Why ID won't stay out of high schools
by Steve PetermannWhy? It's not because the Darwinian fundies dropped the ball. It's not because of the courts. It's not even because of school boards. All this may have some effect, but no matter what happens in these areas, intelligent design will be discussed in high school biology classrooms. Absolutely. Why? Because of the kids.
Intelligent design has become a cultural issue and not just in the US. It's in the media, the Prez has come out for it, the Australian education minister just said it is OK to discuss it in class, and with each school board debate it ends up in some local if not national newspaper. It's a phenomenon that just won't go away. Because of this the issues, arguments, rebuttals, etc. are becoming common knowledge. Heck this blog is an example of a place those bright high school students can go to get a certain perspective. Then there are the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. If someone thinks that the theistic apologetics taught in those venues won't include ID, they should think again. Even if kids don't get it in some religious setting there's always the internet with all its discussion rooms, blogs, chats, etc. It won't be that difficult for some bright high school student to develop quite an arsenal to critique Darwinian theory.
Here's a scenario. Just imagine this if you can and dare, a 16 year old pimply faced Mike Gene :-0 sitting today in a high school AP biology class with a Darwinian fundy as the teacher. Those bright kids are out there right now and they're on the internet, a lot. If you were the teacher, could you think of a more terrifying situation? What's the teacher going to do when the student challenges the Darwinian party line with arguments from irreducible complexity, specified complexity, etc. What's she going to do when the student quotes Provine, Shapiro, or Margulis about the failings of Darwinian theory? Well if she rebuffs these attempts saying they're just religious arguments and not scientific, she's potentially got a big problem with disparaging the student's intellectual integrity. She'll more than likely end up in the principal's office with that student's parents. Of course the school could have a policy not to talk about ID in class but how will that fly with the students. They love it when adults copt out for expedience or politics.
Oh yes, intelligent design will come up in high school biology classrooms. How it will be handled is still yet to be seen. My guess is it will be a messy business. But I sure wouldn't want to be a Darwinian fundamentalist teaching high school biology in the future.
August 13th, 2005 at 11:56 am
This is so amusing. In light of the fact that the Darwinists may win the Dover case, will that stem the tide of ID reaching the young? Jerry Coyne actually makes a good point, if a belief in ID can not withstand exposure to other ideas such as Darwinian evolution, then ID stands on shaky ground. But cleary ID is holding it's own among the young, suggesting that ID rests on solid ground in the eyes of the young! The issue of the kids championing ID in the high school is one issue in a post wedge world that we've not explored.
New Tactic In Evolution Debate
"Today there are many more arguments that kids bring to class,
a whole fleet of arguments" LOL! A whole fleet of arguments?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 13, 2005 @ 11:56 am
August 13th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Still anti-Darwin, several generations after the fact. Yawn. And this supposedly makes a neo-Creation Science case for intelligent design?!
This is laughable! And I'm not even a Darwinist!
Yup! A safe bet. And S. Cordova says the earth is 6000-10000 years old, so evangelical students better believe it! It's true, y'know, according to fringe scientists.
No doubt, considering the political-educational climate in that country. How many minutes, I wonder, will the discussion constitute before actual biological science is discussed? Will it be longer than a sticker in a textbook takes to read?
Comment by g arago — August 13, 2005 @ 12:54 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
g,
I'm afraid that an attitude of ID not equal biological science won't get very far with high school students. They can spot a smoke screen in a nano-second.
BTW, if ID arguments require so little time to dismiss, go figure all the ink on ARN over the last five years.
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 13, 2005 @ 1:57 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
And it doesn't even need to go that far.
In the Silcon Valley of the East, the affluent and highly technologically advanced culture of Northern Virginia, there is the highest concentration of scientists and engineers per capita in the world as well as the highest concentration of graduate degrees.
Yet Virginia gets a nearly failing grade of "D" in it public school teaching of Darwin. And it was, (gasp) the host to the YEC Mega conference of 2005.
These students come from well-educated familes. As an exaggerated illustration, here is a teacher's worst nightmare. An NEA teacher, with little training in science trying to teach biology in high school.
The teachers says, "Darwinism is fact, fact, fact. Only backward people believe in ID or creation science. Dawkins said you're stupid ignorant or insane if you don't believe in Darwinian evolution."
The student respond: "well my Daddy is professor of cardiology at Georgetown, and he says Darwin didn't know squat. Are disagreeing with my Daddy who has 10 times more education than you? "
Another responds, "my Daddy is a PhD from MIT and he builds space
ships. He thinks Darwinian evolution is stupid."
Another responds, "my Daddy is a PhD from Standford with a degree in Electrical Engineering. Are Darwinist biologists brighter than my Daddy?"
Another reponds, "my Daddy is a high profile attorney who represented Paula Jones against Clinton. He ain't afraid of no one. And if you insist that I have to believe this stuff, you may be violating my constitutional rights."
Obviously such scenarios don't take place, but the teachers know what they're up against, and such is the stuff of their nightmares. As Ken Miller said, IDist ain't stupid.
I think you've got a great point Steve, the question of ID won't go away in the high schools because of the students, and because the ID message is reaching so many homes through various channels outside of the public school system.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 13, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Steve Peterson: "¦if she rebuffs these attempts saying they're just religious arguments and not scientific, she's potentially got a big problem with disparaging the student's intellectual integrity.
Plus the wholy line of "˜argument': "˜ID is not science' is just a red-herring "“ so she may have a problem with her own intellectual integrity, too. What matters are the 'evidence' and arguments you can make on behalf of your position and not whether it meets someone's artificially constructed definition of "˜science'. After-all there is no Platonic Form (or whatever) of "˜science' it is a human activity that has numerous methods and changes with history; plus there is no currently accepted definition of science, anyway. so what could someone (this teacher, say) even mean by saying something like: 'ID is not Science'? It almost sounds like: "˜ID is not the view of the Church' or "˜ID is not what Comrade Stalin believes'.
Comment by de_nacisse — August 13, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
I can't edit my post (at lest i don't know how) but it should obviously be Steve Petermann above, sorry.
Comment by de_nacisse — August 13, 2005 @ 3:40 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
So much about comrade Stalin recently. Disturbing really. CCCP has become a fashion symbol.
Btw, de Nacisse, have to tell you that Mike Gene and perhaps most others at Telic Thoughts don't think 'ID is science.' It's not just 'religious arguments' (especially since I can give the names of many religious thinkers who dismiss ID as bad theology), but certainly IDis not considered science by biologists either. Not sure what expertise you represent.
After more than a decade (and a half - this is debatable) ID theories are still treading a middle ground. They are neither successful scientifically, philosophically nor theologically, except in rhetorical senses. Politics and media in the USA, however, is another story.
According to MG, ID is not science and should not be taught in schools. It seems there's a few invaders here recently from the ID Big Tent who would wish to correct such views. Salvador's 'my Daddy' stories, though perhaps endearing on a personal scale, are nonetheless inconsequential to the scientific enterprise that IDists like Dembski plan to revolutionize in the field on biological science. Lamoureux and Murphy are two religious scientists who undermine the proclaimed success of ID theories, especially when they speak as alternatives to Darwinian evolution.
This may help to explain why ID should stay out of high schools. Still anti-Darwin several generations after the fact. How boring.
Arago
p.s. born in the information age, taking a different angle from ID=repatriated Paleyism; why not open a ear to hear about it?
Comment by g arago — August 13, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
g,
How about staying off tangents. This thread is not about whether or not ID should be in schools but that it will be because of the students. Surely you as a sociologist would be more interested in the dynamics of that instead of whether or not ID should be.
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 13, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Not about whether it should be taught but about that it will be taught. No thanks, not interested in your speculation. Especially not coming from someone outside of the mainstream ID big tent.
'ID is not science,' but nonetheless it will be taught in high schools biology classes because students in America want it. How bizarre!
Comment by g arago — August 13, 2005 @ 7:10 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
g,
No problem. You are not obliged to address the issues of the thread.
So since your perception is apparently that folks on this blog are not in the ID big tent, we shouldn't expect any more posts from you.
I never said it would be taught in schools. A little spin there? I claimed that students would raise the issue.
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 13, 2005 @ 7:21 pm
August 14th, 2005 at 1:43 am
Hi G. Arago
It's the banalization of Stalin "“ disturbing? hmm"¦I once saw his face on a pink tie.
g. arago: Btw, de Nacisse, have to tell you that Mike Gene and perhaps most others at Telic Thoughts don't think "˜ID is science.'
I would think that depends on what science is (and maybe what ID means here or there). I don't really know what Mike Gene (or the other Blogers) think about the issue (I've heard rumors)"“ but some folks have proposed some pretty loose standards for something to-be-or-not-to-be science. But, by some standards ID is not science (that is obviously right). still the question (or answer) as stated is ambiguous in my opinion"¦
g. arago: After more than a decade (and a half "“ this is debatable) ID theories are still treading a middle ground. They are neither successful scientifically, philosophically nor theologically, except in rhetorical senses. Politics and media in the USA, however, is another story.
I don't know how you're measuring success here or separating these "˜different' domains"“ but even if you are right I'm not sure what I should conclude? Many things progress slow but that doesn't mean it's not science "“ at lest I don't see how it would. besides, I think in the fight to succeed competing theories clash-and-borrow one from the other (almost like a thesis + antithesis = synthesis ); if ID can even spur on debate about evolution (on some level) it has succeed on some level.
g.arago: It seems there's a few invaders here recently from the ID Big Tent who would wish to correct such views.
"˜Invaders'? that's a metaphor of violenceï?Š. anyway i don't think i'm in a 'big tent' tho. I mean i don't think ID (the theories/science) is true. nor do i think creation-science is ture. but maybe that doesn't matter - i don't know.
g. arago: p.s. born in the information age, taking a different angle from ID=repatriated Paleyism; why not open a ear to hear about it?
I'm all for your alternative view (i like your views from what i remeber at ARN, anyway). I'm a fan of pluralism and the continuous fight for survival. I think it is interesting and good "“ I'm not bored (just boringï?Š
Comment by de_nacisse — August 14, 2005 @ 1:43 am
August 14th, 2005 at 9:17 am
Hello again de_nacisse,
Certainly you're not boring! I've enjoyed your contributions at ARN too. Pluralism and alternative views, hmmm…does this mean your not stuck in the follow-the-Dembski/Johnson rut either? Not going to try to prove "˜intelligent design' with mathematics or banish secularization with laws and jurisprudence? :->
The 'science or not science' question is indeed, sometimes loosely stated. As is the case in this thread where should vs. will are rather fuzzy concepts and even mere opinions. Steve hasn't said where ID will enter the schools, perhaps he means in student clubs and not that it will/should be taught in legitimate science classes. Perhaps a debate club would be the best place, given the propensity of evolution vs. creation and now ID vs. creation and evolution to provoke dialectics.
I'm not sure how I'm measuring success either. And since I don't live in the USA, it's difficult for me to gauge just what is happening about ID's pretensions to legitimacy there. It is, after all, a soc-poli movement in addition to certain individual theories and speculations of American origin(s). Personally, I have met many more scholars and scientists who think ID theory (i.e. the Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson version) is nonsense, misguided or theologically irresponsible than who think it is academically rigorous.
However, most I've spoken with are sensitive to the larger issues dealing with 'science and religion' and realize that many IDists are more opposed to the dispiriting notions of evolution and materialistic science as infringements upon their deeply held beliefs than they are actually committed to making advancements in science and society. Thus, many critics of iD, especially religious scientists and scholars, are relatively sympathetic to the project of those inside the IDM.
This sympathy, of course, doesn't make ID any more scientific than Paley plus information age, i.e. traditional design theory with clever bells and whistles attached. And it doesn't make Dembski any sexier or eloquent as a mathematician-turned-pop-culture-writer. But there's appeal and successes that he and his colleagues have managed along the way. And therefore, I wonder when the awe-factor will run out.
No, I don't consider you an invader. Your views appear to me, from a distance, to be closer to the Telic Thoughts crew than to the ID big tent as expressed/pontificated at ARN, though I'm speaking philosophically here now, having little to do with science or religion. Perhaps this would be a cool place for you to contribute more about origins, meaning, human purpose and/or teleology? At least, it can be said in my areas of study and research, it's important to think telic-ally (even multidirectional) most of the time. Maybe the same or something similar holds for you.
Arago
p.s. just a general remark after reading the brochure for the conference "Purpose in Evolution" held at Castel Gandolfo, Italy June 24-26, 2004 "¦ one clip from John Haught's bio struck me as quite relevant to Telic Thoughts and how it differs from the ID theories presented by the IDM. Haught believes that "˜purpose' is "a much wider notion than design." This is partly what I have been insisting upon also, that the weak explanatory power of "˜intelligent design' in certain spheres of knowledge is due to the narrow application by certain specialized scientists in the IDM. Design, design, design; though sociologically speaking it doesn't make any sense. Telic Thoughts should be more closely tied to purpose, imo, as indicated in its Banner, than to ideas of "˜intelligent' plus "˜design' which is now automatically linked (labelled) to a particular group of scientists and their social-political-religious lobby in the USA. If a scientist or scholar doesn't wish to be improperly labelled then he or she must distinguish them-self from such a Movement of persons and their ideas. This is meant not to go against, but to be supportive of Mike Gene's situation.
p.p.s. has anyone here read Haught's book "Deeper than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution"?
p.p.p.s Yikes! M. Ruse was there too…at the Vatican Observatory! "[A] philosopher of science who has found in evolution a kind of Weltanschauung, a world picture that gives meaning to life. He believes that we know what we know because of biology and remains a skeptic on the existence of an ultimate reality as attractive as he finds the possibility."
Comment by g arago — August 14, 2005 @ 9:17 am
August 14th, 2005 at 9:29 am
G. arago:
Since you are quite an expert on defining "˜creationism,' try something new "“ define "˜science.'
Nevertheless, I'm quite encouraged by myself. LOL
I've found the concept/perspective of ID to be surprisingly useful.
Comment by MikeGene — August 14, 2005 @ 9:29 am
August 14th, 2005 at 9:40 am
Mike Gene,
Usually you are not, but that post was boring!
And off topic. So I won't reply.
Besides, i don't remember being such an expert at defining 'creationism.' Perhaps you're getting critics of ID (Gene's, Dembski's, Behe's, Krauze's, Meyer's, etc. versions of ID) mixed up?
Arago
Comment by g arago — August 14, 2005 @ 9:40 am
August 14th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
g. arago: At least, it can be said in my areas of study and research, it's important to think telic-ally
I once read a book on sociology and purposeful narratives culture lives by/though called- moral, believing animals by Christian Smith. It critiques some aspects/excesses of evolutionism by showing the nature of culture and the motivations of actions and stuff-like-that.
Here's a quote I liked from the book that may in some (telic) way be relevent here: Science may have put a man on the moon (which was itself a morally, politically, and emotionally pregnant endeavor). But we can't say that science is exempt from the moral and believing character of the human persons and society. Nothing human, not even science, escapes moral order.
purpose and meaning into science class "“ it seems.
we were never being boring
"˜cause we were never being bored. "“ pet shop boys.
Comment by de_nacisse — August 14, 2005 @ 2:18 pm
August 14th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Thanks. Interesting connection for telic thoughts, which doesn't necessarily have to do with 'i + d' and which likely belongs in schools: 'sociology and purposeful narratives'. Purpose and meaning outside of biology but still in science class, indeed.
One needn't look far to find a connection to evolution-ism, as you indicate also. Unfortunately, 'morality' for most sociologists is considered entirely a 'social construction,' which is not exactly what Berger and Luckmann meant in their 'social construction of reality.' Too bad I don't have time now to read the article below from a biologist on 'evolutionary social constructivism.'
http://www.metanexus.net/metan...
Btw, is it really true (what it reads on Smith's CV)?:
"$3,960,000 grant on "The Religious Practices of American Youth," from Lilly Endowment, Inc., August 1, 2001-July 31, 2005."
Wow, there's money available for studying religion in 'American youth'!
Maybe this is connected to what S. Petermann means why he thinks i+d won't stay out of schools?
Comment by g arago — August 14, 2005 @ 9:18 pm
August 14th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
My experience is that the fundies avoid AP Biology like the plague. It's impossible to pass the AP exam without understanding evolution.
Plus, the AP Biology books are the only ones that adequately treat creationism and intelligent design. One of the books dedicates a page to debunking the creationist underpinnings of ID.
So the premise is unbelievable: I can't picture an anti-evolutionist with enough interest in biology to take the AP version. Look at IDists at the college level: No botanists, no active researchers, no zoologists . . .
Comment by edarrell — August 14, 2005 @ 11:08 pm
August 15th, 2005 at 12:13 am
You can't picture it. Well, here is a picture so you can picture it. Biology Graduate, JMU Class of 2005
So now you can picture it. That exactly the kind of student you insult demean and discourage. Somehow, a few like her manage to overcome the negative climate and graduate.
She graduated through a scholarship, with honors and with speicalty in molecular genetics. Works for NASA. Picture taken at the Smithsonian premeire of Privileged Planet. Her picture was on the DI website somewhere too…..
Frankly I wouldn't blame students for avoiding Darwinist highschool teachers bent on destroying IDist or creationist beliefs with flimsy just-so stories being passed off as scientific fact.
Thankfully, some manage to surmount the negative climate and make it through academically. Lot's of them become physcians by the way, somewhere in the neighborhood of 37% of the physicians (many bio majors) are IDists…..
Heck, I'll encourage them to learn the material to pass the class. If they have to study Greek Mythology to pass the class, I'd encourage them to learn it, it doesn't mean they should believe it….
Maybe they have lot's of interest in biology, but little interest for Darwin. You shouldn't conflate the two.
That's partly because the Darwinist thought police get rid of non-conforming biology professors, and do a good job of ensuring they're not hired.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 15, 2005 @ 12:13 am
August 15th, 2005 at 4:34 am
Well then Ed, maybe me and all the other 16-year old "Mike Genes" don't exist. Last time I checked, I do exist and I am interested in biology and I'm not a Darwinist despite hearing about the evidence that allegedly supports it.
Doesn't it worry you just a little that there are high schoolers who actually understand Darwinian evolution and ID who have chosen against the view so forcefully pushed by their Darwinist teachers?
The premise is believable Ed, in fact it's as real as you and I.
Comment by jasonng — August 15, 2005 @ 4:34 am
August 15th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Hi Jason,
You don't have to believe Ed's pro-Darwinist orthodoxy. But if you study biology, or plan to study it at the university undergrad or postgrad levels, obviously you cannot ignore nor purposefully disaquaint yourself with evolutionary theory, which has moved beyond Darwin's 19th century version. Surely you realize this even if you disagree with rhetorical Darwinism or Darwinists who support and peddle other ideologies.
The IDM likes to target Darwin and his version of evolution. Yet they can't or won't distinguish just which forms of evolution (i.e. biological, geological, botanical, cosmological, technical, social, cultural, etc.) that they are willing to embrace and which they reject. the purpose of this is to bring as many people into their 'big tent' as possible. That way politics becomes more important than science and students will be persuaded to question the science at the same time.
Notice that Alfred Wallace is rarely mentioned by IDists, since he was a Christian who co-discovered 'natural selection' and it would somehow taint their attack on Sir Charles, who, in fact, is currently on the British 10 pound note! Not quite the quack scientist that the IDM likes to make him out as.
In your support, I am not a Darwinist either, and am definitively against his influence on my area(s) of study.
Warm regards,
Arago
…
Where does he get this stuff? A social survey perhaps? But I thought social science wasn't scientific. Even un-empirical? So why attach the numbers, Salvador? He is again, apparently, speaking out of more than one side of his mouth.
Comment by g arago — August 15, 2005 @ 9:42 am
August 15th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Hi Jason,
Welcome. Great to have you here!
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 15, 2005 @ 1:09 pm
August 16th, 2005 at 12:56 am
Thanks for your comments, I don't plan on disaquainting myself from today's evolutionary theory, especially considering that Darwin's mechanism plays a role in ID as well as Darwinism.
Although ID does have broad appeal, it is only because it is presently concerned mostly with differentiating between things created by material mechanisms and those that are designed. I think in the near future, as ID moves towards becoming a full-fledged alternative theory to Darwinism, it should be made clear that ID does accept Darwinian evolution but only in cases where the evidence points in that direction.
Comment by jasonng — August 16, 2005 @ 12:56 am
August 16th, 2005 at 2:58 am
Hi Jason,
Thanks for the feedback. Yours is an interesting and important voice here. Perhaps we could both clarify some things about what ID theory (or theories) is (are) and what they are not, if you would stay to discuss your telic thoughts as well. Glad to meet you on-line.
Today I'm swamped, though maybe can respond tonight. But I quickly dug up a link from an earlier discussion at ARN about the difference between organisms and mechanisms.
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb...
Also, just came across a link to a Harvard initiative to study 'origins of life' with a chemist suggesting that a solution may be 'reduced' to 'a series of logical steps' that happened 'with no divine intervetion.' Another example of a specialized natural scientist speaking for more than his sphere of knowledge qualifies him for. I guess at this stage its just a hunch and not 'science.'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...
Omt, Dembski's 'dissent from Darwin' package and Johnson's (the father of the IDM) anti-Darwinian Evolution make it difficult to conceive how ID (theory or movement) would 'accept Darwinian evolution but only in cases where the evidence points in that direction.' Have you read the threads where Salvador and others link Darwin to the world's evils and write it off as mere philosophical fancy? The ideology of several IDists (especially evangelical ID-Creation Science supporters) apparently gets in the way of following the evidence. But it doesn't make them bad people.
Arago
Comment by g arago — August 16, 2005 @ 2:58 am
August 16th, 2005 at 4:08 am
You too, it's always interesting to hear from people who belong to neither group.
About the machine metaphor, I think IDists compare organisms to machines because they both display properties of design (specified complexity). Organisms are seen as even greater designs than human-designed machines since they can "turn over and renew"; they have sustainability that machines don't have and they can look out for themselves whereas machines need maintenance.
The Harvard study appears to be based on wishful thinking and the assumption that life did arise by itself. These assumptions will unfortunately hinder attempts to make this study as unbiased as possible.
By 'accepting Darwinian evolution in some cases' I meant of course cases where random mutation/natural selection (or other material mechanisms) led to an organism's evolution. IDists are merely following the evidence which indicates that some features of biology are best explained by an intelligent designer (and thus some are best explained by material mechanisms). Darwin's theory should be treated as a legitimately scientific theory by its opponents but one cannnot deny that it has had far reaching influences (good and bad) on society as a whole. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out, because if a theory is not well supported by evidence and it has negative influences on society, then it would be sensible to search for an alternative.
Comment by jasonng — August 16, 2005 @ 4:08 am
August 19th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
Hello Jason Ng,
It is once again a pleasure to read your responses. Please excuse the delay in replying. There's not the time right now to give to the message boards and discussion lists. And every moment I spend reading or writing English goes against my practical needs in the coming days. So I hope you don't mind if I take a slower pace for now. Perhaps you'll read this sometime later and we'll catch up elsewhere or in this thread again too. I will check back in the coming days.
This is subtly worded "“ definitely more subtle than Dembski's compositions (aside from using Dembski's varnished concept duo). You'll surely need to explain or suggest how (or why) "˜displaying' properties of non-human-made things using the idea of "˜biological design' (even mathematical SC) is similar to the "˜design' or "˜construction' displayed by human-made things if this comparative perspective is to have some empirical-ness or "˜hold its weight.' Comparative for one person is relativistic (not only negative) for another. "˜Human-made and non-human-made;' this presents a serious problem for ID and/or evolution which natural scientists should not alone confront to reinvent for 21st century audiences.
It seems to me that the cultural renewal project (CNP) of most ID theorists reveals a more profound dimension than bio-engineering or bio-technology themselves could ever address, regardless of their import for societies globally and locally today. No problem with comparing ORGA and MECHA. IDists are still more ideological than scientific.
Hear, here! This was a better answer than most at ARN. That conversation seemed to reveal a kind of circular reasoning in the idea of interpreting organisms as machine-like (if not machines as organism-like) in order that one might consider them "˜designed' (by some sort of un-embodied intelligence "“ like Bilbo when he put on the Ring?). Machines are almost automatic, aren't they (Isn't this what Neo discovered on the engineering level in Reloaded)? Woese is not speaking in fields of study that I am prepared to speak about with much "˜objective' knowledge, so that part of the conversation is best for someone else to open.
I certainly agree with you about the wonderful (even greater) "˜design' or "˜construction' or "˜creation' or "˜emergence' of organisms. Though there seems a bridge to cross between organism and mechanism that has yet been addressed or identified in ID or even perhaps in evolutionary (and developmental) literature. Dawkins is more limited than most IDists would like to imagine in comparing themselves to others as a revolutionary force. Telic thinkers who simply believe in ID or who base hunches on it (It = homo respondans) are another story entirely, which Mike Gene, Steve P. and Krauze primarily, are playing out here.
Machines don't evolve, this is a certainty given the human-made "˜nature of' their make-up. Machines are human-made; biology is not. "It's not bragging if you can back it up." Cinematography is actually in some ways far ahead in this area of imagination and production, where Terminator, Matrix, AI, War of the Worlds or even I, Robot offer parallels or interesting comparisons. These pseudo-iconic artistic creations do not tie together coherently (philosophically, scientifically or even theologically) with biological thought today; biology being the declared main gate for ID theory in the words of its leaders/founders. It is too soon, btw, for new, alternative ID theorists to ignore the founders of ID theory in its current forms. But now we're wandering off course; of course.
Well, yes, perhaps, and we should remember that it was only the comments of one biologist or bio-chemist in that small article. Life itself is beyond my mind to comprehend, I can't speak for yours. However, wishful thinking is anyone's who would claim to "˜understand' topics such as "˜origins of life' in a way like "˜scientific method' could allow us to discover single-handedly or in a small team of 21st century naturalist geniuses (as if such a team exists at Harvard and not elsewhere, or anywhere in the world at all!). Likewise, the days of absolutism and universal-unilateralist scientific isolationism have passed their prime, if not in the eyes of scientists themselves who call for validity still from the general public. Speakers such as R. Dawkins at Cambridge (oops!) reveal this only too obviously.
Many scientists who cling to scientism as validation for their existences are on the verge of extinction or at least timely marginalization in light of basic human conversations about meaning, purpose and shared values. Scientific specialists really are "˜idiots' (as Shaw said) sometimes in this day and age, though it doesn't mean they're bad (e.g. the extremists) or even unintelligent people. Certainly an interested and curious student, like you, could have hobbies when going the route of biology in order to study what is still mysterious to biologists and/or biological science. Darwin would not be against this but for it as an improvement to science and studies of nature.
If you could get an ID theorist/originator to include RMNS in their vocabulary as respectable, positive evidence for organic evolution, I would be surprised. Please let me know if you do. Why not ask Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Wells, Nelson or Pearcey this question? This is where the ID mainstay has not yet defined which "˜evolutions' it will allow in its theory or methodology and which "˜forms of evolution' they would/will disqualify as entirely faulty and damaging to the(ir) discourse.
If you are referring to "˜material mechanisms' in a pejorative sense (which is certainly the impression given by P. Johnson and certain other IDists), then you'll have to say what other alternative mechanisms you would substitute in their place. DE is not usually about material-spiritual according to professional biologists, nor is it about mechanical-electrical either. ID is thus partially supportive and accepting of organic evolution, but not fully (i.e. somewhat contradictory inside big tent Movement dynamics); this is part of the reason why there is no (currently) comprehensive "˜theory' of ID. Mike Gene knows this well, perhaps thinks there is no current theory of ID + does not call ID a "˜science.'
All scientists, if they are honest and capable, are "˜following evidence' and "˜indications' (e & i). The interpretation of these things is a different issue and features are chosen by the t.v. channel which runs them. If e & i are "˜best explained by an intelligent designer' then they who say so should let that designer say how the design took place, so that science would be(gin to be) able to understand. Peacocke, Miller and Lamoureux have been in the biology labs, have seen virtually the same things as IDists, and concluded differently. The small group at Pajaro Dunes is trying to unite as a "˜revolutionary movement' of higher educated (mainly) Christian scientists and scholars. Other theologians and scientists should be free to disagree with them, even if they don't have their own alternative-to-evolution or pseudo-revolution scenarios to propose for science and/or theology in the 21st century.
"˜Legitimately scientific theory'"¦yes, friend though not fanatic of Darwin! It doesn't sound like you're from the USA when I hear you say that. A lot of Darwin bashers in that nation these days, with relatively fewer Darwin Hogs to back him up (E. Scott and M. Ruse don't count). The next sentence is exactly on the path of thought I've been following for several years now. "˜Influences on society,' you say and "˜nothing wrong with pointing this out.' I agree. Yes. And also suggest that "˜social evolution' and "˜biological evolution' are something other than two goats on one tether.
Regardless, there is no theory of "˜intelligent design' in the social sciences to speak about. None. Nul. Zillch. Let this not be a case of retro-diction where the facts now conveniently fit the case of a newer "˜pseudo-paradigm.' Please speak now anyone if they have ever heard of a theory of intelligent design in a social science or in the humanities?
ID theory is, imo, decidedly illegitimate (or over-simplistic) as a sociological conversation starter. It is sensible to search for an alternative, though just "˜where' is important enough to ask. Information theory, technopoly (American-style) and hermeneutics (or Donna Haraway's expression of "˜situated knowledge') should all play their roles in the discourse. Yet social scientists are not even being asked!
So far biologists are not convinced (after more than a decade) that i+d is a legitimate "˜alternative to evolution' and its varieties. Since i+d theorists, the leading ones anyway, have not faced some difficult questions from those who they were almost sure would be on their side, i.e. the theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists (c.f. Johnson's incredulity at why these people don't accept his radical new idea), they do not appear ready to win the alternative they have signed up for. Glenn Morton's knowledge, as a geo-physicist who came to reject Creation (read: Young Earth) Science and who likewise rejects the "˜pseudo-science' of IDism, helps to undermine the IDM's scientific-mathematical-philosophical-legalistic-linguistic-anti-evolu tionary-specificationism! Italian scholars who know more than enough biology (hah, compared to Johnson), rip ID's case in two.
Still, this doesn't mean students can talk about ID or think telic thoughts at schools! ;-> It could even be healthy and stimulating, if not conspiracy building. Steve Petermann hasn't said anything more than that, which is, of course, o.k. through and through. Steve's designer is somehow divine, if fragmented from tradition and institutions too!
Best wishes, Jason, in your studies and future endeavours,
Gregory Arago
Comment by g arago — August 19, 2005 @ 6:15 pm