Stephen Barr seems to blame the movement in mathematics and philosophy of science called intelligent design for what its opponents and naive proponents have tried to make of it. He begins his article with the conclusion that nothing of scientific value can ever emerge from the study of intelligent design. Surely by now we should all know better than to make such sweeping statements of condemnation before the intellectual study of intelligent design has run its course. The study of intelligent design raises a number of difficult questions. For example, what is "design"? We all think we know it when we see it, but that is hardly a satisfactory answer. What is it that we know when we see? Do we know chaos when we see it? Maybe so, but what is the mathematical difference between design and chaos? Once we have a grasp on design -- if indeed there is such a thing -- what makes a design intelligent as opposed to ... well, as opposed to what? In other words, what is the opposite of intelligent with reference to a design? We might very well conclude that intelligent design can emerge without the direct causal presence of intelligence. The creator of a closed system in which intelligent design could emerge without the direct causal presence of intelligence is someone I would like to know.

Thank you. Hopefully the irenic tone will help, and it's nice to get a pointer to a more constructive alternative approach. Odd to think that the bigger flaw in the argument is based in a shallow understanding of history and theology, not science.

Thank you, Prof. Barr. A similar debate raged in the 18th century between the descendants of Newton and various Christians -- some of whom rejected Newton altogether (the "Hutchinsonians"), while others (notably, the deists) simply modified their faith with each new claim of science. In between those two, the poet Christopher Smart offered a new beginning -- with the experience of awe and beauty. That experience was common to scientist, theologian, and poet in the 18th century and remains so today. It's an analogical procedure, of course, but a powerful one. And it gives a platform for speaking with virtually every scientist-Christian, atheist, or agnostic.

While I certainly do not want to offer a general apology for Intelligent Design (which is a broad enough tent to cover many different persuasions), it might be useful just to take stock of the whopper Mr. Barr so blithely assumes. He assumes without argument at all that Intelligent Design itself is not science, and so unsurprisingly enough is able to pit ID against science! But this is a whopper precisely because the chief proponents of ID have insisted, with tiresome repition (and apparently to an obtusely deaf audience) that there is nothing about ID itself which makes it non-scientific or pseudo-scientific, let alone theological. ID is NOT the idea that you can infer the existence of God from the limitations of science. Rather, ID is the idea that there are scientifically and philosophically respectable ways in which one can infer that a given effect is the outcome of intelligent input (design, in short). It claims nothing as a proper part of ID itself as to the nature of the designing intelligence, and every worthwhile proponent of ID has insisted on this point from the very beginning. All Barr has done is repeat the rather silly slander that ID is based on inferring the hand of God Almighty from the causal and explanatory gaps in our normal scientific efforts.
Shame on you, Mr. Barr. You ought to know better. Certainly it has been pointed out to you repetedly that this is not the case. We make design inferences every day, as I do when I infer that these very scribbles I am responding to are the product of a designing intelligence. And, what's more, there is a logic and a validity to such inferences, such that they indeed are or can be rationally respectable by even the most stringest criteria. The question as to whether a given data set is best explained as the result of a designing intelligence or a chance process is a perfectly legitimate question which has nothing obvious to do with natural theology or the limitations of science. It is a question within the domain of science itself.
Has ID done something useful from a scientific point of view? I don't really know. But one thing it has done is clear up the logic of design inferences in general and made us aware of the holes in standarly accepted Darwinian and other stories.
On the positive side, you are no doubt right that very few religious sceptics have been won over by ID. But perhaps this is not a numbers game. At least not yet. At least one very prominent religious sceptic has quite publicly professed a deep change of mind about these matters, and in no small measure precisely because of the sorts of considerations ID proponents bring to bear. I am talking of Antony Flew. It might be premature to judge that ID has contributed absolutely nothing scientifically. It might indeed contribute quite significantly to opening up the closed-mindedness that exists among scientistically-minded intellectuals, and thereby enable them to look a little beyond their usual comfort zone for satisfying explanations.

I think the author misses the point of ID. Its only purpose is to show the weaknesses in Darwinian theory, and suggest a better answer for the First First Thing. With the collapse of AGW, it seems like the perfect time to humble the new faith of Science. The American public has been fooled by the new prophets in their lab coats for far too long. ID has highlighted what few now know, that Darwinian theory is not fact. There is also a societal benefit from the weakening of Social Darwinisn and its destructive habits. If ID doesn't do it, then who will? The science community is complicit in the fraud that is being foisted on the public. Someone needs to stand up to it, and I'm glad the Discovery Institute is.

I tend to agree, but there's one thing missing in the article, IMHO. The consideration of the chance that ID is right. Because if it's correct, the opinion of scientists would be generally irrelevant. (I know, it doesn't seem so.)

The title of the article should be for example "Intelligent Design is Bad for Apostolate," because this is the autor's point, not the correctness of ID.

This is a very helpful article Stephen. Thanks so much for it. It breaks my heart to think of all those who see following Christ as a rejection of pursuing the questions of science. Many decide not to follow Christ because they feel that they feel that they must be dishonest in regards to science. This should not be, and ID has done a lot to continue this false dichotomy between science and Christian faith.

I'm starting to see intelligent design arguments as potentially heretical as well as scientifically vapid. By focusing on these yet unexplained aspects of Creation, they seem to want to separate the natural world from the supernatural actions of God. The problem is that Christian theology has always been clear that all of nature is Creation, and that we don't have to infer design using some filter, because the heavens declare the glory of God, and Christ upholds all of Creation. The whole of Creation is designed, not only some tiny specific (and seemingly random) aspects of Creation that some term irreducibly or specifically complex. Sure, there are events when God acts in a special way in history to bring about certain ends (Incarnation, the miraculous, etc.), but the distinction that ID makes between the natural events and the supernatural events tends to deny that everything natural is part of God's Creation, constantly upheld by Him and declaring His glory.

This is an important and crystal clear summary of the significance of the Intelligent Design movement. What I have found -in trying to make similar arguments, though without the elegance and scientific clarity so brilliantly possessed by Barr - is that there is ample public confusion over design (1) as a conceptual imposition on biology (ID) and design (2) as a respectable way of describing the broad underlying basis for the entire physical universe. As Barr implies, both ID advocates and their loud atheist opponents have exploited this fine distinction - with all the sorry results that have torn faith from culture. Stephen, when is your next book coming out?

Great post, Steve -- long overdue. It seems to me that the great and serious concern for Young Earth Creationists is this: How do we explain the Fall in light of evolutionary theory? If death and chaos reigned before man's arrival, what does this do to Christian theology? No fall, no need for redemption. No need for redemption, no need for a savior -- or so the argument goes.

And if there was an all-wise, sovereign Creator with a specific plan for the birth of beings who bore his likeness and who were to spend eternity with him, why did it take so long for such a creature to make his appearance on the earth? Why were there so many tangents and false starts? Why does evolutionary biology appear so "hit and miss"?

What we need is a theology of "creation" that takes into account what we know (and what we still don't know) about earth's natural origins and human common descent. The church weathered the storms of the 16th and 17th centuries -- in which it was learned that Earth was not the center of the universe and that a static sun could not have "stopped" in the middle of the sky (Joshua 10:13). It must continue to accommodate an ever-growing body of scientific knowledge -- even one as "threatening" as evolution. Otherwise, the nonsensical rift between God the Creator and God the Savior will continue to widen, and we will be left the false choice of scientific obscurantism and materialism/naturalism--and all the ugly consequences.

I know Francis Collins is busy collating ideas on this subject on his BioLogos website, but we also need serious, academically impeachable and theologically astute long-form contributions as well.

Ahem...

As one who studied theoretical physics under Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine in the early '60s, I respect Professor Barr's opinion -- and have in the past appreciated much of his writing. I walked away from this article a bit perplexed, however, as to the principal objective of the piece. Was it to point out that Christians would be better served by eschewing the logic and claims of ID? Or was it that Christians would have more friends in the scientific community if they would abandon ID? Perhaps it was both. The piece did not, however, deal with criticism of ID on its merits, which, it would seem to me, should be the basis for determination of how it should be viewed -- whether by the scientist or by the layman.

Respectfully,

CH Davis, PhD

I hate to call a slur, a slur -- but how do you address a movement, without actually looking at the impetus so near the heart of it's argument? This is due diligence?

Common descent is not based on _anything_ tangible, much beyond appeals to similar structures. You and so many others give evolution/common descent a pass for _no reason_ beyond a dogmatic commitment. No one understands, or more importantly can demonstrate, how to make the limited choices available to natural selection FUNCTION to the faintest degree necessary to build the structures we observe. This is not my opinion, this is the state of the art. Mutations "might" do this, the flagellum "could" have a part in another system that "maybe" could have developed from through "some sort of" mutation/duplication/transfer.

Is that science? No, that's an imaginary process holding up a dogmatic position.

It is the burden of Evolution or Common Descent to demonstrate viability before we cast aspersion on people for not accepting those hypothesis as proven, demonstrable, "science." What the ID movement has hammered away at since I've been paying attention, is this simple fact: common descent has no proven, functional process that can do the heavy lifting that we need to build life, or much of anything else. Where they go from there, is fair enough to criticize, but the fact that common descent fundamentally rests on an imaginary process, should be enough to allow room for their criticism. A lot of room.

That few listen to their argument (IDs) is due to don't-look-at-the-wizard-behind-the-curtain intellectual agitprop, like this article. I guess if we all ignore what common descent _doesn't_ have to rest upon, it will just go away? You could drive the universe through the hole in common descent's shortcomings, and time and again, we are all implicitly asked to ignore the obvious. There's no there there, yet it is passed off as "well-defended redoubts of modern science". And you, and too few others, aren't even intellectually honest enough to admit it.

It is, and will be impossible to address this subject fairly, until the day comes when that honesty is forthcoming. Not a day sooner -- the rest is a hard, sly, sell.

When I see sly misdirection away from the dirt-simple, patently, tautologically, obvious -- I reach for my wallet. Going whoring after idols on false pretense, solely to service the spirit of the age, without the very proof of the "science" you claim to represent -- is laughable, poor, disingenuous form.

Thank you for giving me another reason, not to renew my subscription.

I don’t live inside the Academy, as does Prof. Barr, but I have no doubt that it’s most uncomfortable and embarrassing for a man of science like himself, who is also a man of faith, to have to explain to his colleagues fringe beliefs like Young Earthers. I sympathize. It’s shocking to me as well that 21st century men and women could be so self-deluded. Yet the problem I have with Prof. Barr’s argument is that “science” seems to exist for him on some pristine altar of methodical objectivity. Please. That once-hallowed image—whether or not it was deserved—has long since been tarnished. Witness, for just a recent example, the ongoing scandals in regard to the IPCC and global warming—a stark case wherein science’s supposed objectivity has been revealed to be, in fact, apparently servile to a type of faith, and a faith with a political agenda, no less. One is tempted to conclude that there really is no “science,” per se, only scientists—who are as prey to prejudice, corruption, venality, and institutional bias as the rest of humanity. In my opinion, it is the scientific establishment’s own militant, dogmatic stance in regard to Darwinism—which was only a theory, after all, as Darwin proposed it, which, like all scientific theories, needed to be proved—that has spawned the reaction (okay, over-reaction) that became the ID movement. As ID folks are so fond of pointing out, Darwin himself asserted that unless the Pre-Cambrian Explosion could be explained with hard evidence from the fossil record, his theory of the descent of man and the slow, gradual evolution of all life from a common ancestor would fall apart. In 150 years, despite endless attempts to find it, said proof remains stubbornly elusive. Now, did the ID movement jump to its own conclusions about this failure with unseemly glee? No doubt. But likewise, to an outside observer such as myself, it seems the scientific community, faced with its failure, has been unwilling to even entertain the outrageous “heresy” that perhaps the theory of evolution is flawed, incomplete, or in need of a re-boot. Why? One can only assume it’s because such an admission would assault their “faith” in the dogma of Darwinism. If Darwin were alive today, I bet he would be overthrowing the money-changers’ tables, outraged at how they have disgraced the Temple of Science.

The common thread running through all the comments critical of Barr is the same one running through attacks on AGW: outright denial. Barr's most damning indictment is right there in the first paragraph: "there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists." And not a single critic has given a counterexample. Not one.

I've read a literal bushel basket of literature on this stuff, vastly more than I daresay the average ID enthusiast has, and I will say this: it IS pseudoscience. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box is merely God of the Micro-Gaps, full of fallacious arguments and shifting definitions.

Science has methodological and personal biases, but science also has corrective mechanisms. It can demand replication of results. I permits attacks by skeptics. When the skeptics are mostly incompetent, like AGW skeptics, their objections are ignored, as they should be. Religion would prosper if it were more open to correction. In fact, my definition of a cult is any religion that is closed to outside correction by skeptics.

To Chris Olsen, who says, "He begins his article with the conclusion that nothing of scientific value can ever emerge from the study of intelligent design. Surely by now we should all know better than to make such sweeping statements..." I do know better than to make such sweeping statements as the one you attribute to me, which is precisely why I did not make it. I did not say "nothing ... CAN ever emerge", I said it is not "likely".

To Francis Williamson, who says, "He assumes without argument at all that Intelligent Design itself is not science." ID is not "natural science" as that has been understood for a long time. Science is often subdivided in the "natural sciences", such as physics, chemistry, astronomy, and geology, and the "social sciences" or human sciences, such as psychology, anthropology, and economics. Different types of explanations are accepted as reasonable in different fields. The social and human sciences certainly explain phenomena by attributing them to the decisions of rational agents --- specifically human beings. That is not the kind of explanation that has been used in natural science for a long time. Let's take an example. Suppose someone thought stonehenge was a natural geological formation. He might try to explain it by various natural processes, such as wind erosion, or the movement of large rocks by glaciers, and so forth. He would be doing geology, a natural science.
If, however, by a "design inference", he were to conclude that stonehenge was man-made, it would no longer fall to natural science to explain it. It would become the province of archeology, or anthropology, history, and the other social sciences. In other words, a design inference of the ID type is natural science only a purely negative sense, i.e. it the inference that something lies beyond the competence of natural science to explain, and belongs to a different kind of discipline.

May the ID people be right in saying that bacterial flagellum, or the blood clotting system, etc. cannot be explained by the kinds of explanations given in natural science (as traditionally understood)? I didn't deny it --- in fact, I said that the idea is "not intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong". Unfortunately, as I said, proving that such structures cannot be accounted for by conventional types of natural explanation is a very hard thing to do; I would say --- indeed did say --- "in practice, impossible." In any event, ID hasn't so far come anywhere near to proving it. So even as a purely negative contribution to natural science, i.e. a demonstration that something lies outside the competence of natural science, ID has so far not achieved anything. That was my point --- see the first lines of my article.

Now it may or may not be a good thing to redraw the boundaries of "natural science" so as to include the "intelligent designer" as a hypothesis WITHIN natural science, i.e. as a positive contribution to natural science. I don't think it would be a good thing, for various reasons, but that is not the focus of my article.

To David, you are half right: The title of my article could be ""Intelligent Design is Useless for Science and Bad for Apostolate."

To Kyle, ID is not at all "heretical", even potentially. But I think it does tend to misdirect people on certain theological subjects.

To Anthony Sacramone: Hi. we miss you. And, if that "ahem" is directed at me, let me just say, I am working on it...

To Roger Dubin, You are absolutely right about the weaknesses of scientists.
The dogmatism of many scientists about evolutionary questions is indeed deplorable. That dogmatism is partly explained by ideological prejudice, and partly by fear that if any concession is made to even reasonable criticisms of evolutionary theory it will open the door to exploitation by Young Earth Creationists. The extremes feed off each other.

Mr. Barr seems rather irritated over the Intelligent Design movement. I notice that his main objection to it is whether or not ID has done any good? He obviously and passionately does not think so. The scientific world, as Barr notes, has been in a state of "exasperation with creationists" as well as fending off Young Earth creationists.
First, I must answer, what good has ID done? Maybe it provided another alternative to view life as opposed to a strict naturalism that scientists have embraced for a long time now. Francis Williamson notes, Antony Flew has apparently turned from atheism to, at least, deism. Hopefully, Flew will make a full fledged turn into Christianity. Paul's preaching on Mars Hill attracted a few converts, but a few is enough for me. I would say Paul's message did some good.
Second, I could care less about the exasperation of scientists with creationists. Barr wants to say he has religious faith and be a scientist. That's fine, but I imagine there were times when his religious faith flustered his own peers in the scientific community. Does that mean he should abandon being a creationist because his peers are "exasperated"? How often, over the years, have the evolutionist, naturalist scientists "exasperated" the Christian community, Mr. Barr? A community in which you appear or want to be a member? Deal with ID on its own terms not whether or not they exasperate the scientific community. The scientific community is not God nor are they exempt from criticism especially if it might possibly be relevant criticism.
Third, C.S. Lewis and Etienne Gilson had a, I believe, great perspective about science and its role. Gilson touched on the matter in his "God and Philosophy" and "The Spirit of Thomism". Gilson realized that a philosopher and theologian cannot be "expected to master the scientific techniques" of positive science. However, "the business of the scientist is not to provide a clear philosophical elucidation of the principles involved in his own scientific theories." Let scientists deal with what they obsereve in their experiments. Yet, when it comes to the beginning of the universe, they need to recognize that they have to leave to scientific community and philosophize when they engage in such questions. It is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical one.

Steve:

Ahem. It was...

Being on the opposite side of most readers of this journal, I can't help but bemoan the general lack of scientific literacy exhibited by so many of the commenters and of the apologists for the ID movement. There is as great a lack of scientific literacy amongst the ID apologists as there is a lack of religious literacy among the "new atheists" (I'm an old atheist myself)

I searched Professor Barr's article for his affirmation of evolution and in particular, theistic evolution. I don't think he mentioned these but it seems obvious that this is what he means by his use of the word "science". Those theories are bunk.

Like creation science, much ID teaching is in fact heretical, though in both cases it stems at least as much from carelessness as from actually holding heretical views. The heresy, like that of the Galatian judaizers, is making something else besides Christ the central issue. Creation science and ID regularly judge on the basis of acceptance of their views on science, not on fruit of the Spirit. Thus, we get the anomaly of Jonathan Wells, who claims that Jesus failed and Rev. Moon is the true messiah, being marketed as a Christian apologist. Of course, there's nothing wrong with working with people of different religions; the problem is that creation science and ID both claim to be presenting the only Christian approach and claim to be purely scientific with no prior religious agenda. Another symptom of a wrong theological priority is the lack of concern for quality and accuracy. Whether a claim supports what one wants to believe about science gets made more important than whether it is true and well-done.
The underlying problem is that it is approaching things the wrong way around. If we know God, we can see His hand in all of creation.
Another particular problem about ID is that its identity is unclear. A self-identified "big tent" will contain a range of views. But ID markets itself in contradictory ways rather than admitting to a range of views. For example, some in the ID movement completely deny common descent; others completely accept it; and others are in-between. Is ID about detection of design, about attacking evolution, about claiming that design is reasonable to look for, or what?
From the scientific end, the fundamental problem is that the proposed means for looking for design don't work, either because the test for design is flawed or because the necessary data are unavailable. Irreducible complexity, specified complexity, etc. are not based on a systematic consideration of known "designed" and "undesigned" objects, nor are they based on fields where such questions are actually investigated (e.g., the past few months I have been helping with an achaeology dig, having to decide whether a particular rock is an artifact or just a rock). Rather, they sound rather like an attempt to describe complex biochemical systems and define them as designed. Fine-tuning arguments rely ultimately on unknown probabilities. In such a case, there may be a place for a "common sense" plausibility argument. Moreover, multiverse or other arguments against fine-tuning equally reflect unknown probabilities. Without any direct evidence about the characteristics of a random set of universes, we can't scientifically tell whether ours is unusual. But claiming to be scientific sounds more impressive to many people.

Though Mr. Dutch is defending me, I must disagree with him. I don't think ID is "pseudo-science" (unlike Young Earth Creationism, which IS pseudoscience).
Pseudo-science is characterized by claims that are grossly in conflict with scientific facts. ID is saying that darwinian mechanisms cannot explain certain complex phenomena. While they haven't demonstrated that, neither can anyone at this stage prove them wrong.

Are AGW "deniers" mostly "incompetents", as Mr. Dutch says? Is he talking about "deniers" among the general public? If so, then most AGW "believers" have no more competence in climatology than most AGW "deniers". Therefore, I assume Mr. Dutch is talking about scientists. There are highly competent scientists who are skeptical about the extent of AGW, such as Richard S. Lindzen of MIT, one of the top climatologists in the world, and Will Happer of Princeton. For their trouble, they have been subject to all sorts of abuse and defamation.

It would be comforting to think that the only reason the scientific community ever ignores criticism of its theories is that it comes from incompetents. Unfortunately, the history of science provides many counter-examples. It is true that science is self-correcting. But the self-correction sometimes takes a long time, during which good ideas may be ignored or suppressed, and careers destroyed. I have met quite a few very good scientists who are quite skeptical of the extent of AGW, but most keep their views to themselves. It is not a healthy climate right now in the scientific world when it comes to the AGW issue. AGW has become such a "progressive cause", that ideology has begun to to distort the ordinary processes of scientific discussion.

Just out of curiosity, have any of you read "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design" ?

R. Durbin wrote:

"I don’t live inside the Academy, as does Prof. Barr, but I have no doubt that it’s most uncomfortable and embarrassing for a man of science like himself, who is also a man of faith, to have to explain to his colleagues fringe beliefs like Young Earthers. I sympathize. It’s shocking to me as well that 21st century men and women could be so self-deluded. Yet the problem I have with Prof. Barr’s argument is that “science” seems to exist for him on some pristine altar of methodical objectivity. Please. That once-hallowed image—whether or not it was deserved—has long since been tarnished. Witness, for just a recent example, the ongoing scandals in regard to the IPCC and global warming—a stark case wherein science’s supposed objectivity has been revealed to be, in fact, apparently servile to a type of faith, and a faith with a political agenda, no less. One is tempted to conclude that there really is no “science,” per se, only scientists—who are as prey to prejudice, corruption, venality, and institutional bias as the rest of humanity. In my opinion, it is the scientific establishment’s own militant, dogmatic stance in regard to Darwinism—which was only a theory, after all, as Darwin proposed it, which, like all scientific theories, needed to be proved—that has spawned the reaction (okay, over-reaction) that became the ID movement. As ID folks are so fond of pointing out, Darwin himself asserted that unless the Pre-Cambrian Explosion could be explained with hard evidence from the fossil record, his theory of the descent of man and the slow, gradual evolution of all life from a common ancestor would fall apart. In 150 years, despite endless attempts to find it, said proof remains stubbornly elusive. Now, did the ID movement jump to its own conclusions about this failure with unseemly glee? No doubt. But likewise, to an outside observer such as myself, it seems the scientific community, faced with its failure, has been unwilling to even entertain the outrageous “heresy” that perhaps the theory of evolution is flawed, incomplete, or in need of a re-boot. Why? One can only assume it’s because such an admission would assault their “faith” in the dogma of Darwinism. If Darwin were alive today, I bet he would be overthrowing the money-changers’ tables, outraged at how they have disgraced the Temple of Science."

A rather romantic and naive view of science, complete with an appeal to a golden age that never existed and scripture-like misciting of Darwin in an erroneous appeal to a supposed ultimate authority - hagiography.

Also completely ignores the enormous amount of work that has been done on evolution and what has been learned since Darwin and Wallace.

Science is not a static temple, it is an ongoing process - often a no holds barred brawl of ideas, hypotheses and theories with experimental evidence as the ultimate referee.

A commendable piece with commendable replies to your critics Dr. Barr. I would only emphasize a point on which I think we may agree--namely, that the ID movement was a reaction to the overreach of scientists into matters of philosophical inference. Thus, while I think your critiques of ID quite good. Many ID criticisms of mainstream science are also good. Moreover, the book that launched the movement, Johnson's Darwin on Trial, was in many respects on the money. The problem that gave birth to the ID movement was the attempt of many scientists to argue that "science" proper is committed to (or establishes) metaphysical naturalism OR, if not that, that it must assume a methodological naturalism--from which metaphysically naturalist conclusions were then drawn. Moreover, many a biologist has argued that Darwinian biology removes the need for a designer of any sort. The problem, of course, is that scientists not well trained in the art of philosophical inference nevertheless went on to make philosophical and theological inferences. So I would argue that the true father of the ID movement is the overreaching of scientists not trained in philosophy an logic into the realm of philosophy and logic (of course, some scientists, like Dr. Barr, are quite capable in philosophy). So I would suggest that the ID movement responded to a genuine problem even if they arguably then proceeded in the wrong direction. Perhaps inferences concerning design or lack there of should be addressed in philosophy rather than science. In which case while we should then move ID out of the science classroom, we should also seek the removal of biologists discussions of chance or teleology (i.e., their embrace of a virtually incoherent notion of chance and critique of a caricatured notion of teleology). Put another way, Darwin himself entered the realm of philosophy and theology in his primary works. Perhaps we should banish ID and a good deal of Darwinian pontification from the science classroom as well. It's a proposal to which I am becoming more and more amenable. Robert Miller has suggested something along these lines.

From SB: "ID is saying that darwinian mechanisms cannot explain certain complex phenomena. While they haven't demonstrated that, neither can anyone at this stage prove them wrong. "
--
--
That still ignores the elephant in the room -- it's muddying the waters at best. That and the subtext of this thread, implicitly give Evolution a pass where it deserves none.

Evolution is a much a matter of belief, as Young Earth Creationism. There is not remotest example of proving or rather _proofing_ Evolutionary mechanisms in practice, yet it is entertained as the answer to ALL life on Earth, and ALL life at every stage. There is no reason to start with that false premise -- outside of dogmatism. It is astonishing that evolution is assumed to be true without demonstration, and even more astonishing that anyone be implicitly demanded to defend their position against something as a "standard" -- assumed without proof.

This tentative theory is somehow entitled to be the "standard" for followers of Christ; yet Christ is presumed to be the dissembler or liar, based on something that can't be put into practice. "From the beginning He created them male and female" -- be _damned._

Does no one here see the primal, competing claims?

To Paul Krisak,

You don't explain what you mean by naturalism. "Metaphysical naturalism" is the view that only nature exists and only natural explanations are valid. No Christian can accept that, of course. (And, yes, I am a Christian, and more specifically a Catholic.) But to expect natural phenomena to have natural explanations is not the same thing at all. It is in no way contrary to Christian belief. (It is in no way contrary to the views of C.S. Lewis or Etienne Gilson, either, I might add.)

A Christian should not be "ashamed of the gospel", to use St. Paul's words. And if being faithful to the gospel entails exasperating some unbelievers, so be it. But that doesn't mean that in evangelizing unbelievers we are obligated to use the arguments that are least persuasive and most exasperating to them. I actually spend a considerable amount of time and effort trying to show people whose outlook has been shaped by modern science that belief in God is reasonable. So I cannot share the insouciance with which you write off unbelieving scientists, saying you "could[n't] care less" about their exasperation. Why did St. Paul, in speaking on the Areopagus, or Mars Hill, start with something that his audience already believed in, i.e. "an unknown God"? Why did he say, "in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of YOUR OWN POETS have said"? Was he not trying to take account of the mentality of his audience and find an opening by which the gospel might most easily penetrate their minds? He was trying to open their minds. I fear that ID has made many minds more closed.

It is my understanding that it was not primarily the ID arguments that converted Anthony Flew from atheism. Apparently the so-called "anthropic coincidences" in physics and cosmology played a larger role. Perhaps I am wrong about that.

To Professor Barr: Thank you so much for your incisive and well-reasoned response to many of the comments, including my own. I’m not sure why scientists would be concerned about gloating from Young Earth Creationists should they admit to any potential deficiencies in Darwinism; it seems to me that Young Earthers stigmatize themselves quite effectively every time they open their mouths.

But leaving that subject aside, your response to Mr. Dutch is spot on—by which I mean, of course, that your positions mirror my own. Indeed, we live in a time where demonization is the first-response technique for quashing dissent in politics, and it seems that science, sadly, is little better—even when the dissent is expressed by top, highly credentialed experts in the field in question. The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has become discredited in the minds of vast numbers of laymen such as myself precisely because of the political ideology that has been constructed around it, and the ludicrous assertions and distortions advanced by wing-nuts like Al Gore and his ilk.

Yet it’s the IPCC scandal that has really put the nail in the coffin. As a result of scientists behaving like fanatic advocates, a theory that may have SOME validity (though certainly it hasn’t been proved) has lost all credibility and become an international joke. Science as a whole had better watch out, because the next time such an alarm is raised it may well produce a collective yawn. Which could be a very bad thing indeed.

I agree with Barr that ID is not “science” in the ordinary sense, but as natural theology it makes considerable sense.

My quarrel with him is that he appears to accept “Darwinism” as science, when it is no more a real science than ID. Darwinism is the dogma that random variation and natural selection ALONE exhaustively explain evolution. There is no proof of this foundational proposition. As Steven Dutch commented: “science has corrective mechanisms. It can demand replication of results. It permits attacks by skeptics.” Darwinism has none of these. At best it is a working hypothesis until something more solid can be more firmly established.

We know “evolution” occurred, but not how. There is no real empirical support for Darwinist dogma, a variation of scientism. That rv and ns were the only force operating seems unlikely in view of all the logical problems Darwinism has encountered, making ID still as plausible as Darwinism.

Barr favors Darwinism because he is a scientist and scientists are (rightly, in the correct realms) operating materialists. But whether a biology that includes humanity can be a strictly material science in which non-material forces cannot operate is a basic question he will not confront. His unarticulated assumption is that all real science is materialist. Yet people like Karl Rahner defined theology as a science. Barr needs to go back to the drawing board.

This is a superb statement by Professor Barr and one that, frankly, needs to be taken up by others in the conservative media. With conservatism too easily stereotyped as anti-science, here's hoping the other editors at National Review, American Spectator etc will be more wary of the junk science and bad faith arguments they too often uncritically reproduce from the flaks at the Discovery Institute.

Stephen M. Bar said:
"I don't think ID is "pseudo-science" (unlike Young Earth Creationism, which IS pseudoscience). Pseudo-science is characterized by claims that are grossly in conflict with scientific facts."

Mr. Bar - I would submit from your own definition, that you are a pseudo scientist - because lots of what you have said conflicts with "scientific facts" and you base your reasoning majority opinion and the conclusion you feel comfortable with - so by what criteria can you claim to speak for Young Earth Creationism?

But putting that aside lets address the connection you made with "young earth creationism" and "claims that are grossly in conflict with scientific facts."

where are these claims that are in conflict with scientific facts?
or do you really mean they conflict with "scientists" who choose to believe a different set of explanations because the alternative is unthinkable?

A true scientist deals with what he has either observed or measured or calculated - and he is concerned with Accuracy and precision in these observations, measurements and calculations. He accepts very few assumptions and makes them clear when he does so people know that the conclusions he draws are based on these and can obviously be refuted if it is found the assumptions are wrong. no unknown mechanisms are inserted ie " a miracle occurs in step 2"

where do evolutionists ever do this? and if they do then its claimed the assumptions are based on other scientific areas and are not the concern of evolutionists even though they base their conclusions on them.

A common "claim" is made in evolutionary circles that a theory must have a mechanism and make predictions for it to be valid as if creationists don't provide this.
A famous Young earth Creationist Walter Brown has provided substantial mechanisms for the way the earth looks today and the claim that it is only thousands of years old. He has made over 30 SPECIFIC scientific predictions based on his theory - many have been proven to be true now. None have been proven to be false.

what has evolution predicted other than - the fit will survive!

If you want to see what he has said go to the website:
www.creationscience.com
I challenge you to defeat ANYTHING that Walter Brown puts forth in his hydroplate theory or at the VERY LEAST find something that evolutionary theory or "old earth" science as you call it explains better than any explanation he has made.
Specifically look at the "Hydroplate" section....

regarding so - called Facts that evolutionists say are "overwhelming"


The following points are Absolute FACTS:
No person has seen a canyon form in millions of years - but many people have seen canyons carved through solid rock in weeks, hours or even days at times. Its simple Geology!

No person has seen layered sediments build up over millions of year, but many people have seen sedimentary layers form the so called "geologic column" (complete with stacked animals based on their relative densities and "assumed" evolutionary order) in weeks, hours or even days at times. Its simple hydrologic science - liquefaction, hydrologic density sorting and stratified settling in fast flowing water. ie heavy insects settle first, then fish, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds. all drowned and buried in their respective layers.

No person has seen fossils or stalactites form in millions of years but many people have seen animals and plants become fossilized in weeks, hours or even days at times. Thousands of examples of 20th century Fossils exits. These are solid stone ie cowboy boots, bowlers hats, sparkplugs, etc. Its simple chemistry.

No person has seen pure layers of limestone or clay or any other PURE layer of a single substance hundreds of feet think form over millions of years - but we see this sort of thing every time there is a flood - and the scale depends on the scale of the flood that formed it.

No fossil is EVER dated by radiometric means. it is dated by the layer of rock that it is found in. No rock is ever dated by radiometric means - it is dated by the index fossils it contains. circular reasoning cannot be escaped in evolutionary dating methods. it is often swept under the carpet or explained away as insignificant. It is often claimed that fossils date the rocks but rocks can date fossils more accurately.

The ONLY mechanism for evolution is mutation.
No person has seen a mutation that is better equipped to survive on this planet that its non mutated variety. yet the theory is claimed as proven. this in itself is unscientific. Every case of mutation results in damage and decreased viability - the so-called examples of positive or beneficial mutations result in a decreased lifespan and fitness. eg sickle cell anemia & malaria - this is tantamount to saying you won't get arthritis if you have no fingers.

If it turns out life is designed rather than come about via a series of impossible coincidences, I'd say ID has increased the understanding of nature quite a bit.

Or if design was involved in the occurrence of biodiversity rather all being explained by random genomic changes fixed by natural selection, that would be another big benefit of ID.

ID does not reject evolution. It rejects pointlessness.

To Alyosha, who says, among other things, "Common descent is not based on _anything_ tangible, much beyond appeals to similar structures. ... What the ID movement has hammered away at since I've been paying attention, is this simple fact: common descent has no proven, functional process that can do the heavy lifting that we need to build life, or much of anything else."

You seem to be under the misconception that the ID movement denies common descent. It doesn't. Mike Behe, for instance, the leading scientist in the ID movement, believes in common descent. Moreover, he would not agree with you that common descent is based on nothing beyond appeals to similar structure. Your argument is not with me but with the ID movement.

There are many reasons to believe in common descent besides similarity of structure, including arguments based on bio-geography, vestigial organs, the fossil record, and genetics. Some of the genetic evidence is well explained in Francis Collins' book, The Language of God.

To Roger Durbin: I agree. The scientific community had better wake up and realize that if their over-confident statements about AGW are someday shown to be ill-grounded they will have badly damaged the credibility of science, which will be the long-term benefit of every crank, crackpot, and pseudo-scientist out there --- and they are legion. Fortunately, if they are wrong, science won't necessarily have to be "self-correcting" --- nature herself may correct them, by refusing to go along with their projections.

Thanks to Stephen Barr for a good essay. However, there is one prominent mistake, which has become very common amongst occasional commentators on ID who are somewhat familiar with the movement but not deeply familiar with it:

Barr writes,

"the ID movement does not deny common descent or the age of the earth."

Neither of these statements is really true. Consider e.g. Of Pandas and People, the first ID book, and the book at the heart of the Dover trial, and a book coauthored by Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, numerous other Discovery Institute fellows, and which is partially reproduced and commonly endorsed on various ID websites (DI, ARN, FTE, etc.). The book is agnostic on the age of the earth, and explicitly goes after common ancestry on numerous occasions.

Rather than rehashing the same basic points again...

'The denial of common ancestry is unsurprising in creation science, but it is a common misconception that ID advocates accept common ancestry and “macroevolution.” In fact, the vast majority of ID proponents deny the common ancestry of humans and apes. Behe is the only significant exception, although he is much-touted by those who wish to portray ID as a moderate position. Even Behe's support is lukewarm; in 2005, he wrote that “my Intelligent Design colleagues who disagree with me on common descent have greater familiarity with the relevant science than I do” (66). Dembski's position is typical, accepting “some change in the course of natural history,” but believing “that this change has occurred within strict limits and that human beings were specially created” (67). This is the standard position of an ID advocate. In May 2005, ID supporters on the Kansas Board of Education held hearings to support ID-friendly science standards. Mainstream scientists boycotted the hearings, but a series of pro-ID witnesses, mostly teachers and academics (but few professional biologists) testified in support of the standards. During cross-examination, only 2 of 19 witnesses accepted the common ancestry of humans and apes. One was an independent scholar who clarified that although he supported the Kansas standards, he was not an ID advocate; and the other was Behe. The rejection of evolution by the vast majority of ID witnesses at the Kansas hearings parallels the rejection of evolution by ID proponents in general.'

(Scott, E. C., and Matzke, N. (2007). “Biological design in science classrooms.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104(suppl. 1), 8669-8676. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701505104)

Anyone who reads the Discovery Institute blogs etc. knows that core ID movement people -- Stephen Meyer (director of the DI's ID program), Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Casey Luskin -- deny common ancestry, and the latter three are continually expending effort e.g. on the DI blog to refute common ancestry. The new DI high school supplemental textbook, "Explore Evolution", coauthored by Paul Nelson and Stephen Meyer, devotes half its length to challenging common ancestry in favor of a "orchard of life" model, i.e. independent created kinds.

Typically people who say ID is OK with common ancestry mostly heard about ID when Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" came along in 1996 (but ID originated in 1989), and mostly haven't read the work of all the other ID advocates from the Discovery Institute and other organizations (e.g. Reasons to Believe), much of which is devoted to challenging common ancestry. But Behe is really a rather rare exception amongst ID leading advocates -- the rule is that they deny common ancestry, i.e. even of chimps and humans.

(Re: young-earth views -- it is true there are more old-earthers than young-earthers among the ID leadership, but there are number of prominents YECs, e.g. Paul Nelson, John Mark Reynolds, Dean Kenyon. Others, e.g. Phillip Johnson, seem to take the amazing position of agnosticism on the age of the earth issue.)

Apropos the "cui bono", people begin to care so passionately about certain topics and end up dedicating their lives' work to them only because those topics have a direct impact upon their self-understanding in the present and for the future. So it's important to look beyond the individual issues of creation and evolution in order to see why something like Young Earth Creationism can find so many adherents. Accordingly, I highly doubt that most Young Earth Creationists really care at all about the specific mechanics of how the world came to be (hence, the dismissal of available evidence coupled with an emphasis on what modern science has so far failed to demonstrate), since that's secondary to the real point, which is the literal fidelity of the biblical account.

In particular, I would agree with Ronald Numbers that the among Young Earth Creationists the importance of establishing the veracity of the literal Genesis account is that is lays the groundwork for a solid belief in biblical prophecy, which wields far more influence over the lives of many Christians than does the creation account itself. In other words, if you're invested in biblical literalism, and if the Bible turns out to be wrong about creation, why would you trust your future to a book that can't even get the past right?

To Paul: I absolutely agree. The use of Darwinism to promote atheism in books and even in classrooms, is a terrible, terrible problem. And, indeed, ID was an attempt to deal with this problem.

There are some slight rays of hope. At least some scientists who are themselves non-religious have begun to realize that the attacks on religion by people like Dawkins are harming the image of science, which may in turn harm public support for it. Now when scientific organizations, such as the National Academy of Science, issue statements attacking Young Earth Creationism, or defending evolution, they take pains to emphasize that many scientists are religious and combine belief in God with acceptance of evolution. For example, in a booklet entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism, published by the National Academies Press in 2008, one finds this statement: "Many scientists have written eloquently about how their scientific studies of biological evolution have enhanced rather than lessened their religious faith. And many religious people and denominations accept the scientific evidence for evolution." There are far more scientists, in my experience, who would like to see some sort of detente between science and religion than there are who want to see more attacks of the Dawkins variety.

I may be a pied-eyed optimist, but I actually believe that the scientific world can be made a friendlier place to religious faith, if people go about it in the right way. What I hear in so many comments critical of evolution and Darwinism by religious people is a bitterness toward science, and a dismissal of the entire scientific world as implacably hostile to faith. It is not quite so bad as all that.

The debunking of AGW has nothing in common with ID. The scientists who disagree are using science to analyze AGW's claims, rather than mysticism. Science is competing with science. Yes, there are politics involved, but what will end AGW is science, and nothing resembling intelligent design. It is one thing to have healthy scepticism about hypotheses, but their validity or invalidity will be determined by science.

It has always seemed that ID inadvertantly diminishes the glory of God. 150 years ago science had absolutely no idea why the sun was bright or hot. There was much speculation but until the concept of fusion was discovered, the fact that such an obvious physical reality had no scientific explanation could have easily moved it into the realm of Intelligent design. And what would the ID'rs have said when fusion was hypothesized? That is another question about the movement that makes me wonder. How dogmatic are their assertions that some physical phenomena is unexplainable by science?

I have had delightful conversations with several people who believe in ID, but there is inevitably one question I can ask an ID'er whose answer will make me even want to chat further with them: How old is the Earth? If they give an answer less than 100,000 years I wisht them well and walk away. If they say something in the 4.5 billion year range, then at least we have a commonality to begin chatting.

The ball has been in the court of the evolution scientists to reasonably address the questions raised by Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box. So I have a problem with the introductory paragraph of this blog which suggests that the burden of proof has been on the Intelligent Design people.

Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design, Michael W. Tkacz

...What about the apparent conflict between notion of creation from nothing and the scientific principle that for every natural motion or state there is an antecedent motion or state? Seeing a conflict here, Thomas Aquinas says, is a result of a confusion regarding the nature of creation and natural change. It is an error that might be called the Cosmogonical Fallacy.

Yet, what about the apparent conflict between notion of creation from nothing and the scientific principle that for every natural motion or state there is an antecedent motion or state? Seeing a conflict here, Aquinas says, is a result of a confusion regarding the nature of creation and natural change. It is an error that might be called the Cosmogonical Fallacy.

...In light of this sketch of the Thomistic account of creation and natural cause, one can perhaps understand the reluctance of contemporary Thomists to rush to the defense of ID theorists. It would seem that ID theory is grounded on the Cosmogonical Fallacy. Many who oppose the standard Darwinian account of biological evolution identify creation with divine intervention into nature. This is why many are so concerned with discontinuities in nature, such as discontinuities in the fossil record. They see in them evidence of divine action in the world, on the grounds that such discontinuities could only be explained by direct divine action. This insistence that creation must mean that God has periodically produced new and distinct forms of life is to confuse the fact of creation with the manner or mode of the development of natural beings in the universe. This is the Cosmogonical Fallacy.

ID theory was designed to be a social movement vis-a-vis a Christian apologetic to reject the teaching of Evolution (see Phillip E Johnson). However, the observant reader will note that Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer claim to have no problem with speciation per se. When Meyer claims that different body plans required an Intelligent Designer, a biologist might assume he is using the term in the traditional sense. For example, the phylum Chordate body-plan is defined by the notochord, meaning that all vertebrates evolved. Therefore the Sea Squirt, the Chicken, and Man are all linked by common descent.

And this is where ID is both conceptually barren and purposely deceitful; the ID theorist never specifies what they mean by Species or Body Plan or Common Descent in relation to the Tree of Life. To do so would admit that evolution is responsible for more of life's development then many (most?) of their Christian supporters can stomach. So when the ID advocate pushes for "academic freedom" and to "teach the controversy," we should ask what ID would put on the page next to Darwin's diagram for the Tree of Life? (or the more recent "Web of Life" with lateral gene transfer)

The beauty of this argument is that it graphically represents certain issues that might not otherwise be understood by the lay person. Whereas Evolution can make testable predictions about the relationships of organisms, ID can't even offer the simplest of sketches. ID, literally, has nothing to teach. A theory that refuses to model its own idea isn't a theory at all.

The reluctance of ID advocates to present a model reveals that they face two unacceptable options. 1) list every species as separately and intelligently created; e.g. the Dog unconnected to the Cat, unconnected to the Rat, and so on. This forces ID to declare what particular Irreducibly Complex structure(s) prevented the evolution of the Dog, Cat, et al. from a common ancestor. 2, list all animals that share a common body plan as having evolved within its group; e.g. the Dog and Cat lines descend from Miacids who, like the Rats, descend from Placentalia. This forces ID theorists to declare that a common Christian understanding of divine speciation is unsupportable.

Colonel Sun:

I refer you to Prof. Barr's own comments: "It would be comforting to think that the only reason the scientific community ever ignores criticism of its theories is that it comes from incompetents. Unfortunately, the history of science provides many counter-examples. It is true that science is self-correcting. But the self-correction sometimes takes a long time, during which good ideas may be ignored or suppressed, and careers destroyed. I have met quite a few very good scientists who are quite skeptical of the extent of AGW, but most keep their views to themselves. It is not a healthy climate right now in the scientific world when it comes to the AGW issue. AGW has become such a 'progressive cause' that ideology has begun to to distort the ordinary processes of scientific discussion."

And yet you maintain: "Science is not a static temple, it is an ongoing process— often a no holds barred brawl of ideas, hypotheses and theories with experimental evidence as the ultimate referee."

Talk about a "naive and romantic" view of science!

Superb post by Professor Barr. I hope it encourages more healthy criticism of ID at the other conservative magazines.

This article is quite absurd and its author is even more absurd. ID is legitimate science, read "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design." Philosophers of Science and Philosophers of Religion alike are defending ID as science. As a rule, people who understand philosophy of science defend ID. This includes atheists and theists alike. Bradley Monton is a professor of Philosophy at CU Boulder, he is an atheist, and he defends it.

Go study philosophy of science. That was the judges mistake in the Dover case. Did you know that he quoted, nearly verbatim, what the ID opponents fed him in his opinion. Probably not.

Steve Barr said in comments: "...It is my understanding that it was not primarily the ID arguments that converted Anthony Flew from atheism. Apparently the so-called "anthropic coincidences" in physics and cosmology played a larger role. Perhaps I am wrong about that...."

This shows how miserably little you know about your topic on which you so pontificate, and how miserably little you cared to find out.

The anthropic principle, which is the observation in the real world of real world phenomena, that independent universal constants "just so happen" to be exactly just right by 10 to the kazilliaballiaquintillion, is one of the major elements in the many observations of design in nature that suggest intelligence and intention.

Most of the scientists who are ID proponents in fact are not found in biology, they are found in all the sciences, physics, electromagnetics, chemistry, paleontology, astronomy, geology, astrophysics, medical research, mathematics, information science, you name it!

And Isaac Newton, a much greater scientist than any of us today, made the point that even the fact that the universe follows basic reliable rules implies a Creator.

Oh but now we have scientists who are so much smarter than Mr. Newton, or Michael Faraday, or the rest of the giants that made modern science work in the first place!

It's not just in this area, but this malaise of abandoning common sense among the supposedly intelligent among us, has corrupted the Establishment institutions of science everywhere.

Climategate has only started a flood of public exposures even by some former media shrills, we have frauds in embryonic stem cell research, paleontologists desperate for some real evidence making the plaster-of-paris dinobird an overnight sensation.

This playing fast and loose with the facts has even had MIT selling a fraud to save its hot fusion budget of millions, when they covered up the real results of so-called (misnomered) "cold fusion" experiments following Fleischmann and Pons' announcements, according to Eugene Mallove, who got so disgusted he quit and began Infinite Energy Foundation and Infinite Energy Magazine.

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue62/mitcolloquium.html

--Alan

As ID is rejected by some scientists, those very men and women will continue to ride on the backs of those who built the western scientific world, because of their presupposition of an Intelligent Designer. As Oxford professor of Mathematics, John Lennox stated, "The great pioneers of science such as Galileo, Kepler and Newton, expected to find law in nature because they believed in a Lawgiver...The biblical teaching about Creation was the cradle in which modern science was born." Some men have enough blind faith to believe that the 3.5 billion character code on a single strand of DNA happened to come together because random chance had enough time! I could never muster that much faith. But as the one who helped write that code down (National Institutes of Health head, Francis Collins) said to our President, "It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."

We continue to reap the benefits of the understanding that there is Intelligent Design, whether we admit it or not!

As ID is rejected by some scientists, those very men and women will continue to ride on the backs of those who built the western scientific world, because of their presupposition of an Intelligent Designer. As Oxford professor of Mathematics, John Lennox stated, "The great pioneers of science such as Galileo, Kepler and Newton, expected to find law in nature because they believed in a Lawgiver...The biblical teaching about Creation was the cradle in which modern science was born." Some men have enough blind faith to believe that the 3.5 billion character code on a single strand of DNA happened to come together because random chance had enough time! I could never muster that much faith. But as the one who helped write that code down (National Institutes of Health head, Francis Collins) said to our President, "It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."

We continue to reap the benefits of the understanding that there is Intelligent Design, whether we admit it or not!

My response to Stephen Barr's "The End of Intelligent Design?" is available at Uncommon Descent:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/stephen-barrs-unreasonable-reasonableness/

--William A. Dembski

Dr. Barr,

I am not a scientist nor is my scientific education sufficient for me to fully understand, must less dismiss ID. Yet I have been convinced by several devout Christian friends who are also scientist that ID is neither scientific in its methods nor persuasive in its apologetics (which I took to be the point of your article). Your article, however, seems to me to assume, but not prove, the former criticism. Why do you believe ID to not be scientific?

Second, it does seem to me as a non-scientist that the ID has this to its credit: it has highlighted by its own limitations the limitations of naturalism, namely that the naturalists who argues that science proves the existence of the universe and of life within it arose without a divine creator or even without the necessity of one is in just as weak a position as the ID proponent. I fail to see how such claims have any more scientific basis than do the claims of the ID proponents. Both seem to me to posit theories for which they have failed to offer (from which I assume they cannot offer) any scientifically valid and testable evidence. In the end, it seems to me that Dawkins and Dembski are two sides of the same coin.

Given that modern science began with men such as Sir Issac, who certainly believed in a "designer," I think that Mr. Barr is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Professor Barr,

With the greatest respect, you are sadly mistaken about ID, and about design arguments in general. I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and I've been following the ID movement closely for a few years now. I'm neither a young-earth nor an old-earth creationist; I'm quite happy to accept common descent, although I would not be at all perturbed if it were proved false. The way I see it, there are at least five good design arguments for the existence of God. All of them are probabilistic, all of them use abductive reasoning (appealing to the best-known explanation of an observed fact), and all of them are scientifically falsifiable. As we shall see, ID design arguments are not particularly different from the others. Let's summarize the design arguments briefly.

1. The laws of physics, and the theory underlying them, manifest an extraordinary degree of beauty, elegance, harmony, and ingenuity, from a mathematical perspective. This elegance is an unexpected bonus, even in a life-friendly cosmos such as our own. For even if the forces of nature were finely-tuned, nothing would necessitate the laws underlying them hanging together in a mathematically elegant way, which even our best scientific minds marvel at. The underlying mathematical beauty of the cosmos is extremely improbable, on the face of it, as the ugly, unaesthetic theories that could serve to underlie Nature vastly outnumber the mathematically elegant ones. But if the cosmos is the work of a Divine Mind, mathematical elegance is precisely what we would expect to find. Moreover, Mind is the only thing we know that creates beauty. See "Universe or Multiverse? A Theistic Perspective" by Robin Collins at http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/stanford%20multiverse%20talk.htm , especially part 6.

2. The constants of Nature in our universe appear to be fine-tuned for life to emerge. The odds of these constants having the values which would permit life to emerge are vanishingly small. Nor does it help to posit a multiverse which churns out many universes, of which ours happens to be the lucky one; for the multiverse would have to possess certain unique physical properties in order to be able to churn out anything at all. Once again, the odds of a multiverse possessing these properties are vanishingly low, on the face of it; but if the cosmos was designed for life, this is what we should expect. Moreover, Mind is the only thing we know that creates things according to a plan. See "The Fine-Tuning Design Argument" by Robin Collins at http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/FINETLAY.HTM .

3. The DNA code appears to possess certain properties which make it an ideal carrier of genetic information. It is unexpectedly robust, and extremely resilient against minor copying errors, which makes it ideal from an evolutionary perspective. Additionally, the genetic coding found in DNA is unbelievably efficient and compact. DNA information is overlapping, multi-layered and multi-dimensional; it reads both backwards and forwards. Even our best computer scientists can't write code like this. Once again, the antecedent probability that the molecule embodying the genetic code of living organisms should possess these properties is extremely low; but if a Divine Mind wrote the original program code for DNA, we would expect it to be both efficient and resilient. Moreover, Mind is the only thing we know that can write efficient codes. See "Astonishing Complexity of DNA Demolishes Neo-Darwinism" by Alex Williams at http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf .

4. Even the simplest viable living things found on Earth contain about 250 kinds of proteins, each of which contains a large emount of highly specific information relating to their particular function. Proteins are made up of sequences of amino acids (usually at least 150); yet the vast majority of amino acid sequences that could occur are incapable of folding up properly, and hence incapable of doing anything useful. Even given billions of years, the odds of Nature generating even one amino acid sequence that can perform any kind of useful function are astronomically low, and the odds of generating a simple cell with 250 useful proteins are infinitesimal. One could hypothesize the existence of as-yet undiscovered bio-friendly laws that make life's emergence more probable; yet there would have to be a large number of these laws, to create a "magic pathway" leading to life, and they would have to be very specific (i.e. information-rich). Once again, this is not what one would expect, unless the laws of Nature were designed for life. Moreover, Mind is the only thing we know that creates specified information. See “Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life?” by Kalinsky, K. D. at http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Id%20Web%20Article.pdf .

5. Cells contain a large number of structures whose functionality depends on all their constituents being in place. In some cases, scientists can identify parts of these structures that still perform some useful function; yet the likelihood that these structures were built up one part at a time, on a step-by-step basis, appears to be vanishingly low, as most of the steps along the way would have conferred no evolutionary benefit whatsoever. For instance, the bacterial flagellum has about 30 vital parts; a biologically useful 10-part subcomponent of the flagellum has been identified, but getting from 10 to 30 is still a huge jump. There may be unknown "magic pathways" that take us there, for each and every one of these "irreducibly complex" structures; yet even the most careful examination of these structures has yielded no hints of such bounty from "Mother Nature." One would not expect to find such "magic pathways," unless the very warp and woof of the evolutionary process was designed by God to pave the way for the emergence of complex life. Moreover, Mind is the only thing we know that creates specified complexity. See "Irreducible Complexity Revisited” at http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf by William Dembski.

Arguments 4 and 5 are ID arguments; some might say argument 3 is, as well. Note that arguments 3, 4 and 5 do not require Deus ex machina interventions. That's a cheap anti-ID canard. ID proponents really don't care how God made the world; what matters is that He did it.

Note too that all of these arguments are falsifiable. Consider E8, the most elegant and intricate shape in mathematics. Some physicists are trying to build a "Theory of Everything" which incorporates this structure. If the universe is the work of a Divine Mind, I'd certainly expect it to instantiate the most beautiful possible geometry. But that expectation could be dashed, which would falsify the first argument. Likewise, skeptical physicists like Victor Stenger have argued that the universe is not as finely-tuned as we imagine, and that life could emerge in universes with constants with values utterly different from those in ours. If Stenger is right, then the second design argument is falsified. Again, DNA looks pretty optimal, as a carrier of genetic information, but if scientists manage to design a better carrier, or show that alternative, less efficient carriers would have been weeded out almost immediately, then that undermines the third argument. Likewise, a demonstration that chance, coupled with the KNOWN laws of chemistry, would have been sufficient to generate the DNA, RNA and proteins that we find in simple cells, AND bring them together in the right way to make a cell, would destroy the fourth argument. Finally, the discovery of very smooth incremental pathways which could account for "irreducibly complex" structures without the need for any unusual biochemistry or odd-looking fitness functions, would dramatically undercut the fifth argument.

Science does not have to "fail" for ID to be true. All science has to do, for ID to succeed, is reveal the antecedent improbabilities of life arising and of irreducibly complex structres emerging. ID would not be threatened by the discovery that Nature contains a hidden bias toward life, so long as this built-in bias is "surprising," from a scientific standpoint (i.e. wholly unexpected, based on a priori considerations).

Certain readers on this thread have expressed a dislike for creationism and/or ID, because of the evil found in the natural world. If they think evil is part of God's created order, they should read David B. Hart's article "Tsunami and Theodicy" at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/01/tsunami-and-theodicy . If they think that Christianity can be squared with "God-made-it-look-random theistic evolution" (as opposed to the "God-guided-it-and-you-can-see-where evolution" I espouse), then they might like to read David Anderson's response to Dr. Denis Alexander at http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/writings/creation-or-evolution-dr-denis-alexander/index.php/intro (especially chapters 11 to 15). Finally, if they are looking for a theodicy which accounts for the evil found in the natural world, then I would warmly recommend "The End of Christianity" by Dr. William Dembski, which makes a strong case that natural evil could still be the result of sin, even in a very old, evolving world where evil pre-dates human sin. I should add that if you want to account for evil in the natural world, then like it or not, you're going to have to invoke malevolent intelligent agents (a.k.a demons) interfering with God's original plans, and you'll need a Fall too. And if that freaks some readers out, they should ask themselves: "Am I letting science dictate my religious beliefs?" Once you start doing that, there's no stopping.

There's one teleological argument I haven't discussed yet. The real outlier among the teleological arguments for the existence of God is St. Thomas Aquinas' Fifth Way, which is not a design argument at all. The Fifth Way might be better described as an argument from normativity, as it takes as its starting point the simple fact that objects in the world possess causal powers, which implies that when they exercise these powers, they act as they should - in other words, despite being devoid of intelligence, they conform to norms and exhibit what philosophers call intentionality. Aquinas argues that the directedness of objects can only be explained by positing a Divine Mind. This is an argument that I find very persuasive, but it relies on certain metaphysical premises which some atheists might reject. Design arguments simply rely on mathematics and science; the metaphysics is relatively non-controversial. Probability theory, combined with abductive inference, is what takes us to God with design arguments.

Professor Carter is terrified of another Galileo case. I'm not. We're uncovering layer upon laye of wholly unexpected complexity in life and the cosmos, whose existence we never even suspected a generation ago. And if scoffers want to call this "God-of-the-gaps" reasoning, that's fine by me. The gaps are GROWING, NOT shrinking. But what really terrifies me is the prospect of the next generation of children being brainwashed by the "politically correct" scientific establishment to believe that the emergence of the cosmos, life and intelligence as a result of natural processes was no big surprise, and that it was bound to happen sooner or later anyway. That's what they're being exposed to now, in our schools. And if you ask these children ten years from now if they believe in God, they'll look at you with an incredulous stare and utter the words of Laplace: "I have no need of that hypothesis." Now THAT scares me.

You could substitute "Gospel" for "Intelligent Design" and it would be just as rational as this diatribe. The Gospel hasn't won over all the athiests and buddists, so maybe it hasn't "achieved" anything. The Gospel is a zero sum game with Atheism. Buddism must lose for the Gospel to win. This is a worthless commentary and bunch of catch phrases rather than a rational argument.

Hey Stephen Barr!

I admit I'm just a dumb creationist, but how come there are blood vessls in T Rex bones if they are 68 million years old? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html

So God is not omnipotent after all? He just isn't able to create a world without predators and deadly microorganisms, complete with flagella? He can do anything but that. Oh, and also one without earthquakes, floods, draughts, tidal waves and all the other "acts of God" that plague mankind? The world just wouldn't work without them. After all, the malaria parasite would cease to "live" without humans to feast upon. Except they could feast on some other animals instead. But think of the poor animals!

But no worry, God is so almighty that He produces some kind of good from such evil. Mr. Beckwith or some other theist will presumably tell us the exact type of "good" that is produced sometime later. Perhaps someone will explain the "good" of autism to Dr. Dembski.

There's one simple hypothesis that explains ALL of the mysteries of religion.

As a VERY pro Catholic Protestant, who has had your site on my blog list for years, I am very disapointed in some of the language of this article- to say that ID has added 'nothing' to the scientifc endeavor is very misleading- I do understand the concept of 'adding to science' as described in the article, but the statement seems to be biased against the field and great work that many catholic scientists have done in this field.

I've updated my reply to Barr at Uncommon Descent (www.uncommondescent.com) with a paragraph is particularly damning for it points up that Barr just a few years ago saw ID as scientifically valuable. What happened and why did he change his mind? The problem appears not to have been scientific but sociological and theological, as his post above shows. Here's my paragraph:

/////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Back in 2004, Barr actually agreed with David Raup that ID performs useful service for science. Endorsing my book The Design Revolution (IVP, 2004), Barr wrote a blurb that appears in the book’s front matter: “The Design Revolution is about questions of fundamental importance: Can one formulate objective criteria for recognizing design? What do such criteria tell us about design in the biological realm? Sad to say, even to raise such questions is dangerous; but fortunately Dembski is not deterred. In this courageous book he takes aim at the intellectual complacency that too often smothers serious and unprejudiced discussion of these questions. –Stephen Barr, Professor of Physics, University of Delaware, author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.”
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////

--William A. Dembski

PS --The debunking of AGW has nothing in common with ID. The scientists who disagree are using science to analyze AGW's claims, rather than mysticism.

Revealing emails showing premeditated lies and unscientific means to quash dissenters would probably not be considered pure science.

Anyway using objective observations of nature to debunk Darwinian claims has been occurring since at least the Wistar Convention of 1966.

The claims for design made by the ID movement involve nothing more than measurable observations of nature.

Now, why would Dr. Barr et al hold that Darwinian evolution -- that all biodiversity was caused via random genomic changes being fixed by natural selection -- be an acceptable explanation? Consensus? Fidelity to consensus is what actually caused Galileo's troubles.

The key issue (or so it seems to me) is reflected in Dr. Barr's comment:

"ID is saying that darwinian mechanisms cannot explain certain complex phenomena. While they haven't demonstrated that, neither can anyone at this stage prove them wrong."

If the goal of ID proponents is to produce an proof to the point that no extant naturalistic (broadly, "darwinian") mechanisms can explain certain phenomena, then they their activities can be an aid to science in showing it's current explanatory limitations. However, even if there is such a proof, it would not substantiate intelligent design, let alone anything of a religious nature. It would just point out science's current limitations.

To prove more, they would need either an impossibility proof to the point that no naturalistic mechanisms (even those heretofore not fully understood or even unknown) could explain these phenomena, or a proof that such an explanation is unlikely. If this is the goal if ID, they have set a very, very high hurdle for themselves - one not likely to be overcome.

It will always be as likely that there is some naturalistic mechanism that science will come accept as an adequate explanation of a phenomenon as it is that there is some supernatural explanation. This is just the idea of methodological naturalism. While such a position is philosophy of science, and not science itself, it is a position that practicing scientists must suppose, if they are to be good scientists at all. One need only reflect on the history of science to see how impoverished it would have been had scientists contented themselves with supernatural explanations.

Many of Professor Barr's critics fail to recognize, I believe, what he is saying. He is not saying that ID is false (i.e., that there is not an Intelligent Designer (or Creator) who has left evidence of His of His creation in what He has created), but that ID does not offer any scientifically valid proof of such an Intelligent Designer. The basic theory of the ID proponents may indeed be true (indeed, I believe it is), but that does not change the fact that it has (to date) failed to prove its theories by scientific methods. As I noted above, Dawkins and his crowd are guilty of precisely the same thing when they assert that science has proved that their is no God. Both Dawkins and Dembski offer valid metaphysical theories for origins; neither offer valid scientific theories nor the evidence to prove such theories.

Why this upsets so many Christians is a puzzlement to me. Scripture makes clear, it seems to me, that God has revealed enough of Himself in the natural world that we have no excuse if we fail to believe but not so much that all must believe (that is, cannot do otherwise). I seriously doubt that science will ever be able to prove the existence of God with "scientific certainty" because I doubt that God intends man to be capable of doing so. That is not the office of science and Christians (including ID advocates) make a serious mistake when they seek to force science to do that which it is incapable of doing. It is sort of like putting new wine into an old wine skin. The results are that which our Lord taught us to expect from such an exercise.

By putting one's faith in Dembski, Behe, et al. to prove the existence of God, Christians are in a real sense putting their faith in princes, in sons of men, who die and whose theories die with them. We are called to put our faith in the Prince, who has given us His inspired Word and enough signs in nature to rest our faith upon. We are to live by faith and not by sight, not by faith grounded in sight. Indeed, it seems to me that much of the insistence by Christians in the validity of ID is evidence of their belief that without such a theory, the Dawkins of the world offer a proven theory against which Christian faith cannot stand. In fact, however, all we need do is show the limits of Darwinian naturalism; we need not prove a contrary theory by scientific means.

John,

I object to your treatment of Dr. Barr in your comments here. Your reply is ironic in the worst sense. You accuse him of making an ad hominem argument by employing an ad hominem argument. And nothing at all, therefore, follows from your criticism. And, in fact, Dr. Barr's argument was not ad hominem in nature. I'm all for open exchanges and ripostes. Dr. Barr has really presented a model of geniality in exchange. And let me insist again, together with Frank Beckwith, that the ID movement would have been better off were it framed as a philosophical-theological project. So too, many comments by overreaching Darwinisists would be more seen for what they are if there philosophical and metaphysical nature were laid bare. But in Dr. Barr you have a world-class physicist who is capable in philosophy mounting a real argument deserving of philosophical engagement--and that whether or not one shares the conclusion he reaches. I really think his argument and comments are first rate and worthy of reflection. So also are a number of other posts here including Frank Beckwith's.

From William Dembski's post one would get the impression that Prof. Barr owes his career as a published book author to him. In terms of science, Prof. Dembski offers nothing substantive to convince any readers that Intelligent Design has any scientific merit. As Prof. Dembski is well known for personally attacking people who demonstrate the shoddiness of his ideas --rather than responding with substantive scientific arguments-- this comes as no surprise.

But it's still sad.

Steven Barr Said:
"You seem to be under the misconception that the ID movement denies common descent. It doesn't. Mike Behe, for instance, the leading scientist in the ID movement, believes in common descent. Moreover, he would not agree with you that common descent is based on nothing beyond appeals to similar structure. Your argument is not with me but with the ID movement.

There are many reasons to believe in common descent besides similarity of structure, including arguments based on bio-geography, vestigial organs, the fossil record, and genetics. Some of the genetic evidence is well explained in Francis Collins' book, The Language of God."

--
--
_What_ vestigial organs? If vestigial means "useless holdovers" -- you are going to have look high and low for an example.

Also, you are side stepping my point about the severe limitations of evolutionary mechanism -- that they have _not_ been proven or proofed to _any_ degree, which clearly puts the onus on that system, _before_ we make it the de facto Gold Standard of describing how every living thing that ever existed has come about.

Genetics and the fossil record are simply restatements of an appeal to similarity.

Evolution, at its core, rests on an _imaginary_ process -- and needs to produce proof -- before we Christians use it to point the finger at Christ and call Him either a Liar or a Dissembler -- "Have you not read?"

For all the ID apologists who are swarming this thread, I have one thing to say: put your money where your mouth is. Accomplish some science (and "criticizing" evolution based on cherry-picked quotes and fallacious thought experiments is not science). Actually do something besides engaging in propaganda.

Until you do that, ID will remain nothing more than a pseudo-science excusing its failures by referencing some vast conspiracy. Meanwhile, real science marches on.

To Ron G: You say that Darwinism is the view that random mutations and natural selection "ALONE exhaustively explain evolution". Well, if it involves an a priori rejection of the possibility that anything else may be involved, I would agree with you that it goes beyond science and is a form of dogmatism. However, I don't think most people who accept Darwinism as essentially correct hold such an extreme position. I think most would agree that there may be other mechanisms involved. And I think they would agree with you that it is a "working hypothesis", though one that has a great deal in its favor and a very high probability of being right.

To Nick Matzke: Thanks for the very informative (and also disturbing) account of the beliefs of various figures in the ID movement. My own knowledge of the ID movement consists of the following: I was invited as "an observer" to one of the first meetings of the ID movement, called the "Mere Creation" conference back in the 1999's. Originally they invited me to speak; but when they found out that my own views did not correspond to theirs exactly, they very invited me instead to come and observe and criticize and they very generously agreed to pay my travel expenses. There I met the main figures in the ID movement. I have read two of Phillip Johnson's books. I read Mike Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" and gave it a largely positive review in The Public Interest. I read Bill Dembski's book "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about ID". (Bill had sent me a prepublication version and asked for a blurb for the back cover. I thought the arguments in the book had serious flaws, which I told him about in great detail, but I wrote a blurb that praised the book for courageously raising important questions.)
I have also taken a look at several other ID books, read a number of articles by various members of the ID movement, and heard a number of lectures by them. I have met Mike Behe several times and had brief conversations with him. I have great respect for Mike, even though we obviously don't see eye-to-eye on everything. So, I think I have a fairly good grasp of the essential ideas of the ID movement, but my knowledge is primarily of the ideas of Johnson, Dembski, Behe, and to a lesser extent Meyer.

The ID movement is rather heterogeneous. The leading "theorists" of the movement I take to be Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, and Steve Meyer. I think they provide the intellectual heft of the movement. Then there are many leading ID figures whose training is in law, politics, journalism, etc. who are (as I see it) mostly polemicists and activists. Finally, there is the movement's mass base of supporters, constituents, and enthusiasts, which is very large. It has become obvious that a large proportion of this last group are actually Young Earth Creationists.

I choose to define the movement's ideas by those of its main theorists. And I believe that they make clear that they do not officially reject either common descent or the age of the universe.

Ric,

I'm no apologist for ID. I'm sympathetic to Dr. Barr's criticisms--though I think some of the criticisms of those criticisms have some merit. The existence of God or of a designer doesn't much turn on the success or failure of ID, as I see it. Though, with Dr. Barr I think, I find versions of the teleological argument to be both sound and valid. And finally, while I'm not a professional scientist, I hold the practice of science in high regard. Still, I'm not sure what it means to say that "real science marches on." I think that strikes a triumphalist note reminiscent of Enlightenment claims that now lie in ruins. Much of science remains, so far as I can tell, framed in positivistic, in Enlightenment, or at least in early modern terms--thus Dawkins and Lewontin and numerous others speak the language of the sort of positivistic science that emerged from the Enlightenment as if, from a philosophical perspective, it were still plausible to speak such language. But it is not. You can either be pre-modern or postmodern (if you must--though I think only pre-modernity defensible given the options). But modernity is now dead. The Enlightenment has, you might say, gone out. And science no less than epistemology is deeply affected by this. Many vocal scientists seem, too frequently to me to be anachronistically modern while living in a culture and in in academy in which modernity has died--in which modernity killed itself. So I really don't think that "scientific" triumphalism is warranted. When it comes to epistemology and what it means to know anything, there are a good number of scientists (especially outspoken, old fashioned atheistic ones who speak the language of the Enlightenment and of positivism and of empiricism) seem to have their heads in the sand. The metaphysical ground has shifted out from under MODERNIST science (which is not science per se) and modern science is in more trouble, from a philosophical standpoint, than many scientists realize. The triumphalism of marching on is not warranted in such a circumstance. Let me add only here that I intend nothing in the foregoing as a criticism of Dr. Barr's blog or of his work in the realm of physics or his important book on ancient faith and modern physics--an important work by any measure. This is strictly a response to Ric's comments.

To Alan, who says about me, "This shows how miserably little you know about your topic on which you so pontificate, and how miserably little you cared to find out.
The anthropic principle, which is the observation in the real world of real world phenomena, that independent universal constants "just so happen" to be exactly just right by 10 to the kazilliaballiaquintillion, is one of the major elements in the many observations of design in nature that suggest intelligence and intention."

I take it that the subject upon which I know "miserably little" and on which you are instructing me is "the anthropic principle". Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that one of the most cited papers in the scientific literature on anthropic fine-tuning in physics and cosmology was written by me and three co-authors. (Look up Agrawal, Barr, Donoghue, and Seckel, Physical Review D, 1998). This paper of mine has been cited by many leading scientists. We pointed out that one of the most important fine-tuning problems in all of physics can be explained "anthropically".

William Dembski posts his response on Uncommon Descent, a site notorious for its "moderation" of dissenting views. Dembski himself has a long history of censoring his critics and closing threads to prevent further comment. If he really had the courage of his convictions, he'd debate in an open forum.

The bottom line is that ID is not a scientific discipline. There is no scientific theory of intelligent design, it does not explain any observed phenomena better than the alternatives, and it makes no testable predictions. Dembski et al. make a lot of bold claims, but never back up their assertions with real science, or even coherent, consistent definitions of their terms.

If any ID proponents respond to this, I expect the usual high volume of noise wrapped around a vanishingly small signal. Surprise me: clearly state the scientific theory of intelligent design and make some testable predictions that could serve to falsify it. You'd be the first.

To the poster who said : but that ID does not offer any scientifically valid proof of such an Intelligent Designer.

Let's take a step back and consider "design". Is it possible to reasonably and objectively show that some objects or events are designed?

"Mr. Beckwith or some other theist will presumably tell us the exact type of "good" that is produced sometime later. "

Mr. Albert. That wasn't me. That was Thomas Aquinas. I was quoting him. (Unfortunately, the blockquote command did not work and I could not change it after FT had published it).

And, by the way, Thomas' quote comes after he already offered his arguments for the existence of a God that is Good. Given that, the appeal to God's providence is reasonable. Isolated from that, it is not.

Fortunately, Thomas did not write for blog posts and comboxes. He wrote for keeps.

To Scott Leonard and John Schuh, It seems that both of you have failed to grasp a very simple but important point: One can believe in "design" and a Designer (as I do, and as I made it clear that I do in my article) and yet find the specific arguments and claims of the ID movement unpersuasive. One of my main points was that the ID movement's kind of design argument is just one kind of design argument, and not necessarily the most traditional kind or the most effective kind.

You both perfectly illustrate a point I made in my article, which was that many people embrace the ID arguments because they don't know any other way to argue scientifically for a Designer. Thus, they assume that to believe in a Designer, one must accept the ID arguments, and to express doubts about the validity of the ID arguments is to express doubt about the reality of a Designer.

The history of encounters between mainstream science and Scientific Creationists abundantly demonstrates that mainstream scientists are often irrational, illogical, and vitriolically fanatical in formulating and propounding their point of view on matters concerning the relation of faith and science. In light of the pertinent written record, I fail to see why the scientific establisment merits the kind of intellectual respect that Dr. Barr feels compelled to accord them. I also fail to see why Dr. Barr regards the scientific establishment as invariably dialoguing with religion in good faith, when there is abundant evidence to the contrary also easily available in print.

As for the casual dismissals of Scientific Creationism itself by Dr. Barr and many others, I don't understand how one can cavalierly dismiss the intellectual merits of their position without having given their writings serious and open-minded consideration first. Most especially, Christians should not allow themselves to be embarrassed or shamed into such a cavalier dismissal by an atheistic scientific establishment that is as irrational, illogical, and fanatically vitriolic in its opposition to theism and Christian orthodoxy as the written record abundantly demonstrates.

In connection with the matter of open-mindedness to Scientific Creationism, it is worth pointing out that many of the main arguments made by ID people like Phillip Johnson in the 1990s had already been advanced by Scientific Creationists in their writings for many decades. So if the former merit any prima facie claim to intellectual respectability, then why not the latter as well?

Mr. Barr,

Thank you for your kind response. First, I guess what I'm saying regarding naturalism is that which proclaims (was it Sagan?) that matter "is all there ever was, is, and will be." It reminds me of Kant's we cannot know the noumenal realm, we can only know the phoenomenal realm - the way things appear to us. How did he know that? Kant claim was self-refuting. So, curiously, how does a scientist claim to know that matter is all there is or that nature is it that there is no supernatural? So, we may be agreed on the first point in your response.
Second, I don't want seem callous towards those who don't believe in Christianity. I agree that it is good to find some common ground with those who do not believe in Christianity and I take it that is what you are trying to do and that is your point in your second response to me. With that, I am agreed. I was just opposed to your sounding perplexed and sympathetic towards scientists and their "exasperation" with creationists. There are probably some within your circle of influence that are exasperated while others are intrigued by ID and move towards Christianity because of it. I guess what I didn't say was Paul is sometimes criticized on Mars Hill for being somewhat philosophical and the results supposedly show it as only a few believed. My point was even if a few come to Christ using ID, then fine I suppose. I don't know if nothing good can come of it. That's just my opinion. Thanks for your response.

Torley writes:

"This is an argument that I find very persuasive, but it relies on certain metaphysical premises which some atheists might reject. Design arguments simply rely on mathematics and science; the metaphysics is relatively non-controversial. Probability theory, combined with abductive inference, is what takes us to God with design arguments."

And this is precisely the problem. You permit the atheists to set the agenda and grant them their premises. What you get is a tinkering designer rather than the Ground of Being.

"by convincing many people that the concept of an intelligent designer is bound up with a rejection of mainstream science."

?? That's a nice non sequitur. Mainstream science is far more than evolutionary theory of biological change. Mainstream science includes physics, chemistry, math, geology, etc. Furthermore, one could--and should--ask whether evolutionary theory has been a boon or a detriment in the field of medicine or understanding human biology. Not only has it not led to any great advances in our understanding in those areas, it has far and away been a detriment and has at times impeded our acquisition of knowledge in those areas.

regards,
#John

"by convincing many people that the concept of an intelligent designer is bound up with a rejection of mainstream science."

?? That's a nice non sequitur. Mainstream science is far more than evolutionary theory of biological change. Mainstream science includes physics, chemistry, math, geology, etc. Furthermore, one could--and should--ask whether evolutionary theory has been a boon or a detriment in the field of medicine or understanding human biology. Not only has it not led to any great advances in our understanding in those areas, it has far and away been a detriment and has at times impeded our acquisition of knowledge in those areas.

regards,
#John

In his response on his website, Dr. Dembski says that Dr. Barr is "rejecting design." While I think that Dr. Dembski, like Dr. Barr, is an exceptionally intelligent person and a gifted scholar with a wide range, I fail to see how Dr. Barr rejects design anywhere above. He instead argues that inferences concerning design are made in a different way and from a different construal of what counts as evidence. Dr. Barr, it seems to me, is more comfortable with the classical version of teleological argument than with contemporary design arguments. And, from a philosophical standpoint, I think it implausible to imply or suggest that modern ID arguments just are instances of the classical teleological argument. They seem quite different to me. But I'm more disconcerted my Dembski's claim that he thinks, by virtue of their disagreement, that Dr. Barr no longer considers him a friend. Does Dr. Dembski think that people must agree about ID in order to be friends? Are not Drs Dembski and Barr brothers in Christ, albeit across ecclesial lines? Are they not members of one body? And is it not the case that disagreement can occur within the context of friendship and in the context of Christian community? Shouldn't the church be just the sort of place where we can in engage in philosophical discussions, sometimes with real disagreements, about these things? Dr. Barr raised some real criticisms and asked some real questions. These questions call for engagement and discussion about the truth of the matter--and Christians should always be open to dialog on these things both outside of Christian community and within it. I sometimes wonder whether popular proponents of ID think that that the existence of God or the truths of the faith stand or fall depending upon whether ID or other arguments for God's existence succeed or fail. While I think at least some of these arguments succeed (Al Plantinga's modal version of the ontological argument or Rob Koons version of the Cosmological argument), it doesn't seem that God's existence turns on the success or failure of these arguments. And so also the Christian movement does not depend on whether ID arguments succeed or fail. The failure of an argument for intelligent design doesn't mean that there isn't intelligent design. And, consequently, criticism of an arguments for intelligent design can't be equated with a rejection of design itself. Let us bear this in mind.

The key point that has been made so far is that both ID proponents and Darwinists have gone too far in claiming scientific backing for theological conclusions. ID is not pseudoscience, but it has certainly not yet succeeded scientifically to the point where it deserves to be in high school science textbooks (because the uncontroversial and well established scientific consensus is already more than enough to fill up science curricula through grade 12); nor should such textbooks, or the teachers who use them, give the impression that atheism has any scientific support.

On the other hand, common descent of humans and other animals, and the Earth being billions of years old, are so well-established scientifically that it would be perverse not to teach this knowledge in public schools (and I am sorry, but I decline to engage in arguments about these points here, since it is irrelevant to the main discussion).

Vincent Torley's five points are a very good summary of the modern Design arguments. About them I will say the following:

1) The elegance, beauty, and harmony of the laws of physics ultimately derive from mathematics. There are deep and interesting connections between mathematics and theology, but it is not so easy to derive the existence of God from mathematics (though I would pay attention to attempts to do so).

2) Whether the constants of nature are in fact "fine-tuned" is difficult to discuss in the absence of a consistent "theory of everything", we may have to wait to make progress on this. But the anthropic counter-argument is a serious one.

3) The origin of the DNA code is an interesting problem, but the existence of slight variants of it in some lineages of organisms suggests that it eveoluton has played a role in it. This is a promising field for ID research but they have a lot more work to do to persuade me that the code could not have evolved naturally (for reasons similar to those in the next 2 points).

4) (Irreducible Complexity at the level of proteins) and 5) (Irreducible complexity at the level of cell components) are good arguments, but there is a very powerful counter-argument, which is that very complex non-irreducible systems can arise gradually and then become irreducible by subtraction, losing components until they can't lose any more. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding" argument, and it seems undeniable to me -- if complexity is possible at all, then irreducible complexity should be expected to arise by evolutionary "carving away".

Paul writes: "But I'm more disconcerted my Dembski's claim that he thinks, by virtue of their disagreement, that Dr. Barr no longer considers him a friend. Does Dr. Dembski think that people must agree about ID in order to be friends? Are not Drs Dembski and Barr brothers in Christ, albeit across ecclesial lines? Are they not members of one body? And is it not the case that disagreement can occur within the context of friendship and in the context of Christian community? Shouldn't the church be just the sort of place where we can in engage in philosophical discussions, sometimes with real disagreements, about these things?"

Spot on. Hence, I write in my forthcoming piece in the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy:

As I have already noted, for ID advocates Behe and Dembski no design inference about nature is warranted short of achieving that threshold of irreducible or specified complexity. But that means that the person who believes he has good grounds for final and formal causes—while rejecting Behe’s and Dembski’s criteria—has no warrant for believing that the final and formal causes he claims to “see” in living organisms. In other words, Behe and Dembski are implicitly accepting the assumption of the materialists—the opponents of final and formal causes—that God’s role in nature may only be exhibited in properly arranged bits of matter so as to signify an agent cause of the arrangement. But this means that design in nature is more like Aristotle’s bed than the tree from which the bed was made.

Suppose that in the next few years biologists discover another force in nature, similar to natural selection, that has the power to produce in living organisms organs and systems that appear to be irreducibly or specifically complex. According to the ID advocate, the rational person would have to abandon the idea that these organs and systems are intelligently designed, since his criterion would no longer be a reliable detector of “design.” Consequently, the rational person would have to conclude that these organs and systems are probably the product of necessity and/or chance (to employ Dembski’s categories). TD (Thomistic design), on the other hand, is not threatened by such discoveries, since the TD advocate actually expects to find such laws in nature, since she believes that God created ex nihilo a universe teeming with ends or purposes that depend on laws and principles that cry out for explanation. By rejecting the mechanistic assumptions of both the Darwinian materialists and the ID advocates, TD does not have the burden of waiting with bated breath for the latest scientific argument or discovery in order to remain confident that the universe, or at least a small sliver of it, is designed. It has something better: rigorous philosophical arguments that challenge the philosophical assumptions of both the Darwinian materialists and the ID advocates who unconsciously (though sometimes purposely) offer their assumptions as undisputed premises under the guise of “science.”

It would be one thing if the ID advocates were only offering their point of view as a mere hypothesis subjected to the usual give and take in scientific and philosophical discourse. (In fact, my earlier work on ID assumed as much). But that in fact is not the case. It has over the years morphed into a movement that treats the soundness of its arguments as virtually essential to sustaining the rationality of theism itself. [Steve] Meyer, for example, suggests that before the 20th century’s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, immaterialism and teleology were down for the count. But now ID stands ready, Meyer contends, to triumphantly procure these advances to help restore “some of the intellectual underpinning of traditional Western metaphysics and theistic belief.” Who knew?

This embellished sense of ID’s importance in the march of history is not a virtue. It is an unattractive enthusiasm that clouds rather than showcases ID’s important, though modest, publishing successes and the legitimate questions these writings bring to bear on many issues that overlap science, theology, and philosophy. Combine this lack of academic modesty with the ubiquitous propagation of ID within Evangelical Protestantism and its churches, seminaries, and parachurch groups (and even among some Catholics) as a new and improved way to topple the materialist critics of Christianity, and you have a recipe for widespread disappointment (and perhaps disillusionment with Christianity) if the ID ship takes on too much water in the sea of philosophical and scientific criticism. For this reason, other non-materialist Christian academics, such as Thomists and some CFT [cosmic fine-tuning] supporters, who would ordinarily find ID’s project intriguing and worth interacting with (as I do), are hesitant to cooperate with a movement that implies to churchgoers and popular audiences that the very foundations of theism and Western civilization rise or fall on the soundness of Behe’s and Dembski’s inferences.

I created this comparison of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design (in what model they would present in a hypothetical textbook) to highlight a fatal flaw that is discretely and deliberately ignored by ID scientists. As you can see, there is no indication of an Intelligent Designer on the phylogenetic tree because it shows that Evolution is responsible for Speciation; hence the title of Darwin's famous book, On the Origin of Species.

ID scientist Stephen Meyer claims that Intelligent Design is necessary for "new body plans". If so, then he needs to present such a model; for example, by removing Vertebrates from the tree, placing it as a separate tree unconnected to the first. ID scientist Casey Luskin's Tree of Man is a first step, but ID must present a model for all of life.

I really do want to see what ID theorists propose as an alternative, but there is a very good reason why they have neglected to produce one:

If IDers agree with the Evolutionary Phylogenetic Tree, then they also agree that evolution was responsible for life's diversity; that Man descended from Ape. However many (most?) of their Christian supporters would find this unacceptable and thus turn against ID.

However, if IDers disagree with the Evolutionary Phylogenetic Tree (because an Intelligent Designer periodically intervened), then they can present an alternative model illustrating where and when this "magic" happened (e.g. Casey Luskin's Tree of Man)

--The key point that has been made so far is that both ID proponents and Darwinists have gone too far in claiming scientific backing for theological conclusions.

Would someone have been able or willing to write that Darwinists have gone too far without the existence of the ID movement. Just the fact that that is now being done is an indication of the ultimate success of the ID movement.

Beckworth -- You permit the atheists to set the agenda and grant them their premises

It wasn't ID that permitted the atheists to set the agenda. They established the agenda quite a while ago. It's that ID advocates are the first to challenge the agenda of the atheists on the playing field they usurped.

Dr. Barr,

It is worthy to be concerned that scientists appreciate the glory of God. However, to attempt one thing, if not done carefully, may put you in the position of tramping upon many others. We understand what you have been saying about the magnificent possibility that God created a world in which initial law is sufficient to describe all of nature. It's just that some of us are not so set upon this concept as others. We think it is not the only way to be awed by God.

As to the science of origins and evolution, we should very carefully evaluate where we are now. In the comparison of genes of various organisms, the National Center for Biotechnology Information has been releasing some eye-opening studies in the past few years. Eugene Koonin, a director in this research, is a materialist and has put forward new theories. But he has reported findings of this data comparison in a way that has seemed straightforward. He has expressed his own surprise at results and has plainly delineated areas where there are no intermediates between points now called "emergent," such as the protein fold and the cell. Science can proceed well only if we are willing to analyze the present in order to determine future research. And even if some believe the cell is created, that does not stop others from researching other theories.

While you may have some satisfaction in presenting religion to scientists, there are other people in this country whose rights have been adversely and almost directly affected by the mindset that insists on either total materialism or theistic evolution. Though the United States of America supposedly offers freedom of religion, many students are forced to answer to the state against their own beliefs. We need to find an approach that says there are various beliefs and theories, and to show the science of each. A teacher and/or student can specialize after being introduced to different points of view. We must realize that science is directly involved in certain belief systems, no matter how it is defined by this or that scientist.

There are various reasons that persons believe themselves superior to others. Wealth, color of skin, and beauty are things which delude persons into thinking they are better. You get the point of what I am saying about intelligent, educated persons who speak down to the rabble below. It is one thing to teach, but another to enforce and degrade. Our God-given human dignity qualifies all of us for certain unalienable rights.

I'm still trying to sort out this issue and, for some reason, I waded through the comments. After reading through them all, in many cases there is a considerable and noticeable condescension. It comes from only one of the sides. Here's an example:

"This shows how miserably little you know about your topic on which you so pontificate, and how miserably little you cared to find out. "

Mr. Alan may have had the most scintillating arguments ever posted. His website may answer all my doubts. The trouble is, I didn't read beyond that line. I found the first line so childish and annoying I didn't have the stomach to be preached to by the likes of him. Thus, I wouldn't go to his website if he pointed a gun to my head. That one line tells me all I want to know about him as a person and as a Christian. Perhaps--certainly--he's deeper than that. I'll never know. Whose fault is that?

My point is this: some of us want to learn from this debate. The problem is, one side is doing more yelling than debating. You're pushing people like me to the other side because yelling is an indication that 1) you don't care about the debate and 2) you don't care about the people involved. They're just in your way.

The ID movement is rather heterogeneous. The leading "theorists" of the movement I take to be Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, and Steve Meyer.

Even 2 out of 3 of these deny common ancestry, and the other (Behe, quoted above) says his ID colleagues know the relevant science better. Behe wrote this in First Things in 2005, actually.

And of course Behe defended the anti-common ancestry "Pandas and People", and its use in 9th grade biology classrooms, in court in 2005...

I think they provide the intellectual heft of the movement. Then there are many leading ID figures whose training is in law, politics, journalism, etc. who are (as I see it) mostly polemicists and activists. Finally, there is the movement's mass base of supporters, constituents, and enthusiasts, which is very large. It has become obvious that a large proportion of this last group are actually Young Earth Creationists.

No argument here, although it should be acknowledged that virtually all of this second tier are old-earth creationists, if not young-earth creationists.

I choose to define the movement's ideas by those of its main theorists. And I believe that they make clear that they do not officially reject either common descent or the age of the universe.

This is what they sometimes say in order to deflect criticism, and to appear more scientific and less fundamentalist, e.g. to people in the middle like you. But they mostly don't believe it themselves, and more importantly, if you look at their textbooks (Of Pandas and People (1989), The Design of Life (2007), and Explore Evolution (2007) -- please read these, or you really or only dabbling into the ID movement!), and their (many) attempts (supported by the very leaders of the movement you mention) to get common-ancestry-denial taught in public school science classes (e.g. Kansas, Texas, Dover, Ohio, etc.), it becomes very difficult to defend the claim that ID really doesn't have the challenge to common ancestry as a major plank, and that it is therefore predominantly creationist in the special-creation-of-organisms sense.

I don't think we are required to have saintlike innocence in these matters: we should look at what ID leaders have actually done and supported, not just at the latest incredibly bland, watered-down for public relations purposes version of ID that the Discovery Institute is putting out.

Dr. Beckwith,

Let me ask a question. Are you suggesting that even though you don't agree full on with ID that you are not or would not be so opposed to it if it didn't imply "to churchgoers and popular audiences that the very foundations of theism and Western civilization rise or fall on the soundness of Behe’s and Dembski’s inferences."? Do you think this is implied? Do you think that some are taking ID in this vein? I would hope that is not the case. If so I agree that ID is not the savior of theism or western civilization.

Would the discussions about specific scientific discoveries seem similar to what you have said earlier and what C.S. Lewis wrote? I seem to recall somewhere Lewis said that (not being a direct quote) scientific discoveries can be a double edged sword for believers in that, what theory we hold as viable one day may turn out to be wrong another day and hence, there goes our strong piece of scientific evidence down the drain. Not very Lewis like as I wrote it, but I believe that was the gist of his point. I much prefer a Thomistic cosmological argument for a First Cause then scientific discoveries for the creation of the universe because of the one day in one day out view of scientific discoveries, but, Thomas relied upon metaphysics.

Any other thoughts?

Based on this article it could be argued that Stephen Barr thinks there is no causal entity outside of nature – i.e. that natural phenomena (presumably properties of energy, matter, space, time, maybe natural selection) equals divine causality, since he insists on the divine. This seemingly pantheistic view of God and nature does indeed contrast with ID.

Now, in reality what I’ve said above is for effect as much as anything. If writing for First Things, I would venture a guess that his views on God should fall somewhere near an orthodox view of Christian theism – I really don’t know. However, if we assume that is the case, then my analysis of his viewpoint is about like his analysis of ID.

In other words, its too bad Stephen Barr is off base yet again. His superficial analysis filled with his own definitions and apparent lack of acquaintance with ID does nothing to shed light but instead only adds to further confusion. Sometimes I think that must be the point. Such “put down” articles are not meant as honest attempts to engage real issues. They are, well, attempts to put down. Fortunately, as is sometimes humorously the case with such pronouncements, reports of demise are greatly exaggerated.

Sincerely,
P.D. Brown

Dr. Barr,
I am a PhD student in theology. I would like to recommend the work of T. F. Torrance, who attempted to think through the shared reality between the disciplines of theology and the natural sciences. His work is characterized by intense, integrated dialogue with leading thinkers in the sciences, such as Einstein, James Clerk Maxwell, and Michael Polyani A few titles by Torrance to consider:
Theological and Natural Science (Eugene, OR, 2002)
Reality and Scientific Theology (Edinburgh, 1986)
Transformation and Convergence in the Frame of Knowledge (Grand Rapids,
1984)
Christian Theology and Scientific Culture (Belfast, 1980)
God and Rationality (Oxford, 1971)
Space, Time and the Resurrection (Oxford, 1970)
Space, Time and the Incarnation (Oxford, 1969)
Theological Science (Oxford, 1968)

Based on this article it could be argued that Stephen Barr thinks there is no causal entity outside of nature – i.e. that natural phenomena (presumably properties of energy, matter, space, time, maybe natural selection) equals divine causality, since he insists on the divine. This seemingly pantheistic view of God and nature does indeed contrast with ID.

Now, in reality what I’ve said above is for effect as much as anything. If writing for First Things, I would venture a guess that his views on God should fall somewhere near an orthodox view of Christian theism – I really don’t know. However, if we assume that is the case, then my analysis of his viewpoint is about like his analysis of ID.

In other words, its too bad Stephen Barr is off base yet again. His superficial analysis filled with his own definitions and apparent lack of acquaintance with ID does nothing to shed light but instead only adds to further confusion. Sometimes I think that must be the point. Such “put down” articles are not meant as honest attempts to engage real issues. They are, well, attempts to put down. Fortunately, as is sometimes humorously the case with such pronouncements, reports of demise are greatly exaggerated.

Sincerely,
P.D. Brown

Bill Dembski has posted a long response to me at another website. A major theme of that response is that I adopt the views that I do in part to gain or keep the respect of my scientific colleagues. Some people might see this as an attack on my integrity. I don't think it was meant that way.

I don't think it important in the scheme of things how my scientific colleagues look upon me as a person. I do, however, think it important how the scientific world looks upon religion. I think it an important goal to make scientists (and those whose thinking is shaped by science) more open to religious ideas. For that I make no apology. I care what ideas people have about God and about religion much much more than I care what ideas they have about me.

Bill discusses some of the history of our acquaintance/friendship. (I think of him as a friend. I have only friendly feelings toward him. The tone of his long response suggests to me that he is a bit angry at me, however. That is understandable. I attacked something dear to him.)

Though his account of our past interactions is basically accurate, I would like to add some details. Bill contacted me a long time ago, I think it was sometime around 1990, because he came across something I had written that apparently he liked. He then sent me some things he had written. I don't remember him suggesting that I write a book, but if he remembers doing so, then I assume he did. The factors that actually got me started on writing my book, however, were the experience I had writing for First Things, and the constant prodding by one of my older brothers, William. Bill (Dembski)'s suggestion actually had no effect on that decision.

I did attend the Mere Creation workshop at the kind invitation of its organizers --- I assume it was Bill's idea. Originally they invited me to speak, but I guess they sensed from some of the e-mails I sent them that I might have a different slant on things, so they withdrew the offer to speak and very generously invited me instead to come at their expense as an observer and critic.

My attitude toward the ID movement has always been mixed. I thought and still think that the basic question that they were raising (about the complexity of biological structures and the ability of Darwinian mechanism to explain it) is very interesting and important. I happen to think that it is a question that probably cannot be answered with any degree of confidence for a very long time to come, if ever. Still, it is definitely worth pointing out to people that it hasn't yet been answered. I also admired (and still admire) the intellectual courage of the ID movement in raising this question.

From the very beginning, however, I thought the ID people were making some serious mistakes. The main mistakes, as I saw (and see) them were these: (a) Instead of simply raising it as a question (as they usually did), they sometimes used language suggesting that it could already be demonstrated that Darwinism could not possibly explain these complex structures. (b) They wanted to redraw the long-established boundaries of science in such a way that the "design hypothesis" would be counted as a "scientific theory." (c) Some of them (especially Phil Johnson in his books) seemed to attack common descent. For example, I found in Johnson and some other ID writing the supposed lack of "intermediate forms" emphasized. I thought (and think) it was a serious mistake for the ID movement not to make clear that it accepted the age of the universe and common descent and that it regarded the evidence for them to be compelling.

In my view, the movement deliberately fudged the issue of common descent
and the age of the universe, because they wanted to create a big-tent "anti-Darwin" movement. I felt this to extremely counterproductive. Bill seems to disdain the desire to be taken seriously
by scientists, but surely he wants his valid SCIENTIFIC question (whether natural selection can account for apparently irreducibly complex structures) to be taken seriously by scientists. How does ginning up an anti-Darwin movement that embraces Young Earthers help that goal?

When my book came out in 2003, amazon featured a positive published review of it that claimed that in the book I rejected the possibility of arguing for design on the basis of biology . That is simply untrue. I nowhere say that in my book. I was afraid that some people who might benefit from reading my book would be deterred from doing so because of this misrepresentation of it on the amazon site. To counteract that, I asked Bill to write a "customer review" containing a statement to the effect that I do NOT reject all biological design arguments. I clearly remember that I made it very plain to Bill that I was not asking him to praise the book, but simply to rebut this misrepresentation of its contents. I felt that coming from a champion of biological design arguments it would carry some weight with those who might otherwise be put off by the erroneous statement in the review.

Bill did what I asked, and went much further. He gave the book very high praise. This made me a bit uncomfortable, because I realized that by doing more than I asked he had put me in his debt in a way I really did not want to be. Some time later Bill sent me the unpublished manuscript of his book "The Design Revolution" and asked me to write a blurb for its back cover. I agreed. As I read that book, I was seriously dismayed by some of the things he was saying. There was a theological statement that I felt no orthodox Christian could agree with, namely that one should be open to the possibility of revising ANY of one's beliefs. (Even that Jesus is Lord? Even that he rose from the dead?) But what made me most upset was a chapter in which he dealt with the issue of whether the universe could be infinite and thus have infinite "probabilistic resources". (This possibility is an Achilles heel of some ID arguments.) Bill presented five or six arguments in that chapter, all of which I felt were utterly fallacious. I sent him a long e-mail in which I pointed out these serious deficiencies, as I saw them. I now faced a question, what to say in the blurb? I couldn't say that I thought the book well-argued, because I didn't, at least in that very important chapter. So what I wrote was that the book raised important questions and was bold and courageous --- which, in fact, I believed. I did not say that I thought the treatment given those questions was good. I still stand by what I said in that blurb.

I don't like attacking the ID movement. I don't like the way that they have been treated by many of their critics. They have been lied about and dealt with very unfairly. That is one reason I have tried as much as possible over the years to speak about them in positive terms. I was asked some time ago to be a "responder" to a talk on the teaching of evolution at a conference of the National Association of Scholars. In my response, I defended the reasonableness of the questions being raised by the ID movement. I also did so in my book. I haved continued to do so since. I wrote a quite positive review of Mike Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box for The Public Interest. I also plugged his book in my book, and have recommended it to many people, and praised it to audiences of my public talks on science and religion.

My views on the ID movement's ideas and positions have not changed at all. However, my feelings toward the movement as a whole have changed. The manner in which some in the movement have gone after anyone who is a "theistic evolutionist" disgusts me, and seems to me every bit as unfair as the shots taken at the ID-ers. I won't go into specifics, because I don't want to point fingers at particular people. The movement seems to me to have degenerated. Whereas I used to defend it against the charge that it was merely a Trojan Horse for Young Earth Creationism, I think that this is what it has allowed itself to become.


Now to a few substantive points. Maybe Bill gets lots of e-mails from atheists who have been converted to theism by his books. If significant numbers of people do come to faith because of ID, that would be an enormous point in its favor. One has to balance that, however, against the number of young people who lose their faith because they think science and religion are at war, an impression that I think the ID movement has done a lot to strengthen, not by intention, but in effect.

Is ID making advances in science? I am glad they are getting papers published having to do with information theory. Maybe, if the ID theorists keep at it, a LONG time from now, it will be possible to demonstrate mathematically that some biological structure could not possibly have arisen by naturalistic mechanisms.. I sincerely hope that happens. I remain skeptical, however, that such a proof will be possible. I think it would require a lot of detailed information about evolutionary history that is probably unreconstructable at this point. It is very hard to prove a negative of that sort.

On another matter, there are certainly early Jewish and Christian texts one can point to that suggest a design argument based on complexity of biological structure. ("I am fearfully and wonderfully made" is the most obvious one.) I have not gone searching for such texts, but I have read a considerable amount of the fathers and other early writings, and irreducible complexity does not seem to me to be the dominant theme, but, as I noted above, beauty, order, lawfulness, and harmony. The problem is that the ID movement has had the effect of narrowing people's conception of what "design" must entail.

I am sorry for the delay in posting this answer, our power went out for a while, and we are digging out of deep snow.

I like the excerpt from Frank Beckwith's article quite a bit--which makes a number of crucial points more artfully than I (but then, Dr. Beckwith is a first rate philosopher).

Let me add a point I'm not sure all will follow but I hope that most can. Those arguing that Dr. Barr denies design because he denies arguments made by ID advocates are committing a logical fallacy known as denying the antecedent. When it comes to arguments involving conditionals (if, then premises) there are two valid forms: modus ponens and modus tollens. According to modus ponens, if A, then B; A; therefore, B. According to modus tollents, if A, then B; not B; therefore, not A. There are also two corresponding fallacies. One fallacy is known as denying the antecedent--it runs like this: if A, then B; not A; therefore not B. The other fallacy is called affirming the consequent; it goes like this: If A, then B; B; therefore, A. The point is that both denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent are fallacious forms of argument. Now many have said that because Dr. Barr criticizes ID, he therefore rejects design (Dr. Dembksi among them). But this is to commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Let ID stand for the position and/or arguments made on behalf of ID. Then, if the arguments for ID are both valid and sound, then it follows that the biological entity in question (perhaps a flagellum) has been designed by an intelligent agent (let's call this position DIA). The resulting premise has this form: if ID, then DIA. Dr. Barr's criticizes ID. So that is equivalent, for the sake of argument, to not ID. His critiques say he therefore holds not DIA. But this is a straightforward commission of the fallacy of denying the antecedent. So far as I can tell, most all of the criticisms of Dr. Barr in this thread reduce to an instance of this fallacy--which is a basic logic mistake.

Forget the particulars of the flagellum etc. Forget what beliefs particular ID advocates hold. Just the fact that people can openly and without ridicule question the pseudoscience of Darwinism seems to me a great achievement of ID. How many roads are now being trod which wouldn't have before? How many scientists are looking at things differently? How many students are going into science as a result of this movement?

To write "The End of Intelligent Design?" and to bash it as harmful to not only science but religion as well? That seems ludicrous and even bordering on hysteria. ID is only just getting started both scientifically and philosophically. Let's see where it goes. Let's also remember that, despite all the critiques and worries about where ID is from and where it will lead, the ID movement is essentially a _reaction_and _response_ to the (far too) wide-ranging, unscientific claims of many Darwinists.

Set aside each particular ID proponent's beliefs and personality and realize that "Intelligent Design" is in reality a pretty wide range of scientists simply saying "Uh, that doesn't make _scientific_sense" in response to the claims of Darwinists.

Mr. Barr writes:
**"Very few religious skeptics have been made more open to religious belief because of ID arguments. These arguments not only have failed to persuade, they have done positive harm by convincing many people that the concept of an intelligent designer is bound up with a rejection of mainstream science."**

Does he in actuality mean that very few of his atheist science prof buddies have been persuaded? In my experience the discussions brought on because of ID have very much gotten people to (at the very least) drop their guard a bit regarding faith. And the idea that there is an inherent "rejection of mainstream science" when considering ID seems completely wrong to me. People aren't as stupid as you might believe. Most know that science is much, much, MUCH more than Darwinism. They know actual science is much more concrete and measurable than the amorphous social goo that is Darwinism. They innately sense the difference between the exactness of real science and the crater-sized holes in Darwinism. What is happening is that people are realizing that Darwinism looks a lot more like Global Warming than Real Science. I personally wonder if the next batch of embarrassing emails will be those of Darwinists admitting in private many of the claims of the ID scientists.

Instead of worrying of ID's effect on atheist's acceptance of our faith, or worrying about how people might become YECs instead of Thomists, why not just let the ID movement ride awhile. Let THEM do THEIR research without attacks.

It baffles me why any RELIGIOUS SCIENTIST wouldn't first set his sights on the Darwinist PseudoScience Machine.

I feel I have come a bit late to this particular party. However, I have been a long time student of the intelligent design movement. I would like to add a comment to Nick Matzke’s observations regarding ID and common ancestry, or speciation.

William Dembski and Jonathan Wells writing in their recent book, “The Design of Life” deny common ancestry as it is used by mainstream biologists. They wrote that ID “neither requires nor excludes speciation,” and that “ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable.” These remarks would seem to leave the door open to common ancestry. But, in their concluding remarks on speciation, they insist that “there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.” So ID accepts speciation, but not by mutation, and natural selection- not by biology. No, rather their claim is that, “intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way, intelligent design is compatible with speciation. (pg. 109)”

Both authors are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly.

And that is all that distinguishes ID from special creationism- honesty.

Dear Francic Beckwith,

I am a Thomist (neo-Thomist really), and quite agree with nearly all contained in your post at 10:30a. Yourself, as well as Dr. Barr, both affirm the classical theistic argument for design grounded in "final causality" as explicated via Aristotle ->Aquinas->Gilson, etc.; nonetheless, you say both seem to say that there are elements of the ID movement which interest you - or with which you might like to dialouge. I am wondering what the nature of your curiosity might be? Specifically, to assert on philosophical/metaphysical grounds that final causes are a fact, a datum which must be accepted as part of nature per se (as I do), seems a very good ground for reasoning (as classical theism does) that there is an Intellect (i.e. God) Who causes (as primary cause), secondary (natural) causes to move towards specific ends (finality). Yet such statement does not seem to yield an exhaustive explanation as to EXACTLY how God as first cause "moves" or influences second causes to behave in the teleological ways they do. I mean what is the precise ontological interface between God as Being (first cause) and the natural order (field of second causes)?

Is it theoretically possible, in your opinion, that science qua science might "discover" or "recognize" in a scientifically unavoidable way, by interaction with secondary causes, the existence of a first cause? In other words, discover that certain scientifically observable datum, (due to impossible probabilities for instance) mathematically or in some other way simply require the postulation of a non-experimental first cause? Is this the reason you had (have) an initial interest in ID - that it might put a mathematical/scientifically demonstrable face on the metaphysical fact of finality? Do you see CFT (cosmic fine-tuning) as a possible example of just this sort of thing?

I suppose what I am getting at is this: would you be more predisposed to the ID enterprise if it were done within the larger metaphysical context of final causlity - that is. if it were an attempt - given final causality - to show concrete instances within the natural sciences that scientifically/mathematically point to metaphysical final causation, and thereby to "design" as understood Thomistically? It seems that within such a context, the eventual failure or disproof of a particular ID assertion, would not threaten (or appear to threaten) theism as it might when ID is pursued as "theism's last stand".

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Pax et Bonum,

-Ray

I just posted the following comment over on Uncommon Descent, the ID blog co-authored by Dr. Dembski. Uncommon Descent has a reputation for removing posts overly-critical of ID, so I thought I would post it here in case it is not approved there.

I hope I will be pleasantly surprised, but I am not optimistic - I have seen Dr Dembski locking posts for no obviously good reason when people ask him tough questions on his blog. It's rather ironic, bearing in mind that ID often seems to ask for nothing more than the right to be heard.

-----------------------------------------------
Donna Ferentes
02/10/2010
6:15 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Dr Dembski, you mentioned Barr’s endorsement of your book, The Design Revolution. Your own words in that book may go some way to explaining Barr’s subsequent loss of fervor.

In the chapter entitled “Aspirations”, you wrote: “…My own sense is that within the next five years design theorists will have identified and done a sufficiently thorough analysis of certain biological systems to show convincingly that these systems lie beyond the reach of material mechanisms…”

Since the publication of The Design Revolution in 2004, it doesn’t seem as if there have been many new ID papers published inside or outside the ID community.

Where ID has been more successful is in the pop-sci book and movie publishing arena, and in acting as a gadfly to sting the Darwinian ox in some of its most sensitive areas.

That’s certainly a noble pursuit, but it is not strictly a scientific one. Scientific progress in building a case for ID does not seem to have moved forward a whole lot since 2004.

Maybe Barr became disenchanted during the long wait for “jam today”?

I just posted the following comment over on Uncommon Descent, the ID blog co-authored by Dr. Dembski. Uncommon Descent has a reputation for removing posts overly-critical of ID, so I thought I would post it here in case it is not approved there.

I hope I will be pleasantly surprised, but I am not optimistic - I have seen Dr Dembski locking posts for no obviously good reason when people ask him tough questions on his blog. It's rather ironic, bearing in mind that ID often seems to ask for nothing more than the right to be heard.

-----------------------------------------------
Donna Ferentes
02/10/2010
6:15 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Dr Dembski, you mentioned Barr’s endorsement of your book The Design Revolution. Your own words in that book may go some way to explaining Barr’s subsequent loss of fervor.

In the chapter entitled “Aspirations”, you wrote: “…My own sense is that within the next five years design theorists will have identified and done a sufficiently thorough analysis of certain biological systems to show convincingly that these systems lie beyond the reach of material mechanisms…”

Since the publication of The Design Revolution in 2004, it doesn’t seem as if there have been many new ID papers published inside or outside the ID community.

Where ID has been more successful is in the pop-sci book and movie publishing arena, and in acting as a gadfly to sting the Darwinian ox in some of its most sensitive areas.

That’s certainly a noble pursuit, but it is not strictly a scientific one. Scientific progress in building a case for ID does not seem to have moved forward a whole lot since 2004.

Maybe Barr became disenchanted during the long wait for “jam today”?

I'd rather rely on Aquinas and Augustine and the like than on these modern-day crypto-materialists, who would reduce God to just another efficient cause operating within nature in rivalry to other potential efficient causes. As if God were simply an hypothesis proposed to explain some natural phenomenon. They conflate Intelligent Design, a specific sort of theory offered up in science, with the existence of an intelligent designer, as such. More to the point, like most folks in our modern scientific/technological age, they confuse "design" in the sense of "a plan or intention" with "design" in the sense of an engineer at a drafting table specifying the qualities of a particular component of a particular thing. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger cautioned against this error in "Schoepfungsglaube und Evolutionstheorie." Creation, he said, includes creation-in-motion, that is, the species through time. But then many folks today confuse "creation" with "the beginning of the space-time continuum," a confusion which Fr. Lemaitre did not make! [Right, John Farrell?]

Now, Augustine, writing on Genesis 1, said that God had endowed the earth with the power to bring forth the living things. This informed the medieval development of the idea of secondary causation: that God had endowed material bodies with natures and these natures had immanent powers to act upon one another directly. We find this affirmed by Adelard of Bath, William of Conches, St. Albertus Magnus, Bishop Nicole d'Oresme, and countless others. Aquinas as usual put it best. He compared nature to an art (craft), a divine art, that would be as if a shipbuilder could give to his timbers the power to form themselves into a ship. That is, God had given natures the ability to form themselves into Stuff. (Trans-form-ation is not creation.)

This is just as true for those things for which we have developed scientific explanations -- say, the power of mass to attract other masses, which we call "gravity" - as it is for those transformations for which we have not yet done so. Is gravity really less remarkable than evolution? Or is it only more familiar?

An earlier post ran:
"And Isaac Newton, a much greater scientist than any of us today, made the point that even the fact that the universe follows basic reliable rules implies a Creator."

Newton, too, subscribed to the modernist notion of dead matter possessing no immanent powers that must be moved from the outside. And he also firmly believed that the solar system would eventually fly apart if God did not intervene periodically to adjust the planetary orbits. Had an earlier generation of IDers put their faith in this "scientific" proof of intelligent design, they would have been sorely vexed when Poincare showed that the system was stable, after all.

But the argument from teleology [the existence of natural laws] is very different from the argument from the improbability of "irreducibly" complex details, because Aquinas saw no reason why those natural laws needed to be complex. Even the simplest of things led back to the creator. Why the flagellum? Why not the bacterium itself? Why not electromagnetism?

If God is the source of all being, He is the source of gravitation every bit as much as He is the source of those natural laws that exhibit as evolution through natural selection, neutral selection, and sundry other mechanisms.

________________________
It is therefore, causally that Scripture has said that earth brought forth the crops and trees, in the sense that it received the power of bringing them forth. In the earth from the beginning, in what I might call the roots of time, God created what was to be in times to come.
-- Augustine of Hippo, On the literal meanings of Genesis, Book V Ch. 4:11

Dear Michael Gibson, Thanks for the suggestions. I have been aware of the existence of Torrance's works, but have not read them. I will definitely add them to my reading list.

P. D. Brown writes: "Based on this article it could be argued that Stephen Barr thinks there is no causal entity outside of nature – i.e. that natural phenomena (presumably properties of energy, matter, space, time, maybe natural selection) equals divine causality, since he insists on the divine. This seemingly pantheistic view of God and nature does indeed contrast with ID."

I can't imagine how you could infer the first statement from anything Dr. Barr has posted. Nothing he says entails your first statement (in fact, Stephen Barr's and Frank Beckwith's arguments are, in part, that the ID account of causality reduces divine causation to an efficient cause within nature--one cause among others--and not the other way around). Moreover, the move from your first statement two the second statement (following "i.e.") is a blatant non sequitur. Moreover, your critique fails to acknowledge any distinction between primary and secondary causes. This is really a careless reply that doesn't take seriously any criticisms made in the thread of ID. Clearly Drs. Barr and Beckwith believe in a first cause of the universe that is more than just one cause in the causal chain but that the transcendent ground of being. Not to see this is just to miss Barr's point entirely. Finally, an unrelated point. On Mr. Brown's argument, deists would be pantheists. Now deism and pantheism are two ways of going wrong in thinking about the relation of God to the cosmos. But they are not the same way of going wrong--as your post clearly entails. So you're argument seems wrong on its own terms. And you seem to have gotten Dr. Barr precisely backwards--though I confess your train of reasoning was sufficiently obtuse that I had a hard time following it.

Dear Dr Barr,

The flaw in your argument is that you see all creation as a result of natural law.

The creator created natural law in harmony with the rest of his creation and natural law is dependant upon creation. Natural law cannot create by itself; it is dependant upon creation which is in turn dependant upon an intelligent (infinitely intelligent in this case) mind.

You have not refuted intellgient design at all. You have given vent to your prejudices.

Note: I just realized that [blockquote] tags don't work here, so my previous post looks weird -- some of the paragraphs are me quoting Barr, hopefully not too confusing. I guess we gotta use old-fashioned quote marks.

Beckwith has graciously replied to my comment, I will give a few replies...

[Nick said] "I don't think we are required to have saintlike innocence in these matters: we should look at what ID leaders have actually done and supported, not just at the latest incredibly bland, watered-down for public relations purposes version of ID that the Discovery Institute is putting out."

Beckwith said: "I part ways with Nick on this sort of tactic. Here's why: if the arguments for ID are plausible, then his criticism is irrelevant. If the arguments for ID are implausible, then his criticism is unnecessary. One may not find ID or its arguments compelling (as is the case with me), but that does not mean rely on an informal fallacy to make your case."

This is not convincing, for several reasons. First, the ID movement has deliberately and prominently inserted itself into the realm of public policy (e.g. science classrooms) and law (arguments that ID is constitutional). Thus, facts relevant to the political and legal status of ID can be mentioned. Religious motivations, especially the prominent apologetic goals of the ID movement, are clearly relevant legally -- whether you think the law should work this way, it is beyond arguable that it currently does. In fact, I would say it is our duty to mention the creationist religious baggage, because there is an active attempt to sweep it under the carpet, and because if it doesn't get mentioned, experience has shown that people get themselves led down the rosy path by ID advocates, with breezy confidence that there's nothing going on here but nice, objective, religiously unmotivated, purely evidence-based science.

(In fact, methinks Beckwith himself was one of those led down the rosy path by the ID movement in the early 2000s. If you look at what he said about ID in 2004 publications, it sure looked like he thought their science was serious, that the religious/creationist links were dismissible or no big deal, and that the legal scene was promising. All of these predictions collapsed and burned in the 2005 Dover case. After Dover, Beckwith has been a lot less rosy about ID.)

Second, truth is important for its own sake, whether or not that particular piece of truth is considered relevant to whatever part of the ID debate one is interested in. It is simply a historical fact that ID was derived from creationism (=position advocating special creation, i.e. divine intervention in the history of life) and is still pretty much creationism now. The evidence is as clear as one can possibly imagine -- just google "cdesign proponentsists".

Since truth is important, it is important to provide rebuttals when e.g. ID advocates try to pretend their creationist history doesn't exist, or e.g. when they successfully get someone like Stephen Barr to think that they are common-ancestry accepting, when they actually are almost entirely common ancestry deniers.

Third, I've personally put plenty of time in doing the technical, scientific rebuttals. Google my name and "flagellum", "immune system", "blood clotting", etc. to see it. I've put in way more work on that front than the cultural/historical one. So it is a little weird for someone to say that I haven't considered the issues on their merits -- I know way too much about the merits, and furthermore ID supporters totally ignore the merits of the case, which they typically don't understand in the slightest. E.g., in this thread, an ID fan wrote:

"For instance, the bacterial flagellum has about 30 vital parts; a biologically useful 10-part subcomponent of the flagellum has been identified, but getting from 10 to 30 is still a huge jump."

...which at this point is just evidence of their personal ignorance and their desire to stick God into the gap of their personal ignorance, rather than doing a little googling and finding out the truth, which was published in a paper I coauthored with Mark Pallen in 2006. In summary:

==============
Total number of flagellum proteins in a standard system: 42

(this table excludes the chemotaxis proteins; there are ~10 chemotaxis proteins in standard E. coli, but the number can range from 0 to 10+ in various bacteria)

Total number thought to be indispensable in modern flagella: 23 (55%)

Total number “unique” (no known homologs): 15 (36%)

Total number of indispensable proteins that are also “unique”: 2 (5%)
==============

It turns out that, yes, 10 flagellum proteins are homologous to Type 3 Secretion, but another ~8 are homologous to each other, the 2 motor proteins are homologous to other membrane channels, etc. Many other "required" flagellum proteins aren't even found in all flagella. All the ID advocates who have ever written anything about this, before and after 2006, have gotten this wrong. They just aren't paying attention. And this is their absolute favorite, flagship system!

As a scientist, it is impossible not to become cynical about the ID movement after an experience like this, and realize that ID really is driven by creationist religious agendas (for which there is much positive evidence) and not by an actual scientific agenda (and e.g. the flagellum example is strong evidence against the idea that careful attention to scientific detail is driving ID).

"Getting people jacked up about your adversaries' entire belief structure rather the actual arguments they are offering leads your listeners into intellectual vice, since you are nurturing in them the bad habit of looking for associations rather than assessing arguments."

As I noted above, I have done more serious assessments of the "scientific" arguments that ID advocates offer than most people -- probably more than anyone else in this thread! So this criticism really doesn't wash.

But even so, the criticism isn't really convincing. Ironically, initially, us ID skeptics actually **didn't pay enough** attention to ID advocates' belief structures. Back in 2004 we didn't know anything about the connections between the 1989 Of Pandas and People and the 1980s creation science movement and litigation. But the links were there to be found during the Kitzmiller case in 2005, and once they were, they were revealing and damning.

"Take, for example, Nick's associate, Barbara Forrest. When she is not claiming that I am not a “real legal scholar” because I only earned an academic degree in law (M.J.S.) from a first tier law school rather than a professional law degree (J.D.) from any old law school, she is so determined to establish that I am an “ID supporter” that she actually had someone monitor my movements during the afternoon I visited Southern University Law School (in Baton Rouge) in February 2009. That is, of course, creepy."

I have read all of your ID-related material, and it is pretty hard to argue that you were not an ID supporter back in 2004 and before. Your law review articles from that period are painfully naive about the scientific virtues, credentials, and secular nature of the ID movement. And, if memory serves, you were a DI fellow at the time. The material is indistinguishable in sentiment and assessment from the law review articles put out by e.g. DeWolf and colleagues from the DI itself. At the time they were trumpeted as pro-ID and as encouragement for school boards like Dover -- I believe the Dover defense even contacted you, because they thought, based on your articles, that you would be on their side.

It's fine if the Kitzmiller trial or recent conversion from evangelicalism to Catholicism or whatever has disabused you of your previous pro-ID tendencies; but if so, I think the thing to do is just suck it up and admit the change of view, not pretend unconvincingly that you never had that view.

Beckwith concludes:

"Nick, stick to the arguments. That's your strong suit. Believe me, you would have gained a lot of traction with people like me if you didn't come out full guns a blazin' with your "there's scary religious people" shtick."

If, in fact, there are scary religious people about -- i.e. creationists denying obvious, well-established, well-supported scientific conclusions, basically for apologetics reasons -- then they need to be opposed with arguments both at the scientific level, and at the level of pointing out that their motivations, goals, methods etc. are actually derived not from objective scientific principles, but from their rather specific religious views. Why let pseudoscientists pretend they are real scientists, unchallenged?

PS: If you're wondering why Forrest is on your case, consider something like this. In 2003, you published this book: Beckwith, Francis (2003). Law, Darwinism and public education : the establishment clause and the challenge of intelligent design. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.

The book argues that ID is likely constitutional, primarily because its advocates (allegedly) have good qualifications and make good scientific arguments based on data, and because ID isn't creationism. Here is the Discovery Institute page describing the book, from 2003:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3572
=======
After recounting the history of cases which involved the "Creator in the courtroom," Beckwith turns to analyzing intelligent design. Under various legal definitions of religion, Beckwith contends that design is not religion as conventionally understood because it derives its support from empirical data and philosophical arguments. Intelligent design, Beckwith explains, is distinct from creationism, for it derives its support from the scientific argument rather than religious texts such as the book of Genesis. Design also fails other legal tests for "religion," such as the "parallel position test" because it does not function as a religion in the lives of its proponents. While design may come to conclusions shared by some religions, this does not necessarily make it "religion" for legal purposes. After all, Beckwith observes, courts have acknowledged that "a decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught happens to harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions."

Finally, Beckwith argues that intelligent design does not fit under the Edwards test for religion because it lacks a historical connection with the Scopes Trial and other Genesis-inspired anti-evolution endeavors. Teaching about intelligent design could be justified on the basis that it improves the religious "neutrality" of a curriculum.

Beckwith provides a deep and thorough treatment of the legal arguments raised by critics of teaching design in public schools. Those interested in studying the relevant technical legal arguments surrounding the teaching of intelligent design will require an understanding of Beckwith's well-reasoned position explained in this book.
=======

Gee, however could anyone get the impression that Beckwith is pro-ID?

Of course, all of these arguments collapsed catastrophically when put to the test in an actual court case in 2005 (and anyone exercising a little due diligence and skepticism about the ID movement in 2003 should have seen the huge, gaping problems in the claim that ID had a viable scientific program or that it was something clearly different from creationism). Some time after that I began to see Beckwith distancing himself from ID, offering Thomistic-type critiques, etc.

One parting shot I can't resist. In Beckwith (2003), the following statement is made:

"[R]enaming curriculum that has already been repudiated in prior court cases does not now make the unconstitutional curriculum constitutional."

Beckwith wasn't talking directly about ID in this passage, but as it turns out, this is actually precisely and literally how ID originated. And when this was revealed in court, well, the constitutional implications weren't good.

Quick questions:

1) Can a Christian scientist reasonably not accept common descent?

2) You say in the article that "ID movement does not deny common descent or the age of the earth," and later in the comments section you say in regards to the mistakes of ID that "I thought (and think) it was a serious mistake for the ID movement not to make clear that it accepted the age of the universe and common descent and that it regarded the evidence for them to be compelling." Am I to infer that your beef with ID is that it was not vociferous enough in supporting Darwinian macroevolution?

Maybe your title should have read "The End of Intelligent Design for Theistic Evolution." How can ID live on in a world full of Christians who believe in common descent and Christians who do not believe in it?

The article and comments have helped me understand ID better. Thank you for your work!

What is ID's fate for someone who is not a theistic evolutionist?

Stephen M. Barr: "ID arguments effectively declare natural science incompetent even in what most would regard as its own proper sphere."

Miguel de Servet: Totally gratuitous claim: ID simply affirms that there are instances of Irreducible Complexity, whereby ToE is not even capable to suggest a hypothetical "evolutionary path".

SMB: "ID arguments effectively declare natural science incompetent even in what most would regard as its own proper sphere."

MdS: Significantly "law" and "chance" are nothing but what Jacques Monod called Chance & Necessity, in his famous book, and they are nothing but another name for the two essential ingredients of the Darwinian ToE, Random Mutation and Natural Selection. ID affirms that "Chance & Necessity" are not an adequate explanation. Not in all instances, anyway. Why does SMB find this so disturbing?

SMB: "Other religious people, however, have nothing to gain and a great deal to lose by the ID movement’s frontal assault on well-defended redoubts of modern science—an assault that has come to resemble the Charge of the Light Brigade."

MdS: Funny how SMB criticizes the ID advocates for "attacking" Darwinism, but then the same SMB is the first to resort to a heavily militaristic image.

SMB: "I have addressed many audiences myself using arguments similar to theirs ["scientists who are Christian believers, such as John Polkinghorne, Owen Gingerich, Francis Collins, Peter E. Hodgson, Michal Heller, Kenneth R. Miller, and Marco Bersanelli "] and have had scientists whom I know to be of firm atheist convictions tell me that they came away with more respect for the religious position. Religion has a significant number of friends (and potential friends) in the scientific world. The ID movement is not creating new ones."

MdS: Basically, what SMB would want is a God who sets the Laws of Nature, a God who chooses to resort to chance in the development of His creation, never (... God forbid!) a God who intervenes in His own Creation, to "steer" it, to "tweak" it as He deems fit. Even less, of course, a God who freely intervenes in His Creation with any Supernatural intervention.

There is only a small detail: this is NOT the God of the Bible.

Wow! What a talented bunch of comments. As you can see, very educated men can have very different views on serious stuff. One good thing [well more than one] is the ecumenical reality of seeing Protestants defend Catholics against fellow Catholics all on a Catholic site! Ahh, John the 23rd would be proud [Vatican 2 for all you Protestants]

Frances, I read your comment first and thought for sure I was going to read a very negative comment by Nick. For the life of me [okay, too much] I cant figure what he said that caused you to get defensive? I thought you went through lots of undeserved criticism when you embraced the historic Catholic faith, and felt bad about it. But it seems to me that you are treating some of the ID guys the same way. Geez, we are not all 'young earth creationists' for heavens sake. God bless anyway, John

Dear Mr. Hobart, Of course I don't believe that "creation is the result of natural law." You mistake natural transformations of one kind of thing into another with "creation" in the theological sense. (I refer you to the very lucid remarks of Mike the Statistician a few comments above yours.) Consider what happens when some amount of oxygen gas and some amount of hydrogen gas combine and produce some amount of water. Has water been "created"? This is not what is meant by creation in Christian tradition. Only God can create. The transformation of the hydrogen and oxygen into water happens by the natural powers of things --- powers that God does indeed give them. The whole world and everything in it, including all the natural powers those things possess and all the regular ways in which those things behave (the "laws of nature"), are truly created by God in the following sense: He gives them being, He makes them real instead of merely hypothetical, He gives them existence. Without God's creative act, nothing whatever would exist except God himself. Instances of transformations that occur within the world in accordance with the powers that things naturally have and with which God endowed them are not instances of "creation".

Consider a book's relation to its author. The whole book exists because the author wrote it. Every word, every jot and tittle exists only because the author thought it up. That is something quite different from the some events in the book "cause" or produce other events. A character in the book in the book pulls a trigger, and a bullet flies, and another character drops dead.
The way one event in the book causes another event, is analogous to "natural" processes in the universe. The thinking up of the entire book by the author (INCLUDING the causal chains within its plot) is analogous to God's creating the world.

To say that "creation is the result of the laws of nature" is as absurd as saying the author writing the book is the result of certain patterns and regularities of cause and effect that hold within the books plot.

I think that if your views of creation were more traditional, you would not have misinterpreted me as you have.

Dear David YT: You say, 'And the idea that there is an inherent "rejection of mainstream science" when considering ID seems completely wrong to me.'

Well look at what you said earlier in the same comment: "Just the fact that people can openly and without ridicule question the pseudoscience of Darwinism seems to me a great achievement of ID."

Darwinism is "mainstream science" --- not even the leaders of ID would deny THAT. When you call it "pseudoscience", you reject it. This you yourself have just engaged in a very public "rejection of mainstream science". Whether or not you were justified in doing so, you did in fact do it.

There is another interesting point about what you said. You just said it is a great achievement of ID that people can question Darwinism "without ridicule". Why do you care about ridicule? Caring about ridicule is the kind of moral weakness that Bill Dembski and other ID people have accused me of.
I hope you do not care about ridicule! But if you do, then I have bad news for you. The Intelligent Design movement is very widely ridiculed in scientific circles. It would be much, much easier to question aspects of Darwinian evolution were it not for the Young Earth Creationists. And I am convinced that it would also be easier were it not for the strategic mistakes of the ID movement. Had the ID movement simply called attention to the amazing complexity of life at the cellular level, as Mike Behe did in Darwin's Black Box, and argued that satisfactory and detailed explanations of such complex structures do not yet exist, and noted that until such explanations have been found scientists are not entitled to assume that Darwinism is the whole story, then they might really have made it easier to "question". But they went far beyond that, and in overreaching they achieved far less than they could have --- and on balance their achievement may be negative. Yes, they put certain questions on the table --- and that is wonderful, and they are to be praised for that. I have praised them for that. But they made serious mistakes that have largely vitiated that achievement.

Francis Williams says: "but this is a whopper precisely because the chief proponents of ID have insisted, with tiresome repetition (and apparently to an obtusely deaf audience) that there is nothing about ID itself which makes it non-scientific or pseudo-scientific, let alone theological. ID is NOT the idea that you can infer the existence of God from the limitations of science. Rather, ID is the idea that there are scientifically and philosophically respectable ways in which one can infer that a given effect is the outcome of intelligent input (design, in short)."

ID has been demonstrated - over and over and over again - to be *SPECIFICALLY* a religious argument, cloaked in pseudo-scientific jargon, pushed and repeated by religious communities, with a religious history and a religious agenda. To claim that science has "deaf ears" to the claim that ID has validity beyond its religious aims is laughable.

To Nick Matzke

There is a distinction between what scientists consider to be acceptable science and what is Constitutional. And the fact, obvious to most scholars of law and courts (though not to most lawyers, I guess), is that the courts are quite awful about thinking through the Constitution and what it requires or allows. So that Frank Beckwith's arguments "failed" when put to the test in the courtroom really doesn't mean anything it all. That a court didn't follow his arguments could mean that the arguments were bad or that the judge (or judges--depending on the level it reached) were ignorant. Most judges presently on the bench are not only Darwinians but are also legal positivists--this despite the fact that legal positivism has been demonstrated to be incoherent (I commend the relevant passage in Rob Koons Realism Regained, for example). Moreover, most judges and lawyers in the United States have an unsound understanding of the first amendment.

Now I take the ID position to be philosophical position--as such it is not religious per se. And I think we're having a real debate as to whether it's scientific or potentially scientific (Drs. Barr and Beckwith making some good points that it's problematic on that front). As I see it, ID is no more a religious position than Darwinian pronouncements about chance and causality. As such, I can't see how the first amendment is even relevant--and this despite the fact that I think certain ways of framing the argument are problematic. But suppose ID is taken to be a religious position. Well, I know of a professor in the molecular biology program at the University of Texas at Austin who regularly teaches her students that teleology is bunk--thoroughly disproved by Darwinism. She then asks her students a question about teleology on one of her exams and instructs her TAs to hammer anyone who doesn't regurgitate her anti-teleology rant. Her animosity is clearly of a religious and metaphysical nature. It follows that if ID should be banned from the classroom of public schools on first amendment grounds that this teacher should be banned from teaching at a public research university (an extension of the state government of Texas and therefore subject to the requirements of the 1st amendments separation of church and state) from teaching anything negative about teleology. Let me ask, are you willing to embrace that horn as entailed by the inner logic of your position?

My general point is this--whether or not ID is good science or good philosophy has nothing to do with whether or not the Constitution allows it to be taught in public school classrooms. To argue that the Constitution allows school boards to decide this matter for themselves is not to defend ID as good science or as good philosophy. So Beckwith can be committed to it's being Constitutional and a critique of it in practice.

Now, as I suggest above, we can remove ID from the science classroom and put it in the philosophy classroom. Then we must make sure that our science teachers friendly to the likes of Lewontin and Dawkins make no philosophic pronouncements about reality in the science classroom as well. Let's force Dawkins to fight it out in the philosophy classroom where, when he is making pronouncements on anything other than zoology, he will be shown to have no inferential capacity in matters philosophical. When you Dawkins on metaphysical and even methodological naturalism next to Al Plantinga, the utter weakness of his position is made abundantly clear.

To Stefan:

I'm no defender of the philosophic or scientific merits of the ID position. But I know the relevant philosophical literature quite well. And I know enough to know that your claim that "ID has been demonstrated--over and over and over again--to be SPECIFICALLY a religious argument" is simply FALSE. There is no argument containing indubitably sound premises and by which your conclusion is NECESSARILY entailed. Rather, there are lots of assertions made by you and others. We would perhaps like to see arguments rather than assertions of the sort you make. But there is not even one instance of the sort of argument you describe. Most of the people who make your crass generalization advance not arguments but simply claim ID is religion as a matter of definition--much like the now discredited school of logical and scientific positivism used to do. This is why you see in Dr. Barr both a criticism of ID and a willingness to criticize its critics. One might understand how, from the ID perspective, it is hard to accept criticisms from mainstream Darwinians, who are awfully fond of arguing in vicious circles and dismissing criticism through the definitions of words rather than through argumentation. I can't tell you how many biologists I've encountered who have as little capacity in elementary logic as they think 24 hour creationists have in basic science.

In sum, some of us remain hesitant about the ID movement. Notwithstanding, we also find ourselves exhausted at the philosophical naivete of the most vocal spokesmen for "mainstream" science. And many of us who know something about law and the Constitution find ourselves bewildered by the legal pretensions of "mainstream" science--there too, their arguments seem to be a house of cards. And as to the courts--well, those on the bench are about as poorly educated in matters Constitutional as were those of an earlier day who had swallowed the "Social Darwinism" of Mr. Spencer's Social Statics hook line and sinker (actually, Darwin was a biological Spencerian rather than the other way around, but no matter).

The creators of ID explicitly stated that its intent is to cast doubt on science and legitimize a theistic view of the universe. This is a matter of public record. All of these arguments that ID doesn't specify the creator and so on are given the lie by the genealogy of ID itself--its creators modified it from the original genome of Creation Science.

ERRATA CORRIGE

At my comment dated 2.11.2010 | 4:35am (?), my 2nd quotation from SMB, and my relative comment, should be:

SMB: “In the famous “explanatory filter” of William A. Dembski, one finds “design” by eliminating “law” and “chance” as explanations.”

MdS: Significantly "law" and "chance" are nothing but what Jacques Monod called Chance & Necessity, in his famous book, and they are nothing but another name for the two essential ingredients of the Darwinian ToE, Random Mutation and Natural Selection. ID affirms that "Chance & Necessity" are not an adequate explanation. Not in all instances, anyway. Why does SMB find this so disturbing?

To Nick Matzke:

For Darwinian fundamentalists, as they concede in their own works (some subtly and some not so subtly), creationism = any approach to science that is not in principle or theory committed to materialism or naturalism. But, of course, naturalism and materialism are not scientific but, rather, metaphysical and philosophical claims. Inasmuch as they are ultimate claims, they are religious claims. Moreover, materialism cannot be proven. Nor can naturalism (and there is a good argument that the latter is self-referentially incoherent; and materialism fairs little better). Given the impossibility of proving either, they are both really just articles of faith. So Darwinian fundamentalists toss the label of creationist on anyone who doesn't share their fideistic commitment to materialism or naturalism. And one can understand why some people object to being dismissed from public discussion on the grounds that they are advancing their faith when the arguments advanced against them are more often than not really just assertions of a competing faith rather than arguments of a serious sort. There is no coherent or stable definition of "creationism" employed in the scientific community or in the history and philosophy of science. And certainly when you're primary spokespersons exhibit the intellectual incapacity of Dawkins (in matters philosophical, historical, and theological), one can understand frustration from those whom you disparage. While I think ID is open to real criticism. The sorts of criticism you advance are innocent of serious philosophical argumentation. And as someone with a degree of philosophical training, I object. I also object to any attempt at justifying what seem like the fascist tactics of your colleague. Dr. Beckwith was right--talk about creepy.

Stefan writes:

"ID has been demonstrated - over and over and over again - to be *SPECIFICALLY* a religious argument."

What's wrong with religious arguments per se? Since the word "religious" does not modify "argument" in a way consistent with the nature of argument, calling an argument "religious" is about as relevant to its quality as calling the color blue "short" or saying you believe in the square root of dogness.

While science certainly has objectives, I don't think of it as having an agenda. To my mind, this is in stark contrast to the ID movement which, so far as I can discern, took its impetus not so much from intellectual curiosity as from the now infamous "Wedge Document" circa pre-1999.

"After Dover, Beckwith has been a lot less rosy about ID."

First, when it comes to ID, sometimes I feel like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

Second, there's no doubt that I've moved from "ID could be promising" to "ID--in its most important form, the Behe-Dembski project--is flawed." This began in late summer 2003, right after my wife and I moved to Waco and I had testified at a school board hearing in Texas (By the way, one of my great regrets). I think you see this coming out in my 2004 piece in the Journal of Law and Religion in which I more clearly define ID as nearly equivalent to "anti-naturalism." In my forthcoming article in the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy, I carefully explain the reasons for this.

I was considering resigning as a DI fellow in late summer 2003, but hung on because I did not want those who opposed my hiring at Baylor to appear to "have won." (I am a competitive SOB). It wasn't until Summer 2007 that I resigned from DI, largely because I had lost out on an endowed Chair at a Pac-10 school because of the affiliation. (At the interview, my telling the department chair that I was not an ID advocate was to no avail; it is a wonder that I was offered an interview, given the hostile reception. Someone must have wanted me!).

But let's be clear: I had always had doubts about ID, though they intensified over the years. What Nick sees in my early work as "rosy" was just me being respectful for those in the ID movement, some of whom are friends.

Nevertheless, the Dover case played no part whatsoever in how I have come to view this issue. In fact, IMHO, Judge Jones' arguments were horrible, though they were no better than the policy than he overturned. In fact, in my forthcoming piece ("How to Be An Anti-Intelligent Design Advocate"), I critique an aspect of Jones' opinion for its heavy reliance on final causes, which is a real irony.

I did think (and continue to think) that some of the critiques of philosophical naturalism that are sometimes offered by philosophers in and outside the ID movement are indeed convincing. In chapter 3 of Law, Darwinism, and Public Education I place these critiques under the heading, “The Case Against Methodological Naturalism.” But, as I have come to appreciate over the years, these arguments, though seeming to be consistent with, or lending support to, the ID project are not actually integral to it. I mistakenly thought that because these arguments were offered by either philosophers associated with the ID movement or philosophers critical of philosophical naturalism (and thus indirectly supportive of ID’s goals), thus these arguments could legitimately be placed under the umbrella of “intelligent design.” I can see why, in 2000 (when I began working on the dissertation that became the book), I thought that way. So much of what constituted ID at the time was fairly unclear to those of us who traveled in circles in the world of Christian philosophy in which many of these writers often gave papers and lectures at the same meetings and contributed to each others’ books.

Yet, reviewers of my book seemed to read into it their own strong beliefs about ID. For example, in a 2003 review in the Journal of Church & State, Texas A & M sociologist, Jon Alston, a critic of ID, writes: “Beckwith shows quite clearly that Intelligent Design is more than a carefully hidden creationism in scientific clothing. Judges limited by their legalistic orientation might be forced to allow Intelligent Design into school curricula. This dismal message is well supported by extensive philosophical and legal discussions. Beckwith's book is a significant contribution to the literature dealing with the introduction of religious material into the public schools.” In another review that appeared in Philosophia Christi, Denver Seminary philosopher and ID-supporter Douglas Groothuis writes: “When the history of the ID movement is written, this book may be esteemed as one of ID’s most important and decisive strategic assets.”

Recently, the opposite has occurred. After critical comments of mine about ID were published in 2008 in the Santa Clara Law Review (“The Courts, Natural Rights, and Religious Claims as Knowledge”) ID advocate William A. Dembski blogged (11-13-2008) “Frank Beckwith finally disowns ID.” Shortly after that, Dembski’s co-blogger, Denyse O’Leary claimed (11-14-2008), “My take is that some philosophy types will always hate ID because it asserts the priority of evidence over theory.” And then there's Barbara Forrest, who insists I am an ID supporter, evidence notwithstanding.

It’s difficult to explain these confusions apart from the background beliefs that each writer brings to this debate. First, some naturalist critics of ID mistakenly believe that if one is a critic of philosophical naturalism (like me), believes (like I do) that ID advocates raise important questions on the nature of science and its relationship to other claims of knowledge, and argues (as I do) that ID’s incursion into public education requires that we may have to rethink our church-state jurisprudence, then one is an ID advocate. Second, some ID advocates mistakenly believe that if one is critical of ID and its implications for the totality of classical Christian theism (as I am), then one has ceded philosophical turf to the enemies of the good, the true and beautiful.

As I was rereading chapter 3 of my book the other day, it occurred to me that I had mistakenly conflated two issues: (1) whether science as a discipline should be methodologically naturalist, and (2) whether our philosophy of nature should be methodologically naturalist.

I explain this in greater detail in a forthcoming series of blog posts that will appear on BioLogos.

Nick, as far as the "genesis" (pardon the pun) on ID, I still think it's a non-starter and say so in my forthcoming article (notes omitted):

****The term “intelligent design” has become ubiquitous in American popular culture as the most recognizable alternative to Darwinian evolution since the ascendancy of “Creationism” (or “Creation Science”). Although “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design” are each offered by their respective proponents as alternative accounts of Darwinian evolution, they are not identical, even though some writers in fact claim that they are identical. (One particularly annoying habit on the part of these writers is to refer to “Intelligent Design” as “Intelligent Design Creationism” for the apparent purpose of instilling in their readers the practice of thinking that “guilt by association” is intellectually virtuous). It seems to me that their confusion (if it is truly a confusion rather than just a form of McCarthyism) rests on two indisputable facts: (1) some ID advocates run in the same circles as some Creationists, and (2) Some ID criticisms to Darwinian evolution resemble, and are in some cases identical to, Creationist criticisms of Darwinian evolution. But that is a weak argument, for we can marshal just as bad a case against Darwinians who deny that their view supports atheism: (1) many politically passionate Darwinians run in the same circles as some atheists, (2) most Darwinian critiques of Creationism and ID are practically indistinguishable from atheist criticisms of Creationism and ID, and (3) most defenses of atheism maintain that Darwinian evolution is a defeater to theism. These facts, like the ones about Creationism and ID, are indisputable. So, it seems that “guilt by association” is a game that each side can play.

In that case, why should one not think of Creationism and ID as identical? First, the cases offered for ID are much more like the argumentation one finds in philosophy or natural theology than they are like the biblicism on which Creationism relies. For the ID advocate, Darwinian evolution claims to be an exhaustive account of the development of life on Earth. And because the Darwinian account is entirely a naturalist (and materialist) account requiring no mind behind it, as most of its supporters contend, the burden of the ID advocate is to show both that Darwinism is an incomplete account of the development of life and that there is design in nature that requires a mind (or intelligence) to account for it. Because Creationists believe that God created the universe—and thus the universe is designed—it takes little imagination to see why Creationists and ID advocates would run in the same circles and find some of the same arguments congenial to their point of view. But that’s where the similarities between the two views end. This is because for the Creationist a particular interpretation of the Bible’s Book of Genesis is her starting point. Thus, it is in her interest to show that any account of the origin and nature of the universe, including Darwinian evolution, is inadequate in comparison to the biblical account. Although there are ID advocates who accept such a biblical account, ID as a point of view has no necessary connection to any biblical account. For, as I note below, the ID advocate is offering a case that depends exclusively on the plausibility of arguments whose premises consist of empirical, conceptual, mathematical, and/or philosophical claims. Of course, whether such arguments actually work (or are at least minimally plausible) is another question altogether, one that falls outside the narrow scope of this article. Nevertheless, the important point here is to understand that regardless of whether ID arguments work or not, ID is not Creationism, even though it shares some characteristics with it.

Moreover, some design arguments embraced by ID advocates are also embraced by ID critics! For example, two strong critics of ID, former Human Genome Project director Francis Collins and Brown University biologist Ken Miller, both Christians, defend the plausibility of design arguments that support some form of theism. Miller, who testified as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case, maintains that the alignment of the cosmic constants soon after the Big Bang points toward an extra-natural mind as the Intelligent Cause of the universe. Collins agrees, but also offers an argument for the existence of God from the existence of the moral law, not unlike C. S. Lewis’ argument in Mere Christianity. The sorts of cosmic “fine-tuning” arguments presented by Collins and Miller are also defended by thinkers associated with The Discovery Institute (DI), the Seattle think-tank that is in the forefront in supporting ID research.

For these reasons, there is understandable confusion on what precisely constitutes ID. In my previous works I defined ID so broadly that it would include the arguments of thinkers like Miller and Collins who, though critical of ID in the life sciences, seem not to be troubled by the detection of design in cosmology. Here is how I defined ID in 2007:

////Intelligent Design (or ID) is not one theory. It is a short-hand name for a cluster of arguments that offer a variety of cases that attempt to show, by reasoning unaccompanied by religious authority or sacred scripture, that intelligent agency rather than unguided matter better accounts for apparently natural phenomena and/or the universe as a whole. Some of these arguments challenge aspects of neo-Darwinism. Others make a case for a universe designed at its outset, and thus do not challenge any theory of biological evolution. Nevertheless, they all have in common the notion that the human intellect has the capacity to acquire knowledge of, or at least have rational warrant to believe in, an inference that mind, rather than non-mind, best accounts from some apparently natural phenomena or the universe as a whole.////

When I wrote this definition I was trying to explain to a wider audience that the best way to understand ID is to see it as a counter to the hegemony of philosophical materialism that some thinkers believe is entailed by Darwinian evolution as well as a particular understanding of science. It is a view of science that maintains that the hard sciences are the best or only way of acquiring exhaustive knowledge of the natural world and its genesis, and that these sciences, in order to function properly, require methodological naturalism. According to ID advocate, William A. Dembski, methodological naturalism is “the view that science must be restricted solely to undirected natural processes.” Thus, it seemed to me that any view that challenged philosophical materialism, either by critiquing its methodological assumptions and/or its ontological commitments, could rightfully be included under the big tent of Intelligent Design. I am now convinced that my definition—though an accurate description of what would constitute a central belief to a broad coalition of anti-naturalists—does not truly capture the core arguments of what has come to be known as the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM).
Take, for example, Miller and Collins, who defend cosmological fine-tuning arguments (CFT) for cosmic design, but who are at the same time critics of ID. Former Discovery Institute vice president, Mark Ryland, points out that although ID advocates will, at times, incorporate CFT arguments into their works, CFT supporters, like Miller and Collins, do not reciprocate. Ryland explains the reason for this:

////CFT does not imply any intervention by God in the evolution of the cosmos. The laws and constants at issue are preordained, built into the very fabric of reality. IDT [Intelligent Design Theory], on the other hand, implies intervention, divine or otherwise, by arguing that an “intelligent cause” must have done something superadded to an “unguided natural process.”////

Consequently, one ought not to confuse ID (or as Ryland calls it, “IDT”) with other views that claim that the natural universe is designed (such as CFT) and/or includes both formal and final causes. It seems to me, then, that Ryland is correct when he defines ID as a view that “purports to be a scientific theory about the development of life on earth… [It] defines itself in part by arguing against the adequacy of standard neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and in part by making allegedly scientific arguments in favor of design in biology.” It’s three most important theorists are biochemist Michael Behe, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, and mathematician and philosopher William A. Dembski. Thus, when critics and defenders write of the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), they are virtually always referring to the works of these and other thinkers including others associated with the Discovery Institute. It was this view that was the focus of the 2005 Kitzmiller case.

Nevertheless, both ID advocates and other believers in design (e.g., CFT supporters) hold at least one belief in common, namely, that the human mind has the capacity and power to detect and know that the universe and/or parts of it are designed and thus the product of mind rather than non-mind. ID advocates, however, typically argue for the application of certain design-detecting criteria to empirical observations in the natural world. Hence, Dembski defines ID as “the study of patters in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.” So, for example, Behe argues that because things that are irreducibly complex are the product of mind (e.g., a mousetrap), therefore some aspects of the natural world (e.g., the bacterial flagellum) are the product of mind since they too are irreducibly complex. Dembski offers a similar criterion based on a concept he calls specified complexity. He argues that because things that exhibit specified complexity are the product of mind (e.g., a lock’s combination), therefore, aspects of the natural world (e.g., the bacterial flagellum) are products of mind since they too exhibit specified complexity.

Consequently, for both Behe and Dembski design is a property had by an entity that exhibits a certain type and level of complexity. Both maintain that there is a threshold at which a living organism’s irreducible complexity (in the case of Behe) or specified complexity (in the case of Dembski) becomes incapable of being accounted for by non-agent causes, such as natural selection, random mutation, and/or scientific laws. (Meyer offers a different criterion, “inference to the best explanation” (or IBE), though it, like Behe’s and Dembski’s, is a criterion by which one may detect intelligent, and exclude non-intelligent, causes for certain biological entities, including organs and systems, in nature) For both Behe and Dembski it is the complex arrangement of an entity’s parts and the end of that arrangement that requires an agent cause. However, short of achieving that threshold of irreducible or specified complexity, no design inference is warranted. And because ID offers an account of the natural world that is a rival to non-design hypotheses, Behe and Dembski maintain that ID should be considered “science.”

Although this question—whether or not ID is science—turned out to be one of the central issues in the Kitzmiller opinion, it seems to me that this question is a red herring and serves to obscure the more important philosophical issues that percolate beneath the surface of this dispute. Both sides, however, have an interest in keeping this question alive. The ID advocates seem to believe that if they can prove that ID is indeed science, then it can get a fair hearing in the academy. The ID opponents seem to believe that if they can prove that ID is not science, then ID cannot be and ought not to be taken seriously by scientists. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the “science” question in this dispute is, in a sense, a sort of epistemological nuclear device that ensures total victory for the side that can successfully deliver it first. But the device is a philosophical dud, as I argued in my 2003 book on the subject:

////[I]f ID arguments lack certain theoretical virtues that are considered earmarks of good theories or explanations—e.g., explanatory power, empirical adequacy, simplicity, predictive and/or retrodictive success (as broadly construed in the historical sciences), testability, clarity of concepts—and/or exhibit the vices of bad theories—e.g., “God-of-the-gaps” strategy, heavy reliance on ad hoc hypotheses, lack of explanatory power—and if there are better alternatives, then perhaps one could reject ID as an explanation and/or theory for apparent design in nature. But one would be doing so, not because ID is unable to pass a metaphysical litmus test, but rather, because it fails as an hypothesis qua hypothesis. That is, whether ID fits some a priori definition of “science” or “pseudo-science” is a red herring, for such definitions tell us nothing about whether a theory and/or explanation, such as ID, provides us with real knowledge of the order and nature of things. In the words of [philosopher of science Larry] Laudan, who is not an ID supporter: “If we could stand up on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’. . . . They do only emotive work for us.”////

In other words, the question of what is “science” and whether ID counts as science does not advance the conversation, since each side typically employs it as either a ticket to cultural acceptability (the ID advocates) or as an epistemological exclusionary rule (the ID critics). Thus, it impermissibly shifts the discussion from the plausibility of ID arguments to the question of whether the whole idea of ID, regardless of the quality of the arguments for it, is capable of getting past a gauntlet of intellectual gatekeepers.....****

In the same article, I compare Thomistic design to ID and the New Atheism:

****We have seen that ID is not Creationism, that not all design arguments (e.g., CFT) are necessarily the spawn of the Intelligent Design Movement, and that the question of whether or not ID is science is beside the point. Now I want to discuss another way of thinking about design in nature. It is a view defended by Thomists, followers of the philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). And it is a view that is both contrary to the dominant account of ID as well as those views of nature held by ID’s materialist critics (though not all of its non-materialist critics). Calling this view Thomistic Design (TD), it maintains that the universe was brought into being by God ex nihilo and that this universe consists of a vast variety of inanimate and animate entities that are subject to certain scientific laws. Among the animate entities are human beings, who possess an active power for self-movement that allows them to engage in free acts initiated and/or accompanied by thought and reflection. The universe is not God’s “artifact,” since he did not change that which already existed, as Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) believed that his deity, “the Unmoved Mover,” did to prime matter. Rather, according to St. Thomas, the universe is radically contingent upon God for its genesis as well as its continued existence, including the development and order within it. This is why, in his famous Five Ways (or arguments) to show God’s existence, St. Thomas includes as a fifth way an argument from the universe’s design as a whole, appealing to those scientific laws that make motion possible. Writes St. Thomas:

////The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.////

For St. Thomas, the design or purpose of nature refers to the interrelationship of “all things” in the universe, including scientific laws and all inanimate and animate things and their powers, which have their own natures that direct them to certain ends. And they are all kept in existence by God, Who brought the universe into being ex nihilo. St. Thomas, though a believer in design, was no ID advocate.

As I have already noted, the ID advocate tries to detect instances of design in nature by eliminating chance and necessity (or scientific law). This implies that one has no warrant to say that the latter two are the result of an intelligence that brought into being a whole universe whose parts, including its laws and those events that are apparently random, seem to work in concert to achieve a variety of ends. But this is precisely the position advanced by the Thomist. In response, someone could say that an ID advocate who accepts a CFT argument does in fact have warrant to believe that change and necessity are the result of intelligence as well, since both function as parts of the Creator’s plan for the universe’s fine-tuning. But then, what happens to irreducible and specified complexity as criteria by which to eliminate non-agent causes of apparently designed effects in nature? Perhaps this is why some ID advocates are reticent to call their “designer” God, since it would mean that God creates everything ex nihilo and then returns now and again to tidy things up a bit when they seem to be going awry.

But, as Brad S. Gregory writes, this puts the ID advocates in the ironic position of sharing a philosophical assumption with the New Atheists, the latest apologists for Darwinian evolution who claim that it entails unbelief:

////Advocates of intelligent design posit that ordinary biological processes of natural selection and genetic mutation can account for much but not everything in the evolution of species, the remainder requiring recourse to God’s intervention. Insofar as proponents of intelligent design posit normally autonomous natural processes usually devoid of God’s influence, they share important assumptions with the New Atheists.////

Gregory points out the fallacy in this understanding of God’s relationship to nature: “[P]erhaps in the past Darwinism wasn’t explanatorily powerful enough to drive God out, but recent, further scientific findings no longer leave room for God.” The result is a strange parallel of ferocious posturing between ID advocates and the New Atheists: “The intelligent design proponents scramble to find remaining places for supernatural intervention; the New Atheists claim there are none left. Both assume that God, conceived in spatial and quasi-spatial terms, needs ‘room’ to be God—which is precisely what traditional Christian theology says God does not need.”****

Nick, God love you, to quote our Vice President. But at some point you have to actually give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are not approaching these issues cynically and without integrity. Some of us, because we truly love the life of the mind, struggle to work through these issues so that we can better grasp and live the good, the true, and the beautiful. That means that these internal deliberations may be reflected with different emphases and understandings as we document our pilgrimages in the pages of academic journals and popular venues. That doesn't mean that we are duplicitous and only change because of "court cases." Rather, it means that we are human beings who, to quote St. Paul, "see through a glass darkly."

Miguel de Servet, says "Basically, what SMB would want is a God who sets the Laws of Nature, a God who chooses to resort to chance in the development of His creation, never (... God forbid!) a God who intervenes in His own Creation, to "steer" it, to "tweak" it as He deems fit. Even less, of course, a God who freely intervenes in His Creation with any Supernatural intervention.
.... There is only a small detail: this is NOT the God of the Bible."

Dear Miguel, You say what "SMB would want". Is that based on mind reading or on something I actually said? If the latter, then I would ask where I have ever said that God does not ever intervene in his own creation. Actually, I do believe that God sometimes intervenes in his own creation. He intervenes in many ways. e.g. He supernaturally confers on each human being at the beginning of his or her life a spiritual soul --- and that includes the first man and woman, who are called in Scripture Adam and Eve. He supernaturally supernaturally revealed things to the prophets and to the Apostles. He inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture. He performed miracles that are recorded in Scripture and still sometimes performs them today. He became incarnate of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He acts supernaturally in the sacraments to confer sacramental graces, and also confers grace in other ways. He gives supernatural assistance to the Church "to guide it into all truth", e.g. to preserve it from error in its dogmatic pronouncements. He grants mystical experiences to certain people. He dwells in those who are members of His Body, so that they become temples of the Holy Spirit. He enlightens our minds and strengthens our wills.

Where on earth do you get the idea that I don't believe that God acts supernaturally in the world? I have stated that I am a Catholic. If you don't know what that means, I suggest that you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church and find out what believing Catholics believe. There you will discover that we are not deists. I thought that was actually rather well-known.

Yes, there is the supernatural, but there is also the natural. Natural science looks for natural explanations of natural phenomena. There is certainly nothing wrong with using scientific knowledge to argue that some particular phenomenon is NOT in fact a natural one. It very well may be that, say, the bacterial flagellum arose by supernatural intervention --- though I am strongly inclined to doubt it.

You say, "ID affirms that "Chance & Necessity" are not an adequate explanation. Not in all instances, anyway. Why does SMB find this so disturbing?" I am not at all disturbed by the suggestion that chance and necessity are not adequate explanations in all circumstances. For example, I argue at great length in my book that chance and necessity are not adequate to explain human freedom and rationality --- i.e. our "spiritual" powers.

What has always "disturbed" me about the ID movement is NOT that it suggests that chance and necessity MAY be inadequate to explain certain things like the bacterial flagellum, but that (a) ID often uses language that suggests that they have already demonstrated this, (b) they want what are in effect supernatural explanations taught as "scientific theories" in natural science curricula, (c) they do not make clear that as a movement they officially accept those things that ARE well-established, such as common descent and the age of the universe, which would get them a fairer hearing and spare everyone of every shade of opinion a lot of needless confusion and conflict, .... and I think they have distorted people's understanding of such concepts as creation and design.

Nick writes:

////I have read all of your ID-related material, and it is pretty hard to argue that you were not an ID supporter back in 2004 and before.////

Then show me in one place--in all my published works--where I defend ID and embrace the position defended as one I accept. The reason why you don't find it is because it's not there. So, what you do instead is engage in quote-mining innuendo based on associations.

As you will see in my UST piece, I stand by the 2003 book since I do not think there is anything unconstitutional about the teaching of ID. I also stand by my distinctions between creationism and ID. What I do, however, is explain why I think ID is not good fro Christian theism and why both Judge Jones and Richard Dawkins actually believe in design. Thus, to answer the question of my article, "How can we be an anti-intelligent design advocate?" Simple. Believe in design. In fact, Nick, you employ it all the time. When you claim that ID advocates are duplicitous, you assume that human beings have particular end that requires that they be honest and forthright. But that's a final cause, brother.

Here's your assignment: critique ID and its advocates without once relying on final and formal causes in your conceptual framework.

To John Strong:

Darwin and his disciples expressly state, as a matter of public record, that their goal is to rule God out (do Darwinists not read Darwin anymore?). Parity would require banning both IDers and Darwinists, if you want a science without any metaphysical or theological propositions. Keep in mind that there were evolutionary theories before Darwin. There are non-Darwinian evolutionary theories now. The differentia of Darwinian theory, as such, is that it commits itself to a theological premise and a theological agenda--Darwinian theory is designed to account for the appearance of design as mere appearance and not actual. But such an argument can only be philosophical and theological and nature. It's certainly not scientific in the sense of not being philosophic or theological. I conclude that if the ID movement has a theological an agenda, it has one no less than Darwin's most prominent spokespersons in the public sphere. You write as if people like Lewontin had never conceded this point. Moreover, Peter van Inwagen has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that stringent Darwinians have committed themselves to theological propositions--and done so without any real awareness of even the basics of theology. Van Inwagen has an argument that Darwin and design, given any intelligible notion of chance (which must be defined, to be intelligible, as a matter of radically contingent relations), are quite compatible. For God would have no more problem orchestrating things using events that are only contingently related than He would, as an omniscient being, generating a random number table. But when he has brought this point up, Darwinists always rebut by saying something along the lines that God wouldn't do it that way. Van Inwagen rightly asks--but it seems one should first know something about theology, before making a statement like that. In short, the consummate Darwinian dismissal of design turns on a speculative theological premise about what God would or wouldn't do.

In sum . . . There are good criticisms of the ID movement to be made. But this doesn't mount a defense for science framed on the old positivistic or Enlightenment model or for Darwinian fundamentalism. Are none of the ideological Darwinists on here aware of Steven J. Gould's rebuff of militant Darwinism in recent years? I think ID potentially problematic. However, I refuse to equate Darwinism and science. That seems to be the worst sort of close minded dogmatism. Any science worth it's salt realizes that the Darwinian paradigm is a paradigm, like any other, subject to dissent and to criticism and even to falling. Theories of this sort are never absolutely proved or disproved. The arguments for Darwinism can only ever be inductive. And inductive arguments, as such, never establish their conclusions with absolute certainty. A good inductive argument only renders the conclusion likely or probable to some degree. Darwinists who claim absolute certainty for the theories are, frankly, just bad empiricists who fail to distinguish deductive from inductive arguments.

For my money, Drs. Barr and Beckwith are staking out a moderate or middle ground and have a sense of an ideal science that is willing to critique both ID and its critics in the name of truth. No scientific paradigm is beyond question--whether ID or Darwinism or something in between. A generous and openminded and real science would concede that. IDers, however, are endeavoring to prove a negative--the most difficult of propositions to prove (and some of which do not admit of proof). Meanwhile, Darwinian arguments amount to a non-sequitur: we can account for the appearance of design by positing non-intentional mechanisms; therefore there must be no designer AND/OR therefore science must refuse to make any such appeal as an explanatory hypothesis. But, of course, neither conclusion follows from the premise. In fact, Darwinians are a premise short--and it's really quite impossible to imagine what premise they could insert that would be indubitable or readily agreeable to all rational persons.

I would like to defend my friend Frank Beckwith, who I think is being rather unfairly treated by Nick Matzke. Not that Frank could defend himself better than I can defend him, but he may have other things to do right now.

Nick, you sound a little like those people who used to ask "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"

OK, so what if Frank at one point saw something good in the ID movement and thought that the teaching of their ideas in public schools might pass constitutional muster? You look upon the ID movement as essentially a nefarious conspiracy that hides its true colors. Not everybody is equally quick to see conspiracies. Conspiracies are dangerous, but so are people who are too ready to see them.

Unfortunately, the ID movement opened itself to such suspicions by some of the decisions they made. But many of us feel obligated to give people the benefit of the doubt and not make the most uncharitable assumptions about others, even if that sometimes makes us look naive. Frank is also a philosopher. For a philosopher what matters is what arguments a man makes, not who he is, who he associates with, what his ulterior motives might be etc. Philosophers are not blind to the fact that people might have ulterior motives, but their duty as philosophers is to consider only the arguments made. This is also true, really, of scientists.

You are right that the ID movement is in part a political movement. That is one of the serious problems with them. They claim to be merely scientists doing science; but they also have an apologetic/evangelistic dimension; and a political dimension. They do and they don't want their arguments to be seen as religious.

Is the "design hypothesis" science, philosophy, or theology? I would say that it is philosophy or natural theology. And I think that for many practical reasons it is to the enormous advantage of BOTH science and religion to keep the lines between science, philosophy, and theology drawn more or less where they have been drawn for quite some time. But reasonable people can think otherwise. The question about where to draw the line between science and philosophy is not such a simple one. As you, I am sure, know, what we call science today was for most of its history (up till the nineteenth century) called "philosophy". At an earlier time --- e.g. in Newton's time --- the lines were not so clearly drawn. For a long time one could find religious statements in scientific treatises. And you must admit that, in the teaching of biology, textbooks have sometimes strayed (mostly without knowing it) into the realm of philosophy, by saying e.g. that modern evolutionary theory assumes the world is "undirected" --- a very philosophically loaded statement.

It is a complex constitutional question what may be taught in public schools. It is a complex philosophical question what counts as science, and what philosophy.

To say that because Frank held certain positions on these issues he is somehow tainted is not helpful.

Frank is absolutely right. One can make the case against teaching ID in the classroom in very straightforward ways that do not involve sniffing out conspiracies and heresy hunting. If the "design hypothesis" is not science, then it is because of the nature of the propositions that make up that hypothesis, NOT because of the ulterior motives of anyone. The same goes the other way: it is wrong to say that darwinian evolution is NOT science on the basis of the (not-so-ulterior) motives of people like Dawkins.

Dear Mr. Barr,

I am not speaking of personal ridicule. I am speaking of letting scientists do their work without impediments. You say people should not worry about being ridiculed, yet you crow about the open ridicule "mainstream" scientists heap onto ID scientists. Let them do their work! If they are fools, they will be shown to be fools. If they are correct, they will be shown to be correct. I'm no super-ID proponent, but I know enough about the history of science to know that they are off to a better _scientific_ start than Darwinists were.

Generalizing criticism of Darwinism as "rejection of mainstream science" is intentionally misdirecting attention away from the very large holes and incomplete and/or false "scientific" findings which are widely produced--and taught as established FACT--- by the Darwinian establishment.

Whether you will admit it it publicly or not, Darwinism is a lot closer to Global Warming than any real science. The ID movement can rightly come under a lot of criticism, but nowhere near the investigative criticism which can and should be leveled at Darwinism and it's proponents at this stage of the game.

Openness helps science. Closed-off, protective ridicule hurts science. Far from rejecting science, I think most regular folks whose interest is piqued by ID do trust the scientific establishment but understand that it is made up of humans, with all the attendant biases.

Bashing ID and it's proponents by christian scientists who prop up Darwinism is ironic. What? You are worried about bad science creeping in? You are worried about a particular viewpoint on God affecting the work? You are worried about the scientific extrapolations which will be made and taught as fact?

Imagine that happening, huh? ;0)

Francis: The problem with ID isn't that it's religious, but that proponents cynically claim that it is not.

The difficulty is that ID offers no insights about the natural world, but simply is used as a counter "argument" without actually making any argument or explanation of its own. If this is inaccurate, please show me a single experiment or prediction or fact otherwise ("DNA is too complicated" is not an experiment or fact). Its sole goal is to obfuscate the truth not elucidate it. Again, if you disagree, please show me a single truth elucidated by ID - it's a very low bar!

I will grant there might be some glimmers of useful thinking in ID - but if so they are very well hidden indeed. Why is that? Do ID proponents think "all evolutionary scientists are brainwashed liars" a more productive argument instead?

Note that simply saying that ID is 'an argument' and therefore deserves respect is like saying my Aunt Felicity's belief in flower fairies is 'an argument' and should be respected by the science community. I think that's ridiculous. An 'argument' gains respect because it explains something or demonstrates something useful and new. ID does neither.

The false opposition between Darwinism and the Church
Gennaro Auletta - Professor of Philosophy of Science at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Scientific Director and Deputy Director of the Project STOQ (Science, Theology and Ontological Research) Conference

(Google translation) "...Today we consider genes, not as a linear sequence that encodes the information, but primarily as a network: each gene, including those coding is considered a unit that can activate a different set of genes that have regulatory function and contribute to the formation organism as a whole. This allows us to consider how the mutations are not isolated phenomena. If we change one of the genes of this network as a result we get a different set of mutations cascade. This explains how a whole series of mutations may have been ducted during evolution. So if this is indeed random mutations in their early manifestations, their effects are not. The other new approach that characterizes the Darwinian theory is the understanding that the evolution of the organism is the result of co-evolution, co-adaptation. The body and the environment, so to speak, is a bipolarity in constant interaction.

"From this point of view it is important to emphasize the ability of all agencies including the simplest to construct environmental niches. So the relationship with the environment is no longer just from the body, as it was designed one hundred or even thirty years ago, but also by all 'environment. Building environmental niches organisms are thus able to modulate the effects of natural selection on themselves and then to influence, albeit indirectly, their own evolution. No body can directly control its own evolution, but in the construction of the niche Environmental organizations contribute over time to determine the conditions that have the effect of feedback on their own evolutionary process...

"Another point I want to stress however is that when it comes to the providential design in creation, we must be very careful to avoid talk of 'intelligent design,' which is not a scientific theory, even if it masquerades as such."

Paul: virtually everything you've said about "Darwin" is utterly wrong! All your comments are pure raving paranoia and not based in reality. To pick out some of the more obvious canards:

First, there are no "disciples" - that's a projection by a religious community obsessed about "disciples" but has no place in science. People *respect* Darwin immensely, but the science has gone way beyond Darwin now.

There is no goal to "rule God out". The goal is to learn about the natural world. "God" just doesn't help much when doing science.

Also the "non-sequitur" statement is wrong because scientists - even Dawkins - never says "therefore there must be no designer", they say that there is no *evidence* for a designer, and those who claim there is one (the IDists) have the burden of proof (and haven't produced a shred of it).

What I don't understand about this whole kind of argument (and I hear it all the time) is this: why make stuff up? Every argument Paul makes is based on something not true. What's the value in that?? What's the point? Why not discuss what scientists actually think and say, instead of make up something? If you 'win' against a charade you gain nothing.

You go to an Intelligent Design debate and a hockey match is bound to break out.

A few things.

I've long been a fan of Dr. Barr, but I can't agree with his appraisal here that we are at end of Intelligent Design.

Cosmologists can't find 95% of the energy/matter in the universe. We don't really know where we are after centuries of thinking that we certainly had it all figured out every few decades.

Dr. Barr will at least concede to the Young Earth/Six Day Creationists (I'm not one) that the now prevailing theory of the Big Bang, Alan Guth's cosmic inflation, at least gives the Six Day folks a pretty big win on the first day (with plenty of that day left over). So let's not short them on that, and let's not be so glib as to deny that more surprises like that could come along for science in the future. Guth got to that first blindingly improbable moment of the universe via cosmic microwave background radiation and the Six Day folks got there via the first chapter of Genesis. Who was there first? Guth or Genesis?

Michael Behe, read properly, I think, is saying that the roughly sixty year revolution in molecular biology shows us a micro-world of stunning complexity that, without biologists necessarily saying so, suggests something a tad more mysterious than anything that the neo-Darwinian synthesis explains. And that he, Behe, is trying to give some voice to it. Call this nascent theory, arising out of the complexity, ID, or say that not only biology but the physical world give off an implicit signal of intelligence. There's still some considerable road to travel that examines and tests that as a paradigm. I hardly think that we are at the end of Intelligent Design.

From Aristotle to Einstein respectable thinkers have hit this bedrock intuition. Molecular biology by its own facts invites the intuition. Such intuitions are absolutely essential to science and are part of science even if they turn out to be wrong.

There may be parallels with religion. There are atheist scientists who have made science itself a religion -- anyone here not understand that?

Nobody knows where science is headed. Don't be so quick to rule out an intelligence that has observably strung itself throughout the chords of the material world.

You go to an Intelligent Design debate and a hockey match is bound to break out.

A few things.

I've long been a fan of Dr. Barr, but I can't agree with his appraisal here that we are at end of Intelligent Design.

Cosmologists can't find 95% of the energy/matter in the universe. We don't really know where we are after centuries of thinking that we certainly had it all figured out every few decades.

Dr. Barr will at least concede to the Young Earth/Six Day Creationists (I'm not one) that the now prevailing theory of the Big Bang, Alan Guth's cosmic inflation, at least gives the Six Day folks a pretty big win on the first day (with plenty of that day left over). So let's not short them on that, and let's not be so glib as to deny that more surprises like that could come along for science in the future. Guth got to that first blindingly improbable moment of the universe via cosmic microwave background radiation and the Six Day folks got there via the first chapter of Genesis. Who was there first? Guth or Genesis?

Michael Behe, read properly, I think, is saying that the roughly sixty year revolution in molecular biology shows us a micro-world of stunning complexity that, without biologists necessarily saying so, suggests something a tad more mysterious than anything that the neo-Darwinian synthesis explains. And that he, Behe, is trying to give some voice to it. Call this nascent theory, arising out of the complexity, ID, or say that not only biology but the physical world give off an implicit signal of intelligence. There's still some considerable road to travel that examines and tests that as a paradigm. I hardly think that we are at the end of Intelligent Design.

From Aristotle to Einstein respectable thinkers have hit this bedrock intuition. Molecular biology by its own facts invites the intuition. Such intuitions are absolutely essential to science and are part of science even if they turn out to be wrong.

There may be parallels with religion. There are atheist scientists who have made science itself a religion -- anyone here not understand that?

Nobody knows where science is headed. Don't be so quick to rule out an intelligence that has observably strung itself throughout the chords of the material world.

Stefan

"Note that simply saying that ID is 'an argument' and therefore deserves respect is like saying my Aunt Felicity's belief in flower fairies is 'an argument' and should be respected by the science community. I think that's ridiculous. An 'argument' gains respect because it explains something or demonstrates something useful and new. ID does neither."

First, ID is not "an argument." It is, if you had to name it, a point of view whose proponents offer a cluster of arguments, some of which are inconsistent with each other. As I write above, ID is sometimes difficult to define for precisely that reason.

Second, as I have said repeatedly since 2003, "I carry no brief for ID qua ID." But that does not mean its proponents don't offer arguments. They do. They may be bad arguments, or reasonably good arguments, or suggestive arguments. But they are arguments that include premises and conclusions.

Arguments sometimes gain respect even when they are bad. Take, for example, Richard Dawkins's argument against Thomas' Five Ways in his God Delusion. Many people quote from and cite that argument. It is really, really, really bad. He does not even understand Aquinas. He interprets Aquinas to be offering a kalam-type argument when in fact it is an argument from radical contingency and thus does not depend the necessity of ending a series of causes backward in time.

I'm not saying that ID should be "respected" in the science community. In fact, I don't think ID should concern itself with the science community and seeking their approval. They should make their arguments in a modest fashion in the ways suggested by Steve Barr and let the chips fall where they may. Eventually, you're right, if they have the goods, they will win.

Moreover, I think it's a huge, huge mistake for the ID movement to link the plausibility of Christian theism with their project. In mid-2004 that just about did it for me. I couldn't stand it. In fact, if you read my 2004-05 Journal of Law and Religion piece, which I delivered at the Evangelical Philosophical Society meeting in Toronto in 2002 (got that, Nick, 2002!), I am being forthright in connecting ID to a wider criticism of philosophical materialism, including aspects of Thomistic metaphysics (clue to Nick: words like "substance," "non-material agent," "essence," and "nature" are Thomistic; bigger clue to Nick: A R I S T O T L E). Here's what I write (http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/Rawls.pdf ):

****But evolution is even more than just an account of the origin of life from non-life and the subsequent development of that life on earth. It also includes the origin of the universe itself and the galaxies, stars, and planets that resulted from an initial explosion called the Big Bang, an event that scientists claim occurred over fifteen billion years ago. Thus, evolution’s place in contemporary science is more than a theory of biological change; it is a grand materialist explanation for the diversity and apparent design of entities that make up what we call nature, including both organic and inorganic entities. An informative and eloquent presentation of this ontological narrative is offered by the Wright Center for Science Education at Tufts University:

////At the beginning of a whole new millennium, modern science is now helping us construct a truly big picture. We are coming to appreciate how all objects—from quark to quasar, from microbe to mind—are interrelated. We are attempting to decipher the scenario of cosmic evolution: a grand synthesis of all the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the Universe . . . . [T]hese are the changes, operating across almost incomprehensible domains of space and nearly inconceivable durations of time, that have given rise to our galaxy, our star, our planet, and ourselves . . . . Now emerging is a unified worldview of the cosmos, including ourselves as sentient beings, based upon the time-honored concept of change. Change—to make different the form, nature, and content of something—has been the hallmark in the origin, evolution, and fate of all things, animate or inanimate. From galaxies to snowflakes, from stars and planets to life itself, we are beginning to identify an underlying pattern penetrating the fabric of all the natural sciences—a sweepingly encompassing view of the formation, structure, and function of all objects in our multitudinous Universe. traditional religions were founded. The modern picture of the universe, and how it developed in time, forms an essential background to our present knowledge of biology.////....

Because this commitment to materialism has shaped the way in which we think of science, and because science is considered to have a place of epistemological privilege in our culture, knowledge claims that challenge this paradigm either explicitly or implicitly (e.g. claims that immaterial entities such as souls, natures, substances, God, etc. have or may have ontological standing) are dismissed as metaphorical, a God-of-the-gaps strategy, problems to be resolvable by a future naturalistic explanation, or a confusing of two mutually exclusive categories, one of which (“science”) has the proper role of evaluating the rationality of the other (“religion”). To place this in the context of jurisprudence, one can put it this way: in a culture in which a particular worldview—in this case, philosophical naturalism (or materialism)—is the backdrop against which we judge whether a particular citizen’s claims count as knowledge, apparently “religious” claims—or at least those that are congenial to a theological worldview—are epistemologically marginalized and thus it is not necessary that we assess the quality of the arguments for such claims because they can never be defeaters to “science.”...

But in order to dispute naturalistic evolution as defined above, one does not have to embrace this sort of creationism. (It is certainly not a view I embrace or have ever embraced). This is why it is more accurate to define creationism in the context of Plantinga’s argument as any viewpoint that denies that naturalism as a worldview is correct, and that affirms that there are apparently natural aspects of the universe, or of the universe as a whole, that can be reasonably accounted for an agent with the appropriate resources. In other words, an exhaustive materialist (or naturalist) description and explanation of the events and entities in the universe is not a real possibility, for there are causes, agents, and entities, including God, that are non-material (or non-natural) and are thus non-detectable under the strictures of a materialist paradigm. Under this definition, any view, including Aristotle’s cosmology, that asserts that one can know that there exists non-material agents or entities (finite or infinite) responsible for apparently natural phenomena in the universe or the universe as a whole is “creationist.” This is what I mean by creationism in this essay, unless I indicate otherwise.****

Assuming Nick read everything I wrote, he certainly didn't understand it.

In my MJS dissertation (Washington Univ. School of Law, St. Louis, 2001) and the subsequent book---Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003)—I focused on one narrow question: Could a public school require or permit the teaching of ID without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? My answer, with a few caveats, was “yes,” and I still think that conclusion is sound. However, because I was not convinced (and I am still not convinced) that the arguments for what I call the Behe-Dembski project—i.e., their arguments for the specified an/or irreducible complexity of parts of living organisms—actually work, I was careful in all my publications to not pronounce a verdict on them.

The chief concern of my book was the difficult question of how our legal regime can affirm both religious liberty and disestablishment while not unjustly sequestering points of view from public policy that arise from citizens’ religious motivation even though those points of view are accompanied by arguments and reasons that are public in their nature. This is why 25% of the chapter in which I present ID (chapter 3), I deal with Alvin Plantinga’s 1999 American Philosophical Association paper in which he addresses the question of whether it is politically just for public schools to teach only one theory of origins. In the 2004-05 Journal of Law and Religion piece mentioned above (“Rawls’ Dangerous Idea: Political Liberalism, Naturalistic Evolution, and The Requirements of Legal Neutrality in Shaping Public School Curricula”) I assess Plantinga’s argument in light of criticisms leveled against it by Robert Pennock. In two other pieces—an article in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly (“The Court of Disbelief: The Constitution’s Article VI Religious Test Prohibition and the Judiciary’s Religious Motive Analysis”) and a chapter in the edited volume, Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue (“Intelligent Design, Religious Motives, and the Constitution’s Religion Clauses”)--I address the question of whether religious motives should play a role in assessing statutes and policies passed by legislative bodies. Although, as I state in the latter piece, I think the Dover, Pennsylvania school board’s policy that was declared unconstitutional by a federal district court in Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) was bad policy and intellectually indefensible, I found it far more troubling that the judge in that case believed that the religious motives of some Dover school board members were sufficient to jettison the policy as unconstitutional. The judge, of course, was merely following Supreme Court precedent, which all federal district judges are required to do. However, regardless where a Christian may stand on the ID controversy, he or she should be especially troubled by this reasoning.

BTW, I said the same thing about a Georgia disclaimer 12 months BEFORE the Dover decision:

////Nevertheless, the sticker is not without its problems. First, calling evolution a theory “regarding the origin of living things” may be misleading if one is talking about biological evolution, which concerns how living things that already exist change over time.

Second, the claim that evolution is “not a fact” is inconsistent with the school board’s call for critical thinking. The board cannot say that evolution is not a fact and at the same time suggest to students that they should have an open mind on the subject, since having an open mind requires that they critically consider the possibility that evolution is a fact.//// ( http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/LegalTimes.htm )

So much for Nick's post-Dover theory about my views. Apparently, he didn't read this Legal Times piece, published January 2005, though written in late 2004. And I almost forgot this one, from my debate with Doug Laycock that appeared in Legal Affairs in September 2004:

////Of course, the cases for ID may indeed fail as arguments, but that is not a violation of the Establishment Clause....As a matter of policy, I believe there are good reasons why a public school should not require the teaching of ID. Nevertheless, there are no good constitutional reasons to prohibit a teacher from teaching it or a school board from requiring it....

In any event, I do not carry a brief for all that is placed under the umbrella of ID. My interest has always been on whether, in principle, the state is constrained by the Establishment Clause from allowing or requiring the teaching ID in public schools. Whether the arguments for ID work or not is an independent question but certainly relevant to the policy question. I think your comments address that issue and raise concerns with which I am sympathetic. However, the Establishment Clause question is different.

I agree with you about the limits of science and the tendency on the part of some scientists to overstate the scope of their disciplines. But I think that this is what happens when science is thought to be the only way we know things and that science assumes that only naturalistic answers count as real answers. Thus, we should not be surprised to discover overly confident scientists and philosophers who claim that there are only naturalistic answers for everything and that there can never in principle be non-naturalistic alternatives that can count against those answers. This is what I think is at the root of what's going on in Dover. ////

That's Beckwith a full 15 months before Dover.

In any event, it seems to me that the religious motive analysis provides sustenance to a political culture in which citizens are taught that any public disclosure of their beliefs that serve to motivate a legislative proposal may result in the judiciary’s rejection of that proposal regardless of its content or the reasons offered for the proposal. Consequently, this test is an instrument of subtle coercion of, and thus provides an incentive to, religiously-motivated citizens to publicly pretend as if they do not have the motives they in fact have. This presents a Catch-22 that makes it nearly impossible for religious citizens to remedy public policies that they believe are uniquely hostile to their beliefs. For who but the citizens, whose views are marginalized, would be the most vocal critics of such policies and the most visible proponents of ways to mitigate them? This is a sort of burden not placed on secular political participation. And for this reason, it cannot be just.

And it was precisely this sort of injustice that motivated both the book as well as virtually all my subsequent work on ID. Whether ID “worked” as a theory or not was not the point. My point was to critique the dominant jurisprudence on church and state, which I believe is deeply flawed.

And one more thing: thank you Steve for defending me. You're very kind.

I'm just an ordinary philosopher who just wants to do the right thing. The fact that folks like Matzke think I'm such big shakes is very, very strange to me. At Gold's Gym, I'm just the Italian-looking guy on bike T. In Matzke's universe, I'm part of the Texas Taliban seeking to burn witches and books. He should get a life.

@ Stephen M. Barr [2.11.2010, 11:22am (?)]

Dear Stephen,
I apologize for not noticing that, in your earlier replies to other commentators, you have explicitly stated that you are a Christian and a Catholic. Also I see that you (rather solemnly) declare to believe everything that Holy Mother Church proposes to believe.

Having cleared that, let me comment on few points of your reply.

SMB: “It very well may be that, say, the bacterial flagellum arose by supernatural intervention --- though I am strongly inclined to doubt it.”

MdS: ID advocates would say (do say) that, if an when complex structures (biochemical, like the bacterial flagellum) and/or complex functions (like the vertebrate immune system of the blood clotting cascade) SEEM to be Irreducibly Complex, in the sense that NOT ONLY the elimination of a single "piece" or "step" would make them totally non-functional, BUT, MOST of all, in the sense that the staunch ToE advocates (however much they pretend to the contrary) cannot even provide a HYPOTHETICAL "evolutionary path" that would lead to them, IF, again, complex structures and/or complex functions SEEM to be Irreducibly Complex, then it is not unreasonable to admit that the extant theory, the ToE, locally breaks down, and that an Intelligent Agent may be an INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION.

After this long premise, the question: what makes you "strongly inclined to doubt" this approach?

SMB: “What has always "disturbed" me about the ID movement is NOT that it suggests that chance and necessity MAY be inadequate to explain certain things like the bacterial flagellum, but that (a) ID often uses language that suggests that they have already demonstrated this, (b) they want what are in effect supernatural explanations taught as "scientific theories" in natural science curricula, (c) they do not make clear that as a movement they officially accept those things that ARE well-established, such as common descent and the age of the universe, which would get them a fairer hearing and spare everyone of every shade of opinion a lot of needless confusion and conflict, ....”

MdS: Let's examine your "charges" to the ID advocates in order:

(a) Once again, I totally disagree that ID advocates (the most epistemologically savvy, anyway, like Dembski, Behe and Wells, at least) would affirm that their explanations are demonstrations. Where do you gather that from?
(b) If you give a fair hearing to what the IDers actually ask (and Dover's trial was all but fair) all they wanted (and want) is for the Theory of Evolution to be taught for what it is: a THEORY, NOT an established FACT. If you consider that, at the other end of the spectrum, there are people like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, that does not seem to be an exorbitant wish.
(c) AFAIK, at least Behe (whose books and papers I have read) and Dembski (whose books and papers I have read) are certainly NOT to be confused with YECers: they accept both an "old earth" and an "old universe", AND Natural Selection. The only thing that they firmly refuse to accept as a foregone "axiom" is that Random Mutations would be able to account for all and sundry life forms and features. Would you object to that?

SMB: “... and I think they have distorted people's understanding of such concepts as creation and design.”

MdS: Well, unless you put substance to your claim, it will remain what it is: a (rather arbitrary) claim.

The End of Darwinism?

To answer Mr. Barr's question -- "What has the intelligent design movement achieved?" -- it's fair to say it has achieved the establishment of a proper, popular skepticism (backed by an attempt at scientific critical thinking) towards the religion of Darwinism. Whether it is rigorous enough to be called true science is beside the point, at least with regard to the culture. The discussion about what might properly be called "scientific" belongs to the field of inquiry that includes "How many angels fit on the head of a pin?" That is inside baseball with little relevance to the cultural controversy.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Barr, as a person of faith, is embarrassed by his distant association to Young Earthers and IDers, but it would be more "scientific" to be demonstrate an equal skepticism towards the faith of Darwinist True Believers, or as one of the high priests has described their creed, "The single best idea anyone has ever had." What has the exaggerated hyping of Darwin's explanatory powers achieved?

http://tinyurl.com/yzp8pch

The scientific method is not the sole arbiter of truth nor the ultimate mode of human inquiry. While Mr. Barr deserves credit for promoting this basic epistemological point among the faithful zealots of scientism, it does not necessarily follow that we skeptical theists deserve the same medicine.

So what if a 6,000-year-old earth sounds silly? In the grand scheme of things, it's not as silly as an unexamined faith in a dead human theorist. At least Young Earthers err on the side of the divine. Mr. Barr's crusade against ID, while motivated by instincts to moderation, does little to heal the wound between faith and reason, a wound created and sustained in large part by unreasonable partisans of "reason" who know only to mock and ridicule the easy targets. Other than establishing a fifth column in the Fides et Ratio camp, what has Mr. Barr's crusade achieved?

Dear Dr Barr,

Sorry if I misinterpreted you. I was under the impression you were still a Darwinian evolutionist (I remember you telling me several months ago what a beautiful theory it was, how it explains everything, how all the scientists believe in it and it is dangerous to challenge it). Now you say you believe that God created everything and didn't use natural laws to create the heavens, the earth and the living creatures, which is exactly what I believe. Have I got that right?

So, you see, I do have a traditional view of creation, just as you now do.

Now we need to focus on rebutting the so called "Theistic Evolutionists" who have appeared "from under the carpet" as it were, proposing the peculiar theory that God works through Darwinian evolution or some variation of it and gradually built up more and more complex organisms from a single cell over a period of billions of years until we "evolved" . A good resourse I have found is a book called "The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11" by Fr Victor Warkulwiz, a Catholic prist who has a Phd in physics. He provdes a comprehensive defense of the Genesis account of creation, both from a scientific and theological view.

I think a clear convention is needed, distinguishing between:

- lowercase i.d.: the position that an intelligent design can be perceived at the Revelation/faith and philosophycal levels, but not at the level of the scientific method, and

- UPPERCASE I.D.: the position that an intelligent design can be demonstrated at the level of the scientific method.

Besides the quoted passage from the Book of Wisdom, support for i.d. as opposed to I.D. can be found in a beautiful verse in Psalm 77 that describes the ways of divine action: "Through the sea was your path; your way, through the mighty waters, though your footsteps were unseen."

Is ID science? Absolutely no. ID is an attempt to slip creationism into the secular school system of the US. It is a political movement.

ID is dressed up in scientific clothes to give it a false credibility, but it is a Trojan Horse for creationism. It is NOTHING more than that.

The arguments of ID are banal, they're saying "we don't understand how evolution by natural selection could produce these structures therefore it must have been via a supernatural agency". This is a woeful approach that promotes ignorance as a form of argument; Michael Behe's analysis and predictions at Dover were systematically eviscerated; his examples of irreducible complexity were knocked down one after the other as evidence of his ignorance. Blood clotting cascades, bacterial flagella, etc. - yes, science does have a reasonable understanding of these.

Why does the scientific world have little time for ID? Because it is a sham propagated by rogues. ID pushers keep arguing that science should address its claims, and ignores the systematic refutation of these claims. No, that is not how real science works. ID proponents need to do the real science to support their claims, not talk drivel and then claim victory because they are ignored as being beneath contempt.

At least creationism is an honest approach. It flies in the face of science, it is wholly wrong and theologically misguided, but at least it's honest about what it is saying. ID is a sham and a lie.

OKAY, I do realize that First Things appeals to intellectuals, but some laymen might benefit from this post- (1367) IS ‘I.D.’ DEAD? I read an article the other day on ID [intelligent design] it was written by an able scientist, Stephen Barr, and it severely challenged the science of ID. ID is a field of study that would fit under the apologetic category of ‘teleology’ the argument for the existence of God from design. That is we see design in the cosmos, in living things, etc. And all evidence indicates that design/information cannot randomly appear without an intelligent mind as the source. Many have challenged this idea; Richard Dawkins [the famous atheist] calls it ‘the appearance of design’. In the field of ID, many very capable scientists [Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe] and others [lawyer Phillip Johnson] have shown us that you can ‘use’ evolution as a tool to try and explain how things got here, but as a tool it is utterly helpless in showing us where design/information actually come from. Sometimes this argument is referred to as ‘irreducible complexity’. That you can simplify things down to the most basic form of life, and even at that level you have an extremely high degree of information [DNA] that evolution has no way of explaining how this information got there [this field is called information theory]. So the basic argument from the ID standpoint is science shows us that evolution is not the answer to the origin of life [which Darwin never claimed it was- he claimed it was how species got here, thus the 1859 book ‘on the origin of the species’]. Yet most average students of science [high school stuff] think that evolution is a proven theory that has answered these questions. If the truth be known the more we learn, the less likely evolutionary theory will answer these questions. Now in the article the Christian scientist challenged the other Christian scientists over the validity of ID. Science has various definitions; the actual word simply means knowledge. But some say unless you can demonstrate a repeatable experiment in the lab, that it’s not technically science. Yet evolution, in all of its efforts to demonstrate the most basic plank of its theory, has failed miserably. Science has not been able to demonstrate how one species can change into another [common ancestry] the many hundreds of thousands of poor fruit flies who have been genetically engineered in trying to get this to happen, has failed over and over again. Science can’t even demonstrate the most basic plank of evolution, never mind all the other impossible things that evolution supposedly does. So if the truth be known, according to this definition of science, neither evolution nor ID work. But this is not the only way to define science, when dealing with origins [how things get here] you can never find a theory that can be viable according to the definition of ‘repeated, observable testing’- creation itself is not a repeatable event [unless of course God decides to create something!] The article stirred up a hornets’ nest among both sides of the debate [the article is on the catholic site ‘first things’ you can also link to it from Christianity Today- it’s called the death of ID]. As you read some of the debate it can get a little Ivory Tower, but for the most part it’s a good debate to have and many well informed points have been made by both sides, I would encourage all of our readers to go check it out.

MdS: Well, unless you put substance to your claim, it will remain what it is: a (rather arbitrary) claim.

Not nearly as arbitrary as your contention that scientists have not even published what you call 'hypothetical' pathways for the evolution of so-called irreducibly complex traits. You can't be in the slightest familiar with what's been published in any science journals to make that statement.

As was made clear during the Dover trial, M. Behe admitted on the stand that even under the artificially biased constraints set by his 2004 paper with Snokes, a trait that satisfies his own definition of being irreducibly complex, could evolve by standard Darwinian variation and natural selection, within 20,000 years. That's not going to convince any YECs, but as ID supporters claim to support an old earth, this pretty much undercuts their argument.

To M. Behe's acceptance of common ancestry, and how this squares with his supposed arguments for design, Gert Korthof has a nice essay:

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof86.htm

Dr Beckwith,

You say,

Nick, as far as the "genesis" (pardon the pun) on ID, I still think it's a non-starter and say so in my forthcoming article (notes omitted):

****The term “intelligent design” has become ubiquitous in American popular culture as the most recognizable alternative to Darwinian evolution since the ascendancy of “Creationism” (or “Creation Science”). Although “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design” are each offered by their respective proponents as alternative accounts of Darwinian evolution, they are not identical, even though some writers in fact claim that they are identical.

I think your characterization of ubiquity must be reversed from ascendancy to downfall. The terms intelligent design and creation science are inversely related to each other in public discourse. The reason, of course, is cdesign proponentists. If your article does not address this smoking gun (and your quote would lead the reader to beleive it does not) then I think you have willfully misunderstood the genesis of ID as a political movement and as an intellectual position.

It's strange that the many comments here have gone off in philosophical directions but no one is talking about the central issue--whether ID is true or false. Is there good evidence for it? Is it likely to be true? Could it be true? Or is it known to be false?

It is true that there is "not a single phenomenon that we understand better today" through ID. To restate that, there is no evidence at all for ID and that is the reason ID has been dismissed by biologists.

When the idea that certain biological structures are "irreducibly complex" was proposed several examples were given: the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, the blood clotting cascade, the vertebrate eye, the Krebs cycle, etc. In fact, biologists have evolutionary models and physical evidence of how each of these things has evolved. No "irreducibly complex" structures were proposed and then proven to be so. In truth, none of the proposed examples are even open questions, things that puzzle biologists that could possibly be shown to be "irreducibly complex" in the future.

And the case for ID is really worse that what I've described. It's not that ID theorists proposed structures that biologists didn't understand, didn't have good evolutionary models for, structures that could have turned out to be "irreducibly complex". When these examples were given, there was already published research explaining the evolutionary origins of each example. For example, biologists reviewing Behe's book were able to look up and reference the research discounting his examples. No better "irreducibly complex" examples have come to light since then.

"Is ID science? Absolutely no. ID is an attempt to slip creationism into the secular school system of the US. It is a political movement.

"ID is dressed up in scientific clothes to give it a false credibility, but it is a Trojan Horse for creationism. It is NOTHING more than that."

That's completely wrong.

ID is the attempt to observe, clarify, test for the artifacts of intentional design in biological and physical systems.

ID is not to be confused with Biblical Literalism. ID might run parallel with some religious views and it might not. An atheist who is not a hidebound doctrinaire materialist could be an ID theorist.

There is no reason to rule out as "not science" the inference that intelligence has played or does play a role in the material stream of cause and effect. It is by definition a reasonable hypothesis, and there are strong arguments based on observation, awaiting further clarification, that intelligence has indeed played or does play such a role.

The anthropocentric notion that intelligence in an intelligible universe could only coalesce by natural means in rational biological beings is a prejudice. The universe has showed itself to be stranger than such prejudices.

Let There Be Light: An Orthodox Christian Theory of Human Evolution for the 21st Century
John P. Maletis, University of Glasgow

Human creation and evolution is often a theological topic that is dominated by Creationism and a literal interpretation of the Bible and the book of Genesis in particular. As an Orthodox Christian, I have for years been dismayed at the lack of clarity within our own Church on this fundamental issue. In response to this problem, this essay is an attempt to reconcile the traditional dichotomy between Darwinism and Creationism...

I would be hard pressed to find many Orthodox Christian scholars who believe the world was created in six full 24 hour days. Given that I have already asserted there exists an inherent liberty in Scriptural exegesis within Church Tradition—especially in relation with the Creation account—and that I assume Darwin’s Theory of Common Descent, I see no inconsistency in saying the Earth was created 4.6 billion years ago. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest this. Now this is where we really delve into what I call the proto zoê [first life] theory. Hold on to your hats!

God created human beings “in His image and likeness” and with a superiority over all of creation. According to Church Tradition, what distinguishes us human beings from the rest of creation is that human beings are just that—they’re beings, they’re eternal, endowed with a spirit. We’re not human beings because we have two feet or that we have the capacity for self-consciousness. We’re human beings because we have a spirit. A person in a vegetative state, devoid of any mental faculties, of his self-consciousness is still just that—a person. A person without any limbs, who is deaf, blind, and mute, is still just that—a person. OUR FORM OR ACCIDENTAL QUALITIES DO NOT DEFINE A HUMAN BEING. In like manner, given that human beings are genetically the most advanced species on Earth and that we’re created by God with a superiority over all creation, it’s quite possible that human beings could have started as the first cell—the first living being on Earth; a true protocell. In fact, we all started out as a small single cell (a zygote cell) at conception. Given that Orthodoxy has always maintained that the human person is created at conception (hence why abortion is considered murder in the Church) it is not inconsistent with the Orthodox Tradition to believe that the form that human beings “took on” at first was that of a small single cell, just as we all were at one point in our life...

Francis, I'll just pick a point or two.

There is nothing wrong with a religious argument. The problem is using a religous argument and claiming there's nothing religious about it, often in an attempt to undermine real science and introduce religion into schools. That is the reality of ID, whether or not there are higher philosophical considerations.

The comments about 'argument' vs 'claims' vs 'point of view' is way too semantec for me! The bottom line is that if ID wants to make specific claims/arguments/perspectives about nature that are mostly in contradiction to well-established scientific understanding, then it needs to provide something in its behalf: evidence, research - SOMETHING.

If the goal is simply conjecture, fine, but then it needs to stay out of policy and school curricula until it moves past conjecture and into evidence.

Note that a common response to the above is to be asked to "prove" that ID is wrong, or "prove" that science has a better explanation. That is utterly silly. I need to present a hundred years of observation and research each time? Once again: ID is making the claims ("point of view", "argument", whatever), without providing ANYTHING to support it.

Maybe ID can operate in a philosophical space where it can make conjectures and theories, free from the obligations of evidence. That's absolutely fine! I have no problems with conjecture. I just have problems using that conjecture to undermine real science.

Martin,

You write:
The anthropocentric notion that intelligence in an intelligible universe could only coalesce by natural means in rational biological beings is a prejudice.

I'm sorry, there is nothing more anthropocentric than the notion that our form of intelligence (assuming we can define it) is the model for all intelligence, such that all other intelligence is detectable by methods patterned after our own traits. That is making God in you own image. What happened to "My ways are not your ways"? What happened to God's rebuke of Job? If God was the Intelligent Designer, they could not have happened, because his Intelligence must be intelligible to us. More, His Intelligence must be patterned after ours. How prideful is that!?!

Martin McPhillips writes:
"ID is the attempt to observe, clarify, test for the artifacts of intentional design in biological and physical systems."

No, Intelligent Design Creationism is a political movement with the clearly stated intention of eliminating the teaching of modern evolutionary theory and replacing it with a particular evangelical creation myth. See the infamous Wedge Document from the Dominionist-backed Discovery Institute for details.

As I noted above, there is no scientific theory of intelligent design, it does not explain any observed phenomena better than the alternatives, and it makes no testable predictions. Dembski et al. make a lot of bold claims, but never back up their assertions with real science, or even coherent, consistent definitions of their terms. This is recognized even by some founders of the movement:

"We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity' -- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
-- Paul Nelson, Touchstone, 2004

Nothing has changed in that regard.

Interesting article.

Skimming through the comments I couldn't find what, actually, is the scientific theory of intelligent design. I see a lot of philosophical wrangling and whatnot, and even the Dembski himself popped over for a visit, but I'd like to know what ID is; eg what happened and when, and how we know this. Give me some details people.

There are many comments here, so I may have missed this most CRUCIAL information. Little help?

King says:

"To answer Mr. Barr's question -- "What has the intelligent design movement achieved?" -- it's fair to say it has achieved the establishment of a proper, popular skepticism (backed by an attempt at scientific critical thinking) towards the religion of Darwinism."

But that is meaningless because the premise is meaningless: there is no "religion of Darwinism" or "unexamined faith in a dead human theorist". If I want to understand current evolutionary thinking, I don't go to the "canon" of Darwin, but to current research. I don't take current data and say "would this be acceptable to Darwin?" There may be inappropriate attachment to certain ideas in science, like whether "group evolution" is a useful area of research, but those ideas will stand or fall based on research and evidence, not on the personality of Darwin or on current dogma.

ID HAS achieved an undeniable "popular skepticism" but it is at best cynically cloaked in scientific jargon; true scientific critical thinking would not to revert to claims like "evolutionary scientists are brainwashed liars" (a claim perhaps not made here but it's VERY easy to find) when faced with actual data.

(While calling evolutionay science a religion is grossly inaccurate, I do find it ironic at the term "religion" and "faith" being used by religious people (or, those who prefer to "err on the side of the Divine") as a slur against it. Just something to wonder about)

To Martin McPhillips, I agree with much of what you say here:

"Michael Behe, read properly, I think, is saying that the roughly sixty year revolution in molecular biology shows us a micro-world of stunning complexity that, without biologists necessarily saying so, suggests something a tad more mysterious than anything that the neo-Darwinian synthesis explains. And that he, Behe, is trying to give some voice to it. Call this nascent theory, arising out of the complexity, ID, or say that not only biology but the physical world give off an implicit signal of intelligence. There's still some considerable road to travel that examines and tests that as a paradigm. I hardly think that we are at the end of Intelligent Design."

First of all, let me say something about your criticism of the title "The End of Intelligent Design?". If you are saying that Mike Behe et al. raised --- or least made people much more aware of --- a very important question that will remain with us for a long time to come, I heartily agree. There should be no "end" declared on consideration of and hard thinking about that question.

Whether the "ID movement", having raised that important question, is now really achieving anything else, and whether whatever it is they are achieving is worth the damage they may be doing is another question.

You say, "Once again, I totally disagree that ID advocates (the most epistemologically savvy, anyway, like Dembski, Behe and Wells, at least) would affirm that their explanations are demonstrations. Where do you gather that from?"

Much of ID writing implies that the basic ID question (i.e. whether natural selection can account for the kind of biological complexity that is seen) is an open question, and that this question is posed merely as a "challenge" for biology that needs to be addressed by a major research program. For example, the subtitle of Mike Behe's book Darwin's Black Box refers to this "challenge" to biochemistry.

However, much of the argumentation of ID theorists is to the effect that one can construct a priori mathematical proofs that natural selection CANNOT explain "irreducible complexity" (Behe) or "'complex specified information" (Dembski). There are said to "No free lunch theorems", and the Conservation of Information (COI) principle, and so forth, that show that random mutations and natural selection cannot IN PRINCIPLE generate these kinds of complexity.

To do a REAL calculation that would answer conclusively whether some structure can be explained by natural selection it would not be enough to do these purely mathematical exercises. One would have to know a great deal about the details of evolutionary history. (a) What was the actual sequence of genetic steps that led to the structure? (b) What effects did each genetic step have on the form or capacities of the organism? (c) What selective pressures were the organisms subject to when each of these changes was taking place? And how did these pressures affect the relative rates of survival and propagation of the organisms? (d) How many other alternative sequences of steps would have led to the same or similar results (very important, since to say that any flagellum is improbable and that this particular design of flagellum is improbable are two quite different questions). Much of this information is doubtless unobtainable. And even if one had it, the calculations required to answer "what is the probability of a flagellum evolving?" would be horrendously difficult.

In complicated real life situations, calculations of probabilities from first principles are very hard. Usually one has to base estimates of probabilities on
on the results of actual experience. What is the probability of John Smith being able to learn to play the violin? The only way to really tell is by looking at how well various other people have done who tried to achieve this; what
characteristics were possessed by those who succeeded or failed; whether John Smith has these characteristics, etc. But suppose we don't have all that actual experience to go on, and all we know is what a violin looks like, and some basic facts about John Smith's brain and body. Could one sit down and do a lot of mathematics and arrive at an answer that had any credibility? It is like Mr. Spock in the old Star Trek series, who would deliver himself of these utterly absurd statements, like "the chances of us succeeding on this mission is 3.754 times 10 to the minus 5". Again, in complicated real life situations a priori calculations of probability are essentially impossible.

That is why I am convinced that NO ONE --- NEITHER darwinian biologist NOR ID person --- actually knows the answer to the question posed by ID. But the burden of proof is on squarely ID. Why? Because one cannot make their "design inference" until (as Dembski rightly says) you have EXCLUDED the darwinian answer. (Note, I say THEIR design inference. There are other ways to argue for a Designer.)

Here is what really COULD and SHOULD be taught in high school biology texts: "We do not yet have detailed explanations of of how many particular complex structures evolved. Some scientists are skeptical that presently known mechanisms are capable of explaining this complexity. These is still a lot that is not understood about the process of evolution." FULL STOP, as the British say. Nothing about "but we are pretty sure that natural selection will explain it eventually" or "design hypotheses." The attitude should be (as FOX NEWS says) "we report, you decide. Tell students what science does understand, and what remains to be understood, and let people draw their own conclusions.

Nick Matzke’s understanding of the details of the connection between ID and “scientific” creationism should not be underestimated. There has been far more going on historically than many of ID defenders here apparent know about.

Henry Morris and Duane Gish initiated most of the misconceptions and misrepresentations of scientific concepts that permeate the literature of ID/creationism. Gish was already badgering biology teachers in Kalamazoo with these misconceptions back when he worked at the Upjohn Company. I have direct knowledge of this from the very people he badgered.

Whatever sociopolitical, Constitutional, legal, “philosophical” arguments one may try to make in defending the ID/creationists, there is one thing that cannot be denied by anyone who understands the scientific concepts ID/creationism mangles; ID/creationism is a pseudo-science in every sense of that word. Its methods of promulgating itself would alone be sufficient to damn it; but it doesn’t stop there.

Concepts like “tornadoes-in-junkyards” from Morris and Gish, “irreducible complexity” from Behe, “complex specified information” from Dembski, “spontaneous molecular chaos” from Abel, “genetic entropy” from Sanford, “entropy barriers” from numerous ID/creationist followers; all these have the same genetic roots going back to Morris and Gish. Morris and Gish started these misconceptions, and these continue right through ID.

These misconceptions follow from what could appropriately be referred to as “The Fundamental Misconception of ID/creationism.” That fundamental misconception gets wrong, egregiously wrong, what anyone can observe going on in the universe around them; all matter strongly interacts and condenses as energy is released in the form of photons, phonons or is carried away by other particles. And this happens at every level of complexity, form quarks and gluons right on up to living systems.

The failure to grasp that fundamental concept and the continued misrepresentation of what every condensed matter physicist, every chemist, and any kid can observe is what makes ID/creationism a pseudo-science. Any conclusions ID/creationists draw from employing that misconception in their arguments and “probability calculations” are wrong and cannot be used as arguments for ID/creationism or as arguments against working scientists.

Many of us in the science community have attempted to correct this misconception over a period of 40+ years. We have been repeatedly ignored and rebuffed with pretentious mud wrestling that leveraged “respectability” for ID/creationists who turned right around and reused misconceptions in every new venue. That’s recorded history that cannot be ignored in observing ID/creationist sociopolitical tactics.

Arguments that misconstrue thermodynamics and the rest of the way the universe behaves are simply bogus. It is that simple; and no amount of “philosophical” mud wrestling can get around it.

To King: I DO attack the practitioners of scientism, and those who think Darwin can explain everything. I thought my review of Dawkins's book "The Devil's Chaplain" in First Things a few years ago was rather devastating. My books articles and lectures are attempts to attack the enemy where I think he's vulnerable.

To use a military analogy, one should attack the enemy, but also one has to maintain some discipline in one's own ranks. If some people are charging off in the wrong direction it can cost the war. At the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Admiral Bull Halsey came damn close to losing the war in the Pacific by taking the enemies bait instead of following the well thought-out battle plan.

To King: I DO attack the practitioners of scientism, and those who think Darwin can explain everything. I thought my review of Dawkins' book "The Devil's Chaplain" in First Things a few years ago was pretty hard hitting. My book, articles and lectures are attempts to attack the enemy where I think he's vulnerable.

To use a military analogy, one should attack the enemy, but also one has to maintain some discipline in one's own ranks. If some people are charging off in the wrong direction it can cost the war. At the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Admiral Bull Halsey came damn close to losing the war in the Pacific by taking the enemy's bait instead of following the well thought-out battle plan. Not every blow at the opponent is well-struck.

Ah Stefan. Thank you for the laugh, you ad hominem fellow. I can tell right off that you've never spent a day in your life in an elementary logic class--or, if you did, you didn't pay very close attention. I found laugh-out-loud-funny your critique of my argument that Darwinism (as elliptical a term in the scientific community as creationist) is premised on a non sequitur. Your comment said more about you than about me--it said that you don't even know what a non sequitur, in the proper sense, is. For even if one accepted your correction--the non sequitur would remain in place. You see, it's a non sequitur because there is a missing middle term. And all you did was to revise the conclusion. But your revised conclusion wouldn't follow from the premise either.

As for your statement about Dawkins--well, no one who has read him even a little will honestly accede to your claim. You must think I haven't read him to try to convince me of your interpretation. But I have. For instance, I know that he maintains expressly (as anyone who has actually read him knows) (1) that Darwin was an atheist (though the relevant comments from Darwin suggest that Darwin was a philosophic agnostic who thought that the science ought, in practice, to be atheistic) and (2) that Darwinism requires atheism. Dawkins is fond of saying that it was Darwin that made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist--these sorts of comments are right there in his books. You call me paranoid--but it's Richard Dawkins who said that all those who believe in God are insane, maliciously deceptive, or exceptionally stupid--and said that in the first two cases they should be locked up. It's right there in his writing. Now, I'm not treating anyone in the extremist way Dawkins treats religious people--so if I'm paranoid he must take paranoia to a whole new level. I just think Darwinian biology should be open to criticism and should resist addressing the criticism by sleight of hand (which is to say, by defining it away). I also know that a good many analytic philosophers consider Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, to be one of the flimsiest pieces of philosophical argumentation in many decades. They do so for good reason. The book is so terrible that it hardly rates a response by any rational person. As for whether Darwin has any disciples--well, this is fairly straightforward. Dawkins and Dennet don't refer to themselves as Darwinian fundamentalists for no reason (though you must think they do). Darwin has also had some considerably less savory disciples in the scientific community in the earlier part of the 20th century, but I won't let that very tragic bit of history (one of which you are no doubt entirely unaware) detain us at the present.

Now, for anyone less philosophically and ideologically naive than Stefan, it's worth pointing out that we should distinguish between Darwinian mechanisms for evolutionary change and Darwinian philosophy--both of which can be found in Darwin (if anyone the likes of Stefan actually has read him) and his disciples (Dennet and Dawkins among them). People like Stefan, like to bully critics by using sleight of hand to shift definitions--thus Darwinism is defined more narrowly or more broadly depending on what propagandists like Stefan hope to accomplish. This has been well documented and is really beyond dispute. If Stefan had actually bothered to read my earlier posts (which he clearly didn't), he would have realized that I am not an ID apologist and that I subscribe to the notion of the evolutionary development of human life. He would have realized that I am critical of the overreach of both IDers and Darwinists. To pretend that Darwinists don't overreach is simply to have one's head in the sand. If we distinguish Darwinian mechanisms from Darwinian philosophy--something most biologists, untrained in the basics of philosophical argumentation as they are, conflate--then we it becomes possible for one to posit that we must repudiate Darwinism on the one hand and leave open as a possible conclusion that Darwinian mechanisms best explain the evolution of human life. I only added that any science worthy of the name must also leave open the possibility that Darwinian mechanisms fail to account for the evolution of human life as well. Scientific arguments are inductive and probabilistic in nature. As a result, they cannot reach certain conclusions that never admit of being challenged. No scientific theory can ever be anything other than likely or probably true. But a good many Darwinians (in either sense) have sought to ward off even the possibility of challenge by defining science and biology in a certain way. To suggest otherwise is to belie culpable ignorance or maliciously to deceive.

As I say, I am sympathetic to Dr. Barr's critique of ID--the legitimacy of which I've been defending. By Stefan's bullying remarks remind me why so many of us with philosophical training remain skeptical of Darwinian Dogmatism and of the overreach of biologists on this count. I'm reminded of a story involving the renowned physicist, Dr. Barrow, in a confrontation with Richard Dawkins. Dr. Barrow, quite frustrated with Dawkins, finally told him something like this: “You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you’re not really a scientist. You’re a biologist.” According to Barrow, “Biologists have a limited, intuitive understanding of complexity. They’re stuck with an inherited conflict from the 19th century, and are only interested in outcomes, in what wins out over others." And “outcomes tell you almost nothing about the laws that govern the universe.” Some of us who might be inclined to take Darwinian biologists more seriously find ourselves more sympathetic to Barrow than we might otherwise be just because of the exasperation of dealing with bullying tactics like those Stefan employs. But then I suspect that Stefan was more concerned about will to power than persuasion.

Dear Mr. Barr: A very interesting post. As an atheist (but not a scientist) I agree with your basic critique of ID, that it (as propounded by the ID 'movement') is fundamentally ungrounded in reality and can only succeed if several centuries worth of hard-won empirical evidence is jettisoned. I agree that it further severely undermines the project of religious moderates such as you by setting up a ridiculously easy target for ridicule, one that is easily mistaken by many for the major part of the theistic argument about the nature of the universe and humankind's place in it.

I note with some amusement that your thread has become infested with the same collection of evolution and climate change deniers, young earth creationists and godbots that I have encountered on innumerable science-themed blogs, and that their arguments here are just as ludicrous as those that cause such merriment at Pharyngula, Richarddawkins.net, and other places.

Steven Barr writes:

"Here is what really COULD and SHOULD be taught in high school biology texts: "We do not yet have detailed explanations of of how many particular complex structures evolved. Some scientists are skeptical that presently known mechanisms are capable of explaining this complexity. These is still a lot that is not understood about the process of evolution." FULL STOP, as the British say. Nothing about "but we are pretty sure that natural selection will explain it eventually" or "design hypotheses." The attitude should be (as FOX NEWS says) "we report, you decide. Tell students what science does understand, and what remains to be understood, and let people draw their own conclusions."

To which I say, exactly. It seems to me that this utterly sane and that their must be an ideological motive behind any disagreement with this statement.

In response to Paul,

You are right that the criticism in paragraph one of my first response, which you quote, could easily be a misplaced criticism. Indeed, that was the point, as explained in the second paragraph which you did not quote. It seemed to me that the analysis of ID in Stephen Barr's article was rather like my superficial analysis of his position as written in the paragraph you quote - a superficial analysis that was misplaced. I still think so, but in reading some of the responses realize that his actual position is more nuanced than came across in the original article.

@ Stephen M. Barr [2.12.2010, 1:01pm]

SMB: “... much of the argumentation of ID theorists is to the effect that one can construct a priori mathematical proofs that natural selection CANNOT explain "irreducible complexity" (Behe) or "'complex specified information" (Dembski).”

MdS: Far from me to affirm that I have read everything of importance that the main ID authors have written, but I have read enough, form Behe and Dembski in particular, to seriously doubt that they affirm anything as conclusive as what you say, viz. that “... random mutations and natural selection cannot IN PRINCIPLE generate these kinds of complexity”. Care to provide the relevant references?
---------------------------------------------------------------
SMB: “To do a REAL calculation that would answer conclusively whether some structure can be explained by natural selection it would not be enough to do these purely mathematical exercises. (...) And even if one had it, the calculations required to answer "what is the probability of a flagellum evolving?" would be horrendously difficult.”

MdS: Maybe Dembski, because of his background, more mathematical than truly biological, tends to rely a lot on calculations, to the point when they become unwieldy and unconvincing.

But Behe's approach, being a biochemist, well familiar with biochemical "machinery", is quite different and also quite simpler. We need to go back to his definition of Irreducible Complexity:

“By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.” (Michael J. Behe, "Darwin's Black Box", 1996, p. 39)

This definition, in its perfectly clear operational character, causes real headaches to the staunch ToE advocates. So much so that, to circumvent it, the ToEs had and have to make ample use of totally speculative notions (but it would be more appropriate to call them with their true name: mere verbal tricks), like "exaptation" and "cooptation", which have NOT a spec of empirical support and applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------
SMB: “But the burden of proof is on squarely ID. Why? Because one cannot make their "design inference" until (as Dembski rightly says) you have EXCLUDED the darwinian answer.”

MdS: Having put in the right perspective of the centrality that you attribute to "probability calculations" on the part of the IDers, I believe your approach can be easily reversed: in front of an ID claim to the irreducible complexity of a structure and/or function, the "burden of proof", that is the description of AT LEAST one POSSIBLE (I didn't say actual or real) "evolutionary path" to the structure/function, rests squarely on ToE. Of course, no fancy evasions/inventions like "exaptation" or "cooptation" should be allowed. Why? Purely and simply because they are a DISHONEST way of voiding the answer of any significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------
SMB: “... Here is what really COULD and SHOULD be taught in high school biology texts: "We do not yet have detailed explanations of how many particular complex structures evolved. Some scientists are skeptical that presently known mechanisms are capable of explaining this complexity. There is still a lot that is not understood about the process of evolution."”

MdS: I could not agree more. Why is it, then, that, especially in America, there are true and proper "religious wars", wielded mostly (at least recently) by the ToE advocates, to oppose even this minimal and reasonable compromise, which would not be offensive to either party?

I would like to hear your comment of this.

---Stephen Barr: "Let's take an example. Suppose someone thought stonehenge was a natural geological formation. He might try to explain it by various natural processes, such as wind erosion, or the movement of large rocks by glaciers, and so forth. He would be doing geology, a natural science.
If, however, by a "design inference", he were to conclude that stonehenge was man-made, it would no longer fall to natural science to explain it."

According to the RULE of "methodological naturalism, " which I gather you enthusiastically embrace, no scientist of any stripe may make an inference to design without violating both the spirit and letter of the rule. Under the MN standard, science has left the building as soon as one makes a design inference of any kind. The word "natural science" as opposed to other kinds of science is little more than a rhetorical dodge, just as it is a rhetorical dodge to imply that the geologist is more of a scientist than an archeologist, or for that matter, that a chemist is more of a scientist than a SETI researcher. They are all scientists, and those who draw inferences to design are no less scientists than those who do not. You, nor anyone else, can lay claim to the moral privilege of establishing the official line of demarcation between scientists and non-scientists.

Indeed, no one in your camp has yet successfully provided a definition of a "natural cause." In effect, you are saying to the ID scientist, "I have no idea what I mean by a natural cause, which means that I have no idea by what I mean by my rule, nevertheless, you are condemned if you violate it."


By that ridiculous standard, Theisitic evolutionists and materialistic darwinists attribute opposite meanings to the very same rule on which they both place all their bets. According to theistic evolutionists, when I write a paragraph, I am a supernatural cause because my immaterial mind caused the creativity; according to Darwinists, I am a natural cause because my material brain caused the creativity. Can I be both a natural and a supernatural cause?

According to theistic evolutionists, an ancient hunter's spear, designed courtesy of an immaterial mind, was generated by a supernatural cause; according to Darwinists, an ancient hunter's spear, constructed courtesy of a material brain, was generated by a natural cause. Can the ancient hunter be both a natural and a supernatural cause?

According to theistic evolutionists, the intelligent agents who built Pompeii's artifacts were supernatural causes, but the valcano that buried them was a natural cause; according to Darwinists, both the builders of the artifacts and the valcano were natural causes. As a methodological naturalist, you must say either that those who built Pompeii were supernatural causes, or else you must say that they are the same kind of cause as the valcano that buried it. Either way, you are in inellectual quicksand.

If I come home and find my home ransacked, rule out a tornado, and conclude that it was a burglar who open the dresser drawers looking for jewelry, I have, according to the theistic evolutionist, violated the principle of methodological naturalism by making an inference to a supernatural cause, namely the burglar's immaterial mind. According to the Darwinist, I have not violated the principle of methodological naturalism since, for him, both the tornado and the burglar, being mere molecules in action, are natural causes. So, as a methodological naturalist, you must say either that the burglar is a supernatural cause or else you must say that a burglar and a tornado are the same kind of cause, namely a natural cause. Either way, you are doomed to reside in an intellectual madhouse.

To Tom Coward:

Why should anyone care what anyone says over at Richarddawkins.net? If the people over there demonstrate the same incapacity that Dawkins does when it comes to theology, religion, and philosophy, then its hard to imagine why anyone should take their opinion on such matters seriously.

The defenders of ID should try to get their story straight.

Francis Williamson leaps to the defense of ID by writing: "All Barr has done is repeat the rather silly slander that ID is based on inferring the hand of God Almighty from the causal and explanatory gaps in our normal scientific efforts. Shame on you, Mr. Barr."

Yet the very next post in defense of ID (by Dickens) begins as follows: "I think the author misses the point of ID. Its only purpose is to show the weaknesses in Darwinian theory, and suggest a better answer for the First First Thing."

One of them thinks Professor Barr is "slandering" ID by saying that it's merely god-of-the-gappism, the other one thinks that Professor Barr is "missing the point" of ID by not realizing that it's merely god-of-the-gappism. They are, however, in agreement that whatever ID is it's a good thing.

(There should be a more elegant way of saying "god-of-the-gappism". How about "theolacunism"?)

"Miguel de Servet says:"

"We need to go back to his definition of Irreducible Complexity:

[MdS then quotes Behe's defintion]

This definition, in its perfectly clear operational character, causes real headaches to the staunch ToE advocates."

Now, in point of fact this definition has actually caused a real headache for Behe. In his "Reply To My Critics", he wrote:

"Thus, there is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work."

If he has repaired this defect, then I haven't heard of this --- and nor, apparently, have you, since you are still using the definition which he admits to be defective.

His provision of a clear definition presents, not a problem, but an opportunity, to us "staunch ToE advocates". Debating our opponents is often much like trying to punch a fog, and it is nice of Behe to offer us something of substance to discuss.

Consider, for example, the bony anatomy of the mammalian middle ear. This has three parts: malleus, incus, stapes. Remove just one and they fail at their task of conducting vibrations from the eardrum to the inner ear; hence, according to the definition you cite, the structure is irreducibly complex: in Behe's words, it is "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

And yet since the parts of the system are bony parts we can see in the fossil record just how this tripartite system evolved. We can see for ourselves how this irreducibly complex system was indeed produced "by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system".

So much for claims that irreducible complexity can't evolve.

If ID had any merit as a scientific endeavor, this would be a great time for its proponents to give up on "irreducible complexity" and try to think of a new argument.

The horse is dead. Drop the stick and walk away.

(1368) FOR HE LOOKED FOR A CITY WHICH HATH FOUNDATIONS, WHOSE BUILDER AND MAKER IS GOD- Hebrews. In keeping with the last post, let’s talk some more on the debate between Evolution and Design. When the able Stephen Barr shot the round that was heard around the world [at least the world of IDer’s] he made some good points, even though I disagree strongly with the way he represented the other able scientists in the field. One day I had a talk with a geologist, it was a happenstance meeting [friend of my daughter] and during a normal friendly conversation I brought up many of the opposing views to ‘uniformitarianism’ and the challenges to a ‘deep time’ geology. While not a young earther myself, I found it amazing that this scientist was totally unaware of any opposing viewpoints to the standard theories. In the halls of academia the majority opinion is without a doubt that of Darwinian Evolution, it is also true that many people [even scientists!] are really not familiar with all the data [lots of data!] that challenge the standard view; many have come to challenge the basic Darwinian timeline [thus punctuated equilibrium] and have admitted that the tremendous ‘gap’ in the fossil record, along with the discovery of high complexity in the most simple cell, that these scientific discoveries have made it difficult to accept the Darwinian idea. Now the adherents of Evolutionary theory accuse the IDer's of resorting to a ‘God of the gaps’ excuse. That is they claim that all the IDer’s are doing is finding places in the record that have no explanations [information, complex machines, etc.] and are inserting ‘God’ into these gaps. The Evolutionists say ‘given enough time, maybe we will find naturalistic explanations to fit the gaps’. And they claim that any ‘gap theory’ actually hinders scientific discovery, because it has a tendency to say ‘well, might as well stop looking for a naturalistic cause, God just filled the gap’. First, the IDer's are not saying that because we have run across unanswered difficulties, lets stick God in there. What they are saying [for the most part] is that observable data [science] show us, in every case, that when you have complex systems that are ‘irreducible’ and stored data/info at the most simple level; that these facts point to an intelligent mind having been the cause of these things. Now, Stephen Barr and Francis Beckwith [two of the main scientists/philosophers in the debate] do not reject the idea that yes, an intelligent mind is behind the design/info, what they are saying is it’s still possible that science will discover a ‘naturalistic’ explanation/mechanism to it. That is God might have created some other unknown mechanism that is simple [or complex] that can be credited with bringing into existence the design/info. They are simply arguing that it’s possible, and not in contradiction with historic Christianity, to embrace this view. Barr also seems to be saying ‘yes, it is very possible that we will never find a reasonable, naturalistic explanation for this, and at that point the IDer’s might be right, but then you jump out of the field of science [observable data] and carry the argument into another classroom’. I believe the ‘God of the gaps’ accusation is erroneous, I also believe that far too many adherents to Evolutionary theory are not giving the proper weight to the gaps, some are not even aware of them! Thomas Aquinas is sometimes misunderstood and is said to have advocated a secular/religious division in apologetics; that is some say he taught that the natural sciences and religious truth were 2 totally different fields, sort of like the thought of Emanuel Kant [Physical/Metaphysical division] but Thomas taught that science could show us many truths about God, just because you have naturalistic explanations to things, this does not discount the Divine hand- but he also taught that science could only go so far down that road- for instance it would take many years to arrive at a naturalistic proof of Gods being, while revelation [thru tradition and scripture] could get you there quicker. Also science can prove that God exists [prime mover] but for truths on the nature of God [Trinity] you need revelation. So Aquinas leaves room for science to go so far, and if it ‘hits a gap’ then yes, you have every right to carry the argument into ‘another classroom’ so to speak. It is not wrong to say ‘yes, we are searching for a city, one that has been built by God’ but to also recognize that the city has foundations [whether discovered thru naturalistic or religious truth]; both seekers can be on the right track, arriving at different times/ways.

Stephen Barr is just making a big mistake. Freedom will replace force in science, and concepts such as intelligent design are indispensable for describing how things come to be in a free way.

I note that all posts are held for moderation, but I'm not sure what that means. Does it mean that they are first reviewed before posting, or does it mean that they are held back because of an excess of moderation? Anyway, moderation in all things...

The natural science of biological evolution is clear and definitive. We have many, most notably Ernst Mayr, to thank for that summary. If Intelligent Design is an alternative to that science, it is of course irrelevant, at best, or harmful. The thinkers who propose ID are in any case missing the point entirely, as this essay and many of the comments point out.

What is uniquely human about us -- what it is about us that most clearly expresses Jesus' gift of our humanity -- is immaterial and is therefore not subject to, is indeed incapable of, biological evolution. The conscious mind and the conscious will -- what we perhaps incorrectly call "free" will though only the Saints are free -- are our birthright and our reality but they are not embodied materially. Aquinas said that, but we need more modern restatements as well. For that we read the works of the great healer Dr. Jeffrey H. Schwartz of UCLA, whose field is neuro-psychiatry. Read his The Mind and the Brain. It is definitive.

Jesus, in his grand design, let some apes give Adam a body. Jesus' direct contribution were the mind and the will, human mind and human will fashioned after his own human mind and will. The mind cannot evolve. It is unchanging since Adam, though the brain that connects us to the material world can evolve, and more importantly can grow and learn. Indeed, we must be grateful for that capacity, which makes it better able to serve the mind and will and their creator.

StephenB:

"According to the Darwinist, I have not violated the principle of methodological naturalism since, for him, both the tornado and the burglar, being mere molecules in action, are natural causes. So, as a methodological naturalist, you must say either that the burglar is a supernatural cause or else you must say that a burglar and a tornado are the same kind of cause, namely a natural cause. Either way, you are doomed to reside in an intellectual madhouse."

Nonsense. It doesn't follow from the proposition that human agents have natural origins that we have no basis from which to discern the results of human actions from the impact of other natural events.

Tornadoes and human beings both have natural origins, yet those origins reflect vastly different causal histories and exert characteristic and easily discerned impacts upon the world. Moreover, we each spend a lifetime, literally beginning at birth, immersed in the actions and products of other human beings, navigating the social landscape of others’ motives and intentions, and engaging in actions, generating products, and deploying motives and intentions of our own. Moreover, we spend our lifetimes also encountering unguided physical events such as wind, rain and the general increase of disorder observed in non-living processes.

This deep familiarity renders us adept at identifying the characteristic markers of human actions, products and intentions and distinguishing them from unguided natural events. Indeed, there are significant reasons to suspect that we are adapted to quickly make these distinctions, particularly the subtle discernment of human actions and motives. Abstract and unobservable posits such as "immaterial minds" are neither required nor helpful in making these particular distinctions.

Umm ALL filters eliminate something.

That is the purpose of a filter.

The EF eliminates via consideration.

It gives chance and necessity the first shot at making their case.

Then once those have been eliminated there is still the case of “specification” to be made before we infer design.

IOW the EF mandates a thorough investigation.

What type of person would object to that?

And as a matter of fact the EF is exactly what one would use to try to refute the design inference!

It's odd to claim Johnson's Darwin on Trial as the genesis of ID, because that book most clearly illustrates the unfortunate reality that the modern ID movement grew out of an ongoing effort to get creationism into school textbooks, post Edwards v. Aguillard. It repackages many of the standard creationist arguments but in new language. And it accuses evolutionary science of doing something (drawing philosophical conclusions) that just don't actually happen in the normal course of evolutionary science.

People get this wrong constantly. If Catholic scientists are warranted in going beyond the methods of science to jump to theological conclusions, then atheist scientists like Dawkins are not doing anything more or less legitimate in doing the same thing. Doing so does not undermine or cast doubt on the scientific process just because it allows people to say things that evangelicals don't like.

StephenB raises a very good point. Should we be methodological naturalists when it comes to human beings? I believe a Christian must say no --- or, at least, we can be naturalists only up to a point with regard to man. Man has a spiritual soul, possessing the inherently spiritual powers of free will and rationality. This spiritual dimension of man cannot be explained in merely material terms. It is not reducible to mere physics, chemistry, or biology. (Some recent Christians theologian deny the reality of the spiritual soul and speak of "non-reductive materialism". But this is in conflict with the overwhelming testimony of Christian tradition. And non-reductive materialism is a contradiction in terms.)

The question of whether the spiritual soul and its powers are "natural" or "supernatural" is a matter of terminology --- the word "natural" is used in various ways. In Catholic theology, for example, human freedom and rationality are endowments of "human nature" and are in that sense "natural", as opposed to, say, grace and its effects, which exceed our natural powers and are "supernatural". On the other hand, though the spiritual soul is part of "human nature", it is above the nature of merely material things, and cannot be explained as the result of a merely material process, such as biological evolution. That is why the Catholic Church teaches that the spiritual soul of each human being is directly created in him or her by God.

So, when it comes to psychology, anthropology, etc. we must resolutely reject all purely "naturalistic" approaches. A great deal about human beings can indeed be explained naturalistically, but it is not the whole story. Evolutionary biology can explain much, and maybe even all, of our physical frame, and evolutionary psychology can shed much light on our minds, as can neuroscience. But such approaches cannot explain everything about us. And in rejecting reductive materialist theories of human beings we are in a strong position. Even many atheists will admit that science hasn't a clue how to explain even so basic a phenomenon as consciousness. And there are strong arguments coming from physics (embraced by some leading physicists) that physics alone cannot explain the human mind. The reductionists are in a very weak position when they claim that the human mind is reducible to matter. (Some arguments based on science against a reductive view of man are explained in the last half of my book "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith")

So, the place where the line really has to be drawn against metaphysical naturalism and materialist reductionism is with the human being, and in particular his spiritual dimension. This is where the Catholic Church, for example, has always drawn the line. The Church has no objection to the idea that the human body evolved by material processes, but rejects the evolution of the spiritual soul. As Pope John Paul II emphasized, there is an "ontological discontinuity" between man and lower organisms, because of our spiritual natures.

It's wrong to assume that MN cannot infer design by beings who are actually known to design things, all in observable and predictable fashions by particular processes that we can understand, find telltale signs of the operation of, and so on.

None of that is possible for the sort of supernatural design people want to infer to a) specific things, or, even worse b) the entire universe.

You can't apply reasonable inferences that are derived about things residing in the context of a particular universe and then apply those things to the universe as a whole: that's a gross category error. Paley's watch on the beach is unusual and demanding of explanation only against the backdrop of an environment that cannot account for it. We might say the same about a lizard, but then science has shown that there in fact IS a very plausible explanation for where lizards came from and why it is not strange to find them on Earth's beaches. So then we can have a productive debate over whether this explanation fully accounts for lizards, while demanding a different explanation of pocket-watches (which eventually hits the snag that the designers of pocket-watches might well have the same non-designed origin as the lizards).

So it's plausible to infer design in that fashion and then argue over it, but its total nonsense to then apply his reasoning to environment ITSELF and claim that beaches are also designed. How on earth could ANYONE reliably make the claim that "all of existence" is unusual? Compared to what, exactly?

Where it becomes pointless is when you try to introduce magic to science. Magical/supernatural "explanations" are nothing more than clever professions and embraces of ignorance: "it was done by a being I can't possibly understand, in a way I can't conceive of" is basically just a rephrasing of "I have no idea how it happened."

Barr writes: "The older (and wiser) form of the design argument for the existence of God—one found implicitly in Scripture and in many early Christian writings—did not point to the naturally inexplicable or to effects outside the course of nature, but to nature itself and its ordinary operations..."

Presumably he is referring to the virgin birth or the resurrection when he speaks of early Christians not pointing to the naturally inexplicable? Presumably the miracle at Cana was explainable by reference to the ordinary operation of nature?

The definition of science, indeed must change, if by science we mean every natural event must have a purely natural cause. Such a definition forces believing scientists to work in their fields as functional atheists.

Over the years I have discovered a primary reason there is so much heated argument about this issue is that people employ numerous personal definitions for the concepts “intelligent design,” “evolution,” and “science.” Thus, I appreciate that Stephen Barr spells out his definition of ID: “The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature.” If that is ID, then I would disagree. But ID can also mean something more modest, where one simply infers some form of intelligent influence on biological phenomenon, including evolution itself. For example, life itself could have been designed to shape subsequent evolution, thereby imparting some form of direction to evolution. This form of ID would not require evolution to fail or evolutionary mechanisms to be inadequate. On the contrary (!), this form of ID would more likely marvel at the success of evolution and try to develop a deeper understanding of why evolution succeeded. From this angle, none of Barr’s criticisms apply.

@ StephenB [2.12.2010 | 8:30pm]

I think you hit the nail right on the head, with your post, of which this paragraph is fully representative.

“Theistic evolutionists and materialistic Darwinists attribute opposite meanings to the very same rule ["methodological naturalism"] on which they both place all their bets. According to theistic evolutionists, when I write a paragraph, I am a supernatural cause because my immaterial mind caused the creativity; according to Darwinists, I am a natural cause because my material brain caused the creativity. Can I be both a natural and a supernatural cause?”

This is what the author of the article, Stephen M. Barr, wrote in reply to a point raised in one of my posts:

“I argue at great length in my book that chance and necessity are not adequate to explain human freedom and rationality --- i.e. our "spiritual" powers.” [SMB, 2.11.2010 | 11:22am]

Yes, the rejection of ID is much more difficult to sustain for "Theistic evolutionists" (who believe in a mix of matter & spirit, of nature & culture) than it is for "materialistic Darwinists", who, at least, are consistent with their premises: ALL is matter (or nature), so everything MUST be explained in terms of material/natural causes.

I am a Christian and a Catholic (of a rather heterodox kind, because I reject the "central dogma", the "trinity"), and I believe that "methodological naturalism" is a (conscious or unconscious) rule that every natural adopts. I believe that the best description of the methodological ground rules of Natural Science (apart from the impeccable, but too extensive one provided by Karl Popper) is the very synthetic one proposed by the biologist Richard Dickerson. Here it is:

“Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule: Rule No. 1:

Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.

Operational science takes no position about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural; only that this factor is not to be invoked in scientific explanations. Calling down special-purpose miracles as explanations constitutes a form of intellectual "cheating."” [Richard E. Dickerson, "The Game of Science: Reflections After Arguing With Some Rather Overwrought People", 1992, @ asa3.org]

Of course, when Dickerson uses the word "game", he does NOT mean "toying with Science", but rather accepting that "methodological naturalism" (that is " explain[ing] the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural ") is the self-imposed limit of Natural Science.

So, how does ID fit in all this? Well my opinion is that it does only in a NEGATIVE WAY

(a) ID CANNOT provide a "Theory of life" alternative to ToE for the very simple limit that, invoking a non-natural cause like the Intelligent Agents, it refuses by definition Dickerson Rule No. 1

(b) ID, though, by identifying cases of Irreducible Complexity, can indicate where the ToE breaks down, at least LOCALLY.

So, even if ID, IMSO, will NEVER become part of Natural Science, it has nevertheless a very useful
function, in fact a twofold function:

(c) It can expose the limits of the dominant theory (ToE)

(d) It is a constant reminder to everybody that the Theory of Evolution by Random Mutation and Natural Selection is a THEORY, NOT a FACT.

Why all the above should be a problem to scientists, who should be "metaphysically agnostic", I frankly don't know, and Stephen M. Barr has NOT explained.

StephenB writes:

"Indeed, no one in your camp has yet successfully provided a definition of a 'natural cause.' In effect, you are saying to the ID scientist, 'I have no idea what I mean by a natural cause, which means that I have no idea by what I mean by my rule, nevertheless, you are condemned if you violate it.'"

That is manifestly false, as has been pointed out to you several times over at the UD echo chamber. It also indicates either that you have absolutely no background in any of the sciences, that you are too deluded by your religion to understand the scientific method, or that you are simply dishonest.

The bottom line is that there is no scientific theory of Intelligent Design, it does not explain any observed phenomena better than the alternatives, and it makes no testable predictions. It is nothing but a political movement that is the latest face of creationism.

Disagree? Present the theory and the testable predictions that would server to falsify it. Anything else is bluster and obfuscation, exactly what we've come to expect from the ID creationists.

To Paul: I didn't say that anyone should care about what anyone says over at Richarddawkins.net; I merely remarked that the same ID/Creationist/YEC non-arguments are regularly propounded there as they are on this thread.

Since you bring it up, however, I disagree that Dawkins is 'incapable' when it comes to theology, religion or philosophy. I agree that he does not deal in sophisticated arguments in these fields, but I would point out that that is because his position is that the fields of theology and religion (and much of philosophy) consist of speculations unsupported by positive evidence, and that they are in fact contradicted by much of science. I would refer you to P.Z. Myer's "Courtier's Reply" for a more eloquent expression of this point.

Dear Dr. Barr -

In light of its ongoing behavior replete in duplicity, misrepresentations of published scientific data, harsh attacks of its critics, and self aggrandizing self promotion of the kind seen in Fascist and Communist dictatorships, the Discovery institute's Center (for the Renewal) of Science and Culture richly deserves much of the scorn and ridicule that it has earned for itself from its critics, beginning with Paul R. Gross (a fellow conservative) and Barbara Forrest's superb book "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design". Elsewhere online I have referred sarcastically to Intelligent Design creationism as mendacious intellectual pornography - sadly an apt comparison in light of the Discovery Institute's ongoing unethical behavior - and to its "Fellows" and "Senior Fellows" as mendacious intellectual pornographers. In Bill Dembski's case this is an especially true observation of his character and behavior, which includes bearing false witness against an eminent scientist (Reporting University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka as a "bioterrorist" to the Federal Department of Homeland Security in 2006), engaging in censorship (which he tried unsuccessfully in December 2007 by asking Amazon.com to pull a harsh, but accurate, review I had written of his "The Design of Life") and, sadly, even outright theft (all but admitting that he stole a Harvard University cell animation video that was altered and shown to his audiences during a Fall 2007 speaking tour; it is strongly suspected too that Dembski made this video available to Premise Media, the producers of the "documentary" film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

While Bill Dembski's abysmal, often un-"Christian", behavior may show the Discovery Institute at its worst, he is not alone amongst its staff in relying on deceptive behavior for the purpose of advancing the agenda of the Discovery Institute-led Intelligent Design movement. As another case in point, I spoke briefly to Yale University microbiologist last fall after a talk before a private audience, in which he recounted how Michael Behe had grossly distorted Galan's work on the bacterial flagellum by citing it as yet another example of the bacterial flagellum's irreducible complexity (Speaking of which, I strongly suggest you become familiar with critiques written by the likes of Australian microbiologist Ian Musgrave and American cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller, among others, which have demonstrated that, contrary to Behe's inane assertion, the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.).

Miguel de Servet ---

"(b) ID, though, by identifying cases of Irreducible Complexity, can indicate where the ToE breaks down, at least LOCALLY. [...] Why all the above should be a problem to scientists, who should be "metaphysically agnostic", I frankly don't know ..."

You really don't know? Then, Mr de Servet, you should read my last post. The reason why scientists have a problem with people who go around saying that irreducible complexity indicates where the ToE breaks down is that scientists know that this is untrue. Even Behe knows that it isn't true, and he has said so publicly, as you will see if you read my post.

I think this indicates one of the problems with the ID movement: they rushed for popular acceptance of their ideas before they looked for proper scientific scrutiny. They're not the only people who have done this (remember "cold fusion"?) but the problem is that in ID this tendency seems to be ubiquitous.

The result is that even when scientists have laid an ID argument to rest, and even when the originator of the argument has admitted that it's defective (and, in Behe's case, did so nearly a decade ago) the argument still retains a sort of undead existence, shambling like a zombie around the public mind.

And if the ID people really want to do science, which aims at the propagation of truth and the elimination of error, then they should take more care. So far the fruits of their labors are that well-intentioned and sincere people such as your good self go about saying things which are known to be untrue.

John Kwok you made some serious accusations in your post, whether true or not- I have no way of knowing. But it would be better to try and keep the discussion [a good one, by the way] above the level of 'sharing' accusations about others in the discussion. Surely we all might have various motivations behind the opinions we hold, but it would be more profitable to maintain a higher standard in the discussion [like Barr has shown on his post on Dembski's site]

Stephen M Barr writes:

"Man has a spiritual soul, possessing the inherently spiritual powers of free will and rationality. This spiritual dimension of man cannot be explained in merely material terms. It is not reducible to mere physics, chemistry, or biology.

[...]

The question of whether the spiritual soul and its powers are "natural" or "supernatural" is a matter of terminology --- the word "natural" is used in various ways. In Catholic theology, for example, human freedom and rationality are endowments of "human nature" and are in that sense "natural", as opposed to, say, grace and its effects, which exceed our natural powers and are "supernatural". On the other hand, though the spiritual soul is part of "human nature", it is above the nature of merely material things, and cannot be explained as the result of a merely material process, such as biological evolution. That is why the Catholic Church teaches that the spiritual soul of each human being is directly created in him or her by God."

As an agnostic and pragmatic atheist, I find it intriguing that a physicist can discuss souls and spirituality, apparently with the same degree of confidence in their existence as he reposes in the phenomena he studies in his professional capacity. This suggests that, in the case of his religious beliefs, he is prepared to suspend the standards of evidence to which he would otherwise hold himself and others. I know that many scientists are persons of faith who,like him, face the problem of reconciling their faith with their science so it would be interesting to read any comments that represent his latest thinking on this issue

"What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing."

Intelligent design = supernatural magic, so of course it's not science and of course it has accomplished nothing.

Evolution-deniers are welcome to visit my blog. I am willing to help them cure their disease.

@ Cossard [2.13.2010 | 12:31am]

MdS: “This definition [of Irreducible Complexity, Michael J. Behe, "Darwin's Black Box", 1996, p. 39], in its perfectly clear operational character, causes real headaches to the staunch ToE advocates.”

Cossard: Now, in point of fact this definition has actually caused a real headache for Behe. In his "Reply To My Critics", he wrote:

"Thus, there is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work." [Michael J. Behe, "Reply To My Critics", p. 11/26, @ http://friends-of-wisdom.com/readings/Behe2001.pdf]

If he has repaired this defect, then I haven't heard of this --- and nor, apparently, have you, since you are still using the definition which he admits to be defective.

MdS [comment on Cossard]: What you apparently don't know is that, 'In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe testified under oath that he "did not judge [the asymmetry] serious enough to [have revised the book] yet."' (see @ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cossard: “Consider, for example, the bony anatomy of the mammalian middle ear. This has three parts: malleus, incus, stapes. Remove just one and they fail at their task of conducting vibrations from the eardrum to the inner ear; hence, according to the definition you cite, the structure is irreducibly complex: in Behe's words, it is "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".
And yet since the parts of the system are bony parts we can see in the fossil record just how this tripartite system evolved. We can see for ourselves how this irreducibly complex system was indeed produced "by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system".”

MdS: Funny that you bring up the example of the "mammalian middle ear", rather than the much more common example of the eye, which Behe covered in detail in his "Darwin's Black Box" (Part I, ""The Box is Opened", Chapter 1, "Lilliputian Biology", section "A Series of Eyes", pp. 15-18 and Chapter 2, "Nuts and Bolts", section "Seeing is Believing", pp. 36-39). Behe amply and IMSO convincingly shows how Darwin, who had confronted the theme of the hypothetical evolution of such complex and highly functional organ as the eye, in the section of his seminal work, "The Origin of Species" is a chapter appropriately titled "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication", had somehow got away with indicating the "steps" of a hypothetical "evolutionary path" between "light sensitive spots" and the mammalian eye (or the even more "perfect" eye of a genetically totally separated order as the octopus, notoriously without "blind spot").

What you seem to fail to appreciate is that the argument for Irreducible Complexity is developed by Behe at the BIOCHEMICAL level of "biochemical machinery". A level at which any hypothetical "evolutionary path" becomes very problematic to indicate. That is precisely the reason why Behe's critics had to make such a big meal of a totally ad hoc, totally imaginary notion as "exaptation" (ant the related "cooptation").
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cossard: “So much for claims that irreducible complexity can't evolve.

If ID had any merit as a scientific endeavor, this would be a great time for its proponents to give up on "irreducible complexity" and try to think of a new argument.

The horse is dead. Drop the stick and walk away. ”

MdS: In spite of any attempt at hasty dismissal, the notion of Irreducible Complexity, AT THE BIOCHEMICAL LEVEL, is still perfectly alive and well, and it will continue to cause headaches and even nightmares to the "staunch ToE advocates".

Stephen M. Barr writes:

“So, when it comes to psychology, anthropology, etc. we must resolutely reject all purely "naturalistic" approaches. A great deal about human beings can indeed be explained naturalistically, but it is not the whole story.”

It may not be the whole story, but at this point in our understanding of complex systems, speculations based on hints from the study of such systems is on no more shaky ground than speculations of supernatural causes coming from various religious and cultural histories. Considering the splintered, warring history of religions, one might do a little better placing his/her bets on the track record of natural explanations.

One’s religious take on the psychology or spirituality of humans (and possibly other animals) is very much dependent on the culture in which one is raised. The Christian perspective is only one of hundreds of religious notions about how the universe came to be and the place of humans in it.

And given the literally hundreds of mutually suspicious sectarian beliefs and dogmas, it is quite evident that at least one of them is wrong.

It is not true that psychological or mental characteristics of living organisms cannot be reduced ultimately to natural explanations. At the very least, claiming that they cannot is itself a speculation; and that speculation apparently derives from a religious inertia that often finds such a possibility horrifying.

Whatever one’s cultural/religious heritage, taking umbrage at how one’s deity or deities created the universe and all the creatures in it appears to be a bit presumptuous. If such deities did in fact make humans with the capability of figuring out how the deities did it, one could imagine their amusement upon hearing such objections from their “children.”

@ Mike Gene

[Stephen M. Barr – main article] “The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature.”

[Mike Gene - 2.13.2010 | 9:37am] “ID can also mean something more modest, where one simply infers some form of intelligent influence on biological phenomenon, including evolution itself.”

[Miguel de Servet] C'mon, you don't need to make it so ... "modest", you don't need to be so self effacing. YOU are one of the main proponents of this type of "lean ID", with notions like "front-loading" and "evolution-oriented" and websites like Telic Thoughts (http://telicthoughts.com/) as Evolution Oriented (http://evolutionoriented.wordpress.com/).

Just a small detail: it is NOT "more modest at all". In fact what you (and other who share your POV) are doing is to try and replace...

A. the view of ID whereby the Intelligent Agent would "tweak" and "steer" evolution here and there

... with ...

B. the view whereby ALL the information & programming necessary for the development of life forms AS THEY ARE, would be "pre-loaded" in Nature (by the Intelligent Designer, presumably) even before kick-starting the Big Bang.

The tacit assumption, in your hypothesis is that, in spite of the random character of evolution, Evolution would manage to have, nonetheless, a "convergent", "ascending" character.

Hardly a ... "modest" assumption, methinks.

A very ... er ... "Augustinian" view, BTW.

To Tom Coward:

Allow me to revise my statement. Dawkins is notorious for being bad at the art of logical argument in anything other than zoology. His books are replete with logical fallacies both formal and informal. His arguments about religion are sound. And his characterization of arguments by religious folks are crass caricatures. So I would revise the statement this way--Dawkins is just plan bad about making arguments and inferences in any area other than zoology. Indeed, he's quite famous for making non sequiturs and posing false dichotomies. Dawkins' God Delusion doesn't hold a candle to David Bentley Hart's Atheist Delusions with Yale University Press, so far as quality of argument is concerned. That brings to mind another notorious area in which Dawkins inferential capacities fail him entirely--that is the area of history. I've never read such an awful handling of history anywhere else. One last point--you're skeptical about philosophy and clearly of a fideistic bent about science. But logic and the standards of valid inference belong to the domain of philosophy. So your rejection of philosophy sounds like an embrace of scientism at the expense of reason or rationality. As well, your comments indicate that you haven't read much, if anything, in the Western analytic tradition in recent decades. Dawkins clearly hasn't either. Really, when Dawkins talks about religion, history, or philosophy, he employs old arguments that are warmed over and were repudiated long ago. I'm hard pressed to find one religious belief or one religious argument that Dawkins correctly describes. His arguments are so bad that many atheistic and agnostic philosophers have sought to distance themselves from him. Ah yes, but you think philosophy speculative. You probably don't think Dawkins' claim that the planet was seeded by Aliens speculative. I hope you see the irony . . .

To John Kwok,

You've got to be naive or have your head in the sand to think it's IDers who are employing fascist-like tactics of censorship while helpless Darwinian biologists, merely interested in doing science, are the ones being oppressed from every side (that sort of reporting strikes me about as balanced as Fox news or CNN). I'm quite unaware of a biologist whose lost his job over being a Darwinian or who has had journals refuse to publish or to blackball him because he's a Darwinian. But this has happened to IDers. I'm no ID apologist. What I want is an open-minded science that is honest about the status of scientific conclusions and of scientific argumentation. We see this much more in physics than in the biological sciences. It's the hatchet tactics of Darwinian disciples and apologists and propagators that causes some of us to sound sometimes like we're defending IDers when we aren't--some of us just don't like the mean spirited way that IDers have been treated by those who hold the reins of power and some of us would just like the possibility of criticizing a scientific paradigm, since scientific theories can never be held by anything like mathematical certainty by any rational person (given the inductive nature of scientific argument as such). I would object to IDers were they in power in the academy--which no one is so foolish to believe that they are--if they employed the sorts of tactics that have been employed against them. The sort of anti-teleological indoctrination that occurs in biology classrooms (famously by a molecular biologist at the University of Texas) is not science but, rather, the expression of unreflective ideology. You convince more and more that the famous physicist John Barrow is right about biology and was absolutely right in his treatment of Dawkins. I wonder if biology isn't almost an entirely politicized field from all directions. It's quite legitimate to ask right now, where ideology leaves off and biology begins. It's not just IDers and creationists blurring that line. It's dishonest to suggest otherwise.

@ Mike Gene

[Stephen M. Barr – main article] “The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature.”

[Mike Gene - 2.13.2010 | 9:37am] “ID can also mean something more modest, where one simply infers some form of intelligent influence on biological phenomenon, including evolution itself.”

[Miguel de Servet] C'mon, you don't need to make it so ... "modest", you don't need to be so self effacing. YOU are one of the main proponents of this type of "lean ID", with notions like "front-loading" and "evolution-oriented", websites like Telic Thoughts (http://telicthoughts.com/) and Evolution Oriented (http://evolutionoriented.wordpress.com/), books like "The Design Matrix".

Just a small detail: it is NOT "more modest" at all. In fact what you (and other who share your POV) are doing is to try and replace...

A. the view of ID whereby the Intelligent Agent would "tweak" and "steer" evolution here and there

... with ...

B. the view whereby ALL the information & programming necessary for the development of life forms AS THEY ARE, would be "pre-loaded" in Nature (by the Intelligent Designer, presumably) even before kick-starting the Big Bang.

The tacit assumption, in your hypothesis, is that, in spite of the RANDOM character of evolution, Evolution would manage to have, nonetheless, a "convergent", "ascending" character.

More, your tacit assumption is that life is, somehow, a NECESSARY outcome of the Universe. This is NOT a scientific assumption, but a METAPHYSICAL assumption. As you certainly know, other scientists do not agree at all. For instance, Jacques Monod and Stephen Jay Gould affirmed the totally CONTINGENT character of life in general, and of the course of evolution in particular

So, in conclusion, your assumption is hardly a ... "modest" assumption, methinks.

A very ... er ... "Augustinian" approach, in fact.

It is amazing how much ignorance is displayed by IDer's. Now as an astrophysics graduate, my annoyance is with their cosmological claims, never mind any science like biology, which makes reasonable and testable claims about the mechanisms. Of course biology is simple compared to quantum mechanics (sorry to the dig there at biologists :-) but the simple fact remains, I have never met an IDer, who had the vaguest notion of cosmological theory. So to the "fine turning" laws of physics. Sorry to burst your bubble, but as you point out, without the laws of physics being as they are, life could not exist. True, but you also do not realise, that the universe could not exist without the laws of physics being just right - to much gravity, the universe would collapse into itself, to much electromagnetism, the universe would fly apart before the galaxies could form. Does this mean the laws need to be fine tuned? Nope, it means that for us to be here at all, the universe must be just right.

But that is not all. The uniformed will equate, that such unlikeness must be proof of god. But what if we say, their is not 1 universe but 10? 100? 100 trillion trillion? Welcome to string theory and quantum foam theory. These do not violate any laws of physics we know about, but can be mathematically deduced from quantum theory and the theory of general relativity. (please note, I use the scientific definition of theory, not the dictionary definition.) In these theories, their is no limit to the number of universes that can be created. Trillions and trillions of universes can be created, where the laws are just not right. Do you not feel privileged to borne into a universe where the conditions are just right?

And my biggest peeve - nothing can be created from nothing - oops, absolutely proved wrong. In line with quantum theory, all the time, everywhere, virtual particles are created and destroyed. We can detect them, we can make them real (by adding energy)- their existence is only limited by the Hamilton operator. I.E. they can only last in the universe as long as the energy divided by time is less than a certain amount. In such cases, they do not violate thermodynamics (another law badly mangled by IDer's), gravity, or any law of physics known. (because at the energy and time it exists, the laws of physics cannot detect them - sure it is counter intuitive, but the computer you rely on uses quantum mechanics, and is logical in its premise. Believe me, quantum mechanics is very difficult to understand!) An elegant conjecture, based on quantum mechanics, and the inflation theory based on general relativity, has the universe being a zero or very low energy particle. Now see above - if it is a zero energy particle (virtual particles) and the time it can exist well 0 divided by anything (except possibly infinity) - the universe can exist without any energy! (gravity is a negative energy source). I have tried to make the case simplistically as possible, but if you want a more mathematically inclined model, I will be happy to oblige, or point you in the right direction.

PS, If you do not realise, it means quantum mechanics, and its inherent randomness pre-date our universe. God is not a lawgiver. but a chaos giver.* (*god being the laws of physics as described by Einstein, Hawking, and Maxwell).

It is amazing how much ignorance is displayed by IDer's. Now as an astrophysics graduate, my annoyance is with their cosmological claims, never mind any science like biology, which makes reasonable and testable claims about the mechanisms. Of course biology is simple compared to quantum mechanics (sorry to the dig there at biologists :-) but the simple fact remains, I have never met an IDer, who had the vaguest notion of cosmological theory. So to the "fine turning" laws of physics. Sorry to burst your bubble, but as you point out, without the laws of physics being as they are, life could not exist. True, but you also do not realise, that the universe could not exist without the laws of physics being just right - to much gravity, the universe would collapse into itself, to much electromagnetism, the universe would fly apart before the galaxies could form. Does this mean the laws need to be fine tuned? Nope, it means that for us to be here at all, the universe must be just right.

But that is not all. The uniformed will equate, that such unlikeness must be proof of god. But what if we say, their is not 1 universe but 10? 100? 100 trillion trillion? Welcome to string theory and quantum foam theory. These do not violate any laws of physics we know about, but can be mathematically deduced from quantum theory and the theory of general relativity. (please note, I use the scientific definition of theory, not the dictionary definition.) In these theories, their is no limit to the number of universes that can be created. Trillions and trillions of universes can be created, where the laws are just not right. Do you not feel privileged to borne into a universe where the conditions are just right?

And my biggest peeve - nothing can be created from nothing - oops, absolutely proved wrong. In line with quantum theory, all the time, everywhere, virtual particles are created and destroyed. We can detect them, we can make them real (by adding energy)- their existence is only limited by the Hamilton operator. I.E. they can only last in the universe as long as the energy divided by time is less than a certain amount. In such cases, they do not violate thermodynamics (another law badly mangled by IDer's), gravity, or any law of physics known. (because at the energy and time it exists, the laws of physics cannot detect them - sure it is counter intuitive, but the computer you rely on uses quantum mechanics, and is logical in its premise. Believe me, quantum mechanics is very difficult to understand!) An elegant conjecture, based on quantum mechanics, and the inflation theory based on general relativity, has the universe being a zero or very low energy particle. Now see above - if it is a zero energy particle (virtual particles) and the time it can exist well 0 divided by anything (except possibly infinity) - the universe can exist without any energy! (gravity is a negative energy source). I have tried to make the case simplistically as possible, but if you want a more mathematically inclined model, I will be happy to oblige, or point you in the right direction.

PS, If you do not realise, it means quantum mechanics, and its inherent randomness pre-date our universe. God is not a lawgiver. but a chaos giver.* (*god being the laws of physics as described by Einstein, Hawking, and Maxwell).

I am struck by three things:

1. Objectivity is not something which comes naturally to humans.

2. While the intelligence of some arguments is far greater than others--it is obvious that much effort went into design of the same.

3. Regardless of which position we hold with regard to the many-faceted discussion of ID vs Darwinism, etc, it only hurts our causes when we attempt to make data do things it was not intended to (or ignore it altogether). Or, in old fashioned terms--lying does not help an argument in the long run. If we know something and can verify it, then we should do so. If we cannot verify something, we should be forthright in our reliance on others' arguments or simply say that we do not know, but think it could be this way or that.

"And my biggest peeve - nothing can be created from nothing - oops, absolutely proved wrong. In line with quantum theory, all the time, everywhere, virtual particles are created and destroyed. We can detect them, we can make them real (by adding energy)- their existence is only limited by the Hamilton operator. I.E. they can only last in the universe as long as the energy divided by time is less than a certain amount"

Particles do not come from "nothing". They need a) universe and b) energy to exist. "Particles, which are created and destroyed are changes (affected by enerfy) inside this universe. But they don't prove that something really could come from NOTHING (because starting point in their origin is not nothing, but existent universe, and its laws + available energy).

StephenB, you're confusing "theistic evolutionist" and "dualist". A theistic evolutionist believes that evolution does most of the work of designing new species and God just "nudges" it from time to time to get the exact creature he wants. Theistic evolutionism says nothing about the brain-mind problem.

Dualism says that the brain is material, but the mind is immaterial. It says nothing about evolution. Go through your 2.12.2010 | 8:30pm piece and replace "theistic evolutionist" with "dualist" and one of your confusions will be repaired.

To your question, "Can the ancient hunter be both a natural and a supernatural cause?", the answer is "No." If the hunter's brain is immaterial and supernatural, then his actions are supernaturally caused. If his mind is material than his actions are naturally caused.

People who think that ID has any intellectual respectability whatsoever should re-read StephenB's piece here and then go to Dembski's ID blog, www.uncommondescent.com and note that StephenB's thinking is so highly regarded by the most important intellectual in ID that he has been given the ability to start threads.

Christian (scientists) should focus on debunking evolution. ID IMO is a secular endeavor for agnostics with no faith in evolution.

Silverspirit 'something can come from nothing...absolutely proven' me thinks you might be fudging on your credentials [I hope!] the example you give does not work my friend, the Quantum leap and all related ideas do not 'prove' or even come close to the impossibility of 'something coming from nothing' you err, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God.

(1156) Okay, lets talk about something simple today, no more quoting 18th century Scottish philosophers for heavens sake! I know, let’s talk Quantum Physics and the study of sub atomic particles! [No, I am not kidding ] One of the most difficult obstacles for the atheist to overcome is the question ‘what was there before the big bang’? They really have no answer to this question, the answer can’t be ‘nothing’ and if it was ‘something’ then what was it? [Of course we know that something is God] So this has led the atheistic scientists down a path to see if we can find something popping into existence from nothing, the ultimate uncaused effect. Have they found it? No. But this won’t stop them from trying. The most popular scientific evidence used to prove that you can get something from nothing is found in the field of Quantum Physics [the study of really small things]. Scientists have discovered a phenomenon that occurs when a Proton strikes an Atom. It seems as if the Electron will disappear and reappear at the same moment in another location, without having traveled the distance. The second it disappears it shows up at another location. Some type of metaphysical wormhole? Who knows. The point is some have said this is proof for the idea that matter can pop into existence without a prior cause. Not! All this shows us is that material things can act in such a way that the examiner cannot explain what’s happening. In the above case you have matter already existing and a clearly recognizable repeatable pattern that can be observed. This in itself is an argument for an intelligent designer and a caused effect [the proton striking the atom and causing the electron to disappear/reappear]. So today I thought I would show you what goes on in the debate over trying to come up with an uncaused effect, and how vital this question it is in the area of apologetics. Oh, I almost forgot, do you know what the name of this phenomenon is? It’s the famous ‘Quantum Leap’.

Paul writes:

"I'm quite unaware of a biologist whose lost his job over being a Darwinian or who has had journals refuse to publish or to blackball him because he's a Darwinian. But this has happened to IDers."

Presumably you are referring to those individuals mentioned in the egregious faux documentary "Expelled." None of those events took place because the people involved were ID creationists, per se. http://www.expelledexposed.com documents that any professional setbacks suffered, all of which were grossly exaggerated, were due to poor quality work or mendacity on the part of the ID creationist himself.

If you disagree, please present cites to the high quality papers that are being kept out of the peer-reviewed journals by the heinous Darwinist cabal. I claim there are none -- ID creationists would rather complain and play at politics than do the hard work of real science.

Thought experiment:

Charles Darwin arrives in the Galapagos in 1835 and runs across a man digging a hole who says to Darwin, "Look what I.ve found. What do you make of it?"

He hands Darwin three things: a small rectangular box, a strange cylindrical structure, and a set of metal plates with engraved writing that turns out to be an ancient form of Persian.

Darwin asks the man if he can have the objects to study them and the man lets him have them.

A few days later Darwin is utterly baffled. The small rectangular box is utterly incomprehensible to him. The strange cylindrical structure even more so.

Days turn into weeks and weeks into months and months into years. Decades latter he presents a hypothesis that the rectangular box is a "mechanical" divice of ancient origin used for communication. Darwin's "strange box" goes without a full explanation until the 1950s, when it is finally identified as a transistor radio and dated to circa 2000 B.C.

Darwin has more luck with the strange cylindrical structure because the engraved metal plates, after arduous and fastidious translation from the ancient Persian, explain that this structure is a model of something hidden in the cells of humans and all animals that directs their morphological development. It's a code. In fact, it's the double helix of DNA.

Darwin notes with some shock that it is so much more complex than the communication device as to make its meaning unfathomable.

Yet, with the help of the engraved plates, Darwin comes to the reasonable conclusion that this model accurately reflects what he calls the "imperceptible engine of living forms."

Does Charles Darwin thereafter explain this phenonmenon with a theory of natural selection?

Patrick,

It would demonstrate a failure of benevolence on my part to bring out any names of folks not already tenured. And the articles in question would have to be on ID, anyway, which you define a priori as bad science. Moreover, you ignore that I'm no ID apologist. And finally, while I have seen Ben Stein's documentary, I was not referring merely to the people mentioned therein.

I should note that a good friend of mine who was a Ph.D. in cell and molecular biology from a well regarded program, but who has passed on, AND who was a critic of the ID movement from its inception, was actually quite sympathetic to that documentary. He thought it highlighted a bullying that really takes place within the biological community and that he thought muddied the reputation of the field in which he worked.

But you completely ignore the first part of my argument. My argument was in response to your crazy insertion about the fascist tactics of creationists and IDers. Really, you have no sense of hyperbole or sarcasm. I meant that when it came to such tactics, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

TO: Patrick, et al.
RE: Prove It

....please present cites to the high quality papers that are being kept out of the peer-reviewed journals by the heinous Darwinist cabal. I claim there are none -- ID creationists would rather complain and play at politics than do the hard work of real science. -- Patrick

If ID could be proven in a scientific manner, would it not be proof of God's existence?

Then what becomes of 'faith'?

From my perspective, ID is not an attempt to overthrow 'science', albeit in many instances it deserves to be overthrown, e.g., ClimateGate. Rather, it's an effort to provide those of us who believe in God to better understand 'how He did it'. The unbelievers will ALWAYS naysay it. Otherwise, they have to accept that God exists. And that is anathema to their very being.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Atheist, n., One praying to God that he doesn't exist.]

Hi Miguel de Servet,

My views do not entail that “an Intelligent Agent would "tweak" and "steer" evolution here and there” (although this possibility has never been ruled out) nor have I ever maintained “ALL the information & programming necessary for the development of life forms AS THEY ARE, would be "pre-loaded" in Nature.” On the contrary, I think random mutations, coupled to natural selection, can generate “information.” So your choices A and B are neither mine nor exhaustive.

What I do is explore the middle ground between the extreme positions of anti-evolution and anti-teleology. It is possible that evolution may have been influenced by design and I think a higher resolution analysis renders this possibility more and more plausible. The question to ask is whether a clever designer could actually recruit and exploit the processes of random mutations and natural selection to carry out some purpose. After all, a common belief shared by both the ID people and their critics is that random mutations and natural selection are antithetical to purpose. I think that common belief is simply an assumption (or reflex response) that has become entrenched for historical and cultural reasons.

I certainly don’t claim to have “The Answer.” I simply explore teleological ground that is overlooked and neglected as a consequence of the way these issues have developed because of historical, socio-political developments.

Anyway, the only website I maintain is the one you can get to through the link on my name in my original comment. If interested, I tried to offer up a simple summary of my views in an essay linked to my name in this comment.

Finally, since you raise the issue about scientific assumptions, I would again remind you that people have all sorts of different definitions in mind when the words “science” or “scientific” are used. And I should also point out that I do not think my views qualify as science. However, that is ultimately irrelevant. If life was designed, and evolution was somehow influenced by this design, science could not detect this.

The same bullying tactics of the anthropogenic global warming crowd, how the science is settled and anyone that denies otherwise is a moron and should be professionally banished, are no different than the academicians telling us the theory of evolution now settled. Any second year student of hard sciences determines pretty quickly both claims are not only without merit, but the rational skepticism of any good scientist must be shelved in the pursuit of reaching their conclusions.

I say thank God somebody from the scientific community had the guts to question what is posited as fact to our children. It's as if the Scopes Monkey trial has now been turned upside down - any question about evolution scoffed at; any suggestion as to much of it appearing pure speculation ridiculed and marginalized; any questioning of the "why and the how" simply excused as just give us time, science can answer all.

Anybody accepting the universe finite should recognize that where there is a creation, there is a creator. Once this is settled, then we can go forward debating the proposed theory. Until then, I will continue to believe this argument has little to do with science.

TO: Tex Taylor, et al.
RE: Indeed

The same bullying tactics of the anthropogenic global warming crowd, how the science is settled and anyone that denies otherwise is a moron and should be professionally banished, are no different than the academicians telling us the theory of evolution now settled. -- Tex Taylor

It seems to be Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for anyone who challenges this 'established science' to be treated as such. Oddly enough, Glenn Reynolds has an interesting item on this very subject, vis-a-vis ClimateGate and the sad story of Michael Bellesiles.

The SOP for the politically correct is to start calling anyone who questions them "morons" or worse.

However, I'm reminded of a truism from Law: known as the Lawyers Rule:

[1] If the Law is against you, argue the facts.
[2] If the facts are against you, argue the Law.
[3] If the Law and the facts are against you, call the other side names. -- The Official Rules: A Compendium of Truths and Laws for Living

Seems to me that these so-called 'scientists' and their supporters are doing the same think.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Science is truth. Don't be confused by facts.]

Paul writes:

"It would demonstrate a failure of benevolence on my part to bring out any names of folks not already tenured."

How very convenient.

"And the articles in question would have to be on ID, anyway, which you define a priori as bad science."

No, I recognize that intelligent design creationism is not science. There is no scientific theory of ID creationism, it explains no observations better than the extant scientific theories, and it makes no testable predictions that could serve to falsify it.

If you want your claims about unfairness towards ID creationists to be taken seriously, support them with real evidence. Unless and until you do, there is no more reason to take them seriously than there is to take ID creationism seriously.

In responding to Patrick, Tom, and Stefan, I fear I may have forfeited a position I would like to maintain. First, when it comes to dialogue between Christians, it's really very important that strive to remain as open minded and open hearted as we can with each other. I think, personally, that it would be a mistake to reduce teleological arguments to the particular form it has acquired in the ID movement. And I think that sound criticisms can and have been offered. I consider myself among those who favor the position articulated by Drs. Barr and Beckwith and also articulated by Dr. Collins. But even if I didn't find myself of this persuasion (though I do), I would find myself (I sincerely believe) defending their right to articulate the position without being accused of betrayal. There is plenty of room discussion on these matters. Most importantly, to reject a particular argument for design is not, as a matter of simple logic, to reject design or even to reject arguments for design. The validity of the teleological argument and the ID movement are not inextricably linked.

Second, while I believe that the ID movement, as Dr. Barr has suggested, overreached, it is nevertheless apparent to me that Darwinian biologists have overreached as well and that they have engaged in tactics that respond to criticism by using a priori definitions to remove the possibility of criticism. But for science to be science, it seems to me that any scientific paradigm must be open to criticism. Darwinians who think that Darwinism is beyond criticism have misunderstood completely the nature of inferences in the scientific realm. You cannot hold as certainly true (or as mathematically certain) a theory arrived at empirically or inductively (or abductively). Darwinists, at least all too frequently, share with creationists the desire to foreclose the horizon to future scientific developments that could lead to a paradigm shift. In this shared desire they are linked at the hip. But to preclude the possibility of a future paradigm shift, based on future evidence, is to transform science into ideology.

Finally, Patrick, Tom Coward, and Stefan seem to understand very little about philosophy and of the art of inference. To suggest that science is the arbiter of truth and that philosophy is a wishy washy speculative practice is to engage in a misinformed and malevolent bullying that is hardly becoming. Every person is philosophically committed on certain questions--the biologist no less than the philosopher. Scientists, for instance, at least implicitly hold to certain metaphysical assumptions about the nature of causality. I haven't yet met a biologist who is a philosophical occasionalist (I suppose someday I might). They all, in my experience, subscribe to the notion that events in the world result from a linear, efficient causal chain. But this just is a philosophical position. David Hume noted, by the way, that this is not a sustainable position given empiricism. That is, if empiricism is the correct account of and method for discerning truth, then there significant problem emerges: the idea of efficient causation (and thus of inductive generalizations from efficient causation) dissolves into incoherence. So scientists, in general (and perhaps just because they are scientists) reject occasionalism in favor of a different metaphysic of causality. But that is a philosophical rather than a scientific proposition. Tom, Stefan, and Patrick would seem more honest and less bullying if they were to admit this. Moreover, Tom, Stefan, and Patrick, like Darwinian biologists subscribe to Enlightenment, positivistic method (this is implied in their comments). But they forget that the Enlightenment version of scientific method assumes (and indeed was derived from) a particular modernist epistemology (philosophy again). That is, in order to have any kind of scientific method you must have first some account or other of what it means to know anything. And Darwinian biologists do have an account--it's an account derived from Enlightenment empiricism and materialism. But the Enlightenment account of knowledge has fallen. It is no longer taken seriously by those who specialize in what it means for anyone to know anything (philosophers again). There are two options now open--Protagorean or Nietzchean anti-realism or a theistically grounded account of knowledge. Darwinian dogmatists like Stefan, Tom, and Patrick occupy a ground left abandoned since the postmodern turn (which is really the progeny of modernism and a kind of hyper modernism). I'm no postmodernist. But I know enough to know that from the epistemic standpoint, Richard Dawkins et. al. have become little more than an anachronism. As the Postmoderns are now fond of saying, the scientific view and Enlightenment rationalism is now just one view among others--no better than and no worse than any other; consequently one has neither more nor less reason to hold to it than to hold to any other view. Now, I don't share the deep postmodern skepticism of science, rightly understood. I think the practice of science can sometimes lead to true belief and even sometimes to knowledge. But that's because I believe it's possible for people to know things. And that's because I'm a theist. The Enlightenment collapsed. In an act of patricide, Modernity's progeny killed the Modernity from which it sprang.

Patrick,

You're replies are all in response to a comment made by John Kwok, and not to you.

So let's recall what Kwok said:

"In light of its ongoing behavior replete in duplicity, misrepresentations of published scientific data, harsh attacks of its critics, and self aggrandizing self promotion of the kind seen in Fascist and Communist dictatorships."

Since your critic of me is intended as defense of Kwok's ad hominem statement, I think the burden of proof rests with you. Of course, I find this kind of extremist and fanatical labeling to be in poor taste and unscientific. If you claim to be of a scientific mind, then I call in you to repudiate this misanthropic name calling employed by Kwok as well. I suspect you won't--but for ideological rather than scientific reasons. But I think we've gone back and forth on this point enough, and to no avail, don't you?

Paul writes:

"... it is nevertheless apparent to me that Darwinian biologists have overreached as well and that they have engaged in tactics that respond to criticism by using a priori definitions to remove the possibility of criticism."

Please support this claim. I have frequently heard it from ID creationists but I have never seen evidence of any a priori restrictions by the peer reviewed journals.

If the intelligent design creationists were to clearly articulate a scientific hypothesis, document the observations that it explains better than modern evolutionary theory, and make testable predictions that could serve to falsify it, they would be taken seriously in a scientific context. It is because, and only because, they have uniformly failed to so that ID creationism is, quite rightly, not considered a scientific endeavor.

What we see the ID creationists actually doing is attempting to destroy science education in this country. Surely it is understandable that those of us who value the benefits of science find it necessary to resist the political movement of intelligent design creationism to the greatest extent possible.

So , lets consider those books by Lee Strobel("The Case for a Creator", and "A case for Faith") who compiles a plethora of intelligent people from various scientific disiplines each of whom emphatically rejects the cosmic evolutionary theory in favor of some sort of intelligent design. Are we who also are reasonably intelligent to just discard all those views for a belief in what proponents of evolution would have us believe is a settled issue?
Quite the contrary,,, the argument is still vastly open as members of all disiplines continue to wage their debate.

@ Mike Gene [2.15.2010 | 7:34am]

MG: “I think random mutations, coupled to natural selection, can generate “information.””

MdS: That "random mutations, coupled to natural selection, can generate “information”" [why the inverted commas around information, BTW?] is PRECISELY what the "staunch advocates of ToE" affirm all the time (with, IMSO, disastrous display of ignorance of Thermodynamics - in particular Boltzmann's statistical interpretation - of Information Theory and of Communication Theory), against the advocates of ID (of whichever flavor).

Question: within the premise that "random mutations, coupled to natural selection, can generate “information”", in what way, pray tell, does your "teleonomic approach" differ from that of the a.m. "staunch advocates of ToE"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MG: “... a common belief shared by both the ID people and their critics is that random mutations and natural selection are antithetical to purpose. I think that common belief is simply an assumption (or reflex response) that has become entrenched for historical and cultural reasons.”

MdS: Any quick hint on how "front-loading", how "evolution-orient[ation]", how the " Design Matrix" would, in practice, reconcile the "ID ground" and the "ToE ground"? How and where would "purpose" ... er ... slip in, between the Scylla of RANDOMNESS and the Charybdis of NATURAL SELECTION?

Of course, not considering, in your "hint" (if forthcoming) the "tweaking" and "steering" by the Intelligent Agent at the quantum level, which is "ground" already covered by Behe & Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MG: “I simply explore teleological ground that is overlooked and neglected as a consequence of the way these issues have developed because of historical, socio-political developments.”

MdS: The "way these issues have developed because of historical, socio-political developments", at least since Galileo, is usually called "methodological naturalism/materialism", and I dare say that it has proved quite fruitful. Maybe, with ToE, it has simply reached the ... natural limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MG: “Anyway, the only website I maintain is the one you can get to through the link on my name in my original comment. If interested, I tried to offer up a simple summary of my views in an essay linked to my name in this comment.”

MdS: Thank you for indicating the link to your website, "The Design Matrix". I'll look it up. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MG: “... people have all sorts of different definitions in mind when the words “science” or “scientific” are used. And I should also point out that I do not think my views qualify as science. However, that is ultimately irrelevant. If life was designed, and evolution was somehow influenced by this design, science could not detect this.”

MdS: So, "people have all sorts of different definitions [of] “science” or “scientific”", YET you must implicitly have in mind SOME definition, if you can BOLDLY affirm that "science could not detect [design]".

Or is this some sort of "meta-definition" of science? If so, how would it differ from "methodological naturalism/materialism" (see Dickerson's Rule No.1)?

Or, otherwise put, isn't what you are saying tantamount to saying that "front-loading", "evolution-oriented", "convergent" are merely speculative notions?

Miguel de Servet writes:

“MdS: That "random mutations, coupled to natural selection, can generate “information”" [why the inverted commas around information, BTW?] is PRECISELY what the "staunch advocates of ToE" affirm all the time (with, IMSO, disastrous display of ignorance of Thermodynamics - in particular Boltzmann's statistical interpretation - of Information Theory and of Communication Theory), against the advocates of ID (of whichever flavor).”

This statement is “THE Fundamental Misconception of ALL ID/creationists.”

For someone to proclaim that working physicists have a “disastrous display of Thermodynamics” is one of the most common displays of hubris that ID/creationists have exhibited over the entire period of their sectarian war on science.

If there has been any continuous misconception that has exasperated scientists, particularly physicists, over the 40+ years ID/creationism has been trying to leverage respectability from taunting scientists, this would be it. Everything in the arsenal of ID/creationist arguments builds upon this misconception. It is because of this misconception that ID/creationists cannot grasp the concepts of random mutations and natural selection. It is why Dembski, et. al., get their calculations wrong.

All ID/creationist misconceptions, such as “genetic entropy”, “entropy barriers”, “conservation of information”, “complex specified information”, irreducible complexity”, “spontaneous molecular chaos”, as well as a host of other misunderstandings of natural phenomena go back to the original misconceptions about thermodynamics introduced by Morris and Gish back in the 1960s and 70s.

No matter how many times ID/creationists have been advised by members of the science community of this misconception, they continue to trot it out repeatedly right up to the present day. Not one ID/creationist has ever taken the time to look into the concepts of thermodynamics, entropy, and the second law to learn what these are really all about.

Further, not one ID/creationist in those 40+ years has ever once noticed easily observed counterexamples to their misconceptions; even the simplest of counterexamples such as the existence of solids and liquids. Not one has even considered the question of why such things as solids and liquids exist; why neutral atoms and molecules “stick together”, why water clings to glass, why eyeglasses fog up, why these things are temperature dependent. And this is just the simplest stuff that any child can observe and wonder about.

Even the most basic question about the units of entropy as compared with the “units” of disorder is never asked. The fact that thermodynamics is about the bookkeeping of ENERGY is never acknowledged.

Instead, ID/creationists conflate concepts like “order”, “information” (although they never define information in any consistent manner), with energy and then proceed to argue that scientists get the science wrong.

But ID/creationist misconceptions do not end with fundamental physics. Those misconceptions percolate throughout all of science. And there has been a consistent reason throughout the entire history of the ID/creationist movement that this has been the case. It has been because of their prior commitment to sectarian dogma; and all scientific concepts being bent to fit.

It is no surprise that ID/creationism cannot produce any science. ID/creationism flees from peer review and its pseudo-scientific concepts have no purchase in the real world.

Well, I think all of Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker constitutes one such overreach. He says, for instance:

All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. (p. 5)

Now nothing here at all follows from the study of biology, given evolution or even given Darwinian mechanisms (Peter van Inwagen has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that Darwinian mechanisms do not preclude intelligent agency). The argument of the book and of this passage is just one big non sequitur. And, of course, there are scores of passages like this in the literature--for anyone, that is, who has the least familiarity with Wilson or with George Gaylord Simpson or with Futuyma, to name a few. Stephen J. Gould has also said things like this. But he has also repudiated claims of this nature as well, especially in later work. So here I have passage, the like which is found in these other theorists--this gives us to biologists and two paleontologists who overreach--and like I say, there are scores of like passages. Ah, I've forgotten--Lewontin too. I'm not going to pile up the books and type passage after passage into the browser. Let's just be honest--you and I both know the overreaches are there. Dr. Stephen Barr, a highly regarded physicist, concurs with this point much further up in the post. And Dr. John Barrow, another highly regarded physicist concurs. Ah, yes, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project will also concur that Darwinian biologists have sometimes overreached as well. He points out that Dawkins claim "that science demands atheism," and notes that the "problem" with it is that the claim "goes beyond the evidence." Sounds like a world renowned biologist aptly describing Dawkins and saying that Dawkins overreaches. As a Gould (in a passage I rather like--and one you can find in Collins) says, "Science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issues of God's possible superintendence of nature." From the later Stephen J. Gould's perspective, Dawkins, Wilson, Futuyma, and Simpson overreached.

But you're really still just evading the point at hand. You haven't yet provided a defense of the Kwok statement I was criticizing--you haven't come up with an instance of an IDer employing fascist tactics. Nor have you repudiated the name-calling, strong-handed tactics of the likes of Kwok. But I really have nothing further to say on the matter.

I think the author makes a significant mistake in not elaborating on the 2nd sentence in the following, which is *key* to everything else he says:

"The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature. Aside from the fact that such a claim is, in practice, impossible to substantiate,..."

This epistemological point cannot be made enough:
There is *no* way to distinguish between something supernatural, unknowable, or presumably 'artificial', and something natural we just don;t understand yet.

Here's a simple thought experiment: how much useful science, engineering, and technology would we *not* have today if scientists simply stopped whenever they did not understand something and just left it at "That's how the Designer did it."

As a working assumption (if not an absolute foundational point) science MUST assume that the phenomena it examines are ultimately explicable. Otherwise there is no progress.

Unfortunately the author totally glossed over the key supporting point of his case, wrt
"such a claim is, in practice, impossible to substantiate"

Central to understanding the weakness of ID as science is this fairly simple point:
There is no real way to distinguish between something in nature that is 'supernatural', mysteriously 'artificial' or unknowable, from something whihc we just don;t understand *yet*.

There would be almost no material progress in the modern world if scientists and engineers threw up their hands whenever they encountered something not understood at the time and said "Well i guess the Designer did that" and stopped digging.

What is so difficult about seeing 'evolution' (with some room for arguing about the details) as God's creative mechanism? One can even make an argument that he has given it a careful nudge from time to time, and scientists cannot really prove that false.

Hi MdS,

My approach differs from the "staunch advocates of ToE" in many ways. For starters, mainstream ToE does not posit or contemplate that single-celled life may have been designed to facilitate the emergence of multicellular life.

As for reconciling “ID ground” and “ToE ground,” I would simply point out that design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. There may be ways to make intelligent use of randomness and natural selection such that they can carry out an objective. For example, scientists already make use of randomness when designing new proteins.

As for my ideas being speculative notions, sure. There is nothing wrong with that. But they are speculations that are reasonable, plausible, and come with a modest track record of success. If someone has something more solid, I’m all ears.

This essay presents a strong case against ID as a contributor to biological science. It is clearly stated and about as objective as is possible, given the intensity of the beliefs of many people interested in this issue. Many of the arguments against Dr Barr's statement are based on matters outside the scope of science. This is true both for those who are proponents of ID and those who are proponents of what they call "Darwinism". Further, most of the arguments are about evolutionary theory, not about evolution, a distinction that is very important yet usually ignored in these arguments.

Evolution is an observable fact; evolutionary theory seeks to explain what is observed. Much that is new is being observed in biological science, thanks to the application of new, information rich technologies (DNA sequencing, especially of natural communities; mass spectrometry (proteomics, metabolomics, ...), electron microscopy and other imaging techniques, determination of 3-dimensional structures of proteins and their complexes, etc.).

We know today much more about evolution than we knew say 40 years ago, and little of what has been learned through experimentation was anticipated by evolutionary theory. Indeed it is fair to say that every major discovery in biology in this time either went against what evolutionary theory expected (e.g., the pervasiveness of horizontal gene transfer, and the norm of cooperation rather than competition between species in natural environments) or was simply not within the scope of evolutionary theory (such as the unexpected fact that most proteins are modified post-translationally before they can be active, or the equally unexpected fact that most proteins can only function as part of a large, multi-protein complex). Much of biology today depends on the experimental facts of evolution, but not at all on any theory of evolution.

The saddest aspect of ID is that, thanks to the revolution in biology caused by the new technologies, it has had a great opportunity to demonstrate value for biology. But its proponents have spent too much time in promotional and political activities, and too little on research. They have argued with people on the fringes of biology or entirely outside the field, such as Dawkins, Forrest, Dennett, .... These people have no influence whatsoever on what biologists think or do, and it was a waste of time for ID proponents to argue with them.

If only ID proponents had instead spent the last ten years working on how to help biologists explain the vast amount of new information being generated through the new technologies. I know that biologists would have been happy to adopt ID approaches if they had demonstrated value in dealing with this information.

My hopes had been high for ID when it first came to my attention in the 1990s, given the difficulties that the accepted evolutionary theory was having in dealing with experimental information. But ID has not to this point shown that it is any better than "Darwinism" in working on real biology.

Returning to this thread briefly...here is some wild silliness I would just like to shine the spotlight on:

"And Darwinian biologists do have an account--it's an account derived from Enlightenment empiricism and materialism. But the Enlightenment account of knowledge has fallen. It is no longer taken seriously by those who specialize in what it means for anyone to know anything (philosophers again). There are two options now open--Protagorean or Nietzchean anti-realism or a theistically grounded account of knowledge."

Or, you can kick a rock. I refute it thus.

(1371) CAN SOMETHING COME FROM NOTHING? Part of the recent debate going on in the field of Physics argues whether or not you can get something from nothing. One of the arguments says ‘look, we have been able to detect certain phenomena that seem to show us things popping into existence from A FIELD [AREA] WHERE NOTHING EXISTS’. Now, the same Quantum Physics that supposedly shows this, also teaches that our universe has around 90 % of all matter hidden, they say that this ‘dark matter’ is everywhere, you can’t escape it! Yet at the same time we have no way of detecting it. My question for the Quantum physicist would be ‘where are you getting this pristine field, this area where ‘nothing exists’ that you are examining, that seemingly shows you things coming from nothing?’ The problem with some of these brothers is they make nonsensical statements, things that violate the laws of logic, and then they call us idiots!

(964) MORE PROOF FOR GOD- Okay, what’s up with ‘dark matter’? In the 20th century the amazing breakthroughs in science showed us that what we thought was a limited universe, was actually a growing universe that was expanding at a faster rate every day. The further out you got, the faster it was expanding. This discovery [Hubble] worked in harmony with Einstein’s theories. This discovery also created a problem. If the universe is so much more vast than previously thought to be, then the amount of known matter needed in the universe in order to maintain the proper gravitational force was not there. Basically you need so much matter to exist in order for this newly discovered expanding universe to hold together and function right. The problem is that the matter is not there![some say it is still not detected]. So the theory of ‘dark matter’ [unseen, undetected matter] has been floated. This invisible matter is supposedly the single greatest matter in existence, though we have no proof that even one tiny particle exists! Ahh, when stuff like this happens, we need to pay close attention. Why? Well some who defend the young earth theory of creation use this to back up their claim of a young universe. It’s kinda technical stuff, but this ‘dark matter’ has to be there to defend the old age theory [for some!]. Another problem is we have absolutely no proof that this dark matter exists. It is simply believed in because the naturalistic explanation demands it! Sort of like coming to a part in a puzzle where a piece doesn’t fit, so you simply make something fit. Now, the bible does teach that the vast universe is held together [a key role of so called dark matter] by Christ’s absolute power. The other explanation for how the vast universe is able to function smoothly, without the needed matter to create the huge amount of gravity, is that God himself is holding all things together by his omnipotence. In essence, we need God for this puzzle to fit. I am not saying the idea of dark matter is totally false, but as far as we know today, there is no proof that it exists. We as believers should not take an anti scientific stance on everything, to the contrary, true science always backs up the Christian world view [in general] but we also need to be suspicious when science floats an idea that can be explained by the existence of a creator. If the idea is simply out there, with no proof at all [the multi-verse] then we certainly have the right to challenge whether the whole thing is a bunch of ‘dark [invisible] matter’!








(954)NOW IT’S A PARALLEL/BUBBLE UNIVERSE! I watched the first TV special I ever saw on the multi-verse theory. I think it’s the first one of its kind by the history channel. It was very eye opening. It seems as if its defenders have been told ‘your initial argument is nonsensical’ and they have made some adjustments. As you read down thru the Evolution section you will see that one of the arguments against a multi-verse is that it is a ‘non physical’ argument. It is metaphysical. This meaning that you could never truly prove the existence of another universe thru the science of Physics. Why? Because the original definition of ‘the universe’ was every thing that exists in the time/space continuum. If by definition, all that can be seen or detected is ‘part of our universe’ then how in the world can you detect something outside of it? [they have some ideas on this, but its pure speculation as of right now] Once you detect it, it, by definition is in our universe! Well the brothers now realize that they fell into this obvious contradiction, so they seem to be moving the goal posts a little. In the special I just saw, they now seem to be saying that our universe is simply one ‘bubble of universes’ that’s floating around in space [before, space and the universe were synonymous!] so they seem to be simply shrinking down the definition of universe and making it mean ‘our closed existing time space continuum, which is simply one of many’ Ahh, you guys are cheating with his one! But hey, how many viewers realized this? That’s the problem with these theories, they come up with them for the purpose of having another explanation for existence, but they then get into more trouble trying to keep their theory alive. Remember, the reason this theory started in the first place was to come up with some type of explanation, apart from God, to explain the fine tuning of the Cosmos [read my sections on fine tuning under Evolution]. The unbelievable fine measurements that have been found to be exactly right to support life have no other real explanation apart from a creator. The multi-verse theory simply says ‘well, if you have millions and billions of unseen universes [pure speculation!] then the odds on one of them getting it right just went up’. So this theory was originally floated for this reason. Now, even if this theory were ever proved [according to the new definition of the universe!] it would simply mean that instead of trying to figure out how ‘our universe got here’ [the original question] now we have to figure out how they all got here! It really proves nothing. But I thought it interesting to see how these giants of Academia now realize that they were violating the basic laws of logic by espousing the theory in its original form! [In essence, all these so called floating, bubble like universes would have originally fallen under the heading of ‘the universe’. You wouldn’t have seen them as a bunch of separate universes. But they had to change the definition in order to keep their argument in the boundaries of logic and common sense]. They also borrowed from Einstein’s theory on worm holes. But Einstein surmised that worm holes might be these tunnels in space/time that one could travel thru and exit at another dimension, a different location of the universe. He did not use this idea as traveling from one ‘bubble universe’ into another, like the proponents of the multi-verse were doing. The show then got too silly to even give it a speck of serious thought. They then theorized that there are possible duplicates of us, and duplicates of other sports teams and presidents and all types of stuff. They thought it possible for the Giants to have won the super bowl in one universe, though losing it in ours [and you call this science!] they even said that this theory has moral implications. How did they come up with this? One of them explained that you could be ‘good’ in one universe, but if you realize that this holy altar image of yourself is doing good somewhere else, then this might effect your choice of being righteous in ‘this universe’ WOW! As we continue our study thru the book of Corinthians, keep in mind Paul’s teaching on the foolishness of men’s wisdom, I think we just saw a good example of it. There is this stature that we give in our modern day to any ‘Tom, Dick or Harry’ that comes down the pike with any nonsensical idea. We see them as a special class, the Academics can’t be wrong! After all it sounds intellectual. A few centuries before Christ you had the great philosopher ‘Philo- Betto’ [O wait, that was Clint Eastwood's character in ‘every which way but lose!’] I mean Plato. Truly Plato and Aristotle and Socrates have had tremendous influence on Western thought. You would be hard pressed to find other later philosophers who have had the same influence [maybe Immanuel Kant]. Plato built this great school of learning in ancient Greece. He bought the land from a man by the name of ‘Academe’. Eventually we would call this pursuit of knowledge ‘the Academic world’ or Academia. Hey, don’t be intimidated by these guys.

Paul writes:

"But you're really still just evading the point at hand. You haven't yet provided a defense of the Kwok statement I was criticizing--you haven't come up with an instance of an IDer employing fascist tactics. Nor have you repudiated the name-calling, strong-handed tactics of the likes of Kwok. But I really have nothing further to say on the matter."

Kwok is quite capable of defending his own statements. I do not accept your bizarre insistence that I do so.

In fact, it is you who are evading the point. You have claimed that ID creationism is ruled out a priori by the peer reviewed journals, thereby preventing any ID creationist papers from being published.

That claim requires support, support which you have consistently failed to provide. Where are the intelligent design creationism papers that have been rejected solely due to their conclusions rather than their quality? Where is the scientific theory of intelligent design creationism defined? Where are the testable predictions that would serve to falsify it?

Without empirical evidence, all the intelligent design creationism movement has is bluster and obfuscation. In fact, that is all we see from it.

Dont want to 'over post' this good conversation, but some of the very able men have used wording that truly does not make sense- nothing ever 'happens by chance'-(1155) let’s do something for our intellectuals out there. Over the course of the last few hundred years you have had smart philosophers/atheists challenge the Christian faith. The current bunch [Dawkins, Hitchens or a comedian like Bill Maher] are really lacking in the intellectual prowess of past atheists! Let’s hit a few arguments that are made against the Christian faith. In the field of proving the reality of God, one of the classic arguments is a First Cause. I have taught it before under the evolution section. If you study things you realize there are no events in history that happen without a cause, nothing happens out of thin air. Logically this would lead us to the conclusion that somewhere down the line you have to have an ‘original causer’. Logically you can’t go on forever without an initial cause somewhere down the line. This is a real argument made for the existence of God that has been popular over the centuries. In the 18th century you had a Scottish philosopher by the name of David Hume who challenged our ability to know causes. He taught that man simply observes stuff happening, he perceives supposed connections to what the cause is, but he can not say 100% what the cause is. The famous example he used was the pool table, we see a man use the cue stick to hit one ball and it bangs into another and goes in the hole. Hume said it sure seems like the cause of this series of events is the act of the pool player hitting the ball, but he said we don’t know for sure whether this is the cause. Grant it, Hume had a point, but we observe things all the time in the field of science, we come to conclusions based upon reasonable evidence, and we ‘trust’ our senses to a degree. But some have taken this argument by Hume and have used it to rebut the Christian argument for a first cause. This use of Hume is dishonest. Hume did not say there were no causes for things, he simply said we can’t be 100% sure of what the cause is. Hume himself said ‘chance is simply a word used to define our ignorance of real causes’. Many appeal to Hume and use the argument that things can happen ‘by chance’ sort of like chance has the ontological status of causing things to come into existence! Hume said chance was simply a word we use to fill in the blank until a true cause is determined. Well, I hope I didn’t lose you guys today, but this is one of the more popular arguments used in the field of philosophy to try and refute the Christian faith. So I thought it good to refute the refuters!

@ Mike Elzinga [2.15.2010 | 3:01pm]

I obviously DID NOT refer to "working physicists" (who do, or at least should know better), BUT to biologists (in particular "staunch advocates of ToE") who, once again, by statements like "random mutations, coupled to natural selection, can generate information", once again, provide a "disastrous display of ignorance of Thermodynamics - in particular Boltzmann's statistical interpretation - of Information Theory and of Communication Theory".

Your deliberate ploy of identifying ID advocates with "creos" is manifest, but you overdid it, with your "ID/creationist" mantra, repeated as many as 11 (eleven) times!!!

I could not care less about "Morris and Gish". The fact remains that the DNA IS CODED INFORMATION: something that Charlie Darwin could not suspect, even in his wildest dreams.

And that Information can spontaneously, randomly increase, whether in book, or in a computer or in DNA, is simply laughable.

So, it is simply laughable that you accuse "ID/creationists" (of course, ONCE AGAIN, deliberately conflating the two ...) of never bothering to "look into the concepts of thermodynamics, entropy, and the second law".

And what on earth has the "existence of solids and liquids" with EXCHANGE of INFORMATION? You ain't got a clue.

And WTF is "thermodynamics is about the bookkeeping of ENERGY" supposed to mean? I strongly doubt you know yourself what you are clumsily trying to say ....

The rest of your POST is more whining garbage.

@ Mike Gene [2.15.2010 | 6:57pm]

What confirmations (or at least hints) do you have for your hypothesis that "single-celled life may have been designed to facilitate the emergence of multicellular life"?

Can you (at least) provide a useful essential hint of how "intelligent use of randomness and natural selection ... can carry out an objective"? What would INTELLIGENT mean, in such context?

What does it mean that your (admittedly speculative) ideas ("front-loading", "evolution-oriented", "convergent" etc.) "come with a ... track record of success"? What sort of "success"?

{R.F. Hirsch says: They have argued with people on the fringes of biology or entirely outside the field, such as Dawkins, Forrest, Dennett, .... These people have no influence whatsoever on what biologists think or do, and it was a waste of time for ID proponents to argue with them.}

Very nice post and I agree with most of your assessment. I'm neither an IDer, nor a biological scientist. Just someone with enough of the hard sciences to get to medical school and have questions. But I disagree with your statement from above.

I believe men like Richard Dawkins very much have influence, because Dawkins and his ilk refuse to be challenged by rational skepticism and much of academia shares the bias. You don't sell millions of books without a cause and Dawkins' agenda as I loosely stated above goes well beyond science.

Because of men like Dawkins and to a lesser degree some I have read on this board, many Bible believing researchers are immediately marginalized in their field. I have witnessed it and experienced it personally. My own tough questions about evolution were passed over, mocked or discounted - but never addressed or answered. Once one starts with the premise of somehow God did it, was responsible and controls the process, you will quickly find yourself at odds with most of academia and referred to as 'Creationist', 'fundie', and the like.

And this is why I believe the "theory of evolution" is as much to do with the argument of faith, or in Dawkin's case the lack of, than science. I will continue to support ID folks for the sole reason that they have a voice that can not be ignored.

The accusations I have made against William Dembski have been well established elsewhere online, most notably at Panda's Thumb. I suggest you google "Dembski" and "Harvard University cell animation video" for starters. Moreover, Dembski has admitted over at Uncommon Descent that he reported Pianka to the Federal Department of Homeland Security. As for his blatant exercise of attempted censorship against me at Amazon.com, that was noted too over at Panda's Thumb.

You should also consider too the deafening silence from my "buddy" Bill Dembski since he hasn't challenged the accusations I have stated here (But he did challenge Barr's essay, didn't he, and not just once, but several times.). That silence from Dembski should be seen as a tacit admission of guilt from him.

@ Paul -

The one who has his "head in the sand" just happens to be you and your fellow ID creationist sympathizers who will tolerate any form of unethical conduct committed by Dembski and his fellow mendacious intellectual pornographers from the Dishonesty Institute as long as they are "lying of Jesus". As someone who believes in a GOD, I find that not only reprehensible, but moreover, I am convinced that based on his New Testament teachings, Jesus Christ would equate Dembski and his "colleagues" with the very Pharisees that Christ was rightfully indignant of.

Regarding the comment by Tex Taylor: I should have said "These people have no influence whatsoever on what biologists think or do AS BIOLOGISTS". Their views about theories of evolution have very little impact on how they design, carry out, and explain the results of their experiments. The "Darwinism" of Dawkins, et al., is pretty much ignored, as it has to be, since it does not describe the biology that is observed in the lab or in nature. This is based on my personal knowledge across a wide range of biological research.

I do agree that many biologists subscribe to the views of people like Dawkins in their personal opinions of the evolutionary theory-intelligent design questions and that this colors their opinions about evolution beyond the field of biology.

To see how biologists really view the standard evolutionary theories, I suggest reading Eugene Koonin's article "Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics" in Nucleic Acids Research, March 2009:
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/4/1011
The article is available without charge and includes 276 references to the literature behind the author's positions. Koonin is head of the Evolutionary Genomics Research Group at the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the NIH.

Here is the abstract of this review:

Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testin