It just dawned on me that ID is dead.
Dembski is off all radar. He doesn’t even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.
Meyer’s book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.
Most of the static websites are moribund. UD has banned virtually all dissenters. The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds. The biologic institute inflates its “selected publications” with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.
Bio-Complexity is moribund.
Behe doesn’t seem to have much to say.
The big guys won’t come out to debate. The small ones mostly won’t leave heavily censored sites. Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as “news”.
And all the threads are about religion. Or tossing coins.
I don’t know why I hadn’t seen it before.
It’s dead.
Posted at “After the Bar Closes on Jan. 05 2014,16:37 by Febble (Elizabeth Liddle)
Does anyone feel like extending or disputing Lizzie’s analysis? What other burning topics are others bothered by? Climate change? Unchecked exploitation of finite resources? Habitat destruction and extinction? I guess many commenters were drawn to this blog by a shared scepticism over “Intelligent Design”. Do we have any other shared interests? Now that ID has declined into insignificance, has TSZ lost it’s raison d’être?
Chump change about obscure elements concepts.
I don’t know , or want to know, about isotopes. i know the word only from the simpsons baseball team competitor.
Your right its not about biological evolution. Geology is unrelated to biology I KEEP INSISTING TO EVOS.
Yeah! It’s not like it chronologically records it or anything…
Allan Miller,
I have argued with others about this. I always say the sediment loads would be the pressure upon the underlying layers of sediment. so the water would on top pressure the top sediment load and this squeeze those under it into stone.
That top layer everybody must account for.
Everyone must have pressure to turn sediment into stone.
Its not mere time passing. Its mechanism.
And if not, will everybody get a few bucks from you?
Certainly, it’s done fine with a tiny minority of the educated. It’s done even better with the uneducated.
Robert Byers,
Indeed it’s mechanism, but mechanism takes time. Erosion is a mechanism, but mountains cannot be ground down by it in seconds, nor can saturated sediment be lithified in a year.
In the case you argue, it’s not the water pressure that accounts for the lithification process. It is the overburden of sediment. But how do you get such sediment pressure, in a year? If you suspend sediment in water, then allow it to settle out, does the pressure on the underlying layers go up as it does so? No. You need an input of mass. Your flood has only a few ‘low hills’ to go at to find its sediment. By the time it has covered them, rain’s not doing any more erodin’.
And you fail to account for the time it takes to remove the water as part of lithification of mud. There is one hell of a lot of sediment-bound water to get rid of, and no short-term mechanism to do so.
You have imagined up many kilometers of sediment, washing off a low land – ie, there is far more sediment than can be accounted for by your geography or by the erosional process operating, whether rainfall or the swirling ‘fountains of the deep’. It is saturated, yet you imagine it lithifying in a year without any source for the increase in pressure. The immediate increase can only be the weight of a column of water, which is insufficient, and anyway many of these sediments were formed in shallow water. You need to grind up some big mountains, and fast!
Simple physics, which can be verified in a lab.
Robert Byers,
ID states that certain features of life are best explained by means of an intelligent cause.
Can you name one such biological feature and and describe that explanation based on an intelligent cause?
I have never found anyone who could. Therefore, so far, I must conclude ID is a lie, claiming to explain things it doesn’t. Yeah, there are lots of idiots who got suckered with this lie. It doesn’t mean ID make sense at all.
What would prove that ID is a consistent theory is that soemone can actually explain any biological feature with it.
You say:
I say ID is unrelated to biology. Show us the relation between ID and biology.
I don’t think you understand how this works. If you make an assertion, and that assertion is contradicted by evidence from some discipline, any discipline, then you have a problem. That evidence doesn’t go away if you choose to ignore it.
And I don’t know where you got this notion, but biologists and geologists are not as ‘segregated’ as you seem to think. If you were a paleontologist studying fossils from the Burgess Shale, then you would want to know a bit about the geology of the region, correct? You would not want your dates to be off by a factor of 50,000 or more, for example (as yours are).
One more thing: Despite you claim about “Chump change about obscure elements concepts”, here’s how obscure those concepts are:
So you don’t want to deal honestly with us. Like that wasn’t obvious.
Doesn’t it ever occur to you that you could learn rather than repeat utterly stupid and ignorant tripe? No one here cares how many times you “insist” something that’s obviously wrong to anyone with the knowledge necessary to deal with evolution and geology.
This will do every bit as much good as arguing with a rather thick plank. What actually matters is that “sophisticates” like those at the DI really do no better than does Robert, other than to realize that they need to sound slightly less committed to ignorance than Robert. He’s just the one who says he doesn’t need to learn anything to know better than those who have troubled to know about what they discuss. UDites and their ilk live that philosophy.
Glen Davidson
I suppose it’s Darwin’s fault that geology is tied to evolution. Most of his science training was in geology.
Now here’s an interesting question:
Why do you suppose most American high schools pass up the opportunity to teach geology, a subject that offers many job opportunities?
it doesn’t record it. its a hypothesis that it records it. no evidence.
if the geology claims were wrong it would redord that evolution coundn’t of happened.
The biology evidence being determined by geology evidence renders the biology evidence as not evidence from biological investigation.
A logical flaw has been around since old chuck.
Nope. The uneducated never heard of ID. ID is for educated people who can follow the arguments.
Ouch. I guess your right about the bucks! i got a big mouth!
So when do we get to see the arguments?
Allan Miller,
The sediment loads are the loads seen. They are placed on each other with the water pressure and instantly turned to stone. This is also where oil/gas comes from. Same mechanism.
The sediments are collected by surging water flow events. Great events. I would suggest a event being the sudden breaking up of the continents for example.
The pressure would be so great it would remove water from the lower loads easily.
The top must be explained be everyone.
All the creationist does is speed things up.
Therefore its all the same methodology except fast.
the slow idea was not witnessed but presumed.
ID is the answer for all biological reality.
That the complexity demands a intelligent construction and not chance.
The living life is not a elaborate chemical reaction. Uts very complicated. Its of god.
socle,
BINGO.YES i insist biological and geological studies are unrelated.
Geology is not evidence for biological conclusions even if its true conclusions.
Evolution is not BIO SCI proved or suggested by fossils .
Not at all. yet they all insist it is.
There you go with why wrong ideas stick around in science.
I don’t think he had SCIENCE training. He thought about numerous subjects.
Geology is not taught as its not important to kids. Its not about jobs.
Its not really a big subject anyways.
The kids don’t need a whole course in it.
Where do oil and natural gas come from?
I love this.
Alan Fox declares ID dead.
When did it die? can you be specific?
Was it last Thursday??
🙂
Shit, scientists are using intelligent design to do lots of stuff like designing medicines that piss of ebola and polio and other nasty bugs. They are using intelligent design to find life on Mars. They are using intelligent design to create the next revolution in computing.
What is there in the intelligence embedded in nature that is useless to us? Lots of room for the discovery of higher design elements in life. Lots.
I do admit ID is the much harder study though. I see evolution as the lazy-ass approach. Thats why most would rather stick with it instead of embarking on the fiendishly difficult task of understanding how information can be a separate entity that controls and manipulates matter. How it is imprinted on matter.
Yeah, go ahead and call us dead. Better we stay under your radar until the day you discover your radar doesnt work anymore.
Hail the cross-legged hare!
Your conflation of two unrelated concepts is noted.
And therefore everything else you’ve said is summarily dismissed.
Robert Byers,
Water, even under pressure, is insufficient to turn sediment to stone. It really is. Add even 5 miles to the ocean depth and the mud won’t turn to stone. Add a decent chunk of sediment overburden, and heat, and it might, but the sediment has to come from somewhere. There would need to be huge mountains of dust, basically. But you’ve already said the mountains were low.
The sudden breaking up of continents (by water!) grinds them up into fine particles? We’re talking of clays, here, and mudstones, sandstones, shales. No boulders. And if you’ve ever done sedimentation analysis, you’d know that particles sort by cross-section and mass. This sediment sorting would be very easy to detect – boulders at the bottom, finer sediments as we rise. Not what we find, at all.
.
I’m beginning to think you don’t know what you are talking about! 😉 Where does the water go? Does it just drain away? 😀 How quickly do you think water would go out of this volume of sediment if it could? Try it in a lab. Hit sediment with a huge pressure. See if it lithifies. Look for ways to get the water out, and scale this up to tens of k of sediment, see how long it takes.
The top is explained in the ‘slow’ account by erosion, outwash and deposition. Grain by grain. You can’t just ‘speed that up’ with 40 days’ rain. Especially since most aerial erosion would stop in a day or two, with your ‘low hills’. Can you see why?
That’s it? That’s all?
Tthe basic explanation of ID is that certain features of life are best explained by means of an intelligent cause. Can you choose a biological feature and EXPLAIN it with “complexity demands a intelligent construction”?
You say that’s the answer for all biological reality. Can I ask questions? I all ask two questions, and let’s see how meaningful and useful is the answer of ID:
Why do the whales have lungs?
Why do female spiders eat male spiders?
Do you think “complexity demands a intelligent construction” is a satisfying answer for both questions?
You say “ID is the answer to all biological reality” but really don’t give an aswer to anything. They say “certain features of life are best explained by means of an intelligent cause” but never describe that explanation. See the pattern?
What’s a god?
I would say that between the moment they declared “certain features of life are best expalined by means of an intelligent cause” and the moment everybody else noticed that they had no clue about what that “best explanation” could be.
Acknowledging reality is always easier thatn distorting it.
I can do something much worth. I can ask questions: can you provide an explanation for any biological feature with ID?
Steve,
Probably. You saying the more effort it takes to justify a concept, the more merit it has?
Well, that’s not what I said at all. Let me try a different strategy.
The earth is four and a half billion years old. I insist!
There. Are you persuaded now?
Those of us who are studying things like Ebola and polio and malaria are using lots of tools, but oddly, none of them have anything to do with ID. It’s all common descent, random variation and natural selection. Meanwhile, ID proponents, who have these concepts that supposedly describe the world better, aren’t doing a thing about infectious disease. Why do you suppose that is?
Yes, and isn’t it interesting that those designs don’t exhibit the limitations of unthinking evolution, while life does?
Plenty to learn from life, especially when we understand the evolutionary constraints operating in life’s development. Any design, by contrast, remains invisible to intelligent analysis.
I haven’t seen anything but simplistic platitudes and handwaving coming from ID. If that’s difficult for you, you’re certainly not ready for evolution with its statistical analyses of sorting and population changes.
Says one who evinces no knowledge of evolution.
It’s not difficult, it’s just wrong. But I suppose it gives people the illusion of dealing in deepities…
Glen Davidson
No, I didn’t. I quoted Dr Elizabeth Liddle. I disagree with Lizzie. I agree with Glen Davidson that it never really came to life.
See above. Only something that was previously alive can end up dead. “Intelligent Design” never lived.
See above.
Rubbish. People who are scientists are using their best abilities to tackle all sorts of problems. Claiming that is “Intelligent Design” is simple equivocation.
More equivocation. With no clear indication what you mean by “intelligent” or “design” you are merely indulging in wishful thinking.
Indeed. It requires huge imagination; what some have referred to as “virtuoso believing”.
Really? Compared to ID “research”, scientific research seems quite disciplined, organised, useful, productive, innovative, publishing new results on a daily basis.
Tell us something that has been brought into the scientific arena by “ID” scientists. I know of Mike Behe, Axe and Gauger, Kirk Durston, and there are other alleged candidates. Bring on the evidence. Better yet, we extend an invitation to all and every ID scientist who would like to present their case.
?
Why do you think your isotope chart is bad news for YECs? It looked like it gave C14 dates that you would think were inconceivable.
Allan Miller,
I understand your mud at the botoom of the sea point.
Again however all a creationist does is speed up the mechanism that geologists must themselves invoke to explain sediment turning into stone.
SO simply every load of a new segregated sediment collection is squeezed on top of a underlying load of sediment. Separated by hours or days in this deposition events. So quickly turning the sediment into stone. Then up in these flow events and one has the strata column.
Whence the water? Hm. Well possibly the pressure is creating such heat it forces evaporationish action.
The pressure is so great it created oil/gas in areas where holes existed allowing biology in.
Details!!
The great pressure would be fantastic great.
I don’t mean the continents breaking up into bits but rather the splitt creating the great pressure.
Erosion is not why the sediment turns to stone.
Everyone must invoke mechanism to turn sediment to stone. Everyone needs pressure from on top.
I see it as unlikely long time weight can do this just with the overlying sediment.
Instant powerful weight plus weight of the water could do this.
whales , this YEC says, were first land lovers. only went into the sea after the flood.
The spider chicks are a post fall adaptation.
These are surface details about biology. not the profound basic levels.
Its not complex at the surface.
The complexity of biology is real and ,under investigation,more real.
iD does a investigation, finds it irreducable at a level, and demonstrates a creator is behind what was already apparent to mankind.
Robert Byers,
Meaning you don’t understand it, because the mechanism is not amenable to ‘speeding up’ in the way you imagine. The additional weight required to compress underlying layers ultimately comes from the grinding down of landmasses, grain by grain or in solution. This adds mass to the water, and settles out, either directly or via the substance of sea organisms. It rains down steadily on the sea bed. Old mud is compressed by new mud from elsewhere. With all land under the flood, the ‘elsewhere’ of the ‘slow’ account is gone – you can’t just speed up something which has stopped happening.
Alternatively, if the pressure were due to overlying slipped rocks, we would see them capping the succession, and we don’t. And the resulting tsunamis would overwhelm any small floating zoo in the vicinity.
Well … yeah. Details that are completely at odds with the literalist account.
Care to put a figure on that? All I can see is the pressure arising from a five mile column of water, plus a bit of turbulence or landslip.
Not directly, no. But actually – as the source of the mass of new overlying sediment which crushes and thermally insulates that below, pressure and heat being vital ingredients – it IS. You have to add mass. Heavy rain isn’t enough.
It’s not static weight – it is steadily accumulating mass from the erosion of continents.
If you have a turbid suspension (such as from a brief 40-day rain event) all the mass you are going to get is already in the water. You don’t have any mechanism to add more, from the land (at this point, there is no land). Nor do you have a rapid means of water extraction from the sediment itself – it slowly percolates through cracks and faults, or is outgassed in volcanoes. You can’t just dry mud out with ‘instant powerful weight’.
So no, it couldn’t.
Robert Byers,
So there were whales on the ark. Small ones, presumably. And post-fall (ie corrupt) spiders, that God had presumably developed a soft spot for.
Steve said: “Shit, scientists are using intelligent design to do lots of stuff like designing medicines that piss of ebola and polio and other nasty bugs. They are using intelligent design to find life on Mars. They are using intelligent design to create the next revolution in computing.
What is there in the intelligence embedded in nature that is useless to us? Lots of room for the discovery of higher design elements in life. Lots.”
Steve, as has been pointed out, you are conflating unrelated concepts. No one questions that humans design things.
Now, let’s take a look at ‘ID’. The ‘ID’ that ID-creationists push. What are its mechanisms, tools, methods, claims, entailments, etc.? Well, ID-creationists claim that ‘design is the mechanism’, even though ‘design’ is not a ‘mechanism’ and ‘design’ is just a dishonest replacement for the words ‘create’ and ‘creation’. ID-creationists claim that they can measure/calculate what they call CSI-FSCI-dFSCI-FSCO/I but they only assert that CSI-FSCI-dFSCI-FSCO/I exists and they run away from requests to measure/calculate it in a variety of things in nature that they claim are ‘designed’ (created). ID-creationists also run away from requests to name some things in nature that are not ‘designed’ (created).
