What is your position that allows you to be the sole arbiter of what’s official and what isn’t? Because when you use the term “canonical authority,” it sure sounds a lot like religion and sounds nothing like science from where I’m sitting.
Let’s take an example from real science: has anyone ever described (jokes excepted) any opinions about Alzheimer disease mechanisms as “canonical authorities” or “official”?
It seems to me that you are tacitly admitting that ID is pseudoscience.
The irony is killing me.
Do you realize that you made all of that up? That you’re calling other people paranoid based on hypothetical behavior that you are attributing to them?
Have you ever considered showing your comments here to a trusted friend outside the internet?
And, I consider Behe to be a theistic evolutionist, who also supports ID. His position on God, evolution, and common ancestry is remarkably similar to that of Asa Gray, who is usually seen (with good reason) as the prototype for the TE view. And, like Behe, Gray believed that design was still evident in nature, even though common ancestry was true. If Gray were writing today, perhaps you would also describe him as “an ID creationist,” beaglelady.
Definitions are very tricky, as I admitted in my series on Science and the Bible. The categories I used there (or anywhere else) are for our convenience, in sorting out various differences of opinion and attitude. When in conversation with anyone about categories, all I ask is that we all be as clear as we can about how we define them–and that we take care how we impose them on actual views posited by actual people.
ID has an identity problem. It is not faith based but it certainly not science. So it belongs in neither a science class nor a world religion or even a philosophy class as it is none of these. So what is it? It claims to be scientific but doesn’t make progress in advancing any of the sciences. It just sits there and tries to falsify particular scientific results. And it does this rather poorly without data or verified new alternatives. It is like a few guys sitting on a porch complaining about the weather, or politics, or the people over there. No substance, no forward looking thinking, no experimentation. Just complaining and backward looking.
They are only borrowing the word “faith” to mean a kind of brotherhood or school of thought. It’s a non-religious connotation. Take a look at this advertisement for a Program Manager Evangelist for Microsoft. They are borrowing religious language to describe the job of an I.T. professional who will be expected to enthusiastically share the merits of Microsoft technology. Not religious at all! Similarly, we hear something that is true without question described as “Gospel” in all kinds of non-religious settings. Same thing with the word “Bible.” It can be used to describe an important, comprehensive book on a topic that has nothing to do with the real Bible or religion. For example, this Shooter’s Bible . (yikes!)
Why bother? We already know that ID is religious in nature.
Did I say I had no plans to respond? No. Besides, you didn’t tell me how you obtained your broad knowledge of American Biology teachers. And you didn’t respond when I explained about valid surveys as a way of obtaining reliable information.
btw, let’s dial back on the control OCD, okay?
Hello Eddie,
I wasn’t asking about something you would describe as the same “sort of thing.” “Defender of the faith” applied to a person isn’t even analogous to “canonical authority” applied to a textbook, the term you used.
I also notice that you didn’t even bother to point out the use of “official” in real science as you used it in the context of the politico-religious ID movement.
Why does ID have canonical authorities and official positions if science doesn’t? Has any real scientist ever referred to any textbook as a “canonical authority”?
You’re very clearly admitting that ID isn’t science.
[quote=“Eddie, post:58, topic:4233”]
Suppose I wrote up a curriculum proposal for the State of Pennsylvania, suggesting that high school biology units on evolution be modified to include brief introductions to non-Darwinian versions of evolution.[/quote]
Hello Eddie,
I don’t see why anyone would object to reviewing papers such as this one:
Non-Darwinian evolution
King JL, Jukes TH.
Science. 1969 May 16;164(3881):788-98.
Do you?
[quote] Suppose I provided much documentation in the academic literature (peer-reviewed articles written by atheist and agnostic evolutionary biologists) for non-Darwinian approaches. What do you think would happen?
[/quote]They’d be included if they were science, but some would rightly point out that most Americans don’t even understand basic Darwinian mechanisms.
What does “approach” mean when used in “non-Darwinian approaches,” exactly?
Hello Eddie,
Sorry, but I simply don’t see any substance or analysis in your comments about science. Your comments are all labels, no ideas.
If you thought “canonical authority” was unimportant, then isn’t it even more pathetic that you first brought it up, then tried and failed to defend it with a false analogy? What branch of science would have any textbook as a canonical authority, even using the term metaphorically? It makes no sense.
Let’s put “canonical” aside for a moment and concentrate on “official,” which cannot be waved away as metaphorical. What real scientific field would ever label a textbook meant for high schoolers as “official” or “unofficial”? Isn’t the very concept you introduced irrelevant in science?
Here’s my analysis:
The evidence presented at trial shows that the textbook was barely modified to switch it from creationism to ID. Thus, the two concepts are highly related, if not the same thing in different wrappers. Behe and Meyer, as coauthors of the book, are both responsible for the whole book.
So on one hand, we have two Discovery Institute Fellows coauthoring a book whose evolution clearly and ironically demonstrated the identity between creationism and ID by simply substituting “intelligent design” for “creationism,” defining both terms identically, while on the other hand, we have a pseudonymous commenter insisting that the conclusion is incorrect, because the textbook is old and is not considered “an official statement of ID views,” a rhetorical gambit that unintentionally and perfectly illustrates the nonscientific nature of ID.
Why should any reader believe the pseudonymous commenter who offers no substance over the evidence?
Behe is a special creationist, of a sort. He believes that most biochemical structures (the ones he terms “irreducibly complex”) are directly created by God. So, even though common descent is valid, according to Behe, there is a whole lot of special creation going on under the skin, so to speak.
Meyer, as I understand it, rejects common ancestry, so he is an old-earth, progressive creationist for lack of a better term.
Thanks, Dennis!
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.