"Amongst those biologists, only those who have taken an interest in ID know the particular arguments being used by ID theorists, and the particular lingo they use in presenting them."

So the ID critics' function is as translators, reformulating ID arguments for the "arbitrary scientists" to knock down?

It seems like we're ready to revisit your earlier comment:

"But a major part of the activity of ID theorists is the critique of Darwinism. In fact, I would say it is their only activity if you exclude explicitly apologetic and/or political activities, and those associated with university affiliations were relevant."

This only shows that most scientists reject ID because they've only heard negative arguments for it. It isn't the case that the scientific community has investigated whether life was designed, and come to the conclusion that it wasn't. As Mike points out here, that's simply something science doesn't do.

Not necessarilly. You may just be fellow travellers with a religious movement. Apparently about 16% of atheists in the US donate time or money to churches. That does not make them religious, or Christians (although in my opinion, it does make them bizzare).

Yes, but according to you, ID is a religious movement with an agenda. Its mode of travel is religious in nature and its destination is social change in the image of religion. The "fellow travelers" metaphor is thus misleading, as it conveys the impression we share those same basic features. The reality is that ID is much older and much broader than any current popular expression of it. As such, there are bound to be people whose interests and opinions will intersect at certain points. Focusing only on the intersection points would be misleading, as it would be akin to cherry picking. Therefore, a better metaphor would be that we are cross-talkers.

You have obviously been influenced by (I would say, misled by) the ID movement; but that does not mean automatically that you adhere to all the doctrines taught by the leadership of the ID movement that makes it religious.

No, I am not influenced by a movement. My interest in ID is a function of the internet and was sparked by the early cyberspace reactions to Behe's book. That's what got my attention. This led me to read Behe's book. This led me to formulate my own ideas and opinions which have landed me between the two opposing camps. It may be hard for you to believe, but I am capable of having my own independent ideas and opinions; it is a mistake to interpret me through the prism of a movement.

However, I do appreciate the fact that you recognize my views as more of a "nascent proto-science." I have long noted that they are not science (but neither are they religion) and characterized them merely as an attempt to investigate. Because I have so many other commitments and obligations, the "investigation" is mostly a late night hobby.
You define "˜doctrine' as a key tenet, or belief and use the term deliberately of ID to allude to the religious nature of the core ID beliefs. You then identify the five "ID doctrines." I don't accept "doctrines" 2-5 and #1 is not a doctrine (skepticism is not a belief).

Okay, so let's go back to your original claim:

Nor would I expect an arbitrary group of scientists to have a clear idea of the doctrines of ID.

What was it about their replies that led you to think this arbitrary group of scientists didn't have a clear idea of the "doctrines" of ID?

The question is, not whether arbitrary scientists who have skimmed perhaps an article or two in nature and SciAm (if your lucky) have a clear idea; but whether ID critics have a clear idea of the doctrines of ID (the answer is yes)

Why do you say the answer is yes? I would bet (based on experience) that if I had asked 20 randomly selected ID critics to list the "doctrines of ID", we get 20 different lists (of different lengths) with varying degrees of overlap. What makes you think that your specific list would have been independently reproduced by a large number of critics?

In your next reply to me, you claim for yourself knowledge that ID is indeed a religious movement. You argue it is not science, thus we must look to its origins. Yet your "looking" is nothing more than Wedge-centrism, a perception of ID grounded in cherry picking. The problem I have with your whole argument is that it's not clear if and when you are talking about the concept of ID and when/if you are talking about the ID movement, as these are two different things. For example, when you originally claimed that you don't expect scientists to have a clear idea of the doctrines of ID, this sounded like you were talking about the concepts associated with ID. But it turns out you are just saying they don't have a clear idea about the details of the socio-political movement. So what? It looked to me that their replies reflected an understanding of the gist of the movement as outlined by you. After all, they equated ID with religion and faith. Isn't this is in basic agreement with your characterization of ID as a religious movement?

If you want to distance yourself from something said by the list of arbitrary scientists, then point out the claim and explain the reason for distance. On the other hand, you have already admitted that this arbitrary group of scientists do not have perceptions that are unique to them. So what's your point?

1.You assert that ID is a "religious movement." Does this mean that my web page and this blog are part of a religious movement?

Not necessarilly. You may just be fellow travellers with a religious movement. Apparently about 16% of atheists in the US donate time or money to churches. That does not make them religious, or Christians (although in my opinion, it does make them bizzare). You have obviously been influenced by (I would say, misled by) the ID movement; but that does not mean automatically that you adhere to all the doctrines taught by the leadership of the ID movement that makes it religious.

Further, you at least have gone much further down the path that would be needed for ID to become a science than any other ID theorist I know of. Unlike the ID movement itself, you at least do lay it on the line infavour of an old earth, and (mostly) common descent. You have been prepared to invoke motives in an attempt to determine emperical predictions; and I have no reason to believe that, like the core members of the ID movement, you would deny the validity of such auxilliary hypotheses in the event of their becoming inconvenient. ID as you pursue might be a nascent proto-science. That is, you have a long way to go before your hypotheses are testable in principle, but at least you are developing in the right direction.

Of course, I do not know all (or even a lot) about you. You may be as religiously committed as Wells, and that may distort your actual research as much as it has that of Johnson or Wells, or Dembski, come to that. But I only have reason to suspect that because of your association with the ID movement proper, and because of the behaviour of some of your fellow bloggers.

2.Please define "doctrine" (the word you chose twice).

A doctrine is:

A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
Archaic. Something taught; a teaching.

That is, it is a key tenet, or belief. I use it deliberately of ID to allude to the religious nature of the core ID beliefs.

3.I am assuming that you would count yourself among the ID critics who have a "clear idea of the doctrines of ID." What are these doctrines?

The core doctrines of the ID movement are:

1) Darwinism fails as a philosophically and/or scientifically adequate account of the origin of life's diversity;

This is in part because,
2) There exists adequate emperical evidence to prove that life on Earth was originated, and may have been continuosly upgraded by, a designer;

3) Darwinism continues to be accepted in large part because of a strong philosophical objection to the existance of the supernatural;

4) The impact of Darwinism on society has been the widespread acceptance of a materialist, or quasi-materialist outlook; and

5) The best way to end that impact is to supplant Darwinism by a widely accepted ID "science", being taught in schools, and prefferably also being backed by a research program.

ID advocates want us to accept only 1 and 2 as being core theses of ID, and to treat 3 to 5 as merely incidental beliefs of some ID advocates. However, that is not warranted because:
- All the major advocates of ID (Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Meyer, and Wells) are on record as agreeing with all five theses;
- The major ID organisation (the Discovery Institute) is on record as advocating 5 as its purpose; and
- The relative activity of the ID fellows in lobbying Congress, text book committees, school boards, and what have you far excedes their activity in conducting research. That is a sure indicator of the relative importance of the last three tenets compared to the first two for the core of the ID movement.

I am not, by the way, saying that any movement that adheres to the first two tenets is necessarily not science, or necessarilly religious. But for any such movement that was science, or at least aspired to be science in fact rather than just in title, the first order of business would be to develop a clear, cogent, and consensus set of auxilliary hypotheses in order to be able to develop a genuine research program. They would have no interest in getting their science taught, or into textbooks, or anywhere near a school at all until they were getting definite runs on the board in their research program.

The ID movement itself (as opposed to some fellow travellors) cannot do this, because amongst the first auxilliary hypotheses up for debate would be the age of the Earth and common descent; whose impact on assessing the relative merit of the evidence is undeniable. (It is not as though the evidence for an old Earth or for common descent is in the slightest way ambiguos.) The ID movement cannot do this because such clarrification would shatter the "broad church" approach to these issues that they have taken as a necessity to get such diverse religious views under one roof.

Before I can proceed with an answer to your reply, I need some clarification.

1. You assert that ID is a "religious movement." Does this mean that my web page and this blog are part of a religious movement?
2. Please define "doctrine" (the word you chose twice).
3. I am assuming that you would count yourself among the ID critics who have a "clear idea of the doctrines of ID." What are these doctrines?

I take it Tom has not read Del Ratzsch's review of Shanks.

No, I had not. My PDF reader was defunct. But having now downloaded v7 of the Acrobat reader, I do not see the relevance. I notice that he agrees with me that methodological naturalism is not a basic principle of science; and disagrees with me as to whether a being who designed the universes laws is a supernatural being.

What I find interesting is Ratzsch's comments in a review of "Intelligent Design Creationism and it Critics":

Most scientists are fairly pragmatic about any purported "˜rules' of science. Such "˜rules' are often employed polemically (as in the present dispute), but historically once some previously prohibited outlook shows empirical promise scientists eventually perk up
their ears and happily pitch the previously purported "˜rules' in order to exploit the new promise. (Newtonian physics with its alleged "˜occult' qualities and quantum physics with its irreducibly probabilistic principles are well-known examples.) That is why I suspect that if ID advocates begin turning up solutions to scientific puzzles which currently approved approaches have shown only limited ability to handle (or to handle well), or if questions or suggestions arising from ID perspectives generated especially productive research, then a significant portion of the scientific community would listen. (Doctrinaire philosophical naturalists might not, but their reasons would rest as much on philosophical prejudice or archaic philosophy of science as upon scientific grounds.)

But as I see it, the fact is that ID has not at this juncture produced much of positive empirical significance, especially of a sort which is not plausibly also available to mainstream evolutionary theory. But that is not to say that ID could not do so, and it is certainly not to say that ID should be systematically barred from the scientific conversation.

Where I disagree with Ratzsch is that I think any attempt to develop auxilliary hypotheses (beyond a mere ad hoc basis) to such an extent that ID could in principle contribute to scientific research would so fracture the ID community on the basis of theological commitments that it would cease to exist as a community, and as a research program.

Having determined it is not science, to find out what it is, you look to its origins. The ID movement started as the mere creationism movement of Phillip Johnson; and that movement is clearly religious by any criteria.

Interestingly circular; ID is religous creationism. Why? Because Johnson is a creationist. How do we know he is a creationist? Because his "movement is clearly religious by any criteria".

Do you really think that cherry picking just one piece of evidence to form a rebutall really impresses anyone? Or do you really think that Johnson, all of whose related books are published by a religious publishing house, who is on record as choosing to defend "mere creation", who advised creationist to put aside issues such as the age of the Earth and common descent and to form alliance to refute Darwism before discussing those other issues, and when a group of creationists with such a diverse range of opinions forms around him, advises on the formation of an organisation whose stated goal is the overthrow of materialism, whose first conference is organised by a Christian ministery at a Christian university, and is called "Mere Creation", and who describes the "informal movement of like minded thinkers" in which he has "taken a leading role" as having the strategy of "driving a wedge" into "the log of naturalism", is not involved in a religious campaign?

So Jean, were you really fool enough to think I would not notice how you supressed the greater part of my evidence in your reformulation of my argument? Were you really fool enough to think I did not know the overwhelmingly religious nature of Johnson's campaign? Or did you just think your fellow IDists would not care about the validity of your argument, just so long as it argued in the right direction?

As experts in Darwinism, most biologists have encountered similar arguments to those used by ID theorists many times before; and are aware of the rebutalls and refuting evidence for those arguments (or at minimum, know where to find them). They know, therefore, that Darwinism is well supported by the evidence, and that no simplistic arguments are going to overthrow it.

Amongst those biologists, only those who have taken an interest in ID know the particular arguments being used by ID theorists, and the particular lingo they use in presenting them. Only they, therefore, can reasonably be expected to correctly state those arguments if asked. Only they, for example, would know that though ID theorists claim there is evidence that the laws of physics were intelligently designed, they also insist that we cannot know that the person who designed the laws of physics is a supernatural being. Only they would know that while Behe runs the old "the intermediate forms are not as fit as the end points, so evolution could not derive one from the other" argument (also known as, "what good is half an eye"), he dresses it up in modern terminology as "irreducible complexity".

If I can illustrate with an analogy. Any physicist would be able to tell you that geocentrism is bunk. But only physicists who have examined Gerard Bouw's writtings would be able to tell you exactly what his arguments were, and how the standard evidence refutes his views in detail. (I use this example because I assume everyone here will agree that geocentrism is now pseudo-science. I am not intending a comparison on the lines of ID is no better than geocentrism, or any other such nonsense.) Although you disagree with me about the scientific status of ID, you should see from the geocentrism analogy how, if ID was not science, then the situation as I describe it would hold.

As to arguments from authority, they only ever have two valid purposes. The first is, if you do not have time or inclination to examine a matter in detail, it is reasonable to accept the authority of those who have - but only when there is a significant consensus of experts on the issue. The second is to rebut false arguments from authority.

Now I'm confused. In your original comment, you attempted to draw a distinction between the average scientists with little understanding of ID and the ID critics who've spent time reading ID material. In your latests comment, you claim that the average biologist is well-equipped to evaluate the truth or falsity of Darwinism. We can get back to whether or not this claim is correct, but for the moment, I'd like to get this straight. You go on to claim that critiques of Darwinism is the "only activity" of ID, "if you exclude explicitly apologetic and/or political activities, and those associated with university affiliations were relevant." So, which ID material is it that ID critics are especially equipped to evaluate? Or are their function primarily of a political and anti-apologetical nature?

Also, if the scientific community is well-equipped to evaluate the arguments for ID, why would there be anything wrong with using its consensus as an argument from authority?

Having determined it is not science, to find out what it is, you look to its origins. The ID movement started as the mere creationism movement of Phillip Johnson; and that movement is clearly religious by any criteria.

Interestingly circular; ID is religous creationism. Why? Because Johnson is a creationist. How do we know he is a creationist? Because his "movement is clearly religious by any criteria".

Tom, do you seriously fool yourself when you write this up, or what?

If I was on another board with a herd of critics, and I wrote "theory of Darwinism," five or six critics would pounce on me, claiming there is no such thing as a "theory of Darwinism" and then proceed to explain that I am a closet creationist, as only a creationist describes evolution as a "theory of Darwinism."

Did you know that about the "ID critics", Tom?

Did I know that some ID critics are pedantic nitpickers? Yes! You get that on both sides. Had I been strictly accurate I would have talked about the core elements of the Darwinian research program (or perhaps, key elements, as I do not think that Johnson, Wells and Meyer are mistaken about everything).

This has not been my experience. As just one example, most critics confuse ID with religion. For example, notice how you carefully phrase things as an example of such confusion "“ "doctrines" of ID. Please explain why you chose that word.

ID is not a religion, but it is a religious movement. I know this because whether you use Popperian, Kuhnian, Lakatosian, or even (and I would recommend against this) Rusian criteria, it is not a science. In fact, the only notable demarcation criteria on which ID is a science is Feyerabend's, and that is because Feyerabend refuses to make a demarcation.

Having determined it is not science, to find out what it is, you look to its origins. The ID movement started as the mere creationism movement of Phillip Johnson; and that movement is clearly religious by any criteria. The main ID organisation is the Discovery Institute, which is funded for religious purposes by a clearly religiously commited man. It is not exclusively so funded, of course; but when seeking additional funding, the Discovery Institute clearly stated its purpose - the over throw of materialism. That is clearly a religous purpose. Further, its main proponents clearly come from a position of strong religious commitment, and are motivated to their activities (if not their views) by that commitment. And finally, they seem unable to avoid such telling comments as (approx), "ID is the logos doctrine of St John in the lingo of information theory".

All this would be irrelevant, on one provisio. Science does not care what your motivations are, or what inspired your ideas, or who funds you - so long as you do science. Given all the obvious connections between ID and religion, ID would still not be religious IF it met the criteria of Lakatosian science. But it doesn't; and as it is not science, that makes it religion.

The poll of the Ohian public explicitly asked, "Do you know anything about the concept of Intelligent Design?" 84% responded "No". Unfortunately the Ohian professors were not asked the same question. In both polls, a brief (one sentence) summary of ID was provided before proceding with further questions. Based on that one sentence summary, the majority of Ohians and Ohian professors considered ID a religious doctrine.

The one sentence summary reads:

"The concept of "˜intelligent design' is that life is too complex to have developed by chance and that a purposeful being or force is guiding the development of life."

Three points about the summary. It does not bring in any concept of the supernatural, or even that the "designer" is a person. It focuses on the notion of life being too complex, without explicitly mentioning or defining SC or IC. However, as life is itself a specification, and as the complexity of even the simplest life forms excedes Dembski's UPB, I consider this a fair summary of ID (given space constraints). Any ID theorist who considers Dembski's argument to be valid is thereby commited to the view that "life is too complex to have developed by chance". Thirdly, the question, which was designed by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, by tacitly classifying the alternate theory to ID (ie, Darwinism) as "life develop[ing] by chance" misrepresents that alternative far more than the sentence could be considered to misrepresent Darwinism.

In consequence, I consider the survey results to be interesting, but not hugely relevant. They deserve notice, but not a beat up - and that is all they got from the NCSE. In that notice, the NCSE was very clear about the methodology of the poll. I think it a reach, therefore, to suggest they were arguing from authority. Nor do I think you were suggesting that - but I think it worthwhile to be clear on that point.