This Week in Intelligent Design - 15/03/11

| 10 Comments

Intelligent design news from the 9th of March to the 15th of March, 2011.

Another week, another lot of posts by the ID community to sort through. As you may have noticed by now, I’ve given up on devoting much time to anything posted on Uncommon Descent (except for quick links), due to their insular nature (they seem to be read only by their preexisting, fervent community), their complete lack of substantial and interesting discussion, and their overwhelmingly religious tone, which I’m fairly sure robbed them of any pretence of being an objective, scientific and secular place for formal and informal discourse on all matters ID and evolution.

Evolution News & Views, however, remains far more tightly regulated by the Discovery Institute’s PR machine, straying into religious territory fairly rarely, and only really when Michael Egnor decides to swing by, which is, I’m afraid to say, not as often as it used to be. Perhaps he tired of defending dualism from Steven Novella’s neurological assaults, or attacking abortion from a completely secular and scientific perspective. I know I would. Anyway, EN&V remains a good target because people who might be removed from the ID debate have the greatest chance of taking it seriously over any of the other pro-ID blogs out there. It looks snazzy and professional, what can I say?

Also, hello if you’re reading this on The Panda’s Thumb (to which this lede is cross-posted)! This is just my weekly series where I look at at least three posts from the major intelligent design blogs - focusing on Evolution News & Views in particular, for the reasons stated above - and examine their arguments and rhetoric. What I really look for is anything novel: there are plenty of posts out there that simply retread copiously-trodden ground. Then again, sometimes old topics can be given a reboot through a nice rhetorical twist…

Enough of that, let’s get into it!

Continue reading “This Week in Intelligent Design - 15/03/11” at Homologous Legs.

10 Comments

I get the impression that the Intelligent Design movement is a bit like the Roman Empire was in about 400 AD: dying, divided, and being picked to death slowly from the outside.

BioLogos had an article on one of these items:

Dueling Scientists and the Tree of Life: Analyzing the ID Response

Jack Scanlan,

* “the IDC movement was never driven by its arguments but by its religious ideology”

This is a little more like it, an absolute phrase. I admit that it’s rhetorical and I probably wouldn’t have written anything like it myself (mainly because it’s a very strong claim without supporting evidence), but, again, it’s hardly outlandish.

Here is some supporting evidence:

Mike Behe:

“Our intelligence depends critically on physical structures in the brain which are irreducibly complex. Extrapolating from this sample of one, it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture. I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. … Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity.” “Reply to My Critics” Biology and Philosophy 16: 685-709, 2001.

William Dembski:

“My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ.” William Dembski, ‘Intelligent Design’, p 206

“…but let’s admit that our aim, as proponents of intelligent design, is to beat naturalistic evolution, and the scientific materialism that undergirds it, back to the Stone Age. “DEALING WITH THE BACKLASH AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN version 1.1, April 14, 2004”

Phillip Johnson:

“This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.” World Magazine, 30 November 1996

“The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and ‘In the beginning God created.’ Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.” Foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000)

“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” American Family Radio (10 January 2003)

I forgot to add, Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that “Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).

I’ve been aware of this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneti[…]genetic_code

since undergraduate days. It is fascinating. There plenty of evidence that some prokaryote lineages branched off from the rest of life billions of years ago, this is only one example. This is well-explained by the theory of evolution. It does not fit with YEC, and ID offers nothing to explain it.

Luskin states that Behe’s paper in QRB was peer-reviewed. Is that true? I seem to remember it being an invited review, which I don’t believe is necessarily peer-reviewed. It was certainly not an original paper.

Matt G said:

Luskin states that Behe’s paper in QRB was peer-reviewed. Is that true? I seem to remember it being an invited review, which I don’t believe is necessarily peer-reviewed. It was certainly not an original paper.

It was an invited paper if my memory is correct. As for Luskin, don’t believe in whatever he says since he is the Dishonesty Institute Minister of Propaganda.

Jack, I’m glad you are doing this. The guys at ATBC do similar things.

Personally, I can’t handle the raw, unfiltered material like that. My bloos pressure reaches astronomical levels and I get very grumpy at the idiocy.

Thank you

I used to never understand why my father loved collecting numismatics, but boy I have really learned to enjoy it.

“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” American Family Radio (10 January 2003)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Scanlan published on March 15, 2011 9:00 AM.

Phyloseminar rescheduled was the previous entry in this blog.

Right-wing fundamentalists proselytize US military is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter