768 thoughts on “I lost my faith in ID”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
You must be logged in to post a comment.
colwed does not want to acknowledge that Behe’s scientific output is now far outpaced by his media appearances and books. And he’s the best they have, and he’s given up on the science so…..
At UD someone is asking for a worked example of the very thing that colewd is pretending exists:
KF gives an excuse different from yours:
So it’s either a discussion point or it’s not. If it’s not then please feel free to demonstrate the science. If it’s a thought experement then just say as much.
Just stop the BS.
OMagain,
So what?
So you’re blindly following a discredited charlatan who knows his ID-Creationist bullshit won’t come anywhere close to passing scientific muster.
We all noticed you couldn’t present Behe’s “argument” in your own words. Very telling there Bill.
Adapa,
You don’t like Trump either do you 🙂
I don’t like any compulsive liars. Sadly that includes virtually everyone working for the Discovery Institute pushing the pseudoscience of ID-Creationism. You on the other hand seem to like being lied to as long as the liars are telling you what you want to hear.
Biologists are agents of Satan, so duh.
Adapa,
I simply don’t have an Ideology (political theory) I am married to. Why do you worry about what pseudo science the Discovery Institute pushes?
Everyone makes good and bad arguments.
Allan Miller,
Except for Behe who is going to the” good place” 🙂
Adapa,
Curiously, both Trumpistas and creationists fall for the same vague “Well, people are saying…”; they confuse unsourced rumors with actual data.
Not necessarily …
Because by pushing pseudoscience they lower the science literacy level of the whole country. Then we get scientifically illiterate morons who think AGW is a Chinese hoax, don’t understand the importance of vaccines, won’t wear a mask during a pandemic but think drinking bleach is a good idea, and vote based not on scientific knowledge but on religious tribalism. Scientific willful ignorance like yours hurts everyone Bill, either directly or indirectly.
Adapa,
You don’t think people who exaggerate the explanatory power of evolutionary theory contribute to scientific literacy such as our media? ID as a comparative model does not hurt someones literacy.
Can you give some specific examples of that happening?
As you point out, a sizable percentage of the population believe in some sort of divine guidance. So these exaggerations don’t seem to be doing too much harm to the believers overall numbers.
But, some examples?
What everyone is trying to get you to acknowledge is merely that you can’t actually do that model comparison. Just saying a mind did it is not a model that can be usefully compared to, well, anything.
So, presumably you want ID taught at University then, in order to be properly at the table side by side with evolution.
What will you actually fill the classes with if ‘a mind did it’ is literally, and it literally is, all you have? WIll you reach for, say, the Bible?
They do not exaggerate the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. That power is truly extraordinary. The media does make mistakes. Some scientists make mistakes and exaggerate on the merits of their own research. That contributes to science illiteracy because by exaggerating they open the door for frauds like the IDiots.
ID is not even a model. It’s deceptive apologetics trying very hard to sound “sciency”. They build straw-man after straw-man of the scientific views. Oftentimes in convoluted ways. They cherry-pick, they use poor philosophical grounds, etc. They deform science so much that they contribute to science illiteracy in pernicious ways. In profound ways. It takes much more work to fix those pernicious misunderstandings than to correct mistakes and exaggerations by actual scientists.
See Bill, that’s exactly the kind of scientific willful ignorance I fight against.
Entropy,
We have common ground here. ID as a social advocacy group would not be around if the claims of evolution were kept in line with empirically testable science. If ID had just come out as a scientific theory it would be just a niche idea people explore like SETI.
ID-Creationism is a religiously motivated political movement pushed by the RW Christian think-tank Discovery Institute. It has absolutely nothing to do with any science. The DI counts on willfully ignorant knobs like you to be their clueless Warriors For Jesus and you certainly don’t disappoint.
Actually the existence of the present version of ID has nothing to do with evolution, it’s existence is a result of US courts’ rulings that creationism violates the establishment clause. Creationism is viewed as religious. ID was an attempt to use subterfuge to get around the legal prohibition . Dover and the lack of legal appeal of the ruling exposed that motivation.
I am surprised anyone following the teachings of Jesus would be ambivalent about Trump.
No we don’t.
The claims are kept in line with empirical evidence. Again, we don’t have common ground. ID is not a social advocacy group, it’s barely disguised apologetics. It would still be around, whether scientists made mistakes or not.
That’s what they pretend, but it’s just apologetics, not science.
Entropy,
I offered you an olive branch and you decided to cut it off. Oh well I tried 🙂
100% agreement.
If someone says, “I don’t accept evolutionary theory as an explanation of past and present biodiversity because it conflicts with my metaphysical beliefs,” that’s one thing.
It’s unfortunate, and we can try to persuade them otherwise, but that’s a philosophical criticism, not an empirical one.
However, if someone says, “I can’t accept evolutionary theory as an explanation of past and present biodiversity because I have an alternative model which is vastly superior, except that I can’t tell you what it is or how it works”, then they are making an empirical claim that is transparently self-serving bullshit.
And it’s even worse when everyone knows that the reason why they want their so-called “alternative model” to be true is that they think it is consistent with their metaphysics, whereas (they think) evolutionary theory is not.
The only olive branch to be found here is a distinction between science and metaphysics. Trying to pass off barely concealed pseudoscience as if it it’s a legitimate rival to a scientific theory is unacceptable to anyone who understands good reasoning and cares about it.
Sorry Bill, but you mistook poison oak for an olive tree.
Kantian Naturalist,
What I am observing is herd mentality. You guys are labeling before you understand what’s going on. No one here can describe the alternative model because they believe it is solely driven by an ideology they disagree with. If you start to argue against a model for ideological reasons before you understand it, you will never understand it.
A few months back you said the alternative to the design hypothesis was chaos theory. I thought that was an interesting comment. Do you still think this is the case?
It’s rather interesting to me that you assume we haven’t already examined it carefully and found it wanting. Do you think this is our first rodeo? Do you think we haven’t all read Darwin’s Black Box and Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology when they were published over twenty years ago? It’s been nineteen years since “The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance” and the epistemic situation hasn’t changed. We’ve been arguing with creationists since before design theory was invented.
The people who advocate for intelligent design do raise an important question: how can we explain the emergence of self-organizing structures? Clearly evolutionary theory cannot do so, since evolutionary theory presupposes that there are self-organizing structures and thus cannot account for them. But design theory is a complete non-starter as far as giving us testable answers to that question, whereas complexity theory is at least a good start.
Kantian Naturalist,
I think you are the closest to understanding it.
Think about how we test any big theory like General Relativity. We test if the mechanism is repeatably capable of doing what we hypothesize it is doing. In the case of GR the initial test was using the sun as part of the test bed. From this a model was validated that could then make all sorts of predictions about the cosmos.
In the case of ID we are the test beds. We are capable of arranging parts for a purpose.
The prediction of the model is as we go deeper and deeper into scientific discovery we are going to see evidence of a mind being behind the design of the universe. Science’s job is to move toward this evidence step by step. What we may have discovered in biology is direct evidence of design. Parts arranged for a purpose with turtles all the way down. I am also seeing the beginning of this type of evidence in physics with the latest quantum gravity theories.
Jesus H Christ.
You can’t use ‘may’ in that way.
I mean, have you ever really looked at your hand, I mean really really looked…..
The fact we are capable of designing stuff is not evidence that we ourselves are designed, unless one accepts all sort of fallacious reasoning (including all the flaws in the argument from analogy on which the whole con game depends).
It looks like evidence if one’s subjective priors lead one to see it as evidence. Without those filters, it doesn’t look like evidence at all. That’s why I said above that you can’t appeal to purposive structures in cells as evidence of design — it’s only if one first believes in design to begin with that these structures will look like purposive arrangements at all.
In other words, what you’re appealing to as a theory-neutral evidence base that could be used to adjudicate between competing theories is not that at all: if one doesn’t already begin with design as an assumption, then one will not see life as if it were designed. Without the design assumption, one will simply not be moved by the analogy between organisms and artifacts.
Kantian Naturalist,
We’re not simply arguing were testing a mechanism. .
This is not the argument. You are leaving out detail which turns your argument into a straw-man. Behe’s debate with Swamidass 4 min to 25 min is the best explanation I have heard yet.
How can it not be evidence? Its evidence of something when you look at the inner working of the cell. Now you try and hypothesize the origin. If you have ruled out God as Richard Dawkins has then I agree it cannot look like evidence of design.
I have seen Agnostics and Atheists turn on this argument when it is presented carefully and they engage. So I think it depends on the person. Your point is very useful because I agree priors definitely play a role. Regardless of where you land on this I appreciate your thoughtful challenges.
Uh, do you read before posting?
Look, you are positing (if I or anyone else is reading you right) that the design is inherent in the object itself and NOT in the subjective perception of the object. And to illustrate this, you somehow argue that this objective quality of the object depends entirely on the religious position of the observer!
Religious priors are required in order to see divine design. Don’t you ever notice that when a design agent is not assumed, what people focus on is the process by which any object comes to be – and none of those people see any sense even looking for a magical explanation. Especially when a mechanism and process have been identified and tested for centuries, and non-religious understandings have developed which are fully explanatory. Religion muddies and misdirects, but has never clarified any understanding. When religion is presumed a priori no amount of detailed examination alters these priors at all.
But just for grins, why don’t you propose features of people which would indicate that we are NOT designed. What would you look for, and what might convince you?
colewd,
You’re openly admitting, as those quotes argue, that the “design inference” is entirely circular reasoning.
Because
is not evidence.
Entropy,
Bill
This is evidence against the circular reasoning claim. The evidence is changing their belief.
Flint,
Behe offers an objective criteria that you guys have not challenged at all with any decent argument. I have posted the YouTube of his argument at least 3 times.
I suspect BS. Still, it wouldn’t matter if it changed everybody’s mind. It’s still circular reasoning. Check what you quoted carefully. It plainly says: “it’s purposive if you think it’s purposive, therefore it’s designed.” In other words, “if you think it’s designed, then you can conclude that it’s designed.” Couldn’t be any more circular than that. If that fooled the entire planet, it would still be circular.
Oh, and that’s an argument from authority (properly called “argument from false authority”). It doesn’t address the problems of the argument, but focuses instead on whether some supposed “authority” bought into it.
Entropy,
It’s not circular if the conclusion is from evidence and I cannot find one example or claim of Behe’s which in not based on evidence meeting his design criteria. A purposeful arrangement of parts. All his examples are of functional biology with multiple purposes.
You don’t like the theory, I get it. I think biology needs it badly as a tool to sanitize hypothesis against and avoid the problems that come with universal common descent being used as a working hypothesis.
In what sense was Dennis Venema ever an ID proponent?
He was never on the usenet groups, or ARN, as far as I can recall.
Richardthughes, did you lose your faith in ID, and why?
Your quotes say it’s circular. Openly. Shamelessly, circular. Stop telling me it’s not circular, read them and reason!
It’s circular to claim that you need to have the subjective opinion that something has “purposiveness” (in other words, you have to believe it’s designed!!!), for it to count as evidence. Come on Bill, you can do better than this.
Again, you don’t know if that’s a purposeful arrangement of parts, you <em.assume that they’re a purposeful arrangement of parts. In other words, you assume your conclusion: that’s the definition of circular reasoning.
It’s not about liking or disliking, it’s about being honest with ourselves. There’s no need for fantasies in order to correct mistakes. If UCD has problems they will be found by scientists with evidence and tests showing that multiple life origins explain what today UCD explains, only better. Fantasies, religious or otherwise, will remain in the realm where they belong though.
There’s your epic failure again Bill. No one has ever shown anything in biological life has a purposeful arrangement of parts. Once again you’re relying on your blatantly dishonest equivocation over the meaning of the word “purpose”. Does it make Jesus proud you to have to be so dishonest to try and support your religious beliefs?
He says he was a Creationist (YEC) which is the same thing. He switched to theistic evolution when confronted with comparing human and chimp genomes as a post-doc.
ID is not around. It is one of those tiny little American things that are best kept in USA, like guns advocacy, glorification of the constitution and faith in the messianic role of USA in the world. By the way, ID is much smaller than all those other things, but still a US-specific thing, even though some parts of Canada and a few Australians may have contracted the disease.
There really isn’t any alternative to evolutionary biology other than saying that the issue of speciation has not been solved, as a purely physicalistic mechanism cannot be the answer. Not much of a positive alternative, but it is still a bit better than ID which simply does not exist in the non-English-speaking world.
Well, why don’t you do that then?
One can sadly be an “ID proponent” without being on the usenet groups or ARN or Uncommon Desent. It still flourishes through homeschooling where it is pushed much more heavily than in public schools or universities.
Chp. 4 of Venema’s 2017 book co-authored with McKnight is titled: “What about Intelligent Design?” He says he taught ID theory at TWU for a couple of years as a recent PhD graduate from my alma mater, before “de-converting” to reject ID theory and embrace some kind of biologistic evangelical no-Adam & Eve Christianity.
He has also said:
That’s not ID theory from the Discovery Institute. It’s rather simply a classical “argument from/to Design” with theistic meaning, not scientific meaning.
This.
Note: 1) Bill Cole is American. 2) He thinks ID theory is “still around” and “BIG”. 3) It appears to be impossible ideologically for him to contemplate the limits of ID theory, just like for many Americans, it’s not possible for them to not think of themselves as “leaders of the free world.” (Not anymore nostalgia.)
So what do nice people do when confronted with such loud, repetitive, relentless attempts at ideological persuasion, by people who come across both as incompetent and untrustworthy, even for religious people who gave the Discovery Institute the benefit of the doubt to start with? They are convinced to either ignore or avoid the IDM & their theory/ideology.
Let them grind this kindergarten-level double-talking “theory” that is now very “precious” to them (Gollum) into the dirt without interference. This move has freed IDists to avoid engaging with the most difficult critics for them (anti-IDism evangelical Christians in particular, but any Christians, Muslims, Jews or Baha’is in general). Instead, they focus on a target opponent: agnostics, atheists, & anti-religious evolutionists (which they backwardly & often mistakably call “Darwinists”).
The personality of most IDists that I’ve met reminds me of what is now a running joke globally regarding American culture, education and “thinking” quality. It’s the one of that round-faced American teenager who exits the examination hall with a BIG smile on their face, thinking they did “very well” on the exam, that they “aced” it. Yet history knows the actual results are much different from the “confidence” that the teen has in themselves, simply out of a combination of pride and ignorance & being taught to think that way about themselves. Proud ignorance is horrible to have to deal with in such cases as this one involving life and human origins, and processes of change over time; broadly speaking, a collaborative science, philosophy, theology conversation.
That seems to be why Charles Thaxton thought it was such a great idea to promote the idea of “Intelligent Design” in the first place. He’s not such a “complex thinker” it seems from the discussion we had. A mechanical thinker, yes, perhaps quite a good one. But he is clearly not competent in the history, philosophy and sociology of science, which is most needed, and what has now led the Discovery Institute unwisely and with great temptation into a cul-de-sac of “largely only political power” relevance in the “science” conversation involving informatics, biology, geology, cosmology, etc. It’s partisan political science, not post-evolutionary science that the Discovery Institute now serves up on a daily basis through it’s para-church propaganda wings. The Discovery Institute, with all due respect to the many beautiful and even “great” things that have been produced there, is as “ugly Americanized” (that too can be marketed!) of an institution as one can get.
Yet guess what? They really nice, kind, gentle Staff, and overall “good” religion-oriented people at the Discovery Institute. They’ve just swallowed an ideology of their own creation and are so over-confident (Behe, Dembski, Axe, Egnor, Gauger, Wells, Witt, Nelson, Klinghon, O’Leary, Holloway, Cordova, et al.) in it that they would sacrifice “destroying the world” in order to promote it. This of course provides the salary for John G. West & Stephen C. Meyer, a most important issue here to consider, since without their demagoguery, the DI collapses, from donations given as apologetics requests to “defend [the return of the] God [hypothesis]” using strictly natural science (Meyer did elementary work in it before turning to radical, distorting, activistic “history and philosophy of science”, & Dembski’s dad was a biologist), by under-educated anti-intellectual evangelical Christians in the process.
Be a Movie Producer, Mung! The Discovery Institute is now inviting you to become famous (read: donate to their cause) promoting IDism. = {
Clarification:
there = USA (not DI)
Erik,
Are you aware of ID movements in Poland and Brazil?
Science Mag:
Entropy,
I gave you a test for circularity. Can you get to the claim through evidence. Yes you can and so much that the evidence can persuade people with non theistic backgrounds.
If the argument was circular you would not be worried about it.
Truly circular arguments are not hard to call out like the argument that Dawkins makes for atheism. “God is just too big a concept”. This one gets a twofer circularity and incredulity.
This is why I think the design argument is powerful. It can only be defeated with logical fallacies or falsely accusing it of logical fallacies. As Behe said in the debate with Swamidass for the last 25 years no one has laid a glove on the argument.
Gregory,
Let’s step aside from the advocacy issue of the DI. As a scientific argument what do you see are the problems with ID?