I just ran across this thread, about which I have exchanged thoughts before on other threads. I think peoples’ hostility toward ID comes from the fact that there is just too much of it that is painfully sloppy or just plain false.
I just sent an email to a friend who was so excited about Louie Giglio’s talk on laminin. Arghhh!!! I was appalled that someone of his stature could be so painfully off base! Brings ridicule to Christians.
However regardless of the failings of some, it’s the underlying concept that Daniel is arguing here, and the underlying concept has legs. Seems to me that people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and yes, there is WAY too much bathwater! But there is a baby here.
Can you imagine a public defender in a courtroom trying to free the accused by arguing that “all the evidence provided by the CSI team is not science?” It’s like, “so what?” If it’s based on demonstrably sound science, it’s perfectly valid argument!
As many people here know, I love science, and support MN. But you cannot demonstrate scientifically that only scientific uses of the data are valid, so by it’s own standard, that argument fails. You’re arguing philosophically that philosophical argument using science is invalid, but you have no proof.
Unfortunately, a lot of it is. The two big failings of ID are god-of-the-gaps, or that there is way too mishandling of the science.
But suggesting it is all god-of-the-gaps makes the assumption that there IS a natural explanation for all the gaps. Isn’t that a naturalism-of-the-gaps argument? Is that better? I stand against god-of-the-gaps where it occurs, but recognize some gaps that ain’t gonna be filled by naturalism. The science shows that nature don’t work that way.
The real ID question (whether handled correctly or not by various people) is whether the science is indicating that there is stuff we find has happened that does not happen on its own. That’s Daniel’s point. And if so, some ONE may have done it. That’s all.
Note also that Dr Francis Collins has argued for the Anthropic Principle, and that is, like it or not, arguing for an Intelligent Designer using science. So the Biologos founder is an ID advocate.
So I’m all for handling the science well. But just like we separate good science and bad science, we have to separate good ID from bad ID. Even if there is a massive amount of bad ID, there can still be good ID.
Dude, that’s just an ad hominem attack. Whether from an “actual Biologist” or from a person on the street, let’s stay away from those.
You’re mischaracterizing ID here. In good ID practice, you don’t first assume a god. But you can recognize that something is probably not only a result of time plus matter plus chance.
In summary, it seems Daniel and I have read and listened to ID people who are doing a decent job and we can’t understand the apparent hostility to all of ID. I would encourage folks here to consider that there is valid ID argument. My preference is to call out the bad arguments, recognize that we are already using some of the good ones, and acknowledge that there are indeed good ID arguments regardless of how many bad ones are out there.