It's been tested many times and nobody's found very good evidence for it.

That statement just shows how little you know about the field.

Joy: Science's authority exists only in-house, and even there it's entirely provisional.

I agree with this sentiment.

That does not mean there are no valid truth statements. So we might say that "The Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory." This is a true statement and is worth defending. The science is provisional. The science could be wrong. But it would be a false to deny it.

On the other hand, you can *believe* that the world was created Last Thursday with libraries full of books, and all of our memories; but this would not be a scientific statement. You would still be honestly compelled to assent to the scientific evidence that implies the world is much, much older.

I don't think that everyone thinks alike, but it is undeniably true that most of the ID defenders here are motivated by religious reasons.

I will readily admit that I got interested in this particular front in the "culture war" because of indefensible assertions being made by people pretending to be scientists on the internet. Because I have some familiarity and experience with science and scientists, it struck me very odd that such posers seemed to have no understanding of what science is and does, and no grasp of how badly their transparent dishonesty reflects on the enterprise (and any legitimate authority science may have over its own practice and representation).

You can believe whatever you like about deities and origins and the meaning of life. So can I. Either or both of us can claim all day long that science supports our beliefs, and it might even be true on some level, at this or some other moment in time. Talk is cheap. What neither of us can do - or reasonably expect to do - is force someone else to believe what we believe simply by our appeal to science. Science's authority exists only in-house, and even there it's entirely provisional. It has not been granted any authority in society at large to force anybody to believe or disbelieve anything. Pretending otherwise doesn't change reality one bit.

The kind of authoritarian garbage being openly spewed by science posers offends my scientific and humanistic sensibilities, not my religious sensibilities.

MikeGene is right in my case. If IC structures turn out not to be IC, my metaphysics are unharmed. My interest in ID has more to do with the philosophical possibilities, and ways of viewing nature - I see an incredible amount of room for telic views, and I don't think such views inhibit discovery or interest in scientific study.

Plus, I think ID is doing a great job of promoting scientific interest. When science is treated as a subject that can lead to all kinds of informed thought and ideas, rather than 'You must regard biology as Richard Dawkins does or you should be barred from discussing it', people who are normally turned off by technical talk become attracted to it.

I don't think that everyone thinks alike, but it is undeniably true that most of the ID defenders here are motivated by religious reasons.

Perhaps, but what ARE these motivations? From reading the many people here, I don't get the impression that most/all would become atheists if ID failed. Thus, I don't think many people here are looking to ID to prop up their spirituality or metaphysics.

Y'know, motivations are a tricky thing. I would think everyone should know this. For example, what motivates you readers to read this blog? What motivates you people to comment on this blog? I suspect that most people are like me "“ there are multiple reasons that converge to motivate us, not One Big Reason that pushes us around.

It is telling how you leave protoscience out of your discussion. You're setting up a false dichotomy; either something is science or it is total bunk.

I explicitly said that the line between them is not hard and fast, because there's always room for new evidence. "Protoscience" is a reasonable term for something that is new and indeterminate, but might become science some day. String theory might be considered to be protoscience — it's controversial, and at the moment untestable. Parapsychology is another protoscience. It's been tested many times and nobody's found very good evidence for it. But if it does somehow become science, then it's going to be science, not a spiritual revolution.

Why think that everyone thinks alike? I certainly do not put my own spiritual hopes in ID nor do I think it is supposed to validate my spiritual and metaphysical beliefs. LOL.

I don't think that everyone thinks alike, but it is undeniably true that most of the ID defenders here are motivated by religious reasons.

Why is he controversial to the degree he is accused with again?

That form (and law) is mostly habit is an established aspect of the physics of reality. Thus it's not actually controversial. Except to a certain antiquated ideology embraced in biology, which apparently has to be protected in academia by an 'orthodox' priesthood and imposed on society by force of law.

Pseudoscience is something that superficially appears to be science but isn't, for any of a number of reasons. Occasionally soemthing that is thought to be science turns out to be pseusdoscience, or vice-versa.

Well, if we are going to talk about appearances and "true science", we quickly get into psychology, sociology, and philosophy. When you take measurements about people's color preferences and tie that to just-so stories about fruit, skies, and natural selection, what does that appear like?

As far as I can tell, they are putting their spiritual hopes in the wrong place. They are looking for a science that will validate their spiritual and metaphyisical beliefs, but that's not what science does. It's this attempt to blend material reality with spiritual dreaming that generates pseudosciences. Sheldrake is pretty clearly in this category, and so is ID.

Why think that everyone thinks alike? I certainly do not put my own spiritual hopes in ID nor do I think it is supposed to validate my spiritual and metaphysical beliefs. LOL. That would a lot to expect from a late-night, intellectual hobby! Do you need me to explain why I think about ID?

Pseudoscience is something that superficially appears to be science but isn't, for any of a number of reasons. Occasionally soemthing that is thought to be science turns out to be pseusdoscience, or vice-versa.

It is telling how you leave protoscience out of your discussion. You're setting up a false dichotomy; either something is science or it is total bunk. I don't think that position is tenable, only the faith-based pseudoskeptic might think otherwise. Do a search for Truzzi, pseudoscience and protoscience to see what I mean.

Quantum mechanics, despite its many appropriations by New Agers, did not somehow make the world a more spiritual, caring, rainbow-hued place.

Did you expect it to do just that? How do you think it is possible in principle to make the world a better place? Isn't that the very essence of the technologies we'll have in the future? Even if Sheldrake has it all wrong, it wouldn't stop the march of technology to make the world precisely as many of us know it needs to be. With the help of QM, these technologies became possible, and perhaps if some of his work is validated, that might give science even more of a push in the right direction?

I do agree with you that human beings come pre-equipped with a DEMAND for the universe to suit their wishes (something that makers of "What the bleep do we know" capitalized on), but science too seems to want to completely isolate everything that doesn't fit their picture of reality, all in an effort to preserve the sterile, mechanistic, dead universe we're destined to die in.

Now I appreciate the objectivity of science in a way, but I do not share many of their sentiments that we should relish our brief lifespans here and then vanish without a trace… that is simply unacceptable, which is why i'm a transhumanist and will accept any new discoveries that would propel us all into a better world, and if Sheldrake can deliver (personally I kinda think his work is completely unrelated to that, but oh well…), then i'm more than happy.