Orson Scott Card Weighs In On ID

_{January 22, 2006

Education, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a most excellent article one of the modern greats of science fiction weighs in on the controversy between ID and Darwinian evolution.

Read Creation and Evolution in the Schools by Orson Scott Card.

Comments

[Inflammatory rhetoric deleted.] On second thought, Bling, your post was filled with needlessly inflammatory rhetoric directed at people of faith. That has no place here. You're on probation as of now. All your comments will be scrutinized before they post. I'll be watching. -ds Bling Bling_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Dave, I understand what you are saying and it's reasonable. But, I agree with jacktone about Michael Denton's argument that the theory is in crisis. When we stick *strictly* to the facts--what we can observe and test--we find that "descent with modification" is no more than an (indeed very sophisticated) *extraplation* which can be a method error. We may be convinced that the evidence we observe confirms our extrapolation, but until we can observe the suspected process, then it is really no better than any other theory that comports to the observations. It even may be a useful philosophical construct. But, other constructs may also be useful. Let's examine them all. ID does NOT extrapolate. Design is detectable. Specification infers intelligence. It is what it is. In a finished product we do not see the tools and methods used by the builder. In the Pyramids of Egypt, ID detects intelligent design and intelligent construction, but does not suggest *how* the pyramids were built. And doesn't need to. The common characteristics and/or molecular structures found in disparate organisms may be evidence of "Designer Reuse" rather than common descent. .... P.S. The suggestion that I may be "laughed at" because I doubt common descent is not a motivator. E.O. Wilson and David Hawpe both have been quoted recently here at UD using the fear tactics of ridicule and threat-of-loss-of-credibility to pursuade KM Darwinists (Ken Miller Darwinists) to "stay in the fold" so to speak. To me, it is sad that someone could be pursuaded that way.Red Reader_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

That's a good explanation, Dave. Thanks for that. Keep in mind though, that Dembski rejects (or at best is HIGHLY skeptical) of descent with modification of humans from hominids - http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdfBombadill_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

"The evidence in support of descent with modification from a universal common ancestor over the course of billions of years is compelling." At the risk of being chuckled at myself I ask, what evidence? What was it that Michael Denton was talking about if not the lack of evidence for this idea?jacktone_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Red I think you're conflating macro-evolution with Darwinian evolution. The evidence in support of descent with modification from a universal common ancestor over the course of billions of years is compelling. Logically arguable but practically undeniable. If you argue against that you get laughed at and I'll be hard pressed to suppress a chuckle myself. However, descent with modification over billions of years from a common ancestor doesn't speak to whether the process was guided or unguided, planned or unplanned. Here there is compelling evidence, focused upon most famously and contemporaneously by Dembski and Behe, that there almost certainly must be planning and guidance required to produce some of the complex patterns we find in the machinery of life. The source of the planning and guidance may well be outside the scope of science and there's no scientific evidence to lead us in any particular direction. But detecting a design and identifying the source of design are two different things and the former is in no way dependent on the latter.DaveScot_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

I also think his books all suxxors except for Prentice Alvin and Xenocide.jaredl_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Card's a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.jaredl_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Red Reader said: "Mr. Card DOESNÃ¢â‚¬â„¢T say he is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“traditional Judeo-Christian believerÃ¢â‚¬Â." He doesn't say that, because he's not. He's a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints (IE:mormon.)M J_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

jactone, you are right. Mr. Card's first six critiques of Darwinian Dogmatism was stellar point on and very useful. But then in his 7th, he makes this statement that he thinks everyone can agree with. .... If both sides would behave like scientists, there wouldn't even be a controversy, because everyone would agree on this statement: Evolution happens and obviously happened in the natural world, and natural selection plays a role in it. But we do not have adequate theories *YET* to explain completely how evolution works and worked at the biochemical level. .... I added emphasis to the word *YET*. Putting the YET in there is the very leap of faith Mr. Card goes on to decry. He confuses "micro" evolution which DOES occur and IS observed with "macro" evolution the existence of which is based ENTIRELY on EXTRAPOLATION. (Extrapolation is a very serious error because extrapolation is the method by which one may conclude that the earth is flat. "The earth is flat as far as I can see, so it must be flat BEYOND what I can see.") Mr. Card, I love your books; my kids love your books. Here is the statement without the YET and its implications I think I COULD agree with. .... Micro-evolution obviously happens in the natural world and natural selection plays a role in it. But we do not have adequate theories to explain how macro-evolution may have worked at the chemical-biochemical level. All theories that are based on observation, mathematics and physics that account for what all scientists agree is evidence of design in nature should be taken seriously and examined on their merits. .... One final note that may be helpful to those who try to understand ID objections based on where they are coming from: I refer back to Dr. D's "Vise Strategy" document at http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.11.Vise_Strategy.pdf page 3. Mr. Card appears to be closely related to the KM Darwinist (a Kenneth Miller Darwinist). "The KM Darwinist is a traditional Judeo-Christian believer who holds that God has acted miraculously in salvation history (with such miracles as the parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection of Christ, the Virgin Birth, etc.) but denies that GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s activity in natural history is scientifically detectable. The Kenneth Miller Darwinist is an orthodox religious believer and an orthodox Darwinist. He is the poster child for the Eugenie Scott Darwinist." Mr. Card DOESN'T say he is a "traditional Judeo-Christian believer". But he falls into that class with this: "...what do I believe about the origin of life? I believe that God created it, employing and obeying natural laws, but at levels beyond our understanding. I believe we're here on this earth for God's beneficent purposes." Of the three identified "Darwinist types", only the KM Darwinist asserts there is "purpose" in the universe.Red Reader_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Seems like he missed Mr. Dembski's argument about design being detectable in his response to point 7. Design doesn't happen without a Designer. If the "science" (undefined in this article) detects design, then there can be nothing "unscientific" to acknowledge His existence.jacktone_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

If, as Card says, both sides are engaging in faith arguments, then shouldn't other factors outside of the hard sciences be allowed to tip the balance in favor of either ID or neo-Darwinism? Why is a layperson wrong to evaluate the scientific evidence in light of historical records (say, the Bible), common sense, human experience and logical arguments? By definition this takes one out of the realm of pure science, but since when did pure science become the only means of knowing things? It seems to me that even scientists, after they've gone back billions of years for answers, will find themselves unable to explain everything (origin of the universe, natural laws, etc.). If they can acknowledge that there are ultimate limits to what is knoweable, how are they justified in dismissing what might have occured (design)?russ_{January 23, 2006
January
01
Jan
23
23
2006
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Card is only a superb author, but has his thinking cap is well and truly on and functioning in the case of ID. I really enjoyed 'Ender's Game.' I recently noticed another favourite science fiction author of mine, Avery Axton, has began to incorporate what I feel must be references to ID in his novellas and short stories, specifically his new 'Xeo Woolfe' series. My apologies to Avery if this is a wrong impression - perhaps I am just projecting. In any case - they're a really fun read and you can get them online at www.xeowoolfe.com Thanks, BruceBruce_{January 22, 2006
January
01
Jan
22
22
2006
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply