November Apologetics Conference — We need more than good arguments

“It should have been obvious that Marxist economics did not work, but the Marxists took over dozens of countries after, not before, the famines of the twenties and thirties. And ran those countries with an iron hand until the mid-eighties.”

http://i203.photobucket.com/al.....l_marx.jpg

Come on, you know today’s commies want to blame the people who were in charge for their ideal’s failure, rather then the actual system they believed in.

But nonetheless, strategy is something we should kick up a notch. We could at least give credit to Dawkins and co. for coming up with things like the Out Campaign.

Bill

perhaps you can have a chat with Dinesh D’Souza and bring him up to speed with ID if this has not been done already????

btw I am referring to this:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....gainst-id/

A good critique of “The God Who Wasn’t There:”

http://www.bringyou.to/apologe.....Review.htm

Speaking about apologetics, does anyone know why the Vatican is excluding Intelligent Design representatives in their upcoming conference:

Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

Dr. Dembski, since you are qualified in both Theology and Evolution, how can you finagle an invitation? It unfortunately seems that there are some at the Vatican that need to be educated on this matter.

EndoplasmicMessenger,

“does anyone know why the Vatican is excluding Intelligent Design representatives in their upcoming conference”

My guess is because they identify ID with creationsim.

“…have lost the intellectual battle.”

!

I’d laugh if it wasn’t so tragic.

“Where do they find these clueless chuckleheads and how do they possibly get advanced degrees?”

Here is your answer DaveScot, you find them on Uncommon descent.

Well I guess that’s me expelled. No dissent allowed on uncommon descent.

While I’m a resident somewhat-skeptic of ID, I think the claim that ‘materialists have lost the intellectual battle’ does have some justification.

Pick your point of conflict. Philosophy of mind, physics, biology, etc.. materialist (particularly reductionist materialist) views are challenged strongly in just about all of them in some way, and not exclusively by religion-sympathetic philosophers. This doesn’t mean that materialism is lost in the sense that all materialists are clearly wrong. But it’s lost in the sense that developments in science and philosophy have made materialism merely an option, not the only reasonable option.

For people who want a materialist viewpoint of the world to be the only possibility, that truly is a serious loss. And the desire for wanting such a viewpoint to reign supreme usually has little to do with it being right or wrong, but with secondary political goals. (Look at Cortunix’s recent babble about what purpose he thinks education serves.)

—–“does anyone know why the Vatican is excluding Intelligent Design representatives in their upcoming conference”

As a Catholic, I am offended by my own Church’s foray into political correctness. My guess is that the whacked out Jesuits at Notre Dame persuaded a few members of the hierarchy to attend and support a TE love fest. I don’t think it reflects the mind of Benedict XVI.

Bill

There’s an old New Yorker cartoon that shows a client seated across from his attorney. The attorney remarks, “You’ve got a great case Mr. Smith. Now, how much justice can you afford?”

There’s a corollary in the university system. “You’ve got a great intellect, Mr. Smith. You can think, read, and learn. Now how much certification can you afford?”

GCUGreyArea

Farewell, we hardly knew ya, but ultimately we still knew ya too well.

Speaking of cartoons:

The Charles Darwin Memorial Hospital - Day 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Lj6kEjNns

Dr. Dembski,
You may find this interesting:

Christian Apologetics - 16 - Bible Numerology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfUI5ed0WI

as well as this one:

Christian Apologetics - 8 - Pi and Natural Log

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gk7E3lbjZI

—–Jerry: “My guess is because they identify ID with creationsim.”

If ID is committed to following where the evidence leads, it can’t make a prior commitment to an old earth. While YEC seems unlikely to most of us, it is not impossible. What if the designer created, as some believe, “ExNilio,” and what if, under the circumstances, the effects of the command “let there be light” were such that the earth was flooded with cosmic rays. Such an event COULD accelerate the geological aging process and cause a young earth to look old.

The only thing ID can rule out in principle is materialist Darwinism, which declares design to be an “illusion,” and, therefore, disqualifies itself from consideration. To follow where the evidence leads is to be open to anything, including a young earth. It makes no sense for ID to abandon the principle of openness simply because Darwinists and TEs are so intellectually lazy or so morally dishonest that they cannot or will not distinguish between CS and ID.

Indeed, even when we dramatize the distinction for our anti-ID guests, TEs and Darwinists alike, they ignore the point and change the subject. We have both witnessed this many times. Their ignorance is less about whatever indiscretions may be coming from the YEC community and more about their own stubborn refusal to consider the evidence.

Hence Richard Dawkins has no problem endorsing THE GOD WHO WASN’T THERE, a movie that denies Jesus even existed. Imagine what you want to be true and then enforce its acceptance — that’s the “new scholarship.”
————————-

It is just like 1984. I used to read that book once a year just because I liked it so much but it also made me subtly aware of changes in our society.

Think how silly it would be if I denied the existence of Mohammad. I agree with him in no form or fashion but that has nothing to do with whether he was real or not.

The thought police are starting to actually come out from under their rocks.

Not all influential Catholics are like those who snubbed ID.

From Bishop Donald Wuerl:

“Continuing to make a case for intelligent design among other leading theories of the universe’s origin, the Bishop wrote that, “When we examine with the light of reason the origins of the cosmos and human life then we must be prepared to respond to all the reasonable, rational, intellectually sustainable theories.”
“Academia”, he said, “must never become arbitrarily exclusive of the conclusions of rational investigation.”

From Father Thomas Dubay: (In “The Evidential Power of Beauty”)
“Michael Behe, using his expertise in biochemistry, writes of what he calls ‘irreducible complexity’ on the molecular level. By this terminology, he means ‘a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.’”

There are two classes of influential Catholics—those who do the requisite reading, and those who don’t’.

StephenB,

“The only thing ID can rule out in principle is materialist Darwinism, which declares design to be an “illusion,” and, therefore, disqualifies itself from consideration.”

Then ID should disqualify itself from any serious discussion of evolution and as such should not be a player in what the Vatican is doing or any discussion of evolution. It can be part of some philosophical discussions and that is what you are proposing and as such makes it similar to the TE science/theology fiasco.

By the way I suggest you study geology. There is evidence for both gradualistic and catastrophic occurrence in the geological record and detailed evidence for both playing a part in the history of the earth not only in the past but in the world today. It is this firm foundation for geology that is missing from biology.

If you want to consider a God that plays havoc with the world, be my guest. I find no need to ever postulate such a deceptive God.

By the way, I bet the Vatican conference will take into consideration the materialistic implications of Darwin so why does ID even have to exist as far as they are concerned, So ignoring ID is of little consequence according to your thesis.

Indeed, the materialists have lost the intellectual battle.

But who are the winners? In today’s SPIEGEL somebody else is claiming victory for his side with the same arguments. However, you may not be too happy with the designer he claims to have identified.

English translation of SPIEGEL for non-German speakers — UD admin

Funny how Father Dubay got the definition of IC right on what would seem to be one try when Behe’s rational and scientific critics have mangled it for over a decade.

The original post says,

But I’ll also be pointing out that our opponents, the materialists and their cronies, are now battling principally for political rather than intellectual control. Indeed, the materialists have lost the intellectual battle.

This is true — the Darwinists are not even pretending anymore to be rationally debating the controversy — they say that arguments based on irreducible complexity, bacterial flagella, blood-clotting cascades, the co-evolution of obligate mutualism, etc. are religious arguments.

Remember how computers were going to become more intelligent than us and that we would be luck if they deigned to keep us as pets?

A lot of predictions about technology never came to pass — for example, it was predicted that electricity produced by nuclear power plants would be “too cheap to meter.”

Remember how humans were the third chimpanzee, only to find that some dogs and birds are smarter than chimps at various tasks?

Maybe those dogs and birds are like human idiot-savants, who are phenomenally talented in narrow areas like feats of rote memory — often areas that require no originality — but who have low overall intelligence. Maybe the chimps just have better overall intelligence.

IMO the words apology, apologetics, and apologist have bad connotations. In common everyday usage, “apology” and “apologetic” imply regret and an admission of wrongdoing, and “apologist” implies making excuses for something that is bad or evil. I think that a lot of people are unaware that these words can also refer to an explanation or defense. Also, I think that James Dobson is too controversial to be a “keynote” speaker.

—-Jerry: “Then ID should disqualify itself from any serious discussion of evolution and as such should not be a player in what the Vatican is doing or any discussion of evolution. It can be part of some philosophical discussions and that is what you are proposing and as such makes it similar to the TE science/theology fiasco.

Materialistic Darwinism, (as opposed to Darwin’s special theory) refers to the idea that everything can be explained by natural causes AND that science may not consider anything else. That is not science; it is ideology. There are times when an analysis of comparative difficulties can be helpful. That God created the word in seven days, as some YECs would have it, is highly unlikely; that the world created itself, as the materialist Darwinists would have it, is absolutely impossible. You appear to believe that the former is more unlikely that the latter. If, as it appears, you accept “methdological naturalism,” which is nothing more than euphemized materialism, you are playing into the hands of our adversaries.

—–“If you want to consider a God that plays havoc with the world, be my guest. I find no need to ever postulate such a deceptive God.”

I have considered the proposition and rejected it just as you have. That doesn’t mean that ID is required to join me in that rejection. I would never demand that ID rule it out YEC in order to appease materialist Darwinists, especially since I could be wrong on the matter.

—-“By the way I suggest you study geology. There is evidence for both gradualistic and catastrophic occurrence in the geological record and detailed evidence for both playing a part in the history of the earth not only in the past but in the world today. It is this firm foundation for geology that is missing from biology.”

You seem to be a little confused here. “Uniformitarianism” is an operating principle which holds that geological processes have not changed throughout Earth’s history. It assumes, for example, that the forces that build mountains and erode mountains, whatever they are, operate in the same way and at the same rate today as in the past.

StephenB,

You have good analytical abilities and write really well but some times you lose it when the issue gets near and dear to your heart.

“If, as it appears, you accept “methodological naturalism,” which is nothing more than euphemized materialism, you are playing into the hands of our adversaries.”

By rejecting a claim that let’s say has the probability of 10^ -10,000,000 you then say I am endorsing a another claim that is impossible, and thus you can then pin some nasty attribution to me. Non sequitur.

“I have considered the proposition and rejected it just as you have. That doesn’t mean that ID is required to join me in that rejection.”

ID is about science as far as I am concerned and not about theology. You just put ID in the theology mode and that is the problem. ID must follow science if it wants to be considered serious. By associating itself with flawed science that has only an ideological basis ID has become just as suspect as the science it walks hand in hand with.

“You seem to be a little confused here. “Uniformitarianism” is an operating principle which holds that geological processes have not changed throughout Earth’s history. It assumes, for example, that the forces that build mountains and erode mountains, whatever they are, operate in the same way and at the same rate today as in the past.”

I am not sure I follow what you are getting at. Why am I confused?

StephenB, we agree on most things in this debate except for the association of ID with YEC. I believe it is extremely negative for the acceptance of ID as legitimate and you do not share that view. I will continue to proffer that point of view since I believe the evidence supports it.

When I make my visits here (which is often) I truly enjoy reading both StephenB and Jerry’s comments on the issues raised. I value them both.

IMO there is little doubt about the issue of YEC. If we are to believe that a Creator has sought to trick humanity by whatever means, then all scientific credibility is out the window.

ID can close shop and everyone go home.

Personally, I think the YEC view shortchanges the Creation. I think the evidence shows that the Creator designed a real world - one that actually operates within definitions - not one that is just a membrane of reality in which to fool the inhabitants. However, I have no inclination to try and change the minds of those who believe in YEC.

But, at the same time let’s be frank about the actual challenge that ID faces - its all socio-political. If this argument was about the science, then Darwinistic gradulism and the whole greasy bucket of speculation that travels with it would have been buried long ago.

As such (a political game) it hardly makes sense for ID to align itself beside YEC, particularly if your competitor’s Point Numero Uno is that ID isn’t science.

That issue becomes even more grave when it becomes abundantly clear that the opposition has had their “ID isn’t Science” stance codified into law, into lore, and into the laziness of the truth-telling press.

jerry said (#22) –

StephenB,
“The only thing ID can rule out in principle is materialist Darwinism, which declares design to be an “illusion,” and, therefore, disqualifies itself from consideration.”

Then ID should disqualify itself from any serious discussion of evolution and as such should not be a player in what the Vatican is doing or any discussion of evolution.

If ID scientists are not being invited to the Vatican conference on evolution, then how can the conference properly consider the question of whether ID is relevant or not?

By the way I suggest you study geology. There is evidence for both gradualistic and catastrophic occurrence in the geological record and detailed evidence for both playing a part in the history of the earth not only in the past but in the world today.

I have wondered about “slot canyons,” e.g., The Narrows in Zion National Park. Is this the result of “natural” erosion? Does it seem reasonable that the river could saw straight down through the rock with none of the side erosion that we see in other canyons such as the Grand Canyon?

Jerry, I will try to start winding down, but not just yet.

—–“By rejecting a claim that let’s say has the probability of 10^ -10,000,000 you then say I am endorsing a another claim that is impossible, and thus you can then pin some nasty attribution to me. Non sequitur.”

Sorry, it wasn’t meant to be a “nasty attribution,” nor was I connecting dots here. I was going by previous comments in which you characterized the Kansas City Science criteria as acceptable. I assumed, then, that you accepted its attendant methodological naturalism as well. Did I misread you on that?

—–“ID is about science as far as I am concerned and not about theology. You just put ID in the theology mode and that is the problem.”

Now that is a “nasty attribution” {insert smiley face}. No, I do not. When I argue for ID science, I always argue from the bottom up. Take note of a recent discussion that I had with TedD and JackK in which I asked them to account for “functionally specified complex information.” They immediately headed for the tall grass and tried to reframe the issue. After they put religion on the table, it was one more variable that I needed to respond to. Very seldom am I the first to broach the issue.

—-“StephenB, we agree on most things in this debate except for the association of ID with YEC. I believe it is extremely negative for the acceptance of ID as legitimate and you do not share that view. I will continue to proffer that point of view since I believe the evidence supports it.”

I celebrate your right to do it and I admire your dedication towards that end. Also, you do as good of a job separating Darwin’s general theory from Darwin’s special theory as anyone. Obviously, I feel differently about the ID/YEC connection. In my judgment, the TEs and Darwinists who claim to be scandalized by our association with “creationists” are being disingenuous. Or, if they are sincere, meaning that if they really do confuse creationism’s Biblical presuppositions with IDs empirical observations, then they are intellectually challenged in the extreme. For crying out loud, these people do this for a living. Don’t you think they have a moral obligation to know what they are talking about? If they can’t distinguish motives from methods, how bright can they be? Anyone who thinks that Ken Ham and Michael Behe are on the same page is less in need of instruction and more in need of therapy. The academy doesn’t accept ID because it doesn’t want to; it has little to do with the company we keep.

Also, I should make it clear for other observers that I am not arguing on behalf of YEC. I am saying that, as unlikely as it is, it cannot possibly be as unlikely radical Materialist Darwinism. We should not forget about that point, because it helps us to more accurately assess IDs role in the big picture.

—–Upright Biped: “As such (a political game) it hardly makes sense for ID to align itself beside YEC, particularly if your competitor’s Point Numero Uno is that ID isn’t science.”

I suppose there might be two levels of disassociation or two ways of speaking to the YECs.

[A] “We totally disagree with all of your assumptions, and we say so publicly every chance we get.

[B] “Don’t speak to me.”

It seems to me that level [A] should be sufficient.

Actually, I should have said

[A]“most of us disagree with your assumptions.

By the way, I have interacted with YECs, Darwinists, and TEs on this site, and I will be happy to go on the record with this comment:

The YECs are far more rational than the other two groups, questionable assumptions notwithstanding. They give straight answers to straight quesetions and they don’t look for every opportunity to escape when the argument is not going their way.

StephenB

The academy doesn’t accept ID because it doesn’t want to; it has little to do with the company we keep.

You are correct in your assessment, but it seems like a rather empty observation, and it doesn’t change the reality on the ground.

The academy may or may not care if your scientific beliefs are based on Genesis, but the Academy caring about it isn’t the issue - at least not from a strategic sense.

The issue is can they use it to silence your opposition to their control over information, and the overwhelming truth of the matter is - yes they can.

I stopped by a bookstore yesterday (Bookpeople in Austin Texas, supposedly the largest independent bookstore in America) and was amazed and maddened by the selection. Amongst four lone copies of EOE was a literary lovefest with the idea that ID is CS…and neither is science.

Ah well, I don’t have to tell you, you already know the score.

One point though: Two of the principles of opposing force say that to undertake a direct attack on a heavily defended position is a matter of (a) attacking at the weakness inherent in strength and (b) to NOT broaden your forces.

In this case, the weakness inherent in strength is the fact that the Darwinian paradigm is falsified by the empirical evidence in fossils, in mathematics, and in micro-biology. And further, to not broaden your forces would almost certainly include not trying to also get YEC through the door.

It’s simply a strategic reality, ID doesn’t have the resources (nor the inclination) to pull that off.

- - - - - -

To your last comment (31) - I understand your position, but to my mind it doesn’t follow that

If ID is committed to following where the evidence leads, it can’t make a prior commitment to an old earth.

That represents an expansion of a goal that will forever exceed the resources of the ID movement.

Bill, nice quote by the real Roosevelt… also you played it brilliantly. I thought that was a rant by you- a culmination of your emotion towards the current state of things and then I saw it was actually from 1911.

Some things are timeless, and “the controversy” is such.

The strongest political tactic for ID is to state its case in an attractive way. ID has natural power because nature looks designed. Now it needs the right kind of rhetoric to transmute this natural power into political gold.

May I humbly suggest that this has not yet happened. Behe, for example, is learned and convincing and certainly writes well; but the very homeliness of the mousetrap analogy defines its own political limitations.

Design is magnificence. This becomes more evident every day through basic research, which leaves man stuttering in wonder at what has been made. Now the task is for someone to communicate this magnificence effectively and in a positive way.

Make note of the positive. If ID wants political influence, it must move beyond the resistance stage. It must put the “Darwin on trial” approach behind it and present itself in more inspiring weeds.

Gravity and especially light can be used effectively as wildcards in this new polemic, by the way. Their mysteriousness can be easily grasped and is a good antidote to the insufferable egotism of Big Science.

As for the larger culture—well, we are of the opinion that the antithesis that is Modernism can only be overthrown by a new construct of value that counteracts its nothingness with the self-evident goodness of nature.

The way to overthrow the superannuated Age of Great Theories is to reground its nothingness in sense. Nothingness was an illusion produced by Darwin. In point of fact, nature is not nothing. Nature is “very good.”

Cultural change must begin there.

May I humbly suggest that this has not yet happened

Indeed, the understatement of the millenia.

Most Americans would be complete shocked to find out that there have been any scientific discoveries that support the possibility of a Creation.

All science supports Darwinism.

—–allanius: “The strongest political tactic for ID is to state its case in an attractive way. ID has natural power because nature looks designed. Now it needs the right kind of rhetoric to transmute this natural power into political gold.

May I humbly suggest that this has not yet happened”

Check out “The Evidential Power of Beauty, by Father Thomas Dubay.

Clearly someone who talks about the “understatement of the millenia” [sic] is not given to hyperbole.

“May I humbly suggest that this has not yet happened”

May I suggest the truth or what is the best evidence available.

Jerry:

Upright Biped:

If you are going to suggest that ID throw YEC under the bus, I ask that you make a few points explicit:

[A] Why is it necessary to end all relationships with decent and civilized people (YECs) in order to make the point that a religious presupposition (YEC) is not an empirical observation (ID). Why is it not enough to simply make the point in print and at every opportunity.

[B] Explain exactly what you mean by disassociation and be explcit about how that should be made public. (Should Michael Behe challenge Paul Nelson to a duel at sunrise or should he simply run and hide when Paul says “good morning.”)

[C] Draw me a picture about how [B] will change things. Tell me how it all plays out—Which Darwinist will stop lying, which TE will finally decide whether or not God really does intervenes in the evolutionary process, which burueacrat in the academy will be persuaded to give ID its rightful place at the table, and which of the uncommitted seekers of truth will decide in favor of ID.

[D] Meanwhile, explain why we don’t confront materialist Darwinists, our real enemies, and take them to court for violating their precious doctrine of Church/State separation. Inasmuch as they are teaching children the RELIGION of Secular Humanism in the name of science, why don’t we stop cowering and go after them. Explain why we shouldn’t ALL GET FAMOUS TOGETHER.

Hi jerry,

You said:
“There is evidence for both gradualistic and catastrophic occurrence in the geological record and detailed evidence for both playing a part in the history of the earth not only in the past but in the world today.”

Would you mind specifying the evidence for past gradualistic geologic processes that require vast amounts of time, and that cannot possibly be produced by rapid processes?

Little anecdote … Steve Austin (YEC w/ PhD in sedimentary geology) was doing well at showing that geologic features thought to have formed over vast amounts of geologic time, were better explained by catastrophic processes. Fed-up old-earthers finally threw up their hands and said, “Look, all you have to do is go to the Grand Canyon and look at the layers there that HAD to have been laid down over vast periods of time.” So he went, and among other discoveries of evidence of rapid deposition, discovered what may be the largest catastrophically laid fossil deposit in the world. The fossil layer was right in the middle of one of these beds which HAD to have been laid down over millions of years.

—-”Clearly someone who talks about the “understatement of the millenia” [sic] is not given to hyperbole.”

If I have told him once, I have told him five million times to stop exaggerating.

Here are some quick references related to the anecdote above:

Old Austin article for the layman:
http://www.icr.org/article/337/

Abstract for geology conf.:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002....._45610.htm

Article by Snelling (another YEC PhD geologist) for the layman:
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....3/time.asp

(To moderators: It appears that not everyone’s comments are moderated … I’ve been good for a long time and I don’t cause much trouble, is there way to get off the must-be-moderated list?)

Done. You were nearly the first name on a very long moderation list. Sorry it took so long. It’s easier getting on the moderation list than getting off of it. -ds

Jerry/Upright

You know I love you guys and my opinion re an old earth is aligned with yours. I even agree with you that YEC association essentially poisoned the well for ID in several ways.

However, I urge you to keep in mind that design detection, so far as I know, in and of itself does not give us dates or methods of design. It is, in actuality, only one small part of making a case for YEC. It does not make their case. They have a very long row to hoe beyond simply pointing to design detection in order to show when and how the design was accomplished.

If you believe design detection speaks either for against an old earth then make your case for how it does. Otherwise we’re not going to be throwing anyone under the bus for political expediency.

Conflating ID and YEC is a lame untruth that our opponents use because it sells well to the unwashed masses and we, at least here at UD and most other flags under which ID supporters rally, will not be bullied by a lie into shrinking the size of our tent. Our stand is based on principle. We work to expose the lie rather than buckle under it.

So what I suggest is that those of us who have no problem taking the evidence for an old earth with life diversifying on it for most of its tenure continue to hammer home that evolution by chance & necessity alone is a dog that won’t hunt even when given all the time & opportunity of billions of years of years of descent from one or a few common ancestors and continue pointing to the positive evidence of design as the only other known mechanism with the capacity for explaining the origin and diversification of life.

And to Jerry in particular, I promoted you from subsciber to author a long time ago so that you could stop spinning your wheels in the comments and get more visibility by putting your views, which are aligned with mine, on the front page in article format. Yet you haven’t availed yourself of that opportunity in what must be at least a year or two. Put your money where your mouth is and give me some support in getting more science headlines copacetic with design and an old earth on this blog. Use your knowledge and writing skills to flog the Darwinists instead of flogging fellow ID supporters.

Prof. Dembski! I couldn’t agree more! Right on!! The Designer be with you at that conference!

“But I’ll also be pointing out that our opponents, the materialists and their cronies, are now battling principally for political rather than intellectual control. Indeed, the materialists have lost the intellectual battle.”

Indeed they have—yet the political battle rages—note Jonah Goldberg and Dennis Prager today. Materialism must win at all costs, everything else is ignored and forgotten—including 9/11. Today, for what it’s worth, is 23 Elul on the Jewish calendar (as was 9/11/01), and there we see Ahmadinejad lashing out at us and Israel, but what do we care—destroying Sarah Palin is what matters.

No, the logical case against Darwin and for ID has been made—overwhelmingly! But the materialist elite will not go quitely into the night. We must help them!

Dave,

Two things:

First: I have been very busy and most of my comments have been made on the fly so I haven’t spent much time here. Most of my free time has gone to trying to figure out the mortgage crisis. It is now 1:30 in the morning and I have a few minutes to respond.

Second: it has been just six months since you invited me to be an author. I have had some unusual circumstances that has prevented me from submitting anything and probably will continue to prohibit me from doing so in the near future.

I definitely have some ideas but want to read much more before I stick my neck out. The one that interest me the most is just what is ucd and what are its implications. The other one is just how much do Darwinian processes explain in nature. I happen to think a lot but like you believe it is limited to the devolution of species not the upward evolution proposed by the Darwinists. That would fit in with your beliefs in front loading.

I also believe that ID leads to an embracing of an old earth. That I have to think out more and would like the thoughts of others on this. I am not sure how much help I will get here on this. I made the statement before that the YEC’s don’t really believe in evolution but ID accepts evolution and only debates the mechanism for it.

Evolution is not something ID can remain neutral on and the potential mechanisms for it. We should list the things ID can remain neutral on and those they cannot. I do not think the age of the earth is one it can remain neutral on. In order to apply ID methods it is necessary to assume an old earth or else the conclusions do not make sense. ID can not rule out micro evolution as a valid scientific theory and micro evolution implies an old earth.

So from a political stand point some in ID say it is neutral on the age of the earth but from a scientific stand point it cannot be. Which is why I continue to point out the inconsistency of ID being neutral on the age of the earth not only because it is bad science but also because it really inhibits acceptance of it by a much wider audience.

ID should start off every discussion of itself with the statement that it is completely consistent with a universe of 14 billion years, an earth of 4.5 billion years, of life existing on this earth for around 3.5 billion years and a general progression of life over that time to greater complexity and more sophisticated functionality. The only thing ID objects to in current evolutionary biology is the mechanism for the appearance of some new species (the real debate is over how big this “some” is). Besides saying that it is not inconsistent with an old earth ID should say it accepts certain mechanism for species origin as likely and that these mechanisms imply an old earth. I am mainly thinking of micro evolution here and the new species are mainly due to devolution.

When ID makes such a statement and people like Steve Fuller begin their debate with such a statement, they will dominate the debate instead of being defensive through most of it. It would also be a topic in major discussions such as the upcoming conference at the Vatican on evolution. It would also dominate the college debates and rid many ID supporters of evasive and defensive debating techniques. It would put the Darwinists on the defensive in these debates.

I am sure many will say I am dreaming but that’s what I believe and that is what I continue to push for.

YEC,

I believe, plate tectonics, mid ocean ridge formation, volcanic island formation, magnetic field reversal and silt deposits are only a few items that strongly support an old earth and are both gradual and catastrophic in nature. There are many more but these are good for starters. There is good evidence that these processes have operated in the past and are definitely operating in the present.

I am not a geologist but have studied it in bits and pieces and the gradualism that is hoped for in biology but embarrassingly missing is present in geology in several different processes. These gradual processes that are operating each day in our present time and are consistent with many of the structures we find in the world. The biologists cannot say the same.

Upright BiPed said (#28) –

As such (a political game) it hardly makes sense for ID to align itself beside YEC, particularly if your competitor’s Point Numero Uno is that ID isn’t science.

DaveScot said (#44) –

Conflating ID and YEC is a lame untruth that our opponents use because it sells well to the unwashed masses and we, at least here at UD and most other flags under which ID supporters rally, will not be bullied by a lie into shrinking the size of our tent. Our stand is based on principle. We work to expose the lie rather than buckle under it.

Another reason why Darwinists conflate ID and YEC, Dave, is so they can misuse the Constitution’s establishment clause to attack the teaching or even mention of ID in the public schools. The Darwinists do not give ID proponents any Brownie points for rejecting YEC — the Darwinists insist on always calling ID “ID creationism.”

YEC’s are not always friendly towards ID, but Answers-in-Genesis, a YEC outfit, enthusiastically advertises Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled,” an ID movie:

Special pre-release SALE! Get everyone you know to view this eye-opening documentary. Host a video party at your home! Order now to receive it immediately upon its worldwide release! (Ships beginning October 21)

The lie of evolution must be exposed!

The message of this top-quality expose’ will both enthrall and shock you. Ben Stein’s amazing, much-discredited (by evolutionists!) documentary is worthy of an Academy Award(R). But it will never receive one, because it reveals that America is losing some of its most important freedoms (academic freedoms, especially in tax-supported institutions) because of what atheistic evolutionists are doing. You will be astounded at what they have already done to squash educational freedom and mock God . . .

. . . . A very popular “evolution-busting” tool to expose the lack of academic freedom in America’s schools today, we urge you to use it as a powerful resource for outreach. This film is an excellent springboard to tell people who the real intelligence behind the universe is: the Creator God of the Bible. Buy an extra copy and tell your pastor that the whole church—including the teens—must see it!

Professional review
“Expelled is a highly entertaining and riveting documentary . . . it’s one of those rare films that I urge you not to miss.”
— Ken Ham, CEO/President of Answers in Genesis–USA

– from
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....9,229.aspx

The Answers-in-Genesis website also sells Michael Behe’s ID book Darwin’s Black Box.

—-Jerry: “I am not sure I follow what you are getting at. Why am I confused?”

Uniformitarianism is a basic principle of geology and paleontology. It holds that the same geological processes that operate today also operated in the distant past. Catastrophism holds that earth surface features originated suddenly by a process radically different from those we now observe. Yes, in the context of uniformitarianism, “catastrophic events” can occur, but that doesn’t alter the principle. You are confusing “catastrophic events” in the context of the principle of uniformatarianism, with the principle Catastrophism, which is totally incompatible with the principle of uniformitarianism.