| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
> For a while now here, it seems that ID has been lumped with the mindless
> invalidation of observeable phenomena and reasonable interpretation, as
> well as the disingenuous support of Creationism/refutation of Evolution
> by bogus science, practiced by many Creationists.
The problem is the difference between several things that might be called intelligent design.
In and of itself, the term suggests belief in an intelligent being that has designed something. Many religions assert the existence of an intelligent designer responsible for the creation of the universe. This position may or may not be compatible with scientific evidence, depending on what details are claimed for the process of creation. E.g., if the Bible is interpreted as talking about who created and why, not intended to express chronology, method, or sequence, then it is compatible with the evidence of geology.
However, the term has been taken up by a particular movement. This movement identifies itself as a "big tent", so the exact beliefs vary from individual to individual. Furthermore, like many of the disreputable young earth advocates, some of the advocates are not concerned about being consistent and so make different claims about what constitutes ID, depending on what suits the moment. I'll distinguish this version by capitalizing ID in reference to it.
Within this category, there are some general claims as well as the particular claims made by the most prominent advocates. As a whole, it asserts that the action of intelligent designers can be detected by scientific methods, mostly using a probabilistic argument. In general, it emphasizes complex biochemical systems that purportedly cannot be fully explained evolutionarily. However, in the case of "fine tuning" arguments (the claim that the physical parameters necessary for intelligent life are tightly constrained and that the physical laws and structure of the universe match these targets too precisely to dismiss as coincidence), ID advocates seem more willing to accept the idea that the designer designed the universe with a certain set of properties from the beginning. Thus, science will not find gaps but rather a nicely working system. Why they generally seem unwilling to admit the possibility that evolution could be part of such a planned design is unclear.
One could accept their premise that it's not an unreasonable idea to check for gaps that seem scientifically inexplicable, or that gap-style design can be identified by some sort of probabilistic model, without accepting popular claims of the ID movement. My reading of the Bible makes me doubt that such gaps should be expected in evolution (although analogous gaps are found in human history, e.g. the resurrection, I see no need for them elsewhere in organismal history). ID advocates themselves vary between claiming that their models ought to be considered and claiming that they have already or are about to vanquish Darwinism (whatever that is). Likewise, claiming that the existence of such gaps is a possibility does not require believing that they are a religious necessity. A demand for scientifically detectable gaps often translates into a denial of supernatural involvement in non-gaps, which is contrary to the views of most religions.
They also tend to claim that evolutionary science and related fields reflects an anti-religious bias. Unfortunately people like Dawkins give them plenty of quotes as "proof" of this, which is why it's particularly important to point out that evolution is compatible with a wide range of religious and non-religious views.
The current ID movement mainly reflects the efforts of individuals associated with the Discovery Institute, such as Philip Johnson, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Michael Behe. Johnson, a lawyer, seems particularly responsible for promoting the use of OK-sounding language in legislation to promote an attack on evolution. Although generally more sophisticated than the standard bad young earth arguments, their arguments range from unproven to fictitious. The exact argument also varies greatly. In addition to major theological differences (Wells claims that Rev. Moon is the Messiah), Dembski and Johnson tend to claim a total repudiation of evolution (sometimes specified as macroevolution, which in antievolutionist usage is defined as "any evolution I don't believe in"), whereas Behe seems to claim that the first cell or cells were created directly and everything evolved from there. Ironically, the latter is the claim made in latter editions of the Origin of Species, so Behe
is not a good disproof of Darwin.
A complication is the frequency with which young earthers have taken up ID claims without recognizing the differences with their own position (in particular, most ID advocates accept an old earth). As a result, ID and young-earth claims are often mixed together in a given set of claims (e.g., the Muslim antievolutionist Harun Yahya has borrowed from both).
From the religious perspective, another problem of the ID movement is the frequency of accusations that people who disagree with them must not be good Christians.
A particular inconsistency is their simultaneous attempt to represent themselves as defenders of the faith and as objective scientists. The latter claim is adopted, e.g., when trying to push legislation; the former, when trying to get support from the faithful.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Partial index: