Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If ID is dead, why are some obsessed with shutting it down?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Do scientists think more about sex or ID? That was an Enter Laughing question at Evolution News and Science Today but it prompts reflection on why some people in science seem driven around the bend by the idea of design in nature. And others alter their message to avoid confronting the questions:

First, if the critics are right to say ID is “dead,” why devote so much time to it? Evolution News reported in 2014 that an article in the journal Nature admitted that scientists self-censor criticisms of neo-Darwinism to avoid lending credence to ID. As Laland et al. (2014) conceded: “Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.” In 2017 we observed how Laland followed his own advice, refusing to admit in a report published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution that the 2016 Royal Society meeting included strong critiques of the neo-Darwinian paradigm. Clearly, ID arguments are potent, and evolutionary biologists are aware of this — which is why they admit they don’t like to acknowledge problems in the evolutionary consensus.

Second, intelligent design’s supposed negative impact is hyped beyond reason. The notion that “financing of research” in the U.S. is being hurt by ID is laughable. ID research gets exactly zero dollars from the Federal Government. From other sources, the amount of money available to fund ID research, though not trivial, is minuscule compared to the amount of money available for evolutionary science. No evolutionary scientist has any right to complain.

Third, it’s a shame that “20 percent of their time and brain power” is going to ID because the trend in thought is now running toward government-backed censorship.

Evolution News, “Scientist Admits Biologists Are Obsessed with Intelligent Design” at Evolution News and Science Today

Ah yes. Mutterings about the need for censorship. When we don’t have a reasonable response to a troubling topic, first, we self-censor. Then we censor anyone who raises it. Sure, guys. That’ll work.

The questions are still there but only for those capable of addressing them.

Comments
Any good, useful, healthy theoretical pursuit is built around punching holes in one's understanding. It's the failures that are sought. In this, I can't help but feel that ID is, in essence, the actual science, the actual empirical study of evolution, whereas that which is named as evolution is just a weird (and long obsolete) interpretation. Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that evolution the metaphysic would emerge victorious, ID would at least be the work debt that evolutionary theory has thus far evaded. It's going to come due; you can't put it off forever.JClark
May 27, 2020
May
05
May
27
27
2020
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
If ID Is Dead, Why Are Some Obsessed With Shutting It Down?
Perhaps they want it dead and buried?Seversky
May 27, 2020
May
05
May
27
27
2020
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Asauber @1:
And someone thinks a rational conversation can be had?
That's a good question. A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. Proverbs 18:2 (ESV)   NIV Study Bible Notes
18:2 airing their own opinions. See Ecc 10:3.
NKJV MacArthur Study Bible, 2nd Edition
18:2 Cf. Eccl. 10:12–14.
Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words.  Proverbs 23:9 (ESV)   NIV Study Bible Notes
23:9 scorn your prudent words. Fools “despise wisdom” (1:7) and hate knowledge and correction (1:2212:1). They heap abuse on one who rebukes them (9:7).
NKJV MacArthur Study Bible, 2nd Edition
23:9 This is true because fools hate wisdom (cf. 1:229:812:1).
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries.
23:9 This short instruction repeats the meaning of proverbs such as 9:7 that indicate that the fool is unteachable (cf. Matt. 7:6).
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.    Proverbs 26:4-5 (ESV)   NIV Study Bible Notes
26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly. Do not stoop to his level (see 23:9Mt 7:6 and notes). 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly. Sometimes folly must be plainly exposed and denounced. Thus vv. 4–5 do not contradict each other, as often claimed.
NKJV MacArthur Study Bible, 2nd Edition
26:45 answer a fool. Taken together, these verses teach the appropriate way to answer a fool (e.g., an unbeliever who rejects truth). He should not be answered with agreement to his own ideas and presuppositions, or he will think he is right (v. 4), but rather he should be rebuked on the basis of his folly and shown the truth so he sees how foolish he is (v. 5).
Reformation Study Bible
26:45 Taken together these verses illustrate the point that no proverb is intended to cover every possible situation. The apparent contradiction in the two proverbs indicates that proverbs must be appropriately applied. One situation demands that we avoid playing the fool’s game by giving an answer, while another demands that we expose the folly so that the fool is not considered wise.
PaoloV
May 27, 2020
May
05
May
27
27
2020
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Science should be thinking about ID because it is the right comparison for examining many of the events in evolutionary history.bill cole
May 27, 2020
May
05
May
27
27
2020
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
We can see this phenomenon right here at UD too: ID Is Dead But We Have To Perpetually Spam It And Oppose Everything About It. All with apparently complete unawareness they are doing it. And someone thinks a rational conversation can be had? Andrewasauber
May 27, 2020
May
05
May
27
27
2020
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7

Leave a Reply