Sounds like a great lecture! I'll try to stop by after getting out my Microbiology Lab class -- where I'll be learning about the very complex cell structure that is supposedly at the heart of ID.

You certainly are right that the ID-Darwinism debate is not contiguous with Christianity vs. Secularism. Many smart Christians have concluded that theistic evolutionism is the more reasonable theory.

However, it is equally disingenuine to claim that IDers look to ID as a "means of religious or cultural resurgence." For those of us who find ID the more reasonable theory, irreducible complexity, the lack of evidence for inter-species mutation, and the lack of fossil evidence for recent (past thousands of years) appearances of new species are simply too compelling to get around.

In other words, its not that we need ID to support our worldview. We merely find ID the more reasonable theory.

ajmac wrote:

However, it is equally disingenuine (sic) to claim that IDers look to ID as a "means of religious or cultural resurgence." For those of us who find ID the more reasonable theory, irreducible complexity, the lack of evidence for inter-species mutation, and the lack of fossil evidence for recent (past thousands of years) appearances of new species are simply too compelling to get around.

The statement made was not about why you might accept ID to be true, it was about the motivations behind the movement itself and the goals of that movement. If you want evidence that the most prominent advocates of ID, including all of the leading intellectuals whose work forms the basis of the entire movement, view their work as a means of cultural and religious renewal, you need only look at their words. The primary organization promoting ID is the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. But the original name, changed a couple years ago, was Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. This flows, of course, from the organizations own statements in the Wedge Document, which makes an argument quite bluntly for this goal of cultural renewal. It goes on at great length about the pernicious effects of "materialism", which of course include every bad thing they can think of even when those bad things are contradictory. It sets out its goals in the most obvious terms:

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

Indeed, Phase III of the Wedge strategy was entitled Cultural Confrontation and Renewal. I don't know how it could be made any clearer than that. And it certainly isn't "disingenuine" (or disingenuous for that matter) to take their own words at face value.

Let me add one thing to my previous reply. I think it's misleading, though perhaps not intentionally so, to refer to ID as a theory. Last summer in Touchstone magazine, Paul Nelson admitted that there is no theory of ID at this point:

"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."

Until there is a theory of ID, from which to derive testable hypotheses and spur actual positive research in favor of itself, it's a misnomer to speak of "intelligent design theory". At this point it is little more than a set of criticisms of evolutionary theory, with the attendant assumption that debunking evolution establishes the validity of ID.

If I thought you were being disingenuous, I would have said so. It is disingenuine (not possessing the qualities advertised) to attribute to the DI's ID defense a search for a means of cultural renewal merely because that is DI's overarching mission. My mission in life often has little bearing on what I deem to be reasonable or unreasonable. I would venture that the same is true of you.

What I object to is the caricature of IDers as unreasonable flat-eathers who cling to a debunked mythology out of some irrational fear of losing God.

Evolution and ID are both reasonable theories. The real question is which theory is more reasonable.

Ed, I've been a devotee of ID theory for a decade now, and only heard of the Discovery Institute a few months ago. (Indeed, on my own I had come up with ideas similar to ID long before I even knew such ideas had a name.) For a lot of people, it's a compelling way to reconcile their faith with their knowledge of / interest in / work in science. There are even some secularists who--in more candid moments--will admit that the idea of design in the universe is compelling...even if they reject ID as a formal scientific theory.

I'd be interested to know what Anthony thinks of Reasons to Believe, an ID-type of organization which is unabashedly set up as a Christian outreach, rather than a scientific endeavor proper.

Ed,

You're obviously a smart guy with a masterful command of the English language. I don't want to get into a debate about nomenclature, which seems to happen often when we engage online.

Eric,

Not sure whether your question is directed at me, but I'll give it a response, just because I love to hear myself type. I think highly of Reasons' work. I have read a couple of Hugh Ross' books and always find myself impressed with his mind and awed by God's creation. I had the privilege of taking a class from Dr. Ross one summer in Pasadena. The class concerned scientific evidence for biblical accounts of historic events, such as the creation account, Joshua's extra-long day, the marriage of Cain, etc. Facinating stuff.

That last sentence should read, "Fascinating stuff." Want to head off the "(sic)."

Thanks, aj, but I was referring to Mr. Perez-Miller. I must admit I'm envious that you got to take a class from Dr. Ross.

ajmac wrote:

If I thought you were being disingenuous, I would have said so. It is disingenuine (not possessing the qualities advertised) to attribute to the DI's ID defense a search for a means of cultural renewal merely because that is DI's overarching mission.

According to dictionary.com, there is no such word as disingenuine, but that is neither here nor there. I didn't make the argument that ID had been hijacked as a means of Christian cultural renewal "merely because that is DI's overarching mission" (technically, I didn't make that claim at all, Bruce Gordon, himself an ID advocate, did so). The DI, in fact, has many missions and many different departments. But the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture is motivated, by their own admission, by the goal of cultural renewal.

More importantly, Gordon was referring to two different things when he said that ID had been so hijacked, as he makes clear in the article the quote comes from. First, he was referring to the undeniable fact that the public relations and marketing work had been put ahead of actual research and ahead of the development of ID as a scientific theory, which is precisely what the original strategy said they could not do. Second, he was referring to the appropriation of ID as a means of attacking evolution, which he believes is a mistake. He wrote:

But inclusion of design theory as part of the standard discourse of the scientific community, if it ever happens, will be the result of a long and difficult process of quality research and publication. It also will be the result of overcoming the stigma that has become attached to design research because of the anti-evolutionary diatribes of some of its proponents on the one hand and its appropriation for the purpose of Christian apologetics on the other...

In conclusion, it is crucial to note that design theory is at best a supplementary consideration introduced along- side (or perhaps into, by way of modification) neo-Darwinian biology and self- organizational complexity theory. It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful research paradigms, and to suggest that it does is just so much overblown, unwarranted, and ideologically driven rhetoric.

None of this means that everyone who accepts ID does so only because they think it will "renew the culture", nor did I or either Perez-Miller or Gordon make such a claim.

What I object to is the caricature of IDers as unreasonable flat-eathers who cling to a debunked mythology out of some irrational fear of losing God.

Great, but I didn't say anything even close to that. I certainly do not believe that IDers are stupid (though there are undoubtedly many stupid people who accept ID, as there are many stupid people who do not). Michael Behe, Bill Dembski, Paul Nelson and the other prominent ID advocates may be many things, but they certainly are not stupid. They are all very bright and accomplished men. Nor are they delusional, as flat earthers are no matter how sincere they may be.

Eric wrote:

Ed, I've been a devotee of ID theory for a decade now, and only heard of the Discovery Institute a few months ago. (Indeed, on my own I had come up with ideas similar to ID long before I even knew such ideas had a name.) For a lot of people, it's a compelling way to reconcile their faith with their knowledge of / interest in / work in science. There are even some secularists who--in more candid moments--will admit that the idea of design in the universe is compelling...even if they reject ID as a formal scientific theory.

I think perhaps we're using entirely different, and in some ways contradictory, definitions of ID. I am a "secularist" who believes that the universe was created (i.e. designed) to have the properties that it has. But that has virtually nothing to do with ID as a biological argument, which is the only thing that makes it an alternative to evolutionary theory. Cosmological ID and biological ID are not necessarily dependent upon one another, and the validity of cosmological ID, even if established beyond doubt, would have no bearing on whether evolutionary theory is true or on the question of how life came to be on Earth.

ajmac wrote:

You're obviously a smart guy with a masterful command of the English language. I don't want to get into a debate about nomenclature, which seems to happen often when we engage online.

I don't think this is merely a matter of semantics at all. If you're going to compare evolution and intelligent design it is important first to establish that they are the same kind of idea. Otherwise we are comparing apples to oranges.

The attribute of being reasonable, rationality, is necessary but not sufficient in formulating scientific theories. Also necessary is elegance (surviving Occam's Razor), predictive power, and accordance with all available empirical data. As far as I can tell, intelligent design theory does not meet any of these criteria. It only has sentimental appeal to minds not able to grasp that immensely improbable events can become quite probable over immense timescales.

Looks like I'm arriving late to this party. First, to Ed: thanks so much for promoting my lecture. I'm eager to hear more about your colleagues at MCFS (I met Robert Pennock about a year back, but missed a lecture by Howard Van Till last fall). I'll e-mail you back tomorrow.

In reply to commenters above (and in no particular order): given my fundamentalist upbringing, I started out predisposed to ID-type ideas. When I began looking at the literature in the late 90s, after beginning my studies in history and philosophy of science at IU, I began to suspect something was awry. Upon closer inspection the program only looked worse.

Intelligent Design isn't a generic claim about God having created, well, intelligently. The program is based upon certain very specific postulates, in particular that extra-natural involvement was necessarily part of the history of life, in a manner not reducible to natural law. In other words, front-loading of design is explicitly excluded.

For more on this, see the introduction to my dissertation proposal, here It's neither very long nor very technical, apart from certain philosophical terms of art.

In response to Eric and ajmac: yes, I'm familiar with Dr. Ross and Reasons to Believe; used to get their newsletter, in fact. Although I won't deny that the ministry does some good, I'm dubious about their use of science. The RTB people certainly aren't young-earth creationists (it's difficult indeed to be an astrophysicist and hold that position), but they nonetheless do have "red lines" that they simply won't allow science to cross (extraterrestrial life, for one). That approach to science is ultimately self-defeating.

Then there was the videotape that I once saw, in which Ross was attempting to explain the Atonement in terms of—how shall I say this?—higher dimensional physics. I only wish I were joking.

Finally, Ed mentioned the MSU's Digital Evolution Lab. Their work will be featured in my dissertation, but will likely only be mentioned in passing next Wednesday night.

Anthony:

Please explain more about how/why you are "dubious about [Ross's] use of science."

Also, you wrote:
"given my fundamentalist upbringing, I started out predisposed to ID-type ideas."

Again, there needs to be a distinction between Cosmological ID and its poorer cousin, biological ID. In the case of csomological ID, it's just the opposite of your claim. When it comes to cosmological ID, there are two groups united in their predisposition against it: fundamentalists and evolutionists. The former because cosmological ID affirms an "old" earth, and the latter through some mysterious combination of not understanding it and gut reactions against design of any form. (If any evolutionist wants to argue that many evolutionists are not predisposed against cosmological ID, I can't link to a tome's worth of Panda's Thumb comments that support the claim.)

Strange bedfellows, fundamentalists and evolutionists. But they are both opposed to cosmological ID. Just like Ross (although with much lower profile), I find myself battling both camps.

David Heddle wrote:

Again, there needs to be a distinction between Cosmological ID and its poorer cousin, biological ID. In the case of csomological ID, it's just the opposite of your claim. When it comes to cosmological ID, there are two groups united in their predisposition against it: fundamentalists and evolutionists. The former because cosmological ID affirms an "old" earth, and the latter through some mysterious combination of not understanding it and gut reactions against design of any form. (If any evolutionist wants to argue that many evolutionists are not predisposed against cosmological ID, I can't link to a tome's worth of Panda's Thumb comments that support the claim.)

I certainly agree with you that we need to separate cosmological ID from biological ID, as I said above. But I think we also need to get more specific about what "cosmological ID" is in this context. There are certainly forms of cosmological ID that are accepted by young earth creationists as well. The types of cosmological ID can be said to mirror the forms of the anthropic principle, with at least a strong and weak version, and perhaps a super strong version as well. The super strong version would be the notion that the universe was created with the parameters it has specifically to make a home for the human race on Earth. The strong version would be that the universe was created with the parameters it has specifically to support life within it somewhere. The weak version (the one I hold to) would be that the universe was created with the perameters it has to allow for the possibility that life might develop somewhere within it. YECs make the same "fine tuning" arguments that IDers and old earthers make, and they would of course hold to the super strong version, that it was all created solely to allow us to be here to worship God. The distinction, of course, is that they would argue that there is no need for the universe to have "evolved" to the point it is now, that God simply created it with the constants and parameters it has, and with the appearance of age. So I think they do accept cosmological ID, they just differ on timeframe and on some of the technical details (like big bang cosmology) that are offered as arguments for cosmological ID.

I'm also going to quibble with your use of the term "evolutionists", only because I hate that term. We would never refer to someone as a "gravityist" or a "plate tectonicist". The term is only useful for grouping together people that shouldn't be grouped together. One can accept biological evolution and hold to any number of other scientific of philosophical positions, just like those who accept gravity or the kinetic theory of gasses will vary in their positions on other ideas. One can accept evolution as true and be a Christian, a Jew, an atheist, a Hindu or anything else. One can accept evolution as true and reject big bang cosmology, or accept it. One can accept evolution as true and be a Republican, Democrat, libertarian, fascist, communist or what have you.

So while I certainly would not disagree that many people who accept evolution are also atheists who would oppose cosmological ID, I would just as validly say that lots of people who accept evolution accept cosmological ID, and believe in God, and even are devout in their faith. And a few even manage to agree with me and accept both evolution and deism.

[I wrote most of this before Ed posted his latest comment, so some of what follows is a touch redundant.]

David,

First, note that I do distinguish between cosmological and biological design arguments. I am concerned primarily with the latter, and use "Intelligent Design" to refer specifically to advocates of biological design.

It may well be that cosmological design proponents also adopt the ID label. (Perhaps Ross does? It's been a while since I've looked at his stuff). But in general, ID is taken to refer to the neo-Paleyian attempts at biological explanation.

I'd also like to offer a minor corrective to your evolutionist - cosmological ID - fundamentalist trichotomy. (Not that I think that you were in any way claiming to be exhaustive.) On one level, biological ID proponents and cosmological fine-tuning advocates are very much in consonance: both groups agree on a transcendent Designer, for one thing. But: whereas for fine-tuning advocates, front-loading of all design at creation is a perfectly acceptable position, it is not for IDers, who maintain (on the level of postulate) that extra-natural action is necessarily part of the history of life, in a way not reducible to natural law.

(That position has some interesting consequences--one being that ID proponents end up agreeing with the likes of Richard Dawkins over the lay of the battlefield, with unhappy results.)

There is, of course, significant overlap between the set of fundamentalists and the set of ID proponents. But many fundamentalists are (still) young-earth creationists, or some variant thereon, and as such aren't properly ID advocates. (Although ID as a cultural force is a big-tent movement, and will welcome just about anyone who accepts certain minimal conditions.) And certainly not all ID supporters are fundamentalists; some are non-religious cultural conservatives.

Be wary also of considering evolutionists as a monolithic group. It is certainly tempting to do so, as the loudest voices by far are either dismissive of, or openly hostile to, religion in general and Christianity in particular. But using scientific results for metaphysical ends is in almost all cases a serious category error.

Finally, you asked more about my opinions of Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe. I have no objection to using cosmological fine-tuning arguments as a tool for apologetics. (Whether such methods are effective is another question entirely.) The problem arises when one uses a biblical interpretation to pre-judge what kinds of scientific conclusions are allowable. IDers do this when positing that front-loading of design is impermissible. I was never quite able to pin down the RTB position on evolution, but my impression is that they favor special creation of distinct "kinds" (in this case, higher taxonomic orders), followed by a proliferation by evolution within those kinds. If this is correct, then it appears that they are approaching evolution with the same sort of preconceptions as do ID advocates. And as I mentioned in the last comment, RTB does rule out the possibility of ET life by fiat (or at least they were doing so a few years back).

Let me add one thing to my previous comment to David Heddle. The tendency to lump cosmological ID and biological ID together comes from ID advocates themselves. For example, the Discovery Institute's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture says:

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Clearly they are combining the two together, and I think this is very telling. What it tells, in my view, is that their real battle is not really with evolution, it is with atheism, and they are seeking any hole in scientific explanations where they can put God into the hole. In this regard, it is a classic god of the gaps argument. Phillip Johnson all but acknowledged this when he said in 1999:

"The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"

But it also points up a problem with their public rhetoric, and shows an essential deceit at the core of their arguments. The ID advocates know that they must walk a delicate line in their public rhetoric, in terms of how explicitly they can talk about God and still pass constitutional muster when trying to get their ideas in public schools. Given the decision in Edwards v. Aguillard and the intent prong of the Lemon test, they are well aware that they have to sell ID as a purely scientific idea with no real relationship to Christianity. Thus, they can often be heard saying things like, "ID doesn't necessarily mean that the designer is supernatural, or a God. ID is also consistent with an alien race bioengineering life on Earth, for instance, or with a universal demiurge." But the definition of ID above clearly contradicts this. If ID combines the ideas of biological design and cosmological design, then the designer cannot be an alien, which is a part of the universe and could not therefore have created the universe. Only a god can create space-time, according to their reasoning, and therefore the combination of cosmological ID and biological ID rules out the alien or demiurge alternatives; the fact is they can only be speaking of a supernatural god.

Anthony Perez-Miller wrote:

Be wary also of considering evolutionists as a monolithic group. It is certainly tempting to do so, as the loudest voices by far are either dismissive of, or openly hostile to, religion in general and Christianity in particular. But using scientific results for metaphysical ends is in almost all cases a serious category error.

I strongly agree with this statement, and I think it applies to both ends of the spectrum. I find it as annoying when Richard Dawkins engages in it as when Duane Gish does. I don't think there's anything wrong with drawing metaphysical or philosophical inferences from scientific findings. No philosophical position would be sound without being informed by the reality of the natural world, to be sure. But one must be careful to make that distinction between them and not to combine them as though they were part and parcel of one another. I have long maintained that most people who object to evolution aren't really objecting to evolution, they're objecting to evolution+atheism; in other words, they're really objecting to atheism, and they simply combine the two things in their mind as though they were one seamless idea. But in point of fact, evolution is as consistent with multiple philosophical or metaphysical views as the germ theory of disease or plate tectonics are.

And as I mentioned in the last comment, RTB does rule out the possibility of ET life by fiat (or at least they were doing so a few years back).

Hmm... I read Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men last summer (posted a review on Josh's old blog which should be here, but something seems amiss with Josh's archive). Ross and his co-authors certainly pointed out the extreme unlikelihood of favorable conditions for life existing anywhere in the universe, let alone in two places. I don't recall whether they made a theological argument against God creating life elsewhere in the universe. But since Ross' scientific argument is that life can't exist anywhere without design, I don't see how a theological stance against ET life matters that much.

Ross was attempting to explain the Atonement in terms of...higher dimensional physics.

Yes, that discussion is also found in Beyond the Cosmos, and Ross has taken a good deal of flack over it. As I understand it, though, he wasn't really saying "this is how the atonement works" but rather was trying to point out how a lot of doctrines which seem impossible actually might make sense in higher dimensions.

An informative website is www.ideacenter.org

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness

I think that people who hold the atheist religion have a difficult time explaining several questions:

1. Anthropic Principal

2. Irreducible Complexity - single cell organisms are not "simple" They have to have at least three systems to survive, respiratory, digestive and reprductive. All three do not have time to "evolve" if one doesn't work perfectly, the first time, the organism is extinct.

3. Non-functional intermediate forms in systems. How does a non-functional form help survival?

4. Cambrian Explosion

I think that all groups are interested in the facts of our origins. It is evident to many that Darwin is wrong. Finding design implies a designer.

Name calling against religious people does not advance the debate.

Ed and or Anthony wrote:

There are certainly forms of cosmological ID that are accepted by young earth creationists as well.

Not really. They might agree it is fascinating, but once someone understands that, for example, the fine tuning of stellar nuclear chemistry is not relevant if super novae are not needed to seed the universe, because all the heavy elements were created in situ, then they do not really accept it at a basic level. At best we become the enemy of their enemy, and so are tolerated.

The point that YEC would affirm SAP is exactly why the term “Intelligent Design” should apply to cosmological fine-tuning. The Anthropic Principle is very broad and philosophical—while Intelligent Design implies a detailed examination of hard scientific data—the expansion of the universe, habitable zones, nuclear chemistry, the number of expanding dimensions, the fundamental forces, etc. You can agree with SAP apart from science. The same can’t be said for ID. Which gets me back to the point that while fundamentalists might check “agree” next to a statement of the Anthropic Principle, they would (along with evolutionists) disagree with, as an example, the claims of Hugh Ross.

I think it is a strategy of the evolution community to co-opt the term “intelligent design” to mean, essentially, Behe and Dembski. But that’s all it is: a strategy. To argue that fine-tuning of the cosmos should not be called “intelligent design” is rather foolish, in my opinion.

