Home » Atheism, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science » Dear Atheists and the Institute for Creation Research: ID is not an apologetic. It is about the science.

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

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.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

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

  1. 1

    I went up to Ken Ham at a creation conference and asked him specifically about ID. He said it was “dangerous” and proceeded to make fun of Dembski’s book “End of Christianity”, which I interpreted as actually pretty friendly to YEC, lol.

    Not all creationists feel this way, and the ones who do are a dying breed. Ken Ham was recently told to not come to a creationist conference because of some comments he made about another speaker. Creationists have been in turtle mode for a long time, but we are coming out to play. Give us a chance to do so.

  2. 2

    For instance, Dembski mentioned Russell Humphrey’s theory and that he was open to it but the numbers didn’t work out. Well, neither did Copernicus’.

  3. ID books such as The Privileged Planet are simply devastating to YEC. So no wonder.

  4. 4
    material.infantacy

    It’s a shame the old-school creationists have chosen to disavow ID as part of an apologetic.

    I think math is bad theology too; after all, we know from the Bible that God is one, yet in math we can set X to equal any quantity whatsoever, and that strikes me as pagan. Also, “Moonies” do math; I’m not in favor of this sort of reckless ecumenism.

    At some point this stops being about effective apologetics and starts to look like theory envy. Let’s hope the next generation is more like Tragic suggests.

  5. “The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them.”-John Morris, President of the ICR

  6. 6
    material.infantacy

    Hi Joseph, that statement seems a bit like a political kludge, from my POV.

    Intelligent Design isn’t just a movement, and this is what seems to be forgotten while organizations shuffle their positions due to conflicting pressures from their members.

    I would understand if John Morris didn’t want to be identified with the Discovery Institute, but I hope he’s reading Signature in the Cell, and encouraging others to read it also.

    I support ICR’s right to take a position on ANY social movement, and can certainly appreciate their concerns about brainwashing; but if that’s really the goal, they can only benefit from understanding and promoting the quite scientific ideas put forth by the various leaders if the ID “movement,” which are ever more effectively challenging the assertions of the Darwinian narrative in the mainstream.

  7. Anyoen want to help me with my new movie? It’s called:

    Bad Designer

  8. 8
    material.infantacy

    I did just find “Expelled” in the ICR store (good sign) but other titles like “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life” didn’t show up.

  9. 9
    material.infantacy

    There are also a handful of articles that mention “complex specified information” and quite a few more which reference “irreducible complexity” so it looks like they’re not entirely averse to incorporating some ID concepts into their materials.

  10. 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?

    Hehe, does he need ICR???

  11. 11

    What Ken Ham said is he distinguishes between IDM (Intelligent Design Movement) and ID arguments. He uses ID arguments but condemns IDM because it doesn’t use the Bible.

    And he certainly did use ID arguments in his presentation. So…whatever floats your boat I guess. I’m not sure what those guys think they are going to accomplish by taking that stance.

    I also saw a guy named Randy Guliuzza speak who was very good and very knowledgeable.

    http://www.icr.org/randy_guliuzza/

    He used an irreducible complexity argument but he called it “all or nothing unity”. The atheists in the crowd referred to it as irreducible complexity during Q&A, which was accurate.

    http://www.icr.org/article/all-or-nothing-unity/

  12. JB:

    Well said.

    There is a legitimate issue of origins science, its evidential basis, how it reasons, and the controlling ideas.

    Unfortunately, in recent years, that has increasingly meant that a priori Lewontinian evolutionary materialism has been force fitted unto the science, crippling its capacity to freely and responsibly pursue the truth discernible on empirical evidence.

    It is entirely in order to examine what has been going wrong with the science and correct it, identifying the strengths and limitations. And, if you care about the discovery and warranting of what can be known about our origins on evide4nce,t hat is enough.

    Ironically, those who would control science on an ideology, whether conformity to Aristotelian ideas as filtered through the School men, or marxist or materialist or even scriptural ideas, thereby undermine the capacity of science to provide independent warrant. Science held captive to ideology loses its integrity, once it is censored.

    Far better is to take a worldviews grounding look at science, and to see the strengths and limitations of what it can warrant. There are first principles of right reason which are rooted in self-evident truths, and which ground all classes of reason.

    There are things we experience and/or observe and reflect on in light of those principles. Now that is not an absolute proof, but we are well warranted to take our experience of the world seriously, on pain of ending up in a cynical denial of the credibility of mind, ending up in a cloud-cuckoo land where one cannot distinguish fantasy from fact, and lunacy from sanity. So, unless there is clear evidence that we live in a Plato’s Cave world of delusional shadow-shows, we are well warranted to take the facts of experience and observation seriously.

    In that context we must mark a difference between:

    1 –> That which we currently observe and can remember and cross-check

    2 –> That which is a matter of more or less credible record or report

    3 –> That deeper past beyond record or report that we infer based on evidence we can and do see that leads us to infer and project to the past certain dynamical processes and timelines.

    Of course the degree of warrant for each of these is different, and I think it goes 1 — > 2 –> 3. So, we would be wise to take our origins science models of the deep past with a grain of salt, recognising strengths and limitations. Oddly, that implies that we are more certain that the observed cosmos had a beginning, than that we can date that beginning to some 13.7 BYA.

    Similarly, we are more certain that life on our planet had a beginning than that it can be dated to 3.5 – 3.8 BYA on earth.

    The cosmological and geochronological timelines we have are model timelines, and should not be taught as practically certain and beyond dispute other than minor adjustments.

    As one consequence of this approach, you will see that when I recently brought up cosmological fine tuning here at UD, as part of the ID foundations, I emphasised, not grand stories about the cosmos, but he issue of water and the stellar nucleosynthesis resonances that give rise to the abundance of key elements of life. Water points otthe roots of the cosmos, and the circumstances we observe more than warrant Hoyle’s comment that:

    From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.

    Such an observation is not keyed to any one theory of cosmological origins, indeed it is even consistent with the idea that the physical universe did not have an actual temporal beginning!

    Be that as it may, there is a fair amount of evidence that -- on taking the HR diagram and its timeline on the physics of large balls of Hydrogen-rich gases seriously as a baseline -- points to an age for our galaxy on order of about 10+ BY; from the HR diagrams of stellar clusters. And beyond, the Hubble red shift data points to an age of the observed cosmos of order 10 - 20 BY, and the beginning of that cosmos in the now well known big bang.

    Little bangs point to little bangers, and big bangs to big bangers.

    In this context I find it interesting that ICR physicist Russel Humphreys has been exploring a model in which a 6 day young earth creation model is compatible with a 15 BY cosmos. (Cosmological water plays a big role in his model.)

    So, currently the physics points to a big banger, and indeed even though multiverse speculations, to one that has the power, skill and knowledge to create a carefully organised cosmos as we observe, one that seems finely tuned for C- chemistry, cell based life.

    That is a highly significant result, from science. Not from parsing scriptures or debating philosophies.

    Going beyond, we find in the heart of C-chemistry, cell based life, a complex digital information system, using language, codes, algorithms, and sophisticated molecular nanotechnology that exploits the properties and abundance of Carbon. One that has the joint properties of being metabolic and functional in its own right, and self-replication on a kinematic von Neumann self replicator.

    That points -- at least to the unprejudiced mind familiar with what it takes to get digital technologies to work in information systems -- to some pretty sophisticated engineering.

    These are not religious inferences, but inferences on what we know per observation, it takes to get to irreducibly complex systems based on complex wiring diagrams and using codes, algorithms and implementing machines.

    Beyond that, it plainly would verge on the ludicrous to imagine -- absent the very strongest observational evidence -- that such things would originate by chance based random walks rewarded by trial and error success. The configuration spaces are just too large, and the complex, organised functional states are just too isolated and unrepresentative of the typical at random configs. And, indeed, we find that the committed evolutionary materialist ideologues are not presenting strong direct observational evidence of their claims, but are imposing a priori and resorting to debates over definitions, computer simulations [which are designed!] and mathematical models.

    That tells us a lot about where the actual balance on the merits is.

    And no it is not apologetics, it is empirically anchored free and responsible reasoning about the observable facts of our world.

    Ironically , that is what then gives some teeth of a remark int eh Christian Scriptures:

    Rom 1:20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks) . . .

    Scientifically based thought cannot demonstrate that there is a God who has designed the world [much less identify that such is any particular candidate to be God], but it can point to signs that on empirical evidence highlight design as a credible explanation for the cause of several key aspects of the world in which we live.

    That is a valid part of wider thought on one’s worldview, just as it is a valid part of that thought to take seriously the point that only those worldviews that have in them foundational ISes that can ground the sense of OUGHT we find governing us.

    But that coherence of thought is simply an aspect of the principle that the truth — an accurate description of reality — will be consistent with itself and coherent across the description of the whole world. It is not a matter of imposing an a priori religious or anti-religious frame on how we “must” conceive of our world.

    Thinking inductively about design, its empirically reliable signs, and their application to key features of the origins of our world, is a legitimate project of science. That may have something to do with why it is so fiercely resisted by a priori materialist ideologues, and it may have something to do with how such increasingly resort to distractive and irrelevant issues instead of addressing the evidence. Up to and including threats and abuses, some of them quite ugly.

    (And yes, TWT, Y and ilk at Anti Evo and similar fever swamp hangouts, you may want to say that this is not so, but to any person thinking with common good sense, we know you by name, we know where you are and we know those who you care for is a mafioso style threat. When you played outing tactics, and made gross and slanderous false accusations then backed them up with such a threat, you crossed a nuke trip wire. One that cannot be taken back.)

    The balance on the merits is telling us a lot about where the weight of the evidence is coming out.

    GEM of TKI

    PS: isn’t it interesting that ever since April we have yet to see a cogent answer to the force of the simple expression:

    Chi_500 = I*S – 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold.

  13. Mung @7 says “Anyoen want to help me with my new movie? It’s called:

    Bad Designer”

    Doesn’t that title assume a Designer exists?

  14. Good post and comments. My two cents:

    (1) God is well able to take care of his reputation, so I would encourage YECs to worry less about slipping in the Bible whenever they can and more about getting at the truth of nature.

    (2) The Westminster shorter catechism, in response to the question “What do the Scriptures principally teach?” answers: “The Scriptures principally teach what many is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man.” If this is right, which I believe it is, then (a) we shouldn’t be surprised if the Scripture doesn’t tell us all that much about nature, (b) we should expect to have to examine nature directly (as ID does) to understand it, and (c) it might be one of our duties before God to do just that (as in Gn 1 in taking dominion of the world).

    (3) The quote above about ID having proponents from all brands of Christians and even — begin scary music here please — Moonies, is from here:

    http://www.icr.org/article/6228.

    This is quite a remarkable piece, accusing IDers of being Pharisees for going outside the Bible by looking to “the traditions of men,” which raises the question whether YEC adherence to a young-earth may itself be a matter of men’s traditions. In fact, could it be that stuck in their “ghetto,” the YEcommunity has concocted all sorts of traditions that it is now foisting on its adherents and projecting on the IDmovement? Indeed, who are the real Pharisees here?

  15. It is clear to most or all reasonable open minded people with the basic facts, full disclosure and context, ID is true.
    Expelled does a good job trying to get the facts, context, and disclosure looked at.
    There is also a framework where we can see the facts are most consistent with the 5771 Torah timeline.
    ‘The recent complex creation’ is a draft compilation of that framework.
    Will provide free most recent update to credentialed scientists willing to review, and if worthy, provide a letter of endorsement for the next published edition.
    constructive criticism welcome from all.
    pearlman cta

  16. The ID community is diverse. While it may be strictly about science to some (most?) adherents, it is not universally so. For some, it is definitely an element of an apologetic.

    Is ID strictly about science at this site? I don’t think so. For example, on the front page as of this posting there is an article titled, “Are atheists immoral?” Is that really about ID? Science?

  17. fmarotta -

    You are right on all counts. It is important to differentiate between ID (as in the concept) and the community of people who have an interest in ID. As I mentioned in the post, many people use ID for apologetic reasons. However, the concept itself is not any more apologetic than chemistry.

    Now, you mention this site. This site is not a research hub, it’s a community hub. For the research hubs, you should check out The Biologic Institute, Bob Marks’ Evolutionary Informatics Lab, The Blyth Institute, and others.

    Certainly, as is the nature of a blog, UD posters spend time talking about random stuff that individual community members find interesting, even if only tangentially related to ID. But that’s the fun of a blog!

  18. The first sentence of the definition of Intelligent Design from this blog(my bold added):

    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.

    So the intelligent agency is responsible for the design of the universe, and therefore must be outside of the universe (supernatural). That means that ID is not a science.

  19. lastyearon:

    So the intelligent agency is responsible for the design of the universe, and therefore must be outside of the universe (supernatural).

    1- Being outside the universe does not automatically equal supernatural

    2- ID is about the design, not the designer and the design is not outside the universe.

  20. fmarotta,

    Not even the so-called evolutionary science blogs are about the science.

    Just sayin’…

  21. 21
    material.infantacy

    lastyearon, you must be joking. But just in case you aren’t:

    Frequently raised but weak arguments against intelligent design.

    Specifically note item #1, and also #7 and #19.

  22. 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.

  23. 23

    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?

  24. 24

    Janice #21

    correct-a-mundo

  25. That means that ID is not a science.

    Oh man! You got us! Does that mean we have to stop pretending it is?

  26. 26

    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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 29

    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?

  30. 30

    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?

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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?


  34. 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.

  35. lastyearon:

    ID is about how the design must have had a Designer.

    What design?

  36. 36

    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.

  37. Joseph,
    Please take a look at the definition of ID on this blog. You can read it here:

    http://www.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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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…

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 42

    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?

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 46

    LYO,

    Don’t know those guys huh?

    Fair enough.

  47. 47

    LYO,

    Don’t know those guys huh?

    Fair enough.

  48. 48

    When one is just not enough. :)

  49. 49

    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?

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

Leave a Reply