Is ID a right wing conspiracy?

I think the trouble here is in terminology. I'd call the above viewpoint "theistic evolution", i.e. accepting the scientific evidence that evolution occurs by processes in the physical universe, while maintaining that there is a theistic cause for the conditions that allowed this to happen.What most people here are criticizing when they criticize Intelligent Design is a more restrictive notion that asserts that processes in the physical universe cannot account for what we observe in biology, and that therefore some supernatural , macroscopic intervention with biological systems is necessary. Such a notion is not testable or falsifiable and cannot fall under the realm of science. It is also an argument from incredulity.

Your statement that "there IS a real debate between those who support ID and scientists" suggests that these two groups are mutually exclusive. As I am sure you are aware, there are great scientists who have made major contributions in fields such as Cosmology and Evolution who believe in an ID. The work and findings of many of these folks are incompatible with a strict reading of Genesis that implies that the Earth and man were created 5,600 odd years ago over a period of 7 days. Those folks are not opponents of Science or Evolution in spite of their belief in ID.I don’t think that a belief in God is invalid because it isn’t Science anymore than suggestions that someone’s appreciation of Mozart’s music is invalid for the same reason. A belief in an ID may not be fodder for Science, but the two certainly are not incompatible. I believe that if proponents of Evolution underscored this point more often, they would be more successful in their battle over whether or not Creationism is taught in the classroom.I doubt that Creationists object to Evolution because it is incompatible with the notion of an ID per se. These ideas are not incompatible even if they are not both Science. The real problem for many Creationists is that Evolution does not jive with their "literal" reading of the Bible. They probably also realize that arguments for teaching ID as Science won’t sell as well in the public forum if they are based solely on so-called discrepancies or inconsistencies between Evolution Theory and Genesis. Better to frame this discussion as one of ID or God vs. Evolution in a way that suggests these concepts are mutually exclusive. Those who frame the discussion in this way should not be allowed to get away with this unchallenged.This message has been edited by sleikind, 08-04-2005 05:43 PMThis message has been edited by sleikind, 08-04-2005 05:49 PMThis message has been edited by sleikind, 08-04-2005 06:03 PM

It's the same thing. The specifics (the ID claim that complexity proves a designer) are irrelevant. Neither ID or "theistic evolution" have anything to do with science. They simply add an extraneous entity where none is required, a violation of Occam's Razor.ID and theistic evolution are the same in that:1)neither proposes a mechanism - they simply tack on "Goddidit."
2)neither proposes a falsifiable prediction
3)there is no evidence for either one
4)they both add an additional, extraneous entity beyound what is necessary to describe evolutionBecuase of these things, they are not science. They are philosophical and theological perspectives, NOT science. As such, they should never be mentioned in the context of a science classroom - unless the teacher wishes to give an example of pseudoscience.

I never said they were mutually exclusive - only that they are not one and the same. The only place ID needs to be excluded is the science classroom - because ID is not science. Of course I am aware of that. I, too, believe in God as well as evolution. The personal philosophy and theology of individual scientists, however, in no way equates ID with science! I never said the two were incompatible in a philosophical sense. They are ONLY incompatible in the science classroom. Only science belongs there, and ID is not science. On this part I agree with you. ID, as pushed by Christian Fundamentalists, is Creationism Lite. It's a way of sneaking God and Creationism into the science classroom by disguising it with pseudoscience, false claims, and taking the specific reference to the Judeo-Christian God out. ....with the exception that God/ID is incompatible with science in terms of the science classroom and public education. Since ID is not science, it has no place in the public science classroom.

I think we are on the same side here as far as not wanting ID or theistic evolution in the science curriculum.Our new poster wondered what all the fuss is about. IMO the fuss is about trying to put the Discovery Institute style of ID in the science classroom. The Discovery Institute thinks they are making scientific assertions, we think they aren't. I don't entirely agree. Theistic evolution accepts the science of evolution and leaves the theistic part to theology. Discovery Institute style ID tries to conflate the two, or worse, undermine evolution.

I would certianly agree that there is a big difference between Theistic Evolution and ID. The biggest difference is that Theistic Evolutionists state quite clearly that their beliefs about creation are personal beliefs and that those beliefs do not enter into the mechanism, the how, of what happened.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think we are, in fact, in agreement. The only thing I have a problem with is Theistic Evolution or ID representing themselves as science. Both can be perfectly valid personal philosophies, and do not conflict in such a context. They simply cannot be taught or represented as science alone.In other words, trying to invade the science classroom, or what the Discovery Institute does.

My point has been to try to distinguish those who believe in God or Intelligent design, but accept Science from those who want to pass on a sanitized version of Genesis as Science. Many of the latter do this by framing the discussion in a way that suggests that Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and other scientific theories are incompatible with God or Intelligent design. Many Science advocates fall into a trap when they respond that ID isn't Science (true), but the discussion ends up sounding like a debate in which God and Science are mutually exclusive. Discussions like this often do not serve the interests of Science well from a PR standpoint. It would be better to emphasize that theories such as evolution are not incompatible with the notion of an ID even if the latter isn't Science.

That's true, but it still upsets evolutionists perhaps because evolution has been used as an argument against the existence of God and they are loathe to give that up.That's about the only reason I can think of.

post removed by poster.This message has been edited by jar, 08-04-2005 08:43 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It may be true that certain evolutionists attempt to use evolution as an argument against the existence of God. However, they are a signficant minority. My sense is that the vast majority of evolutionists realize that Evolution has no bearing on this question whatsoever. Faith in God is not incompatible or inconsistent with acceptance of the theory of Evolution.This message has been edited by sleikind, 08-04-2005 11:21 PMThis message has been edited by sleikind, 08-05-2005 06:28 AM

That's because most people are referring to the Biblical god, God, when they say that science and God are mutually exclusive.
You can't have the existence of something that flooded the Earth when nothing flooded the Earth.

I think you are missing the important distinction. While TE allows for methodological naturalism (aka the modern scientific method), but denies ontological naturalism, ID rejects both methodological and ontological naturalism.That is laced throughout their literarture and indeed the term "methodological naturalism" to describe the nature of modern scientific method, was most likely coined by IDs founder Philip Johnson.TE allows for Occam's razor and other logical tools to be used by scientists to understand how the mechanics of the universe operate. ID rejects Occam's razor and other logical tools, arguing a new epistemology (well old actually) must be used to correctly understand the mechanics of the universe.In short, TE will not change how we do science, even if it caveats how much the models reflect the totality of the universe, while ID wants to change how we do science so that they can have science "prove" their creator exists and so place it in scientific models of the universe.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You didn't read what I said. I don't care that Theistic evolution will not change science. I am fully aware that these theological viewpoints can be fully compatable with science. I am saying only that they are not science, and as such they do not belong in the classroom. Also, anyone who claims that either ID or Theistic evolution is science, even outside of the context of a science classroom, is either dishonest or ignorant of the facts. There are thologocal and philosophical positions, and have zero basis in science. It's irrelevant that TE allows for the naturalistic explanations, and essentially doesn't change science. The fact is that it adds an extraneous entity (a deity) without any evidenciary reason to do so. It's faith and belief, not science.Like I said: I only have a problem with ID or TE misrepresenting themselves as science, especially in a science classroom. I don't have a problem with people believing in them. Hell, I AM a Theistic Evolutionist!

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I think we are talking past each other. I certainly agree the onotological principles of TE should not be taught within a science class, but that would be the same for an Atheist Evolutionist.Any ontological or metaphysical issues regarding the true nature of the universe ought to be left out of pure science classes, and within philosophy of science courses.That does not make TE not modern science however. TEists are correct that as long as they don't say there is a reason to believe based on evidence they are fine with having faith that there is something out there which put the machina in motion. Unsupported belief is not inconsistent with science. Calling it scientific knowledge is.That is where I think there is a distinction between TE and ID. IDers actually are in conflict with science because they wish to weaken evidentiary rules so that current unsupported belief gets reclassified as scientific knowledge. They are attempting to derail modern science, to revert back to older and weaker scientific methods, which are no longer considered sufficient.Thus while we both agree they should not be taught, I disagree with your assessment TE is not science. It certainly is as long as its belief in a deity is not discussed as a scientifically valid conclusion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)