On Uncommon Descent William Dembski claims that Richard Dawkins has admitted that life could be designed and thus wonders: âIs ID therefore scientific?â. As I will show this is a logically flawed conclusion.
First of all lets point out Intelligent Design does not claim merely that life is designed but that such design can be detected via scientific methods. In this aspect if differs from science which admits that design always remains a logical possibility, however science also accepts that if such design is âsupernaturalâ no scientific method can detect such design.
William Dembski Wrote:
I expect that Dover was not the end of litigation involving ID. In the next court case, it will be interesting put depose the people on the other side who appear in EXPELLED as they try to argue that ID is religion given their huge concessions in this film.
Itâs ironic that once again Dembski is bragging about how ânext timeâ¦ you just waitâ¦ next timeâ¦â. This promissory note is a typical response from ID creationists whenever reality conflicts with their beliefs. Remember how Dembski was bragging how the next time evolutionists would be under oath, he would certainly be able to expose them using the âviseâ? In Dembskiâs fantasy world of âThe Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth out of Darwinistsâ, he explains that next timeâ¦ we will get the âtruth out of Darwinistsâ. When the opportunity arose in the form of the Dover Kitzmiller trial, Dembski was curiously absent and the remaining witnesses for the defense, outlined nicely why ID was religiously motivated and lacked as a science. While the plaintiffsâ expert witnesses were hardly needed to expose this, contributions of Barbara Forrest, which the defense tried to have âexpelledâ for obvious reasons, as well as the testimony of Ken Miller all but sealed the fate of ID creationism.
So what will it be next time? ID will have erased its history of religious foundations? Unlikely? ID will have shown that it can have a scientific âtheoryâ of ID, a contradiction in terms if I have ever heard one? Unlikely as even staunch ID proponents have come to admit the scientific vacuity of ID. For instance in Berkeley Science review, Philip âFather of Intelligent Designâ Johnson expressed his frustrations:
Philip Johnson Wrote:
I also donât think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory thatâs comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that itâs doable, but thatâs for them to proveâ¦No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
Source: Michelangelo DâAgostino In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley
Could ID be therefore scientific? Sure, nothing is beyond the impossible and science will surely consider this possibility, although so far, ID has done nothing to engage science and to show that ID can indeed be a scientific position.
So wake me up when ID creationists provide a scientific explanation of how the bacterial flagellum was âdesignedâ.
In fact, to argue that Dawkins admits that life could be designed is hardly news. After all, as a scientist, Dawkins would hardly reject the possibility of a designer, although he does explain why such a possibility is highly unlikely by using IDâs own arguments. Now thatâs just too ironic for words.
In his Time Discussion with Collins, Dawkins for instance stated
DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is Godâitâs that that seems to me to close off the discussion.
TIME: Could the answer be God?
DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.
COLLINS: Thatâs God.
DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly smallâat the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think thatâs the case.
No need for Ben Stein and still while miracles like ID becoming scientifically relevant are never beyond a logical possibility, it seems also evident that ID is not making much progress in actually following such a path. Perhaps Dembski can help us understand how ID will be able to testify differently next timeâ¦ Well, there will always be a next time I guess.
PS: I will attempt to leave a trackback. Of course history tells me that such an attempt is futile. ID is not ready for science.