Intelligent design is not creationism (Stephen Meyer)

London Telegraph ^ | 01/28/2006 | Stephen Meyer

[Drammach]

Intelligent Design is not Intelligent..

[silverleaf]

If the courts have their way this will never be discussed in a science classroom

[Rudder]

ID is...an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins.

Well, I got as far as this dishonest assertion, which is the sun total of ID.

[tallhappy]

Intelligent Design is not Intelligent

What do you mean? Why not?

[orionblamblam]

> If the courts have their way this will never be discussed in a science classroom

Let's re-write that so it's accurate:

"If the parents who care about their childrens educations have their way this will never be discussed in a science classroom"

There. That's better.

[tallhappy]

DNA functions like a software program.

Definitely does not.

It is a chemical and acts like a chemical.

[Jibaholic]

I think there are two forms of ID and one is a Trojan Horse for the other. I certainly agree with the arguments that led to Antony Flew rejecting atheism - but there is also no getting around the fact that schools are teaching ID instead of or alongside evolution.

But the "Antony Flew ID" (for lack of a better term) is not about evolution, it is about cosmology, physics and chemistry. It is not something that you would ever teach in place of or alongside with evolution. You might teach it in a "Philosophy of Science" class though.

[King of Florida]

Professor Flew advises: "We must follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

TRANSLATION: "We will continue to beat this dead horse, come hell or high water."

[righteousindignation]

We should be convinced by this succinct and eloquent exposition that Intelligent Design should be taught in every high school and your summation is the best I have yet encountered. Many thanks from a Christian Conservative whose Faith is even yet capable of an upgrade when reviewing your post!

[SirLinksalot]

<<<<
If the parents who care about their childrens educations have their way this will never be discussed in a science classroom"

There. That's better.
<<<<<

SIMPLE SOLUTION. LETS HAVE A SCHOOL VOTE INSTEAD OF A COURT CASE. NOT ONLY IN DOVER, BUT KANSAS AND ELSEWHERE.

IF THE CASE EVER GETS PRESENTED TO THE COURTS, A GOOD JUDGE WOULD SAY --- GO BACK TO THE BALLOT BOX WHERE IT BELONGS. THIS COURT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH SCHOOL CURRICULUMS.

[mikeus_maximus]

No, but it threatens the intellectual underpinnings of atheism. Therefore, the ideologues must equate it with Creationism and lead their devoted but duped followers in furiously chanting that mantra.

[Filo]

There is nothing scientific about ID so any attempt to paint it that way is a failure from the start.

The assertion that various cited examples are "irreducibly complex" also represents a failure, but in this case a failure to understand.

ID is nothing more than an opinion put forth by those who don't/can't understand evolution or those who refuse to for personal reasons.

I don't mind this being taught in schools, however. There are ample "comparative theology" classes in which it belongs.

[mikeus_maximus]

No one can refute this:

There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone.

Counter argumments are reduced to an irrational non-sequitar: "The coded information is there, so that proves it arose by chance, regardless how infinitely remote."

[mlc9852]

But it's so much easier to say "evolution did it!"

[Shalom Israel]

There is nothing scientific about ID so any attempt to paint it that way is a failure from the start.

Note that there's nothing wrong with the definition of "irreducible complexity" per se. The assertion of biologists today is that the collection of irreducibly complex features is empty, and so far they're winning the debate. The example of the bacterial flagellum, for example, has already been answered.

So it is entirely possible for a scientist to look high and low for "irreducible complexity", and yet be perfectly scientific in his endeavor. What makes folks like Behe unscientific is that they ignore evidence when it runs counter to their views.

[marine86297]

Sons high school debate topic bump

[mlc9852]

At least they should be teaching the controversies related to TOE. That would be a good start.

[Revolting cat!]

Calling all Communist Evolutionaries and Saganists to the barricades! The Christian Crusaders and other believers in archaic ideas are on the march again! Evolution will not be televised! Defend the Dogma!

[The_Reader_David]

I am glad Flew has seen past the misappropriation of evolutionary biology as a prop for atheism, and recognized that anthropic cosmology--at its base the fact that the world is so made that there are any self-reproducing or intelligent systems at all--is a true argument for design (though not by a 'tinker god' who hand-builds molecular machines).

I've come to the conclusion that the main problem of attempts to formulate intelligent design as a scientific theory stems from the lack of a scientific theory of intelligence. Of course there are such things--they are important for work on AI--they just haven't been applied.

The amusing thing is, once one starts to think of it in that way, one is struck by the possibility that rather than being contradictory, the neo-Darwinian synthesis may actually imply intelligent design (much to the distress of both atheists and six-day literalists who want ID to be the camel's nose under the tent): do a Google search for "Genetic algorithms" (the much vaunted proof that complexity of function can arise by a Darwinian mechanism), and the first hit is an archive run by The Naval Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence.

It really is a pity for science that the issue has become dogmatized--interplay between work on scientific theories of intelligence and the Darwinian paradigm might lead to something interesting (like a better TOE, less prone to spinning 'just so' stories, with a good 'theory of fitness', and maybe even the discovery of actual mechanisms behind variation.)