Some ID Positions
by MikeGeneOver on the Panda's Thumb, ID critic Steve Reuland outlines the basic positions of ID. Since none of his assertions would help someone to understand my views, I thought I would answer the various questions he poses.
Age of the Earth. According to Reuland, the ID position is, "We don't know. And besides, it's really not ripe for debate yet."
My reply: The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. However, this is not an answer that is provided by my ID investigation, as detecting signals of design amidst biotic reality does not provide the type of information necessary to make this judgment. The data for such dating come from fields independent of any ID investigation.
What was created/designed? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Some feature(s) of the universe, including but not limited to living things, although it's not clear which feature(s) of living things were actually designed."
My reply: The working hypothesis is that the first life forms to appear on this planet were designed and such design has helped to shape subsequent evolution. The objective is to put some flesh on this hypothesis and a) better describe the first life forms and b) better define the manner in which their design has influenced evolution.
Who was the creator/designer? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Some unknown and unknowable "intelligence", which we coincidentally happen to believe is God of the Bible."
My reply: All I can propose about the identity of the designer is that it is an agent with a human-like intelligence. I propose this because I find it unlikely that we could ever detect design/teleos from an entity that thought in ways that are completely and totally different from our thinking process.
As for identifying the designer (the question posed by Reuland), I have addressed this before. Unless someone comes up with a methodology that allows us to reverse engineer the identity of a designer by using nothing more than the designed artifact, I don't see how it is proper, in an epistemic sense, to identify the designer as part of an investigation. One is certainly free to speculate about such things by drawing from considerations extrinsic to the investigation, but it is not the output or the necessary assumption of the investigation.
What was the mechanism of design? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "We don't know, but we know it can't be "natural", which implies divine intervention."
My reply: If we are talking about the outflow of design from the original design events, then the mechanism I propose is front-loading. I have currently been exploring the plausibility of such a mechanism and the results are encouraging. Ironically, the main complaint from critics of ID is that front-loading is "˜natural,' indicating that they demand some non-natural mechanism. When focusing on the original life forms, the mechanism is intelligent intervention. It is difficult to speculate here because of the limitations of our own understanding and technology. This point is made succinctly here. Further preliminary consideration is offered here. Suffice it to say that I will eventually have much more to say about this issue.
Evolution is"¦ According to Reuland, the ID position is, "The cause of most of society's ills."
My reply: No, I do not consider evolution to be the cause of most of society's ills. I would answer that evolution is a very powerful theory that has played a crucial role in helping us to make sense of much of biology.
Noah's Flood"¦ According to Reuland, the ID position is, "They'll ask, "˜What do you think of Noah's flood?' or something like that. Never bite on such questions because they'll lead you into a trackless wasteland and you'll never get out of it."
My reply: Noah's Flood is a story that is found in the Bible. If there is any historicity to the account, the flood would have been local.
Evolution and belief in God are"¦ According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Incompatible."
My reply: Evolution and belief in God are compatible. In fact, over the years, I have encountered several ID critics who argue that evolution and science itself lead to atheism. I have pointed out the problems with this view. What's odd is that I cannot recall an ID critic helping me out in any of these discussions.
Wants ideas taught in public schools? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Yes. I mean no. I mean yes. I mean, look, we've been consistent and clear on this, so what's the problem?"
My reply: No, I do not think intelligent design should be taught in public schools. I have consistently taken this position and have explained my reasoning. However, I view the attempts to monkey with the science curricula in public schools to be more of a nuisance than some disastrous threat to science.
Do humans and apes share a common ancestor? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Usually no. Occasionally yes."
My reply: Yes. The evidence for such a relationship is very strong.
Claims to have science on their side? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Yes."
My reply: I do not consider ID to be science. But I do think that science has discovered many things over the last 25 years that have made ID and Front-Loading much more plausible than it was prior to these discoveries.
Why do scientists almost universally reject them? According to Reuland, the ID position is, "Because they're all a bunch of atheists, libruls, and ivory tower elitists who can't be trusted."
My reply: There are several reasons that interact synergistically.
First, scientists view ID as an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence. When asked about what type of data they would count as evidence for ID, they typically reply along the following lines: 1) Some proof that evolution is impossible or 2) A confirmed detection of the designer-in-action. Anything less than this is dismissed according to the second reason and third reasons.
Secondly, since more than 90% of scientists view the concept of ID as inherently religious while agreeing with Eugenie Scott that "science is restricted to explaining natural phenomena using only natural processes," clearly ID will be ruled out on a priori grounds. We've documented many examples on this blog where scientists hear "God" when presented with "ID." A beautiful case study of such behavior was recently illustrated for us here.
Thirdly, most scientists probably view ID exactly as Steve Reuland portrays it. That is, ID is supposed to equal creationism. But not just any ol' strain of creationism "“ a dishonest, virulent strain so toxic that is represents a bona fide Threat To Science.
Put simply, Reuland raises a sociological observation and there are plenty of sociological hypotheses to consider and test.
November 12th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
Funny thing, Mike…I agree with almost everything you say;-) Actually, the only point of disagreement is with:
Claims to have science on their side?
I have to say no to this question, but for different reasons and with different qualifications. The main reason I say no is that to have science on your side means hardly anything without having the assent of the community of scientists.
But, to have science on your side isn't the same thing as to have "the scientific facts on your side" where the facts are independent of the community of scientists and even independent of discovery. I'm agnostic on this point. I refuse to deny that the scientific facts might be on the ID side, because in my view we hardly know what those facts are at this point. We know some facts, such as the fact that evolution has taken place. But we don't know other facts, such as the primary mechanisms that have driven evolutionary change throughout history.
Comment by bipod — November 12, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
November 12th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Mike, have you ever considered that maybe the critics are right? Maybe we're deceiving ourselves. Maybe our position *is* untenable and awash in vaguery. Maybe there are only two sides to this issue.
Of course I say this only in jest… I see no reason to expect that reality will turn out to conform to any simple-minded, politically polarized view. In fact, I see many reasons to bet on the opposite (which is of course what we're doing by exploring telic thoughts).
Comment by bipod — November 12, 2005 @ 7:09 pm
November 13th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
I would encourage you to show up at the next affair featuring the Discovery Institute experts held at a church and promoted almost exclusively in church bulletins, and ask them why they are not more explicit in their endorsement of a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth.
If possible, you should do this at an affair held at a Church of Christ or Assembly of God.
You may begin to understand why everyone else in ID ducks the issue.
P.S. — if you do try this, take several friends with you.
Comment by edarrell — November 13, 2005 @ 3:33 pm
November 13th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Edarrell,
Church of Christ or Assembly of God?
Why them? Why not a Catholic community?
Why does it bother you so much that it is promoted almost exclusively in church bulletins? That's a faith-based community. Let them have the pro-ID position expressed there.
Comment by Benton — November 13, 2005 @ 10:02 pm
November 14th, 2005 at 8:16 am
Mike, thanks for your definition of ID as you see it. If I could do subscripts, I would call this ID(mg) for ID(Mike Gene).
Now for one more step: Remember that ID(mg) does not equal ID(therestoftheIDworld). ID(trotIDw) is pretty much as Reuland describes it.
Benton, I imagine Edarrell chose Church of Christ or Assembly of God instead of Catholic because the Catholic church largely accepts evolution, with the provisio that one particular Designer implants non-evolved souls into fertilized eggs at conception. The Catholic church also has no problems with a young earth or a Bible that's not infallible.
The CoC and AoG churches, on the other hand, are straight fundamentalist protestant churches. Both demand their followers believe in a young earth and a seven day creation just as described in the inerrant Bible. If you're going to question a young earth in one of those churches, you might want some backup.
As for why Edarrell is bothered by something promoted almost exclusively in church bullitins, I couldn't say. What bothers me is seeing something that is clearly religious yanked out of the church and crammed into the schools I support with my taxes and which educate my kids. But after the Dover Debacle, I don't think this is going to be a factor in the future unless the TMLC wises up and doesn't appeal their loss all the way to the Supreme Court.
Comment by DataDoc — November 14, 2005 @ 8:16 am
November 14th, 2005 at 9:12 am
DataDoc:
ID(trotIDw) is pretty much as Reuland describes it.
No it isn't. However it would appear to be so to those who don't know any better.
As for the age of the Earth- until we know how it formed there is no way to know how old it is.
Comment by Joe G — November 14, 2005 @ 9:12 am
November 14th, 2005 at 9:50 am
Hi DataDoc,
"ID(trotIDw) is pretty much as Reuland describes it."
It should be remembered that Reuland writes from the perspective of a politically invested person, subscribing to the ID=creationism meme. It's sobering to remember the many ID critics who have attempted to portray Mike's or my own position as "ID(trotIDw)".
Comment by Krauze — November 14, 2005 @ 9:50 am
November 15th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
MikeGene says My reply: Evolution and belief in God are compatible. In fact, over the years, I have encountered several ID critics who argue that evolution and science itself lead to atheism. I have pointed out the problems with this view. What's odd is that I cannot recall an ID critic helping me out in any of these discussions.
Thats odd, because on this very website I quite recently vociferously argued that evolution and belief in God are compatible. Shame you can't recall it, Mike!
Comment by Aagcobb — November 15, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
November 16th, 2005 at 7:42 am
That's especially odd because it's common knowledge amongst evolution defenders that evolution and religion are compatible. In fact, the majority of all Christians accept evolution. Perhaps Mike should be looking to Catholic priests or liberal Protestant pastors for support?
Comment by DataDoc — November 16, 2005 @ 7:42 am
November 16th, 2005 at 7:43 am
DataDoc: "Vincible ignorance".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathe...
http://www.brainyquote.com/quo...
Steve Reuland is a biochemist. It seems rather ironic for a member of a group that exists to politicize biology to describe a man who defends his scientific specialty against anti-scientific attack as "politically invested".
I would hardly criticize him for subscribing to the "ID=creationism meme". Since Phillip Johnson, the father of ID, refers to ID as creationism and since a majority of those pushing ID are, in fact, creationists, you're just saying that Reuland has an accurate knowledge of ID. Face it, to a first approximation, ID is creationism. If this disturbs you or Mike, don't hassle Steve Reuland about it, talk to the ID folks. They're the only ones who can do anything about it.
As far as the personal positions of yourself and Mike Gene are concerned, it's not surprising that people think you hold the same views as the vast majority of all IDists. I can see how it's annoying, but unless you both do a lot of advertising, it's entirely natural for people to think that people who identify themselves as IDists are in fact creationists, like the vast majority of all IDists are.
Comment by DataDoc — November 16, 2005 @ 7:43 am
November 16th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
DataDoc:
In fact, the majority of all Christians accept evolution.
Accept it for the sham it is.
As for "vincible ignorance" that is how we describe you and your ilk. Except we call it "willful ignorance".
Ya see DD we know that decay rates can be increased. That is a fact of life. Therefore we can only guess the age of the Earth based on unverifiable assumptions.
Comment by Joe G — November 16, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
November 16th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Hi DataDoc,
"Steve Reuland is a biochemist. It seems rather ironic for a member of a group that exists to politicize biology to describe a man who defends his scientific specialty against anti-scientific attack as "politically invested"."
I'm not a member of the ID movement, and I don't write to "politicize biology". As for Panda's Thumb, it's a political reaction to the ID movement. As such, it's hardly surprising to find its writers clinging to politically expedient ways of framing the debate.
"Since Phillip Johnson, the father of ID, refers to ID as creationism and since a majority of those pushing ID are, in fact, creationists, you're just saying that Reuland has an accurate knowledge of ID."
Whether ID is creationism isn't something that can be determined through proof texting or demographics. What you need to do is follow the logic of a design inference: How would we get from the design of, say, the bacterial flagellum to the truth of creationism?
"Face it, to a first approximation, ID is creationism."
That's your subjective opinion. To others in the streets, to a first approximation, evolution is atheism.
"As far as the personal positions of yourself and Mike Gene are concerned, it's not surprising that people think you hold the same views as the vast majority of all IDists. I can see how it's annoying, but unless you both do a lot of advertising, it's entirely natural for people to think that people who identify themselves as IDists are in fact creationists, like the vast majority of all IDists are."
The point isn't whether critics are justified in adopting the ID=creationism meme, but in the implications of this belief. If ID is thought to be nothing but repackaged creationism, what consequences will this have in the evaluation of ID by the "objective and well-informed" scientific community?
However, your comment does raise one interesting thesis: That if only ID evolutionists like Mike and myself were more vocal about our views, critics wouldn't confuse it with creationism. To test it, let's look at a recent event, namely my submission to Circus of the Spineless. My post contained everything Dr. Örstan needed to know that I wasn't a creationist, had he taken the time to read it. But instead, he labelled it as "creationist" and likened it to someone painting grafitti on his house.
Comment by Krauze — November 16, 2005 @ 4:06 pm
November 16th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Joe G says decay rates can be increased? You're not talking atomic decay rates, are you?
Another appeal to magic?
Comment by edarrell — November 16, 2005 @ 5:54 pm
November 16th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
No, I'm not bothered by the DI flogging their religious stuff at churches at all. I'm bothered by their hypocrisy, where they claim in court that they don't do it. I'm bothered by their claiming that their positions are not religious when they in fact bear their testimony to the contrary when they forget themselves, or when they think the audience sufficiently fundamentalist. I'm bothered that they allow young Earth creationists to believe that ID supports young Earth creationism, when they argue to courts that they don't.
Why not a Catholic church? First, because Catholic churches tend not to do that kind of political organizing, and second because I am unaware that any DI fete has ever been held in a Catholic church. I think DI avoids Catholics. And third, because most Catholic congregations have enough Catholic school-educated people in their midst to heckle the DI presentations. Catholic schools teach hard science, and they tend to teach it well. Knowledge is the enemy of intelligent design dog and eohippus shows. Perhaps DI knows what its doing when it avoids Catholic audiences.
If ID is thought to be nothing more than repackaged creationism, perhaps the thinker has had the wool ripped from her eyes.
Comment by edarrell — November 16, 2005 @ 6:00 pm
November 17th, 2005 at 9:14 am
edarrell:
Joe G says decay rates can be increased?
Yes I do.
edarrell:
You're not talking atomic decay rates, are you?
Yes I am.
edarrell:
Another appeal to magic?
Another appeal to reality. Decay rates have been increased in the lab as well as in nuclear reactors.
edarrell:
I think DI avoids Catholics.
DR. Behe is a Catholic.
edarrell:
Knowledge is the enemy of intelligent design dog and eohippus shows.
That is funny because the more we know the more ID appears to be reality.
edarrell:
If ID is thought to be nothing more than repackaged creationism, perhaps the thinker has had the wool ripped from her eyes.
Perhaps the thinker really isn't (thinking).
Comment by Joe G — November 17, 2005 @ 9:14 am
November 17th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Can someone, anyone, please tell me what is "clearly religious" about Intelligent Design?
Does ID say ANYTHING about worship? No. Who, what, how, where, when or why to worship? No. Does ID say anything about giving service to? No. Is ID based on any religious texts? No.
People need to be aware of this:
As Justice Lewis Powell wrote in his concurrence to Edwards v. Aguillard, "(A) decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught "˜happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions'."
Comment by Joe G — November 17, 2005 @ 12:53 pm
November 18th, 2005 at 10:04 am
DataDoc:
That's especially odd because it's common knowledge amongst evolution defenders that evolution and religion are compatible.
That's especially odd because there is no difference between a "God" who "creates" via blindwatchmaker processes and no "God" at all.
Comment by Joe G — November 18, 2005 @ 10:04 am