The distinction, of course, is that they would argue that there is no need for the universe to have "evolved" to the point it is now, that God simply created it with the constants and parameters it has, and with the appearance of age.

That is not consistent with ID, as I pointed out above. No cosmological ID proponent that I know of would state that a designer put “unnecessary” fine tuning into the universe. If the universe has the appearance of age, then virtually every fine-tuning argument is meaningless. In fact, if the universe has only apparent age, then the fine-tuning casts aspersions on God’s character, for it cannot be understood other than as some sort of test of faith.

I’m not sure what the problem is with the term “evolutionist”. First of all, I don’t use it in a pejoratively. Second, if you want to discuss abiogenesis on Panda’s Thumb, you will be told that it is out of bounds—that the question of life’s origin is (rather conveniently) not in the province of evolution. And so it would seem appropriate to label those who are defending evolution alone, apart from other areas of biology which are declared off limits. At any rate, I would be happy to use the pc term, if I knew what it was.

I would just as validly say that lots of people who accept evolution accept cosmological ID

Perhaps, but not many biologists, as far as I can tell. On Panda’s Thumb I point out that agnostic physicists acknowledge fine-tuning (and search for non-ID explanations), but the response I get, with near unanimity, is that (a) I am misquoting or (b) even if they (agnostic cosmologists) say fine tuning, they don’t really mean fine tuning.

There is, of course, significant overlap between the set of fundamentalists and the set of ID proponents.

No, that’s not true, unless you restrict, artificially, “ID” for biological ID. Ken Hovind called Ross a heretic on national TV. Does that sound like fundamentalists and cosmological IDers are in harmony? I stand by the claim that, regarding cosmological ID, the majority of fundamentalists and evolutionists are united in opposition.

I have no objection to using cosmological fine-tuning arguments as a tool for apologetics. (Whether such methods are effective is another question entirely.)

They were in my case: I learned about cosmological ID as an agnostic and later came to faith. I guess my question was intended to be: do you question his science? The issue of the atonement is a red herring. Ross did not claim it as science, but speculation. Scientists speculate about all sorts of things: parallel universes, time travel, etc.

Let me add one thing to my previous comment to David Heddle. The tendency to lump cosmological ID and biological ID together comes from ID advocates themselves.

I agree. The tendency to separate them comes from evolutionists, who would like to concentrate their efforts battling Behe and Dembski and the DI. They would rather not have to deal with cosmological fine tuning, just like they would rather not deal with abiogenesis.

David Heddle wrote:

The tendency to separate them comes from evolutionists, who would like to concentrate their efforts battling Behe and Dembski and the DI. They would rather not have to deal with cosmological fine tuning, just like they would rather not deal with abiogenesis.

I'm not sure I understand your position. First you said that they should be separated - "there needs to be a distinction between Cosmological ID and its poorer cousin, biological ID" - as did I. Now you're saying that only evolutionists want to separate them, and solely for strategic reasons. We spend our time battling Behe and Dembski because it is their tireless PR work that has ID on the move across the country. The DI is the organization that is engaged in a campaign to get ID into public school science classrooms come hell or highwater, so they are obviously the ones that need to be dealt with. On top of that, there are very logical reasons for separating the two out, as you yourself said. For me, there is an obvious separation because I have no problem with cosmological ID but reject biological ID.

Ed,

A fair point. The two flavors of ID should be separated because, for one, cosmological ID is more advanced and is based on observations (fine-tuning), the appearance of which is acknowledged even by non-IDers. Biological ID is based on a set of features (such as irreducible complexity, convergence, etc) that its detractors can flat-out deny. So cosmological ID is on more solid ground.

Instead of saying that the tendency to separate them comes from evolutionists (Still waiting for the appropriate term, since you objected to "evolutionists"), it is perhaps more accurate to say that many evolutionists simply pretend that cosmological ID doesn't exist. Thus, on Panda's Thumb, if you point out that Hawking acknowledges (with strong words) the fine-tuning present in the current standard cosmology (and therefore dislikes it), you will be told that Hawking didn't really mean what he said.

