Paranoia - Ben Stein - Evolution & No Intelligence FOUND

[Guest]

Imagine Behe arguing that the flagellum is irreducibly complex without bothering to argue that we can conclude things that are irreducibly complex are designed.

I don't think they need to push the idea that if the ToE 'falls', then creatures must have been designed by 'something'.

...I think they have realised that - as you rightfully say - pushing the ID-er part of their arguments is blocking the legitimacy of their movement. They also realise that they don't need to push the ID-er part of their arguments. Vast amounts of people would automatically go for the 'designer' explanation if the ToE was sufficiently toppled. (Or at least people believed it had been...).
They don't need to force the conclusion as a 'scientific conclusion'. That conclusion will happen regardless.

So why hold themselves back with this 'IDer' concept, when it isn't even necessary to push it? The concept of an IDer would push itself in the end - whether in a scientifically viable way, or not...

In the end, do they care about the means? Surely it's the ends they care about...?


I think even Behe would see the wisdom in that...

[_Gadianton]

Didn't Dembski admit a long time ago that ID was a "metaphysical hypothesis"? And if that's true, then why should it be part of Biology curriculum?

[_Ren]

Didn't Dembski admit a long time ago that ID was a "metaphysical hypothesis"? And if that's true, then why should it be part of Biology curriculum?

Not sure about that...
...but I do know that Behe admitted - under oath - that if ID was to be considered science, than the definition of 'science' would have to be broadened to the point of admitting 'astrology'.

I think most ID'ers have given up on a quick route to the classroom. They still wanna get there, but they're realising it's gonna be a longer way round.
...and no -that longer way round isn't to actually follow the normal scientific process! :) It's yet another costume change...

[Guest]

It's also a matter of established precedent that teaching criticisms of evolutionary theory (that are not valid) for the purpose and effect of advancing a religious belief (such as evolution not being correct) is unconstitutional. The new strategy is doing this. It's a matter if they can successfully argue that they are not or successfully get the standard tests of the establishment clause changed. I wouldn't put much money on it unless a religious conservative wins the Whitehouse and gets to appoint 2 or so judges.

[_Ren]

It's also a matter of established precedent that teaching criticisms of evolutionary theory (that are not valid) for the purpose and effect of advancing a religious belief (such as evolution not being correct) is unconstitutional. The new strategy is doing this. It's a matter if they can successfully argue that they are not. I wouldn't put much money on it unless the a religious conservative wins the Whitehouse and gets to appoint 2 or so judges.

I agree. I think they are about done. But I also think that what they are doing right now is still their best shot...

...I'm fairly confident their not going to get very far (But you never know I guess).

I mean, the Dover result kind of restores a bit of faith in not only your legal system, but also the common sense of the public over there. Completely separately from the trial result, they voted the anti-evolutionists off the school board themselves...

[_Moniker]

Intelligent Design isn't a scientific topic because it isn't testable. It is generally believed that explanations, in order to be in the domain of science, need to be testable. If you hold this perspective, then ID is non-science. Criticism of evolutionary theory, poor as it may be, might be an attempt at science, but the argument to design - as it is proposed by IDists - is not.

Oh! Thank God! ;)

That's what I thought. Then Ren was convincing me that I got it all wrong -- which is often the case!

[Guest]

That's what I thought. Then Ren was convincing me that I got it all wrong -- which is often the case!

Heh - I'm not getting across what I'm trying to say very well.
Mon - I didn't say you'd 'gotten it all wrong' :) Because you weren't 'all wrong' at all - and sorry if I managed to give that impression. I was more trying to say that there's a little bit of 'grey' in all this...

If ID is framed as a competing theory - that is to be taught in schools alongside evolution - then it fails as a theory because it cannot be tested. This is true -and that makes that view of it 'illegitimate' science.
But ID-ers are already abandoning this dream in droves. They are no longer talking about teaching a 'competing theory in schools'. (At least not 'yet'...!)

The fact is that there are (or were) 'legitimate' elements to the ID argument. If you don't want to take my word for it, watch the Ken Miller presentation. HE took their argument of Irreducible Complexity seriously. This means that it was legitimate science.
If it wasn't, he wouldn't have bothered to tackle it in a scientific manner at all...

If the claim is made - 'ID isn't valid science' - some people take that to mean that anything ID ever put forward wasn't legitimate. But that isn't correct. Some of what ID put forward WAS testable, and WAS legitimate science. Even if it was - in the end - pretty conclusively proven wrong...


Does that make any sense whatsoever?
Asb - help me out. I think you get what I mean...!

[_Ren]

OK - here. Take EAllusions statement:

Criticism of evolutionary theory, poor as it may be, might be an attempt at science, but the argument to design - as it is proposed by IDists - is not.

The first part of this statement (that I've highlighted) is what I was talking about.

Where ID was trying to simply criticise evolution - that's the 'legitimate' part. That was a 'legitimate' attempt at science. That's what I meant.
But yes - criticising evolution - even if it were to work! - doesn't get you any closer to proving the involvement of the ID-er. Not one bit. That's why - overall - ID fails as a scientific theory. Because they figured they could just 'bash evolution' and - even if it 'worked' - get away with it.

But that's not how science works. And that's why they are - yet again - ditching their current name and moving on to a new one.
It isn't the literal science they were doing that was the problem a lot of the time. It was the false conclusions they were attempting to push from the science they were doing (i.e. their name was a scientific lie - effectively). That was the main problem - as far as judging them scientifically 'legitimate'. (When I'm talking about scientific legitimacy, I'm not talking about whether they had a hope in hell of succeeding in attacking the ToE or not. I'm just talking about whether what they were doing deserved to be called 'science' at all...).

[_Ren]

Sorry to make 3 posts in a row, but I kinda also want to explain why I am so into this 'grey area' on the matter. (Apart from having no life and nothing better to do of course...!)

If the statement is made 'ID never put forward any legitimate science', that statement would be false. I'm quite sure of that.
...and if pro-Evolution peeps go saying that, then they are appearing closed-minded. And in a very real sense, it would be true.

The reason I want to clarify exactly what ID is (and isn't) is so that we don't go inadvertently giving the creationists ammunition...!


ID is / was an illegitimate scientific theory, but it did, none-the-less, contribute legitimate scientific arguments. (That have been met and answered by the evolution camp).

[_EAllusion]

Presumably "legitimate science" refers to good science. IDists aren't in the business of doing that qua IDists. Continually recycling bad anti-evolution arguments is not doing legitimate science.