Category Creationism

ID vs. Methodological Naturalism

Andrew Rowell at ID In the UK
writes:

The basic articles of faith for a methodological naturalist go
something like this:

We have found excellent naturalistic explanations for many
phenomenon [sic] in nature.

Therefore

we believe every phenomenon in nature will have a naturalistic
explanation.

Therefore

we make it a strict rule that science is exclusively the study of
possible naturalistic explanations for what can be observed in the
universe.

Rowell has it exactly backward. Scientists don’t pledge a blood oath
to preserve the purity of science’s precious bodily naturalism.
Rather, if you’re trying to figure out how the world works,
methodological naturalism works, and nothing else even comes close.

Not heated argument.

Not listening to the most senior researcher present.

Not quoting Aristotle.

Not divine inspiration.

When scientists investigate natural phenomena, they look for natural
explanations because that’s the only method we as a species have come
up with that works worth a damn.

Read More

The Definitive ID FAQ

Best. Intelligent Design FAQ. Ever.

(Thanks to John “Bruce” Wilkins for the link.)

Not God, Just Someone With the Same Skill Set

There are at least two postings at Uncommon Descent (here and here), that argue that fine-tuning of cosmological constants is evidence of a Designer. Evidently the ID party line is that the Designer isn’t necessarily God, but is someone who can change the speed of light, the charge of the electron, and the fine structure constant throughout the universe.

But last year, after Bill Dembski appeared on The Daily Show’s Evolution, Schmevolution, he wrote:

Stewart & Co. had some lines that were not only funny but also memorable. The one that sticks out poked fun at ID: “We’re not saying that the designer is God, just someone with the same skill-set.”
[…]
Although the line is funny, it is not accurate.

So please tell us, Bill: how is Stewart’s line inaccurate?

ID Hysterics

Over at Uncommon Descent, Bill Dembski quotes an unnamed colleague as saying:

However, let us not lose sight of the fact that a scientific theory that requires a judge to enforce its teaching cannot be said to be in good INTELLECTUAL health.

Oh, dear. That blew out my industrial-capacity, lead-shielded, firewalled, unplugged irony-meter. Damn. Those things ain’t cheap, you know?

ID Creationists love to compare ID to the Big Bang and to plate tectonics. Now, which of the three made their way into the classroom after the scientific community concluded that they were good ideas, and which one is being pushed through school boards and the courts? Which one “cannot be said to be in good INTELLECTUAL health”?

By proclaiming it illegal to “disparage or denigrate” neo-Darwinism, Judge Jones adopted the principle of the Inquisition, and in so doing rendered both himself and that state-enforced theory ridiculous.

Ooh, the Inquisition! What a deft way to sidestep Godwin’s Law. But let’s reread what Judge Jones actually wrote in his decision:

we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants […] from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.

(emphasis mine) For the reading-comprehension-impaired, this means that Judge Jones didn’t forbid dissing evolution, but rather forbade requiring teachers to do so. Got that? Good.

Taking a longer view, I think Dover will come eventually to be be seen as a moral victory, in the same way that Galileo’s condemnation is now viewed as a moral victory.

Ah, yes. The “they laughed at Galileo” argument. Unfortunately, as Robert Park put it, “to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.”

Hey, ID guys, feel free to begin demonstrating that you’re right any time you like.

Monty Dembski’s Life of Brian

On Jan. 30, 2006, DaveScot
wrote
in Uncommon Descent:

I will remind everyone again – please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor.

What we are fighting is the idea that the modification was unguided. ID can fight that without ever leaving the battleground of plain scientific conclusions. If we try to argue against anything else we’re are going to lose. Plain and simple.

In the comments, he adds:

Creation science already lost. Didn’t you get the memo?

Pretty strong words, and certainly a welcome change of direction. But
first, here’s what this posting (and the subsequent discussion in the
comments)
made me think of:

Read More

ID and Suboptimal Design

William Dembski has put up a paper entitled Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design, which purports to counter the argument from suboptimal design (e.g., “Why would Godan intelligent designer wire human retinas backward, when he had done a better job with octopodes?” or “Why is the panda’s thumb such a kludge? Why not use the same thumb design as in humans?”). His conclusion:

This is a fallen world. The good that God initially intended is no longer fully in evidence. Much has been perverted. Dysteleology, the perversion of design in nature, is a reality. It is evident all around us.

I’ve added a section about this to the notes on the Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions About Intelligent Design.

(Thanks to Uncommon Descent for the pointer.)

Utah Creationism Bill

The Utah Daily Herald has a perspicacious editorial on Utah’s anti-evolution bill.

While the bill does not mention “intelligent design,” “divine design” or any other euphemism for creationism by name, the implications are clear: A number of legislators want to push religion into the public schools by force of law.

We could end the discussion right here and say that S.B. 96 is nothing but unenforceable nonsense, since the public schools couldn’t discuss an actual theory of the origins of life if they wanted to. None seem to exist.[…]

Only Utah’s Legislature could come up with such an Aristotelian conundrum. We invite our senators to elaborate on any of the genuine “theories” to which this bill refers. The Herald will provide space on this page for the effort. Please list in detail the scientific observations and measurements that support any, or all, of the theories to which your bill makes reference. We’re ready to be enlightened.

Thanks to Uncommon Descent (now under new management!) for the link.

Orson Scott Card vs. the Brain Eater

In case there was still any lingering doubt about whether Orson Scott Card has fallen prey to the brain eater, he is now . PZ Mhriearrr goes on a tear.

Read More

Dembski Admits Motives

It’s official: Uncommon Descent is an IDC circle jerk:

The deal with this blog, since I’ve given it over to my friends, is to build community and “feel the love.” Unfortunately, that requires recalcitrant elements to be purged. That’s a price I’m willing to pay.

Comment by William Dembski — January 10, 2006

Tom Toles on ID

Tom Toles’s Dec. 23, 2005 cartoon:

The tagline “Maybe a new name…” at the bottom is perfect, because that’s exactly what Bill Dembski was advocating on his weblog:

I therefore offer the following proposal if ID gets outlawed from our public schools: retitle it Intelligent Evolution (IE).

I wrote about this earlier, but I’m glad the creationists’ tactics have entered the public consciousness enough that a mainstream cartoonist like Toles figures his readers will get it.