Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Okay, ID may be taught — But you don’t get to teach it!

William Dembski
December 16, 2005
Education, Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The latest edition of Jeffrey Bennett et al’s astronomy textbook The Cosmic Perspective (4th edition) is now out. Sure enough, “intelligent design” is in the index. Indeed, it gets a full page treatment (p. 714). Below is the scan of that page. Does this text provides a fair representation of ID? Hardly. It appears now that ID will indeed be taught in the science curricula of this nation, only ID proponents won’t be doing the teaching. Life is so unfair.

ID in The Cosmic Perspective

Comments
Benjii asks: "Okay, and if the designer is God…so what!" Here's what: 1. It shows that ID supporters are being disingenuous when they say, as Josh did, that "it's not about God." 2. It means that ID qualifies as a religious doctrine, according to the courts, and is thus ineligible for inclusion in the science curriculum. That's a pretty big deal, which is why ID proponents are so vehement in claiming that the designer need not be supernatural.keiths
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Keiths may I ask you to check out "http://www.Christian-thinktank.com]", I think this will cover a lot of your objections to the bible. The old testament God certainly doesn't endorse the slavery you envision. This site has a lot of good stuff!Benjii
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Okay, and if the designer is God...so what! Is the world over because of that. Does that mean we all have to bow our heads in holy prayer. I mean it could be Allah, Baal, Loki or even Satan himself. It doesn't matter! What matters is the science.Benjii
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
For a different angle on the supernatural designer question, see this post from the thread entitled "Plantinga on the definition of 'fundamentalist'" (original post on December 7): Josh writes [of ID]: “It’s not about God, so why would they posit a designer?” [Josh gets ahead of himself again; he means Designer with a capital 'D']. Josh, guess what? It IS about God. Notice that ID proponents are very careful not to exclude the possibility that the designer is God. Further note that all of the leading ID figures are believers who admit that they believe the designer is God, even though they don’t claim this as part of the theory (Berlinski as an agnostic may be the one exception; he seems to be more of a career gadfly who enjoys taking on “the establishment”). And look at the cosmic fine-tuning arguments. Who, besides God, would be capable of creating a universe and tuning its constants for a particular purpose? (Except possibly a cosmic hacker of the kind described in Bill’s new “Intelligent Hacker” post!) And if that doesn’t convince you, check out these stated goals from the DI’s “Wedge Document”: “Governing Goals: To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Josh charges: “You continually show your dislike for the Bible, God, Christians…” The fact that I disbelieve the Bible does not mean that I dislike it, Josh. It’s a fascinating book, and parts of it are even inspiring. I find many Christians to be warm, personable, intelligent people, despite our disagreements. As for God, it’s hard to say whether I dislike him without knowing more about him. But I can say that the God of the Bible (and of the Old Testament, in particular), though he has his good side, is not very admirable in general, and downright despicable in spots, as when he endorses slavery and says that it’s okay to beat your slaves, as long as they don’t die immediately. On the other hand, there might exist a God worthy of love and worship. If so, once the evidence is there, I will become a believer. “you’ve distorted 2 bible passages…you’ve already shown your not well versed on the book.” Maybe you’re right. Please show me by citing the verses, explaining why my interpretation is wrong, and supplying your interpretation and the justification for it. “You clearly don’t even get the concept of what it means for the Bible to be inspired.” First of all, Christians as a group don’t even agree on what inspiration means. But if you think I’m wrong about it, why not show me why rather than simply accusing me of failing to “get the concept”?keiths
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Josh writes: "ID doesn’t say that life could have not have arisen naturally." Renard, understandably puzzled at Josh's apparent reversal, asks: "Are you then saying that ID says life isn’t too complex to have arisen naturally, and it could have arisen naturally?" Renard, In his urgency to reply, Josh sometimes gets ahead of himself. But his lapse is telling, because it points out a problem with ID's attempt to remain agnostic on the question of whether the designer is supernatural. Here's a comment from the thread entitled "The Designer's Skill-Set" (original post on November 29): RobG is making a simple point which his respondents seem to be missing. Bill Dembski’s original post says that the designer of life, as postulated by ID theory, need not have God’s full “skill set” — all that’s needed is the capability of “arranging finite material objects to display certain patterns.” RobG is simply pointing out that a finite designer of this sort (a technologically advanced extraterrestrial, for example) is itself an instance of complex specified information, and thus according to ID theory must also have a designer. Logically, there could even be a chain of designers: life’s designer, life’s designer’s designer, life’s designer’s designer’s designer, etc. Eventually, no matter how long or short the chain is, it must end with a “prime designer” who is the ultimate source of the complex specified information that is being passed down the chain. This prime designer is either natural (i.e. part of the universe) or supernatural. If it is natural, then its complex specified information arose out of undirected natural processes, which ID says is impossible. This means that according to ID theory, the prime designer must be supernatural. This is why RobG claims that ID is inherently religious, even though the immediate designer of life could conceivably be a finite being of the sort described by Dembski. Comment by keiths — December 1, 2005 @ 1:03 amkeiths
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
The opposite of natural is not necessarily supernatural. It could just as easily be artificial. Artificial and supernatural are not synonyms. So just maybe life could be artificial but not supernatural. You darwinists are so one track minded.dennis grey
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
I don't think Usurper was implying that the creator was some sort of super magician who creates everything on whim. He certainly never said that ID professes that life arose naturally. If that were the case, then, ID would no longer be necessary.Benjii
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
So NS on RM did the bulk of the work, and the design input was not supernatural. So a natural designer would be detectable by the scientific method, presumably, Josh.Renard
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
The point was- ID doesn't say 'it must have been supernatural' as the text writer was clearly trying to put forward. Life shows the hallmarks of design...some parts within biology are too complex to have arisen by NS working on random mutations. Nowhere do you see a call for supernatural anything.Josh Bozeman
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
Josh says ID is the idea that life is too complex to have arisen naturally. Of course, that’s a joke- ID doesn’t say that life could have not have arisen naturally. Are you then saying that ID says life isn't too complex to have arisen naturally, and it could have arisen naturally?Renard
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
On second thoughts, astronomy does have something to say on evolutionary biology (if one includes abiogenesis). In the abiogenesis chapter in 'The Blind Watchmaker', Richard Dawkin's argument rests heavily on the assumption that potentially habitable planets are fairly common in the universe. If the Galactic Habitable Zone is indeed small and we do have a 'Rare Earth' or 'Priviledged Planet' then that significantly shaves down the available probabilistic resources... I have never really considered this before, but is the assumption that many life-supporting planets exist (a la Dawkins) a major part of abiogenesis theory? Or do they belive life would likely arise on any suitable planet given the right conditions and enough time?antg
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT
This is an astronomy textbook so I was fully expecting to see a discussion of cosmic fine tuning and its relation to ID arguments. No, all we get is a talk on biological evolution. It reminds me of the Priviledged Planet / Smithsonian episode where the film was denounced by the defenders of science as being anti-evolution when in reality it had nothing whatsoever to do with biology!antg
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
What I think gives the impression of a supernatural designer is the desire to reject naturalism. Why reject naturalism unless you wish to discuss the supernatural?Tiax
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT
usurper- when you say "someone" telling a naturalist what ID is, you're referring to guys like this and the others who wrote the text, right? Because, I've never heard any big name in ID say that life couldn't arise naturally, thus concluding a supernatural result, thus- "god did it, case closed, no further study needed." From the rest of the comment, I assume you are referring to the text writer here. I can't even count the numbers of magazine and newspaper articles that constantly define ID bogusly- sadly, I think most of these are purposefully bogus definitions in the form of strawmen of sorts, so they can easily attack the strawman and not the actual argument/definition, etc. I wonder what further distortions this book includes...Josh Bozeman
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
It continues to surprise me that people criticize Intelligent Design hypotheses as science-killers. Like any hypothesis, a supposition of intelligent design serves to both constrict and *direct* research. The text gives an example of a bridge collapsing and suggests that an engineer who declares the collapse an "act of God" won't learn how to build a better bridge. Of course, merely labeling something an "act of God" out of sheer intellectual laziness doesn't qualify as a design inference any more than blindly labeling something "the result of chance" is a genuine naturalistic one. But the engineer who sees a bomber aircraft fly overhead and drop a bomb on his bridge--causing its collapse--will make an immediate and forceful design inference. And he will indeed know something about how to build a better bridge: he may henceforth build his bridges near SAM sites. ;) If the example is goofy, the principle is correct: the