The Intelligent Design Debate - A Sign of the Victory of Reason?

I've been following some of the recent news and SOLO discussions concerning intelligent design. I believe that the creationists are in fact waving the white flag with their advocacy of ID. Literal Biblical creationism is completely divorced from science, even in appearances. ID, however, is a bit more subtle, and selectively uses science to gain credibility. Doesn't this change in approach signify that reason is now the standard? Creationists and religionists are now accepting the fact that in the marketplace of ideas, their arbitrary, mystical explainations simply don't hold water anymore.

Post 1

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 3:50pm

I think that a better way to understand what the ID/creationism camp is trying to do is to understand what happens to your mind when you entertain certain kinds of ideas seriously.

Religious mystics have always used a reason of sorts to champion their beliefs, but one of the keys to ID's and theistic religion's agenda is that if they can give theism under any guise some intellectual respectability, that theism when taught as science opens the door for lots of other things to get taught as credible ideas.

Evolutionary theory is counterintuitive in many ways (most people who understand it are usually good at abstract mathematical reasoning) , and the Creationist view takes far less work to understand and is more appealing to intuition. What is easier to accept than the idea that some omnipotent anthropomorphic force created the world, when its opponent (Neo-Darwinism) claims that mindless algorithms did so?

ID should be construed as subterfuge, not surrender. It is a cunning means to a familiar end.

Post 2

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 6:04pm

Abolaji wrote:

Religious mystics have always used a reason of sorts to champion their beliefs, but one of the keys to ID's and theistic religion's agenda is that if they can give theism under any guise some intellectual respectability, that theism when taught as science opens the door for lots of other things to get taught as credible ideas.

Reason "of sorts"? That's mistaken. Not all religious people are 'mystics.' And not all are unreasonable or unscientific. I am not religious or theistic, but I object to the "other side" being unfairly and simplistically portrayed in monochromatic tones.

Evolutionary theory is counterintuitive in many ways (most people who understand it are usually good at abstract mathematical reasoning) , and the Creationist view takes far less work to understand and is more appealing to intuition. What is easier to accept than the idea that some omnipotent anthropomorphic force created the world, when its opponent (Neo-Darwinism) claims that mindless algorithms did so?

ID should be construed as subterfuge, not surrender. It is a cunning means to a familiar end.

"Agenda." "Guise." "Subterfuge." "Cunning."

That kind of ad hominem talk is EXACTLY like that of fundamentalist Christians who claim that secular and naturalistic science is "a plot of Satan's to deceive."

"Intelligent Design" is an ARGUMENT. Even if it's not ultimately a good one, not everyone who espouses it has a cunning agenda. We achieve nothing with denunciatory generalizations, except alienation of some of the very people we would persuade.

Nathan Hawking

Post 3

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 8:12am

Nathan,

You are free to stretch the purpose of my writing to score debating points. After all, isn't that your stock-in-trade?

Even fundamentalists can be reasonable and scientific in specific contexts. I'm writing from a particular perspective for a particular audience. If I was addressing a particular person with different ideas from my target audience on this subject, I would address them differently. I would ask them what they believed ID explained in some testable manner superior to evolutionary theory, I would get my hands dirty sifting through the data. However, since you've admitted that ID theorists are sometimes the kind of people I've described in my earlier post,do you think that these people I earlier described are the minority? Do you think that most ID proponents are intellectuals who can be won over to evolutionary theory?

I know many people who agree with ID who live rational lives. I believe that rationality is practical first, intellectual second. Most ID theorists who present ID as a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory have nothing of note to present.

Unlike you, I do not believe that denunciation and generalization achieves nothing - this is not some academic discussion or debate where I have to be as discerning as I can, and even then, emotions sometimes do matter in conveying what is at stake. Sometimes, you need to debate with moral conviction or risk losing battles in the minds of men, and this conviction might turn off some, but might engage others. The answer to whether denunciation is good or not is contextual. When last I checked, I wasn't posting for peer review or addressing a particular individual.

Post 4

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 12:16pm

Even if one assumes that the universe is designed, that still doesn't tell us anything about the designer. There's no automatic connection between the designer and any given religion. Rather than solving any metaphysical questions, the design argument adds more mud to the already fetid waters.

Every theory has to be met head on however. Some of the concepts of the designer theory make decent sense. These shouldn't be rejected out of hand. They need to be thoroughly debated and deposed with facts and logic.

Post 5

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 12:49pm

Abolaji:

Nathan,

You are free to stretch the purpose of my writing to score debating points. After all, isn't that your stock-in-trade?

No, but yours is obviously making the motives of others the issue.

Even fundamentalists can be reasonable and scientific in specific contexts. I'm writing from a particular perspective for a particular audience. If I was addressing a particular person with different ideas from my target audience on this subject, I would address them differently. I would ask them what they believed ID explained in some testable manner superior to evolutionary theory, I would get my hands dirty sifting through the data.

LOL Trying to "score debating points," are you?

However, since you've admitted that ID theorists are sometimes the kind of people I've described in my earlier post,do you think that these people I earlier described are the minority?

LOL So desperate for a point that you have me "admitting" something.

Minority-schminority! You said "ID should be construed as subterfuge, not surrender. It is a cunning means to a familiar end." You did not say "Many who employ ID ..." etc.

Now you're trying to weasel out of it by implying it's true for the majority so it's OK to make a blanklet statement about "ID."

Do you think that most ID proponents are intellectuals who can be won over to evolutionary theory?

Irrelevant. Some are, and it's dishonest to portray "ID" as cunning subterfuge. The actions of some, or even many, says absolutely nothing about the motives of all.

Slamming the motives of others seems to be your tool-of-choice. Keep it up: I'll just keep pointing it out.

I know many people who agree with ID who live rational lives. I believe that rationality is practical first, intellectual second. Most ID theorists who present ID as a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory have nothing of note to present.

Unlike you, I do not believe that denunciation and generalization achieves nothing

I have nothing against generalization and denunciation in principle, so long as it doesn't set a general tone. I do object when it's based upon a lie or mischaracterization.

If you're going to attack the motives of those employing ID as a subterfuge, attack THEM specifically and present evidence of THEIR cunning. Attacking "ID" with the implication that ALL who espouse it are deceitful is incorrect and counterproductive.

- this is not some academic discussion or debate where I have to be as discerning as I can, and even then, emotions sometimes do matter in conveying what is at stake. Sometimes, you need to debate with moral conviction or risk losing battles in the minds of men, and this conviction might turn off some, but might engage others.

OK, I'm debating with moral conviction the need to tell the truth, to be accurate in one's characterizations. "Moral conviction" is a worthless sham if it's based upon careless misrepresentation.

Nathan Hawking

Post 6

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:31pm

I need to be a buttinski here...Nathan the motives of those in the ID movement are a subterfuge, and self-admittedly so:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html

They know full well what they are doing, and that "intelligent design" is simply a code word for Christian creationsism.

The "wedge" is the attempt to bypass scientists anbd go directly to a gullible unsophisticated public. This is a dishonest movement, the only thing honest about it is that they are open about their dishonesty.

Post 7

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:45pm

Steve:

I need to be a buttinski here...Nathan the motives of those in the ID movement are a subterfuge, and self-admittedly so:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html

They know full well what they are doing, and that "intelligent design" is simply a code word for Christian creationsism.

The "wedge" is the attempt to bypass scientists anbd go directly to a gullible unsophisticated public. This is a dishonest movement, the only thing honest about it is that they are open about their dishonesty.

The problem here is your collective thinking. There is no "the" movement. You may refer to PARTICULAR groups, or even to a "majority" if you have evidence, but not everyone who espouses intelligent design belongs to some "movement."

To be honest, we must differentiate between the belief and groups of its proponents.

NH

Post 8

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 11:12pm

I think that it is hysterical that we struggle to figure out how some aspect of physics, chemistry, and or biology works, with plenty of wrong ideas, faulty models, etc. And THEN, once we finally figure some aspect out, some idiot comes along and calls it 'intelligent design.' Well, if the design was so completely logical, linear, and intelligent (a real no brainer), why didn't we figure it out much sooner? Or on our first try?

Post 9

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 4:36pm