Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

All supernatural possibilities ARE on the same plane.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I just skimmed this thread so this may have been covered.Since I started on this forum I have been trying to understand why there is a problem between the evolutionists and the supporters of ID. I have taken quotes from both Talk Origins and the Discovery Institute on the compatibility of ID and Evolution. I can’t see where they are in conflict.Talk Origins claims that evolution is scientifically solid but that it only claims to be able to demonstrate why it happened. The Discovery Institute purports to only have a problem when the so called neo-darwinists claim that the whys are known, and that the whys rule out any metaphysical involvement. It seems to me that the two views are compatible.Talk Origins doesn’t rule out theistic evolution which is roughly what the Discovery Institute supports.From Talk Origins
Q3. Does evolution contradict creationism?
There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.From Discovery Institute2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.What is the problem?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

The problem is that as much as they may lip service to compatibility the actual rhetoric they useand purported 'problem's they present totally belie that claim.If ID and evolution are so compatible then why do they spend so much time talking about irreducibly complex systems which they claim cannot evolve?You also appear to be mixing up ID and creationism into one homogeneous whole. Abelief in creation and evolution are obviously compatible as the thousands as the many theistic evolutionists show.The point is that one does not have to throw away the processes of random mutation and natural selection in order for them to be reconcilable. It is by no means a the case that any metaphysical involvement is ruled out it is simply not considered because it is not scientific. Only the most rabidly atheistic evolutionary proponents, such as Richard Dawkins, claim that evolution is any sort of disproof of the non-existence of god.So the two extreme ends of the spectrum biblical literalists and hardcore materialists are probably irreconcilable but there is plenty of tenable middle ground. The problem is tht for all the trappings of science the DI and others take on they are simply, for the most part, the old style creation science people in mufti.TTFN,WK

What it does is show that absense of evidence is not positive evidence for something else. Looking at a phenomenon and saying "I don't know how that could have happened, everything else we have encountered has had a natural explanation, we know a really good methodology for exploring and understanding natural phenemomenon, let's use that", is science. Looking at it and saying "It looks really complicated, and after some time we have been unable to unearth all the answers regarding the phenomenon. Because of this, it must have been [insert supernatural entity here]." is not science.Scholarship is good and all, but philosophy is philosophy. The structure behind teleology is better constructed than the Thor philosophy, however it still isn't science, regardless of how many people work on it. So the answer to the thread remains 'no'. Nearly exactly, why on earth should we accept fantastic just-so stories of intelligent designers, omnipotent deities or fantastic djinn, without any observations. Much better is to assume the event has a perfectly natural explanation and endevour to uncover that explanation.It might not have been that way, which is why science is honest enough to claim tentativity. Science doesn't say "This is the way life definitely began because we imagined a way it could have began". ID/Creationism does that very thing. I thought we were discussing abiogenesis? Abiogenesis, no matter what you think, does not explain the diversity of life through descent with modification of the genome driven by natural selection.

But that's not the entire quote, is it Evopeach. Darwin went on to add: "But I can find no such case". I, for one, am looking forward to D.I. scientists doing some actual science as it relates to the ToE. Can't wait....all giddy with excitement...thrilled even. And by this you must mean that via falsification (or lack there of), they will "carefully and deliberately show that ID and ICS do not fall under the realm of sciencethus showing their novel understanding of what really constitutes scientific investigation and their new, unwavering support for the theory of evolution. Correct?

Sigh.I get so tired of the D.I. spinning (well, really, lying about) that list and the people who fall for it and rush off to their friendly local discussion board to tell all the evil evos about it.There is just so much wrong with that list. First, (and, IMHO, most important), signing that statement is absolutely not equivalent to expressing skepticism about the existence of evolution or the mainstream theory of evolution. The statement starts with "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." Any knowledgable mainstream scientist would agree with that; the mainstream theory of evolution includes other processes (e.g. neutral drift) that are required to account for the complexity of life. The statement continues: "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". Well, any mainstream scientist should agree with that; careful examination of the evidence for any scientific theory should be encouraged. It would be interesting to poll the signatories and find out their real views; a few are known to be not questioning the theory of evolution (see Doubting Darwinism through Creative License).Second, science is not a popularity contest. Ten million wrong people are still wrong; one right person is still right. Of course, if you do want to play the silly game of "how many people will sign a statement about evolution", the mainstream will play along just for grins; Project Steve has over 500 signatories to a very specific and strong statement in support of the thory of evolution, and only people named Steve or some variant may sign (there's at least one female). That certainly dwarfs the DI's measly 400-ish of any name. There's also a list of a few thousand Christian clerics who have signed a similar statement in support of evolution, but I can't dig up the reference right now.Finally, if you examine the DI list, you can note some interesting features of the signatories:

• Some are known to be anti-evolution for religious reasons alone, e.g. Dean Kenyon.
• Many of the signatories are not scientists; their training is not is science nor do they practice science.
• Many of those that are scientists are not in biology-related fields, and there is no particular reason to suspect that their opinion is meaningful.
• In the more recnt versions of the list, the signatories names have been rearranged so that a disproportioante number of biologically qualified people appear on the early pages. I wonder why.

This cr*p has gotten so prevalent that it's earned an entry in the INdex of Creationist Claims.

Reading their stated objectives and concerns I would assume they (those 400 Phd types from every leading university in America and encompassing about 35 fields of teaching and research) would continue to perform valuable scientific service as they have in the past but with due attention to the fantasmogorically suspect tenets of evolution mutation and natural selection as the agents of evolutionary change. And I suspect they even have ideas on scientific alternatives to those much overrated and suspect, essentially tautological tenets. Won't it prove somewhat difficult to classify all those people like members of the National Academy of Sciences, to department heads at little schools like Rice, MIT on and on as misinformed non-scientist dunderheads?EvopeachEvopeach

Dr. Robert T. Bakker, Morrison Museum zorilla47@aol.comBones Bibles & Creation:No Public Dollars For Atheism ...(Or I.D.)While a visiting Prof at St. Johns-St. Benedicts College in Minnesota, I was the guest moderator at the required Freshman seminar. Topic: Richard Dawkin’s books on why evolution proves that the only honest philosophy isAtheism.Dawkins is the Oxford Professor who was so proud of being an atheist that he decided to re-label the category Atheists.We’ll call ourselves the ‘Brights.’ By implication, anyone who wasn’t an atheist was "A Dull".A lot of us working scientists preferred to call Dawkins and friends the Smugs.The kids in the seminar eyed me warily. .paleontologist.digs fossils.writes for Scientific American I could just barely hear some low decibel interchanges. .must be a Darwinistmust be a Bible-basherThe official faculty leader tried to get the conversation going. No luck. The students fidgeted, avoided eye contact. There was a long pause. Then I slammed Dawkins down on the table and yelledThis guy is a @#** self-puff artist! He knows NOTHING about the history of science! He’s dead wrong about how evolutionary studies grew up. And when he warbles on about the Church and how it suppresses scientific inquiry..He makes as much sense as an apoplectic Donald Duck!!!The floodgates opened. Turned out that most of the students, Catholic and Protestant and independent agnostic, hated Dawkins’ snobbish tone. Most hadn’t had a college-level bio course. So they couldn’t judge the genetic arguments. But they smelled an overbearing smug-ness on every page. I cited my trump card:What about St. Augustine — he wrote lots on Creation. Inspired Catholic scholars — Bible translators, archaeologists, philosophersThe kids raised in Catholic schools sheepishly admitted that they’d forgotten what little they’d been given of St. Augustine.I pulled my battered City of God out of my vest and read some neat passages about Doctrine and astronomy. Augustine really sings when he combines Nature with Scripture. He loved spiders and rabbits and saw created beauty even in a biting sand fly. And he lectured new converts that they should appreciate real science, even when taught by a Pagan.I rattled off a long list of scientists supported by established Churches. Dinosaur-diggers. Geologists. Anatomists.Since I was in a Catholic school, I emphasized the long, splendid tradition of free inquiry, going back to the first universities in the 12th century, started by Catholics at Paris and Oxford.Galileo and his Papal problems? Didn’t the Church persecute him because he disagreed with Biblical astronomy?Not really. Galileo was a brilliant scientist but bad politician. He thumbed his nose at Papal officials when the Pope was engaged in a costly war and delicate multi-national politics. The Papacy was slow to apologize, because it didn’t forget Galileo’s abusive personal style. Still, official Papal astronomers were already using Galilean theories while the guy was in house arrest.The faculty lead in the Freshman course at St. Johns-St. Bens wasn’t a Catholic — or even a practicing Christian. But he was a fine & fair teacher. He kept the grilling of Dawkins going. He also did the evolutionary biology and paleontology courses.I don’t whether any student atheist was converted to being an agnostic. Or Lutheran to Catholic. Or Green Bay Packer fan to the Denver Broncos. Or vice versa. But all the kids were given more weapons to expose hype and fraud among scholars.How To Combat Smug Atheism in Schools:
Laws intended to cool off Darwinism in public schools are aimed at Dawkins-types. Actually, it’s un-Constitutional to use public dollars to pay someone to preach atheism. But it’s also un-Constitutional to use tax $’s to preach Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design IS religious. Its leaders state that. Intelligent Design was invented as a wedge to begin proving Christian doctrine from Nature.In the battle between Dawkins’ Atheism and Phillip Johnson’s Intelligent Design, we’re not allowed to use public money to promote either. Neither is science.So what do we do?Teach History!History gets short shrift. We all need more history — teachers, students, politicians. The St. Johns course is a fine example. Atheist claims were rigorous examinedin historical context. Dawkins’ arguments were defrocked. Good history of science, good history of religion are powerful weapons that empower students.Darwinism, properly taught, preaches no religion. Nor does it preach for or against religion in general. History does show how politicians and philosophers have distorted Darwin for their own idealistic goals.Want to make the battlefield of high school and college level and fair?Get good history into public schools.Professional Historians & Professional Geneticists and Professional Paleontologists Agree.Put Intelligent Design in science classes? No. Put it in history classes. Put it in context — the inevitable historical reaction to atheist excess.

Is it ok for me to look shocked and amazed? THE Robert T.Bakker?Oh and my niece wants to say (as she's here with me today):I really liked your Dinosaurs book, when I am older I will be a dinosaur personThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-Aug-2005 09:45 AM

Gee, I didn't know that Robert Bakker had the kind of free time that allows him to write and post essays on internet discussion boards.I'm going to have to write to his funders and let them know.

A little news for you, biological science has no preferred position in the furthering of science in the large sense. And as such the several scientific fields such as chemistry and physics should be concerned about the integrity of the entire scientific community, their methods, the tenets held and certain McCartheite activities over the last decades by the Weathermen of Biological evolution, as in the horribly dispicable instant case at Ohio State University.Your analysis of the statement is not consistent with the dogmatic claims in this forum as to the joy with which the community feels about the large, influential and growing community of scientists who have grave doubts in these principal tenets of the theory.Should we review a few posts making it clear that there is not a scintilla of doubt about these tenets except in the mind of the incompetent and the deluded.. thus no need to conduct any experimental investigation as their grounding in fact.. there is no doubt by the mainstream people in the know.The dawn is breaking.

Did someone do that?TTFN,WKP.S. Why do you keep talking to yourself?

There *is* a thread called The Nature of Scientific Inquiry; Is Evolution Science? that is still open if you want to discuss whether evolution is scientific or not. This thread is about whether ID is scientific.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

And how many are evolutionary biologists? Looks like someone needs to visit the Coffee House thread about Annoyances and read post No 30... I could not care less about what you suspect. When they do some actual science, perhaps then they will be taken seriously by the scientific community. What do you "suspect" some of their scientific alternatives might be? Really, I'd be interested in reading just what you think qualifies as science. What...am I suppose to shocked and awed by their pedigree? My brother went to Michigan, Stanford and MIT and he knows diddly squat about the Theory of Evolution...so what's your point...that I should abandon the science behind evolutionary biology and instead listen to my brother (an aerospace engineer) spout on about probabilities? He does, however, know a lot about physics and quite a bit chemistry, so I would not classify him as a non-scientist. At the same time, he is misinformed and I call him a dunderhead quite often. I suspect your very impressive list of people would fall into a same category.

You're replying to yourself and you didn't quote anything. It's difficult to tell who you're replying to. But this seems a continuation of your point about the qualifications of evolution as science. Once again, that is not the topic of this thread. Critisizing evolution is fine, that's what the forum is for, but the Forum Guidelines require that you stay on topic in a thread.Just so you're not surprised, I don't give lots of warnings. Your next off-topic post will earn you a 24-hour vacation.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director