engineer who detects design in his bridge's collapse--be it precision bombing, a few well-placed faulty parts, or difficult-to-acieve arson--is in a far better position to build a tamper-proof bridge than the engineer who *insists* bridges only collapse through earthquakes or natural wear. Bridges can (and sometimes should) be designed to withstand intelligent, as well as blind, foes. A positive-design assesment is a validated hypothesis like any other: it constricts and directs research. Hypotheses are useful precisely because they do this--they cause us to stop asking unfruitful questions and start asking fruitful ones. This insight is so elementary that I am amazed anyone seriously criticizes design as a science-killer. One might just as justifiably criticize naturalism--or even specific theories such as electromagnetism--as science-killers. Any question you answer means a whole set of questions you don't ask any more. The only logically genuine science-killer is the explanation which says "mere chance"--because this is a codeword for, "I don't know, and don't you investigate--there's nothing to find." And even this is productive when it's true.Darrow
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
I think the reason why ID gets so much aversion is because there is a lack of education on it. If someone goes and tells a naturalist that intelligent design is the idea that, life itself cannot emerge naturally, obviously, the naturalist will dismiss it as some form of repackaged creationism--since that seems to be the ridicule one gets for not accepting evolution in the first place. Nonetheless, if the naturalist isn't a hard-headed idealogue, then it's possible to convince he or she that the works of Dembski and Behe provide a reasonable and testable way of inferring design. But a guy like this probably thinks otherwise. It's a shame that people get misinformed at the expense of some ignorant book writer--ignorant in the sense that he doesn't know what ID is!Usurper
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
I should add how the rest of the ID section is even worse. The writers actually claim that ID points to the supernatural and merely says "God did it" the end. Nothing could be further from the truth. The writers attack ID as a waste of time, that IDers simply say, God dod it and they do no further study. Too bad Jonathan Wells is putting forth a hypothesis that is based on ID and that leads to even further discoveries for the future. Not only does this text attack ID, it attacks IDers as lazy psuedo-scientists who can make absolutely no contribution to science! Let's take their section on creationism and couple it with their attacks on ID scientists. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_baumgardner.asp There, we have a creationist scientist who works at the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Will the text writers claim he has nothing to give to science? Why would such a prestigious lab have him if he just sat around doing nothing? The text claims evolution has lead to the discovery of nearly all modern medicines- that's a laugh riot! The thing is, a lot of medicines have been going back to nearly ancient traditions- this root and this compound does this and helps cure this, and that other one over there cures that. I am fairly certain the ancients didn't practice Darwinism! It's also a joke to claim that one can only understand modern science by fully grasping and accepting evolution (NDE evolution, tho they refuse to use this term, for they can't paint others as fools by using it!)...this is also saying that creation scientists (if you're going to say they're not scientists, you need to get on the phone to Los Alamos!) don't have any understanding of modern science. They try to paint IDers in the same picture, but many ID supporters accept even common descent, just with a different mechanism. Finally, the absurd claim that ID tells scientists they should stop looking for "natural causes" and throw up their hands to proclaim 'God did it', no more study is insulting beyond belief. To the right of this text comment box are at least 4 books from Dembski that I can see without scrolling up or down. Why did Bill write all these books if he's painted as a fool who merely throws his hands up and says 'God did it', then he goes off and stops even thinking of the issue. ??? This affair reminds of me of the lawsuit on Cal Berkley (I think that's the school:) for their anti-ID text that has a priest shaking the hand of a scientist holding a skull. How do we go about filing a lawsuit against anyone who uses this textbook? These people can't have it both ways- try to ban dissent, yet find it perfectly acceptable to include strawmen definitions of the dissent themselves?! This is disgusting.Josh Bozeman
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
Not surprised, but this book is a joke. It says ID is the idea that life is too complex to have arisen naturally. Of course, that's a joke- ID doesn't say that life could have not have arisen naturally. Try to paint your theory as supernatural, then attack that bogus definition. And this from a textbook!! I'd also like to know what any of this has to do with astronomy?! Further- ID is NOT an alternative to "evolution"- it's an alternative mechanism to Neo-Darwinian evolution. Here we paint ID as opposing evolution, then attack that false definition. Poor schoolchildren...how can anyone learn when even the textbooks are dishonest?Josh Bozeman
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
1 … 5 6 7

Leave a Reply