Why would “any scientists” be discussing a philosophy topic in the science academy?
I strongly affirm God as the creator/designer of the universe. However, I reject the masquerading of poorly considered PHILOSOPHY as if it were a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. As a Christ-follower, honesty matters to me. That’s why the major ID organization is so frustrating to me.
Scientists in the science academy who want to discuss philosophy, theology, art, or politics instead of science will most likely experience strong pushback. And that is how it should be.
@Dcscccc, I have yet to see any scientists publish a scientific theory of intelligent design. Apparently, I’m not the only one to notice this.
In the Biologos article about the anniversary of the Dover Trial comment section, you received a response from TedDavis, BioLogos Fellow for the History of Science, which I saved because of the Q&A with Phillip Johnson:
dcscccc:
first- thousands of biologists do believe in the id model. why their opinion doesnt count?
What exactly is “the id model” that you refer to here? I understand that the following exchange took place more than eight years ago, and that readers can update us on relevant progress (assuming there is any such), but listen please to one of the great founders of ID, Phillip Johnson, when interviewed about this at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/defense-intelligent-design.html:
Question: So what does intelligent design say about how life was created and how we ended up with the diversity of life we see today?
Answer from Phillip Johnson: Well, the alternative is not well developed, so I would prefer to say that, as far as I’m concerned, the alternative is we don’t really know what happened. But if non-intelligence couldn’t do the whole job, then intelligence had to be involved in some way. Then it’s a big research job to figure out the consequences of that starting point.
That doesn’t sound like very much of a model to teach, dcsccc. Can you honestly say I’m wrong here?
The DI folks want public school teachers to be free to “teach the controversy,” which amounts to saying that students should be told that the experts agree that there are certain explanatory problems with evolutionary theory. Well, that’s fine and dandy, but what’s the reason we want students to be told that about evolution, while not being told that about (say) gravitation or particle physics or … any specific part of modern science in which there are enough unsolved problems for scientists to work on to justify research grants or even entire journals devoted just to those specific areas of inquiry?
IMO, the reason that evolution gets singled out for such treatment has to do with the fact that people want to draw religious conclusions from evolution, when they wouldn’t be so inclined in so many other areas with unsolved problems. Listen to another segment from the same interview of Johnson:
Question: Many scientists ask, “How do I go about testing intelligent design?” And if I understand correctly, you were saying that the test of intelligent design is whether something can be explained by evolutionary theory. But scientists say that’s just a negative argument. That doesn’t prove anything about intelligent design. How would you respond?
Johnson’s answer: My business was actually making negative arguments. [Ted notes that this simply underscores what I’m saying about ID not offering an alternative model.] I looked at the grand story of evolution, the story that is important, the one that catches the imagination] of the world and stirs controversy. This is the story that there’s no need for a creator or a designer because the whole job can be done by unintelligent material processes. We know that that’s absolutely true, such that any dissent from it should be treated as akin to madness. That’s what I was looking at.
IMO, dcsccc, this gets to the heart of the matter. What really bothers ID people is the conflation of science with religion, specifically the inflation of evolution into atheism, a la Dawkins or Coyne. Johnson just did the same bait and switch himself, by assuming the general validity of the claim that Darwinian evolution equates to atheism. Frankly, that conflation and inflation should bother ID people, just as it bothers us at BL. However, in my opinion, if we’re going to rely on certain explanatory problems in evolutionary theory to combat it, then we do indeed have a problem to worry about, but on our own side of the exchange. To paraphrase Steven Weinberg (a famous physicist who uses science against religion), what about all of that atheism going on in meteorology? In other words, b/c meteorologists don’t invoke God to explain tomorrow’s weather, shouldn’t we Christians be calling for the government to shut down the National Weather Service?
@Dcscccc, do you understand why this is significant, when a major ID movement activist can’t provide any specifics?
P.S. If an ID Theory exists, why can’t ID proponents like Johnson tell us about it? In this interview, Johnson basically concedes that he doesn’t know of any such theory and that he is simply defending a philosophical position. It is very possible that Johnson and I share the same views on God and creation. But when it comes to science, a philosophical position is not subject to the Scientific Method and falsification testing. That explains why IDers are forced into Arguments from Personal Incredulity instead. (e.g., “Life is too complex to have evolved step-by-step.”, “I just can’t believe that natural processes can explain what we observe.”)