Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jeffrey Schloss, and Now Richard Weikart’s Reply to Him

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Jeff Schloss, formerly an ID supporter and Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute (until August 2003 — click here for Way Back Machine), has since been distancing himself from ID and even going on the offensive against it. I witnessed the beginnings of this offensive at a symposium featuring Ron Numbers, Howard Van Till, Schloss, and me in 2007 at Grove City College (go here for the program). His criticisms of ID at that event seemed to me naive and ill-considered. Yet he did seem to advance them sincerely, and I hoped to have an opportunity try to persuade him otherwise, which unfortunately never happened.

Schloss’s critical review of EXPELLED, however, raised his opposition against ID to a new level and frankly upset me for what I perceived as its disingenuousness (the review appeared with official sanction of the American Scientific Affiliation [ASA] on its server here). By offering so many nuances and qualifications, his review missed the bigger picture that many ID propoents really are getting shafted. I confronted Jeff about this and we had an exchange of emails. As it is, Jeff and I go back and had been friends. He contributed to the MERE CREATION volume (1996) that I edited (his essay was a fine piece on altruism and the difficulties conventional evolutionary theory has in trying to account for it). I even had occasion to visit him in the hospital after he had a surfing accident. The exchange ended with my asking him to admit the following four points:

(1) ID raises important issues for science.
(2) Politics aside, ID proponents ought to get a fair hearing for their views, and they’re not.
(3) A climate of hostility toward ID pervades the academy, which often undermines freedom of thought and expression on this topic.
(4) That climate has led to ID proponents being shamefully treated, losing their reputations and jobs, and suffering real harm.

As it is, Schloss never got back to me. I suppose I could have responded to him on the ASA website — Randy Isaac, the executive director of the ASA, invited me, as an ASA member, to do so. But by putting Schloss’s review front and center as the official position of the ASA on EXPELLED, I saw little point of trying to argue for EXPELLED in that forum.

In any case, Richard Weikart has now responded to Schloss’s review on the most controversial aspect of EXPELLED, namely, the Nazi connection. Weikart’s response may be found by clicking here.

,

Comments
jerry-- you wrote, "I have emailed John Calvert and hopefully he will reply to clear up just what happened in 1999 and 2005." Did Mr Calvert reply? If so, are you able to summarize or forward his comments? I for one would like to know what he says about this.Ted Davis
August 26, 2008
August
08
Aug
26
26
2008
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
oops, I mean "into" perspective.StephenB
August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Ted: The point of the exercise was to put all this guilt by association in to perspective: If we are hanging out with juvenile delinquents (YEC’s), then you are hanging out with three-time losers; (Atheist Darwinists)? If our friends are to be graded down for believing the improbable (God created the earth in seven days), then your friends should be flunked for believing the impossible (the universe created itself). So inviting you into our big tent is a greater exercise in magnanimity than allowing the YECs to stay. If you choose to stay out, it is your sensibilities that are on trial, not ours.StephenB
August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
Throughout the course of this thread, the notion is presented that one of the biggest obstacles of TE accepting ID principles are the creationists, or "creationism." At least, that's what I gleaned from Ted Davis' comments above. I'd like to make a couple of observations. It appears to me that TE's problem with ID is not "creationism" (ID has nothing to do with it) it's the creationist (ID doesn't ostracize them). This is politics. The fact that ID definitions, wherever they happen to come from, do not include language intended specifically to separate it from creationists seems to be an objection to ID's politics, not its science. To some it seems unconscionable that ID would not first exclude this group of fanatics, then get down to the business of science. That said what's more important are the differences between ID and TE on issues unrelated to association: the scientific claims of ID. The issues that separate TE/Darwinism from ID have to do with Irreducible Complexity, the Edge of Evolution, the Explanatory Filter and CSI, and the Privileged Planet Hypothesis. How does TE deal with these? Does the DNA molecule and the information processing machinery of the cell exhibit the hallmark of design (and is this design objectively detectable by the application of scientific principles) or are Darwinian processes of Random Variation and Natural Selection enough to account for it? That TE won't deal with these very serious and paradigm-changing observations of ID because it doesn't politically affiliate properly doesn't hold up. Either TE is compatible with ID based on its scientific claims, or it remains firmly aligned with materialist claims of the power of Darwinism's undirected processes to produce the complexity of biological life. I think it's really that simple. Unless ID and TE can achieve some sort of harmony on IC, EoE, EF/CSI, and PPH, there will be no need to argue the playground politics of exclusion by association.Apollos
August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
As for this
Not to worry, I am not in the business of promoting the Galileo vs the church mythology. I must have confused you.
I was going to let my tu quoque rest, but I'm in a different mood today ... Yes, you did confuse me. By using the Galileo/science/religion theme you enter the big tent of those who promote the mythology. By not explicitly distancing yourself from it, and by making use of its rhetorical impact yourself, you are, in effect, endorsing it. Right?Charlie
August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
oops... And this is, as you allude to above, the use of the term as ruled against in court and as pejoratively hung on ID. As you are an IDist, and a creationist, and a theistic evolutionist, you just might see why it's a big tent, afterall.Charlie
August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Hi Ted Davis, It sounds like you might be in camp with "creationist" Phillip Johnson on that point:
In the most important sense a creationist is a person who believes in creation, and that includes people who believe that Genesis is a myth and that creation involved a process called evolution and consumed billions of years.
This latter is, of course, why at first ID could be called "creationism"; that is, because a wider use of the word was being applied - one that I presume applies to TE evolutionists as well. This does not make it accurate to call ID "creationism" now, as the term specifically separates ID from the narrower use of the term "creationism" which is intended.Charlie
August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
DaveScot-- I'm ignorant of many things, including many parts of science. We all are ignorant of many things. I do know quite a bit about the history of the origins controversy in the US, and my antennae are probably much better tuned than yours are for certain things. That doesn't invaldiate your perspective on this, DaveScot, but it is to say that there were specific reasons why I said what I did. I won't repeat my points again. My main concern on entering this thread was to refute the false claim that many TEs, including some members of the ASA (which is not a TE organization per se, any more than it is an ID organization, per se), simply lack the courage to support ID. That just doesn't fit the facts for most of the people I know, and I was concerned to get that straight. Disagreement over matters of opinion and/or strategy is always fair game; the imputation of false motives is not, as folks here will surely appreciate (I'm fully aware that this type of thing goes both ways). Stephen-- Of course, Stephen, if the only actual options were "creationism" vs athiesm, I'm with the creationists. No doubt about that. But it isn't helpful to restrict one's options in that artificial manner. Even ID represents an alternative perspective, albeit one that could be a good deal clearer about setting itself apart from the "creationist" option you offered. John Loftus-- Thank you for the link to the very interesting commentary by Avalos. I am as impressed by that, as I was by Weikart's response to Jeff Schloss. His points about Luther, eugenical practices before they carried that name, and other things were all on target, as far as I can tell from my quite limited knowledge of those parts of history. It helps folks see more fully just why I get nervous about connecting historical dots in too simple a manner: it's usually not very clear and simple at all, any more than human beings and human behavior are clear and simple. Weikart's conclusions have something to them, as I stated before, but it's easy to overstate them for ideological purposes. If social Darwinism of any variety obviously needs Darwinism for its "scientific" and cultural cache, just as obviously the abuses themselves have very often been around a lot longer than Darwinism. The creationists like to blame "evolution" for racism, pornography, abortion, euthenasia, Marxism, and sexual promiscuity (did I forget something?), as is none of those things were around in 1500 or even 1500 BC. The fact that this is patently absurd does not prevent a lot of Americans from believing it. ID leaders wisely avoid these specific claims, and IMO care should be taken not to make a similar claim (ie, a claim that goes without warrant beyond local historical circumstances into a global historical claim) in the instance of Nazi Germany--or in the instance of eugenics anywhere else. The connections that stand scrutiny should be noted, and those that go too far should be explicity distinguished from them and avoided. Some of the controversy about "Expelled," apparently, involves whether or not Stein clearly made that distinction in the film and in his marketing of it. As for Avalos' points about the history of the word "creationist," the only new point (to me at least) is the one about the earliest known use being the one involving traducionism. As I told a fairly hostile crowed at Indiana University last fall, I am myself a "Creationist" if the word is defined broadly enough. However, it's impossible IMO to note the great signficance of the narrower definition (ie, "creationist" = YEC), relative to discussing ID. That's b/c American court cases have been about a very specific form of creationism, the type that ID opponents are so quick to equate with ID--to suit their own ideological purposes. Anyone here already knows this. Avalos, no doubt, likes that fact that he can now "defend" his use of the term "intelligent design creationism," but I'd be happy to face off against him on that one anytime he likes. In the meantime, however, help me make that case more forcefully by taking that creationist language out of the definition of ID linked on this site. Going back to lurking now.Ted Davis
