Joe Barta wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


There are problems with ID as currently proposed, but you haven't
nailed a single one of them.

Maybe I missed them, but could you briefly explain these problems?

Joe Barta


Steps out of the Rhetorical Goo to get back On-Topic to the Off-Topic Topic

Honesty compels me to stipulate that I am *not* an ID expert. I've done
some reading in the area and have a POV, but this does not mean I know
enough about it to speak authoritatively. So ... what follows is my
*opinion* about its problems. Generally speaking, the problems have to
do with their *method* (which is muddy) rather than their *content*
(which needs further investigation):


1) ID makes proposals both in the Philosophy Of Science and the *practice*
of Science. All well and good, but ...

2) It does not do a good job of separating the two. For example,
Behe speaks on "irreducable complexity which ought to be purely a
question of Science as we understand it. But, he then jumps to the
conclusion that this implies a Designer. The first claim falls into the
*practice* of Science, the second into the *metaphysics* of Science.
Conflating these two areas muddies the waters and does a disservice
to both disciplines. ID needs to pursue its claims in both courts
separately and clearly.

3) The existing orthodox scientific community resists ID. There are
lots of very good historical reasons for them to be suspicious.
They demand that ID ahere to the time proven methodology of the
Scientific Method. To the extent that there is evidenciary support
for ID's claims, its proponents ought to be meeting the scientific
community on *its* terms. That is, writing papers that contain
falsifiable hypotheses and having them judged in the court of peer
review. This is important even if that court is biased and married
to its own foreordained conclusions because ID needs to show more
*data* if it is to be taken seriously. Assume for a moment that ID
had a valid point - even so, it takes years for sea changes like
this to be embraced by the larger Scientific community. ID
proponents seem reluctant to do this, either because they have
no evidenciary support yet or they are worried that they will not
be taken seriously. ID - if true - would rock the foundations
of modern Science. Those who subscribe to it need to be willing to
plead their case an inch at a time perhaps for years. They seem
hesitant to do so.

4) The philosophical component of ID - that the matter/material/naturalist
view of Science is fundamentally inadequate - is the cornerstone of
everything they do. But again, their conflation of the practice of
Science with its philosophy makes this point less clear than it should
be. This single point is probably more imporant than all the "Science"
they could ever bring to the table. They need to do a much better job
of describing the limits of the existing philosophy of Science
*AND* then showing why their proposal fills the void. Although I am not
an IDer, I am most sympathetic to their argument here - I've thought
for years that Science was unnecessarily blinding itself by avoiding
metaphysics - but their arguments need more crispness, forcefulness,
and thus exposure. (Just for the record, the harmonization of
Epistemology and Metaphysics has troubled philosophers for
centuries. It's a really hard problem, but that doesn't mean
it ought not to be constantly attempted.)

5) The majority of IDers I've read are devout Theists in some particular
religious tradition. I am too, and have no problem with this.
HOWEVER, they need to realize that this means existing orthodox
Science will be eternally (!) suspicious that they are really just
literal Creationists in drag. (You've seen a lot of this in this
very thread.) They need to be *much* clearer in saying that ID
is about *authorship* first and foremost, not *mechanism*. In
particular, macro-evolution's validity has nothing to do whatsoever
with ID's merits one way or the other. An Author/God that can
create a Universe in one "breath" can easily use evolutionary
mechanisms to do so (or not). There are lots of valid criticisms
to be made about macro-evolution, but ID needs to separate itself
from this discussion until & unless it has demonstrated a case for
its starting propositions. Many otherwise honorable and honest
Scientists are put off when the see ID being used as a proxy to
attack macro-evolutionary theory. I personally have a number of
problems with that theory myself, but understand that these have
nothing to do with the question of Authorship. IOW, theory *must*
precede *practice* and they are trying to do both simultaneously.
I applaud their vigor, but it undermines clarity and makes their
case hard to read. (I have a complementary complaint about
the Scientific establishment that is way too quick - IMO -
to elevate relatively weaker inductive theories like
macro-evolution to the same level of significance as theories
that can actually be tested by experimental methods. This
is why I keep saying that there is a lot more "Faith" in
certain corners of Science than its practicioners like to
acknowledge.)

Sidebar: When I have this conversation with my fellow Theists,
particularly those in the school of so-called "literal innerant"
Biblican interpretation, I have a parallel beef with them.
The authority of the Biblical literature does not hinge on
literalism. No innerantist actually takes every single
Biblican passage literally. They acknowledge that there are
vast passages of the text - e.g., The poetry of the Old Testament -
that is metaphorical and symbolic. They miss the point that
the Gensis account is about *Authorship* _not_ *Mechanism*.
It is entirely possible to ascribe authority to the Genesis
account without insisting that it is a literal description of
the timeline. Yet, for some reason, literal interpretation of
Genesis has become a litmus test for a significant portion of
the Theist community much like evolution has become the litmus
test for mainstream Science. In my view, both communities are
missing the point by a mile. The theory of Authorship has nothing
whatsoever to do with its mechanisms. Both communities thus miss
the opportunity to see where they have important common ground.
For instance, the Big Bang theory is widely believed to be a
fairly reasonable explanation for the mechanics of the first
femto-seconds of the birth of the Universe. But once you get away
from the Science v. Creation argument (which is bogus anyway)
you begin to see that the Big Bang "Science" is very much parallel
and complementary to the idea that God breathed the Universe
into existence in a "moment".

6) Political Note: Many IDers are falling into the trap of
thinking that they need to fight their fight in the educational
system we have today. They don't. The fundamental problem here
is that education is *public*. In Western democracies that means
such education is - by intent - entirely secular. Any hint of
religiosity will be seen as an assault on the so-called "separation
of Church & State" (wrongly, in my opinon, at least sometimes).
Until they have a compelling case as to why their views really
are "Science", they are going to continue to lose battles like the
recent one in the PA courts. The *real* fight they ought to be
undertaking is to show that "secularism" is itself a religion no
different than any other and that "public" schools thus cannot
avoid making a religious choice. Once they establish this, they
can join with many of us who want to see "public" education
abolished. It is an assault on Liberty and the choice of Free
People. Education is the responsibility of parents, not government.
By playing the game of the political collectivists who want the
government to be the sole/primary instrument of educating the young,
IDers miss the opportunity to fix the primary/foundational problem.


There are some brilliant people writing in the ID community. Some of
their philosophers are first-rate thinkers. (I am not competent to judge
their scientists' particular claims.) It's a shame that they are not
heard better and more loudly. But *they* are the ones proposing a very
big sea change in Science. It is thus incumbent on *them* to make their
case compellingly.

I've had the great fortune to be educated by both Scientists and
Theologians. It is a great tragedy that they cannot find more common
ground. As a convinced Theist, I find it depressing that they seem not
to be able to acknowledge that all Truth - Scientific, Theological &
Moral - springs from a common Author.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/