Intelligent Design "test" in PA
Likely you have heard about Pat Robertson's latest gaffaw regarding impending doom and God's abandonment of Dover PA, but have to you heard details about this PA court case? It is being touted as the first court test of Intelligent Design and critical in how science is taught in the future in the US. If you heard Sir Polkinghorne speak at UMass a few years ago you know this renown physicist speaks and writes about the scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. Behe also spoke at Umass; he was one of the expert witnesses in the PA case (he's the author of Darwin's Black Box). In fact, Behe is coming to Umass again in a few months (thx to Dave Thom) and this will again be discussed in our midst. The PA court case is completed but as of this moment, the ruling has not been handed down. All this started in Dover b/c the school board voted to have a statement read to the science students about Evolution being a theory (not fact) and about Intelligent Design being an alternate theory.... and also making a text book about ID available if students wanted to read more about it. For an article, and the exact text of the statement that was to be read to students here is a link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9444600/
posted by Carol Soules at 1:33 PM
6 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ah...yes..details... Thx for this clarification. Polkinghorne does speak of an intelligent designer but from a different point of reference than Behe. Post therefore edited to hopefully be more accurate! If anyone is interested in more about Polkinghorne here is one of many interesting links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance-theistic.html
While I'm not so clear on the differences on Intelligent Design theories, here's some incomplete beef on the subject:
I don't see Intelligent Design preaching God as revealed in Jesus Christ. Instead, it's a theistic God, a general God, one that (suprise!) looks rather like us. And it's "intelligent," just like us. It's funny that one scientist has put an equally justifiable theory out on the table: "Incompetent Design." This theory looks at the chaos of the universe and sees no particular resolution of the phenomena into what looks like more than randomness. Shall we teach this one too? What is our benchmark for intelligence vs. stupidity? I've heard one person talk about IT as being rather "egotistical," and there's some truth to that I think. That's precisely where IT'ers are right to throw a wrench into the arrogant factual-evolutionist machine.
Now, considering how postmodernism has affected the way we think about certainty in any field, science is not beyond the scope of the critique, especially evolutionists who claim that their theories are fact, thus removing any resemblance to "theory."
However, intelligent design wants to point beyond the phenomena itself to a creator. Evolutionists, as far as I can tell, remains agnostic about this sort of thing (although Darwin wasn't, nor the Catholics as Ian pointed out). Evolution is broad enough to describe phenomena with IT behind it or not. Therefore, while I support the critique of evolution being taught as more than a theory, I do not support any comparison between the two. Intelligent design should be taught in religion courses, not in science courses. And yes, secular public schools should have courses on religion. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it's a religious one, and not a Christian one.
That said, science and religion have begun closer dialogue (see extras on I Love Huckabees for a good example) since Einstein brought Spinoza with him. I welcome this dialogue.
I'll probably disagree with most of this in about 5 minutes. Oh well, have fun.
Not sure where that understanding of Intelligent Design came form Gooby. I actually don't think Intelligent Design in and of itself, addresses the idea of God at all: theistic, Jesus, or one that looks like us or whatever. I believe their conclusion is as follows:
Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, ID simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."
Which is basically what I have heard Polkinghorne say.... a few years ago (not sure if he has moved from that place recently). Perhaps this is what Ian refers to as Theistic Evolution.
I don't think ID people necessarily reject general evolution either.
That being said, I imagine there is variation of beliefs within ID as there is in within any set of ideas.
btw: Discovery Institute (a main proposnent of ID) also does not feel ID should be required in public schools and advised Dover, PA against their policy along time ago! There is a lot of info about this on their web page.
PS...all that to say..basically... that as far as I understand it you can be a Theistic Evolutionist...and fall within ID....
ID.. as it is technically defined, is very broad..or minimalistic...depending on your point of view...
While science and religion are both finding the dialogue important, they remain two distinct disciplines (thus, we have a name for one and a name for the other). Proponents of either ID or evolution who care to make remarks that comment on what lies behind the phenomena are making "meta-physical" remarks, or religious remarks, or (though I say this with some contempt), theological remarks. I believe professors should have the freedom to view the phenomena in whatever lens they choose. Some professors will see the phenomena as having an amazing track record of "order" (a term I much prefer over "design," since design points to a designer) while others will see it as "random" or "chaotic." Some will see "intelligence" (where we impose our own views of how the world should work, and by golly it works the way we would have planned it! but only God can do it, so will give kudos to Him), while others will see "incompetancy." Just as we struggle to look at Scripture and use different lenses that lend different interpretations, so scientists are often at odds with one another about how exactly to view the phenomena. Or take a simple case: "is the glass half empty or half full?" Nobody has actually come up with a good argument for why we should pick one over the other. Thus, it's dumb when both decide through mere shouting "No, I'M RIGHT!" as if the otherside will finally realize the truth.
All that's to say that is the following:
A. Evolution is a scientific theory.
Why? Because scientists have interpreted the data and within the confines of the physical phenomena have made a theory about how that physical phenomena works. It's PHYSICAL, in case you missed that point. However, it should be noted that just because it's physical doesn't mean there's a certain degree of fact or truth that scientists have. There's enormous controversy over:
1. What a scientific theory is, let alone a good one (methodological)
2. Whether the phenomena really exists "out there." (metaphysical)
3. Whether we can even KNOW what the phenomena is doing, how it's constructed if at all, etc.(epistemological).
B. Now, the current fight, it seems to me, is a meta-physical one: how do we interpret the physical data in order to make claims regarding the order or chaos of the phenomena, and from that to make religious claims regarding (a la eutychus)regarding the existence of a deity or God or Being or WHATEVER?
What's wrong with the playground of this fight?
A. It assumes, in my opinion, a certain FOUNDATION upon which to make claims: i.e. Physical phenomena looks this way, thus it is this way. The foundation of empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume) for instance, which puts its philosophical stock in experience ahead of rational thought, is largely where we got our Newtonian theories of science from. Thus, it was assumed that experience was trustworthy, that the senses were trustworthy, and that all we had to do was look and see the truth! Well this paradigm has since been blown to smitherines (sp?), but it was revolutionary for its time.
So where do I stand in all of this?
A. I don't believe science can prove or disprove my faith. Not because of the limits of my knowledge, but because of the holiness and otherness of God.
B. Because of this, science is merely a pragmatic tool for humanity to understand the world around it so it can use it in whatever way it chooses (for good or evil). I am skeptical about the truth claims that it makes, but often find "good enough" justification for its claims. However, no claims that science makes will ever be good enough to prove or disprove God, nor even to show possibility of God (a la Alvin Plantinga). Scientists describe physical phenomena and GIVE it order in their minds.
Now some of this might sound very scary, but the definition of reality for this world ends up being turned on its head (perhaps in a Matrix-like way). This is not reality folks. If you're a Christian, you know this. So stop putting so much faith in it, because we KNOW as Christians that
a. this world is screwed up.
b. we're screwed up.
c. thus, any understanding we generate is going to be sincerely SCREWED UP!
So relativism as regards this world is really okay to believe and still be a Christian. And the people that believed other theories before, today, and the future? Same thing.
Now, what does all this crap have to do with ID?
1. As far as I can tell, ID is a wonderful religious theory to the scientific community, in that it allows room for scientists to see the order in their field. However, scientists have been seeing order for years, and they have to assume SOME sort of general outlook in order to make a hypothesis about a particular phenomena. Otherwise, the scientists would be paralyzed, and nothing would get done (note the pragmatic reasons for believing SOMETHING, which underscores my point that science is and should be grounded in nothing more pragmatism).
ID, in my opinion, if it were just a general way of viewing things so that they have order, wouldn't be very original or exciting. No, in this case I think EvilEutychus is on to something. ID is MUCH MORE than this. ID thus makes the same mistake that arrogant "randomness" scientists make, which say:
"Look at the foundational scientific knowledge!" ID says "look how this happens, isn't that odd? That can't be random. It must be designed, because if it's not random then something made it happen this way!" "Randomness" scientists (which aren't totally sold on randomness, because if they were then they couldn't do their jobs) push back and say "no, it's all random." Really? And both camps want to teach this to their kids, and indoctrinate competitively.
Nobody knows anything, they just think they do and get stuff done. That's science for ya. Science is no foundation, just like philosophy is no foundation. That's why all these disciplines like literature, art, etc. have come to the forefront in our culture and are no longer eclipsed.
That said, I love this blog and the means through which to rant and rave. God bless all who made this contraption.
Post a Comment
<< Home