With all the feigned outrage going around these days, it looks like everyone's haggling at the bazaar.

As a big (cosmological) ID proponent, I do find it odd that some IDers do not want to identify God as the designer. Strictly speaking, of course, they have a point: one can speak of the design independent of the attributes of the designer. I just don't get why.

Of course, evolutionists play the same game. I don't know how many times I've been told that abiogenesis is not relevant in the evolution discussion. How life started is irrelevant to evolution? Bleh, what cowardice. If abiogenesis is not in the domain of evolution, then the designer is not in the domain of ID.

This "hiding from the designer" seems to be a characteristic of biological ID. All the cosmological IDers that I know discuss God freely.

David, I don't think that the analogy works, because it's confusing the difference between explanandum and explanans. In ID, the intelligent creator is an absolutely central part of the explanatory apparatus -- indeed, it's almost the entirety of the explanatory apparatus! Without an account of the designer, one just doesn't have an ID account, period. But the initial source of life itself is something to be explained, and is not something that currently is appealed to really at all to explain anything. Evolutionary theories take the earliest documented forms of life as a starting point, and ask (speaking very broadly) how did we get from there to here? And, much more importantly, what does the answer to that question tell us about 'here'? The origin of life is no more fundamental to evolutionary biology than, say, quantum mechanics -- it's something that, as we learn more about it, might have some impact on the theory itself, but there's just no reason at all to require it to be part of the theory.

Though you may quibble with his analogy, David is essentially right that evolutionists play the same sort of game that Ed is accusing ID-ers of playing. Evolutionists (those who advocate for the theory, not just those who accept it as the prevailing scientific viewpoint) claim they are not promoting atheism or attacking religious faith, but one doesn't need to travel far in their circles to find open contempt for people of faith (or at least traditional faiths).

Furthermore, since ID-ers are on the outside of the establishment looking in, they have a greater need to fundraise and appeal to their "base."

Attacking the ID movement based on comments that its proponents have made at various times to various audiences smacks of an ad hominem argument, and claiming that ID-ers are actually creationists in disguise smacks of a straw-man. Critics should stick to criticizing the actual body of ID work.

Eric wrote:

Though you may quibble with his analogy, David is essentially right that evolutionists play the same sort of game that Ed is accusing ID-ers of playing. Evolutionists (those who advocate for the theory, not just those who accept it as the prevailing scientific viewpoint) claim they are not promoting atheism or attacking religious faith, but one doesn't need to travel far in their circles to find open contempt for people of faith (or at least traditional faiths).

Actually, David's analogy was not between anti-religious evolution advocates and religious ID advocates, it was between evolution advocates saying that abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory and ID advocates claiming God is not a part of ID. Both analogies are weak, but let's focus on yours. I didn't make the argument that ID is religious in nature because ID advocates are religious; I made the argument that ID advocates (at least the ones of which I spoke) say contradictory things on the matter and their PR/political campaign is at odds with their often expressed definitions of ID.

No question you can find evolution advocates who are anti-religious. But you can also find evolution advocates who are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and so forth. Evolution, as a scientific theory, was developed as an explanation for the evidence, not as a tool to destroy Christianity. The ID movement, by the expressed admission of the very men to whom West suggests we listen on the matter, was created specifically to act as a wedge with which to destroy "materialism" and restore Christianity as the dominant ideal in American culture. Does that necessarily mean ID is wrong? Of course not, nor did I make any such claim. But the point I made remains true, that ID advocates speak out of both sides of their mouth on this question. In essence, they are engaged in a very intentional deceit because that deceit is required for their legal strategy to succeed. And worse yet, they accuse others of deceit when they point out the clear contradictions in their own words.

Furthermore, since ID-ers are on the outside of the establishment looking in, they have a greater need to fundraise and appeal to their "base."

Well, yes. But that doesn't justify lying, does it? Especially from those, like Phillip Johnson, who insist that the success of the ID movement will restore morality in society.

Attacking the ID movement based on comments that its proponents have made at various times to various audiences smacks of an ad hominem argument, and claiming that ID-ers are actually creationists in disguise smacks of a straw-man. Critics should stick to criticizing the actual body of ID work.

Sorry, but there is nothing ad hominem about pointing out obvious contradictions in the words of one's opponents. If I said "ID is wrong because ID advocates lie", that would be an ad hominem (unless I was referring to lying about data used to prove ID). But I didn't make that argument, or any argument like it. The validity of ID is one subject; the deceit with which the Discovery Institute and others attempt to promote and explain it is a separate subject. The legal strategy is perhaps a third subject. And my point remains true, that their legal strategy requires that they be dishonest about the nature of ID and they have chosen their legal strategy over honesty. I know it's inconvenient for ID advocates to have their own words used against them, but it remains an entirely fair comment to make. It has the great virtue of being true.

I'm going to play Creator's advocate for a moment and suggest that perhaps when the ID crowd seeks to distance itself from matters of religion, it is because they merely wish to establish that nature shows evidence of design, regardless of the designer.

Perhaps, it is Yahweh, perhaps Allah, perhaps Christ, perhaps Krishna, perhaps Ahura Mazda, perhaps it's the dead body of Tiamat, perhaps by aliens... I presume that the ID movement doesn't seek to establish one creator over another, merely that teleology is a part of natural science.

Deism has always held some appeal to me. Are intelligent design and evolution even contradictory? Evolution could have been intelligently designed to create all kinds of neat organisms.

In any event, it's awfully tough to get from the Clockmaker to the Resurrection of Christ.

Evolutionists (those who advocate for the theory, not just those who accept it as the prevailing scientific viewpoint) claim they are not promoting atheism or attacking religious faith, but one doesn't need to travel far in their circles to find open contempt for people of faith (or at least traditional faiths).

Is that what "evolutionist" means? I guess it can mean whatever you want it to mean, but it's worth noting that vanishingly few (if any) such persons would use the term to describe themselves. Most would, I think, simply use the term "biologist".

Anyway, I'm not sure what the argument is supposed to be here. There is some small handful of people who endorse the theory of evolution, and who also get publicly obnoxious about their atheism... what is supposed to follow from that? There are probably a greater number of folks who believe in evolution who also are publicly obnoxious about being Yankee fans, but it's hard to see what the upshot of such demographic trivia might be.

I think much of the confusion here results from a sort of sampling error: if you're interested in evolution primarily from a theological perspective, then sure enough you're going to notice Dawkins, Dennett, et al. in their village atheist mode. But that's a radically unrepresentative slice of the relevant population of evolution-advocating biologists. As has been noted here, there are a large number of "evolutionists" of all sorts of religious (and athletic) persuasions.

Young earth creationists are not all that thrilled with ID either. They have been making the case for years, using science not religion and ID is taken from their case.
ID is an attempt to defend the case against having to deal with the science vs. religion strawman.
We are the product of design or we are the result of natural processes. If we are the product of design, the Being who could bring this about is someone's God. Who's, ofcourse, is a different subject.

Which version of inteligent design are you talking about? Traditional creationism? Albergansian Gnosticism (the devil created the universe to piss off God)? Hinduism? Vast committes of angels competeing with each other to win a prize? What?

What about Astronomy? The Bible's astronomical theory is that the earth is FLAT, with a dome like structure made of firmament called the sky which holds a tank of water above it and has a sive-like structure that that lets this water fall like...um...rain. According to ancient Jewish and Christian texts, the stars are pinholes in the firmament, and the moon shines with it's own light.

If you're going to go with Biblical creationism, you can't accept anything but blbical astronomy.

It's probably unwise to so directly conflate ID and scriptural versions of creationism. The former tries (at least nominally) to run an argument that does not depend on scripture or revelation; so it goes no distance at all towards refuting it to run a _reductio_ on the latter's use of the Bible.

Ed,

I didn't make the argument that ID is religious in nature because ID advocates are religious

Thanks for clarifying. I think it's easy to see how that impression comes from your article when you say "they must pretend that ID is purely a scientific matter that deals with inferences of design"

I made the argument that ID advocates (at least the ones of which I spoke) say contradictory things on the matter

Ironically, though, your citations do not support that argument. You haven't shown Person X saying at one time, "ID is about validating the claims of the Bible" and at another time "ID is not about religion." There are enough people interested in ID that Person X may have a different viewpoint than Person Y, but that doesn't mean either of them is being dishonest. Or even if Persons X and Y are being dishonest, that shouldn't necessarily reflect on Person Z.

It also seems perfectly valid to me for a person to support ID because of their personal religious beliefs, yet in their formal scientific arguments they leave the identity of the "designer" as an open question.

I have posted a response to Ed Brayton's comments about my previous blog here.

The Discovery Institute is a U.S. based organization. As such it draws members from a population that is 80% Christian and 10% some other form of theism. Agnostics and atheists make up the final 10%. It's little wonder that the overwhelming majority of DI members are theists.

On the other hand the National Academy of Science is also a U.S. based organization and draws from the same overwhelmingly theist population. Yet its membership consists of 72% atheists, 21% agnostics, and 7% theists.

Obviously, the religiously biased organization is the NAS as its membership's religious beliefs are far from reflective of the general population. Yet the NAS is the gold standard for advice to gov't entities setting science policy standards.

What's wrong with that picture?

Scientifically, politically, and philosophically the evolution/ID debate is predominantly atheists vs. everyone else. Politically this spells quick disaster for the evolution side because atheists are quite small in number amongst voters. Their only hope of a political win is to convince enough judges that ID is really religion and violates the first amendment establishment clause if promoted by the gov't in any way, shape, or form including research funding and public school curricula.

There are two primary reasons why principal ID advocates distance ID from religion.

First of all, it's the truth. There is nothing religious or unnatural about intelligent design. Humans are intelligent and according to evolution we arose naturally. Humans already tinker with the genetic makeup of living things. In order to reject ID as non-science one must a priori accept that humans are the only intelligent force in the universe now or ever. Such an assertion is blind faith in secular humanism and certainly not a scientific assertion. Priveleged Planet indeed. According to evolutionists mankind is so privileged as to be assuredly the only intelligent force in the universe. So the first reason ID proponents distance it from religion is because ID truly is agnostic from a scientific viewpoint.

The second reason ID proponents distance it from religion is political. If the opposition succeeds in branding ID a religion then ID is denied access to public funding for research and mention in public schools while atheist-approved evolution enjoys both funding and non-critical presentation as fact in public schools.

That leaves us with philosophical considerations of evolution and ID. Both have implications that can be drawn for use by theistic and/or atheistic views. Most sciences have philosophic implications. Science is about knowledge and philosophy certainly isn't divorced from knowledge. Philosophical implications are irrelevant. Empirical evidence is empirical evidence in science no matter how philosophers choose to use it in their non-scientific arguments.

It's always interesting to me to read the various comments reflecting differing points of view concerning the "ID/Evolution" saga. I once read a definition of "metaphysics" that really appealed to me: ". . . the branch of philosophy in which is studied the ultimate nature of existence or reality. . . . There are countless metaphysics, because everyone who has ever wondered whence everything came and what it all means is a practicing metaphysician who has come up with a metaphysical system: an explanation that seems reasonable to one's self." In the final analysis, though, we really don't know "what's behind it all," do we? And so, one picks an explanation "that seems reasonable to one's self."

I appreciate the term "Intelligent Design." It's wide open: one can interpret it in a way which seems reasonable to one's self. Personally, the term "Creationism" (if it defines "God" in Old Testament terms, as a sort of super-person who created Adam and Eve, and who decrees punishment for those who transgress, etc., etc.) is repugnant to me. However, to think in terms--not of a finite "super-person," but as a Presence throughout the universe, an intelligence, a "force" everywhere present--Hey! that sounds reasonable to me. (I'm afraid, though, I can't even explain this or make this concept understandable to a relative, who happens to be a Fundamentalist Christian! Ah, well, such is life.

I have little hope that diehard advocates of either side of this ID/evolution debate are going to change their thinking. Anyway, I'll just keep reading the blogs, and enjoying the differences of opinion. (I'll be damned, however, if I get too emotionally upset over someone who believes differently from me.)

Ed's now trying to insist on Panda's Thumb that ID cannot be separated into Cosmic ID and Biological ID.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001179.html#more



Ed says:

Their own definition combines biological ID with cosmological ID, which means the designer is responsible not only for living things, but for creating the universe itself.

I wholly agree with Ed that Cosmic ID is metaphysical. It's countered by theoretical physics' multiverses and there are no experiments or further observations in either Cosmic ID or the competing multiverse theories that will forward either argument.

However, Biological ID is not just metaphysical and may be considered separately from Cosmic ID. We can't duplicate or test multiple universes but we can certainly slice & dice the machinery of life. Humanity can already make directed genetic changes (intelligent design) to living things and I stand ready to throw a genetically engineered rotten tomato at anyone who disagrees. So while designing a universe probably requires omnipotent Godlike powers, designing a flagella only requires a human genetic engineer, a gene splicing machine, time, and money.

That is what separates Cosmic ID from Biological ID and contrary to Ed's assertion that ID proponents must embrace both or neither they must do no such thing - CID and BID are separate claims.

Ericl,

I most strongly must disagree with your depiction of "Biblical astronomy" particularly what you claim as the Jewish version. You really ought to get a hold of yourself and carefully read Judah Landa's recent work titled IN THE BEGINNING OF, A NEW LOOK AT OLD WORDS. You will discover that what you think about the Bible could not be further from the truth.

Just an opinion, and we all seem laden with those, but perhaps we should focus our efforts, leaving our thining egos at home, on a serious search for the origins of humanity and maybe even, "why we are." Let's leave God out of this.
A little cooperation and, most needed, a little collaboration would go a long, long way.
We need a clear, unobstructed view. Is that too much to ask...to hope for?

COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED. A real monkey wrench is about to hit both sides in the ID vs Evolution debate and particularly religion is in for difficult times. For a wholly new interpretation of the teachings of Christ, contained within the first ever religious claim and proof that meets all the criteria of the most rigorous, evidential, testable scientific method, is published and circulating on the web. It is titled The Final Freedoms. An intellectual, religious and political bombshell!

It is described as a single Law and moral principle, offering its own proof, one in which the reality of God confirms and responds to an act of perfect faith, by a direct intervention into the natural world, providing a correction to human nature including a change in natural law [biology], consciousness and human ethical perception [proof of the soul], providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition!

So while proponents of ID may have got the God part right, if this development demonstrates itself to be what it claims, and the means exist to do so, all religious teaching, tradition and understanding of ID are wholly in error, while the proponents of evolution who have rightly used that conception to beat down the credibility of religious tradition, but who have also used it to deny the potential for God, are in for a very rude shock.

However improbable, the impossible now looks all too possible. No joke, no hoax and not spam. The implications defy the imagination!

Pre publication review copies of the manuscript, The Final Freedoms, are a free pdf download at www.energon.uklinux.net and http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com

Getting back to the top somewhere, the attack has to be ad hominem because there is no argument to dispute. The ID position is ignorant. Ignorance is not a point of view. Period. Some of the proponents (quoted) misuse information which is stupid rather than ignorant. This makes them evil in an essential manner I find indisputable.

I defer to Philosopher's technical expertise in correcting me. I beleive the ID argument is the result of emotional attachment to poor theology.