Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

wandeljw wrote:

Quote:

The divisiveness of intelligent design policies points to a dangerous trend in which certain communities may be actively turning away from the wider culture, exacerbating existing conditions, and creating new ones.

Source: Kevin Trowel, "Divided by Design: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Intelligent Design, and Civic Education", The Georgetown Law Journal, March 2007.

I don't know how to comment on that Wand. It's lacking enough context to know what his [Kevin's] point is. Sorry.

Because the theory of intelligent design offers a choice between science and religion, its emergence has had a deeply polarizing "us versus them" effect on American society.

.... therapy has replaced religion as the "opium of the people",
distracting those in distress from taking more useful steps to resolve unhappiness such as seeking support from friends and family, or making radical changes in their lives.

...taking responsibility for oneself or "moral therapy" from a tough-minded friend or priest.

Intelligent Design is not science: why this matters
(By John Wise, SMU Daily Opinion Section, May 4, 2007)

Because science gives us methods to accurately understand and manipulate the world we live in. Few people would dispute that our present scientific understanding of the physical world has led to a tremendously long list of advances in medicine, technology, engineering, the structure of the universe and the atom, and on and on. The list is nearly endless, but it does not include everything. Science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces. Miracles are extra-ordinary events; gods are super-natural beings.

Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made for the existence of God? Certainly. Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made that God does not exist? Yes. Is there scientific evidence that answers either of these great questions one way or another? None that holds up to close scrutiny. Collins has no more scientific evidence that God exists than Dawkins has that God does not. Their evidence is philosophical, not scientific. Philosophy can encompass these issues, science cannot.

This actually matters and is important. If we call ID science, we will have to redefine science to include supernatural causes and effects. The usefulness of science stems from the predictable action of the laws of nature and the strict rules regarding testable hypotheses. If you modify the definition of science to include unpredictable supernatural forces, magic and miracles, the utility of science will be lost because we won't be able to form reasonable predictions from what we observe in the natural world. No reverent believer would presume to know what goes on in the mind of God, so how can the actions of God be predicted? For science to progress and maintain its usefulness, it needs to be limited to the laws of nature.

The Discovery Institute and the ID proponents that visited our campus this April are busy right now attempting to redefine science to include supernatural causes and effects.

******************************************

These redefinitions of science will damage the utility of the sciences, medicine and countless other technical fields. This is why it matters and why so many scientists in our country (and at SMU) are worried.

The politics of this "redefinition" movement has a long history. Twenty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in a case referred to as Edwards v. Aguillard "struck down the teaching of creation science … because it embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of mankind." Many ID proponents, including The Daily Campus contributing writers Sarah Levy and Anika Smith, have asserted that "because Intelligent Design does not try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer, this test does not apply to Intelligent Design." This is a critical assertion for the ID proponents. They are saying that ID is different from creationism and therefore the Supreme Court's rulings should not apply.

Judge Jones mentions a "creationist text" in his opinion that has become very relevant to this point. The book, "Of Pandas and People," was intended to be a high-school textbook that presented the Intelligent Design doctrine as science and was proposed by the Dover Board of Education as an alternative to the Dover students' approved biology textbook. In a brilliant move made by Eric Rothschild, a subpoena for all documents and drafts related to the Intelligent Design "Pandas" work and its Creationism predecessor text, "Biology and Origins," was served on the book's Richardson publisher. After losing their bid to quash the subpoena, the publisher surrendered a number of early, unpublished versions of the books to the court. A comparison of these original drafts with the actual published versions shows that the words "creationist" or "creationism" were simply substituted with "Intelligent Designer" or "Intelligent Design" just as if a word processor search-and-replace function did the job.

The date when this "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" big switch happened is absolutely damning to Ms. Levy and Smith's assertion that Intelligent Design and Creationism are not one and the same. The "switch" occurred in 1987, just weeks after the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard ruled that creationism was religion and not science, and could not be taught in public schools. No wonder Judge Jones wrote in his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion that "ID is creationism re-labeled".

So yes, Edwards v. Aguillard certainly does apply. The ID proponents have literally provided all of the needed evidence themselves. (As Levy and Smith assert, it truly is a good thing when your opponents make your points for you.) Simply changing the name from "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" changes none of the logic, relevance or the impact that the Edwards v. Aguillard decision had on the creationist movement and now has on Intelligent Design. Neither one is science. Both have been determined to be religious because they both require a supernatural creator or designer.

*********************************

The foundations of Intelligent Design are in politics and religion, not science. The nature of what we have learned about our physical world does not have to conflict with our faith and understanding of the spiritual domain. Don't let your faith become dependent on the politics of flawed pseudoscience.

Simply changing the name from "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" changes none of the logic, relevance or the impact that the Edwards v. Aguillard decision had on the creationist movement and now has on Intelligent Design.

How, ultimately, can we speak of great performances in the language of mind, when, by the nature of performing, their greatness lies in their ability to communicate synergistically, to supercede the intellect and impact the entire person of the recipient? Dance,theater, music--all the performing arts-- have the power to create a link between living beings that is too immediate, too alive, too complex to be codified in linear, rational, primarily thought-based terms.

The whole essence of religion is that "synergistical communication" and that "link between living beings".

The whole essence of religion is that "synergistical communication" and that "link between living beings". Anti-IDers are out to break that link (divide and conquer) for commercial reasons and possibly out of psychological need.

I would need to know what is meant by "living things" or get mystical and I don't do mystical. I do keeping the lights on and the beer flowing for our great-grandsons.

Let's suppose, for a moment, that we allow intelligent design/creationism to be taught in the schools, without any resistance.

What the heck is a kid supposed to do with that kind of operational theory about the universe? How do you use put that theory into practical use? What kind of intelligent design lab experiments can you possibly perform? Pray over silver to implore a magical designer to turn it to gold?

The fact is, the religious right has exploited the scientists' obligated willingness to say "I don't know". Instead of looking for more answers, ID proponents encourage us to stop, and to fill in those blanks with god. This aborts real scientific progress.

What I'm interested in someone telling me is this: How is intelligent design actually useful?

Mark