Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dear Atheists and the Institute for Creation Research: ID is not an apologetic. It is about the science.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It is interesting that the Institute for Creation Research and atheists both agree on at least one thing – they both agree that ID is a failed apologetic.



The reason that ID has failed as an apologetic is simple — it is the same reason that Tetris has failed as an apologetic. It is the same reason that Tennis has failed as an apologetic. It is the same reason that the Macarena failed as an apologetic. The reason?

ID IS NOT AN APOLOGETIC.

I know this is shocking to some people, but, amazingly, ID is about the science. I had a friend email me once and say, “you’re not doing any favors to religion with ID.” My response to him was that my primary goal with ID is to fix the science, not the religion. If science wants to push further, it has to have the tools to deal with the world as we find it. We find ourselves in a world of conscious beings, inventing, creating, thinking, and planning. Yet science, so far, has dealt only with the unplanned and automatic portions of it. In my view, there is a lot missing, and ID, by taking agency as a real causal force, can appropriately extend science to take into account agency as a causative force.

For origins, this means that anyone who comes up with a theory on the origins of the universe — especially biology — must not exclude such causes as well. For if it is a real causal force, operating distinctly from material forces, then it must either (a) have started somewhere, or (b) always been occurring. For someone to have a proper theory of origins, they must address either (a) or (b). If (b), then they have to tell what sorts of effects those causes had, and how they account for the world we now see.

Now, of course, some people (myself included) have and do integrate Intelligent Design as a part of apologetics. I also integrate Quantum theory as a part of apologetics, yet no one has yet argued that we should do away with Quantum Mechanics because people use it for apologetic purposes. I know of chemists who use chemistry for apologetic purposes. It’s even possible that the Big Bang was originally conceived out of apologetic purposes. The point, however, is that neither chemistry, nor quantum mechanics, nor the Big Bang, nor intelligent design are apologetics.

If the argument is that the founders of ID are the same people as Christian apologists, that is a stupid argument, especially given the history of science. Most of modern biology is founded by Christians who were doing science and apologetics simultaneously. However, the use of biology for apologetic purposes did not prevent other people from joining in.

ICR complains thus about Intelligent Design,

Does the earth’s Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, really need a mixed-bag of such religiously diverse experts from Presbyterians to Baptists to Catholic evolutionists to Moonies?

ICR’s criticism might or might not be correct if ID is viewed as an apologetic. But, as a science, it actually shows the relative independence of ID from apologetics. Certainly Jews, Presbyterians, Catholics, Baptists, Moonies, agnostics, and Buddhists have different approaches (and goals!) to apologetics. Yet ID comfortably contains all of them because ID is searching for a better science, not an apologetic outcome.

The fact that the ID research project suggests conclusions that are uncomfortable for materialists shouldn’t be a reason to abandon it as an academic discipline. After all, as Barrow and Tipler pointed out, physics research also suggests conclusions that are uncomfortable for materialists.

Likewise, the fact that ID’ers don’t engaged in argumentation from scripture isn’t any more surprising than the fact that chemists don’t do so either. ID’ers, like anyone else, might get their inspiration for an idea from scripture (this has fruitfully happened many times in science), but, at the end of the day, it is tested against the nature of nature as we find it. Sorry, ICR.

So, to both of you (atheists and the ICR) – feel free to join us! But don’t do so with a misunderstanding of what we are about.

Comments
LYO - I think the issue is that ID doesn't have the tools to identify the designer. Archaeologists use *historical* tools to identify *who* the designer is. How to do that in science? If you have an idea, you should propose it! But currently, ID is developing a mathematical concept of agency to determine whether something requires design. A mathematical concept of agency doesn't tell who something is. It is possible that someone might be able one day to develop a mathematical concept of personhood, so that we might be able to uniquely identify a designer using science. But, as yet, no one has come up with one. But we do have a general model for agency, and can thus detect design. ID is a small, scientifically-sized theory. It aims to find the answers to small questions. People get upset that ID doesn't answer big questions. The fact is that ID is much more scientific than most evolutionary ideas because it is small and scientifically-sized. ID doesn't uniquely answer the origins question any more than a thermometer uniquely answers the origins questions. But a thermometer can give insight into the limits of the possible. ID doesn't uniquely identify the designer any more than a geiger counter can tell you who designed the faulty reactor. ID answers small questions using math, logic, and inference from experience. That's one of the key things that makes ID science.johnnyb
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
Without actual designers there would be no basis for an inference to design. This ability to make an inference based upon know cause and effect is what makes ID science, as opposed to, say, Darwinism.Mung
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
LYO: Is it possible to learn more about this designer? No, because that isn’t a scientific question. Why isn't that a scientific question? This designer? Which designer? I am the designer. You are the designer. By your reasoning if someone designs something they no longer exist, because science cannot recognize designers. Or do you apply that logic selectively when it suits you?ScottAndrews
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
When one is just not enough. :)Upright BiPed
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
LYO, Don't know those guys huh? Fair enough.Upright BiPed
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
LYO, Don't know those guys huh? Fair enough.Upright BiPed
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Joseph,
That said, archaeologists cannot study teir proposed designers. They study the design in the hope of making determinations about the designers.
Archaeologists already know a lot about their proposed designers, because they know they were human beings. They know they had hands to make things. They know they had specific needs and desires. Depending on where they're digging, they'd know whether they had written language, or the types of metals they used. They'd know something about the culture, and type of art produced. No archaeologist would identify an artifact, declare it was designed, and then consider the issue scientifically closed.lastyearon
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Joseph,
Yet ID doesn’t say anything about the designer.
Except that there is one. Do we know anything about the designer? Only that he is capable of designing the things that he designed. Is it possible to learn more about this designer? No, because that isn't a scientific question. So ID is not about the designer, except that the only thing ID is about is that there is a designer.lastyearon
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Upright, I'm not familiar with the work of Susskind and Krauss that you speak of, so I can't answer the question. I think that if their hypotheses' are unfalsifiable, then they aren't doing science. Remember, scientists can do other things besides science.lastyearon
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
LYO "ID proposes an entity, with unknowable powers and unknowable motivations, that exists outside of the universe." No it doesn't. It recognizes a cause known to exist in nature with the capacity to create what is observed. And you still didn't answer the question. Is there a problem in answering the question? - - - - - - - -
You said: “therefore must be outside of the universe … is not a science” So the question was posed to you: “…there are sciences and scientist that do specifically that very thing – offer prophesies on what may lay outside our universe. So you are suggesting that men such as Susskind, and hangers-on such as Krauss, are not doing science at all, is that correct?” DO you plan on answering?
Upright BiPed
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
lastyearon:
ID proposes an entity, with unknowable powers and unknowable motivations, that exists outside of the universe.
Yet ID doesn't say anything about the designer. And if we knew the designer then we wouldn't have a design inference as design would be a given. That said, archaeologists cannot study teir proposed designers. They study the design in the hope of making determinations about the designers. We can and do run tests on the design. And all you have to do to refute the design inference is to actually step up and produce positive evidence for your position.Joseph
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
lastyearon, That's unknown, unknown, and unknown, and where did you even get that last one? Should we understand that you post comments repeatedly and have never taken three minutes to acquaint yourself with the subject? That might be a good idea.ScottAndrews
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.
Methinks you are taking liberties with words...Joseph
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Upright, ID proposes an entity, with unknowable powers and unknowable motivations, that exists outside of the universe. This is not science. If we could study the entity, if we could identify some of its characteristics through experimentation or some other kind of testing, then we would have something more to learn. That is science.lastyearon
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Joseph, Please take a look at the definition of ID on this blog. You can read it here: https://uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID is about how the best explanation for apparent design is that there is an Intelligent Designer. I'm not going to try to make that more clear.lastyearon
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Ahh...it appears that LYO has performed a hit and run. Next time I say he must do a double back with a half gainer.Upright BiPed
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
lastyearon:
ID is about how the design must have had a Designer.
What design?Mung
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
ID is about the design, not the designer and the design is not outside the universe. lastyearon:
ID is about how the design must have had a Designer.
Reference please or admit you just made that up because that is all you have. IOW I am calling you a dishonest person.Joseph
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
lastyearon:
There can be no evidence for the supernatural, by definition.
What definition are you referring to? Could you please present it. lastyearon:
You can infer the supernatural, if you want to, but you’re not doing science when you do.
So if the evidence leads to the supernatural just discard the evidence? You do realize that ID neither requires nor says anything about the supernatural. You do also realize the prefix for before- as in the designer existed BEFORE the universe, is PRE, not "super". Or do you just like to dishonestly equivocate?Joseph
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Sorry, I missed the blockquote in the last post... Joseph,
ID is about the design, not the designer and the design is not outside the universe.
ID is about how the design must have had a Designer.lastyearon
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Joseph, ID is about the design, not the designer and the design is not outside the universe. ID is about how the design must have had a Designer.lastyearon
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
LYO" There can be no evidence for the supernatural, by definition. You can infer the supernatural, if you want to, but you’re not doing science when you do. And by "supernatural" you mean anything that might exists outside our universe, correct?Upright BiPed
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
LYO, you failed to complete your thought by answering the question. You said: “therefore must be outside of the universe … is not a science” So the question was posed to you: "...there are sciences and scientist that do specifically that very thing – offer prophesies on what may lay outside our universe. So you are suggesting that men such as Susskind, and hangers-on such as Krauss, are not doing science at all, is that correct?" DO you plan on answering?Upright BiPed
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Janice,
some people in the ID community have no trouble with including the supernatural in ‘science’ – not as something that can be directly investigated but definitely as something that can be inferred from evidence provided by other investigations.
There can be no evidence for the supernatural, by definition. You can infer the supernatural, if you want to, but you're not doing science when you do.lastyearon
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Mung,
That means that ID is not a science. Oh man! You got us! Does that mean we have to stop pretending it is?
Nope. You can, and should continue to pretend ID is science. It's good entertainment.lastyearon
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
I am YEC and for sure we have gained from the ID movement. In attacking them the evolutionists etc say ID is YEC. They think it discredits iD but it gives us credibility because its the ID folk who sold lots of popular books to the right audiences and who have lots of degrees and reach academia . Its all been gain for my crowd. Id is not however saying Genesis is true. So its saying its not true and is seen by YEC leaders as another opponent. Another critic saying we don't do the research and thinking to be credible. So theres a arning to YEC folks. YEC is the real threat as its based on the bible and this is hated by the modern liberal elite and sections of North America. ID has been and is seen as helping biblical creationism and so is hated. its not just about ID claims to find fingerprints on the universe. Just inviste YEC leaders to some big powwows on origin issues and a mutual and profitable advantage will be had by all.Robert Byers
August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
That means that ID is not a science. Oh man! You got us! Does that mean we have to stop pretending it is?Mung
August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Janice #21 correct-a-mundoUpright BiPed
August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
LYO: "therefore must be outside of the universe ... is not a science" Firstly, ID says nothing whatsoever about what can, can't, does, or didn't happen outside this universe. Full stop. - - - - - - - - - But since you bring it up, there are sciences and scientist that do specifically that very thing - offer prophesies on what may lay outside our universe. So you are suggesting that men such as Susskind, and hangers-on such as Krauss, are not doing science at all, is that correct?Upright BiPed
August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Ah, lastyearon, now you're getting into the definition of 'science'. Perhaps you've never heard of the Demarcation Problem. If not, you might benefit from some reading around on the issue. You might discover that philosophers of science gave up on trying to differentiate between 'science' and 'non-science' or 'pseudo-science' quite a while ago. It's all too hard, you see. If you read further you might discover that some people in the ID community have no trouble with including the supernatural in 'science' - not as something that can be directly investigated but definitely as something that can be inferred from evidence provided by other investigations. They believe that 'science' should aim at discovering 'truth' rather than artificially (or ideologically) limiting itself to materialist explanations of everything. Well, I think that's the case but no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong.Janice
August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply