There is an eager discussion at the original site.
If it turns out life is designed rather than come about via a series of impossible coincidences, I'd say ID has increased the understanding of nature quite a bit.
Or if design was involved in the occurrence of biodiversity rather all being explained by random genomic changes fixed by natural selection, that would be another big benefit of ID.
ID does not reject evolution. It rejects pointlessness.
“Very few religious skeptics have been made more open to religious belief because of ID arguments.”
Really? Maybe in the scientific community, but there are thousands of people who find faith in Christianity and therefore believe in ID. I don’t think the scientific community is the arbitor of truth. There are many that do good work, but just look at the so called fear mongers in the GW movement. I will keep my faith in what the good book says.
I was hesitant to respond to this thread, since the straw man is so clumsily (and shamelessly) constructed.
I do, however, note with amusement that the retard didn't take the obvious next step of asserting that evolution was also a science.
Don’t look for an end to the ID movement because Philip Anschutz, and others, will continue to funnel big, big bucks into the Discovery Institute.
I think we’re at the end of intelligence.
I am an evolutionist and also a believer in intelligent design. I have yet to see how they are incompatible.
In fact one can argue that the universe has an obvious evoltionary attractor as its future driven by the second law.
I guess I r stupid.
This is a pretty dumb article. There’s nothing “scientific” about Darwin’s General Theory of Evolution. Intelligent Design theory has been chiefly valuable in identifying the problems with nailing down Darwinist theory as fact.
Barr must be aware that “young earth” theology is not the same as ID, but he seems to confuse the two.
Father Neuhaus, the founding editor of First Things, is dead. I have been wondering how it would survive in his absense. It’s still a bit early to tell, but this article, and a couple of others, leave me rather doubtful.
I’m disappointed in Stephen Barr and First Things, frankly.
Simply put, science is based on the scientific method and reproducible statistical analysis. It is a closed system, in which, if you play by the rules of science, *all* you have done is just that, played by the rules.
An analogy is the game of chess. If you play by the rules, you have played a game. That is all. How the game was played, and who won and lost cannot be interpolated or extrapolated, as if they were magical.
Science, however, can be interpolated and extrapolated. But the further away from the original experiment and analysis, the less likely that the interpolation or extrapolation are correct.
But Intelligent Design has no place in this, because it is neither a control nor variable to the experiment, and it is statistically irreproducible.
Therefore, even if it exists, it has to be ignored, because it cannot be integrated into the system. Again, using the chess analogy, the white knight has put the black king into check, and at this point, some intelligence other than the players intervenes and does something to determine if the king escapes or is mated.
Both players can just sit there for an hour, yet even if they both believe that some intelligence will intervene and complete the game, it will not do so reliably, every time. In fact, it probably won’t at all, ever.
So even taking it into account as part of game play accomplishes nothing. And even if a waiter stumbles into the table and the black king falls over, the players disregard that action, because it is not part of official, recognized game play.
Science has tremendous credibility precisely because it follows rules, is statistically verifiable, and can be reproduced. If something else is integrated into that, in an effort to capitalize on its credibility, its credibility is lost.
Look what harm Al Gore and his company of scoundrels has done to science, in the effort to glom on to its credibility for their own sordid purposes. The study of our climate has been set back decades because of this corruption.
And no matter what its motivation, Intelligent Design would have the same effect.
ID was always a theory in search of evidence, Evolution is a theory that has shoe horned incomplete evidence into a entire system that is then demanded that complete belief be placed into.
ID is needed if only to sharpen Evolutionary Theorists work, the more ID demands “prove it” the more searching takes place.
“This throwing down of the gauntlet to science explains not a little of the fervor of the scientific backlash against ID.”
More, it’s their sense of entitlement and arrogance that anyone would challenge them. Look at the the response of the global warming crowd to any variation from the “consensus dogma”.
Bump for later.
Derbyshire linked it because it comforts him in his atheism, but it isn’t much of an article. Like most scientists, the author is undoubtedly good at working within a model in his field, but not so good at thinking about issues of methodolgy and sociology of science. Implicit in his writing is a 1950ish Popperian understanding of scientific method, which has long since been abandoned in its naive form as a result of work by Kuhn, Imre Lakotos, and others. In his response to someone commenting on Anthony Flew’s abandonment of atheism Barr incredibly says it had nothing to do with intelligent design, but rather had to do with the Anthropic Principle. Yet, the whole point of Wheeler’s long ago paper (1973) on the Anthropic Principle was that the physical constants in the universe give rise to a reasonable inference that the universe was designed to support human life. Fred Hoyle has said the same thing, just to name another prominent physicist.
Oddly, Barr, a physicist, is trying to write an obituary on a theory (ID) that, in the form he is discussing it, has to do with biology. While I don’t know whether ID will eventually be vindicated or not, I think that it is clear that Darwinism is only supported by group think in the universities. Random mutation won’t bear the burden of the work it has to do in the theory. Gould and others have recognized this, as well as other problems, but Richard Lewontin has been the most outspoken in demanding that Darwinism be defended - at least to the public - because he doesn’t want God to get a foot in the door. People need to understand that while science has always been subject to agendas and politics, the politicization is more intense now than ever, largely because of the massive amounts of government money that flows through the system, IMHO.
I can’t believe I am posting on this because these threads are virtually always an annoying waste of time...
"As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflects intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design. Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the worldview of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers...."
Continued here: The Fractured Fairy Tale of Darwinian Evolution
"....for example, in the words of our founders, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Under the terms of Darwinism, such a statement is unalloyed nonsense, because there is no "Creator" and no "rights" that are unalienable. Thus, metaphysical Darwinism has its own kind of absolutism, but I think a better word is "totalism," which has the intended association with "totalitarian." It is a total explanation that is anything but liberating, if for no other reason than it renders spiritual freedom an illusion. Or, you could say that it can only be total at the cost of excising what is most dear to us -- eg., freedom, truth, unity, etc. ..."
Continued here: Absolutist Philosophy and Totalist Necrophilia
“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.”
Well if that statement was in fact the litmus test for all science, and all funding for scientific inquiry, then funding for continued work and development of “string theory” in physics would have to end, because it has never produced anything that can be empirically tested and proven and all work on it remains exploration of no more than a theory.
bump for later read
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
As usual with evolutionists, the author creates an “ID straw man”, and then sets out to show why it is wrong. He completely misstates the ID case, and misconstrues what is contended. Maybe he should do a little more reading of the current ID literature.