Culture Intelligent Design

Is intelligent design theory getting ahead?

Spread the love

Casey Luskin debated this topic on Justin Brierley’s show, Unbelievable, with Adam Shapiro, a historian of science and religion.

David Klinghoffer fills us in:

Adam Shapiro is a science historian who has cast stones at intelligent design in the past, and missed. Back In July 2020 he offered the strange criticism that ID proponents could have redeemed themselves by prejudging with regard to the COVID-19 virus and concluding (in the absence of needed evidence) that it was of natural origins, thus rejecting “the Chinese lab myth.” That critique has not aged well.

David Klinghoffer, “Debate: “Is Intelligent Design Advancing?”” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 24, 2022)

Yes, he actually said that: “Proponents could have demonstrated the apolitical nature of their claim if they had debunked the Chinese lab myth using their methods. Instead, they have doubled down against Darwin.” (July 16, 2020)

It’s pretty obvious by now, and has been for some time, that the lab leak theory of the origin of COVID-19 is a very reasonable one. But you can be sure of one thing: It wouldn’t have counted in ID’s favor that ID proponents would refuse to rule out the lab leak theory.

14 Replies to “Is intelligent design theory getting ahead?

  1. 1
    jerry says:

    ID accepts Darwin’s ideas in genetics. The evolution of the virus is a genetics phenomenon.

    People conflate two different definitions of evolution and ID should emphasize when this is done. But they don’t. They just attack Darwin’s ideas when in reality they accept them in genetics.

    ID is Science+ and in no way conflicts with any legitimate science.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Seeing that Adam Shapiro is a science historian, I was hoping that Adam Shapiro would weigh in on how modern science came into existence in the first place. He did not. This was disappointing.

    Shapiro said that the book that he wrote on Science and Religion was mainly concentrated on 19th century historical concerns about science and religion, and his main point in the debate seems to have been to point out that both Darwinists and ID proponents have misconstrued William Paley’s ‘watch on a beach’ argument.

    Well, leaving Paley’s ‘watch argument’ to the side for now, and to be clear, and historically speaking, modern science came into existence as an outgrowth of Judeo-Christian presuppositions in medieval Christian Europe and certainly did not come into existence as an outgrowth of any naturalistic and/or atheistic presuppositions.

    The truth about science and religion By Terry Scambray – August 14, 2014
    Excerpt: In 1925 the renowned philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead speaking to scholars at Harvard said that science originated in Christian Europe in the 13th century. Whitehead pointed out that science arose from “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher”, from which it follows that human minds created in that image are capable of understanding nature.
    The audience, assuming that science and Christianity are enemies, was astonished.
    http://www.americanthinker.com.....igion.html

    The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014
    Excerpt: As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview.
    http://townhall.com/columnists...../page/full
    Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

    Indeed, it could be, and has been, argued that the very success of modern science is proof, in and of itself, that the Judeo-Christian worldview must be true.

    As Rodney Stark, Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University, stated, “That the universe had an Intelligent Designer is the most fundamental of all scientific theories and that it has been successfully put to empirical tests again and again.”

    No False Gods Before Me: A Review of Rodney Stark’s Work by Terry Scambray (December 2018)
    Excerpt: As Stark writes, “Not only were science and religion compatible, they were inseparable—the rise of science was achieved by deeply religious, Christian scholars.”,,,
    So Christianity, then and now, never was antithetical to science. And this is because European Christians believed in a rational God whose imprint could be discovered in nature; thus, they confidently looked for and found natural laws. As Johannes Kepler, the venerable 17th century cosmologist, wrote, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world” is to discover this harmony imposed by God in the language of mathematics.
    Stark concludes, “That the universe had an Intelligent Designer is the most fundamental of all scientific theories and that it has been successfully put to empirical tests again and again. For, as Albert Einstein remarked, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” which Einstein called a “miracle.” And this “miracle” confirms the fact that creation is guided by purpose and reason.
    https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=189497&sec_id=189497

    And as Robert Koons, professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas, stated , “It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.”

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    https://robkoons.net/uploads/1/3/5/2/135276253/science_and_theism.pdf

    Directly contrary to what atheists believe, it is simply impossible to ‘do science’ without first presupposing Judeo-Christian presuppositions.

    As Paul Davies noted, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

    Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995
    Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

    And although many people on the ID side of the debate like to focus solely on the scientific issue of detecting design, and shy away from ever identifying the Designer of life and the universe as God, never-the-less, Stephen Meyer, (a leading proponent of ID who has a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University), in his latest book “Return of the God Hypothesis”, does indeed extend the ID argument to say, basically, that the inference to God is, by far, the best, and most reasonable, explanation for the intelligent design that we detect in the universe and in life.

    Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe – Stephen Meyer – March 30, 2021
    Excerpt: Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God.
    – per Amazon book description

    So thus in conclusion, seeing that Adam Shapiro is a science historian, I was hoping that Adam Shapiro would weigh in on how modern science came into existence in the first place.

    Specifically, seeing that modern science was, and still is, vitally dependent on essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions,,

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour

    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”

    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler

    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bocon’s inductive methodology)
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

    ,,, Specifically, seeing that modern science was, and still is, vitally dependent on essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions, I was hoping that Adam Shapiro would offer some coherent explanation for exactly why the decidedly ‘unscientific’ atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (with its core chaos, and/or irrational, presupposition), came to be seen as the ‘scientific’ worldview, whilst the worldview of Christian Theism, (with its core Logos, and/or reason, presupposition), which gave us modern science in the first place, came to be seen as ‘unscientific’.

    To an outside observer like myself, and from a historical perspective, it certainly appears clear to me that atheists/naturalists have blatantly, and deceptively, stolen modern science away from Christianity which gave us modern science in the first place.

    The Two Guys to Blame for the Myth of Constant Warfare between Religion and Science – February 27, 2015
    Excerpt: Timothy Larsen, a Christian historian who specializes in the nineteenth century, notes:
    The so-called “war” between faith and learning, specifically between orthodox Christian theology and science, was manufactured during the second half of the nineteenth century. It is a construct that was created for polemical purposes.
    No one deserves more blame for this stubborn myth than these two men:
    Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the founding president of Cornell University, and
    John William Draper (1811-1882), professor of chemistry at the University of New York.
    http://www.thegospelcoalition......d-science/

    The Importance of the Warfare Thesis – Cornelius Hunter, PhD in Biophysics – July 26, 2015
    Excerpt: Historians have understood for the better part of a century now that this Warfare Thesis (between science and religion) is a false history. It was constructed by evolutionists to frame the origins debate in their favor. In fact the conflict is the exactly the opposite—it is between the metaphysical foundation of evolutionary thought and science. That metaphysical foundation of naturalism is unyielding and unbending, and it makes no sense on the science. It is the evolutionists who have a conflict between their religious beliefs and science. The Warfare Thesis is an attempt to turn the tables and turn the attention away from the obvious problems with evolutionary thought.
    Evolutionists say that their skeptics suffer from bad religion and bad science. In fact, the metaphysical foundation of naturalism is not biblical (in spite of the fact that it comes from Christians), and evolutionary theory is not scientific. Science does not indicate that the world spontaneously arose.,,,
    Clear scientific evidence for evolution? Abundant genetic and fossil evidence for evolution? Yes, the scientific evidence is clear, and the genetic and fossil evidence is abundant, but it does not support evolution. Not even remotely.
    Of course Scripture can have different interpretations. But the science leaves no such wiggle room. It does not prove, indicate or suggest that the species arose spontaneously, as a consequence of natural laws and processes. That is a metaphysical mandate that is in conflict with the science.
    – per Darwin’s god blog

    Verse and quote:

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

    ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic

    What is the Logos?
    Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,,
    In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.”
    https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html

  3. 3
    Scamp says:

    Jerry:
    ID accepts Darwin’s ideas in genetics.

    Darwin didn’t have any ideas in genetics.

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    Darwin didn’t have any ideas in genetics

    One of the most stupidest comments ever.

    You should probably refrain from commenting on things you know nothing about.

    And yes, I realized I used two superlatives together. But something this dumb deserves it.

  5. 5
    chuckdarwin says:

    Jerry
    Does this get Scamp into the chuckdarwin Hall of Fame for “most stupidest” comments?

  6. 6
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    @Jerry :
    Darwin wrote only books about materialist philosophy . If you think he wrote scientific books present one scientific argumentation of Darwin.
    PS: Dawkins books just copied Darwin’s model. Philosophy presented as science. Many people bought the lie . They trusted the wrong people. It’s on them .

    In a letter of Darwin to Edward Aveling( Karl Marx’s son-in-law)
    :“Moreover though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effects on the public, and freedom of thought is best provided by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion and I have confined myself to science.”

    [Herbert, S. “The place of Man in the Development of Darwin’s Theory of Transmutation” part II, Journal of the History of Biology vol 10 no.2 5-227 Fall 1977.p161]

    Darwin fight was against God, not directly because would have been unsuccessfully but indirectly by science.
    Who smels the metaphysical materialism ?

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    into the chuckdarwin Hall of Fame for “most stupidest” comments

    One of the top ones.

    Maybe not the best of the best but a contender.

    Or should I say the stupidest of the stupidest. He will have tough competition but he’s in contention.

  8. 8
    Scamp says:

    Jerry:
    One of the most stupidest comments ever.

    You should probably refrain from commenting on things you know nothing about.

    Then, perhaps you can let us know what Darwin’s ideas on genetics, a term not coined until 23 years after his death, were. Was Darwin also a time traveler?

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    perhaps you can let us know what Darwin’s ideas on genetics, a term not coined until 23 years after his death, were

    Another incredibly stupid remark.

    Clue – does modern day genetics use any ideas that Darwin either invented or made popular?

    Another way of expressing clue – are the essentials of Darwin’s ideas commonly used in genetics?

  10. 10
    Belfast says:

    Jerry and Chuck know as much genetics as Darwin did.
    In ‘Origin of Species’ and ‘Descent of Man’ he concealed all he knew.

  11. 11
    jerry says:

    Genetics – definitions

    a branch of biology that deals with the heredity and variation of organisms

    Or

    Genetics is a branch of biology concerned with the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity in organisms

    Or

    The study of the patterns of inheritance of specific traits, relating to genes and genetic information

    Essentially, genetics is the study of inheritance and heredity had been observed for millennia. Breeding is a subset of genetics and Darwin was very interested in breeding.

  12. 12
    Scamp says:

    Jerry:
    Essentially, genetics is the study of inheritance and heredity had been observed for millennia. Breeding is a subset of genetics and Darwin was very interested in breeding.

    Your scrambling has been entertaining. The fact remains, “genetics” as a term was not used until 1905, years after Darwin died. Details are important.

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    scrambling

    I believe the proper technical term for this is “projection.”

    The fact remains, “genetics” as a term was not used until 1905, years after Darwin died.

    By this logic Mendel had nothing to do with genetics.

    Details are important.

    when one is in a hole, stop digging.

    Aside: I can produce genetics textbooks that discuss the ideas of Darwin in its development.

    Aside2: what is the difference between micro evolution and genetics?

  14. 14
    Bob O'H says:

    Scamp @ 3 – Darwin did have ideas about heredity, but an engineer pointed out that if they were true, evolution wouldn’t work.

Leave a Reply