Some ID-creationists claim that CSI-FSCI-dFSCI-FSCO/I are exactly the same thing and that they are the same thing as FSC and/or SC, while others claim that FSCI and/or dFSCI and/or FSCO/I and/or IC and/or FSC and/or SC are subsets of CSI or are different in some other way. All (unless you can show otherwise) ID-creationists rely on Dembski and Behe as ‘the’ authorities when it comes to defining and measuring/calculating CSI and IC even though most or all ID-creationists obviously don’t understand and can’t explain either of them (especially CSI), and Dembski and Behe cannot support their claims about so-called CSI and IC. Claims in regard to CSI-FSCI-dFSCI-FSCO/I and IC have been refuted many times.
So, whats left for ID-creationists to rely on? Hmm, they claim that ‘function’ is ‘observed’ but they don’t explain or show how it is ‘observed’ by the things within the things that they claim are ‘designed’ (created). For example, how does DNA ‘observe’ mutations, or vice versa?
ID-creationists rely on their claims about ‘information’. They go back and forth and around and around on their definitions of ‘information’ but all of their claims about ‘information’ ultimately rely on ‘information with meaning’. Funny thing is, they claim that measuring/calculating CSI-FSCI-dFSCI-FSCO/I (complex specified information, functional specified complex information, digital functional specified complex information, functionally specific complex organization and associated information*) is done by measuring/calculating the number of bits of Shannon information, even though Shannon information is not about ‘meaning’. Measuring/calculating bits of Shannon information doesn’t support claims about ‘information with meaning’.
So what’s left in the arguments for ‘ID’: God-did-it. That’s what ‘ID’ actually started with and that’s all it has left.
*To dress it up even more, gordon mullings (kairosfocus), the pusher of “FSCO/I” says: “…we have choice contingency [i.e. art or design], giving rise to purposefully directed, functionally specific, complex Wicken wiring diagram organisation and associated information: FSCO/I.” Sounds fancy and sciency but where’s the beef?
And one more thing for now, Steve, even if there is so-called CSI-FSCI-dFSCI-FSCO/I-SC-FSC-IC in living things and/or anything else, it doesn’t support in any way the alleged existence of your chosen, so-called ‘God’ and associated fairy tales or any other so-called ‘God’ and associated fairy tales.
I’m assuming this chart? Maybe I missed something, but the dates don’t look unreasonable to me. The oldest would be a bit more than 40,000 years BP.
Despite attempts to categorize it otherwise, ID has been around in one form or another for over 2000 years and is significantly responsible, protestations notwithstanding, for the development of both the principles of modern science and most of its greatest achievements.
Anti-ID advocates have characterized it as “dead” for as long as I’ve been involved.
True, but irrelevant.
Firstly, what “has been around in one form or another for over 2000 years” is a philosophical argument, not a scientific explanation. (A moment’s reflection on the difference between a priori claims and a posteriori claims will indicate the difference.) The ID argument — indeed, the Argument from Design — is no invention of Paley’s, but can be found in the writings of the ancient Greek Stoics, and on one influential interpretation, even in Socrates himself. (Paley’s contribution, if I understand the history of design discourse correctly, was to focus on the concept of “contrivance”.)
Secondly, the argument from design was “significantly responsible, protestations notwithstanding, for the development of both the principles of modern science and most of its greatest achievements” only in the sense of providing a world-view that motivated empirical science and a hermeneutic for interpreting scientific results.
Thirdly, there’s absolutely no reason to think that the institutions and practices of empirical science are so thoroughly wedded to the deistic world-view as to be unintelligible or senseless without it. Despite the historical role that the argument from design played in motivating scientific inquiry, scientific inquiry does not logically or psychologically depend on the argument or the world-view it supports. Rather, we can understand the very practice of science itself in evolutionary terms. This is hardly a novel idea on my part — it was (to my way of thinking) established by John Dewey in the 1920s with Experience and Nature (1925) and The Quest for Certainty (1929).
Fourthly, what is “dead” — or, not so much dead as stillborn — is neither the argument from design as a philosophical argument, nor “design detection” in forensics and archeology, but rather intelligent design as an empirical explanation of biological phenomena superior to contemporary evolutionary theory. The chief problem with ID in this sense is that it has not been — and I think cannot be — rendered in a sufficiently precise form to be tested. It is too vague. It is untestable. And an untestable explanation is no scientific explanation at all — not even the promise of one.
KN said:
It’s originated as a philosophical argument, certainly. Later, it became the philosophical basis of modern science. Modern ID follows this trajectory as it attempts to formalize this philosophy into a more formal, scientific incarnation.
I suggest that as materialists made unwarranted, unsupported assertions about the “undirected” nature of what they were observing, and attempted to use the imprimatur of science to proselytize their worldview; advocates for ID simply responded in kind.
Unfortunately, you have no evidence to support this. “Scientific inquiry”, as we know it, indeed depends on several fundamental premises that are simply not available outside of the more general ID philosophy. While some technological success was had in other cultures with other worldviews, the foundation of modern science clearly lies in the bedrock of the assumption of a lawful universe, a comprehensible universe, an efficent and and elegant design, and the correspondence of human mind to that which it is examining.
To say that materialists can successfully employ “scientific inquiry” without the ID philosophical underpinnings is like saying that you don’t have to be able to build a car in order to drive it. Materialists are still driving the car that IDists built. There’s no historical reason to think they could have built cars themselves because they had no reason to imagine the world the same way IDists did.
Whether or not ID has offered a valid method of determining a designed phenomena, the modern ID dialogue has without a doubt punctured holes in the both the Darwinist and materialist narrative and revealed the political/ideological hegemony of the modern institution of science. Intelligence and teleology, even now, are quietly being smuggled into evolutionary and OOL papers even though authors are very careful with their wording and conclusions.
Now it’s just a case of waiting until the old guard dies off.
So they change from adapted to land animals to adapted to water animals? D you know how that is called? Evolution.
Can you explain haw that happened without evolution? Can you explain it with ID?
That doesn’t answer why they eat the males after mating. Do you know what “explain” means?
How about you come up with a list of these fundamental premises, and use it to start a new topic.
QM seems to falsify that.
The troublesome term here is “foundation.” “Foundation” can sometimes function as an epistemic term, in which case it means “the termination of the regress of justifications”. But other times it functions as a genealogical term, in which case it means “the cause or origin of a historically actual process or practice.” I’m quite familiar with the claim that the theistic/deistic world-view played a crucial role in the historical emergence of modern science, and from what I understand that claim is well-established by historians of science. (I first encountered this thesis while reading Theology and the Scientific Imagination by Amos Funkenstein. It’s a magnificent book that I cannot recommend highly enough, though I wouldn’t be surprised if some of its conclusions had been rejected by subsequent historians — such is the nature of history.)
Of course, the justification of any particular theory lies in its predictive success and consilience across multiple lines of evidence. Evolutionary theory became accepted by the scientific community, not because of some sinister atheist conspiracy, but because it explained the consilience between embryology, genetics, paleontology, biogeography, morphology, and so on. Intelligent design simply doesn’t do that, and certainly not better than evolutionary theory.
There’s the further question as to why the intelligibility of the practice of scientific inquiry as such does not depend on the world-view that shaped the formation of science in the early modern period. (It might be that a non-theistic conception of science entails rejecting the role of laws; Nancy Cartwright has argued this point in a couple of places, but “No God, No Laws” is as clear a statement of her views as any.)
The intelligibility of scientific practice requires — leaving aside scientific anti-realism, which I don’t find plausible — (a) that there are objects with causal powers, among which is (b) the cognitive agent, among whose powers is (1) the power to represent the objects in its environment, (2) the power to revise its representations in light of representational failures, and (3) the power of meta-representation, or representation of its representations.
Putting (2) and (3) together gives us (4) the ability to represent failures of representational adequacy and (5) the ability to experiment with more adequate representations. The real trick to scientific inquiry is our meta-cognitive ability to revise our representations of the world in light of the feedback from both the world and from each other. I see no reason at all why the emergence of that meta-cognitive ability requires theism/deism.
William J. Murray,
WJM said: ““Scientific inquiry”, as we know it, indeed depends on several fundamental premises that are simply not available outside of the more general ID philosophy.”
What a bunch of hooey. You obviously don’t know the difference between “Scientific inquiry” and philosophy, and in the case of god pushers ‘philosophy’ is just imagining and asserting ‘My chosen sky daddy did it/does it’.
When I’m studying nature my “worldview” is irrelevant, at least in the sense that my “worldview” has NO effect on what nature is or does. Nature doesn’t give a damn about anyone’s so-called “worldview”. You might as well be asserting that scientific inquiry depends on whether people like chocolate pudding or not.
Scientific inquiry depends on scientific methodology, which has been improved over time, and especially in recent times, by separating it from antiquated, useless, ridiculous, religious beliefs and other woo. Believing in sky daddies, angels, demons, miracles, and other woo is not scientific, and pushing or trying to push religious gibberish and/or other woo into science only hinders or stops scientific inquiry.
Yeah, I know, ‘BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE OLD TIME, RELIGIOUS SCIENTISTS AND THE SCIENTIFIC STUFF THEY FIGURED OUT?!?!’ Well, those old time, religious scientists were curious and that curiosity was what actually motivated them to figure things out (or try to). ‘BUT BUT BUT THEY WERE RELIGIOUS (or specifically CHRISTIAN!) AND WERE LOOKING FOR AND REVEALING GOD’S WORK!!!!’ They were religious because virtually everyone was religious then and they only revealed what could be found using scientific methodology, and they got a lot of things wrong. Scientific findings have been made by a variety of people with a variety of religious beliefs or none at all and ALL of their scientific findings were made by using scientific methodology.
We know that ID is booming as scientific enterprise, because ID Journal, Biocomplexity, published all those one research papers in the last year.
WJM knows that the modern ID movement is creationist propaganda. I get tired of them pretending to us that it is a fruitful scientific research program.
KN said:
The truth is always troublesome for those that need to deny it.
As to the argument from history, it is all very well as far as it goes, and that isn’t very far.
The assumption of design is obviously not necessary to modern science, and if it were then design detection would be ruled out scientifically, so no-one should complain if I correct the premises for accuracy.
So,
1. Science originated from theistic principles, ie the comprehensibility, regularity, and homogeneity of the universe.
2. Science still relies on all these principles.
3. Science has no philosophical justification without theism.
Well, that is something for the philosophers of science to worry about, but it doesn’t make ID science, nor does it prove the existence of any gods. Such conclusions would be non-sequiturs.
KN saidL
“Evolutionary theory” was around long before atheists/materialists co-opted it and began infusing their nihilistic religion into science. The only thing Darwinism added was give what seemed to be reasonable sanctuary for the devoutly anti-theist – at least for time – by appealing to non-scientific chance. Evolutionary theory depended as heavily on the foundations laid by ID, both as a methodology and as philosophical underpinning, as any other, including the observational facts that intelligently designed selective breeding offered.
Having little in the way of “unguided” evidence for his “theory”, other than just-so narratives Darwin even co-opted the ID evolutionary breeding programs as “evidence” for unguided evolution. Another case of the anti-IDists building on ID work, even out in the field.
The only thing that Darwin added was a sterile ideological postcript, not anything of scientific value, and the ideological appeal going forward about “random” mutations and “natural” selection has not only never yielded any scientific fruit, it’s waylaid evolutionary biology at every turn. and provided a seamlessly negative social/political narrative.
Evolutionary theory is a great, productive theory – but it is evolutionary theory rooted in an ID foundation that is productive, and will continue to be productive going forward, no the scientific wasteland of chance and random events as “explanations”.
FWIW, I think that theism is a lousy justification for the comprehensibility, regularity, and homogeneity of the universe, but that’s not my main concern here.
I am very amused that the one place Joe “ID is not anti-evolution and you have no evidence for blind watchmaker evolution” Gallien seems to have had influence is at UD.
Never mind that it concedes everything that matters. The DI won’t be taking up this tack, William.
Sure, every quantum event could be a god rolling dice. It could be countless things. It could be Q testing Jean Luc. It could be the pan dimensional mice sneezing. The problem with this approach from creationists is that it is irrelevant to what biology research is done.
,
Ignorant nonsense.