“Life is so unfair”
Bill Dembski is upset again about the way intelligent design is getting treated. Seems that somebody devoted a whole page in a new edition of an astronomy textbook that discussed the conflict between science and religion, and they mentioned intelligent design. Here are a few of the excerpts from the textbook
All the evidence in the world can never proove a scientific theory to be true beyond all doubt. To take a somewhat extreme case, you could accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution and still believe that God created Earth and the universe a mere 6,000 years ago by, for example, assuming that God put all the evidence for evolution in place. Because the evidence would look the same in this case as if evolution actually occured, science cannot say anything about the validity of such a belief.
[…]
Let’s start with creationism, the idea that the world was divinely created. In fact, we can’t even define this idea clearly enough to test it against the hallmarks of science. Many religions incorporate stories of creation, and these stories are often quite different from one another. […] Thus, while creationism is a perfectly valid religious belief, it does not qualify as a scientific theory.
The more recent idea of intelligent design holds that the complexity of life is too great to have arisen naturally, and therefore there must have been a “designer.” […] However, the assumption of an intelligent designer does not yield testable predications, because it posits that the designer is beyond our scientific comprehension; in essence, the idea of intelligent design means that there is no point in continuing to look for natural causes, because a supernatural process made the universe and life. This idea may or may not be true, but it is not science.
Sounds like a great and fair discussion of what science and religion are. I particularly like the way it handles the topic of religion fairly, without passing judgement.
Dembski’s upset though.
It appears now that ID will indeed be taught in the science curricula of this nation, only ID proponents won’t be doing the teaching. Life is so unfair.
Yep, life’s tough when you want to teach science by the standards of religion. Fortunately, a proper perspective on both can be really enriching.
No wonder you continuall say that ID isn’t science, you don’t even know what it is.
You say:
“The more recent idea of intelligent design holds that the complexity of life is too great to have arisen naturally, and therefore there must have been a “designer.”
That is not what ID says at all. Nowhere does ID, as a theory promoted by Behe, Dembski, DI, and others say that life could not arise naturally. Nor does it say that it must have a designer. ID says nothing at all about the designer, it merely says we can infer design itself…sure, that implies the need for a designer, but ID says nothing ot the designer only the design. It also makes no demand that the design have come about supernaturally. What is supernatural anyway? If God acts in the universe…since he created nature, would he not be a part of it? Even if you propose that God is OUTSIDE of nature, but he works in the physical natural world to do something, would that itself be natural? Supernatural is only used as a term to paint something as illogical (this is how it’s used by most.) The term itself doesn’t even make any real sense.
Your definition of ID is wrong. I would hold off attacking Demsbki until you actually read a mere definition of the theory itself. Continuing to attack ID without even taking the time to understand what it is is futile.
First of all, that’s a quote from the textbook. However, I fail to see how that’s a problem as a definition of intelligent design.
Yeah, you guys don’t say anything about the designer. (Therefore, it’s not religion, it’s science!) But you’re saying loud and clear that there is a designer. Problem is that while I agree completely with you on that point, I am strongly of the opinion that you just can’t make that claim scientifically, as ID tries to do.
Show me evidence. Show me predictions. Show me a theory. Until then, don’t come talking to me about ID being science. It simply isn’t, and trying to ram it down people’s throats is the most disingenuous of Christian behavior.