Defining ID

July 30, 2010
Category: BioLogos Features

"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk and Syman Stevens.

Syman Stevens studied physics at Furman University. He then received a master's of science in applied mathematics and theoretical physics at the University of Cambridge, completed a fellowship at the Trinity Forum Academy, and received a master of arts in the philosophical foundations of physics at Columbia University. During his time in New York, he helped compile and respond to a collection of most frequently asked questions about science and faith regarding Francis Collins' book The Language of God. In August of 2009, he became Executive Director of The BioLogos Foundation.

Darrel Falk is a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, where he has taught since 1988, and president of The BioLogos Foundation. He transitioned into Christian higher education 25 years ago and has given numerous talks about the relationship between science and faith at many universities and seminaries. He is the author of Coming to Peace with Science.

Introduction

The topic of Intelligent Design (ID) comes up frequently here at Science and the Sacred. Just use the search bar on this page to see for yourself. But because ID can be hard to pin down, it’s worth pausing to remind ourselves what we’re talking about when we use the term on this site. It has also been argued recently (see the comments here) that our website’s definitions of ID are in need of editing, and are in need of being distinguished from our own opinions about ID.

In this post, we’d like to revisit the definition of ID, clarify some ways that BioLogos differs from ID, and raise a few questions about how to best define ID on this site.

ID, Self-Defined

Why not begin with the definition provided by the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC), the leading force currently promoting ID:

Must we choose between natural selection and God's sovereignty? Read more here.

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

From just two sentences, we can already see that ID refers to several things. In no particular order, they are: 1) a theory, 2) a scientific research program, and 3) a community of scholars.

With regard to Part 1 (ID as a theory), there is little to say here –– the ID community is certainly entitled to define its own theory. However, it is worth pointing out that many (including us at BioLogos) do not feel that this “theory” is a theory at all, but rather a hypothesis. And we at BioLogos are also uncomfortable with the manner in which this hypothesis is framed. We do not believe that one must choose between an intelligent cause (the God of the Bible, in our case) and a process like natural selection. We’re also uncomfortable targeting “certain features” of the universe as being explained by an intelligent cause, which would seem to imply that other features are not similarly explained. We know of no biblical or scientific reason to make such an assumption.

These three points deserve their own posts to flesh out the particulars, but this isn’t the place for that. Let’s leave this first part of the definition alone, and be content with just making these distinctions for now.

For one such critique of how Intelligent Design is often framed as a theory, see Karl Giberson's "The Proof is in the Pudding, Not the Recipe".

Parts 2 and 3 deserve a bit more attention. The claim that ID is a scientific research program is more hotly contested, and not everyone would agree with it. BioLogos has already hosted some discussion both for and against the claim, and we’ll explore it further below. As for the claim that ID is a community of scholars, there is no doubt that experts in each of these fields are represented in the ID community –– ID is a very big tent. Still, this subject is worth a bit more discussion, which also follows below.

ID as Science

As many of us know, this is a touchy subject. The ID community is known for pointing out that their research follows the scientific method, and of course the establishment of the Biologic Institute and the peer-reviewed Bio-Complexity journal are typical scientific activities. Still, many have argued that the ID community only poses as a scientific enterprise.

We have no problem acknowledging that the ID community is doing science –– we just believe that the science supporting their hypothesis is poorly done. For example, Karl Giberson has written an interesting piece about why following the scientific method doesn’t ensure that the end result will produce new information about the world; Darrel Falk has written and spoken about his concerns with the ID community’s scientific work; and Kathryn Applegate is currently in the middle of a blog series about the problems she sees specifically with Michael Behe’s work.

But despite our concerns with the quality of their work, we acknowledge that the ID community follows the scientific method, and that their research is analogous to other historical sciences like archaeology, paleontology, or cosmology. Instead of denying that ID is doing science, we intend to continue to show why it is that the scientific community has grave concerns about the quality of the science that the ID community has put forward to date.

ID: More Than Science?

Another important question to consider is whether ID is different from any other research program given the amount of public advocacy in which it engages. The ID community has established quite a reputation through such projects as Ben Stein’s Expelled, or What Hath Darwin Wrought, or its ongoing attention to Judge Jones’ ruling at Dover. Projects like this point to a broader, more political agenda than might be expected from a scientific research program. This community of scientists, philosophers, and other scholars is clearly interested in influencing culture. In fact, it sounds a lot like the kind of community we have here at BioLogos, and we don’t call ourselves a scientific research program.

Now, some might argue that doing science responsibly will always involve the additional task of advancing the public understanding & acceptance of that science. Perhaps, but the question we need to answer today is whether these kind of activities, which appear to take up the majority of the ID community’s time and money, should show up in our definition of ID on this site. We’ll ask for your thoughts below.

ID as a Community

As most of us already know, part of our difficulty with defining ID is the fact that so many different perspectives on origins science fit under the ID tent. ID proponents range in opinion on Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, and even common descent. This makes it impossible to lay out “the ID perspective” on almost any particular issue, like the age of the Earth or whether starlight has always traveled at the same speed.

We recognize that the ID community is entitled to this diversity, but we do feel that this characteristic says something negative about the quality of ID as a scientific research program. Rather than rallying every alternative to Darwinian evolution under one tent, it seems that a more productive approach would be to try narrowing down the number of possible histories that could be true of the world. After all, is there anything more fundamental to origins research than determining the age of the universe?

But regardless of what ID’s “big tent” aspect does for the quality of its science, it is certainly true that the bigger the tent, the harder it is to pin down on our site. Since our website focuses primarily on the compatibility of origins science with the Christian faith, it’s a challenge to place ID somewhere in the spectrum of perspectives. It’s much easier for us to define the Discovery Institute’s CSC than to define the origins perspective of leading Intelligent Design advocates.

However, one thing is certainly clear: As it has been pointed out elsewhere, and as mentioned in the definition above, ID proponents believe that some features of the world are best explained by a mind. In fact, this has been argued at Uncommon Descent to be “the core of ID.” And by claiming to be a scientific enterprise, this means the ID community believes that it is possible to scientifically demonstrate the existence of a mind being responsible for creation.

For more, see Darrel Falk's excerpts from the documentary Test of Faith here and here.

To clarify, this is perhaps one of the most important distinctions between BioLogos and ID. As is evident from a scan through our site, BioLogos often promotes “pointers” to God’s existence, and frequently acknowledges that “the heavens declare the glory of God.” But we at BioLogos are doubtful that it will be possible to scientifically demonstrate or measure the existence or activity of God in the kind of way that the ID community expects.

All disagreements aside, the point here is that the ID community’s premise that it is possible to scientifically demonstrate the existence of a mind being responsible for creation should be included in a description of ID proponents’ perspectives on origins. And maybe that tenet, together with our concerns about the quality of their science, is the only thing that should be mentioned about ID, since perspectives on origins vary so much within the tent.

Concluding Questions

As we consider how to best define Intelligent Design here at BioLogos, we have a few questions to consider:

It was suggested above that it’s not worth one’s time to try and pin down an official ID perspective on origins, except to say that a mind has directed the process (whatever that process is), and that it is possible to scientifically demonstrate that fact. What do you think? Is this the only belief that should be included in describing the origins-perspective of ID proponents at a place like our Leading Figures page?

Our biggest concern with the ID movement is the quality of its science. Should this be included in our definition of the ID movement? To us (and to scientists in general), it is the most defining difference.
ID clearly has a social agenda that extends beyond the lab bench and the computer screen. It is well known that ID began with a “wedge document” firmly grounded in cultural issues, and which went on to lay out a scientific agenda designed to provide underpinning for a set of philosophical and political presuppositions. Isn’t ID different than normal science in that regard? Should this difference be included in our definition of ID?

We welcome your thoughts below.

Clarification: The wedge document was written in the mid to late 1990's before the publication of the first peer-reviewed scientific article, but not the very beginning of the movement.

Filed Under:

science, theory, intelligent design, definition, Discovery Institute, BioLogos, what is intelligent design

Share |

Comments (84)
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.

Charlie - #24084

July 30^th 2010

If the Discovery Institute says ID follows the scientific method, then all they can claim is that ID is an untested, unsupported hypothesis. This is not the case though. They actually make conclusions regardless of absent data to support it. This makes it unscientific.
Charlie - #24085

July 30^th 2010

P.S. lacking data to support one hypothesis does not mean that it is evidence for an alternate hypothesis ( i.e. it can’t be explained naturally, thus that is evidence it is not natural).
Rich - #24087

July 30^th 2010

Darrel:

I can’t speak for any ID “movement”, but only for particular ID writings.

In the definitions offered by ID proponents, I see no mention of “supernatural” as opposed to “natural” causes, and there is never any mention of filling in “gaps” in scientific explanation, as if “design” is some kind of magic remedy for unexplained phenomena. So the definition of ID should not include the words “supernatural” or “gaps”.

The focus of ID is on “design”. The claim is that the apparent design in living things (which even Dawkins acknowledges) is not merely apparent but real, i.e., that the integrated complex structures we see in living things are there because they were designed to be there. They did not arise by “chance”. However, that doesn’t mean that they were “specially created”; they could have arisen through inbuilt teleological tendencies in organic nature.

Criticism of ID is fair game, as long as it doesn’t distort the definition. One could, for example, criticize ID by arguing that chance can indeed produce integrated complex structures. That wouldn’t distort the definition of ID. ID welcomes criticisms of this type. It objects only to criticisms based on misrepresentation.
conrad - #24089

July 30^th 2010

Just defend scripture.

ID is not worth defending.
Darrel Falk - #24091

July 30^th 2010

#24087 “They [integrated complex structures] did not arise by ‘chance’. “

Rich,

It is important to emphasize that the alternative hypothesis to that which the ID movement believes they are testing is not “chance,” it is, primarily, natural selection. If they (ID leaders) were testing “design” vs “chance,” they would be testing their hypothesis against a non-hypothesis. The difference between “chance” and “natural selection” is not trivial.

Natural selection is like an engine that drives life in a particular direction. Its fuel is reproductive success over millions of years. That is the alternative hypothesis that ID folk believe they are testing.

Having said that I want to be quick to point out that the question of whether the occurrence of natural selection is consistent with one’s belief in the God of the Bible, is another question for another day. Right now, we just want to work towards a good definition of the Intelligent Design movement.
conrad - #24092

July 30^th 2010

Well “natural selection” as Darwin envisioned it had no place in it for horizontal gene transfer.

Genes were only disseminated through progeny.
BUT HOW CAN YOU BLAME DARWIN FOR THAT.
They poor old guy was born in 1809.
But DARWIN NEVER HEARD OF GENES.

He died long before Watson and Crick and he never read Gregor Mendel’s work.

Criticizing natural selection is easy when only progeny transmit genes but genes also come in on viruses so there is more flexibility in accessing genes for a new model of animal.
Darrel Falk - #24093

July 30^th 2010

#24092

Yes, Conrad, but don’t you think that’s beside the point. We’re working towards a good definition of the ID movement.
Marshall - #24095

July 30^th 2010

If I hear some ID advocates correctly, ID is not searching for gaps or inadequacies in natural processes. If this is the case, then the sufficiency of natural processes to explain certain features that appear to be designed is not the issue. The natural processes could be entirely sufficient to produce them, yet ID researchers would continue to work to show that they are better explained by another route.

So, if both natural processes and a hypothesized Design Event can explain something, what would lead us to favour the ID explanation over the natural processes? If ID advocates really don’t think there are gaps in what evolution can do where Design is the only alternative, then what causes them to favour Design over evolution if both explanations are seen as plausible and adequate?
Rich - #24097

July 30^th 2010

Darrel:

I know of no ID leader who denies the existence of what you are calling “natural selection”. But natural selection has a gatekeeper function, not a creative one. Natural selection can say only: “You will die before you reproduce” or “You will live long enough to reproduce”. That’s quality control, not genuine creative work. The genuine creative work is done by mutations. And according to neo-Darwinian theory, the mutations are random (with respect to future fitness anyway). So, while natural selection plays an important role, it can do nothing until chance throws something into its lap for evaluation. That’s why ID focuses on the chance aspect of evolution (mutations) rather than the selection aspect.

The contention of ID is that the spitting out of random mutations is an insufficiently co-ordinated process (even granted the filtering role of natural selection) to create major new structures, systems, body plans, etc. This should be a genuinely scientific question upon which ID and neo-Darwinian people can engage. Neo-Darwinians can propose hypothetical evolutionary pathways, and ID people can analyze them for probability.
Marshall - #24099

July 30^th 2010

I appreciated Rich’s analogy in a recent thread about the role of natural selection. He compared it to a sculptor, while a piece of marble is the genome that has been built up by mutation. The sculptor (natural selection) can’t add any new marble; all they can do is cut away. That’s how the sculpture is made.

Good analogy.
Rich - #24100

July 30^th 2010

Darrel:

I think it is unwise and unprofitable to attempt to define the “intelligent design *movement*”. If Biologos were a sociological research organization, it would make sense to discuss ID insofar as it is a “movement”. But Biologos’s concern is not sociology, but science and theology. So it should be trying to capture ID in its scientific and (if any) theological aspects.

Discussing ID as a “movement” will inevitably lead into speculations about motivations, and hence into culture war discussions which have already done too much damage. The focus should be on what scientific claims ID makes, and on whether or not a design perspective on organic nature has certain advantages that a non-teleological perspective lacks. (For example, will those with a design perspective be more cautious before they dismiss certain organs or parts of the genome as “functionless”?)
Glen Davidson - #24102

July 30^th 2010

Any real definition of ID has to include sentiments expressed like this book review title written by Robert Deyes, and trumpeted by the head of the CSC, Meyer: “New Intelligent Design Book A Landmark Assault On Scientific Naturalism.” Assaults upon science are routine in ID.

Now I don’t actually like how science is normally defined according to “naturalism” in the Anglo-American world, since “natural” has then to be defined to fit that definition. Nevertheless, it can be done, and ID’s attacks upon routine science under the rubric “naturalism” (or “materialism”) are very common.

Then it generally relies upon the false dilemma of, “if it isn’t explained by science, Design did it.”

That’s why their “design” doesn’t agree with what archaeologists, paleoanthropologists, and SETI researchers generally mean by it. IC or some such thing might even have some ancillary role in determining design, but its lack in, say, a neolithic point, rarely stymies us. That’s because design is determined largely by evident rationality, apparent purpose, and thinking across (taxonomic) categories, which we do not see in non-engineered life.

Glen Davidson
Gregory - #24103

July 30^th 2010

Just to point out it is a stretch to say intelligent design (ID) is a *community*. This is an attempt to diversify by DI/ID leaders, which confuses the agent(s) and the theory/hypothesis the agent(s) hold(s). It is a ring-leader’s call (we *are* a community, aren’t we?) to the crowd in the ‘big tent,’ without a sociologist in the house to observe the supposed ‘community’ (being) generated from the ‘audience’.

The above article by S. Stevens and D. Falk speaks properly about ‘the ID community’ several times and does *not* suppose that by themselves the letters ‘ID’ (meaning ‘intelligent design’) imply a community in itself.

My favorite definition of ‘intelligent design’:
“You had a great idea, but never followed through with it…someone else did, and it worked—that was intelligent design!”

A challenge for another definition so short and polite (though unfortunate for the person who held the original idea!)?

p.s. ‘purposeful arrangement of parts’ - not bad too. Welcome to the human-social sciences, Dr. Behe. Please sit down we are working today.
pds - #24104

July 30^th 2010

The basic definition by the Discovery Institute, which no leading proponent disagrees with is this:

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. “

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/index.php

That has been consistent for many years. There is no need to make it more complicated than that. Yet the popular media continues to distort it and misdescribe it.

If you want to define the ID movement, then that is is a different thing. I think the source you quote, taken as a whole is clear on that.

(cont)
pds - #24107

July 30^th 2010

cont.

For some strange reason, you use a truncated version of the long answer. The full long answer is this:
pds - #24108

July 30^th 2010

Long definition:

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
gingoro - #24109

July 30^th 2010

Rich @24100

“I think it is unwise and unprofitable to attempt to define the “intelligent design *movement*”.”

Rich’s suggestion that we focus on the scientific and theological aspects of ID seems very valid to me. Even if BioLogos had competent social scientists it would seem to me that focusing on their science and theology would be the wisest course. I’d further add that we should focus on the best thought that comes out of ID so as to deal with the strongest presentation of ID that we can find.

IMO not only is their science unproved but their mathematics leaves a lot to be desired. I have enough statistics and information theory background that when critics point out problems I well understand the point. Elesberry and Shallit wrote a 50 page critique in 2003 of Dembski’s work that seems very credible to me. Unfortunately Dembski on UcD says that he has answered their criticisms in his work, however, he never actually presents a detailed paragraph by paragraph refutation. In my library there are about 10 ID books but until their work is more accepted I do not plan to purchase and read any more, except possibly those by Mike Gene and Denton.
Dave W
pds - #24110

July 30^th 2010

You said,

“It is well known that ID began with a “wedge document” firmly grounded in cultural issues, and which went on to lay out a scientific agenda designed to provide underpinning for a set of philosophical and political presuppositions.”

This is totally false and you should know better. The wedge doc was not the beginning of ID theory or even the modern ID movement. I have linked to a great article that blows this falsehood out of the water. It was authored by Donald Yerxa, who co-authored a book with Karl Giberson. The Yerxa Giberson book also blows this statement out of the water. I think you have been reading too much propaganda by Barbara Forrest.
Nick (Matzke) - #24112

July 30^th 2010

ID has no coherent formal definition, because it is an attempt to push for creation by supernatural miraculous intervention, without saying so for mostly legal/political purposes. That’s why it’s hard to define. It’s as simple as that, and anything missing this point is missing the core issue behind the entire movement and the fights over it.

As for this:

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. “

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/index.php

That has been consistent for many years. There is no need to make it more complicated than that. Yet the popular media continues to distort it and misdescribe it.

No, this was invented during the Dover case when they were getting hit from all sides in the media with their own creationist statements. Before Dover, there were many instances of IDists describing ID as creationist, anti-naturalist, etc. People have short memories evidently.

As for science: I see no reason to concede that the ID movement is doing science, even if its bad science. Uncorrected bad science = pseudoscience.
conrad - #24113

July 30^th 2010

Darrell,
ID is a movement that is not worth the time and effort needed to define and defend it.

Distance yourself from it. ..Don’t define it or defend it.

ID stands for “It’s DUMB!”

Just defend the Bible.
And bring forth knowledge of discovery,.... of things like,.. the ancient photons from the original light of creation,..... [Penzias and Wilson circa 1965]....
THAT MAY HELP PEOPLE REALIZE THE GLORY AND MAJESTY OF THE STATEMENT WRITTEN 4000 YEARS AGO IN THE OLD TESTAMENT…......” and God said,..‘Let there Be Light!’”
HornSpiel - #24114

July 30^th 2010

RE: 1: No you cannot pin down ID on origins because they refuse to take a stand.

RE: 2: Although some ID scholars do do some scientific research, Scientific research is not at the heart of ID. For instance, if ID is a scientific program then it should take a stand on the age of the earth, a well documented scientific fact that most DI fellows agree on. The fact that it does not, indicates to me that its primary mission is not scientific but metaphysical —to change the way science is practiced. So although ID claims to be a scientific program, I do not think that it can legitimately be one.

RE 3: The mission of Biologos is to teach Christians that they do not need to choose between science, as understood by the broad scientific community, and faith. The mission of the ID movement is to add intelligent cause to scientific description making it “god friendly.” However their agenda, although they do not acknowledge this, would fundamentally change the character of science.

There can be no accurate definition of ID on the Biologos site that does not mention this fundamental difference.
Nick (Matzke) - #24116

July 30^th 2010

This is totally false and you should know better. The wedge doc was not the beginning of ID theory or even the modern ID movement. I have linked to a great article that blows this falsehood out of the water. It was authored by Donald Yerxa, who co-authored a book with Karl Giberson. The Yerxa Giberson book also blows this statement out of the water. I think you have been reading too much propaganda by Barbara Forrest.

This is silliness. The Giberson & Yerxa article has some useful stuff but doesn’t even address the hugely important direct connections between the ID movement and the creation science movement’s legal efforts, or the related and supremely important book, the 1989 Of Pandas and People, which is where “intelligent design” as such was first put forward as an official term, an official organized origins position, a term in a glossary, etc.

There is no point denying or hiding the major connections between ID and creationism. It just comes back to bite ID in the end when the dirty laundry comes out, as it always does eventually. E.g. Dover.
gingoro - #24118

July 30^th 2010

Nick@24116

“There is no point denying or hiding the major connections between ID and creationism.”

