http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

I have a feeling that you have invested a lot of your time on this subject, so these arguments are probably not new to you.

I am not a hard core ID’er. And I’m not a Phd in the relevant subjects ( Are you?). But, I believe that if credible arguments exist against a theory as polarizing as Darwinism, then these arguments should at least be mentioned in a footnote of a biology textbook. I would argue that the typical politician does not have the background to make intelligent policy decisions on this subject.

Also, I’m not sure if some ID proponents can do this, but I can separate arguments against Darwin’s theory of evolution, and evolution as it really happens. Evolution is not killed just because Darwin’s particular theory of it is flawed. Like you said, some people support both evolution and the existence of God. But believing Darwin’s theory of it may be altogether another story….

No more or less than the teaching of other established and accepted theories pre-determines their path in other branches of science. Why single out evolutionary theory? Shouldn’t we teach alchemy alongside chemistry so as to not pre-determine their path for them? Astrology alongside astronomy?

“In other words, it encourages athesim, or at best some form of agnostism?”

Two points here: There are plenty of scientists and non-scientists who accept evolution and believe in God. The fact that certain denominations of Christianity can’t reconcile the two doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. Evolutionary theory (or any scientific theory) does not and cannot disprove the existence of God.

Secondly, it’s not the job of public schools to encourage a belief in God. Their job, with regards to science, is to teach what the scientific method tells us about the world. Any encouragement in theistic beliefs is best left to parents.

“There are huge obstacles to overcome for serious ID work to make any headway in the current scientific establishment.”

I agree, and that’s how it should be. Big Bang theory is a prime example. When the idea was first conceived, it was rejected by scientists. What did Big Bang proponents do? They certainly didn’t try to skip those obstacles and jump directly into the classroom. They worked on their theory, made predictions, and devised experiments. As the predictions were borne out and the data was shown to support the theory, scientists began to accept the theory, and now it’s taught in school. That’s the way it’s usually done, and I’m not sure why ID should get an exemption from this.

“I will try to dig up some examples I read in the past and present them.”

Sounds good. Thanks again for the replies, I appreciate the conversation!

I do agree with that Stew. But, have you ever considered that the teaching of Darwin only pre-determines the path that young scientists take when they enter college and into their doctorate work? In other words, it encourages athesim, or at best some form of agnostism? There are huge obstacles to overcome for serious ID work to make any headway in the current scientific establishment.

I will try to dig up some examples I read in the past and present them.

“I think leading scientists who are open to the idea of ID are in fact making arguments based on the plethora of recent evidence that modern science has unveiled.”

Could you give one or two examples of their arguments that are based on recent evidence?

“All possibilities must remain open until there is irrefutable proof.”

In science, there is no such thing as irrefutable proof. Observation and experimentation can lend very strong support to theories, or can conclusively disprove a theory, but even for very successful theories there is always the possibility that the next set of observations are going to invalidate the theory or some aspect of it.

Besides, the idea that all possibilities must remain open isn’t quite true from a scientific standpoint. For instance, I may have a hypothesis that invisible, undetectable balls of energy revolve around the earth, and when these balls collide, they warp the Global Probability Field (I just made that up) causing highly improbable events to occur, such as the spontaneous generation of life, or new species suddenly appearing. Is my idea a possibility? Certainly. Should the scientific community give the idea serious consideration? Definitely not. The possibility I gave is “closed” to science because science has no way to observe it or quantify it. The “balls of energy” in my hypothesis are undetectable, so it’s impossible to investigate them or say anything about them using the tools of science.

“I’m beginning to believe that ID should have equal time (to Darwin), or at least be mentioned as an alternative theory, within the public school system.”

Then you should encourage IDers to pay their dues: Come up with an actual theory (in the scientific sense, not in the colloquial “guess” sense), specify a mechanism for how design occurs, create an actual research program and experiments (and carry them out) and publish papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. That’s how a theory gains acceptance and makes it into the science classroom, not through a political and legal end run around the scientific community.

If they do manage to wiggle their way into schools, I think I want my energy ball theory talked about as well.

darkmoon:

“I tend to believe that ID cops out when it comes to trying to delve into the “howâ€? of things.”

Exactly right. ID doesn’t provide a “how.” It tries to substitute a “who” in place of a “how.”

Well I know God will be relieved to hear that, darkmoon.

[she giggles]

For example: Back in the day when the world was flat… and you questioned it, then the answers would be:

ID – Because an intelligent being greater than us made it flat.
Science – But I don’t believe it, so let’s see for myself.

Or… 1+1=3.
ID – Because a more advanced being deemed it so.
Science – but when you put one apple in the basket, and another apple in the basket, is there not two apples?

Now I’m not saying religion doesn’t have its place, but I don’t believe it to be in the realm of science just as our physical world is bound by mathematics and science, while religion binds our spiritual world (or lack of in the case of atheists). The why is just as important, but ID tries to relate apples to oranges.

Same thing with all chaotic natures of science. Perhaps it seems perfectly random currently, such as chaos theory. But within every chaotic pattern is logic since everything is bound by the laws of physics and science. Until we have irrefutable proof that those laws can be broken… ID is not the solution to explain things we don’t understand.

And obviously Orson Scott Card isn’t a Catholic either. :p