Acknowledging design in biological systems would certainly be the death knell for Darwinism, at least for the grand narrative. If “apparent” design in living systems were established to be actual design, the materialist edifice would certainly suffer damage, if not be destroyed outright.

For certain individuals, the motivation behind their dedication to science would be plucked. William Provine, in the movie “Expelled” said something to the effect that science would be boring if not for the prospect of an ultimate material cause (I don’t have the exact quote, but that about sums it up). I can’t say I identify with the notion that science is interesting only if it can ‘disprove’ God, or prove that He is unnecessary. Existence is pointless, even hopeless, without Him.

I agree with your comments on stifling dissent. Elitism, which appears rampant among materialists, is in my estimation the sandy foundation upon which the west’s modern sense of liberty is built.

Climate Gate may indeed wake many up, but so far it’s been mainly ignored by the broadcast networks, which is inexcusable, and an indicator of our present condition.

Excellent summation. One has to wonder how a formerly committed materialist like Antony Flew changed his mind on materialism’s ability to account for the assumed development of complex systems apart from plan or purpose.

Any other known designed complex system that we encounter in our daily lives, such as computers, automobiles, telephones, etc. leave no question as to their purposeful development through planning and manufacture. Why do we make a strict exception with biological complex systems? Why do we ignore the impossibility of their development through gradual processes of selection? Simply because when we do so, we are not committed to rational processes of thought which allow for all avenues of inquiry, but to a priori metaphysical assumptions as to the nature of biology, which dictate how we proceed with our attempts to understand it.

I continue to be mystified by the scientific establishment’s attempt to stifle debate about origins apart from the current materialistic metaphysical assumptions, which define it. Stifling thought does not lead to scientific understanding no matter how you look at it. The strict materialists are close-minded, and as such, their longevity in the sphere of rational inquiry (assuming that we continue to live in a free society where free-thought is encouraged) will be short-lived.

I personally believe that unchecked materialism is the foundation stone of an eventual police state, or world-wide government, which stifles dissent; and that’s no exaggeration. If we don’t see it coming it’s because we remain short-sighted, and because it takes many generations of time to effectively unravel the theistic moral foundations of a society. But all it will take is the continued commitment of political leaders, and of an unsuspecting, entertainment-driven and disinterested populace to the whims of the materialistic scientific establishment that we see ongoing in Western culture. Perhaps ClimateGate will wake us up.

zeroseven,

I don’t think it’s a matter of simply ‘saying something is designed.’

When we consider design as a possible explanation for phenomena or entities for which natural law can provide no explanation, there is an epistemological benefit.

Look at it this way. There are two logically possible sets of explanations for the presence of life. It was caused by an intelligent agent, or it wasn’t — and thereby must be explicable strictly in terms of natural laws. This provides two differing ways of considering reality in regards to scientific investigation:

1) All life can be explained by chance acting in accordance with natural laws, such as with the formation of river rocks — roundish stones for which geophysics, hydrodynamics, gravity, and random collisions explain their shape and distribution.

2) All life can be explained by design, and/or chance acting in accordance with natural laws.

In case number 1, we have strictly material causes. In case number 2, we have design in addition to material causes. Case 1 rules out a priori one of the logical possibilities for the existence of life. Case 2 encompasses both logical possibilities.

Insisting on case number 1 requires a substantial commitment to materialism that precedes examination of the evidence. It rules out design on theological grounds, supposing that the very idea of a designer for life is ludicrous and unnecessary. This is a metaphysical imposition on human knowledge, as the facts do not justify the exclusion of a reasonable inference to a designing intelligence as a first cause for life.

Allowing for case number 2 doesn’t require an a prior philosophical commitment — it allows for both logical possibilities, and gives leave for the data to provide weight to either explanation, as human knowledge advances forward with time.

In addition, I believe that case number 2 allows scientific inquiry a wider advance. Considering that biological systems may have been designed allows them to be studied as if they were planned and purposeful, which has already borne fruit with so-called ‘junk’ DNA. This stands in stark contrast to being forced to assume, by artificial constraint, that everything in the cell is fortuitous and unplanned.

There is no reason to exclude design and consider that materialism is the only explanation for reality, unless you’ve decided ahead of investigation that design is unacceptable. But if it’s even reasonable to consider that design is a possible component in our reality, then it is not unreasonable to allow its identification to reside within the scope of science, and to allow any scientist to proceed with experimentation under the assumption that design might have played a historical role in biological development.

Materialism’s promissory note for the explanation of biological organisms, which demonstrate superb and exquisite technological characteristics, is past due. There is no forthcoming naturalistic explanation for biology’s digital code nor its information processing and manufacturing systems.

Very well put.

Design is a cause — an explanation for entities for which mechanistic scenarios are insufficient. We can consider design as a valid possibility when natural law provides exactly no explanation. Such is the case with most any human artifact.

If you want to refute design for any subject, biological or otherwise, you simply need to demonstrate by logic, mathematics, and experimentation the laws and processes by which said entities arise.

Materialism’s promissory note for the explanation of biological organisms, which demonstrate superb and exquisite technological characteristics, is past due. There is no forthcoming naturalistic explanation for biology’s digital code nor its information processing and manufacturing systems.

Donald Prothero’s recent assertion that science has almost solved the origins issue is absurd, and relies upon a faith proposition that everything in existence can be explained by natural laws governing matter and energy — a proposition that disappears along with space and time at the event horizon of the big bang singularity.

Ergo, anyone engaged in establishing scientific facts is practicing science.

And I suppose, if he or she practices long enough and gets good at it, at some point he or she becomes a scientist.

I could be wrong about this, however.

BTW, what is the scientific method anyway? Something about “establishing a scientific consenus”?

Oops, pardon me. I have to go outside and stare at the sky whle walking in circles in my front yard. I’m doing an experiment to see how long it takes before I trip over a pile of emails.

Some claim that science can not include any teleology ie design and purpose. To my mind this argument goes like this, Science does not include any intelligent design therefore ID is not part of science. Bull!

“Parsimony is a ‘less is better’ economy or caution in arriving at a hypothesis or course of action.” ID as an explanation could explain a great variety of outcomes, too many. IMO this objection is relevant and needs to be considered.

A scientific cause should not include God or the supernatural as a cause. Before you jump down my throat I know very well the ID officially does not claim that God is the designer or cause. However, IMO, this is not a slippery slope from a designer to god but is a polished glass vertical wall covered with teflon. Meaning that it is extremely easy to move from intelligent designer to God. This argument has some force IMO.

Some say that their is no one objective demarcation as to what is science and that science is whatever the main body of scientists accept as science. ID certainly fails this test, but I am not at all sure this criteria is that relevant in any case as people like ‘awkins have religious reasons for declaring ID not to be science.

As I say I vacillate on this question. Mon thro Wed I say ID is science, Thur thro Sat I say ID is not science and Sunday I’m confused. Thus today for me ID is not science but ask me again next week and the answer might be different. But what difference does it make what I about the status of ID, I still take ID seriously and that should be what you are looking for.

ID is based on observations and experience.

It can be tested.

What else is required before it is considered to be science?