Anyone else see the fallacious reasoning there?
So Joe, why not be upfront and state that you reject science itself?
3 Likes
Hi Jay. I will try to do justice to your question…[quote=“Jay313, post:3, topic:23502”]
Why are ID theorists so insistent on demonstrating the existence of design and, by inference, a designer, rather than the existence of God?
[/quote]
I will start by asking you a question: why do ECs insist on keeping their faith separate from their science? ID theorists are attempting to formulate a robust and rigorous scientific theory about origins[quote=“Jay313, post:3, topic:23502”]
Why are ID theorists so insistent on being recognized as “legitimate science” rather than “mere philosophy”?
[/quote]
see my answer above. [quote=“Jay313, post:3, topic:23502”]
Why is the Discovery Institute, the self-described “hub of the Intelligent Design movement,” pursuing a political agenda to change science curricula in states across the country?
[/quote]
As a public policy think tank, the DI encompasses much more than the ID movement. The very nature of public policy think tanks is to advance certain social and political positions. One does not by any means need to sign on to any of the public policy issues of the DI to be an ID advocate.[quote=“Jay313, post:3, topic:23502”]
The answer to all of these questions flows from the last one. The only reason that ID insists on being labelled “science” instead of “philosophy” and scrupulously avoids mentioning God in favor of “design” and “intelligence” is so that it can be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to “atheistic evolution.”
[/quote]
Even though this is not a question, it certainly must be addressed. The DI has been scrupulously consistent in maintaining the position that it does not (at least at this time) support the teaching of ID in public schools. Frankly, I support the teaching of ID, or at least the freedom to do so. From a purely political standpoint, my position on public schools is a very libertarian one: I’m against a government run education system funded by coercion. But that has nothing to do with whether ID is true.[quote=“Jay313, post:3, topic:23502”]
In my view, the hostility toward ID would disappear tomorrow if its theorists would drop their politically motivated goal of calling it “science” in order to teach a watered-down version of creation in public school classrooms.
[/quote]
You may wish to claim that ID is not science Jay, but the real question - the interesting question is this: is ID true? Does the evidence support ID or an alternative theory? On these questions, your post is absolutely silent, and indeed, it seems that you have no objection to the notion of ID. You only wish to quibble about whether it is science. But if origin of life science can properly be called science, and ID is properly understood as a (well supported) theory on the origin of life, then ID is indeed science. There is nothing political about calling a scientific theory of origins “science,” and working to present it as such. So I will end with a question for you: Do you believe that Origin of Life science can properly be called science?
p.s. I agree with you that folks at the DI go out of their way - at least when they speak of ID theory - to keep the question of the existence of God separate from their theoretical work. Every time they solicit a donation from me, I make my disdain for this clear. I invite you to join me in doing the same. ID theory does not suffer in the least when we acknowledge our Creator and celebrate the evidence that points to Him.
Phil: It is a fact that the question of the origin of life is directly intertwined with worldviews. It is disingenuous to claim that pointing to the evidence for ID “represents” a worldview. Does it support a worldview? Absolutely. Does a naturalistic narrative for the origin of life represent a worldview also? Absolutely! The question is, which worldview is supported by the evidence.
By the way, what worldview would you say ECs “represent”?
Probably because they understand the definition of science. If God is truly transcendent and Science is defined as the study of natural processes in the matter-energy world, Science and Theology are “separate” by definition.
1 Like
Absolutely. There is so much confusion nowadays in failing to see the difference between philosophical naturalism (as in many types of atheism) versus methodological naturalism (aka Science and the Scientific Method.)
The major Young Earth Creationist ministries constantly promote this confusion.
Wherever one finds this confusion, we usually also see someone wanting to redefine the meaning of Science itself to where it can be subject to someone’s theological agenda.
1 Like
they were not talking about me[quote=“gbrooks9, post:7, topic:23502”]
How is it that you, as a once Atheist, did not conclude that it was an alien race that was responsible for the designs… rather than God?
[/quote]
As I have testified, the revelation that life requires a Creator did not instantly get me to the foot of the cross. What it did for me, was kindle a burning desire to get to know my Creator. This inspired me for the first time in my life to take the possibility of the Resurrection seriously. Ultimately, it was the evidence for the Resurrection that convinced me. But an alien race as my Creator? That only pushes the question back, doesn’t it? If life requires a Creator, then any hypothetical alien race bears the same requirement as far as we know.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:7, topic:23502”]
I, too, would be inclined to attribute such a design (if I agreed we found a candidate design) to God. But how do we explain this when people have written to assure me that this would never happen in the ID community?
[/quote]
I have no idea who in the ID community would write or say such a thing. As far as I know, those ID advocates who insist on keeping the question of God separate would certainly not say that God is not the designer!
1 Like
My impression is that they definitely represent a Christian worldview, which is great. However, even that is somewhat hidden and deceptive since they present the pretense that ID only shows the effect of intelligent design, and that if God or gods or aliens are the designers it is irrelevant.(wink, wink)
Perhaps that is a false impression, but I think it is the common perception.
1 Like
thanks for that elucidation. Now, since you interjected yourself into a conversation between Jay and I, perhaps you would be so good as to complete the line of questioning we were engaged in: why does it then count against ID when ID theorists keep the question of God’s existence separate from questions of science, but it does not (presumably) count against EC?
Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.
I can’t speak for all of them, but I do not. Just as faith exceeds (goes beyond) reason without violating reason, so faith exceeds science without violating science.
I agree. So, why are they pushing changes to science curricula?
Yes, I know their official position, which is to “teach the controversy.” Unfortunately, in regard to the science, there is no controversy at the level of high school biology classes.
Really? Lol. Care to look at literacy rates in 19th century America? Honestly, Joe, this is such a foolish and extreme position that it causes me to question the value of continued discussion.
Can science be called science? What sort of question is that? The problem is not realizing when one has crossed the line between scientific and metaphysical arguments. Not many folks seem to understand the distinction…
So you are charging me with failing to see the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism? OK, lets look at it together, beginning with the claim I made upon which you base your accusation:[quote=“benkirk, post:62, topic:23502”]
the origin of life is directly related to worldviews. It is not possible to separate one from the other. A naturalistic OOL narrative is a narrative of the worldview of naturalism. And naturalism is the necessary worldview of atheism.
[/quote]
There are three claims contained in this statement.
claim #1. The origin of life is directly related to worldviews.
Do you disagree with this claim? If so, can you please elaborate, and also detail how this supports the claim that I am ignorant of the distinction between PM and NM?
claim #2. A naturalistic OOL narrative is a narrative of the worldview of naturalism.
As a worldview, naturalism is defined as “a belief that only natural laws operate in the world.” Under such a belief, there must exist a naturalistic OOL narrative, regardless of how wildly improbable. It seems to me that this claim is ontologically obvious. Do you offer a different take?
claim #3. Naturalism is the necessary worldview of atheism.
Isn’t it?
So where do you find entitlement to accuse me of failing to see the difference between PN and MN? I will risk an assumption here and you can feel free to correct me if I am wrong: You believe that any proper OOL science must faithfully adhere to MN. But if you believe this, does not such a belief necessarily entail the assumption that abiogenesis is true? And if it one approaches the OOL with this assumption, is that one not himself guilty of PN?
Thanks in advance.
I hope I can jump in on this question too. It doesn’t count against them. Most of us just don’t believe the sentence.
What counts against Intelligent Design is insisting that you can use Science to prove something “miraculous” happened.
Logically, it just isn’t possible. It’s the same as saying you can use Science to prove God’s existence.
Do you, Joe, believe you can use Science to prove God’s existence?
They don’t. See the Wedge Document.
3 Likes
If there really is a natural cause for some phenomenon, scientists will only find it by actively seeking it. And science has been very successful so far. We no longer attribute storms at sea to Neptune. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is not a useful strategy.
1 Like
Are you saying it’s time to shut down research labs?
2 Likes
Of course, real scientists offer far more specific and mechanistic hypotheses that they then test empirically, so your dichotomy is a false one.