CH>I don't think that I did a good job of getting my point across in my last
post
>so let me try again. I don't have anything against the idea of ID.
sj: If that is the case, then Cliff sure does gives a good imitation of it!
The fact is
that if Cliff is truly a Darwinist, then he would *have* to have *everything*
"against the idea of ID" because if ID were true, then Darwinism, as a
general theory, would be false.
Of course not. Since ID cannot eliminate a natural designer then Darwinism
can easily survive the idea of ID. You will notice that both Dembski's ID and
Behe;s IC/ID fail to exclude natural pathways as the designer.
CH>But, that is my belief based upon faith with no scientific data to
>support it.
SJ: It is a tautology to speak of a "belief based upon faith". If Cliff has
a
"belief" it must be based on *evidence*.
Why?
SJ: And if Cliff has a belief in creation by "some supernatural deity",
based on
the evidence of nature, then Cliff has made a design inference.
Not really. If things were that simple Dembski et al would not be struggling
with that issue.
SJ: And it is a "scientific" inference, even if not formulated rigorously.
It is the
task of the ID movement to give scientific rigour to such design inferences.
Why is it scientific? And how do you believe ID movement is going to give
rigour to such inferences and if ID cannot exclude a natural designer what
would be the relevance of a reliable scientific design inference?
CH>I would be thrilled if the basic hypothesis of ID was shown to
>be scientifically valid.
SJ: Not if Cliff wants to be a consistent Darwinist he wouldn't be.
Darwinism is
the claim that a "mindless procedure could produce design without a
designer":
This shows that SJ is somewhat confused about design and Darwinism. Since the
ID hypothesis merely identifies design an ID hypothesis would still not be
able to show that a designer was needed. After all if it fails to exclude
natural forces then indeed there is a problem. Secondly, Darwinism does not
exlcude a designer, it merely states that no such (supernatural or
intelligent) designer is required.
[snip quotes that do not support the assertion'
CH>However, that is not what the leaders of the ID movement are engaged in.
>They call ID science, but refuse to hold to the standards of science.
SJ: What does Cliff think Mike Behe's irreducible complexity hypothesis
is?
A hypothesis that states that IC systems cannot arise naturally. How does
this relate to ID and how does this make IC a 'scientific' hypothesis?
Assuming design when no mechanisms have been found is harldy scientific in my
opinion.
SJ: He has proposed it as a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and
his scientific critics have in fact subjected it to scientific
criticism:
Pseudo science also can expect scientific criticism and can be falsified.
Does that make it more scientific? Behe has yet to show that design exists in
nature.
Behe's ID argument is based on a logical fallacy to link IC with ID. Perhaps
Steve can explain to us how such a link has been made using the definitions
of IC and ID?
CH>Basically, the purpose of the movement is to get rid of naturalistic
science.
No. "the purpose of the movement is to" separate "naturalistic"
*philosophy* from "science".
SJ: Cliff probably thinks that "science" *is* just applied "naturalistic"
philosophy" or maybe he doesn't even realise that modern science is based
on a philosophy that is itself outside of science?
A philosophy that has worked extremely well in explaining the data.
CH>I would say that they are trying to prevent others from speaking out in
>opposition.
SJ: How exactly are they doing that (even if they wanted to-which they
don't)?
It is the *Darwinists* who are in power and have the full support of the
government, the law, the educational authorities, the scientific journals
and
the mainstream media.
:-)
CH>The leaders will say that ID is a scientific enterprise, but then
>have a meeting with congressmen to get ID taught in the classroom. This
>is not how scientists operate.
SJ: Is Cliff trying to claim that mainstream science does not give briefings
to Congressmen? And what exactly is wrong, in a democracy, with briefing
Congressmen?
Nothing, just don;t pretend it's science.
CH>IDers say that they have empirical data to back
>up their claims, but have refused to make it public (I know because we've
>asked for it).
SJ: What does Cliff think Darwin's Black Box is and Behe's irreducible
complexity claims on his ARN web pages are - chopped liver?
Where is the empirical data of design? The absence of an evolutionary pathway?
SJ: Other
scientists like Jerry Coyne have no problem finding it and critiquing
it.
Of course not, but does that make it scientific? Does that make it supported
by empirical data?
SJ: ID researchers like Behe have proposed tests of irreducible complexity
for
several molecular biological systems. If Cliff wants to falsify them, he can
try.
Since it has already been shown that IC systems could arise naturally, it
seems that Behe's thesis has been disproven. Perhaps his thesis is now that
some systems that are IC might still be designed? Perhaps Behe can provide us
with some evidence that does not rely on absence of data and mechanisms?
CH>You should go to the ARN website. It is not opponents to ID that have
>brought up the space alien scenario, it is the IDers that use it to respond
to
>the notion of God as the designer.
SJ: I have explained the context of that in Behe's Darwin's Black Box. There
Behe was pointing out that the detection of design would not compel belief
that the design was caused by a supernatural Designer. He says that
"persons with philosophical commitments against the supernatural" (p.248)
would be able to posit a number of alternatives, including Directed
Panspermia and time-travel. Behe was not saying that any IDers would
claim this, although they could.
Interestingly enough Behe forgot to mention that design could also include
natural forces. So my question again: What does ID have to offer?
CH>Behe, Meyer, and Dembski have all said
>that ID doesn't make any claims on the nature of the designer and that ID
>is not all about God.
SJ: That is correct. ID is about detecting *design* not about making claims
about "the nature of the designer", e.g. that it was "God".
Huraah and as such it cannot exclude natural forces as the designer.
SJ: There is simply *no way* that ID can, by its methods, like the
Explanatory
Filter, or Irreducible Complexity, do any more than detect *design*.
Heck, if they could show that it could even detect design in a useful
definition of the word then I would be impressed. But certainly within
biological sciences they have not done this.
SJ: It is up to philosophy and theology to take it further and make "claims
on
the nature of the designer" e.g. that it was "God".
Or nature. So we are where we started.
CH>I would love to see some real scientific research on intelligent design
>being conducted without the huge sociopolitical agenda of the Discovery
>Institute.
SJ: Well, "the Discovery Institute" don't have a monopoly on "scientific
research on intelligent design."
What research?
SJ: If Cliff would *really* "love to see some real scientific research on
intelligent design being conducted" and if he "would be thrilled if the
basic
hypothesis of ID was shown to be scientifically valid" then Cliff himself
could start his own ID research.
Why? Should we not expect our dear ID friends to do some hard work to show
that ID is not just founded in absence of evidence?
CH>But, until the agenda is dropped, I cannot (will not) accept the ID
>movement.
SJ: Cliff is perfectly free to "not ...accept the ID movement" I am sure
with
the ID movement's blessing. I have said before that the ID movement
does not need to convince committed Darwinists of design (that
probably cannot be done), but they only need to convince a large
part of the majority of the general public who already believe in
design.
Ah, there we are getting closer to the real issue. Through equivocation it is
attempted to imply that ID can support design. But those who believe in
design believe in a designer that ID cannot support since it cannot exclude
natural forces. As such ID has added nothing to the scientific discussion but
might confuse enough people.
CH>I just don't like being lied to (and yes, they have lied to me).
SJ: I have commented before on this List how easily evolutionists assume
that their creationist / IDer opponents are not merely intellectually in
error (i.e. wrong) but are also *morally* in error (i.e. "lied").
I am sure that you realize that your conclusion does not follow logically
from CH's remarks?
So where's the beef? If ID cannot exlcude natural forces as the designer, if
ID cannot even show that it is a reliable detector of design, what does ID
have to offer?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 23:43:41 EDT