We Aren't at War

Another thing that struck me in that NOVA program "Judgment Day" was how sure the people opposed to teaching Intelligent Design were that ID was a covert way of introducing religion into public schools.  Here are some of the comments made:

ID is religion in disguise

ID is really an attempt to "rechristianize America"

Dover case:  On trial - separation of church and state and the nature of scientific inquiry

Now, I know many of the people at the center of the ID movement.  Greg has interviewed a number of them on the radio.  We're very familiar with their ideas and objectives.  I have no idea what the goals of the Dover school board was, but I know for those in the ID movement there is no desire to introduce religion in public schools.  There's no desire to win some contest.  There's simply a desire for open inquiry, discussion, and thought for a rival theory they believe has merit.  The goal is to break the grip evolution and naturalism have on science and public schools, but by introducing more ideas, not imposing another paradigm as evolution is imposed. 

So why are so many convinced their true goals are covert and hidden?  I think it's because we are too inclined to approach disagreements like this as a battle in the "culture war."  We have a tendency to see those who disagree as the enemy.  And when someone is an enemy in a war, it's easier to think ill of them and presume nefarious motives.   Thinking in terms of culture wars is probably counterproductive most of the time.  It's possible to disagree - strongly - without being at war.

I cringe when I hear Christians turn people into enemies, presuming the worst, taking the worst interpretation.  And I fear I've done it myself.  The New Testament does use warfare as an analogy in some passage and spiritual warfare is real, but I don't think Paul's point is that we are to be in an adversarial posture with those we disagree.  I think especially Christian ambassadors would be wise to guard our hearts and minds from thinking in terms of culture wars.  The people we're trying to reach, trying to engage, trying to persuade are not our enemies.

Comments

[Louis Kuhelj]

I think that there is some truth in the culture wars assessment, but it may go deeper than that. There is a fear deep down that ID might be true. If true, this brings in the possibility of the Christian God being the intelligence behind ID and all the moral accountability of that implication, the weight of responsibility of one's immoral and unethical behavior, is too much for the folks who oppose ID to accept. I think it is simply the part of rebellion against God. That rebellion is more important to some than following the evidence wherever it may lead.

[Steve]

You're right, it is easy to see disagreements and misunderstandings as a "culture war" and the people on the other side as your enemy. So I'll try a bit of reaching, engaging and persuading myself. This ID movement is heartbreaking, the people involved have very noble intentions but don't realize the damage it would do. Michael Behe himself admitted in court that redefining science to include a theory like intelligent design would also open the door to ideas like astrology. Is that what you want? Good, sound science is determined by repeated experimentation, observable evidence and peer review, not court cases. If the Discovery Institute spent more time and effort on their research perhaps they would find something that would persuade the scientific community, which would then lead to a more valid change of curriculum.

The root of the problem is something I've seen at this site over and over. You have to draw a line between reason and faith. Why are you so afraid to admit the role that faith plays in your beliefs? Isn't faith a beautiful thing? A gift from God? Instead of only picking your favorite part of what I've said to respond to, please at least respond to this: What does faith mean to you?

[Scott K]

There already is religion in the schools (the name of the religion is secular humanism) and its adherents are fanatics (in the technical sense of the term - they won't listen to opposing views).

If Intelligent Design is true, then one of the pillars of secular humanism (that humans are the apex of the material world) falls down. Being fanatics, they cannot allow the possibility that they are wrong - so they cannot engage in honest debate.

My $.02

[Scott K]

As I understand it, the scientific method includes observing, creating hypotheses that explain the observation, and creating repeatable experiments that test those hypotheses. The problem is that secular humanists want to reject the hypotheses out-of-hand. Of course, the other problem is that Christians tend to reject the hypotheses of secular humanists out-of-hand as well. The difficulty of setting up and running a repeatable experiment that tends to prove either position adds fuel to the fire of controversy.

Faith is (for both Christians and Secular Humanists, I think) the belief that ones axioms are true beyond the need of proof.

[alan aronson]

"There's simply a desire for open inquiry, discussion, and thought for a rival theory they believe has merit."

This persistent refusal to understand what the term "theory" means in the scientific world as opposed to its everyday usage is part of the problem. ID is not a "rival theory", its an "idea" that has yet to advance to the testable hypothesis phase.

"If true, this brings in the possibility of the Christian God being the intelligence behind ID and all the moral accountability of that implication, the weight of responsibility of one's immoral and unethical behavior, is too much for the folks who oppose ID to accept."

"but I know for those in the ID movement there is no desire to introduce religion in public schools."

Part of the problem is that every time the later assertion is made, we get an indication from someone like our friend Louis that the passion driving ID is perhaps religious after all.

We have a logical problem here. Either a designer was an alien from elsewhere in the universe or, and certainly within the context of our culture, He was the Creator God of Christianity.

We also have the question of why would folks who have devoted their lives to Christian witness (or the teaching of the law) get so involved in a matter that, absent the perceived religious implications, is a matter for folks with PhDs in the sciences?

[Steve]

"Faith is the belief that ones axioms are true beyond the need of proof."

So, is that a good thing or a bad thing? An axiom is something that is not proved or demonstrated and is considered as self-evident or as an initial necessary consensus for a theory. So axioms by definition require faith. All you've done is make a fairly redundant and neutral statement. I didn't ask for a dictionary definition of what it means, I asked what it means to YOU. Is it important? Is it a part of your life? Or has it become a word you avoid because you think everything can and should be proven by reason?

[Scott K]

I am by training and inclination a mathematician. Axioms are essential to mathematics. We cannot proceed without some axioms to define our basic mathematical system. Faith is essential to humans. We cannot hold a world view, philosophy, (whatever you want to call it) without accepting some unprovable(s) as true.

The trick is accepting a set of axioms that create a (mathematical or philosophical) system that does a good job of explaining and predicting observable reality.

Now my basic axiom is the existence of an intelligent designer. I call him "God". My understanding is that persons who hold the world view that I call secular humanism have as one of their basic axioms the non-existence of intelligence beyond or before human intelligence.

Each basic axiom produces its own system: Intelligent Design from the one and Secular Humanism from the other.

So the direct answer to you specific question is that faith (the basic axioms from which I develop my world view) is important to me. I believe that faith (the basic axioms from which you develop your world view) is important to you as well.

I use the word axiom to avoid the connotations of the word faith.

I put forth the argument this way because my experience is that secular humanists claim that they have no axioms - but I believe that they really do.

Let me reiterate what I believe is the central concept: The important thing is to accept a set of basic axioms that produce a system that does a good job of explaining and predicting observable phenomena (reality).

IMHO this is where the discussion should take place - which system does the best job of explaining and predicting reality? I submit that I.D. is the superior system (by this test).

[Mark]

Aristotle made a perfectly compelling set of arguments for God as Supreme Being without religious motivation (thousands of years before Christ). Likewise, the philosopher Anthony Flew (not a Christian), formerly the preeminent voice of atheism, has reached the same conclusion about God and creation based upon the immense complexity and intelligence of DNA.

Were one were to assert, while beholding the many masterpieces at the Louvre, that one of these pieces were without authorship, he would be thought to be a madman. How much more absurd is it to think that the created order is without authorship?

[Patrick]

Alan,
please offer something by way of a testable hypothesis for speciation via natural selection. In other words, how can one test descent with modification? Or perhaps, present evidence of a testable hypothesis to evince of order arising from chaos.

You also wrote:"We also have the question of why would folks who have devoted their lives to Christian witness (or the teaching of the law) get so involved in a matter that, absent the perceived religious implications, is a matter for folks with PhDs in the sciences?"

What difference does it make? WE leave decisions about that to judges that have no expertise in science. People that dig in where you do keep deflecting the important questions that the evidence raises, and then only choosing those to answer that presuppose naturalism, a philosophical commitment that lacks empirical support.

[Jon]

For me the problem is that ID'ers are demanding that non-science be entered into a science classroom. Why would you want to do this? Could it be that you want a non-scientific book (the Bible) to drive the science of biology? If that's not the reason, then what is the reason?

Science is a specific thing. Science is about testability, repeatability, etc. Evolution is science because evolution makes predictions and is testable. In answer to your question, Alan, evolution predicts that monkeys, orangutans, chimps, and gorillas would have some of the same pseudo genes that humans have. And so it is. For instance almost all mammals have the ability to manufacture their own Vitamin C. Turns out humans can't. Evolution predicts that it is quite likely that other primates have a similar pseudo gene and similarly can't manufacture there own Vitamin C. And so it is. Evolution predicts that one human chromosome must consist of 2 centromeres and 3 telomeres, unlike the typical 1 centomere and 2 telomeres, as discussed in the Nova program. And so it is. Evolution predicts that in the past there must have been animals that spanned transitions from fish to mammal or from dinsaur to bird. And in fact we have found such things in the fossil record. Evolution predicts that certain animals must be found only in certain locations. And so it is. Certain viruses leave markers in your genetic code such that all of your progeny will carry markers of those viruses in the gene code. And so it is that those markers trace back life development that accords with the evolutionary paradigm.

What predictions does ID make such that if the facts don't support these predictions ID is falsified? None that I know of. I would think that if ID were true we wouldn't expect to see that the vast majority of species have gone extinct. In fact that is exactly what has happened, and makes perfect sense for the evolutionist, but suggests incompetence on the part of the designer. We wouldn't expect to see organs that are superfluous, like the remains of feet on whales or an organ like an appendix. We do see these things. So I'm sure ID'ers won't count these as tests. What are your tests? If you have none, you aren't doing science. ID doesn't belong in the science classroom until it is testable and makes predictions that could render it falsified. I think even Hugh Ross understands this point.

[Jon]

Above I had said "Alan" when I meant "Patrick."

[Mark]

alan,

I think the more relevant question is why someone who reliably and consistently chimes in with a materialist/secularist perspective bothers with a Christian apologist blog? Don't you have friends to play with?

[Steve]

"IMHO this is where the discussion should take place - which system does the best job of explaining and predicting reality? I submit that I.D. is the superior system (by this test)."

I submit that you are quite mistaken. Before ID can do any explaining and predicting of reality it needs to get its own story strait. Irreducible complexity and the fine-tuned universe are at best beliefs (axioms if you prefer) not evidence. Science is not concerned with new axioms, that is the realm of philosophy and religion.

"Were one were to assert, while beholding the many masterpieces at the Louvre, that one of these pieces were without authorship, he would be thought to be a madman. How much more absurd is it to think that the created order is without authorship?"

You're really beating a dead horse you know. I think everyone on both sides of the argument should be tired of metaphors like this by now. Like I said in my reply to Melinda's version of this metaphor, if the geologist is foolish for only seeing a rock where there is really a designed artifact, isn't the anthropologist equally foolish for seeing a designed artifact where there is only a rock?

Science is a system of gathering and assessing information based on evidence and experimentation, there is no place in it for new axioms based on religion. Advocating that these new axioms be taught as sound and tested science to children, and avoiding the proper channels of research and peer review by taking the matter to court is totally irresponsible. Trying to deny the connection between religion and intelligent design is simply childish, their wedge strategy specifically describes their religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Again, you have to draw a line between reason and faith. There are plenty of Christians who believe both in God and in evolution, they are not exclusive beliefs. Evolution does not say there is no god, but if there is a God, he probably used evolution to make us, not clay and a rib. That's where the real trouble is, not a belief in God, a belief in a literal interpretation of an ancient story written by men who just didn't know any better.

[Mark]

Jon,

I would contend that ID is metaphysics and not part of the natural sciences per se. That does not mean that it is irrational or non-scientific, but is not "measurable" in the same way as the natural sciences. Metaphysics is the science of first principles, of immaterial and transcendental being, and of being as being.

Materialism, of course, objects to the claim of metaphysics to be a science of the immaterial but it forgets that the assertion, "Nothing exists except matter" is itself a statement of ultimate reality or metaphysics.

ID does not propose to interject God into the equation of natural causes (like the Leprechaun referred to on another post). As Supreme Being, God is not eqivocal with any being of our experience, nor is he in competition with creation.

[Scott K]

OK, let's cut the metaphors & discuss exactly what they are metaphors of - the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & the law of conservation of energy. Both of these have been accepted facts of science for more than 150 years. I wasn't there, but I understand that Clausius pretty well proved it from a mathematical perspective in the 1850s.

BTW - I.D. is a system that works very well - mathematically, chemically, physically, and philosophically - with these laws. Put another way, these are some of the the predictions that I.D. makes that are subject to repeatable, empirical & mathematical verification.

Add in that the concept of evolution is pretty much a complete negation of the 2nd law, and thus requires that energy be added from some outside source (a problem w/ conservation of energy) and it seems to me that evolutionists (one of the forms of secular humanists) need to get their story straight.

The point I am making here is the same one that I attempted to make in my previous post: whichever stance is taken requires the acceptance of an unproven starting point - an axiom (or set of axioms), i.e. - faith.

Irreducible complexity may not be evidence. But examples of irreducible complexity are evidence. A fine tuned universe may not be evidence, but specific examples of it are evidence.

One might just as well say that the problem is a belief in a literal interpretation of an old story written by a man (Charles Darwin) who just didn't know any better.

My statement and yours (Steve) are equally reasonable on their respective faces. What makes one statement reasonable and the other nonsense is the pre-suppositions (the axioms, the faith) that one brings to the table.

My biggest beef in discussing science and philosophy with secular humanists / evolutionists is their refusal to admit that their system requires unprovable axioms - requires faith (if you prefer the term). And right up there with that beef is the one where they claim a superiority of their system because (they say) it does not rest on unprovable axioms.

[Scott K]

What is much more important is that my daughter has a basketball game this afternoon & so I have to leave this discussion.

Have fun (I will)!

[Patrick]

Jon wrote:

Evolution predicts that in the past there must have been animals that spanned transitions from fish to mammal or from dinsaur to bird. And in fact we have found such things in the fossil record. "

That is simply false. I hope you are not relying on the dreaded Archaeopteryx , as that has been determined to be not accurate at all.

"Evolution predicts that certain animals must be found only in certain locations. And so it is. Certain viruses leave markers in your genetic code such that all of your progeny will carry markers of those viruses in the gene code. And so it is that those markers trace back life development that accords with the evolutionary paradigm."

None of those things you mention are problematic to me, neither do they make the case for the mechanism needed to make Darwinian evolution (macro-evolution). Just because evolutionists use the tools of science, does not mean science is evolutionist. Evolution does not predict anything by the way. You are equivocating on the terminology. Nobody that I know in he ID movement has an issue with adaptation within species. But as I have mentioned, there are no transitional fossils that point to Darwinian speciation. Certain fossils have been found that people insist, due to morphological features, must be. However, that is merely observational and meets some simple criteria that is not scientific,i.e., if it looks like it might have been, it therefore is.

Indeed, Darwinian evolution is anti scientific in its philosophical claims which are thrust on the students. It violates its own tenets.

Neither have I pressed for ID in the classroom yet. I much prefer to teach the truth about evolution - that it has serious weaknesses in its explanation of the available data. It simply cannot account foe the Cambrian Explosion, for example. And again, it has no example of transitional species. Indeed, the way that speciation would have to happen, one would have to find perhaps 100 intermediate fossils between a certain fossil and another fossil, for it is not one genetic change that effects everything, but several, including in some cases, irreducible complexity, something that even Darwin admitted would destroy his hypothesis.

ID predicts that order does not emerge form Chaos. ID predicts that specified complexity will can only be explained by an intelligent agent, and we have all the data needed to support that, inasmuch as there is no other explanation known other than intelligent agency in such instances.

I do not accept your two options in your opening sentence either. The way that we discover and proceed with discovery has massive ramifications. If we assume macro-evolution even after demonstrating using the same tools of science that it does not explain the data, then what damage might we do to important discovery by remaining addicted to an insufficient paradigm, one that has had serious challenges to its claims.

I have no intention teaching science from the bible, for I believe the bible does not teach the how of creation, only the "that" of creation. And much of the cosmological, biological and paleontological evidence support the scientific claims of ID.

With all due respect, you demonstrate a considerable ignorance of ID. I suggest you read some primer material on it and not let your philosophical pre-commitments drive your examination of the evidence.

[Mark]

Steve said,

"I think everyone on both sides of the argument should be tired of metaphors like this by now."

Remember that God is not a being like any other being in our experience, so we are really limited to analogy in our language about God. Even when we say God is "good", "true", "beautiful" - our words fall pitifully short. Anthony Flew said that the intelligence and complexity of DNA is so overwhelming that it would require dozens of computers working for hundreds of years to arrive at a mere portion of the code. You may find this sort of metaphor tiresome but really, isn't it all we have?

[Steve]

Thank you Scott, you're absolutely right, except for the part about evolution negating the 2nd law of thermo dynamics, but I'd rather not argue about that, you can research that on your own. It is a matter of axioms, a matter of faith. This is why I prefer to call myself an agnostic, not an atheist. Who knows which axioms are true? No one does, that's why they're called axioms. But not all axioms are equal. The axioms that science is founded on, that the world we know through our senses is real and we can learn more about it through the proper use of our senses, are axioms that anyone would agree with.

The ID movement did not start with observation and evidence, they started with the Bible, then went about looking for evidence to support it. The unavoidable result is a system that falls apart when you look at the bigger picture.

Everyone wants to know where we came from and what our purpose is, it's a universal quality of human experience. You find your peace in religion, I find mine in letting go of the "teddy bear" of certainty and embracing the fact that the universe is a mysterious place that we still do not fully understand. Science is best path we have for finding the answers, religion is often more of a road block.

[Steve]

And thank you Mark, if there is a god you are absolutely right, he is not a being like any other being in our experience. Unless you've had a personal spiritual experience (as the majority of Mormons will tell you) you have to admit that you rely on faith.

[John Willis]

Steve wrote:

"Everyone wants to know where we came from and what our purpose is, it's a universal quality of human experience."

Steve -

In your opinion, which view of origins lends itself to a philosophical system that best supports your claim about this universal quality of human experience?

1. Macro-evolutionary theory (and naturalism)

or

2. ID (and some form of monotheism)?

Thanks,
John

[Mark]

Steve,

I think that Revelation is a very helpful guide to understanding the relation between God and creation. Otherwise, we would progress towards truth much more slowly and with a greater likelihood of error (for example materialism). Nevertheless, philosophy shows that we can infer the existence of God as the 1st Cause of Being by reflecting upon our experience of nature. "Personal spiritual experience" as you call it, is not strictly necessary but can be extremely helpful.

Best,

Mark

[John Willis]

Steve wrote:

"The ID movement did not start with observation and evidence, they started with the Bible, then went about looking for evidence to support it."

Steve - This is a rather popular (false) claim parroted by the followers of the religion of Darwinism. As you have pleaded "agnosticism" and claim to not have a "dog in this fight" so to speak I have a few questions for you.

1. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
2. And if you don't - why did you accept this claim as true?.....without researching it?

Consider that your starting axiom regarding the question of origins is - "no one knows, because the answer is unknowable." I'm interested in your answer, because reading this thread and others it sure does sound like you're claiming knowledge regarding the origins question.

Thanks,
John

[Jon]

Mark, I guess we agree that ID is not science in the sense of being observable, testable, repeatable, predictable, etc. I'm not claiming that "nothing exists except material." I'm saying that immaterial/supernatural claims do not fall under the scientific purview, and hence they don't belong in a science classroom. It may be true that God exists and God's design is responsible for certain aspects of life, but this isn't science, so it shouldn't be in a biology classroom.

[Kevin W]

Steve wrote:

>>”Like I said in my reply to Melinda's version of this metaphor, if the geologist is foolish for only seeing a rock where there is really a designed artifact, isn't the anthropologist equally foolish for seeing a designed artifact where there is only a rock?”

Actually, under your belief system you would have to say; “Isn’t the anthropologist equally foolish for seeing a rock when there is ONLY a designed artifact. Also, under your belief system it would be “surprisingly a rock” if there was even a rock at all.

But here’s the rub Steve; what if that rock has intricate carvings of nude women in it?

Isn’t a person equally as foolish for looking at a complex machine like, say an eyeball, and seeing only an eyeball – or worse...only a rock?

I guess not.

[Steve]

"In your opinion, which view of origins lends itself to a philosophical system that best supports your claim about this universal quality of human experience?"

I don't really need a philosophical system to support my claim, I think it's pretty self evident that people all over the world want an answer to these questions. But I see your point, ID supports my claim better than evolution and materialism do. There is a spiritual aspect of human nature that science has only scratched the surface of with psychology and neuroscience. The fact that we have a desire for things spiritual does not make those things true.

"philosophy shows that we can infer the existence of God as the 1st Cause of Being by reflecting upon our experience of nature."

We can infer that if the laws of cause and effect that we observe were in place at the beginning of the universe there must have been a first cause, yes. But you cannot infer that this first cause was a being of intelligence who talked to the Israelites as Jehova and came to earth as Jesus. That requires faith.

[Amy]

Jon, you said:

>>I'm saying that immaterial/supernatural claims do not fall under the scientific purview, and hence they don't belong in a science classroom.

Yes, but as you said before:

"You are within your rights as a scientist to look at things and determine if they are designed by an intelligent agent. But as a scientist you cannot take the next step and posit God."

and also:

"I don't see ID as legitimate in the sense that I think ID has been proven, but I do regard it as legitimate in the sense that it is a hypothesis that can be examined from a scientific standpoint and proven true in theory. "

ID scientists do not posit God with their science (even if they personally believe in God); they posit design by an intelligent agent, and this is something science can address, as we discussed in the earlier post, and you agreed to. See here for the ID scientists' explanation of why they don't posit God:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/
principled_not_rhetorical_reas.html

[Patrick]

Jon
how is it that ID is not observable, testable, repeatable, predictable, etc? How do you know that ID is not observable? Ever watch CSI? That program assumes agency, indeed, forensics assumes agency and seeks to find out "who dunnit". Agency is certainly observable. It is repeatable also. Every time a CSI comes across a crime scene, he or she assumes it happened somehow. They may rule out say a ransom rock falling on someone, etc., but they assume agency whenever they see signs indicating the same. They can also predict to some extent what will happen next. In fact there was one episode where the criminal interfered with the normal process of fly infestation in a dead animal. The detective predicted based on the fact that only such an agent could interfere. In fact, it saved the case and sent away the criminal.

That is how ID works. It rules, by observing the evidence and using the tools of science, the random and unspecified, and acknowledges and identifies the information rich molecular systems, and the cosmic fine tuning that has heretofore unobserved in the physical record. We have no examples of that kind of order etc arising from chance, and plenty arising from intelligent tinkering. Neither would the design have to be perfect to be design, in anticipation of your objection. It could be inadequate design, or over designed or even underdesigned in a sense. We do not rule out the fact that Mom made breakfast because the toast was burnt or the bacon to raw.

So I just do not find your objections compelling. You seem to be stuck on teaching religion, and no person in the ID movement is suggesting that at all. It remains unfair to assign motive. Shall I insist that you only want to exclude design because you prefer to add a story to the gaps of evolution, a story that does not proceed from the evidence?

Finally, as I mentioned before, if the truth of origins is not known, then we may miss out on important discoveries that depend on our recognizing that agency was involved. Likewise, if we assume agency and it is not so, then we also may get off the path of future discovery.

I hope you will more carefully consider and understand the modest goals of ID. I am not even a scientist, but find the science fascinating.

[Jon]

Patrick,

Actually, archaeopteryx is one of the species I was thinking of. Why isn't that a good example of a transitional form?

When I was a Christian I remember hearing a Creationist explain it this way. A dinosaur was fossilized, and somehow the rock softened and a bird fell dead directly over the top of the dinosaur and the rock hardened again. Subsequent to that I heard there were several specimens of archaeopteryx discovered, which made this explanation even more absurd than it already was.

Creationists ask for fossils of animals that have features that are half bird and half dinosaur i.e. transitional forms. When we present one you dismiss it because presumably you just think it's one of God's unique creatures. If archaeopteryx isn't exactly what you have asked us for, then what are you looking for in a transitional form? What would you expect to see?

I don't know why you say evolution doesn't predict anything when I had just given several examples of things evolution does predict: similar pseudo genes between humans and other primates (inability to make Vitamin C being one examples), unique centromere/telomere structure, which is demanded by the fact that we have 23 chromosomes whereas other primates have 24, similar virus markers in the genetic code, location of animals (Darwin predicted that human ancestors would be found in Africa because this is where todays primates live in a natural environment, and this again has been born out), transitional forms. I mentioned all of these last times as predicted by the theory of evolution, yet you say evolution doesn't predict anything.

You say that ID "predicts" that order doesn't come from chaos, and that specified complexity comes from an intelligent agent. Isn't this an assertion rather than a prediction? Explain how we can take these concepts and develop a test that could in theory falsify ID?

[Jon]

Amy, when I say that ID is in theory something that can be examined and be scientific what I mean is that I am waiting to see what tests you would suggest for evaluating it and falsifying it. In theory that is possible, but I haven't seen anybody suggest anything yet. Someone needs to come up with some tests and predictions that are made that can falsify the ID position. Then perform those tests and determine if ID can withstand the scrutiny. If it can, and can do so to an extensive degree that is required for any other scientific theory, then it would qualify as science and would be worth teaching in the classroom. The work hasn't been done yet, so it doesn't qualify as science yet.

[Jon]

Patrick, I would refer you to the comments I had made in a different thread that Amy has quoted here. I don't deny that you can test for intelligent causality. In theory it can be done, and it is done in the case of murder investigations. But you've got to tell us what these tests are. You have to tell us what your predictions are. Then you have to do the work and perform those tests and verify your theory. When you've done that thousands of times and many different ways you qualify as a theory of science, as the theory of evolution has done and the theory of gravity has done. You have to do the work, and the work hasn't been done.

Remember, Darwin had no idea about genetics. Genetics has provided powerful independent evidence for evolution. In other words, the field of genetics provided many tests that really could have falsified Darwin's theory. Evolution passed the test with flying colors. Where are your tests? Darwin's theory wasn't dumped into classrooms immediately after he proposed it. Time was required to test it and verify it. ID'ers haven't taken the time and performed the tests yet. You're really just not ready. I'm open to it, truthfully, but you have to do the work that science requires.

[Patrick]

Jon
archaeopteryx is a bad example because there are older birds found in other strata. In other words, the birds found are older than the dinosaur from which they would evolve.

I also explained to you that I accept of evolutionary science. What I reject is speciation or macro-evolution. Please qualify how genetics has succeeded in demonstrating random mutation, natural selection, and the mechanism necessary for that to happen. Of course, you cannot. It is neither testable nor verifiable.

Also, you treat the philosophy of science as if it is monolithic. So much of what you embrace as "the scientific method" is theory laden before hand. ID is far more observable than natural selection. What is the process for natural selection and mutation that conveys survival advantage? You cannot point to it - it is pure theory, and it has not repeated in the way you insist unless you presume that is what is happening.

I would suggest you read Behe, especially his discussion of intellectual and biological precursors.

Again, ID advocate embrace many of the findings of evolution - but not origins friend.

I would welcome an example of life coming from non-life if you have one. That would help your case, since your theory depends on it.

[Patrick]

Oops, I meant conceptual precursors.

[Steve]

Kevin... I'm having trouble seeing what you're getting at... especially that nude women part, are you trying to say evolution is like porn?

If your point is that God created everything and so rocks are also a part of irreducible complexity then good for you, that's a good first step to seeing that ID is clearly based on faith. Everything in existence is made up of a ridiculously large number of atoms, everything is complex, but it does not follow that there is a designer. ID claims that if forces of the universe like gravity were even slightly different we couldn't exist. How do you know? You cannot manipulate gravity itself in an experiment to find out, gravity just is. And we just are.

If we were to assume the role of a CSI agent as Patrick suggests and try to figure out "who dunnit?" by looking at the world around us I think the God described in the Bible is one that we could scratch off the list immediately. In addition to evolution throwing the story of Adam and Eve in doubt, the world is not flat, the universe is not geocentric and people don't come back from the dead.

Jon showed beautifully in his post how evolution has proven itself to be a valid scientific theory. ID advocates want to skip all the hard work, research and scrutiny that science has endured and put itself on equal footing with science, forcing its way directly into schools with court cases and cries of injustice.

[Jon]

Two points on archaeopteryx. According to this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

it is not clear that the specimen you are referring to is in fact a bird. Supposing it is though, apparently archaeopteryx is not considered the transitional form, i.e. all birds came through it, but instead may be on a dead end branch on the evolutionary tree. But it is still a transition from a reptile to a bird.

I am not arguing for the mechanism that allows for evolution. I am pointing out that the fact of evolution is demonstrated by testable, observable, predictive experimentation. You can disagree with the claims of natural selection, but the fact that complex life forms evolved from simpler life forms is demonstrated in the fossil record and the genetic code with points of data such as what I have already mentioned.

I would welcome an example of life coming from non-life if you have one. That would help your case, since your theory depends on it.

Absolutely not. I don't know how many times I've had to correct this creationist misunderstanding. Evolution is not a theory about how life began. It's a theory about how the diversity of life came about after life began. There are plenty of people that believe in God and also believe in evolution. God of course could have created the first living organisms.

The facts are these. Complex life arose from simpler life. Humans and apes have a common ancestor. These are the types of claims I'm defending as I defend the theory of evolution. Whether God did it or the mechanism by which this arose is a different matter, but evolution happened. That's the bottom line.

[Jon]

Meant to put in italics when I wrote archaeopteryx is not considered **the** transitional form and also when I quoted your words. I'll figure this out sooner or later.

[zzx375]

"...What does faith mean to you?"

Belief/trust based upon evidence.

[Agilius]

>> Why are you so afraid to admit the role that faith plays in your beliefs? Isn't faith a beautiful thing? A gift from God? Instead of only picking your favorite part of what I've said to respond to, please at least respond to this: What does faith mean to you?

I have the same type of faith in god that I have in police officers: I don't need faith in order to believe they exist, but I do need faith in order to do what they say.

>> What are your tests? If you have none, you aren't doing science.

You can't prove that the Scientific Method is the appropriate method by applying the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is a set of laws we infer from empirical evidence; And inferrence is metaphysical in nature.

To be sure, all Scientific Laws are metaphysical inferrences.

So, *my* test is the unempirical logic of my mind, and yours; It is unscientific proof of the existence of god.

>> Part of the problem is that every time the later assertion is made, we get an indication from someone like our friend Louis that the passion driving ID is perhaps religious after all.

The motivation is certainly religious. We realize that the influence of our public schools is so powerful, and, oftentimes, crafty, that, rather than having to constantly re-brainwash our children, friends, etc., we are trying to get our schools to teach what science can and can not prove - to not go beyond what the evidence warrants.

ID, as I currently understand it, does not support one set of "oughts". Rather it simply attempts to prove that the universe was designed.

Will ID make it easier to teach people Theology? Yes.

In public schools? Likely; But the fact that my pen always drops when I let it go doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus, Mohammed, etc. is the one true god.

Does this give a foothold to Kool-Aid cultists? No more than it does the Salvation Army and the like, since both are religiously motivated (not the leader, of course).

>> We have a logical problem here. Either a designer was an alien from elsewhere in the universe or, and certainly within the context of our culture, He was the Creator God of Christianity.

The former possibility would generally beg the latter (that is, it does not necessarily follow that the Christian god is the one (?) true god, though *some* god(s) is necessary). This is because intelligence is metaphysical in nature.

One might just as well deny that *humans* have free agency, since it is free agency that ID'ers blame for the existence of the universe.

I also want to address the god/alien topic from another angle.

There are many different kinds of representations one can create using Origami.

Some of these representations have the exact same folds at the early stages (for example, the first 3 folds of one version of a flower has the same first 3 folds in common with the familiar crane, depending on the order of the folds); Yet, the end results are significantly unlike each other.

In the same way, there are similarities in the way one would argue for the existence of god, and the existence of aliens.

Both are intelligent. Both are invisible (or, at least unseen). Both are scientifically undetectable.

Not that belief in god and belief in aliens are mutually exclusive, necessarily, but the problem with the belief in aliens is *not* that they possess the above qualities, but that aliens are as much physical beings as are humans, and thus require a creator; That which one might attribute to aliens, one can already attribute to either humans or a god. But this doesn't necessarily mean that aliens don't exist.

And so the proper judgement when it comes to god vs. aliens (in the context of ID) is "we don't know, yet". This "unsolved" issue doesn't affect scientific inquiry at all, because whether we believe god set the laws of physics, or we believe no one set them, we're still going to look for empirically verifiable cause/effect relationships.

[Patrick]

Jon
I must insist that you are quite mistaken in your conclusion that complex life arose from simple life. That is an extrapolation from micro-biology that requires a mechanism to take place. I know that the theory demands that life proceeded that way, but the fossil record does not evidence that at all. Indeed it is my understanding (and I would have to look this up in my documentation and resources) that just where the fossil record ought to be most abundant (certain marine life), it is sorely lacking. Rather, the Cambrian Explosion serves as a profound problem for the process you (via Darwin) are pressing for. Those changes are not in the fossil record. Those examples you have given are certainly not in keeping with the macro changes supposed by Darwin. And even Stephen Jay Gould rejected archaeopteryx as a transitional form of any kind. Archaeopteryx was and always was a bird.

Finally in the words of Phillip E Johnson regarding the assertion of evolution as fact (as you have done) is this:

"The problem with separating the fact from the mechanism is that a so-called fact of evolution doesn't have much scientific content without a testable mechanism for changing one kind of creature into something entirely different, and especially for building the extremely complex organs that all living things possess...Don't let anybody tell you that the mechanism is a mere detail; its what the controversy is mainly about"
(Phillip Johnson, Defeating Darwinism, 58-59)

Thanks for the debate - got to move on!

"

[Jon]

So Patrick, if you are saying that the fact of evolution is not what the debate is about, but the debate is really about the mechanism that produced the evolution, then I'll take that to mean you concede the fact of evolution. If you don't concede the fact of evolution, then it seems that Phillip Johnson is mistaken about where the debate lies.

[Mo]

I agree completely with the first comment (Luis). This is a spiritual problem, more than anything else. The idea that there may actually be a God terrifies people - to the point they will do *anything* to deny it.

So I guess I have to somewhat disagree with the point of this post. It is true that we do not need to see everyone as an enemy. But we are most definitely at war. Every minute of every day.

[doug t]

If Darwin kept his mouth shut about the origins or first cause of creation I'd keep my mouth shut about science. But they fired the first shot in the culture war. That's the tactic, they take a giant cleaver and chop a chunk of the Christian narrative off and bring it into the lab, then when we fight back they claim we're doing a land grab.

The lab was invented by Christians. Inquiry about the universe was our territory first and now a new flavah of religion called Methodological Naturalism wants to become the only axiom in town. Screw them, they'll have to earn it.

[John Willis]

Steve wrote:

"We can infer that if the laws of cause and effect that we observe were in place at the beginning of the universe there must have been a first cause, yes."

What reasons do you have that lead you to believe it is more rational to hold the opposite view?

Steve also wrote:
"But you cannot infer that this first cause was a being of intelligence who talked to the Israelites as Jehova and came to earth as Jesus. That requires faith."

As ID theory points to an intelligence much greater then our own, I think monotheism is a logical conclusion we can draw. It is not an inference from ID theory that we get to Jesus. As you and I were born into the information age - a time in History unique in both, technology and scientific discovery we have a plethora of resources that inform our understanding of the big questions of humanity. Scripture and the presence of the Church require explanation.

In my view, it takes more faith to hold your view of Scripture then mine. As you hold reasons for denying the truth of the Bible, I'm not making the case your view is primarily wishful thinking. And from what I've read of your postings you hold these reasons with a high degree of certainty. However confident you may proclaim to be, curiously you have dodged every tough question I have ever asked you. Including the one in this thread.

So one final question for you Steve: Why should anyone be compelled to take your view of Christianity, origins or of Taoism seriously? On faith? And if not on faith on what?

Thanks,
John

[alan aronson]

"Add in that the concept of evolution is pretty much a complete negation of the 2nd law, and thus requires that energy be added from some outside source (a problem w/ conservation of energy) and it seems to me that evolutionists (one of the forms of secular humanists) need to get their story straight.

Hi Scott K, As long as the
Sun shines at approximately present values we are a closed system with a continuous flow of external energy inputs.

[alan aronson]

One other thing. there is a massive category confusion going on. "Secular humanism" for some of you is merely an epithet for a percieved outlook you don't like. Even a radical atheist like P.Z. Myers will allow that religious folk can do science. Science and what conservatives often mean by secular humanism are two different things.

[MacAttack]

I don't know why everyone is so concerned about transitional forms, and observable mechanisms of macro-evolution... Macro-evolution is here to stay. All that macro-evolution needs to stand is a little punctuated equilibrium. I just wish they'd taught me that in high school, it's so amazing, even magical.

[MacAttack]

On a more serious note, I want to thank everyone who has participated in this blog. I'm surprised that everyone is so polite. I'm actually learning a lot from both sides while reading this. This is better than going to college, and cheaper too!

[Steve]

Sorry John, I didn't mean to "dodge" your question, I just missed it, I have a lot of stuff I try to respond to.

John wrote (I paraphrased): "You have pleaded "agnosticism." Do you have any evidence to support this claim? And if you don't - why did you accept this claim as true?.....without researching it? It sure does sound like you're claiming knowledge regarding the origins question."

Yes, I am claiming knowledge, and contrary to your assumption I've researched it plenty. I know that neither theists nor atheists have sufficient evidence for their claims and thus both require a leap of faith in one direction or the other. I remain happily in the middle waiting for the evidence. I should clarify, when I say the answers are unknowable I mean it is currently unknowable. Perhaps this will change in the future, who knows?

John wrote: "Why should anyone be compelled to take your view of Christianity, origins or of Taoism seriously? On faith? And if not on faith on what?"

Certainly not on faith. I want people to seriously consider the evidence. I want people to understand the true moral implications of the Bible as the text is written, not as the modern world choses to interpret it. I admire and enjoy the wisdom of the Taoist and Zen traditions, primarily because they do not demand faith in claims with no evidence, they simply make statements about the way things are and the way we perceive things.

[Patrick]

Jon wrote:"So Patrick, if you are saying that the fact of evolution is not what the debate is about, but the debate is really about the mechanism that produced the evolution, then I'll take that to mean you concede the fact of evolution. If you don't concede the fact of evolution, then it seems that Phillip Johnson is mistaken about where the debate lies."

I really cannot see how you missed my point, or Johnson's. But to state it clearly, one cannot claim evolution (macro, speciation) as fact without identifying the mechanism and applying to it the rigors of science that you demand. To speak of evolution as fact without simultaneously articulating the mechanism is a non starter.

[John Willis]

Steve -

Thanks for the reply, but I don't think you are reading carefully. Here is your claim and my questions again...

Steve wrote:

"The ID movement did not start with observation and evidence, they started with the Bible, then went about looking for evidence to support it."

My reply for your convenience...

Steve - This is a rather popular (false) claim parroted by the followers of the religion of Darwinism.

1. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
2. And if you don't - why did you accept this claim as true?.....without researching it?

Thanks,
John