August 18, 2008
August
08
Aug
18
18
2008
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Ted First of all it was ME who put that definition of ID on this website. Bill Dembski wasn't even consulted in the decision. I simply googled the web and copied what I thought was the best definition. As it turns out that definition was worked out and adopted by a large group of ID proponents. No wonder I liked it, a lot of work went into it from a diverse group. You're reading your own bias, and quite frankly, your ignorance of science into that definition to see demons where they don't exist. For example, when I see "origins science" the first thing that comes to mind is the Harvard Origins of Life project which sure as hell isn't associated with creation science. I can only guess that's because I've been following the scientific quest to discover a mechanism of chemical evolution for decades. I'd never even heard the name "scientific creationism" until a few years ago as I simply never read anything but mainstream science journals, science books, and took science courses in college. Secular "origins science" is quite well established and broad in scope. If you weren't aware of that then it's simple ignorance on your part. Another example is where you think "impacts religion" has some nefarious undertone. More nonsense. Design detection is used in many areas of inquiry and when it doesn't involve the potential design of life no one, neither secular scientist nor non-secular bats an eye. But let a non-secular scientist apply it to detecting design in living things and all hell breaks loose among the secular scientists. And it isn't because all the other applications involve human designers. I've been following the ongoing Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence since I was knee high to a grasshopper. Exactly the same principles of ID that are applied to detecting design in living things form the basis of detecting extraterrestrial intelligence. No can knows if an extraterrestrial intelligence even exists to say nothing of what form physical it takes. Yet SETI researchers are very confident they can discriminate a signal of intelligent origin from non-intelligent sources. They are confident because design detection works. Except when it's applied to patterns found in living things. Then the same principles no longer apply. The reason they don't apply is because it would give people who believe in a creator/God some scientific support for their belief. Thus the definition of ID is quite correct that ID is treated differently in origins science than any other science not because of the weight of the evidence but because of the religious implications. I happen to not give a tinker's damn about religious implications one way or the other. I objectively follow the evidence wherever it leads. If it leads to life being the result of atoms dancing to the tune of law and chance then so be it and if it leads to some kind of creator that's fine with me too. Truth be told I'd rather discover that life ends in eternal oblivion. I don't believe it because if I somehow found myself alive and conscious in this form it's a proven possibility it can happen. What can happen once can and probably will happen again. My fear is that the next time I wake into being self-conscious I won't have such a pleasant life as this one I've got now. I'd rather quit the game a winner than chance coming back in some wretched circumstance. But regardless of my personal preference I'll believe what the data tells me. What the data tells me is that design can be distinguished from non-design in many cases and the same principles that are applied to potentially designed objects and patterns outside the life sciences can be applied to patterns and structures in living things with similar results. DaveScot
August 14, 2008
August
08
Aug
14
14
2008
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Have you read Hector Avalos's response to Weikart?John W. Loftus
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
I am sorry to see it but by my reading the 1999 suggested revisions do betray a YEC leaning. As for the Big Bang, I think I misunderstood Ted Davis' point. The revisions don't say that the Big Bang should not be taught, but they do suggest its teaching not be mandatory. (This is not the evidence I refer to above about YEC).Charlie
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
Ted Davis, I have emailed John Calvert and hopefully he will reply to clear up just what happened in 1999 and 2005.jerry
