ID, like its predecessor creation "science" is a trojan horse to get
Christian mythology taught in public classrooms. It exists for no other reason.
>GM>Or are you saying that ID is a way to get creation taught in the class
>rooms?
>
>Only in its most general sense. ID is not necessarily committed to any
>particular theory of *how* the Designer executed His designs. Only that: 1.
>He did design; 2. execute His design, and; 3. the footprints of that
>execution is scientifically detectable.
in other words it would be utterly useless in improving agriculture,
developing medicines, understanding diseases or studying the history of life
on the planet. Once you make the faith statement " 'He' did it," you have
accomplished everything ID can do. You have explored it to its limits.
Everything outside that three-word limit is darkness.
>As for 2., execution of design, a range of supernatural mechanisms would
>be compatible with ID.
actually *any* supernatural mechanism you care to dream up fits it
perfectly. Any god, any *number* of gods. Santa Clause. White Buffalo Calf
Woman. Tiamat. Take your pick, there are lots and lots of candidates.
Scientific study of the supernatural is impossible. It's a wide-open topic.
>GM>I hear this argument from the YEC side also. They don't need money, they
>>need ideas. All it takes is a good thinker to propose a scenario.
>>Apparently they either lack one of those, or they lack a desire to get
>>involved in suggesting scenarios.
>
>No. The first thing is to establish the scientific legitimacy of ID at the
>philosophical level.
nobody bothered to do that with any other scientific theory. A hypothesis is
formed and then data is collected in an attempt to support the hypothesis.
ID "theorists" know that approach is a waste of time.
>This may take quite some time, but it is happening.
since scientific legitimacy of ID is not the ultimate goal, it may take
quite a bit more time than you thought.
>Then when public funding is made available, then ID can start scientific
>research in earnest, which would be publishable in normal mainstream
>scientific journals like NATURE and SCIENCE.
on what topics? Propose a topic that can be researched. And as I have
pointed out before there are tons of conservative religious money out there
If there is a topic that can be scientifically researched that "proves" the
existence of a designer they'd be chasing you down with wads of cash. They
aren't doing it. They know it's a waste of time and money. Their money is
much better spent on propaganda like "Of Pandas and People."
>>SJ>But also, Glenn assumes that ID must come up with something *different*
>>>regarding "the past history of the earth". This is not necessarily so. There
>>>will be a lot of things that ID and Naturalism don't differ much on. The age
>>>of the Earth is one of them.
>
>GM>And evolution I presume is also one of them?
>
>ID would not necessarily differ with Naturalism on the actual facts of
>"evolution", ie. change over time, common ancestry, etc.
in that case, why are you an anti-evolutionist?
>This is a good point. But Penrose is a Platonist, so he may not agree that
>there really was a Designer.
but most anti-evolutionists are Platonists. He may not agree there is a
designer, because there's no way to prove scientifically whether or not
there is one. He almost certainly knows he's saying "well, it looks designed
to *me*" which is the
sole method of detecting design.
>Individual scientists are considering design, but it is not yet a legitimate
>scientific explanation which would be written up in mainstream scientific
>journals or taught in public schools and universities.
"it looks designed to me" is not a rigorous scientific statement.
>ID can, and does, draw on the works of such individual scientists as part of
>its overall case to achieve scientific legitimacy.
"It looks designed to *him*" isn't going to be that much help without some
way to distinguish "design" from something that isn't designed--and of
course without designating a designer. "This artifact was designed by Zeus
as you can see from his characteristic design techniques and that one over
there was designed by Vishnu who always signs his work."
>GM>So we must wait several generations before we know if they have anything?
>>This is what I have suspected all along. No amount of laggerdliness is to
>>be counted as evidence against ID. They can for a hundred years claim to be
>>the right answer without so much as showing a single explanation for
>>anything. Wow, I wish my bosses were so forgiving.
>
>Glenn, like a lot of scientists lacks historical sense. He seems to think that
>current scientific theories and attitudes just popped into existence fully
>formed in one generation. I have already pointed out that Darwinism took
>about 80 years to become established.
actually considerably less than that. If he had not published when he did,
he would never have had priority for the idea. Being the gentleman that he
was, he insisted on sharing credit with Wallace. If Wallace hadn't figured
it out, someone else would have. So much global collecting was going on,
that lots of scientists were beginning to see population patterns. In fact
population patterns were part of what led Darwin to his idea. He wasn't the
only smart guy in the 19th century. Darwin's principles of variation and
natural selection were widely accepted by the end of his lifetime. The
"problems" with the theory--the need for the discovery of genes and deep
time--were solved within the next 40-50 years.
>ID must indeed make its case or be consigned to the trash can of history.
>But the speed at which ID progresses is a matter for the ID movement to
>decide, not its critics. ID will not be rushed into premature claims. ID is
>making good progress and that if sufficient for now.
ID does not ever need to make or substantiate any claims. It's already doing
it's work--fooling people into believing there are other scientific
explanations for the history of life besides evolution.
>However there are many strong forces against it and ID itself has its own
>potential internal problems.
yeah, like it's not an acutal scientific hypothesis with evidence to support it.
>I personally think that ID is the *truth* and that's why I support it.
>Whether it is successful is an important, but secondary issue with me.
And that sums up ID in a nutshell.
>YEC has reinvented itself in the direction of ID, following court cases
>where it was ruled that Biblical creation could not be taught in schools.
Exactly! YEC didn't fool anybody into believing it was science. It was
religion, plain and simple. So is ID. It's supernaturalism and not science
and I don't believe it will fool the Supreme Court either.
>But YEC has probably gone as far as it can go. Many YECs realise this and
>are heading strongly in the direction of ID. But YECs will have to leave
>their YEC distinctives (eg. age of the Earth; death before the Fall; Flood
>geology, etc) at the door when they enter ID.
that must really gall them too. That means that some Biblical myths cannot
be accepted as reality even by their co-religionists.
>GM>Maybe the aliens are the ancient Roman Gods. They are eternal and thus
>>require no explanation!
>
>ID is not really concerned about the identity of the Designer. If some IDer
>wants to think that He was Zeus or that He was the Christian God, that is
>not an issue for ID.
this always makes me laugh. I know I shouldn't say "All ID adherents are
Christian," because there's always one white crow--one Moslem or Hindu or
whatever that jumps on the bandwagon. But Christians thought it up when they
saw "creation science" failing and it's nothing but an attempt to get
Christian mythology taught in science classes, just as creation "science" was.
>OK. ID does "tell us what actually happened in the past" in the sense that it
>claims that it happened by the plan and execution of an Intelligent
>Designer, and such execution left scientifically detectable footprints.
let's have a half dozen examples that don't involve "well, it looks designed
to me"
>This may produce different scientific explanations. For example, ID will be
>able to produce viable scenarios for the origin of life and irreducibly
>complex molecular machines that non-ID science cannot.
good luck. All Behe has been able to do is say "well, it looks irreducible
to me"
>But ID has not particular interest in *how long* the past history of the
>Earth was.
it should. After all, it's a scientific theory that's supposed to replace
evolution which *does* address that issue.
>(Darlington C.D., "The Origin of Darwinism", Scientific American, Vol.
>201, May 1959, p64)
one of my best friends is a librarian. She's getting this entire article for
me. I'm eagerly looking forward to reading it. How did you find out about a
40 year old magazine article on this specific subject?
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb