Skip to comments.The End of Intelligent Design?
Posted on 02/09/2010 3:15:53 PM PST by cornelis
It is time to take stock: What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists. If we are to look for ID achievements, then, it must be in the realm of natural theology. And there, I think, the movement must be judged not only a failure, but a debacle.
Very few religious skeptics have been made more open to religious belief because of ID arguments. These arguments not only have failed to persuade, they have done positive harm by convincing many people that the concept of an intelligent designer is bound up with a rejection of mainstream science.
The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature. Aside from the fact that such a claim is, in practice, impossible to substantiate, it has the effect of pitting natural theology against science by asserting an incompetence of science. To be sure, there are questions that natural science is not competent to address, and too many scientists have lost all sense of the limitations of their disciplines, not to mention their own limitations. But the ID arguments effectively declare natural science incompetent even in what most would regard as its own proper sphere. Nothing could be better calculated to provoke the antagonism of the scientific community. This throwing down of the gauntlet to science explains not a little of the fervor of the scientific backlash against ID.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
But you are right, there does seem to be some negative connotations what with the speaking in tongues and handling snakes.
I agree with you...most YEC...uhm...types...would not.
Amen brother. The canard that evolution = atheist is asinine and counterproductive.
Wow - if you think those are "odd", then holding to a "creator of the universe" or a "raiser of the dead" must be off the charts - right?
“You’re not supposed to...”
That was the point of “Theory in search of evidence”.
Wereas Evolution makes wild assumptions based on incredibly impossible odds all breaking in favor of the theory and all occuring across a innumerable manner of species.
As for speaking in tongues or handling snakes, in my view they are just an exploration of various people’s faith.
Of course when the snake bites the handler one has to wonder what message that sends..:>)
It not what I think, it is what society thinks. And you just don't find many churches where they are speaking in tongues and handling snakes.
So society thinks thinks that "speaking in tongues and handling snakes" is odd, but creating the universe and raising the dead are within the realm of possibility?
Best post I’ve ever read on an ID/CREVO thread. Bravo.
Since you seem to be an authority, maybe you can explain why those that have been raised from the dead drag one foot and hold their arms out in front as they slow walk?
If it was directed by God -- or anyone -- it wasn't random.
All ID does is say that certain observed natural events perfectly match the markers by which we know objects are designed.
It just doesn't rebut an Old Earth (or Evolution) either.
No dog in the fight :-)
Good post :-)
ID does not posit that and to say the design is incompetent is making a theological -- and very, very silly -- claim.
This is a theological assumption, not a scientific one, and I agree, it is a rather silly one.
The assumption of science is that physical laws are both necessary and sufficient to explain physical phenomena.
The entire hypothesis of ID is that the physical laws of reality are NOT sufficient to explain the physical phenomena of the development of life on Earth; thus they posit that the “designer” had to directly intervene.
No. ID claims that things that are designed have distinct characteristics and if these characteristics are contained in an object the inference of design should be made.
Life has these characteristics hence it should be inferred life is designed.
Neither the designer nor the means of design are not addressed. There is no supernatural involved.
You, however, seem to be claiming that the laws of physics are sufficient for the development of life. Can you show how life occurred using the laws of physics?
If you can't, how is accepting this not a statement of faith and how is demanding the claim not be questioned not the imposition of a theological dogma?
“I have a faith in Jesus Christ, and that was my point.”
Amen, brother, and that’s what matters.
That is not a theological assumption, it is the only basis upon which science can perform or advance.
If everything that developed according to natural laws is designed, wouldn't everything in the universe have these distinct characteristics?
What wouldn't have these distinct characteristics of being designed?
What in this universe are you saying was NOT designed by God?
1. Actually, it's not. If you want an example as to why your understanding if flawed think of thermodynamics
2. What "law of reality" says life can't be designed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.