So what! What is wrong with creationism at a high level? I accept an old earth (4.7 billion yrs), common descent with modification and a limited role for RM + NS. But, I also accept that God created all that we see ie the universe and life within that universe. So that makes me a creationist although probably not the kind of creationist you meant which I assume was a young earth creationist. IMO your comment belongs on a site that deals with history and or social implications of ID.
Dave W
pds - #24119

July 30^th 2010

Nick,

“This is silliness.”

So you prefer the Falk-Forrest history over the Giberson-Yerxa history? I wonder if Darrel Falk thinks Karl Giberson’s history is “silliness.”

Nick, so you are asserting that the Wedge fund-raising letter was the beginning of the modern ID movement? Is that your story and you’re sticking with it? There was no ID movement before 1998?
HornSpiel - #24122

July 30^th 2010

RE: 1 The definition of ID should include a statement like:

ID proponents do not hold to any one theory of origins. The views of leading figures in the ID movement vary considerably on the issue common decent However, most accept the scientifically established age of the earth of several billion years

(This is just an example statement. You would need to of course check facts to make sure it accurately reflects the views of the leading figures.)

The common decent perspectives of each of the Leading Figures should be accurately stated on that page. The age of the earth view should only be mentioned an individual if it differs from the scientifically established age of the earth. You should include at least one DI fellow that holds to a young earth view or change the above statement to read However, all accept the scientifically established age of the earth of several billion years,
Chip - #24123

July 30^th 2010

Hello Darrel,

I’ll take a crack at questions 1 and 3:

1. The fact is that no one of any ideological stripe knows “whatever that process is” that got life started—and certainly you know this (making the snarky swipe at ID a bit disingenuous). Is it worth our time to try and “pin down” a mainstream view—“except to say that a mind has notdirected the process?”
3. For the record, I don’t like the Discovery Institute’s politics and think their social crusading is generally a bad idea. But you are naive in the extreme if you think they’re the only ones out there who have “a social agenda that extends beyond the lab bench.” Puh-leez. If outside-the-scope-of-science crusading is such a terrible thing, why not speak out against it when its Dawkins, or Dennet, or Wilson, or Shermer, or Orr… ad infinitim?
Bilbo - #24125

July 30^th 2010

Nick gets his history wrong. Sir Fred Hoyle was the first to use the term “intelligent design” back in 1981 and 1982. And yes, he believed in it, atheist though he was:

http://telicthoughts.com/sir-fred-hoyle-and-the-origins-of-id/

ID avoids identifying the designer, because the evidence is insufficient to do so. But most ID proponents will admit that they believe that the designer is God.
pds - #24126

July 30^th 2010

Bilbo,

Thanks for that. Dallas Willard tracks some of the history of design arguments back to Plato and Epictetus, and other Stoic philosophers. Design arguments have never left the intellectual thought of the civilized world. Stephen Meyer also discusses this in Signature in the Cell.

I think Nick may be feeling the glory days of his Dover fame slipping away.
HornSpiel - #24127

July 30^th 2010

RE: 2 You say that your main concern is the is the quality of its science. I personally do not think the quality of their science should be Biologos’ biggest concern. After all Biologos is not a scientific research program.

Is not the your real concern the effect that their poor science is having on the broader culture? By the influence they are having on the teaching of science and political decision-making?

The quality of their science reflects their skepticism of commonly accepted methodological naturalism and their desire to reform science. This is the heart of the matter, Many in the evangelical community share their skepticism and concerns, This is why ID has the traction that it does.

However they will not admit this motivation but coat it in fine words about free scientific inquiry and scientific jargon. Scientists aren’t fooled, but most of us are not scientists.

I agree you should include something about the poor quality of their science. But you should also say something about its undue influence on the church and broader society. Also that it unnecessarily creates a wedge between scientists and people of faith.
R Hampton - #24128

July 30^th 2010

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Be it gravity, entropy, friction, etc., the secondary causes of Nature are dependent upon God, the first cause. For example, the extremely complex atomic interactions within the sun cause photons to be emitted. Occasionally they strike the DNA living organisms, resulting in genetic mutations by way of transversions of oxidized DNA bases, the deamination of cytosine, pyrimidine dimers between adjacent pyrimidine bases, etc. Likewise, the extremely complex gravitational interactions of tens of thousands of Kuiper belt objects cause ejections. Occasionally they strike the Earth, resulting in extinctions, the alteration of land forms, etc.

Both are examples of chance, so by the DI’s understanding, they are undirected events that happen outside of God’s plan—an unforeseen consequence of randomness of which God has no control. But for some reason, ID proponents believe the involvement of chance in genetic mutations is unlike the involvement of chance in all other natural processes. It’s an illogical argument.
Bilbo - #24129

July 30^th 2010

Since history is not a repeatable phenomenon, the historical sciences depend upon arguments to the best explanation. Thus, we argue that the best explanation for nested hierarchies, shared pseudogenes, and geological distribution is common descent.

So ID can be seen as an attempt to argue from the data that the best explanation for certain cosmic or biological features is that they were intelligently designed.

The ID movement is a quasi-religious-political group that is attempting to influence thinking about ID in public education, the scientific community, religious communities, and society at large.
Bilbo - #24130

July 30^th 2010

Hi RH,

I agree that God creates, sustains, and controls all natural events, be they by “chance” or not. A good analogy for ID is the supposed “face” on Mars. Now we know God created Mars, and all the mountains of Mars. But if the face had been real (it’s not) we would know that it had been intelligently designed, though not necessarily by God.
conrad - #24131

July 30^th 2010

The trouble with focusing on Intelligent Design,.... whether to define, it defame, dissemble about it, is it focuses us back on Day 5 of creation.

Biologists always start the creation story with the biology of Creation ON DAY 5
IN FACT THEY USUALLY START ON DAY 6!
They just feel more comfortable there.
[I wonder why that is?]

The first 4 days are the interesting parts.

Take a look at Day 4.
There is not a living thing around except perhaps for some extremophiles but tremendous action occurs and the Bible does a pretty good job of describing it [4000 YEARS AHEAD OF THE SCIENTISTS.]
R Hampton - #24133

July 30^th 2010

Bilbo,

The ID proponents argue that if Evolution can be explained by random mutations and natural selection alone, the development of life can not be considered to be intelligent designed—meaning “neo-Darwinianism” is not caused, controlled nor sustained by God. In their view, the element of chance removes God from Evolution.

In comparison, ID proponents believe that Mars was created by God through secondary causes—meaning it was intelligently (although indirectly) designed. So what is it that makes the processes that develop planets theologically and/or scientifically different then the processes that develop life? I have yet to understand the Intelligent Design rationale for the supposed distinction.
cranium - #24136

July 30^th 2010

Intelligent design refers to a pre-determined scientific research program as well as a community of charlatan scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature with the aim of finding god. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause which would have to be god, not an undirected process such as natural selection despite the overwhelming evidence for natural selection compared to that for creation/ID/god.

There, fixed!
Bilbo - #24137

July 30^th 2010

Hi RH,

I agree with you that most ID proponents have theological objections to neo-Darwinism of one form or another, and that that is a large motivating force of their movement. I disagree with them, as does Mike Gene, and probably Behe. Buit aside from the whole theological debate, there is the very legitimate question of whether neo-Darwinism can account for the history of evolution, and the more fundamental question of how life originated. I don’t think either can be fully accounted for by indirect causes (unless deterministic physics is true).
Bilbo - #24138

July 30^th 2010

Hi Cranium,

Thanks for providing a perfect example of what motivates the ID movement.
R Hampton - #24139

July 30^th 2010

Bilbo,

I can recall a single well-known ID proponent making a public statement to the effect that they have no theological objections to “neo-Darwinism” (that evolution can be explained by random mutations and natural selection alone). Who may have said such a thing?
Bilbo - #24140

July 30^th 2010

Michael Behe. Mike Gene.
Bilbo - #24141

July 30^th 2010

Meanwhile, RH, name a single Biologos leader who doesn’t have theological objections to ID.
unapologetic catholic - #24144

July 30^th 2010

“ID avoids identifying the designer, because the evidence is insufficient to do so.”

Really?

Let’s take a look at the evidence.

The designer designed “certain features of the universe”

What known entities have the power to design the universe? humans? birds? extraterrestirals?

I suggest that any intellectually honest person realizes that only a “God” or “Godlike” entity can design “features” of the universe. We’re not talking about the Empire State Building here, we talking about galaxies and black holes—well above known technological accomplishments of any fathomable creatures.

The evidence is quite sufficent to demostate that *if* ID is true, we are looking at god or near-god intelligences and any claim to the contrary is pure unadulterated obsfucation.
unaplogetic catholic - #24145

July 30^th 2010

“name a single Biologos leader who doesn’t have theological objections to ID.”

To my knowledge, none of them object to the concept of God designing the universe and creating earth and all life on it.

We can’t mistake the Discovery Institute’s unique version of ID (which intentionally conceals its religious assertions for tactical reasons) as “intelligent design.”
R Hampton - #24146

July 30^th 2010

Bilbo,

I don’t believe Behe was being honest if he actually said such a thing. In Darwin’s Black Box, he stated that “just like the human body or a simple cell cannot arise out of naturalistic small unguided evolutionary incremental steps. Chance knows no purpose.” Here Behe repeats the commonly held belief of ID proponents that chance is unguided and therefore purposeless - to which I previously stated ID proponents conclude that “‘neo-Darwinianism” is not caused, controlled nor sustained by God. In their view, the element of chance removes God from Evolution.”

Again, consider the planet Mars, a product of chance. Had the cloud of gas that comprised our proto-sun clumped at little more this way or that, Mars may have been twice as big or have been ripped apart to become an asteroid belt (in either case, the results would have impacted the number, size and position of the rest of the planets). By Behe’s own definition, it’s an unguided process that produced Mars and, more importantly, the Earth. Thus stellar formation lacks purpose. In principle then, any unguided process directed by chance must also lack purpose. Measured against Christian theology, Behe’s chance can not be authored by God.
Rich - #24149

July 30^th 2010

R Hampton (24146):

Mars is not the product of chance, but of the necessary outworking of natural laws (as was the clumping of the sun that you referred to).

Yes, it was an unguided process that produced Mars, because outcomes produced by natural laws are unguided, in the sense that they don’t require personal supervision. God doesn’t have to push the moon around the earth personally, because Newton’s laws do the job. (Of course, God established Newton’s laws, but that is not the same as saying that God “guides”, i.e., steers or directs, the moon in its orbit.)

Natural laws dictate that a certain mass of hydrogen atoms, under certain conditions, must produce a star. No natural law (known to us so far) dictates that a bacterium must become a man, or an artiodactyl a whale.

Your argument confuses the results of natural laws with the results of contingent events. Both are unguided, but they are quite different. Behe never confuses the two. Nor does any ID proponent known to me. Any confusion on this point originates somewhere else.
Rich - #24150

July 30^th 2010

Darrel, have a look at:

http://biologos.org/blog/13-things-i-learned-at-the-biologos-conference/

Post 17670 sets forth some broad features of ID. Columnist Rachel Held Evans said that she found that overview helpful. Perhaps it might give you some ideas for how to express both the unity and the diversity of ID on your Leading Figures page and elsewhere.
Darrel Falk - #24151

July 30^th 2010

#24150 This is likely the key part of Rich’s comment on Rachel’s blog:
“...for at least some ID proponents, one can have ‘creation through evolution,’ provided that the evolutionary process is understood not as random but as intentional.”

Rich,

I actually assume that we all believe in intelligent design at the level of this statement. It is God’s process. Christ was before all things. All that has happened, has occurred in and through him. Evolution is the process put in place by God and thereby is fully ‘intentional.’ God did not simply set it up at the beginning and then step out. The laws of nature are little more than a description of the ongoing regular activity of the God who works in this universe and this world. This same God also works in ways that are over and above the natural. He has worked that way in human history (the miracles, including, supremely, the resurrection) and may have chosen to work in super-natural ways within the history of life as well. No matter what though all that has happened has happened through the activity (natural and super-natural) of God.

This is consistent with your statement about intelligent design. However, I don’t see this as characterizing the ID Movement.
Rich - #24153

July 31^st 2010

Darrel:

Regarding this comment: “God did not simply set it up at the beginning and then step out”.

TE is actually quite ambiguous on that question. Verbally, yes, TEs always affirm that God is active in nature through his regular laws just as much as in miracles, etc. Some have even invoked the medieval notion of “divine concurrence”. Yet when it gets down to the practice of science, this never makes a difference. A God who is conceived of as “active” in nature is not different from the God who “sets it up and steps out” as far as the equations, the methods, and the results of TE science go. For that matter, as TEs frequently say themselves, there is no difference in the practice of science between, say, a Collins or a Dawkins. In other words, whether one is a theist, a Deist, or an atheist, one does science the same way. So what then is the substantive point added to discussions of origins when TEs say that God is just as active in the laws of nature as in extraordinary events? I freely grant it, but it’s either a non-scientific, metaphysical statement or a gesture of religious piety. It has no cognitive significance for discussions of Darwinism, ID, etc. that I can see.
Rich - #24154

July 31^st 2010

Darrel:

If I may, I’d like to ask for clarity on one more point in your comments:

“He has worked that way in human history (the miracles, including, supremely, the resurrection) and may have chosen to work in super-natural ways within the history of life as well.”

Again, I find that TEs frequently acknowledge that God *may* have worked in supernatural ways in the history of life, but I always get the strong sense that this is a purely formal acknowledgment, and that many if not most TEs add, under their breath “Yeah, he may have—but he didn’t!” It would take me too long to list all the conversations I’ve had with TEs that have generated this impression, but I think one point should cover it, and that is: ID people often say exactly the same thing, that God *may have* (not must have) worked supernaturally in the history of life. But for saying this, they are told they are guilty of “God of the gaps” thinking, i.e., of using special divine interventions to “fill in” the things that science cannot explain. So it seems that TEs are keeping “may have” on the books, but don’t ever want it actually invoked. But then, is keeping it on the books merely a gesture of piety, rather than cognitively significant?
Alan Fox - #24156

July 31^st 2010

Seems to me this boils down to a simple issue of whether dogma over-rides reality and whether human reality, limited as it is by three dimensions, life spans, ability to share experience, the panoply of scientific research, is all there is. Or are we like an ant colony, living in our little corner, unaware of the vast majority of what is.

Specifically, what does “Intelligent Design” bring to the table other than a catchy title. I don’t really care whether ID proponents claim they are doing science. I question whether they are achieving anything useful. All the propaganda regarding the alleged prejudice against “Intelligent Design” would fall away if some utility could be demonstrated.

I was blissfully unaware of “Intelligent Design” until mid 2005, when I encountered a fan of ID on an unrelated discussion forum. This commenter linked me, among other sites, to Bill Dembski’s (as it was, then) Uncommon Descent blog. I registered and posted a comment, asking for an explanation or definition of “Intelligent Design”. Bill Dembski’s response was to erase the comment along with my registration. I wonder if a definition of “Intelligent Design” that more than one person can agree on can actually exist!
Alan Fox - #24157

July 31^st 2010

@ Bilbo

Hi Bilbo

You mention Mike Gene. Mike wrote a book called The Design Matrix in 2007. On the very first page of the introduction, the phrase “Intelligent Design” appears no less than five times. Yet, so far as I can see, nowhere in the book does Mike attempt to define “Intelligent Design” or indeed intelligent, intelligence, design or designer.
Darrel Falk - #24162

July 31^st 2010

Rich,
Personally, I like the term “evolutionary creation” or “biologos” as it pertains to our views. The natural laws are a manifestation of God’s continual presence and ongoing activity in the universe. This is not a cop-out, or an add-on—it’s simply the way things are. Without God’s activity and presence all would cease to exist.

What science studies then, is a manifestation of the regular activity of God. God is omnipresent and God is active; science is able to study the manifestation of that activity because of its regularity. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.” Is there anything more “cognitively significant” than this?

“I will sing to the Lord all my life, I will sing praises to my God as long as I live…” All that exists is a manifestation of the ongoing activity of God

“When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have put in place, what is man that you are mindful of him?” Hardly an add-on, Rich. Nature is a reflection of the activity of God. Sandals, off. Face to the ground. The study of nature is holy ground.
Darrel Falk - #24164

July 31^st 2010

#24154
“Again, I find that TEs frequently acknowledge that God *may* have worked in supernatural ways in the history of life, but I always get the strong sense that this is a purely formal acknowledgment, and that many if not most TEs add, under their breath “Yeah, he may have—but he didn’t!”

Rich,

The word “supernatural” should not be used to imply that God is somehow more present in the supernatural. Both—natural and supernatural—are manifestations of the activity of God.

Since the super-natural is just that—- “super,” beyond of the bounds of God’s normal activity—it is likely not possible to prove that activity by the tools of science which depend upon regularity. When you come across some phenomenon that can’t be explained by science yet, there are two possibilities. One is that we just don’t know enough yet to explain it through God’s natural laws. The other is that it is a manifestation of God’s super-natural activity. I doubt it is possible to distinguish between the two, but if you and others want to try that’s up to you. (cont.)
Darrel Falk - #24165

July 31^st 2010

Continued from #24164

There is no scriptural reason for me to distinguish between the two—supernatural and natural—in the history of life on earth since both are a manifestation of God’s activity. Still, the God we see at work in the Bible and the God we experience in our own lives works supernaturally too. Personally, I found Ard Louis’s series on miracles extremely helpful in this regard. I hope you did too.
Bilbo - #24167

July 31^st 2010

Hi Darrel,

If all scientists were theists, then the debate about whether God produced life through natural or supernatural processes could (or should) be a friendly one. But many or most scientists are not theists, and the question of how God produced life is not even on the table. The question for them is how did impersonal, blind processes produce life. Now we know that God is behind all processes that they think are impersonal. So if God did use those processes, we can say praise be to God. But if God acted supernaturally, we can also say praise be to God.

Can we know how God acted? If He did something obvious, like raise a dead man from the grave, then yes. Something less obvious, like producing life four billion years ago, not as clear. But to rule out the question as illegitimate and outside the bounds of science? Well, you’re in charge of defining “science.” But you are not in charge of my reason, which tells me that the evidence that God acted supernaturally looks very good.
cont.
Bilbo - #24168

July 31^st 2010

cont.

But meanwhile the unbelieving scientists foam and froth at the mouth, and demand our heads for even suggesting a supernatural explanation. “Okay, then. Perhaps it wasn’t supernatural. Perhaps it was natural, as Fred Hoyle insisted. But whatever it was, it was intelligent.” But this makes them foam and froth even more, and claim that we aren’t being honest. “But we freely admit that we believe that God is the designer. But we are willing to admit that this goes beyond our evidence. If you want us to include it in our evidence, then let’s go back 150 years, when including supernatural explanations in biology was considered legitimate.”

More foaming and frothing. And ECs are caught in the middle. Sorry about that. Good luck.
beaglelady - #24173

July 31^st 2010

If you want us to include it in our evidence, then let’s go back 150 years, when including supernatural explanations in biology was considered legitimate.

But why stop there? Why not go back even further, and let the church decide beforehand which scientific conclusions will be tolerated?
Mike Gene - #24176

July 31^st 2010

You mention Mike Gene. Mike wrote a book called The Design Matrix in 2007. On the very first page of the introduction, the phrase “Intelligent Design” appears no less than five times. Yet, so far as I can see, nowhere in the book does Mike attempt to define “Intelligent Design” or indeed intelligent, intelligence, design or designer.

True. Over the years, I have discovered that when it comes to large topics, such as intelligence, design, intelligent design, evolution, science, life, etc., they are rarely defined (has anyone else noticed that SETI does not define its ‘I’?). And when they are defined, the definitions typically vary from person to person.

Case in point. The authors of the blog entry used the term ‘science’ 14 times (even to the point of asserting that ID is science), but nowhere do they define science. Then in the comments section, I counted about 40 times the word ‘science’ is used. Yet I don’t see a definition and there is certainly no sign there would be any consensus if one was offered. Clearly, this is a problem that goes far beyond ID.
Mike Gene - #24177

July 31^st 2010

What I did in my book was to borrow the approach of biologists when handling ‘life.’ The term “life” is never really defined – it is described and identified according to its many characteristics – metabolism, reproduction, responsiveness, movement, etc. So I devised a scoring system –the Matrix - where four parameters are identified and explained in much detail and I then calibrated this system.

Of course, in hindsight, it would have probably helped to make this more clear and provide a working definition. I would have defined ID something like this:

The application of understanding and/or foresight to construct or arrange something so as to accomplish some function.
Rich - #24182

July 31^st 2010

Darrel (24162 etc.):

I understand your points. I don’t think they directly address my questions. My questions were derived from a careful reading of statements by Randy Isaac, George Murphy, Robert Russell, and many other TEs. Perhaps your understanding of TE/EC is different from theirs. Or perhaps you feel you should answer only for yourself, and not others. But you have to bear in mind that when most people who have been following the debate think of TE/EC, they think of the volume *Perspectives on an Evolving Creation*, and the writings of Collins, Ayala and Ken Miller. I am asking you to explain/defend statements about ID, TE, and divine activity made by these people, since they are the famous EC/TE people, just as I might ask a Republican to explain/defend statements by George Bush or Ronald Reagan. If you don’t see the role of Biologos as to clarify, for the public, the meaning of statements made by the prominent people that I’ve named, then maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree by asking the questions that I am asking. But if you do see that as Biologos’s role, I would ask you reread my two posts, and try very hard to answer (rather than reframe) my questions. In any case, thanks for listening.
Gregory - #24186

July 31^st 2010

“You had a great idea, but never followed through with it…someone else did, and it worked—that was intelligent design!” - Gregory

Intelligent design: The application of understanding and/or foresight to construct or arrange something so as to accomplish some function. - Mike Gene

That is the best answer to my question in #24103; a bit longer, but just as polite! Thanks, Mike!

Rich,
As you may remember, George Murphy doesn’t call himself a ‘TE’ but also doesn’t refuse the label when people call him so.

Why not: a Christian who accepts an old earth, common descent(s), & various aspects of evolutionary biology that are free from Darwin’s Victorian or the 1930’s & 40’s ideological contraints, & leaves open the view that God ‘guides’ both natural & supranatural processes as a constant scientific uncertainty?

I notice you scope on the North Americans more than the Continentals. The views of Polkinghorne, Livingstone, McGrath, Harrison, Lennox, Alexander or for that matter Midgley & others fall into or near the EC/TE divide. Ayala & Miller are both so divisive for my tastes.

Collins seems to walk together harmonious in ideas with the U.K. list above, while Behe & Dembski wouldn’t.
Rich - #24187

July 31^st 2010

Gregory:

I focused on the authors who have had the most influence upon the face of TE/EC/Biologos as it is presented here in North America, mindful that the mission of Biologos, while not restricted to North America, is very much conditioned by North American religious conditions (e.g., the strong presence in the USA of YEC and the history of American battles over evolution in the culture and in the courtrooms).

Murphy’s views overlap significantly with the TE/EC group, so I’m not concerned that he doesn’t really like the label. Ken Miller doesn’t like the label either. I’m not concerned with the label but with the substance of the position. If Darrel wants to call his position Biologos rather than something else, I’m happy with that, but he still employs lines of argument that come straight out of TE/EC, and it’s those lines of argument that I have asked him about. I hope he will give me a satisfactory answer.
HornSpiel - #24196

July 31^st 2010

Rich and others,
I have enjoyed reading your back and forth.
RE: @24153
Rich, As one who takes the TE position, I have no problem with your description of CE/TE/Biologos. I do not think there should necessarily be any difference between how Christian, Hindu or atheist does science.

However, I hear you saying is that you think that ones theology should have a cognitive significance for discussions of origins and you think the TE position does not. I would say it does not and it does.

A TE scientist’s evolutionary theory is in all respects indistinguishable from an atheist like Dawkins except; Dawlins would claim that all human behavior—-intellegence, morality, spirituality—-are in principle completely reducible to materialist evolutionary causes. Science proves that free will, meaning and purpose are illusions..

A TE scientist would disagree. TE is anti-reductionistic—antim-ateralismistic.

Isn’t that cognitively significant?
unapologetic catholic - #24198

August 1^st 2010

“I am asking you to explain/defend statements about ID, TE, and divine activity made by these people, since they are the famous EC/TE people, just as I might ask a Republican to explain/defend statements by George Bush or Ronald Reagan. ‘

TE is not a “club” or apolitical organization. It is also not a religion. TE mens only this:

1. a belief in some God.
2. Acceptance of common descent according to modern evolutionary theory
3. Acceptance of common ancestry according to modern evolutionary theory.

A theistic evolutionist’s understanding of evolution is identical to Dawkins. No difference.

Theistic evolutionist’s understanding of religion, however, can be all over the board. The TE can be Muslim Jewish, Hindu or any version of Christianity. They have nothing in common religiously with each other and it is a mistake to think they do so. I can agree that a Reformed Calvinist can be a TE without agreeing with or being able to explain his theology.

Asking a TE to explain the science is easy. It is impossible to ask for a TE theology because there isn’t one.
Alan Fox - #24200

August 1^st 2010

Mike Gene:

The authors of the blog entry used the term ‘science’ 14 times (even to the point of asserting that ID is science), but nowhere do they define science. Then in the comments section, I counted about 40 times the word ‘science’ is used. Yet I don’t see a definition and there is certainly no sign there would be any consensus if one was offered. Clearly, this is a problem that goes far beyond ID.<

Not at all. Science is at heart a method for examining observable reality. The results of scientific endeavour are hard to miss. And it’s useful. As I said, if someone could explain how ID (whatever that might be) could turn out to be useful, then arguments over ID being scientific or not would become irrelevant.
Bilbo - #24210

August 1^st 2010

Alan,

Define “useful.”
unapologetic catholic - #24213

August 1^st 2010

“Define “useful.”

medicine, agriculture, criminal forensics, off the top of my head.

As just one example,evolutionary biology allows us to develop antibiotics against an evolving world of harmful microbes.

Is there anything that ID has contributed to medicine agriculture or criminal forensics in the same way as development of simple antibiotics?
unapologetic catholic - #24214

August 1^st 2010

Which brings us back to the point of the essay.

I disagree with the essay because I think that ID is not doing science. instead it is masquerading as science. We can argue whether it is doing science poorly, masquerading as science or simply performing dead science, but one or more of those three seem to be true. The reason we can tell is because ID does not lead to useful results.

There is no useful ID result that has lead to an interesting scientific discovery or led an interesting area of research. Even ID’s own scientists aren’t doing this. If Behe really had confidence in irreducible complexity, he’d have a long list of irreducibly complex candidates and some predictions of others yet to be found. But his list of IC biological systems has contracted, not expanded since 1996—qualities of a dead end theory.

People forget that Darwin made such a scientific prediction that a particular animal must exist if evolution is true. That animal was discovered 20 years after he died.

ID has no similar track record of any sort.
Mike Gene - #24215

August 1^st 2010

Not at all. Science is at heart a method for examining observable reality. The results of scientific endeavour are hard to miss. And it’s useful.

So? This doesn’t in any way address my point.

As for your side point, just because something is a method for examining observable reality, its results are hard to miss, and it’s useful, does not mean it is science. After all, a sniper’s scope is examines observable reality, its results are hard to miss, and it’s useful. Doesn’t mean the sniper is doing science.
Mike Gene - #24216

August 1^st 2010

I disagree with the essay because I think that ID is not doing science. instead it is masquerading as science. We can argue whether it is doing science poorly, masquerading as science or simply performing dead science, but one or more of those three seem to be true.

Which makes my point about there being no consensus on defining ‘science.’

There is no useful ID result that has lead to an interesting scientific discovery or led an interesting area of research.

And that would depend on how you define ID.

Over the years, I have discovered that when it comes to large topics, such as intelligence, design, intelligent design, evolution, science, life, etc., they are rarely defined. And when they are defined, the definitions typically vary from person to person.
Headless Unicorn Guy - #24217

August 1^st 2010

No matter how it began, in practice ID has become just the latest coat of camouflage paint for Young Earth Creation Science.
Mike Gene - #24233

August 1^st 2010

Hey Gregory,

If you are out there, here’s a recent quote from Jerry Coyne than you might enjoy:

There are many religions, all making incompatible assertions about what is true, but there is only one science.
Alan Fox - #24247

August 2^nd 2010

Mike Gene;

<wstrong>Of course, in hindsight, it would have probably helped to make this more clear and provide a working definition. I would have defined ID something like this:

The application of understanding and/or foresight to construct or arrange something so as to accomplish some function.</strong>

Thanks for the attempt, Mike. You can solve the omission in the sequel!

Mike Gene: (quotes another commenter)

There is no useful ID result that has lead to an interesting scientific discovery or led an interesting area of research.

And that would depend on how you define ID.

Well, indeed. See your definition above. Why not be as open as Darrel? Dover made the whole the designer isn’t necessarily God redundant.

Mike Gene:

Over the years, I have discovered that when it comes to large topics, such as intelligence, design, intelligent design, evolution, science, life, etc., they are rarely defined. And when they are defined, the definitions typically vary from person to person.

This is certainly true of ID. In most other walks of life, agreed definitions are a prerequisite for sharing experience.
Alan Fox - #24250

August 2^nd 2010

Bilbo - #24210
August 1st 2010

Alan,

Define “useful.”

I mean “useful” as in “capable of being used in the performance of some task”. I make no assumption about whether a useful thing is necessary, good or bad.
Alan Fox - #24254

August 2^nd 2010

Oops!

Tag errors and “Dover made the whole the designer isn’t necessarily God redundant.” should read:

“Dover made the whole the-designer-isn’t-necessarily-God line redundant”
Alan Fox - #24255

August 2^nd 2010

Doesn’t mean the sniper is doing science.

In fact it doesn’t matter. The sniper is benefiting from scientific endeavour (optics; metallurgy, chemistry of explosives)
Trevor K. - #24395

August 3^rd 2010

Charlie - #24084
If the Discovery Institute says ID follows the scientific method, then all they can claim is that ID is an untested, unsupported hypothesis. This is not the case though. They actually make conclusions regardless of absent data to support it. This makes it unscientific.
Exactly the same can be said of evolution, you are aware of that? Because it’s something that’s not open to examination, cannot be repeated and the so-called evidence can be interpreted in other ways equally valid. Except that telling people this causes them to get up tight and claim that people who say this are ignorant, deny “science” and live on flat earths etc.
Darrel Falk - #24093
Yes, Conrad, but don’t you think that’s beside the point. We’re working towards a good definition of the ID movement.

Frankly, I see that the only definition you’re working towards is one that discredits the ID movement and suits your own evolutionary belief system. This is what comes thru for me from reading your piece. Your definition seems to be to suit BioLogos, from the outset. No quarter given.
By the way, I don’t subscribe to the ID movement either.
aiguy - #24432

August 3^rd 2010

While Mike Gene points out that terms like “science” and “life” are left undefined, he fails to note that there are no theories which invoke “science” or “life” as explanatory constructs. Nobody tries to explain anything about some organism by saying “That’s because it is alive”, for example.

In contrast, ID attempts to offer “intelligence” as the explanation for life.

If one is going to offer an explanation, it seems reasonable to ask that whatever it is that is supposed to account for the phenomenon in question should be characterized in a way that allows us to unambiguously investigate whether or not this thing exists and has the capacity account for what we’re trying to explain!
Francis Beckwith - #24459

August 3^rd 2010

Charlie writes: “P.S. lacking data to support one hypothesis does not mean that it is evidence for an alternate hypothesis ( i.e. it can’t be explained naturally, thus that is evidence it is not natural).”

Sure it does, in some cases. For example, suppose that there are only two people at the scene of the crime—X and Y—only one of which can be guilty. If X has an alibi, then that counts in favor of Y having done it.

Isn’t a refutation of Paley’s hypothesis support for all non-Paleyian acounts of origins? It certainly does not prove any of them. But it seems to play a role in buttressing them.
Francis Beckwith - #24460

August 3^rd 2010

cranium writes: “Intelligent design refers to a pre-determined scientific research program as well as a community of charlatan scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature with the aim of finding god.”

What precisely is wrong with being a charlatan? Are you suggesting that human beings have an obligation to act in ways that are consistent with the proper ends of their nature? If so, then you too believe in design. To be sure, it’s not ID. But it is a type of design, one that is connected to the ancient understanding of formal and final causes. Here’s the clincher, cranium: if you reject this understanding, you undercut the grounds by which you can issue negative judgments against charlatans. You seem, like many of your peers, to be relying on a borrowed capital that your own metaphysics cannot replenish.
Alan Fox - #24475

August 4^th 2010

Sure it does, in some cases. For example, suppose that there are only two people at the scene of the crime—X and Y—only one of which can be guilty. If X has an alibi, then that counts in favor of Y having done it.

But ID isn’t a suspect as it doesn’t have a hypothesis.
False dichotomy!
Alan Fox - #24481

August 4^th 2010

OT @ aiguy

I’ve been following your recent comments at UD with interest and enjoyment. I hope your posting privileges survive. I seem to recall them being curtailed at ARN and Telic Thoughts, possibly because your patient and polite comments were impossible to refute. Hope you can find time to contribute further here!

aiguy among pigeons
aiguy - #24508

August 4^th 2010

Hi Alan -

Glad you’re enjoying my thread at UD… yes, I’m surprised they’ve let me go on so long there (still I’ve been accused of being “patently rude” and “beyond the pale of civil discussion” )

I notice we still haven’t actually seen any definitions forthcoming for intelligent design… small wonder…
CBBurn - #24770

August 6^th 2010

ID could be defined as:

The study of patterns in nature best explained as the product or result of intelligence.

This presents it in its true scientific form as a design theoretic.
CBBurn - #24774

August 6^th 2010

Following on, forget the Wedge document and distill out the polemics - only then can science do its work objectively, without interference, and maybe you’ll have a constructive dialogue. Whether ID stands up to scrutiny remains to be seen.

At the end of the day, you have to ask does ID pose pertinent questions that need to be addressed? The answer has to be a resounding yes. If these are ignored, speaking as a scientist, I’m left with the uneasy feeling that not all possibilities are being adequately evaluated.
- Add Your Comment
- Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.
- Comment:
  You have 1250 characters remaining.
- Name:
- Email (will not be published):
- URL:
- Remember me