ID Becomes a Global Phenomenon

_{William Dembski

December 2, 2005

Intelligent Design}

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

. . . But the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Ronald Numbers viewed the phenomenon as a growing global issue, saying intelligent design had made significant inroads in Australia, throughout Latin America, in Korea and most surprisingly, Russian and even China, which remains a communist state. . . .

MORE

Comments

Mats, Yeah, I see the same thing. But push it ahead 5 or 10 years. A lot of Christians were aghast at Darwin's theory and the number of atheists and agnostics who jumped on it back in the 19th Century. They came around. Some paganism is now institutionalizing, with demands for equal time in govt and schools. A lot of "pagan lite" is infiltrating churches as well, particularly 6 or 7 older protestant denominations. Those denominations are pretty "open" or "soft on God" already. Some accept outright atheism! So I think they'd go for any Designer model that would put more distance between them and a "jealous God." Interesting to think how the pagans would package it though. Any ideas?pmob1_{December 6, 2005
December
12
Dec
6
06
2005
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Prnob1 said, Agreed. And I think this will include pagans and others eventually. Actually, at least SOME pagans are reluctant to jump into the ID wagon, since Christians seem to be, as you said, in the ID helm. In other words, some pagans will distance themselves from ID due to the ramifications the Christians can make of it, not bkz they don't see that ID is scientifically valid. Since, so we are told, ID is a Christian Fundamentalist movement (this saith the liberal media) people who are atracted to ID are, saddly, not willing to embrace it publicaly.Mats_{December 4, 2005
December
12
Dec
4
04
2005
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Josh, You said: "IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d say that the idea is friendly to all theists. " Agreed. And I think this will include pagans and others eventually. They might be tougher opponents for Christian ID-ers than Darwinists-in-decline. People are going to try to commandeer ID for "cultural reasons" just like they commandeered Darwin's work. This is a bit obscured at the moment because the media is still pushing ID as Christians vs Scientists, or something like that.pmob1_{December 4, 2005
December
12
Dec
4
04
2005
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

I'd say that the idea is friendly to all theists. If you do a google search, you'll find a surprising number of Muslim ID sites (which pretty much kills the idea by the anti-ID crowd that this is some sort of move towards an evil theocracy- the people that make this claim or similar lesser claims just make me laugh.) I don't agree with the religion of Islam (big big problems with the founder himself), but I've noticed that there are many ID sites and similar ideas from Muslims. Then again, I've noticed even many agnostics (davescott who posts who here comes to mind), and others who have sites and blogger pages that have supported ID but label themselves agnostic. It's not an atheist friendly idea, I don't think...but I think that atheism, in general, is a very closed minded worldview. Saying 'I don't know'- I can buy that, but saying 'No way'- that doesn't make sense to me. Then you have what seems like an obsession with wanting to attack religion on the part of atheists that make them seem even more closed minded. I don't believe in psychics, but I don't spend time attacking them nonstop, belittling them, calling them names, etc. So...Josh Bozeman_{December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Darwinism was accepted because it fit the times, not because of evidence. It was decades before much empirical evidence was assembled. ID will be accepted because it fits the times, not because of evidence, which will come later, if at all. ID is essentially an information theory, hatched in the Information Age, a designed-life theory, formulated in the cloning age, a theory of interdependent complexities compiled in the age of meta-systems, a theory of irreducible and infinitesimal micro-factories, composed in the age of nano-technology, a theory of intelligent, self-propagating code in an age of intelligent, self-propagating code. For now, Christians are at the ID helm. This may not last long. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s pretty easy to beat up on some Darwinists who have never thought through their own assumptions. The Wedge and Vice phases are actually over. People just donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know it yet. And hats off to the folks who made that happen! The next round will be tougher.pmob1_{December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

I should note, I also love his strawmen here:
I believe that intelligent design should be taught in college science classes but not as the alternative to Darwinism that its advocates demand. It is through the careful analysis of why intelligent design is not science that students can perhaps best come to appreciate the nature of science itself.
Falsely define intelligent design, then attack that fallacious definition. Nice! This guy is an embarassment.Josh Bozeman_{December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Another scientist proves that just because he has a lab coat and some credentials, he's not automatically honest. Alberts makes the bogus claim that so many make:
According to intelligent design theory, supernatural forces acting over time have intervened to shape the macromolecules in cells, thereby forming them into the elegant protein machines that drive a cellÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s biochemistry (Alberts, 1998). In other words, at least from time to time, living things fail to obey the normal laws of physics and chemistry.
That is not what ID says AT ALL, and he knows it. Also, the following clearly causes a problem:
The idea that intelligent design theory could be part of science is preposterous. It is of course only by insisting on finding natural causes for everything observed in nature that science has been able to make such striking advances over the past 500 years.
If science had evidence of the supernatural, they would wave their hand at it and claim that it was merely natural. But, what does supernatural mean? Is the origin of the universe, before the laws of nature were even started, supernatural? It must be, right? If this was BEFORE nature itself, it must have been supernatural...thus, the big bang is supernatural, thus it's not science, right? Is the origin of life supernatural, considering we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that life can come from non-life in any manner? So, the study of origins of life is also supernatural by this definition. If God struck with lightning 100 monuments around the world with the words "I am God, I exist, worship me" would that be supernatural? If so, why? Lightning is nature no? God, if he exists, would be part of nature (if one creates nature, he would also be a part of it)...I use God here, because nearly all scientists would label God supernatural. But why? If he created the universe, how is his action any more supernatural then the big bang which somehow created all the universe AND the laws of nature themselves in the process? Back to the lightning and monuments...science would, as it is defined, not be able to study the phenomenon if they labelled it supernatural, for science cannot deal with anything but natural causes. Problem is- with this sort of mindset, you will automatically label EVERYTHING natural, and deny any evidence of anything supernatural (as I said, the term supernatural is hard to define in itself). When you presuppose that everything in the universe can be explained with a set of ordered laws and that every law must be natural in origin (even the ideas in this last setence are hard to truly define!), you will, no doubt, deny the existence of all evidence to the contrary. When you rule out 1 option from 2 possibilities from the start, you're also only left with that one option to begin with- which means, you've already made your mind up. That's clearly not science- that's opinion.Josh Bozeman_{December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Well, Bruce Alberts may be helping furthering the Global phenomenon: (courtesy Pete Dunkelberg at PandasThumb) Alberts wrote on December 2, 2005: "I believe that intelligent design should be taught in college science classes." http://www.cell.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS0092867405011827scordova_{December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

From the article: The ``Darwin's Legacy'' discussion, convened in conjunction with the American Museum of Natural History's exhibit.... Comment: John West notes: "...no one seems to have noticed that the museum is presenting a thoroughly sanitized portrait of Charles Darwin, completely suppressing Darwin's real views on such troubling issues as eugenics and race." More See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/suppressing_the_truth_about_da.html From the article: Policies that would promote teaching alternatives to evolution are being considered in at least 30 states, and the Kansas Board of Education earlier this month approved new public school science standards that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. Comment: I guess they missed Jonathan Wells report on "Definitions of Science in State Standards" The changes approved by the Kansas school board brought "the Kansas science standards back into the mainstream of the U.S. science education community. Of the fifty states, nine include no definition of science or explicit description of scientific inquiry in standards accessible through the Internet. The standards of forty states include a definition of science or explicit description of scientific inquiry that is consistent [with the new Kansas standard]." See: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=333 From the article: "It's not science versus religion as such -- but very much a cultural clash that we've got in America today." Others concurred, saying that the schism was part and parcel of a broader cultural war over contentious issues like abortion, gay rights and gun control." Comment: Darwinists quoted in the article correctly identified issues that are generally regarded NOT as right leaning/conservative/Republican political issues, but as left leaning/liberal/Democrat political issues: Abortion, gay rights and gun control! POLITICS is precisely the driving force behind opposition to ID. NOT science, but the philosophical and cultural ramifications of one theory vs. the other. Darwinism implies no God, no Creator, no moral Lawgiver, certainly no Author of Commandments, therefore there is no objective measure of morality; morality is relative. Abortion: a woman's political and relative "right to privacy" trumps the unborn baby's "inalienable right to life" which the Declaration declares as "self-evident truth". Gay rights is also founded on the "right to privacy" and society has no right to enforce objective moral standards due to the fact that there is no such thing as objective moral standards since there is no God. Gun control: since there is no Creator and no inalienable rights, all rights derive from the government. Ultimately the government has the right to impose it's standards of politically relative correctness on all subjects of the government. A subject does NOT have the right to defend his/herself from the government. (See for backup... ALL brutal dictatorships of the 20th century.) From the article: ....[Some experts] view the phenomenon as a growing global issue, saying intelligent design had made significant inroads in Australia, throughout Latin America, in Korea and most surprisingly, Russian and even China, which remains a communist state. Comment: A tacit admission that the foundations of communism is Darwinism. From the article: ``And it's not just a Christian phenomenon,'' he added, citing a Turkish education minister who pushed for intelligent design in schools.... Comment: See Dr. Dempski's link to an article by By Mustafa Akyol published in the National Review Online https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/533 From the article: Numbers said that at heart, the proponents of intelligent design ``want to change the definition of science'' to include God, an issue he predicted would end up in the Supreme Court. Comment: a) Yes, broaden the scope up from strict philosophical materialism; perhaps return the definition to more classical understandings held by Newton, et.al.. b) They are going to have a heck of a time enforcing U.S. Supreme Court decisions in "Australia, Latin America, Korea and most surprisingly, Russian and even China." From the article: ''One of the most successful PR campaigns we've seen in recent years,'' he added, ``is intelligent design.'' Comment: Either a) people are too stupid to understand Darwinism, or b) ID is a powerful, "self-evident truth" (Language of Declaration of Independence) From the article: Larson said the ``problem is partisan officials trying to tell science teachers how to do their jobs,'' and for ''blatantly religious motivations.'' Comment: He points one finger at "partisan officials", but he does not see that he is pointing three fingers at himself not only for trying to "tell science teachers how to do their job" which they do forcefully now, but also for "blatantly religious motivations", Darwinism relying as it does on "faith" in blind chance. The acting President of Cornell Univ. qualifies as a "partisan official" if anyone does. From the article: He also noted that ``so far, the issue hasn't affected scientific funding.'' Comment: Ah well, perhaps really that is the main issue.Red Reader_{December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Destroy Materialism! It would be a benefit to humanity.Benjii_{December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Talking Worldview change !WormHerder_{December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

CharlesW, I thought that that acknowledging the design in evolution will actually lead to a complete materialist view of science. Let's see evolution as it really is: a self-evolving molecular machine. In that respect, we would expect Germany as a country of engineers to be more sympathetic to ID.AdR_{December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Benjii, Acceptance of ID is only the first step to completely overthrowing the materialist and atheist dominance of science. Have patience.CharlesW_{December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

ID takes over the world! What's next?Benjii_{December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply