Perpetuating Anti-ID Mythology
by BradfordGordy Slack authored The evolution of creationism by which he tried and failed to support the tired cliche about an assault on science. Some corrections are in order.
1. There is much more to ID arguments than the simplistic "evolution is not up to the task" depiction. Either Gordy has not looked into the matter extensively or he is mindlessly repeating standard memes.
2. IDists do not avoid mentioning God. However, they do avoid alleging that which is not subject to empirical evaluation. That's why we discuss genes, mutations, biological systems and things along these lines. That's why design is assessed in the context of experimental data. There is no need to make an end run around the First Amendment when scientific data is the subject of discussions.
3. Gordy is right in thinking that IDists are not about to give up their world views because of Judge Jones. Who would expect otherwise in a democratic system. Give up your world view? Sounds like the demands of an Adolf or a Saddam. It's not in keeping with western ideals.
4. The evolution is under serious attack mantra appeals to the true believers but is belied by the facts. Most IDists criticize the notion that biological change is non-telic in nature or analogous to a blind watchmaker.
November 13th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I think ID actually allows one to consider a wide range of possibilities instead of limiting your options to those of classical theism. ID, in my view, can even consider, ultimate causes that are in fact unintelligent as long as those unintelligent causes explain phenomena that our current understanding of the physical world cannot explain. (The origin of life, for example) Of course, I have no idea what those non intelligent causes would be I would only argue that it is something that we cannot logically eliminate. So it is simply wrong to say that because science cannot explain the complexity that we see in the world around us that the answer must be God. (That is creationism.) Instead ID says we cannot presently explain the the complexity in the world with are present knowledge of natural law. We should consider other possibilities. There is a wide range of possibilities and since we don't know the answer apriori we need to keep our options open.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 13, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
November 13th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
"But like bacteria adapting to antibiotics, creationism has slimmed down once again, this time shedding even a mention of an intelligent designer."
Slimming-down in response to anti-biotics. You mean bacteria doesn't beef-up in response to antibiotics? You mean you support Behe's Edge of Evolution thesis?
Oh, the rich irony!!!!
Gordy Slack, thank you.
Comment by geoffrobinson — November 13, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
November 13th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
Very true John. Generally when one side has a hidden agenda they seek to constrict rather than expand available options. The only constriction device that is appropriate is the winnowing effect of empirical data. Any attempt to short circuit the process of evaluating an idea, by having it declared contrary to law, is contrary to freedom of inquiry. ID allows for consideration of possibilities some find dangerous because of a fear of where others will take the results.
Comment by Bradford — November 13, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
November 13th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
geoffrobinson:
I'm thankful too. It's like coming to bat against a softball pitcher when a guy firing 90+ is in the bullpen.
Comment by Bradford — November 13, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
November 13th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
J_A_D:
Come on. Then what's the point of calling it Intelligent Design?
Comment by Raevmo — November 13, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
November 13th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Raevmo:
A theory can center around top down causality rather than the bottoms up approach that currently dominates.
Comment by Bradford — November 13, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
November 13th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Slack:
LOL. Yet recall the various critics over the years who have advised us to drop the term "Intelligent Design." How kind of them.
So even the critics now admit that there has indeed been a significant change in the post-wedge world. Yet they are also left with the fact that those of us at TT did not evolve "like bacteria adapting to antibiotics." There is a simple reason for this. Our interest in ID is both sincere and apolitical.
Comment by MikeGene — November 13, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
November 14th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Raevmo:
Bradford:
Michael Denton is someone who comes to mind who criticizes the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis as being inadequate but posits a natural but teleological explanation for life in the universe. From what I understand of Denton's thinking, though I find him to be very vague on this point, is that he is leans towards some kind platonic explanation. Denton's book, Evolution a Theory in Crisis, certainly was a major influence on the thinking of Johnson, Behe and others. So term "intelligent design" is probably something of a misnomer since from the very earliest days of the movement (mid 1980's) there was some discussion of a natural versus intelligently based teleology.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 14, 2007 @ 4:41 pm