Here’s an illuminating email I received from a reporter in Germany. It indicates that the Darwinist strategy of savaging ID may not be working. (Note that I emailed this reporter a few documents in answer to his questions):
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:58:31 +0200
Subject: Question about ID’s research program for German weekly
From: [snip]
To: william.dembski+@iscid.orgDear Mr Dembski,
I am a science writer from [snip], Germany, and currently working on an article about the controversy between ID and neo-darwinian evolution theorists for the German weekly [snip] (as well as the Swiss [snip]).
Having studied physics and science theory I find the tone in which many evolutionists argue against ID (e.g. the correspondence in Nature’s 19 May issue by Coyne, Lewontin, Dawkins and others) quite remarkable because it is so hostile. Unfortunately science has never been very good at contemplating its own foundations of thinking and reasoning.
Being myself neutral in this debate I now try to analyse the row from a science theory perspective, that is applying Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos to the problem.
Having read your very interesting paper “In Defense of Intelligent Design” I have still two questions:
– Is there a concrete research program (in the sense of Imre Lakatos) for ID that sets crucial experiments or discoveries on the agenda with which ID could be hardened while at the same time evolution theory would be weakened?
– Is there a crucial experiment or discovery that could falsify ID in Popper’s sense? As far as I can see it neo-darwinian evolution theory’s falsifying discovery would be one that undoubtably reveals design – that is ID is the possible falsification of neo-darwinian evolution theory.
If you found a few minutes to answer me I’d be quite glad. You can also send me a paper or two which answer my questions if this makes things easier.
Best regards,
[snip]