Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

timberlandko wrote:

george, that some might behave in immoral manner - even to the point of institutionalizing immoral practice of one sort or another, rationalizing and justifying the abberance, in no way says anything about morality itself, only its perversion.

Look at what amounts to the question you just posed, but from a slightly different perspective;

How can evil exist in God's world?


See the coincident absurdity?

You are merely changing the subject.

I'm willing to believe the socialization of (say) wolves may represent an element of natural selection. However I'm not aware of any "anti wolves" that consistently demonstrate opposite indeed almost suicidal behaviors.

I can imagine no evolutionary natural selection of such destructive behaviors either.

There is no doubt that natural selection is an observable, comprehensible process that occurs among self-replecating organisms, or that it is the force driving the differentiation of species The key part of this phrase is self-replecating organisms. Evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of life or the DNA molecule, and it certainly cannot explain the concept of morality - and the observable human deviations from it - that you assert.

Spendius, I like you and usually enjoy your posts, but I also think you are deliberately putting forward an incomprehensible and inconsistent set of arguments merely to prolong the debate.

I also believe it is both useful and meaningful to separate the question of religion from that of the existence of a creator.

Timber appears to assert that there is an absolute morality that is necessarily a byproduct (or even a direct product) of evolution.

Here we have the crux of the problem, illustrated by the religionist's arrogant insistence upon there being some ultimate answer or purpose. That itself is a proposition which falls, inherently and inescapably, to the logical flaw of principio principii - begging the question, circular reasoning; "it must be therefore it is" ... just about the only problem to be found in Aquinas' elegant, and even today unequalled, Summa.

Science makes no assertion concerning "How it first came to be", it merely explains how and why it works in the manner it is observed to work.

We evidently agree that science does not, and is not likely to ever explain the origin of life and the cosmos, but that it does indeed offer refutable hypotheses and theories for the explanation of the observable processes within it. This then admits the possibility of intelligent design at some level. I agree, it certainly doesn't require it. However the alternative is itself beyond understanding. This is the central point that virtually all of the heated debate on this thread has missed. Evolution and science do not compete with intelligent design any more than they compete with the philosophical view that questions about the origin of the cosmos are meaningless. The whole political debate both here and in the public arena would vanish if the protagonists of secularism in education would (1) insist on teachiong science as science and not philosophy and (2) acknowledging the open state of the questions concerning our origins and the fact that science does not provide - or attempt to provide an answer to it.

As far as intelligent design being an open question, it depends on whether you are referring to cosmic intelligent design or biological intelligent design. As a scientific hypothesis, biological intelligent design has been fairly well refuted. Natural selection remains the best explanation for biological diversity.

...What philosophers may think is inconsequential, a red herring, really, as is any question of penultimate origin either of the cosmos or of life on this planet - at discussion is ID's preposterous claim to be science of any sort - a proposition for which no valid, legitimate case may be made; ID by definition and unambiguous self-stated mission is a theophilosophic excersize, with if anything even less claim to consideration as science than has astrology.

That there be a political debate, that there would be those who advocate teaching mythology alongside and coequal with science well illustrates the pernicious, deceitful agenda of Fundamentalist Christian activists. ...

The whole political debate both here and in the public arena would vanish if the protagonists of secularism in education would (1) insist on teaching science as science and not philosophy and (2) acknowledging the open state of the questions concerning our origins and the fact that science does not provide - or attempt to provide an answer to it.

Evolution theory on last legs, says seminary teacher
(By Dylan T. Lovan, ASSOCIATED PRESS, April 2, 2006)

LOUISVILLE - To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won't matter in a decade. By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.

The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he thinks the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won't be able to supply the answers. "I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said.

Dembski is one of the country's leading proponents of intelligent design, which asserts that certain features of living organisms are best explained by an intelligent cause. The ideas put forth by Dembski's movement have piqued the interest of some school boards, churches and politicians -- including Kentucky's governor and President Bush.

But biologists call Dembski's statements on the death of evolution absurd. They say intelligent design, or ID, has failed as a science, so its supporters are trying to foster interest in a receptive public.

Dembski, who holds a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, teaches a course on intelligent design at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. He calls Darwinian evolution "viscerally unacceptable" to most Americans. "It is a reasonable question to ask if there are patterns in biological systems that point us to intelligence," he said in an interview. "It is a reasonable question to ask what are the limits to evolutionary mechanisms."

Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher called design by an intelligent source a "self-evident truth" in his annual State of the Commonwealth address in January. Fletcher has said he would encourage schools to teach the concept.

That is despite a December ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as science in Dover, Pa., schools.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones wrote that "overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Jones found intelligent design failed as a scientific theory because it can't be tested.

"He pretty much pegged it for what it was," said James Krupa, an associate biology professor at the University of Kentucky. "It really should just be called God theory."

Krupa said evolution science is not dying. "It's the driving force, it's the foundation of all biology," said Krupa, who teaches evolution courses at UK. "Natural selection and evolution theory are getting stronger and stronger."

For the American public, opinions on evolution vary. According to a 2004 Gallup poll, about 35 percent of Americans think Darwin's theory is well-supported by evidence, another 35 percent said it is not, and 29 percent said they didn't know enough about it.

Several state legislatures are considering bills critical of the traditional teaching of evolution in the classroom. Legislators in Oklahoma and Missouri have introduced measures to change science teaching standards. In Nevada, a masonry contractor has introduced a constitutional amendment that says there are many questions about evolution.

"It's an ongoing debate; I'm not surprised that the public tends to be somewhat interested in it," said Rob Crowther, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which funds intelligent design research.

That debate is fueled by a belief that Darwinian evolution is linked to atheism, said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education and a former UK professor. "This is actually, I think, key to understanding this whole controversy in this country: people think that because science restricts itself to a natural cause, it's therefore saying that God had nothing to do with it," Scott said.

Dembski and other proponents say intelligent design is in its infancy and not yet ready to be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom. Crowther said the Discovery Institute actually opposed the actions by the Pennsylvania school board that brought the federal court case. "People assume that we must be actively and aggressively seeking for intelligent design to be put in the classroom, and that's not our position," he said. "What should be required in a classroom is more about evolution, and by that we mean students should be able to learn not only the evidence that supports it but also some of the criticisms of the theory."

That is enough for now, Dembski said. "I guess I would say that even though intelligent design has a long way to go, it seems to me evolutionary theory is so problematic that just about any alternative that's scientific, or has the possibility (of being scientific) should be allowed on the table," he said.

Wishful thinking on Dembski's part.

That is enough for now, Dembski said. "I guess I would say that even though intelligent design has a long way to go, it seems to me evolutionary theory is so problematic that just about any alternative that's scientific, or has the possibility (of being scientific) should be allowed on the table," he said.

When science is taught without any philosophical context, it is them, by default, being advanced as philosophy. This is the case in our public schools.

Assuming that when you write "ID-iocy", you refer specifically to the substitution of bibliacal formulas for the theory of evolution in sciencs classes, then I agree. However many here have used such phrases with much broader intent.

You should also acknowledge that postulated secular humanism, like postulated biblical lore, is likewise "about denial, avoidance, fear, and superstition" - merely denial of different things; avoidance of different questions; fear of different possibilities; and superstitions with different idols. It too is " a perversion of both (science and philosophy), a fabric made of mischaracterizations crosswoven with ignorane; it seeks not to answer questions, not to discover, it seeks to bring and end to questioning, to end the voyages of discovery".

Do that, and I will fully agree.

To this I casnnot agree; the objective presentation of documented, verifiable, testable fact is the objective presentation of documented, verifiable, testable fact, without philosophy or agenda beyond truth and its pursuit, regardless which or who's philosophy and/or adherents may self-perceive thereby to be threatened.

Yes, when I refer to ID-iocy, I specifically indicate and disparage the return-to-medeival-thought agenda of bible-thumpers.

Here we have great basis for agreement and shared perception; many on both sides twist fact and truth to suit their own agenda.

I call to your attention the simple historic fact that throughout humankind's tenure on this planet, no cause been the occasion for and rationalization of more bloodshed, destruction, suffering, repression, and horror than The Will of God/the gods.