What's the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?

The American Spectator ^ | 12/22/2005 12:05:03 AM | Dan Peterson

[Sweetjustusnow]

In the past decade or two, a group of scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, and other thinkers have marshaled powerful critiques of Darwinian theory on scientific and mathematical grounds. Although they generally don't dispute that evolution of some sort has occurred, they vigorously contest the neo-Darwinian claim that life could arise by an undirected, purely material process of chance variation and natural selection.

[shuckmaster]

Dawkins states: "It is easy to think of DNA as the information by which a body makes another body like itself. It would be more correct to see a body as the vehicle used by DNA to make more DNA like itself."

He must have gotten that idea from my tagline!

[RogueIsland]

If you read the article, then you would know what the objections raised by scientists are.

I've read the article. It has viturally nothing to contribute in the way of scientific objections and instead is an attack on "materialism" in science and an attempt to make the weird argument that because the institution of science arose in Christian Europe and many scientists are Christian, Intelligent Design is true and Evolution is materialistic claptrap.

[liberallarry]

"THOSE WHO NOW OCCUPY the public square will fight to keep possession of it.

Always. Lord Acton has something to say about that...

The advocates of Darwinian materialism believe that they are in possession of The Truth, and are perfectly willing to invoke the power of the state to suppress competing views, as the Dover suit shows."

Horseshit. Nobody's closing the churches. People are fighting to keep religious dogma out of science classes.

"For many centuries, the best explanation of the origin of life and the lawfulness of the universe was thought to be design, which was not considered inconsistent with science at all.

For many centuries the earth was thought to be the center of the universe. Did that make it so? Lots of crappy ideas have a long life.

But of the three theories that seemed so potent during that period -- Marxism, Freudianism, Darwinism -- two have already been washed away by history. Will Darwin's theory be next? If so, the materialist worldview is at stake, and the materialists know it.

The materialist world view is hardly at risk because Darwinism might be. Science has proved its worth 10,000 times over. Nor have Marxism and Freudianism been "washed away"...but rather transformed by experience. We aren't going back to possession by demons or aristocracy by birthright.

And that's why intelligent design is such a big deal."

ID is a big deal because religious types feel threatened.

[steve-b]

Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that this evidence was really quite manifest and clear. What then? Would all the scientists, philosophers, political advocacy groups, teachers' unions, journalists, and others who were previously committed to Darwinism follow that evidence exactly where it leads? Would they shrug and say, "Oh, OK. We were wrong," and admit that the design thesis is the best explanation?

Or would a large body of opinion, scientific and otherwise, insist that anything that points to a creator, regardless of the evidence, is automatically "not science"?

We don't have to "suppose" any such thing. We have real-world examples.

If there is, in fact, "a large body of opinion, scientific and otherwise" asserting that (for example) chihuauahs descended from wolves by unguided natural selection, then Peterson is right. If no such position being seriously advanced, then Peterson is wrong. A simple, testable prediction from the theory. I leave the checking of the prediction against the facts as an exercise for the student.

[fizziwig]

"Any train of thought relying on "God made it." is not scientific."

Any train of thought relying on "nature made it" (i.e. naturalism) is also not science by the same logic.

[tallhappy]

Yes, you saw yourself, did you? Well done!

[fizziwig]

"Get over it? The anti-Darwin Diproids just got whupped like a red-headed step-child."

Darwin droids won that battle, but they are losing the war.

[M203M4]

The answer is easy. ID let's the "God people" get their foot in the door. It's nothing more complex than that.

Put down the broad brush for a sec. Not all of us "God people" are ignorant about science. It is unfair to lump all Christians into the ID and/or young earth creation groups. Here is an exerpt from "Evolutionary Creation", by Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux, PhD biology and PhD theology.

Evolutionary creation claims the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an evolutionary process. This position fully embraces both the religious beliefs of conservative Christianity and the scientific theories of cosmological, geological and biological evolution. It contends that God ordains and sustains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of evolution. More specifically, evolution is 'teleological,' and features plan, purpose and promise. In particular, this view of origins asserts that humanity evolved from primate ancestors, and during this natural process the Image of God arose and sin entered the world. Evolutionary creationists experience God's presence and action in their lives. They contend that the Lord meets men and women in a personal relationship, which at times involves both dramatic and subtle miraculous signs and wonders...

... Within Protestant evangelical circles, evolutionary creation is held by a small but growing number of individuals educated in both science and Scripture. In particular, a majority of these Christians trained in the biological sciences accept this position. The leading evangelical evolutionary creationist today is Howard Van Till. He spent most of his career at Calvin College, an institution considered to be the leading evangelical college in the United States supporting this view of origins. Van Till claims that God created the world 'fully-gifted' from its inception so that all the universe and life would evolve without subsequent Divine interventions. Evolutionary creation best describes the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, though it is often referred to in this tradition as 'theistic evolution.' In 1996 Pope John Paul II made international headlines by claiming that "new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis..."

... Evolutionary creation recognizes that the relationship between science and Scripture is the key to developing a Christian view of origins. This position notes that the Church's past struggle to relate the Bible and Galileo's astronomy provides valuable lessons for believers today wrestling with the creation accounts and the evolutionary sciences. Conservative Christians accepting evolution as God's method of creation are inspired by the famed aphorism that arose during this 17th century controversy, "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven and not how heaven goes." Rewritten for the 21st Church, evolutionary creationists encourage us to understand:

The purpose of the Bible is to teach us that God is the Creator, and not how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created.

[Rudder]

In one section he lists the objections by scientists, and they all fall under one statement: "ID is not science." Of, he proceeds ahead while ignoring that very critical point.

[Rudder]

Of course, he proceeds ahead while ignoring that very critical point.

[maestro]

What's the Big Deal....$$$$$..... About Intelligent Design?

Well,.....it's either Intelligent Design or Un-Intelligent Design!

? What lawyer gnostic union group signs your paycheck,.....or gives you vested-intrest Stocks?

[js1138]

Creationist ID is the straw man used by Darwinists to dismiss all ID.

I don't know what "all ID" is. Behe testified under oath that there is no research supporting such key elements as irreducible complexity. The Discovery Institute says ID has not established itself to to point where it should be taught in school.

Personally I think all of science should be taught as provisional. It was when I was a kid.

But that is not what the Dover school board wanted. They wanted something to discredit common descent (and they are on record as having this motive). But ID does not dispute common descent, so what's the point?

[airborne]

Just my opinion - ID should be taught in Physics, not Biology. And later than 9th grade.

[Oztrich Boy]

Leftists want badly to chip off votes from vulnerable GOP pols in battleground states.

And how are they going to do that? By appealing to the centre. Battleground states are not where you give your "base" what it wants: Religious Fundamentalism for the Right, Gun Control for the left. While those will please the extremes, they will lose the centre. And the Dems appear to be recognising this. Enjoy your new Pro-2A Dem Senator or Rep.

[Junior]

In the past decade or two, a group of scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, and other thinkers have marshaled powerful critiques of Darwinian theory on scientific and mathematical grounds.

Critiquing Darwin is not POSITIVE evidence for ID. The anti-evolution crowd has yet to figure this out, and until they do they do not have a dog in this hunt.

[js1138]

I'm not aware of any mainstream proponent of ID who argues for a young earth or a 6,000 year-old earth.

That would be among the scientifically literate. But if you follow FR threads you will find the most of the people supporting ID are literalists of some stripe. Many are YEC, and many more dispute "macro" evolution.

So why are they supporting ID, and why don't ID supporters correct them?

[little jeremiah]

later read/maybe pingout.

American Spectator is usually a great read.

[Mogollon]

You can acquaint students with ID in a non science class like theology, sociology, english, etc., BUT NOT IN SCIENCE CLASS BECAUSE IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

Are you perchance a scientist? Just wondering because I am, and I am not at all convinced of the veracity of your premise. Evaluating biological systems and organisms for indications of intelligent design requires voluminous knowledge of biochemistry, molecular biology, thermodynamics, kinetics, math, and statistics. On the other hand darwinian theory is relativeley simplistic: Gradual change via random mutation followed by natural selection. Now please explain how the Krebs Cycle (also known as the Citric Acid cycle) evolved according to darwinian theory? Bear in mind a functioning Krebs cycle must exist for a cell to survive.

[70times7]

it is a "Big Deal" only to persons so easily obsessed as to be on my lifetime Avoid at all Costs list

In at #2 on a topic that rivals zots for the numbers of posts and heat of flames?!? Methinks thou dost protest too much.

[Sweetjustusnow]

Read the article;

..."the arguments advanced by intelligent design theorists rely on neutral principles and facts drawn from mathematics, information theory, biochemistry, physics, astrophysics, and other disciplines. (For a summary of some of ID's principal scientific arguments, see my article in the June 2005 issue of The American Spectator.)"