But the identity issue is all ‘hush hush.’ Indeed, anything that could implicate that the designer(s) was/is not the Christian god is ignored. Theological assumptions then begin to work against this scientific effort. For instance, the assumption that everything that was designed was intended to be designed according to a benevolent master plan – this blindsides us to malicious or incompetant design. A question I have for other IDers is, are there any structures which you believe were designed, but you admit do not fit into your theology?
EJ

EJ Klone asked:

I’ve got a question for you if you will indulge me, Scordova, how can you infer that a designer is intelligent and yet not be describing characteristics of that designer?

That’s a good question. When IDers say we can’t say much or anything about the intelligent designer, it is assumed that means anything except the fact that he/it/they is intelligent.

I’ve got a question for you if you will indulge me, Scordova, how can you infer that a designer is intelligent and yet not be describing characteristics of that designer? Behe, bless his heart, said in court that you could infer only that the designer(s) wanted to create design the devices in question, such as the flagellum. But as the lawyer pointed out with a rhetorical question, how can you know that without knowing anything about the designer? How many times have we humans tried to create something, only to accidentally create something else entirely? My point is that you cannot simultaneously argue that the designer is even particularly intelligent (or that it intended to create said biochemical structures) and yet argue that you cannot identify characteristics of a designer.

It is often argued by evolutionists that a designer would not have designed it a certain way, which are arguments that only work against certain theological aassumptions. If we do away with those assumptions, I think ID will become stronger, and unencumbered enough to make some specific predictions.

Maybe the designer(s) were trying to create a molecular syringe, and accidentally created a flagellum? I know I’ve messed up brownies and ended up with cupcakes.

Evidence is always sifted thru a grid of prior assumptions (holy texts? direct revelations from a supposed deity? direct revelations from an extraterrestrial? Imaginings of some “prophet”? Nothing at all?) The evidence demonstrates nothing about *anything* until certain assumptions are made, which cannot be empirically proven.

Ooh, it’s good to see a solipsist on the board!

Thanks for the endorsement Emkay, whoever that is. As I used to say over at EvC -

“Who is next?”

I don’t believe indemonstrable is a word.

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison

HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAa!

I think this is nonsense. Evidence is always sifted thru a grid of prior assumptions (holy texts? direct revelations from a supposed deity? direct revelations from an extraterrestrial? Imaginings of some “prophet”? Nothing at all?) The evidence demonstrates nothing about *anything* until certain assumptions are made, which cannot be empirically proven.

For example, if I assume that this universe, and all life on it, is simply a game for bored superbeings (who, just for the heck of it, have intentionally forgotten who they are when they (read: you and me) are born as humans), and that all the squabbling and living and dying on here are just part of a massive game, played out in some super virtual reality, then I would necessarily view every event and every piece of evidence quite differently. Radically different interpretations for every just about ever event would be viewed differently.

The Christians have their view of the middle east crisis, the Muslims have theirs, and atheists have theirs. But if you had some kind of metaphysical certainly about this world being only a *game*, you would probably view the middle east fighting differently than either of them, and all the rest of the pretexts that they fight about, etc. Your view would be radically different.

Now about the “creator” and “his” “characteristics?” It all depends on your aprior view of reality in the first place. And I will bet dollars to donuts your assumptions cannot be demonstrated objectively. They are merely one subjective view among many, and the evidence viewed thru your lens will generate a different conclusion as compared to those processed thru another’s lens.

As I see it, ID is being used almost exclusively for supporting Christian theological arguments. Am I the only one that sees a problem with the whole, ‘ID doesn’t say anything about the identity of the designer,’

EJ Klone,

I appreciate your comments. But even I, given my position on the issues, have no hesitation saying to creationists, “ID does not identify the designer”. They don’t see it as disingenuous, or that IDers like me are trying to sneak something past them. Rather, they recognize it as an effort to make careful distinctions and maintaining high standards of scientific integrity free from philosophy and theology.

They realize that such a mode of inquiry has the best chance of vindicating their personal views. If on the other hand they suspect an argument was not theology-free, how can they trust its conclusions? For those on the fence, as I was 6 years ago, theology-free science was very liberating. I much enjoyed Denton and Jastrow (agnostics) over Henry Morris (YEC). And among the young exploring the issues, even the creationists, I ask, “if all things were equal, who’s word carry more weight to you, someone like Michael Denton or or a Bible believer like Henry Morris”. Almost invariably, they’ll answer Denton! (Curiously, though Denton has a keen distaste for YEC, his books are sold by ICR and AiG).

Half the population in the USA believe in special creation. They surely would be delighted to learn ID. An additional 35% (the Theistic Evoluitonists) may be open to hearing ID. It’s been my experience that it’s a waste of time trying to appease the die-hards. I find it more productive to seek out the 85% who might give it a fair hearing and try to understand the theoretical underpinnings of ID independent of theology. It will be satisfying to eventually see what we see in the general population recruited into the ranks of scientists, doctors, and engineers of tomorrow.

Equipping them with the design arguments will enable them to stand before their peers as equals with no shame. I’m already seeing hints of this on the campuses. Among the young, to be an IDer is not looked at with the same disdain as it is in the older generation. Why? It is not unusual for an IDer to be at the top of the class. The way to change the minds of the scientific community is to appeal to the scientific community of tomorrow, not the community of today which has among their ranks many who have paid their mortgages and risen to fame by promoting naturalistic evolution.

The anti-IDers have to worry that their explanations are not being found convincing. I point to the recent Cornell class, almost all of the students found Richard Dawkins Blind Watchmaker a scientific disappointment. In light of this, the idea of an All-Seeing Watchmaker starts to become more viable.

The otherside may be complaing about this or that regarding ID, but the fact remains, it is they who are starting to have serious credibility problems among the general population and those in the applied sciences (medicine and technology), and even among those among their own ranks.

“Who is next?”

I don’t believe indemonstrable is a word.

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison