True! I missed somehow missed the last Christian. 
1 Like
And evidently I canât type without unconsciously repeating words. I need to take a break from working at a computer.
Thereâs a massive understanding about ID expressed in the OP. ID does not concern itself with whether there is a Creator God. ID does not claim that Science can prove the existence of God. But in spite of that youâve come to the right place, BioLogos!
âDesign theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.ââThe Discovery Institute
From the very start, the purpose of ID theory has been to work around the ban on creationism in public schools.
2 Likes
Thanks to everyone for the book titles - Iâll see how many of those I can find! I have to tread carefully because the pastor gave his future son in law The Case for a Creator at Christmas, and he became a Christian through it! So they are emotionally attached to it! But both of them are involved with me in teaching apologetics now, so I would really like to find a brilliant book to put in their hands to replace the one that I am saying has suspect parts! One or more of these might do it! They do actually trust my judgement, even though they arenât totally convinced by BioLogos yet!
I enjoyed this one (though I was already a Christian when I first read it), and it really helped my mother along very well with some of her intellectual questions after she had come to know Christ through me:
The nice thing is that itâs a bundle of letters of an actual conversation between father and son (Greg Boyd). They only edited out the extremely personal things. Donât want to spoil, but near the end of their exchange, his father turns from agnosticism to belief in Christ! I donât agree with Greg Boyd on his ideas about open theism but he actually does not promote them in this book. He does mention them passingly somewhere and notes that most Christians believe otherwise. Beyond that, the insights in this book are a very useful contribution to the conversation and cover a wide range of topics.
You posted a quote from the Discovery Institute Hereâs another quote from them thatâs far more relevant to your claim than the one you posted.
âAs a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education.â
If you have a point to make that somehow actually addresses my original post Iâd love to hear it.
I have reservations about the assumption by many (both Christians and non-Christians) that The Discovery Institute gets to define âIntelligent Designâ and âID theoryâ. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with ID as a philosophical position worthy of discussion among philosophers and theologians. But I get very frustrated when the Discovery Institute promotes its Intelligent Design philosophy as if it were science.
It bothers me even more when they talk about âID theoryâ as if it were a formally defined scientific theory published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a well structured discussion of how it provides a better explanation for the relevant data than any other competing scientific theory. Instead, all they do is complain about alleged problems in the Theory of Evolution and âatheistic naturalismâ (or substitute one of several synonyms used by various D.I. associates.) Indeed, every Discovery Institute article or book Iâve ever seen on the subject focuses on Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacies and Argument from Ignorance fallacies. All I see is poorly considered philosophy masquarading as if it were scienceâall because they know that the general public, and their donors, are much more impressed by sciencey-sounding arguments than by philosophical musings.
Most all, it bugs me that the Discovery Instituteâs never-formally-defined, alleged scientific theory of ID never seems to be associated with any published falsification testing methodologies, whether ongoing or proposed. If the Discovery Institute truly believes that they have come up with a well-crafted scientific theory, what experiments have they described and conducted which show that their alleged theory is the best explanation for the relevant data? Why do they make no attempts to show that their âID scientific researchâ in any way conforms to the scientific method?
By the way, Iâm even more annoyed that the Discovery Instituteâs webpages and popular articles for the general public tend to lambast the Theory of Evolution unceasingly, while rarely admitting that many of their Associate Scholars (e.g., Michael Behe) quietly affirm Common Descent and various other fundamental aspects of evolutionary biology. Moreover, they generally keep quiet about their acceptance of billions of years of earth history because they donât want to spook their many Young Earth Creationist supporters. In other words, the Discovery Institute operates far more like a propaganda mill with more emphasis on careful public relations than scientific research. The D.I. was originally founded as a political lobbying thinktank specializing in Puget Sound area transportation issues. They only struck gold in terms of steady fund-raising income when they started attacking evolutionary biology and ânaturalism/materialismâ in science.
If carefully definedâand if the term âintelligent designâ hadnât already been permanently warped by the Discovery Institute due to bad reputation and negative baggageâI would be inclined to say that I affirm the concept of ID and an Intelligent Designer. But I would never say that my own philosophy of intelligent design is a scientific position. I canât say that Iâve subjected it to the methodology of the scientific method and keep a straight face.
That said, speaking philosophically and theologically, Iâm inclined to believe that God intelligent designed the physics and chemistry which operate in the matter-energy universe he createdâand therefore, I can assert that God intelligently designed evolutionary processes to carry out the divine will for the biosphere he created. When God made the universe, he made evolutionary processes.
So thatâs why I donât like to automatically equate intelligent design philosophical positions with the Discovery Instituteâs poorly defined view of intelligent design as science.
4 Likes
for what itâs worth, virtually every single claim you have made against the DI is false. If you donât like them, fine. I myself have problems with them. If you donât think ID is science, so be it. But to be fair, this is a question upon which philosophers of science disagree.
By all means, have your opinions, but just keep in mind if you have to defend those opinions with one false statement after another, one has every right to question the legitimacy of those opinions.
No doubt that is a joke that flew right over my headâbut I always thought that the other way around would have been âAtheist to Christian to Atheistâ.
Oh wellâŚ
1 Like
It seems that @Socratic.Fanaticâs criticisms here concern the Discovery Institute in particular rather than the Intelligent Design movement in general. But it would be good if you could give us a few details.
I havenât looked into the claims of the ID movement in much depth since Iâm not a biologist and many of their claims require a strong understanding of biology to understand and fact-check. However, it bothers me intensely when I hear people dismissing ID as âjust a form of creationismâ and that itâs been ruled as such by various courts as âreligion, not science.â This is an ad hominem argument and an appeal to authority; any honest and dispassionate critique of ID needs to address the central points of their claims. (See the article âHow to Disagreeâ by Paul Graham for an explanation of what I mean here.)
It seems to me that the aim of the ID movement is to come up with a scientific framework by which evidence for deliberate design in nature can be identified and tested. Even if theyâre going about it the wrong way, even if they have had their failures, and even if theyâre prematurely declaring success, seeing their efforts being criticised as âjust a form of creationismâ and âpseudoscienceâ makes me think that theyâre being shot down for even trying. And that just lends credence to their claims that theyâre being discriminated against by the scientific community and the political establishment.
1 Like
If that is true, I would commend them for it, even if they made mistakes in doing it. However, that is not what I have seen in their literature and videos. What I see is an attack on evolution (with the assumption that evolution implies there is no designer). But I didnât start this thread to attack ID. I am genuinely interested if any of the ID material is in line with BioLogos thinking. If they are doing worthwhile experiments or producing lines of inquiry that look promising, or that we should respond to, I would really like to know about it.
Early on in this thread I referred to the fine tuning statistics that ID supporters like to quote. I have taken on board that when there is talk about the probability of conditions being good for life on earth, that is difficult to access as we only have one universe to go on. And we donât really know enough to judge the probability. However, when they talk about the small range within which certain constants have to sit for life as we know it to happen, that is impressive enough without making it into a probability. So that seems to me to be something we could appreciate about ID.
I am a long way from agreeing with ID, but sometimes, to have a constructive conversation, it is good to find common ground first.
2 Likes
Impressive, yes. But probably only because it speaks to our intuition of what range is considered âsmallâ (see what I did there?). How small is small âenoughâ for it to count as pointing towards the intentional work of our Creator? Itâs again something we donât have a grip on. Besides, even if the ranges were extremely âlargeâ, we could be equally impressed that God could have created life in so many different ways.
Thatâs fine. All Iâm saying is that critiques of ID need to make that clear in the way that youâve done here. I see far too many that do not.
My perception of the ID community is much the same as yours, Mary. While I agree largely with the premise of their philosophy â that the complexity we observe in living organisms suggests an ultimate cause. To me, that cause is the Creator God. But a majority of their research and writing is an attack on the theory of evolution. I am aware that ID is more than just the Discovery Institute, but if you look at their literature (Bio-Complexity and books), they are almost singularly focused on attacking evolution rather than supporting Intelligent Design. I can only say this as an outsider looking in, but I think this is largely because this philosophical premise (which I happen to agree with!) is simply exceedingly difficult to scientifically support. Their remaining focus is on attacking evolution almost by default. Unfortunately, I have been witness to presentations that were highly derogatory toward the foolish scientists naive enough to accept evolution. Although I personally share a lot of the ID philosophy, their approach leaves much to be desired.
When properly defined and when conformed to the scientific method, âintelligent designâ can certainly be solid science. When an archaeologist finds a strange object, he/she makes observations and collects evidence in order to determine if the object is a product of an intelligent agent (perhaps an ancient craftsman) versus a result of natural processes. And when the SETI Project records an atypical radio phenomenon, the scientists try to determine whether it came from a technology in the hands of an intelligent mind. So determining an intelligent design is certainly a valid scientific pursuit. No doubt about that.
Yet, because of the unfortunate âbaggageâ that has accumulated around the term âintelligent designâ, it is not surprising that most scientists will avoid using that term. Even many philosophers are reluctant to use the term because it brings to mind everything from the anti-evolution tirades at the Evolution News & Views website produced by Discovery Institute staff members to the content of the notorious Wedge Document. Many insist that ID is just creationism relabeled in order to sneak it into the science curriculum of public schools. (And they cite the Wedge Document as their proof.) Of course, many of us on this forum realize that ID doesnât have to be a synonym for traditional creationismâand not everyone who supports ID endorses the goals of the Wedge Document. To say the least.
I recall the controversy a few years ago when a member of the Board of Directors of the Discovery Institute admitted that the lack of a published, well-structured, formal presentation of a comprehensive scientific theory of intelligent design was a major impediment to establishing ID as a credible alternative. His D.I. associates werenât all that happy with him. And yes, Iâve read Stephen Meyerâs Darwinâs Doubt, which many Discovery Institute supporters cite because they believe it defines a comprehensive scientific theory of intelligent design. I have two questions for them: (1) On what page does he define ID theory as a scientific theoryâand without merely depending upon the Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy to deprecate the Theory of Evolution. (2) Does Meyer et al ever explain how the alleged âID theoryâ can be subjected to falsification testing? Has the Discovery Institute conducted and published extensive experiments to support the theory? (If âID theoryâ canât be subjected to falsification testing, it is not a scientific theory.)
The original concept behind the term âintelligent designâ certainly can and is being explored by scientists on a daily basis: Is entity or process X the product of an intelligent agent or was it produced by natural processes? Heuristic rules have been published to flesh out appropriate methodologies for determining and identifying the products of intelligence in a number of scientific fields. Has the Discovery Institute published important discoveries in the peer-reviewed journals of those fields which are being cited and applied by other scientists to expand the boundaries of knowledge? No.
The many problems associated with the Discovery Instituteâs brand of âintelligent designâ theory and thought are well documented in both the scientific and philosophical literature. Scientists have even posted long lists of errata, misrepresentations, and quote-mines in the comments sections of the Amazon book reviews of various Discovery Institute authors. So my own insights would be largely redundant.
That said, I have nothing against âintelligent designâ as a philosophy topic or as a subject worthy of scientific research when appropriately investigated using the tools and procedures of the scientific method.
2 Likes
Hi JamesâŚ
Though I donât want to invest too much time defending the DI, your question is fair and deserves attention, so I am happy to offer a couple of examples:
âIt bothers me even more when they talk about âID theoryâ as if it were a formally defined scientific theory published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a well structured discussion of how it provides a better explanation for the relevant data than any other competing scientific theory. Instead, all they do is complain about alleged problems in the Theory of Evolution and âatheistic naturalismâ (or substitute one of several synonyms used by various D.I. associates.)â
There are several false statements contained in these two short sentences. While the folks at the DI may indeed talk about ID theory, I think they would also be the first to tell you that ID theory is a work in progress (and by the way, they are doing the lionâs share of the work and making terrific progress). This is why DI policy is against teaching ID in schools at this time.
The fact is that a good deal of work put forth by DI fellows and contributors is written primarily from the standpoint of explaining why ID provides a better explanation of the relevant data. See Stephen Meyerâs âThe Signature in the Cell,â or Doug Axeâs âUndeniable.â Sure, in the process there are plenty of opportunities to point out problems with the TOE and in context it is only natural that these opportunitites should be exploited. But SFâs claim reveals both his bias and his ignorance.
Finally, you can find a long and ever growing list of ID based peer reviewed scientific literature at the DI website.
SF goes on to charge that ID scientific research does not conform to âthe scientific method,â and infers that they do not conduct experiments. A quick visit to the body of work produced at the Biologic Institute puts the lie to both claims. But perhaps even more importantly, ID is primarily (or at least importantly) an origin of life theory. This being the case, ID, like the other OOL theory - the one that seeks a purely materialistic explanation for the OOL - is an historical science which seeks to understand an event or sequence of events in the distant past which is/are most likely not repeatable. As a forensic science then, the stength of any OOL theory hinges on inference to the best explanation and not so much on bench or laboratory science. Nonetheless, experiments designed with the hope of shedding light on a purely materialistic pathway from an inorganic enviornment to living organisms can be seen as attempts to falsifiy the competing OOL theory of ID; experiments which always fail miserably. I canât help but wonder, given the (acknowledged) extent to which the deck is stacked against a materialistic OOL (really, the only factor that offers any hope at all that a materialistic OOL could have even been possible is a purely metaphysical factor: it must have been so because it had to be so), which OOL theory SF believes is better supported by the data.
Well, there are a few examples for you. I hope that helps. It is said that a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on. For this and other reasons, I am not focused on defending the DI. ID theory is a threat to the status quo and is therefore viciously, undeservedly, and relentlessly attacked. Thus, people like the OP have come to believe that the science is shoddy. This is a shame. People like Behe and Meyer are not only gracious people and fine scientitsts, they have also stood up very well to their critics.
Hi MaryâŚ
âI am genuinely interested if any of the ID material is in line with BioLogos thinking.â
Insofar as BioLogos affirms a Creator, it is in line with ID theory. The problem is that BioLogos sees no need to invoke the Creator in the process of the evolution of life. This is a fundamental gulf between the two which cannot be bridged until BioLogos positively affirms the clear evidence that life requires a Creator.
Part 1 is quite untrue, but I believe part 2 is correct.
Regarding part 1:
We do indeed invoke a Creator, and I suspect you have been told this before⌠Some of us believe the Creator authored natural laws dictating the current outcome of the evolutionary process, while others believe that God may have had a more direct role in certain steps. Regardless, the Creator is routinely acknowledged.
Regarding part 2:
We believe evidence suggests a Creator, but does not require one. Joe, in another post today, you were using Biblical examples of faith as being an act of confident surety. I would use Abram as an example to the contrary. His act of faith âwas credited as righteousnessâ not because he had every reason to believe that leaving his home and comfortable life was a good idea (by menâs standards), but because he put his faith in God despite logical reasons not to.
5 Likes
Even though I certainly believe that God created everything in the universe including life, I know of no âclear evidenceâ to which one can apply the scientific method in order to conclude that biological life requires a creator. That would be a very exciting discovery if there were!
Can you please summarize that evidence which Biologos is allegedly ignoring?
Iâve read a number of articles over the years which claimed that only an intelligent mind could create a biological organismâbut every thing I read so far has been broad philosophical arguments that drew upon scientific topics but did not come anywhere close to developing a scientific theory of intelligent design or even creating any list of heuristic rules which could be used to determine which some entity or procedure X required a intelligent mind to be creator.
Yes, It would be wonderful if such a ground-breaking scientific discovery has been published. Of course, I would expect an enormous amount of media coverage, especially from the Christian med, such as the evangelical Christianity Today.
It has probably been a couple of years since I last examined that âlong and ever growing list of ID-based, peer-reviewed scientific literatureâ at the DI website, but when I did it was extremely disappointingâand stretched the definition of âID-based, peer-reviewed scientific literatureâ beyond the point of credibility.
I think I recall paleontologist/comparative anatomist Dr. Christine Janis publishing a critique of that list of âID-based, peer-reviewed scientific literatureâ under a review of Stephen Meyerâs Darwinâs Doubt. (She and other scientists also published enormous lists of basic science blunders Meyer made in the book. They also listed dozens of what they considered very seriously misleading quote-mines. There was a general consensus that, as one might expect, philosopher Meyer got a lot of basic biology, anatomy, paleontology, and genetics wrong.)
Dr. Janisâ critique of the DI âpeer-reviewed literatureâ list got a lot of interesting replies from other scientists and professors. If I recall, only a very generous application of those labels made it possible for Dr. Janis and the other scientists to find just TWO entries which could be considered valid. And I think one of the two was actually very critical of âID theoryâ and largely dismissed it as philosophy masquerading as science.
Of course, you can Google the topic to find many scientist bloggers who have shredded that list quite mercilessly.
Because I consider âIntelligent Designâ a quite legitimate topic for scientific investigation, I was very disappointed when I started working through the aforementioned DI list of peer-reviewed publications. Extremely disappointed. Perhaps it has improved in the last two years. If so, I would be absolutely delighted!
1 Like