design in a system is what ID is concerned with. Everything else is cultural/political/religious baggage.
Island,
Your insight is appreciated in that you can see through much of the rhetoric that many on here seem encumbered by. We may disagree on conclusions, but it's nice to hear someone else call things as they are.
BTW, Dembski and a colleague just published a paper on ID in a peer reviewed journal.
www.evolutionnews.org/2009/08/new_peerreviewed_scientific_ar.html
Yeah, figured you bring up Dembski's "peer reviewed" paper. First off, the journal is “IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans”, not a Biology journal. Second, this is Dembski's critique is of a BASIC computer program Richard Dawkins wrote in the 80's differentiating between development with pure randomness versus development with the addition of selection. It's a simplistic program to be sure, yet Dembski doesn't seem to understand it and completely mischaracterizes it. And here we are in this blog where the author is disingenuously passing off this paper as genuine ID work on BIOLOGY, not a negative argument against a computer program from around 1986 in a non-Biology journal.
Incidentally, 1987 was the year of Edwards v. Aguillard where the Supreme Court ruled “creationism” to be unconstitutional. The “evolution” of creationism is clearly spelled out in the book “Of Pandas and People”, still being written at the time. Up until 1987, “creation”, “creationism” appeared throughout the text, but lo and behold! After 1987, it became “intelligent design”. The book was published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics stating in their articles of incorporation “The purposes for which the corporation is formed are, 1) the primary purpose is both religious and educational, which includes, but is not limited to, proclaiming, publishing, preaching, teaching, promoting, broadcasting, disseminating, and otherwise making known the Christian gospel and understanding of the Bible and the light it sheds on the academic and social issues of our day." James-Michael, address these concerns and stop letting ID lie for Jesus.
It might be interesting to read Monton's thinking. Let's hope its not like Dembski. Aside from the Wedge Document is relatively recent discussion in which he persists in furthering the myth that science requires metaphysical naturalism rather the methodological. That's a show stopper right there.
Then there's the fact that with all the hoopla, nothing of any merit has come out of this "research".
James-Michael writes:"Why do you assume that "supernatural" is by definition that which is not observable?? "
Assume? Its part of its definition:
"
Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \?sü-p?r-?na-ch?-r?l, -?nach-r?l\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)"
That which is natural is observable, whether directly or indirectly using extensions to our senses. Anything not "natural" is termed supernatural.
James-Michael writes:""It [ID theory] can only detect whether design is in fact present. Period. "
I don't think it, in fact, can. It certainly hasn't even come close.
The only way design can be detected is by connection to things we know are artifacts produced by sentient beings. Even Monton's silly hypothesis uses an elaborate fantasy of well known human artifacts.
In between tasks I have been reading Monton's article on the trial in which he outlines his thinking. I'm hugely unimpressed. It would seem to me a philosophy major in college could turn it very effectively into Swiss cheese. If his book becomes available at my local library I'll read it, but I wouldn't spend my money on thinking of this caliber.
Here's the dilemma. If something is observed which is similar to what we think of as a deity in intelligence and power, it would certainly be impressive. But it wouldn't meet the definition of a deity because it was observed i.e. not supernatural.
James-Michael Smith: "Sarah, do you know whose work kick started the modern ID movement?"
I'll take this one. It was the words of the U.S. Supreme Court in their Edwards v. Aguillard decision. That is what prompted the authors and editors of 'Of Pandas And People' to cut-and-paste replace "creationism" with "intelligent design" in their manuscripts.
"BTW, Dembski and a colleague just published a paper on ID in a peer reviewed journal."
Wee-ha. Congrats. I hear tell that the paper does not support Intelligent Design. I also hear that it is not particularly impressive. Here's a review of it:
scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/08/quick_critique_dembski_and_mar.php
"As for intelligent design? There's really nothing in this paper about it. I'm Dembski will run around bragging about how he got an ID paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. But arguing that this is an ID paper is really dishonest, because all ID-related content was stripped out. In other places, Dembski has used these quantification-based arguments to claim that evolution can't possible work. But this paper contains none of that. It's just a fairly drab paper about how to quantify the amount of information in a search algorithm."
James-Michael Smith: "because "supernatural" is not something that ID theory can detect."
What "ID theory" is that? Paul Nelson said:
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" - but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
Michael Behe claims that ID qualifies as a "theory" f one uses his relaxed definition of "theory" under which even astrology qualifies as a scientific theory.
George Gilder, co-founder of the DI, says ID "has no content."
Reginald,
Modern ID began with agnostic Michael Denton's book "Evolution: A theory in crisis", long before "Pandas and people" came on the scene. Most people seem to only know ID from the Dover case, unfortunately. For a full account of modern ID theory's development check out Thomas Woodward's "Doubts about Darwin"
As for supernatural not being observable, that's simply not true. Supernatural events have been observed, or claimed to be observed, throughout human history. Whatever the merits of these claims, the idea that something supernatural is by definition unobservable is wrong.
Didn't Michael Denton modify his views of Intelligent Design with "Nature's Destiny"?: "According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt." I notice Denton has nothing to do with the Discovery Institute any more.
There are plenty of experiments that a scientist (such as Michael Behe or someone at the Biologic Institute) could do in order to define and test the ID proposal (notice I didn't call it a theory). I say "go for it." I'd like to see graphs of all the things that ("micro")Evolution is able to accomplish and what Intelligent Design then has to pick-up and run with.
ID is only a lazy philosopy. What pocket watch, DC-10, or Mount Rushmore is merely "designed" by a "designer." They are concieved of and constructed, manufactured using knowlege, tools, materials that were, for the most part, developed over time with no intention towards creating the specific watch or DC-10. It's not as if people set out to discover and manipulate metal (to give just one example) so that they or posterity could one day make watches and DC-10's. "Design" = Create = "poof" Magic. Nothing has come about this way. But I'm still all for actual scientific investigation. Please, do it and shut up.
James-Michael Smith: "Modern ID began with agnostic Michael Denton's book "Evolution: A theory in crisis""
I've read that book. It is bad. It is shoddy. It is mendacious.
Michael N.: "Didn't Michael Denton modify his views of Intelligent Design with "Nature's Destiny"?:"
So I've heard, but I haven't read that one. When an author writes a book that sucks as badly as Evolution: ATIC, I do not feel compelled to continue reading his work.
Oddly enough, I just checked the index of my copy of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis." The term "Intelligent Design" does not appear there. Neither does the word "design."
However I have read a book from 1908 which uses the terms "Intelligent Design" and "Intelligent Designer." I think you may be mistaken about when this movement started.
James Michael writes:"As for supernatural not being observable, that's simply not true. Supernatural events have been observed, or claimed to be observed, throughout human history."
Events which were unexplained at the time and then ascribed to the supernatural (something unobservable) have occurred. That doesn't mean that the supernatural was observed. Lightning flashes are observed. If I don't understand them I call them bolts from an deity.
"Whatever the merits of these claims, the idea that something supernatural is by definition unobservable is wrong."
How you can come to that conclusion. Its not an empirical question;its a matter of definition.
We know that we observe things. Those are called natural. There may well exist phenomena which we can't observe. What those are, or what there properties might be, we can't say because we can't observe them. What is called supernatural is the supposition of such things along with supposed properties.
An atheist said he liked ID? Wait, an educated atheist likes ID?
Well then, clearly ID is now a reasonable philosophy and should be given all of the classroom time as other science. It's sciene now, right? I mean, an athiest says it is... so it must be... right?
Wrong. ID, like creationism, is shot down time and again because it is not science. It will continue on this path until it can be clearly demonstrated that it meets the criteria that all other scientific theories must meet. Best of luck :)
"How you can come to that conclusion. Its not an empirical question;its a matter of definition."
I almost shot Dr Pepper out of my nose when I read that. Well said. There is no confusion about what super-natural means but those who propose that the super-natural is natural. It's not natural... it's super... natural. Dictionary ftw.
Hey puppet, who's said anything about teaching anything in schools? If you've read my other articles and responses you'll know that I don't think ID belongs in classrooms until it's had time to develop into a full-fledged discipline. That may or may not happen, of course, but only then should it be given "equal time" or anything like that.
And as for dictionary ftw...
Al, reread the definition you posted for supernatural. Particularly the "of or related to" part. The "order of existence" is what is said to be beyond observation. Events arising from that order are not by necessity unobservable. The invisible can affect the world in a visible observable way...indeed, almost every religion in world history acknowledges this as a simple basic truth.
"Al, reread the definition you posted for supernatural. Particularly the "of or related to" part. The "order of existence" is what is said to be beyond observation."
If its of an order of existence beyond observation, it can't be observed.
"Events arising from that order are not by necessity unobservable." Which is what, I suppose is meant by related to.
The assertion that anything arises out of, or is related to the unobservable is sheer speculation because no connection can be established.
"The invisible can affect the world in a visible observable way."
Invisible? Yes. Gravity is invisible but we can observe its affects in a reliable testable way, and build a testable model, with prediction of results based on it.
Unobservable? How would we know? Events occur. Their connection to the unobservable is a guess.
"almost every religion in world history acknowledges this as a simple basic truth." Which is why all are simply, basically unfounded. (continued)
None of the confusion introduced by the phrase "related to" changes the essential definition. If I say X is supernatural it implies that x is not observable, whether or not y which is said to be related to X whether causally or otherwise, is observable.
pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/08/a-peer-reviewed.html
By Joe Felsenstein
"A peer-reviewed article that supports ID … or something else
William Dembski and Robert Marks have published what Dembski describes as a “peer-reviewed pro-ID article”.
..."
I would argue that his being an atheist who supports ID does not lend credibility to ID, because he does not take an evidence-based approach to reasoning. Just as many Christians are only believers for emotional reasons, a sizable minority of atheists are unbelievers for emotional reasons.
This particular "atheist" is a philosopher and not a skeptic or scientist, and he clearly does not understand the scientific method. In one of his articles he quotes Larry Lauden this way:
"If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like “pseudo-science” and “unscientific” from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us." He goes on to trash the Dover ruling, which was proved that Intelligent Design is and has always been Evangelical Christian creationism.
Monton has hit upon an excellent money-making opportunity, and I imagine he will have many unscrupulous imitators.
What's interesting is WHY he trashed the Dover ruling. The ruling had the right outcome (ID isn't ready to be taught in schools) for all the wrong reasons (the fallacy that ID is "creationism" or "religious"). As a philosopher, Monton is dead-on in his critique of the poor arguments and hollow rhetoric used by most ID opponents as well as the dishonest association of it in total with Creationism. Anyone who reads actual core ID theory can immediately see that while it is compatible with religion, it is essentially a non-religious claim that is only controversial when applied to the biological realm.
John-Michael, I don't understand how you can dismiss the argument that ID is nothing more than creationism. From the court records regarding the main book about creationism...er...intelligent design:
"(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts (of Pandas) is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas."
Yeah, I know. I called you John-Michael again. I'm not sure why I have a mental glitch about that. My apologies, sincerely.
Portland, no worries, I've been called far worse. :)
You said: "From the court records regarding *the main book* about creationism...er...intelligent design..."
That's my whole point in discussing the Dover decision with ID opponents..."Of Pandas and People" IS NOT 'the main book' about ID. There's no one "main book." Behe represents an ID proponent...but interestingly enough, one who accepts Common Descent of all biological life. But his work is primarily a critique of current Neo-Darwinian theory rather than a positive presentation of ID. "Intelligent Design" has come to mean something entirely different in most people's minds than what it actually consists of. And what it actually consists of is the very modest claim that design is a detectable feature and reliable indicator of an intelligent agent--whether in cryptography, SETI research, Forensics, Archeology or (and this is where the controversy lay!) biology.
Also, Portland, for a comparison of Creationism with actual ID, see Dembski's chapter on the subject in "The Design Revolution."
James-Michael,
The problem with ID is not that religious people are saying there is an intelligent designer. The problem is that, by definition, a supernatural intervention in the affairs of the universe can not be science, which concerns itself only with natural laws. The minute any unanswered question is answered with "a god did it," you've stepped away from evidence-based reasoning into faith-based reasoning. In that way, ID is in the same category as creationism, even if there are minor differences in the faith-based approach.
For ID to be science, it would have to explain what natural laws a god used to do its work, and there would have to be a way of disproving the theory. In other words, a theory isn't a theory until you can say how you would know if it *wasn't* true. ID does not come close to that standard.
When Morton says that we have to quit distinguishing between science and pseudo-science, he reveals himself to have no understanding of science at all.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!