PBS to show Intelligent Design Documentary

ID is supposedly a field of study in biology-correct? Dembski isn't qualified in that field.

In any event, whatever. If others want to watch this they are welcome to. I had enough of Behe and his illogical and made up arguments in "darwin's black box".

Just some points:

Behe accepts Common descent.
ID is dependent (at least behe's) on an old earth.

 

Intelligent design theory occupies a strange location in the evolution debate.

Intelligent design per se does not rule out common descent or deep time in the history of life. As such is it less a burden to the knowledgeable mind.
On the other hand, it amounts to nothing more than a denial that variation and natural selection can work, asserting that what we see in the history and development of life is obviously to complex for such a simple mechanism.

That's not really much of a theory. The history of science is over and over a triumph of the less than obvious over what was formerly common sense. Perhaps with some more work it could be raised to the level of driving some inquiries into where unaided evolution needed and received some help.

The popularity of intelligent design theory is driven not by the quality of the science but by the hunger for making room for God somewhere in science. It is often used by people who completely deny the true age of the earth and common descent to bolster their evidence - ignoring point of view. This is baggage that discredits intelligence design theory, perhaps unfairly.

Historically we have often failed miserably when it comes to mixing God and science. Today we find the best science is done by ignoring the "God" aspect of reality while we do our science. This speaks loudly about our ability to find God on our own, without His help!

Intelligent design theory, at this time, does not really have anything to contribute to the study of evolution.

 

I agree with you and Einstein. That makes three of us, so it must be true!

 

Consider the great casinos of the world. Here, random chance might make you rich when you play there. Now there are times when the house stacks the deck and manipulates the wheel but we all know that even when the games are "honest" somehow it works out that the house makes money over the long haul.

How can that be when its all a matter of games of chance?

It's in the fundamental design of the games themselves, of course, the odds are fundamentally designed to be in favor of the operation of the laws of chance bringing about the outcome desired by those who frame the rules of the game.

My advice: don't gamble. But I want to make a point.

Even if evolution has a random element in it - and we all know the theory does have that element in it - that does not mean there wasn't a designer who set up the house rules in the first place to achieve His desired outcome! But you don't find it by analyzing the throws of the dice. You look for it in the rules of the game.

 

I think the significance of the credentials (or lack thereof) of the 8 ID ph>D.s is being misunderstood here.

I do not attach--and I think it is unreasonable to attatch--any significance whatsoever to any individual's lack of formal qualification in evolutionary biology. ID purports to be an interdisciplinary field of study. (And whatever its failings may be, in this it is undoubtedly successful!) One would expects its proponents (and its detractors also) to have diverse bockgrounds and qualifications. Therefore it does not bother me at all that Dembsky has published nothing on evolutionary biology. It would have been nice if he had found a collaborator with experience in evolutionary biology, but his failure to do so can hardly be decisive.

That said, the lack of apparent education in or professional experience with evolutionary biology of the 8 Ph.D.s AS A GROUP ought to raise concern; after all, ID is a multidisciplinary field, and one of the most promiinent things it tries to discuss is evolutionary biology.

 

>>>>Here is the official site of the Human Genome Project. It gives credit where credit is due...God, not random chance.<<<<<

Where is that exactly? Maybe I overlooked that part but I didn't see that.

 

>>>>>>Albert Einstein who developed the Theory of Relativity, although not a particularly religious Jew, once said:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein)<<<<<
................................................
But you might be surprised at how loosely Einstein defined religion. Do you know what else he said about it? Here is a sample, which is an answer to a letter:

"I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

And in another context, Einstein wrote:

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.

My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God."

...............................................
I don't believe that Einstein should necessarily be taken as an expert on religion, whatever his views. But if you are going to quote Einstein, it is incumbent upon you to give an accurate account of his beliefs, which were quite different from what you have implied.

[ May 28, 2003, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: Peter101 ]

 

Kathryn wrote:

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I agree with Dr. Collins. And when I see a flower I see God beneath that flower, and believe that it is God's flower. And when I see the stars I marvel at the sublime creation of Him who created those stars. And when I see a baby I see the image of Him who so recently gave it life.

But there is a subtle difference between me and Dr. Colllins on the one hand, and Intelligent Design adherents on the other. Dr. Collins and I see the language of God in the genetic code, but we do not say that this is proof of, or even evidence of God's existence or action, as opposed to God's nonexistence or non-action.

If I may be permitted to apply the anthropomorphism of "God as Designer" (I prefer to call God the Creator), I might well say that I see the design of God in the human genetic code (or in a flower, etc.) I might do so, however, because I already would know God as the Designer, and so would be prepared to see HIs wonderous design anywhere; but seeing evidence of His Design is not the same as seeing evidence that He is the Designer.

The failure to make that distinction is, in my view, the main failure of Intelligent Design Theorists and their followers. Intelligent Design Theorists think it amazing that they can demonstrate (at least to their own satisfaction) that God actually designed something. This brings to mind Samuel Johnson's remarks on a horse that could count. Dr. Johnson said,words to the effect that "it's not that he doesn't count well, but that he counts at at all!" Intelligent Design theorists, by emphasizing their "oroofs" that God actually designed something, reduce the Creator to the level of Samuel Johnson's horse.

 

Kathry wrote:

Because that's all they write about. There's little or no interest in any supposed process of design, any constraiints on design, what considerations went into the design, etc. Only the alleged fact of design interests them.

Yes. I read their literature. Presuming that they are honest intellectuals their thoughts are written in their literature, which I read.

 

Kathryn quote me way out of context: The antecedent of the pronoun "he" in the quote below is "William Dembski". Kathryn quotes:

To this Kathryn responds, above, with credentials of one Dr. Dean Kenyon. Said Dr. Dean Kenyon was not to my knowledge a significant collaborator of Dembski in producing the latter's explanatory filter for detecting design.

It would still be nice if WILLIAM DEMBSKI had found a collaborator with experience in evolutionary biology, but his failure to do so can hardly be decisive.

 

Kathryn wrote:

Perhaps I should not have used the word "amazing", which seems to have become a shibboleth for Kathryn. By ID theorists thinking it amazing that they can demonstrate design I mean that demonstrating the existence of design or a designer is all they try to do. Dembski's filter seeks to demonstrate the absurdity of life arising by something other than design. That's all. Behe seeks to demonstrate that some supposedly irreduciblly complex systems could not have evolved except with the guiding hand of some design. Nothing more. NOthing actually about the design or designer. Just the alleged fact of the design and designer. That is why I think ID theorists display the same contempt for their subject that Dr. Johnson displayed towards the counting hourse.

 

Kathry wrote:

Well, you can try to restate your argument in context, but your original out-of-context statement stands. Your current attempt to put your remarks in context is laudible; but no one can plausibly see that you have not taken anything out of context. You wrote what you wrote, and what you wrote was out of context. You are free to correct what you wrote; but you may not nothing you write can take your previously out-of-context quote and put it back into context.

However, I shall go the extra mile and accept your new context for your old argument. Still you fail on the merrits. I asked for credentials in evolutionary biology. You gave me Kenyon's credentials in origin of life.

For the sake of argument, though, let us suppose that Kenyon also has done lots and lots of work on evolutionary biology (other than on the origin of life). That's one in 8 having such credentials. Why is that field so underrepresented in the group as a whole? Or more generally, to ID theorists as a group?

I don't want to make lack of credentials decisive. You should read some of the ID literature and decide whether it's garbage or whether there might be something to it. It should concern you, however that there is evident lack of widespread credentials in evolutionary biology amongst ID theorists.