Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Significance of the Dover Decision

William Dembski
December 20, 2005
Intelligent Design
1
Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Judge Jones rendered his verdict in the Dover case today. On September 30th I blogged what I thought would be ultimate significance of Dover — go here. Even though media and bloggers are now analyzing the decision in depth (for the full decision, go here or here), I have little to add to what I wrote in September, so I’ll just leave it there.

Comments
Can you really see into the future like this?Neal
January 4, 2006
January
01
Jan
4
04
2006
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Josh asks: "You don’t think atheists are close minded by nature? When someone says ‘God doesn’t exist- that’s the end of the story, you’re a fool to believe otherwise’ That’s the epitome of closed mindedness." Josh, You don’t think theists are closed-minded by nature? When someone says ‘God exists- that’s the end of the story, you’re a fool to believe otherwise’, that’s the epitome of closed-mindedness." Apart from pointing out the hilarious double standard, I do have some things to say about atheism. I used to call myself an agnostic, because I don't absolutely rule out the possibility of a God. The problem was that people tended to interpret that to mean that I thought the God of Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or of [name your favorite organized religion] was a live possibility. I didn't, and I don't, so it reduces confusion when I call myself an atheist. It's also quite possible to be an atheist without ruling out the existence of God, as Bertrand Russell famously pointed out: "Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." So I would describe myself as an atheist in Russell's sense, having yet seen no evidence for the orbiting teapot. The fine-tuning argument is the most compelling reason I see to consider the possibility of God's existence. But like all other God-of-the-gaps arguments, it depends on science's inability to supply a naturalistic explanation. Given the poor history of all the other GOTG arguments, I'll go with the atheists on this one until science has had more time to work on the problem.keiths
December 26, 2005
December
12
Dec
26
26
2005
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
Yes, because I'm totally close minded. You don't think atheists are close minded by nature? When someone says 'God doesn't exist- that's the end of the story, you're a fool to believe otherwise' That's the epitome of closed mindedness.Josh Bozeman
December 26, 2005
December
12
Dec
26
26
2005
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Josh Bozeman writes: "As I said before- atheists are close minded by nature." As Renard (may he rest in peace) once memorably said, Oh, Josh. The irony!keiths
December 26, 2005
December
12
Dec
26
26
2005
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
I would note that among the stats mentioned- my guess is that few people understand what NDE truly means. Like I said before, Gould always said that if we rewind the tape and run thru history again, humans would never arise. Many people seem to think NDE theory says something it doesn't- it truly says that life has no meaning or purpose outside of survival and then eventual oblivion. It says that every single thing about us, in what we do, how we do it, what we feel, how we feel, our relationships and moods- it's all a series of accidents...under Darwinism, the universe cares nothing for you or me, and it never had us in mind at any point- we're merely accidents and nothing more. Now, that it the truth of Darwinism- no wonder atheists are more likely to embrace it...and theists reject it. I'd wager that few theists who accept NDE theory realize what the theory actually means for them and for life in general. Which is why I think, if more of these people knew what it entailed- fewer would embrace it. As I said before- atheists are close minded by nature. It's funny when atheists claim to be so open minded and free thinkers when in reality it's impossible to be an atheist- only someone with knowledge of everything and every atom in the universe could ever truly call themselves atheists. The best you can say is- I don't have a belief in God and I don't know...to say I KNOW there is no God is as close minded as you can get. Furthermore- atheists have the reputation (and rightfully so) for too often being depressing bummers who have way too much time and interest in attacking religion nonstop. Finally, abiogenesis is definitely related to darwinism. Darwinists claim this isn't the case, because the complete failure of this model- but why do you think they so often bring up Miller and his experiments? Why do they always sit on the edge of their seat when discussing SETI or possible life on Mars? Face it- you can't get the origin of species until you get the origin of life...you always hear Darwinists explaining how it HAD to have happened to start it all off, yet then they claim- 'well, it isn't part of the theory.' They only do this because of the impossible odds of life arising from non-life, which is why Hoyle had no interest in supporting the model. Don't worry- if scientists showed that life could arise from non-living materials, darwinists would rush out and say- 'see, we told you it had to have happened once a few billion yrs ago!' Once again...The theory that purports to explain everything usually can't explain much of anything.Josh Bozeman
December 26, 2005
December
12
Dec
26
26
2005
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Hi PaV, I hope you had a merry Christmas. Regarding the old thread, I responded to you at https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/605 Meanwhile, some comments on your last post: PaV writes: "You make the mistake of thinking that there is a conflict between reason and faith. There is none." PaV, you assume too much. I brought up the DI and the NAS survey results to dispute your statement that it is "...a big error to think that the popularity of ID and IC has to do with people’s religious faith." Behe admitted during testimony that ID was more plausible to theists. Josh says the same thing above. If faith has nothing to do with ID's popularity, why do DI folks overwhelmingly believe in a personal God, when only 7% of NAS members do? "Darwinism only exists because of people who don’t believe in God keep it alive." Tell that to the 31% of mainline Protestants, the 28% of Catholics, and the 6% of evangelicals who accept unguided evolution by natural selection. How do you think they would feel about your assertion that they "don't believe in God"? What about someone who believes that God created the universe but is allowing processes within it (including evolution) to unfold without his intervention? Is such a person an unbeliever by virtue of not believing in your particular God? Statistics from: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=254 "About Hoyle: he wrote a book called, “The Mathematics of Evolution”, or something like that. He’s not sympathetic to neo-Darwinism at all." I didn't say that Hoyle was a Darwinist. I simply pointed out that his tornado argument was directed at abiogenesis, not at Darwinism, contrary to your statement.keiths
December 26, 2005
December
12
Dec
26
26
2005
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Oops. Wrong post. I'm in a terrible hurry. You can look around for it. Merry Christmas!PaV
December 25, 2005
December
12
Dec
25
25
2005
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
keiths: "Look at the 7% of National Academy of Sciences members who believe in a personal God, and compare that to the percentage of Discovery Institute folks who believe." You make the mistake of thinking that there is a conflict between reason and faith. There is none. The most reasonable thing to believe is that God exists and that He created the world. Other ideas are contrived. Darwinism only exists because of people who don't believe in God keep it alive. But they do that with twisted, tortured logic. How long can that go on? About Hoyle: he wrote a book called, "The Mathematics of Evolution", or something like that. He's not sympathetic to neo-Darwinism at all. On the post regarding the "Response to Dover Decision", or what have you, I'm still waiting for your response. You might not have noticed my responses to your prior posts there.PaV
December 25, 2005
December
12
Dec
25
25
2005
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Among members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which is the most prestigious scientific body on the planet, some 7% profess belief in a personal god, and the remaining 93% are atheist or agnostic. See here.Rashbam
December 25, 2005
December
12
Dec
25
25
2005
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Keith Keith Keith. You're obsessed with religion in this matter. From polls, the number of scientists who believe in a personal God outweighs those who don't. Recent polls shows around 60% belief...and even a higher number with scientists in the social sciences. As many have noted- at the top levels, atheism is often times expect (many scientists themselves have said as much). So, if the 7% you're speaking of...they don't believe in God because of what? NDE? Well then, NDE theory is atheistic and we'll paint it with that brush from now on. Your logic must go both ways. Of course design will be more friendly to a theist- but does that make the idea itself religious? Hardly. An atheist- close minded by nature (I mean, what on earth is an atheist anyhow? You can only reasonably called yourself agnostic) No amount of evidence in any field will convince most closed minded people of something they would rather not believe.Josh Bozeman
December 24, 2005
December
12
Dec
24
24
2005
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
PaV writes: "But I think it a big error to think that the popularity of ID and IC has to do with people’s religious faith. I don’t see that." C'mon, PaV, Look at the percentage of organizations supporting ID which are religious. Look at the fact that the Dover school board promoted ID for religious reasons, and was represented by a law firm specifically dedicated to religious causes. Look at the 7% of National Academy of Sciences members who believe in a personal God, and compare that to the percentage of Discovery Institute folks who believe. Look at the fact that our own weblog host is a staunch believer. Whether justified or not, there is no question that the popularity of ID is related to people's faith. "As Fred Hoyle once quipped, Darwinsims is like having a tornado pass through a junkyard and forming a 747 Jumbo Jet." Looks like a tornado passed through your spelling of "Darwinism." :-) First of all, Hoyle's comment was directed at abiogenesis, not Darwinism. Even then, it rests on a caricature of actual abiogenetic ideas. Follow this link for details: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.htmlkeiths
December 24, 2005
December
12
Dec
24
24
2005
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
PiB, What you wrote was well said. When I was growing up--sometime ago--evolution was being taught (this was in the 60's) with a certain kind of tentativeness; sort of being eased into the curriculum (as was 'set theory'). I never saw a conflict between evolution and my personal belief in God either, and haven't through the years. But I think it a big error to think that the popularity of ID and IC has to do with people's religious faith. I don't see that. There are legitimate (and many) reasons to question evolutionary theory. Over a number of years, reading certain books, Darwinism began to make little sense. When I tried to nail down 'exactly' how the theory worked, what I found was that nobody knows, that there really isn't a proven, documented case for Darwinism. Evolution has weathered challenges over the years, but now with the discovery of the genetic code and cellular complexity, it just simply can't be maintained any more. So for me, it's a scientific argument, not a religious one. For the most part, I don't think it will make a big difference in most labs, in most parts of the world. The same questions would be asked whether evolution is the prevailing paradigm or ID. But there is a subset of labs, and a subset of questions that would be improved by looking for design rather than looking for 'selective advantage.' And, in the end, which theory makes the most sense. As Fred Hoyle once quipped, Darwinsims is like having a tornado pass through a junkyard and forming a 747 Jumbo Jet.PaV
December 24, 2005
December
12
Dec
24
24
2005
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
PaV No I have not read Denton. I'm relatively new to the concept of a conflict between science and theology. I grew up in a small college town where everyone (including the professors) went to one or two churches in the town. Most of them were evolutionists AND theists. I was always taught there was no conflict and it has been difficult for me to understand the likes of Dawkins. I grew up believing that a truly educated person was balanced physically, intellectually, and spiritually. The pastor of my church had a PhD in physics and a ThD. I was well instructed in both critical theology and critical science. We were pretty much instructed that creation science wasn't totally legitimate and that some people used methodological naturalism as a gatway to atheism, but we more or less focused on what we believed to be true, not on those who disagreed with us. I guess that's why I tend to fall in line with John Polkinghorne. His line of reasoning makes the most sense to me. That's why I say that I don't need to see IC in order to have faith in God. I don't think of faith as a supersticion, like Dawkins defines it, but a rational belief made in the presence of uncertainty. To my mind people like Dawkins at a very fundamental level have an unjustified faith in uncertain reality. As a Christian, my faith in a knowable and intelligible reality flows justifiably from faith in a rational creator.PjB
December 24, 2005
December
12
Dec
24
24
2005
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
PiB: "It is not found only at IC locations. It is inherent in the process itself. The processes of nature that allow complexity to evolve (evolvability) is evidence of design in and of themselves." From the gist of what you're saying, you seem to be in the Michael Denton camp. Have you read his book, Nature's Destiny? I suspect it will be just your cup of tea. It's a more or less Platonic position. I disagree with this position since I believe that nature, at certain moments and places, has needed an 'intervention' of some sort--call it 'saltation', if you will. This is but an intuition, but one that conforms rather well with Genesis. But, again, time will tell.PaV
December 24, 2005
December
12
Dec
24
24
2005
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
"what paradigm turns out to be the most successful, most powerful, in the lab. Time will tell." I agree. But I should clarify that I definitely think there is clear evidence of design in nature. Read my earlier posts. The idea that I'm trying to get across is that I don't need IC to see that. To me the most parsimonious inference from the apparent design of nature is that it is indeed designed. But the design is everywhere present and nowhere absent. It is not found only at IC locations. It is inherent in the process itself. The processes of nature that allow complexity to evolve (evolvability) is evidence of design in and of themselves.PjB
December 24, 2005
December
12
Dec
24
24
2005
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Mr. Christopher asks: "Which begs the question why does the DI say they told the Dover board NOT to make ID a part of their science class? Why does the DI say they recommend AGAINST adding ID as a mandatory part of science?" Mr. Christopher, The Discovery Institute has been quite schizophrenic on the issue of ID in the schools. On the one hand, Stephen Meyer and David DeWolf (both DI Fellows) published a book entitled "Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook" which said that school boards can “permit, and even encourage teaching about design theory.” (In fairness, note that they didn't say "mandate"). On the other hand, Mark Ryland made the following claim at the American Enterprise Institute's all-day panel session on ID: “Let me back up first and say that the Discovery Institute never set out to have schools get into this issue. We’ve never encouraged people to do it, we’ve never promoted it. We have unfortunately gotten sucked into it because we have a lot of expertise in the issue that people are interested in. “When asked for our opinion we always tell people don’t teach intelligent design, there is no curriculum developed for it, your teachers are likely to be hostile towards it, there are just all these good reasons why you should not go down that path. If you want to do anything, you should teach the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory.” This led to a confrontation between Ryland and the Thomas More Law Center's Richard Thompson, much to Ken Miller's amusement. I personally believe that the DI folks wanted to distance themselves from the Dover board when they realized that a trial would likely not go well for the board. For more on this, see Comment #11 at https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/546#comments Mr. Christopher writes: "And just because a board member says “I want creationism in our science class so we will add such and such ” does not mean any law has been broken. For instance, if I say I want kids to believe in creationism therefore I am insisting we add darwins theory of evolution to the curriculum” well that does not make darwin’s theory of evolution religious just because my intentions were religious." No, it wouldn't make the theory religious, but promoting it would still be unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court's "Lemon test". See comment #4 at https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/597keiths
December 24, 2005
December
12
Dec
24
24
2005
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
PiB: "Nature does what it does. But it was created by God to develop and become according to laws of evolution that God ordained (Let the earth bring forth)." I used to think that way, too. But once I gave evolution a closer look, I found that when it comes to true biological innovations, there's nothing there--nothing, just gibberish. Meanwhile, nature makes its design shine forth more and more--the closer we look at nature, the greater the appearance of design. The question is this: what is the paradigm we use in the laboratory, should it be Darwinism, or should it be 'design'. There were two authors who spent years and years trying to find some kind of mechanism to explain what sort of evolutionary pathway, replete with selective pressures, led to the bird feather. After all of those years, they wrote a paper and said that evolutionary theory got in their way; that they now see the problem in a completely different light. They're still Darwinists, but they wasted all of those years--for what? How much other wastes of time are taking place. Someone who believes in design would never approach the problem of the development of the feather in that way they did. So the real question is, again, what paradigm turns out to be the most successful, most powerful, in the lab. Time will tell.PaV
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
PaV "You must be kidding." No. All institutions started somewhere. If you guys really believe you've got valid science then you have to prove it somehow. If you can't get into the mainstream schools and journals, then you have to build and publish your own, respectively. For my part, I've never had a problem working within the mainstream. I've said before that I'm a kindred spirit to John Polkinghorne. You guys are the ones having the problem. How else can you handle it? Are you just going to whine forever? I agree with the judge. I think the ID folks believe in a false dichotomy. You don't think you do, so it's up to you to prove that the dichotomy actually exists. (By the way, read II Thessalonians 2:11. I think part of the delusion in this text is the belief that evolution leads to atheism. Evolution is not the delusion. Darwinism is. Evolution is real. The error is that evolution is unguided. But as I've said before the only way to avoid this error is faith in the Creator. The science by itself won't deliver anyone from this error. You need to quit fighting against evolution, which your major proponents profess agreement with, and fight only Darwinism. Make it clear that your fight is against the philosophy and not the science.) I really don't care that atheists use science to justify their atheism. Atheists are accountable to God in the end just like everybody else. Not believing won't change reality AND believing won't change reality. As I said before, an atheist sees God nowhere and a theist sees God everywhere. The science doesn't lead to either choice to the exclusion of the other. We're not here to make a choice anyway, we've already made it. We're all just trying to figure out why we've made it; and, we're trying to justify the choice we've made. Nobody starts out as a blank tablet on this topic and objectively studies the science and then reaches a conclusion...Nobody...I don't care what they say. That's not how we make choices. I guarantee you that if a triangular car were the most areodynamic design, nobody would buy one. Why? Because we like what we like. The root of all choice is far below the conscious. The fool says in his HEART, not his head, that there is no God. The head comes later as he tries to justify his deep seated convictions. So, the work of God's Spririt is on the HEART of man, not his head. Head work comes later. In my opinion, God is more parsimonious than a self-creating cosmos. I see God everywhere. Sorry for those who can't, but we all have to make our own way in the cosmos. I sat in evolutionary biology classes in college. I was at the top of my class. I accept the science of evolution. I do not accept that it is unguided. By the way, there were several of us in those days...all at the top of the class. That's something no preacher of naturalism can change. Nature does what it does. But it was created by God to develop and become according to laws of evolution that God ordained (Let the earth bring forth). There is a certain amount of freedom in those laws that allows the cosmos to become itself and be other than the Creator. One day we will probably discover those laws. Some will see that as proof that God does not exist. Is that my problem?PjB
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
PiB: "Start a University. Build a laboratory." You must be kidding.PaV
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
Futhermore a mouse trap is not a cell and you can remove any item from a mousetrap and it is still functional, not as a mouse trap but there are many other uses for any one single piece of a mouse trap. ----------- That misses the point. The parts when taken away need to serve the same function. One of the reasons DI doesn't want it mandatory is that too many teachers won't know how to teach it and will teach it wrong. That makes sense. I don't see anything wrong with these guys making a living...and PjB is right about ID and not having a problem with evolution- it just depends on how the term is used. I don't know how you'd show that evolution was directed or undirected...how do you test or study intention? You can work to find design and the very hallmarks of design, but intention- I've no idea how you'd infer that either way. Mt Rushmore can be used- it's clearly designed as opposed to a rock sitting on the ground with some feature on it that was clearly the result of wind and rain. It doesn't matter that biological features inherit stuff- they still look designed in a similar manner as rushmore. Someone can look at many parts and see design inherent in it.Josh Bozeman
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
Here is one other thing I find inconsistant. The Dover board members antics aside, they (like everyone) were/are told that ID is science. That ID theory has been published in peer review scientific journals (the DI claims this on their web site), and that ID was not in any way creationism. Well with those facts in hand of course a school board would want ID in their science classrooms. The board obviously believed what the DI and ID advocates have said set in motion for ID to be introduced into the science class. Now, if ID is in fact science and has in fact been published in peer reviewed science journals, why the heck would they NOT want it in their class. And what court could stop you from teaching a proven, legitimate scientific theory? Which begs the question why doe ws the DI say they told the Dover board NOT to make ID a part of their science class? Why does the DI say they recommend AGAINST adding ID as a mandatory part of science? This doesn't add up. And just because a board member says "I want creationism in our science class so we will add such and such " does not mean any law has been broken. For instance, if I say I want kids to believe in creationism therefore I am insisting we add darwins theory of evolution to the curriculum" well that does not make darwin's theory of evolution religious just because my intentions were religious. So now the Dover trial has been settled, the DI is getting as far away from it as they can, Rick Santorum is distancing himself once again, and Mr Dembski seems kind of "oh well, no big deal, this means we'll just be able to raise more money and Christians will be galvanized by this ruling" and a school district who believed what they were told, the belived ID is science, they believed ID hasd been published in peer reviewed scientific journals, is now isolated and may owe as much as 1 million dollars in legal fees while everyone is now on this "we told them that they were crazy" At close inspecition this Dover trial reveals quite a bit on many subjects. And Behe truly deserves to win the best case made by the defense for the plaintiff. Did anyone catch him on Hannity and Colmes last night? Comparing a biological entity to Mt Rushmore is getting old and the media doesn't seem to be buying it anymore either. Behe - Mt Rushmore does not have inheritable traits, nor is it a biological entity, nor will it ever have offspring or duplicate. Futhermore a mouse trap is not a cell and you can remove any item from a mousetrap and it is still functional, not as a mouse trap but there are many other uses for any one single piece of a mouse trap. Good grief. And as I said, a school board is now responsible for a million dollar legal bill because they believed in ID and the ID camp is running as far as they can from them. I think the TMCL and DI should foot their bill.Mr Christopher
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
"That sort of thing makes it look like ID is more of a cash cow (for certain people in the ID movement) than science." I agree. If you're going to maintain any kind of high ground (moral, scientific, etc.), it is imperative that you avoid the very appearance of wrong doing. It is absolutely imperative that you actually avoid wrong doing. This case was a farce for the defense due to the immoral behavior of the chief actors in the Dover school board and the sometimes flippant behavior of the defense witnesses when confronted with scientific documentation. If this is as serious as the ID folks want us to believe, this behavior is illogical and inconsistent. Off topic: It was in a similar fashion that the US lost the moral high ground (if we ever had it) because of Abu Ghraib.PjB
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
"The significance to me is that the atheists had more integrity than the theists " The fact thet the defense expert witnesses and "consultants" (Behe, Dembski, etc) were paid between $100-$200 an hour for their expert opinions/testimony while the plaintiff's expert witnesses charged nothing for their time was also a head scratcher. That sort of thing makes it look like ID is more of a cash cow (for certain people in the ID movement) than science. Meybe the next case will be different.Mr Christopher
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
"how is it possible that there will be work in the laboratory?" The same way Darwinists got into universities. Slowly. But there is a strong reaction formation to undirected evolution (Darwinism) currently underweigh in universities. If it IS science, then do the science. Start a University. Build a laboratory. Find a place to live, study, and work freely and do the work. The work will eventually make room for itself if it has scientific validity. There are MANY scientists in Universities and their research institutes that are not hostile to the idea of directed evolution. I know, I work in a university research center (16 years). But, I'm not so sure you can prove that evolution is directed (as apposed to Darwinism which, by definition, teaches undirected evolution). I'm all for trying, but I'm not sure that God made it so that you can know something by science that he wants you to know by faith. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I just don't need it myself. As I've said earlier in this blog, I have many reasons to believe in God. I don't need IC to give me that. I would question the faith of any Christian who does. I can't speak for all theists, but Christians should have a view similar to mine; that is, if I understand the writings of the prophets and apostles correctly. If folks could agree on some definitions of terms that would help. For instance, it is commonly believed that ID folks don't believe in evolution. This is not true. They do not believe in Darwinism. There is a substantial difference. In reading the judges review of the case, he stated that ID folks object to the "scientific theory of evolution." I don't believe that is accurate. From my reading of your materials, I think you folks believe in a SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution. But, you object to the conflation of Darwinian metaphysics (namely-philosophical naturalism) and evolutionary theory. Am I wrong? Yes, I most definitely think that the linguistic air needs to be cleared.PjB
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
PiB: "If you think you can put together a good case for the science of ID, then do that and make it work: first in the laboratory and in peer reviewed journals, then in the classroom." And do you notice how Sternberg was treated? Have you noticed that a graduate students' thesis is being held up because he doesn't adhere to Darwinsim? If the 'high priests' of Darwinian religion control, and won't allow, universities to award doctorates to young men and women who disagree with evolution, then how is it possible that there will be work in the laboratory? What you suggest will happen--eventually--despite all the vulgar efforts by the Deities of Darwin to prevent it from happening.PaV
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
The significance to me is that the atheists had more integrity than the theists (I'm presenting the image the public will get). The reality is that the expert witnesses for the BOE (theists all) had some bad moments that called their credibility into question. Behe's flippant treatment of the immune system documentation for example. And the BOE representatives mishandled the public trust and lied under oath (Christians all). As I said in my earlier comments. They deserved to loose. You can't determine what science is by jurisprudence. What you can do, and what this judge did, is evaluate which side is more credible. In my opinion, the Darwinists had the most credible witnesses and presented the most credible case. Learn from your mistakes and the mistakes of others. If you think you can put together a good case for the science of ID, then do that and make it work: first in the laboratory and in peer reviewed journals, then in the classroom. Otherewise, treat it as a social science or philosophy and get it into the public that way. If it is bad science and bad philosophy, then it deserves to fail on all counts. And by all means, quit whining about how the world is against you and just focus on getting your material into the mainstream one way or another. Nobody likes a cry baby.PjB
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
"The significance of the dover trial?" for *me* is I am looking forward to the next trial. One that the Discovery Institute will lend their support.Mr Christopher
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
"a more sure knowledge of God is superior to just faith" I believe there is a disconnect between your definition of faith and mine. The biblical topic of faith is difficult to outline because the context of the word determines its specific usage and it is used in about ten different contexts. I don't have time (or the desire) to outline these here, but in the context of our discussions, I don't believe a more sure knowledge of God is possible in spacetime as we exist today. That more sure knowledge is an escatological reality not a present one. Paul said, "we know in part." (I Cor 13:9-12) "Proof that physical reality cannot exist outside of some sort of consciousness" You are talking about a particular interpretation of quantum theory. Good luck. "On what? If I were an atheist and died, how surprised I’d be to die and find that death was a bugaboo after all. I’m sure there would be hearty laughs all around." It depends on what you find out as to whether it is good news or bad news. And by the way, I'm not saying here that all atheists go to hell. I don't believe that any more than I believe that all Christians go to heaven. (I'm here using the phrases 'go to heaven' and 'go to hell' the way they are commonly used without subscribing to the common view.) I'm just saying that we're probably ALL in for some surprises. How could we not be?PjB
December 23, 2005
December
12
Dec
23
23
2005
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
To keiths: I only wrote that so that if anyone saw the same thing on one post, and then the other, they wouldn't think they were losing their minds. And you didn't have to apologize.PaV
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
You're right, PaV. I apologize. Still, in fairness to me, you did write "Here's what I posted elsewhere" when in fact what you posted on the other thread was quite different. Regards, Keith S.keiths
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
1 2 3 … 5

Leave a Reply