Instead of saying that the tendency to separate them comes from evolutionists (Still waiting for the appropriate term, since you objected to "evolutionists"), it is perhaps more accurate to say that many evolutionists simply pretend that cosmological ID doesn't exist. Thus, on Panda's Thumb, if you point out that Hawking acknowledges (with strong words) the fine-tuning present in the current standard cosmology (and therefore dislikes it), you will be told that Hawking didn't really mean what he said.

Well I can only speak for myself. My reaction to the statement from Hawking is simply, "Okay, what does that have to do with evolution or biology?" In my mind, they are completely separate ideas and I do not confuse the two. In fact, I consider cosmological ID to be simply irrelevant to any discussion of evolution and ID because it deals with entirely different subjects. The combining of the two only happens for those who either seek to support or deny atheism, which I have no interest in doing and don't really care about. I do think that there are many people on both sides of the fence who are using science primarily as a prop for their metaphysical beliefs. The DI's real battle is with atheism, and attacking evolution is their strategy for attacking atheism; they have said as much many times. On the other side, there are certainly those who view evolution as a means of supporting their atheism and who defend evolution primarily as a means of defending atheism. Both of those groups, in my view, miss the point. Evolution is either true or it is not true, and the test of whether it is true has nothing to do with whether it supports or does not support one's preferred metaphysical views. It should be dealt with in the same manner we deal with any other scientific idea, judged by the same criteria - does it explain the data well? Is it internally consistent? Does it make accurate predictions about the nature of new evidence? Does it spur interesting new research? Those are the things that matter, and they are the only things that matter.

It is always a mistake to accept or reject scientific explanations because they agree or disagree with our preconceived religious or philosophical notions. It was wrong for those who rejected heliocentrism because it conflicted with their reading of the bible; it was wrong for those who rejected big bang cosmology because it seemed to support theism. And it's still wrong today.

I just happened upon this posting today and find it quite interesting. I'm not going to direct my comments to anyone in particular because the one thing that keeps resonating as I read is the commitment you all appear to have to putting everything inside these tiny little boxes with all sorts of parameters.
I'm seeing a tendency to construct restrictions that insinuate one cannot lump cosmological ID and biological ID together in any one presentation. If you say that ID had a hand in the cosmology of things but perhaps not in the matters of biology or that cosmological ID and biological ID are strictly separate and distinct ideas, isn't that kind of like saying I'm going to build a house but I think I'll let it paint itself. Like it or not life is interdependent with, if not totally dependent on, cosmology and if ID has it's fingerprint on cosmology then it is more than likely on biology as well, irreducible complexity and the cambrian explosion are a few examples.
I'm also seeing a tendency to put the designer in a box. If we accept the idea of ID yet say that it has limits aren't we therefore coming into the discussion at a handicap just as some in these posting have said the biblical interpretors do. It has been posed that young universe cosmology proponents have no place in ID cosmology yet if a designer has the capability to construct a universe does it not also have the capacity to construct it fully formed, with light that takes billions of years to reach its destination fully visible from far reaches of a galaxy? Perhaps even light existing in one part of the galaxy from a star that no longer exist in another part of the galaxy or, in this instance, never existed. A little Socratic method is in order. If you had the ability to be a designer of similar magnitude and wanted to create a sports car, would you create it in a garage waiting for the day when you might put it in motion, or would you, like I, create it going down the highway at 100 mph with myself in the seat?
We should not put the designer in a box. If we do, we do not allow ourselves to consider the entire realm of possibility. Some in this posting have done this and have suggested that others do the same. The suggestion that the Discovery Inst. should stick to ID cosmology only and not ever look deeper into the implications of what it means to have a designer is simply ubsurd.

Ed Bryton wrote:
It should be dealt with in the same manner we deal with any other scientific idea, judged by the same criteria - does it explain the data well? Is it internally consistent? Does it make accurate predictions about the nature of new evidence? Does it spur interesting new research? Those are the things that matter, and they are the only things that matter.

Seems we've looked into ID and discovered a designer, now back in the box, science is the ONLY thing that matters. The way I see it is that the people at DI have made the observations and decided not to put the designer in a box. It is perfectly reasonable for them to develop a bias toward who or what they think the designer is and discuss that with the appropriate audience yet still have the freedom to dicuss ID in science and in schools separate from that bias knowing that there is an appropriate place and time. After all they have not ceased to be scientist.

Anxiously awaiting an opinion!