Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

I feel that the basic concept of ID itself is not all that outlandish or even unscientific. That is if you condense it into:If it can be shown that some structure of nature is impossible to form naturally then there must be some greater than nature reason for its existence.The problem comes when you try to put that into practice. It is here that ID as a movement has been woefully inept at best and intentionally decietful at worst.There also seems to be a split among IDers into what I call Pure ID and Creationists ID. In many circumstances these two groups are at odds as to what ID is.Pure IDers are those like Behe who are working hard to try to find an example of the position above. They believe in common decent just not unguided by random processes.Then you have the Creationists IDers who are basically just old time creationists who have started calling themselves IDers just to try to fit under the hood of the anonymous creator to try to side step the whole issue of secularism. The writers of Pandas are good examples of this kind of IDer. These people reject common decent wholesale for what amounts to ideological reasons because the ID concept itself says nothing for or against common decent. Their intent is demonstrated in their actions and in all cirumstances they are revealed to be nothing but creationists in disguise.The main failings of ID as a concept are that:1. They have not soundly rejected the inclusion of the creationists. The decit of this group has been demonstrated time and time again. They do nothing but bring disrepute to ID as demonstrated by the Wedge Document and their handling of ID in the public forum such as the Dover trial. This puts ID under the black mark and unscientific overtones that creationism brought to the table 30 years ago.2. None of the legitimate attempts at showing ID by the statement above have succeeded. IC is a failed concept by both admission and demonstration as IC has been shown to evolve. Beyond that they don't have much so the 'if' part of that statement is still waiting to be fulfilled!The biggest objection I have to ID is in its purpose. What good does it do? Even if it perpetually fails to show something that cannot be from nature the alternative, that there is nothing outside of nature, can never be shown. Not only is it extremely difficult to show, it is extremely difficult to falsify (prove that everything in the universe is a product of nature). At the end of the day, even if you could show or falsify the idea, there is very little practical benefit to either conclusion especially the latter.So it becomes difficult to talk about ID as a science. I think it could be science if it could clean house and demonstrate a reason for why we should spend money on it rather than trying to solve other pressing scientific concerns such as the gap between QM and GR. Even then, it seems it would only be a novelty and still not be a necessary part of education or policy.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Those actions by Behe are a perfect example of how they have abandoned any vestege of hope of becoming legitimate.It does seem that since his intial decent into ID that Behe has lightened up about common decent. How can he not? ID has nothing to do with common decent. It would as equally damning had he taking a firm position on the age of the earth. People could simply ask, "if you are not just creationism is disguise then why do you advance creationists positions that have nothing to do with showing that elements of nature are designed?"Beyond that I have heard a number of IDers essentially advocate some variety of strong Designed Evolution. You can usually tell what kind of IDer you are talking about by what particular aspect of evolutionary theory offends them.If they are offended that there is simply no credence given to God then they are a regular IDer.If they are offended at the idea that we are decended from other animals then they are creationists wearing and ID t-shirt. When asked what relevance common decent has to ID they will always refer you to the t-shirt.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I'll note that you didn't comment on the main thrust of my post which was the division within ID. On of the biggest problems that casual IDers have is the belief that ID is in direct opposition to evolution. Not only is this not true, if it was then it completely validates ID as a religious rather than scientific concept. Like I said in my previous post, real IDers only object to the "unguided" concept they BELIEVE is inherent in the ToE.You also did not respond to my comments about the usefulness of ID. Both of these lie at the heart of why ID is reject as a concept. Yes this is true. The difference is that in the case of ID they have no observations. There is no example of any systems that have been shown to be incapable of forming naturally. IC is dead and SC never had a leg to stand on. After that there really is nothing except a few improbability arguments that are flawed in their construction. Another reason that many people object to ID is exactly this. They start from what they want to see and are currently seeking evidence in order to show that their conclusion is true. Even if the purpose of evolution was to show that supernatural forces had no part in the development of life, it certainly did not start out in order to show such an idea. The lack of a need for supernatural forces in evolution is simply a consequence, not a goal. It is for this reason that ID and Evolution are night and day for some people when it comes to calling one or the other science. The only people I find who have a problem considering evolution to be agnostic on the issue of theology are the ones who push an anti-evolutionary agenda on the basis of theology. Just because and idea is neutal with regards to theism does not make it anti-theological. Most real IDers don't have a problem with this. Like I said before, the Pure IDers don't have any problem with evolution because ID is about the source not the mechanism. Yes I am. Just because evolution may empower atheism does not imply that evolution is atheistic. A implies B does not mean that B implies A. It is a simply logic error. Evolution may encourage atheism but I would argue that all forms of science based on methodological naturalism encourage atheism. You see a lot of religionless scientists in more than just the biological sciences. But none of that means that any science is itself atheistic. It is plainly and obviously a fallacy to think so. I agree. I just think that the primary object to ID has nothing to do with the identify of the designer. SOme people may say that but I don't think that is the primary reason why people call ID not a science. No the problem is not an ideological aversion. I outlined a number of reasons why ID is rejected as a science in my previous post. The inclusion of creationist or anti-evolutionist doctrine into ID is one primary reason why it is dismissed. It belies its source as masked creationism. There is no reason for an ID to take a position on the mechanisms of evolution, on common decent, or on the age of the earth because none of those have anything to do with design or lack of design. For all we known the designer used and directed evolution and there is some macroscale property looking at the entire history of evolution that will make this apparent.The champions of ID, the real IDers do not reject common decent. Think about that for a minute. It really is the only logical position to take for any kind of claim for ID to be science.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

It does seem that people like Behe have changed their stripes a bit. I have also seen some presentations from lesser known IDers that specifically don't challenge evolution as much as they are simply trying to prove that something was designed. These are not necessarily contrary to genetic algorithms as implementation of that design. It seems as though the non-Bible-thumping IDers have retreated to an argument purely based on design to "combat" the idea of what they percieve to be a purposeless process.This isn't to say that the strict anti-evolution folk don't exist. Obviously they do and it can be seen in places like Kanasas and Dover where they are pitting evolution against ID as if one must preclude the other. Here it is crystal clear that when they SAY ID they MEAN special creation.Note the excerpt from Pandas saying that all animals are created fully formed.Ooops I mean, that all animals are designed fully formed.They are obviously pitting ID against common decent which makes no sense when the focus of ID is the (D)esign. It is like when you play hide and seek with a 2 year old. They think that you can't see them under the bed even though their feet are sticking out. They want to be able to talk about creationism in a secular venue yet still use all their old creationist arguments.This is also not even beginning to mention that all of those arguments are demonstrably bogus. Even if they could get their foot in the door to be called science it would be a science with no support, no theories, and no evidence.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

It is my understanding though that he nor any other IDers like him ever really proposed how the designer actually implemented the design. Even if they didn't always act like it, it seems as though evolution was always compatable with their ideas. When they say ID is contrary to evolution in this cirumstance they MEAN naturalistic evolution. Most of their battle in trying to get ID recognised as a science is in the definition of science. Behe among others readily admitted that under oath. Their biggest complaint is the restriction of science to methodological naturalism even though they admit a less stringent definition would include quack ideas such as astrology.That is way different though than other IDers. Pandas goes directly against evolution as a concept. Like it has been mentioned before, the first edit of Pandas after creationism failed was effectivly a simple substitution of the word 'create' with the word 'design'. I am more worried about these kind of IDers than those like Behe. It also seems that the kind of people who post here are more aligned with this type of IDer too. The creationist behind the curtain.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I love this quote from the ACLU attorney.An ACLU official calls the Institute's report a stunt."They're getting no traction in the scientific world so they're trying to do something ... as a PR stunt to get attention," said Witold Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the ACLU's lead attorney on the case."That's not how scientists work," he said. "Discovery Institute is trying to litigate a year-old case in the media."Walczak said the Discovery Institute staff is not, as it claims, interested in finding scientific truths; it is more interested in a "cultural war," pushing for intelligent design and publicly criticizing a judge."Why don't these guys go back to their 'labs,' and do something meaningful?" Walczak asked. "Oh, wait. They don't have labs. Silly me."

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)