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
@173 Obviously, I meant 4.5 BILLION years old.StephenB
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
-----Ted: "Your pitch wasn’t a fastball down the middle, but a curveball way outside. I can’t reach it. Add (c) neither of these, or ask a more open-ended question, and maybe I can hit it." No. It was a very simple question that anyone could answer. The mainstream argument is that the earth is 4.5 million years old. At the one extreme, we have the religious fundamentalist, who believes that God created the earth in 7 days. In the middle we have theistic evolutionists and ID scientists who acknowledge that God played some role in the process. At the other extreme, we have atheist/Darwinists who reject God and any form of creation. That means that they believe the universe created itself. Apparently, you can't admit that the last extreme is more unreasonable than the first extreme. That suggests that ideology is guiding your thinking because any unbiased person would have no trouble making that choice.StephenB
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Jerry-- It would be wrong to step away from this thread without correcting my error about Kansas, which you quite properly noted above. I remember talking to you about this a few years ago, but I couldn't recall all of the details or find the relevant place here. Now I've found it. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/walt-ruloff-op-ed-on-academic-suppression-at-baylor-does-the-baylor-administration-believe-in-god/ The important stuff is near the end. I knew that Calvert isn't a YEC, but I'd forgotten just what the nature of involvement was with his IDN in the 1999 situation--the one that cleary had a strong YEC component. (Big Bang did come out at that point, unless I'm forgetting something else. Check me if possible.) But, my point about YEC influence on the ID definition from IDN is still correct. (I realize that some here won't see Jack Krebs as a credible source, but I do. Pass on the rest of this if you don't.) The 2005 arguments were definitely an improvement on the 1999 standards (the inclusion of history of science in 1999 is something I would nevertheless applaud), and if Calvert was behind that I would credit him for it. As for the passage in the ID definition that concerns me, because he's smart and well-informed, I would have to assume that he knew he was tossing a bone to the many YECs associated with his group, the board he worked with, and active supporters (according to Krebs, and also according to other people in Kansas whom I have talked to), when he used the language I've found so problemmatic. I can't speak for him by saying that he believes that point himself, but it's clearly endorsed by his organization. Also, it's apparently endorsed here as well. My concern about this relates to a big goal of ID proponents--to have the scientific community recognize the geniunely scientific character of their arguments, and thereby to change how evolution is understood and taught. You just can't do that, IMO, if the legitimacy of the historical sciences, per se, is being seriously questioned. (See above) And, I'm convinced (perhaps you aren't), that's what that specific language is really about. I don't think it's irrelevant or trivial of me to note this. It tells me that the "origins science" looks stronly like it might be central to ID. It wasn't a preconception on my part that it actually is--I suspected it, but still had my doubts. Definitions matter, I think we all agree about that. ID proponents and friends were absolutely right to force changes in the ABT definition of evolution, and right to force Ken Miller to disown a similar statement apparently written by his co-author in their text. In the same way, I think it's fair for me to point to this part of the ID definition in use here, and say, hey, this pretty much commits you to a certain view of science that isn't really scientific. It lets in too much junk science, and as a result, it's really hard for even otherwise sympathtic people (Gingerich, me, many others) to be too sympathetic. Is there any possibility that this passage could likewise be excised or meaningfully changed? This is not a "creationist strawman" argument, Stephen. If ID isn't creationism, this suggestion should be taken with great seriousness. If it really doesn't matter whether ID is creationism, or not, then no one here should complain when people look at things like this and write that equation. Charlie-- Not to worry, I am not in the business of promoting the Galileo vs the church mythology. I must have confused you. Stephen-- Your pitch wasn't a fastball down the middle, but a curveball way outside. I can't reach it. Add (c) neither of these, or ask a more open-ended question, and maybe I can hit it. But, maybe it's just time for me to hit the showers and go home for awhile. I can't pitch every day. :-) Best wishesTed Davis
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
-----Ted: “At least by this definition, ID has obvious links with and roots within “creationism,” extending to the explicit endorsement not only of “design,” which creationists obviously also endorse, but also the explicity endorsement of the crucial methodological principle that really defines what creationism is about (on the “scientific” side, not on the Biblical side). Although I’ve suspected something like this, I’ve always wanted to give ID the benefit of the doubt. I can no longer do that.” After having read Ted’s statement, and the paragraphs which preceded it, I can only conclude that his objections to ID are emotional. When his arguments fail, he clings to the creationist strawman and holds on for dear life. Perhaps he and his colleagues will examine their collective consciences someday and find out what it is that is really driving their ideology. Is it their assumption that God is too subtle to leave clues about his existence? Is it a fear of being snickered at by elitists? Is it their lack of familiarity with ID definitions and terms? Is it their dedication to a quasi-naturalism posing as science? Who can know? To them, it doesn’t matter that history’s greatest thinkers accepted the design principle, or that most people believe it, or even that the current evidence confirms it. What matters is that they prefer that it not be true. Maybe one day we fill find out why.StephenB
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Doh! You are right, Charlie. I guess I should read for comprehension instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to reference to the Democrat Party rather than by it's correct name. That, and snide permutations of Republican Party, really bother me. terry fillups
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Hi Terry, That's what Jerry just said and what the analogy demonstrated.Charlie
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Jerry, not everyone is a single issue voter. So, people may vote for Democratic Party because they agree with more of their platform than they disagree with. Likewise, I know people who vote for Republican candidates because they agree with most, but not all, of their platform. If you are single-issue voter with regards to abortion, that is your right. But, not everyone chooses in the same manner.terry fillups
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Ted Davis, It feels like you are looking for anything that will confirm a pre determined conclusion rather than seeking an honest analysis of the situation. The misinterpretation of the ID guidelines seems a little excessive for those of us who are aware of them and find that they in no way support a young earth point of view. If you can conjure up such an interpretation then you have a rich imagination. I suggest you contact Calvert and ask him about his experiences. He is a Catholic and few Catholics accept a young earth. The Big Bang was the idea of a Catholic priest and was originally derided as the Catholic theory of the universe. From what little I know of Calvert he is not in any way a YEC or supportive of their science. So for you to bring him up seems highly inappropriate. There is a lot of criticism here of the YEC's science and such criticism is not restrained if it is confined to science and not derogatory of the individuals. I disagree very vehemently with the YEC's on science but respect most of them as people. So if criticism of the YEC's science is allowed what does that say of ID. You can see it some of my comments on this thread and on many others in the past. ID is not creationism in any form or else I would be out of here instantly and so would many others. It does tolerate them and officially remains agnostic on their science which I believe is a major mistake for a lot of the reasons you iterate. If you do not want to be known as a ID supporter then so be it but many here are ID supporters and anti YEC also so how does one read that. I personally do not know how one could take a course in geology and still believe in a young earth. Maybe an analogy is that several of my acquaintances are very pro Democrat party and still very much against abortion even though abortion rights are one of the linch pins of the Democrat party. It blows my mind when they profess their anti abortion views and still vote for even the most pro abortion candidates you can imagine. And if you justify such a scenario because they find the Democrat party more desirable for other reasons so that they are willing to stomach the abortion part to get other things, then see if that analogy could apply to other things in society including the people here who accept the YEC as part of ID but yet don't agree with them or find their science baseless. I hope you continue to post because while I am finding I don't agree with you on a lot of things, your input helps us all. Post when you can.jerry
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
----Ted Davis: (about the conclusions of evolutionary theorists) "But they aren’t open to reasonable scientific debate, and (once again) ID misses a chance to prove its scientific (as vs political or religious) character." Ted, excuse me, but science is always provisional. With all due respect, your unwarranted reverence for convention is a replay a well-documented historical error. Using your standards, Newton would have been a slam dunk and Einstein would never have been allowed to enter the arena. To be sure, few of us agree with the YECs, but we don't know for sure that they are wrong. While most of us agree that "uniformitarianism" provides a reasonable basis for science, it is not a fact. It is an assumption. For all we know, God once showered the earth with an abundance of cosmic rays and speeded up the aging process. I don't believe that, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE. Since you like fastballs so much, here is one you can swing at. Granted, the universe is probably 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Which extreme is more likely to be true: {A} Religious fundamentalism [God created the earth in 7 days] or {B} Darwinist fundamentalism [The universe and the world created themselves] No ducking. Take your swing.StephenB
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
“The ‘big tent’ extends further in some directions, apparently, than it does in others …” You can believe in the ten incarnations of Vishnu and if you accept that it is OK to look for design you’re in, but if you don’t believe it’s legal to look you’re out. So I wonder, are y'all suggesting that if one subscribes to some dumb things he must be banished from “science”? If so then what do you suggest we do with the Darwinists? Darwinism (NOT evolution) is bogus from the get-go, but I dare say some Darwinists are good biologists—you want we should ban them too?Rude
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Hi Ted Davis, I a disappointed with your last post but you still have my best wishes and prayers. :)
Context: changing the requirements for science education in Kansas, including the elimination of the big bang and other ideas that make no sense in a “young” universe.
Where in the Kansas standards did anyone advocate that the Big Bang not be taught? I never followed that controversy, but as per your discussion of Calvert, I checked out IDNet and see no reference in the standards to such an advocacy. I would be very disappointed with any group that suggested we not teach this theory. Also, could I prevail upon you, as an historian of science, not to trade on the Galileo mythology in your upcoming paper? As well as exploiting and perpetuating the misunderstandings of the case it also exposes the roots of such science v. religion demonization. As for ID, I do hope you'll rethink your 'roots argument' and instead base your rebuttals on the current scholarly work of IDists such as Dembski, Gonzalez and Behe (Johnson, Meyer, etc.) for whom the age of the universe and earth is presumed and common descent is either demonstrated or irrelevant.Charlie
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
"evolution is dead" No, evolution as a science is not dead and is alive and well and flourishing. They have several journals and annual meetings and there are vigorous debates amongst its members. Mainly because it is based on observations and data and there is change in organisms over time which no one denies but there is also uncertainty as to how the change happens. There are several evolutionary theories that are part of evolutionary biology that are no threat to ID but because ID limits itself it cannot be a player. One is all the aspects of micro evolution. To deny such is putting one's head in the sand. The age of the earth is central to any discussion of evolution and if ID does not wish to address it then it can go play in its little cul de sac off on the periphery. However, not everyone in ID is constrained by the big tent approach espoused on this site and legitimate ID science can be done within the framework of evolutionary science. ID has a lot to contribute but if it chooses to be associated with bogus science then its message will be limited to a social movement and its science will be difficult to hear. What the bogus science offers ID is foot soldiers and financial resources but there is a price to be paid for this allegiance.jerry
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
I'm still paying attention. :-) But, as I fade into the background, I thank to DaveScot for pointing me to the formal definition of ID on this site. I hadn't seen that before, and I'm glad to have seen it. A portion of it formally confirms what my instincts have been telling me for quite some time, instincts that were alerted when I read some of the things that John Calvert (as in the "Intelligent Design Network") put on his web site. Context: changing the requirements for science education in Kansas, including the elimination of the big bang and other ideas that make no sense in a "young" universe. Instincts that were further alerted when I read a couple of Cornelius (George) Hunter's books, and from discovering in extensive dialogue with George that he might be an agnostic about the earth's age--which is very, very hard for me to reconcile with good scientific reasoning and practice. My instincts have been telling me that ID is committed to precisely this, quoted from the definition of ID that is operative here: "This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion." This, IMO, further indicates that ID has been designed by intelligent agents to be too friendly to the unscientific attitudes of genuine "creationists." See my comments above, in post 148. Is it fair to distinguish *in principle* the forensic reasoning common in the historical sciences from that used in experimental sciences? Yes. This distinction needs to be further explored by scientists, historians, and philosophers of science. In a number of private conversations with people in those fields, I've suggested that an interdisciplinary academic conference be planned (I think funds could easily be found for this) on this very issue, to clarify things. The problem with the way in which this issue enters here is twofold. (1) The tone ("thus very subjective") is meant to imply that it's fine to question pretty much every conclusion in the historical sciences (vis-a-vis in the experimental sciences). I would say, hold your horses. A very large number of conclusions in the historical sciences, IMO (hardly my opinion alone, obviously), are of the slam dunk nature--the great ages of the earth and the universe are among them, to which I would add the successive appearance in geological time (geological time having already been established beyond reasonable doubt) of the various types of plants an animals. The statement here, as I said, seems (to me) plainly worded in such a way as to imply that such conclusions are open to reasonable scientific debate among adherents of ID. But they aren't open to reasonable scientific debate, and (once again) ID misses a chance to prove its scientific (as vs political or religious) character. (2) The use of the specific term, "origins science," is another indicator of trouble here. As many here know, the idea of having a separate "origins science" originates within the modern "creationist" movement. The point of doing that was partly to (a) deny the validity of classically Christian "two books" approach to natural history (on this, see esp. John Whitcomb's 1964 booklet on "The origin of the solar system: Biblical inerrancy and the double-Revelation theory"); and (b) deny the validity of the historical sciences, per se, such that any and all conclusions about natural history could be declared illegitimate, if they did not conform to the "Creationist" model. In other words, this was done precisely in order to keep Galileo (his views on the principle of accommodation, relative to science and the Bible, and his views on the general validity of studying nature on its own terms, using our God-given reason) out of the garden of Eden (here I borrow the title of a forthcoming paper of mine, which discusses everything in this paragraph). To see more support for these things, you may want to read the final pages of Terry Mortenson's book, "The 19th-Century Scriptural Geologists" http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/bios/t_mortenson.asp#bookinfo (I am now wondering whether something like this might have come up in the Dover trial, in some part that I didn't witness and haven't read about. If so, it would have made it harder for someone like me to refute the case that ID is a morphed form of creationism. I've cautioned ID leaders often that political decisions like this can come back to haunt you, but it was made clear to me that a path had been chosen and wan't going to be altered at this point. The "big tent" extends further in some directions, apparently, than it does in others: I'm not trying to flatter myself, I simply think that there should have been more willingness to listen to points such as this.) *** Apparently, as I now see from clicking with my mouse, Calvert or someone close to him wrote this definition, and Bill or someone else decided to use it as the operative definition here. But, I guarantee you, this combination of words was not randomly generated; it was intelligently designed to be very sensitive to the junk science that Whitcomb and others helped created. We are no longer talking now simply about the ID *movement*, DaveScot; if we're talking about the definition of ID itself, then were talking ID *ideas*. Or else, to use the most favorable possible light I can shine on this, someone was asleep at the wheel when they chose to use this definition in its entirety here, without deliberately intending to endorse or accept the part I have highlighted. It's even possible that they were unaware of the history I've briefly narrated, and the implications of this for ID; as I say, this is the most charitable light that I can shed. At least by this definition, ID has obvious links with and roots within "creationism," extending to the explicit endorsement not only of "design," which creationists obviously also endorse, but also the explicity endorsement of the crucial methodological principle that really defines what creationism is about (on the "scientific" side, not on the Biblical side). Although I've suspected something like this, I've always wanted to give ID the benefit of the doubt. I can no longer do that. Since this is the definition you pointed me to, DaveScot, in order to say that I'm really an ID advocate, I have to say definitively now that I am not. This is probably, for me, the single most helpful thing that was said here. I now understand ID even more clearly than I had before (though as I say I had some unconfirmed suspicions), and I simply do not share the deep scepticism about the general validity of the historical sciences that is revealed in this definition. Neither does Gingerich, who otherwise, like me, might well be much less anxious about being identified with ID, capital I and capital D. If this aspect of the ID "movement" is truly central to ID "ideas," then his anxiety should now be beyond any fair criticism. This isn't a matter of guts, it's a matter of beliefs about what constitutes good science. I'm not an ID advocate, and I hope it's now clearer to both of us why that is so. Fair enough? I'll go back to lurking, and for reasons given earlier I hope I can hold myself to it better for awhile.Ted Davis
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Jerry, "If ID wants to comment on evolution or be a major player in evolution then the age of the earth and common descent are central issues." No, I disagree, and that's the whole point. Once ID has shown that specified complexity requires the intervention of intelligence - something that can be achieved using entirely contemporary observations - then evolution is dead. The questions about the age of the earth and common descent are still there to be argued over by those with an inclination to do so, but evolution (at least in the Darwinian sense of random mutation plus natural selection) is no longer part of the argument. If I were a Darwinist I'd be terrified of ID, and prepared to resort to any means to escape its implications. Being reassured that it was still consistent with an old earth and common descent wouldn't be much comfort and wouldn't make me any more charitable towards it.Stephen Morris
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Jerry, I say we do our best to explain everything that we can but not more than we can.Rude
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
"The age of the earth and common descent are empirical questions for which I have no dog in the race, nor should ID because they are irrelevant." I disagree with this. If ID wants to comment on evolution or be a major player in evolution then the age of the earth and common descent are central issues. Otherwise ID is not a player but a minor technological procedure taking pop shots from the periphery and not dealing with the essence of evolutionary issues. If ID does not deal with the tens of millions of life forms that exists and how they got here or how did the several hundred thousand fossils of additional life forms that exist come into being than why should anyone pay attention to ID. And especially if it countenances bad science within its community. I know this is not a popular sentiment here but Ted Davis has laid out why many scientists are reluctant to espouse ID or even hold discussions on it and I agree. Another thing that Ted Davis has said but not directly is that there is a fear in the scientific community of espousing ID. One of the common things we hear from the Darwinists is that there is no censorship and all we can come up with are few cases such as Gonzales and Sternberg and that the underlying premise of Expelled is in general nonsense. Reading between the lines with Ted Davis, he does not seem to be one that agrees with that assessment.jerry
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Well said Rude. As I stated myself in an earlier post, for me the appeal of ID (and what makes it "proper science") is that it deals in inferences made from contemporary observations and has no need to speculate pointlessly (or at least, unscientifically)about what may or may not have happened a very long time ago. Put another way, it is unequivocally scientific to investigate whether life and intelligence can come into being (at any point in time) without an intelligent agent being involved. In contrast, it is not strictly scientific to attempt to construct a narrative of what may or may not have happened in the past, since that narrative cannot be tested by experiment. I have a view, as do most people, but it is (or should be) as far outside the remit of ID as it is outside that of applied mathematics or analytical chemistry.Stephen Morris
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Should ID be an organization with litmus tests for irrelevant issues just so that sophisticated people can avoid embarrassment? Very well said.tribune7
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply