Alacarte, there simply isnt time in the day enough for me to respond to each of the points you bring up. So I am going to respond by looking at the higher level issues involved which are the genuine source of the dispute, and also the root cause of why you and others insist ID should be 'shunned' and not debated.
The general objection to ID boils down to an objection to what you keep refering to as 'magic'. To materialists, no intrusion from 'outside' the material universe is an acceptable response to any anamoly in science. And no matter what the research is behind theories that leave the conceptual door open to 'outside' answers, like ID, you reject it out of hand because you consider it the equivalent of old Creationist theories/critiques that you believe science rightly rejected years ago, and hence the continued confusion between ID and Creationism. (I agree with you up to this point because I agree that science cannot prove as 'reality' those things that lie outside its parameters of investigation, ie outside the material universe. But I do believe that science can find 'footprints' that suggest that there are things outside the universe, such as the Weak Anthropic Principle does.)
This debate between the materialists (closed universe) and theists (open universe) has raged on many levels for centuries, as I am sure you know, and it is the theists who have now become locked outside the halls of power of the scientific community. Outside those stale old halls alot of theistic scientists have had the freedom to think freely for some time now and they have different theories that do not make the same mistakes the earlier generation of theists made.
ID is one such theory, and it deserves to be considered purely on its merits and not whether it violates philosophical presumptions (like materialism) that do NOT underly science itself. Science is a systematic method of investigating our universe, and it is not capable of evluating philosophical issues that support it or that some would like to append to it artificially, hence materialism CANNOT be something that science either supports or denies. Materialists today like to presume that materialism is part of sciences foundation, but it isnt and most engineers are aware of this.
The predisposition of materialists like yourself to reject ID out of hand because to you it is indistinguishable from 'magic' points to your underlying presumption that everything in the physical universe is explainable by purely natural means. Thus anything that critiques such a set of presumptions is outside of your ability to mentally digest it, as you begin with the concept that these things simply cannot be. No one will ever be able to explain it to you sufficiently because as long as it 'violates' your materialistic framework you cannot accept it as anything other than 'magic' from the very start.
But to theists who accept the *possibility* of an open universe, it is not a presumption that there is a natural explanation of everything in the physical universe. (Kant's dichotomy is fundamentally static and thus flawed and simply does not work.) So when ID claims that there are limits to Darwinistic natural selection that cannot explain *some* anomolies today, it is not a problem for the theist that must be glossed over with some naturalistic explanation. That is the hobgoblin of the materialist mind; theists are content with leaving the facts to speak for themselves.
But more and more the scientific evidence for the 'fine tuned' nature of our universe pushes the materialists into greater and greater presumption and naturalistic explanation bordering on the absurd or unprovable, hence we have the Weak Anthropic Principle that there are universes outside our universe. While these materialistic scientists can reject any notion of God immediately as 'magic', but somehow accept a 'nearly' infinite number of paralel alternate universes as just dandy, everyone outside the halls of institutional science can see the hypocrisy that the scientists are blind to.
So, as a theist and someone who believes that Darwin's theory explains the vast majority of biological diversity, I am willing to entertain ID as a theory. I see nothing inherently unscientific about it, but I do see the purge of theists from the institutions of science, the dogmatic refusal to debate theories coming from a theistic perspective (like ID), and the predominate preference of materialists to use distortion, pejoratives and censorship in place of open debate, all this is clear evidence that the materialists have run out of alternative answers to the mounting number of anamolies (for the materialists) that seem to point to an open universe. Far too often there is denial by materialists that ID has any possible validity and the response is not to debate, with ID proponents allowed to participate, but to instead shut the ID people out and carry on an intellectually incestuous discussion where the conclusions are predetermined. That is NOT open, honest discussion, but the equivalent of a philosophical monologue with all the conclusions predetermined before the first word is uttered.
When I teach my children science and math at home (to augment their teaching in public schools) I sometimes find that they get misconceptions that I have to explain. I enjoy doing this as it gives me the opportunity to refresh my mind on some of the basics that I have not considered for years. But I NEVER have to make a claim of authority with them in my explanations, because that is NOT an explanation of anything. I realize that if I cannot explain something for them, they will get their answers elsewhere. And of course, I might be wrong about something and they are getting the latest facts and it serves me the favor of sweeping away the old cobwebs and getting the latest and greatest 'truth' that the teaching proffession proffesses today. To learn is to truly live, no?
But the materialists today are not finding answers or even understanding the actual questions anymore. They are making assetions based on authority (really presumption) and using their institutional power to suppress debate and purge 'offenders' with loss of career, position, income and recognition. Materialists have become what they have long despised as the boogeyman of early modern science, today's Torquemadas determined to burn out heresy root stem and branch from their 'holy' view of the universe.
But it is all to no avail; Truth will win out though all the world try to suppress it. You see, Alacarte, this shunning of theists is the adult equivalent of the childs game of 'pretend'. Though you and your buds will keep telling each other that you are right and theism is wrong-headed 'magic', the people who have the habit of looking at the reality around them and forming a set of facts independent of institutions of science, the engineers whose success depends on actually acheiving results in the real world unprotected by tenure, will simply find/create other institutions where they can discuss these questions. It is the engineers that drive further science and investigation with their earned donations and part time investigations into questions that intrigue them. If institutions of science wont continue to provide solid inquiry, then that inquiry will be found elsewhere.
Evolution suggests that those things which do not adapt will die, and materialism is dying. That is why 'The Passion of the Christ' was such a run-away success and why the Abrahamic faiths have actually become the majority of the worlds population despite the exterminations of theists by atheist regimes in the last century and despite the population explosions ongoing in China and India.
It is fine with me that you keep ignoring theistic points of view, slandering them as irrational and using persecution to purge us from your ivory towers. Today these institutions belong to you, but tomorrow they will belong to us or they will have been replaced by more robust institutions willing to engage in honest daring inquiry.
Either way, tomorrow belongs to us and Darwinism will be put on the shelf along with the Bohr atom and Newtonian physics.
I agree, this issue is not a technical one, it is a high-level ideological issue that has nothing to do with science.
JFK_Lib - This debate between the materialists (closed universe) and theists (open universe) has raged on many levels for centuries, as I am sure you know, and it is the theists who have now become locked outside the halls of power of the scientific community. Outside those stale old halls alot of theistic scientists have had the freedom to think freely for some time now and they have different theories that do not make the same mistakes the earlier generation of theists made.
This paragraph is very telling. This exclusion of religion from science is what is called the enlightenment, and subsequently secularism. It is important to note that what you seek to return to (before the enlightenment) is negatively referred to today as the 'dark ages.' During the dark ages, all knowledge had to be qualified through religious doctrine. This meant that science was subject to arbitrary censorship based on religious, not scientific principles. After the enlightenment, science was free to adopt a truly scientific approach, coupled with the humanistic social changes brought about by secularism, ended the dark ages. The dark ages are a reminder of what happens when we allow the supernatural back into science and politics.
JFK_Lib - ID is one such theory, and it deserves to be considered purely on its merits and not whether it violates philosophical presumptions (like materialism) that do NOT underly science itself. Science is a systematic method of investigating our universe, and it is not capable of evluating philosophical issues that support it or that some would like to append to it artificially, hence materialism CANNOT be something that science either supports or denies. Materialists today like to presume that materialism is part of sciences foundation, but it isnt and most engineers are aware of this.
Alacarte - Well I'm an engineer, and materialsm, naturalism and science are inextricable as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps I don't understand yoru definition of materialism.
ID is like a pork bill being passed through congress, it has some good stuff, just enough to get it passed, but it also has some bad stuff. The good stuff is its participation in peer review by questioning existing scientific theories (actually its dishonest distortion of data and 'conclusion first' approach actually make it bad for science, but...) are good. But suggesting that there is no natural explanation, despite there not being a precedent, is very bad. Which is why I assume you disagree with materialism, because suggesting we stop empirical research and apply an unverifiable, 'absolute truth' as an answer is incompatible with materialism.
JFK_Lib - But to theists who accept the *possibility* of an open universe, it is not a presumption that there is a natural explanation of everything in the physical universe. (Kant's dichotomy is fundamentally static and thus flawed and simply does not work.) So when ID claims that there are limits to Darwinistic natural selection that cannot explain *some* anomolies today, it is not a problem for the theist that must be glossed over with some naturalistic explanation. That is the hobgoblin of the materialist mind; theists are content with leaving the facts to speak for themselves.
Alacarte - Two things. One, your argument ignores time. You are essentially saying that, since CURRENTLY there is no rock solid argument for diversification, there never will be, so we must assume there is some other force at work. This is not the case. There was a time when lightning was unanimously thought to be angry retribution from the gods, what else could it possibly be? Well, in fact, it is not a product of the supernatural, it is a sudden discharge of electrons. But of course they knew nothing of electrons, or current, or atoms at the time. This is exactly the same thing we are currently experiencing with ID. Theists are saying the lightning is punishment from god (god made the universe), materialists are saying that lightning must be a natural phenomena, and we should study it more to understand it (diversity has a purely natural explanation). In terms of the lightning example, the theists look like idiots, why do you not see how ID'ers look like idiots? At the time, there was just as much evidence that lightning was supernatural rather than natural, but it isn't, just like everything else in the universe.
Two, let us say you succeed in redefining science to allow for the supernatural. You suddenly change science from being the realm of the objective, to the subjective. Now everyone and their dog can make ludicrous, unscientific claims and call it science. But that is not what you want is it? You want arbitrary, selective power over which particular fields of science get theocratic scrutiny, while the ones that do not directly oppose your dogma remain unscathed. The scientific community knows your agenda, which is why it is important to point out that all ID'ers are fundamentalist christians or orthodox jews. Essentially ID is a method to get leverage so the church can stop research that conflicts with its antiquated dogma. If someone in Tehran claimed they had scientific proof that Allah is the one true god, you would be the first person to dismiss him.
JFK_Lib - But more and more the scientific evidence for the 'fine tuned' nature of our universe pushes the materialists into greater and greater presumption and naturalistic explanation bordering on the absurd or unprovable, hence we have the Weak Anthropic Principle that there are universes outside our universe. While these materialistic scientists can reject any notion of God immediately as 'magic', but somehow accept a 'nearly' infinite number of paralel alternate universes as just dandy, everyone outside the halls of institutional science can see the hypocrisy that the scientists are blind to.
Alacarte - Wrong, until string theory or parallel universes can be proven, they are just as much the realm of fantasy as your leprechauns. So yes, right now string theory is not much better than magic as an explanation, but your temporally challenged argument is flawed. The difference here is that those theories have a scientific approach, and research may one day lead to them becoming substantial (just like germ theory 100 years ago). Leprechauns and deities are supernatural, hence not real, and not subject to scienctific testing. Very different than string theory.
JFK_Lib - So, as a theist and someone who believes that Darwin's theory explains the vast majority of biological diversity, I am willing to entertain ID as a theory. I see nothing inherently unscientific about it, but I do see the purge of theists from the institutions of science, the dogmatic refusal to debate theories coming from a theistic perspective (like ID), and the predominate preference of materialists to use distortion, pejoratives and censorship in place of open debate, all this is clear evidence that the materialists have run out of alternative answers to the mounting number of anamolies (for the materialists) that seem to point to an open universe. Far too often there is denial by materialists that ID has any possible validity and the response is not to debate, with ID proponents allowed to participate, but to instead shut the ID people out and carry on an intellectually incestuous discussion where the conclusions are predetermined. That is NOT open, honest discussion, but the equivalent of a philosophical monologue with all the conclusions predetermined before the first word is uttered.
Alacarte - The scientific community does not object to people questioning existing theories, they invite help in peer review. They object to the non-sequitur that if evolution cannot account for the diversity of life, the conclusion must be the supernatural. Allowing things like ID into scientific debates would deprecate science back to being philosophy, nothing but talk, with no progress, no results. Science owes everything it is today to its materialistic approach. If theists want to change that paradigm, they will need to take very militant action. The scientific community is not your average trailer-park dwelling theist, they know that what you seek is the greatest threat to progress today.
Also, there has been no 'purge of theists' from the scientific community, unless you speak of the enlightenment. Many scientists are christians, so in fact there has been no purge of anybody. There has been a purge of dumb, and consistently wrong supernatural explanations for natural problems. Look back through history, sneezing is caused by evil spirits, natural disasters are god-sent, if you got sick it was god's will... The list is endless, and all those supernatural explanations have been proven wrong, and a natural explanation has been established. So now you want to displace a naturalistic explanation, cease research ont he subject and defer the conclusion to the supernatural? Despite the "0 for 10'000+" batting record for supernatural explanations? That's insanity. Materialism and science are inextricable if we wish to continue the pace of progress today.
JFK_Lib - When I teach my children science and math at home (to augment their teaching in public schools) I sometimes find that they get misconceptions that I have to explain. I enjoy doing this as it gives me the opportunity to refresh my mind on some of the basics that I have not considered for years. But I NEVER have to make a claim of authority with them in my explanations, because that is NOT an explanation of anything. I realize that if I cannot explain something for them, they will get their answers elsewhere. And of course, I might be wrong about something and they are getting the latest facts and it serves me the favor of sweeping away the old cobwebs and getting the latest and greatest 'truth' that the teaching proffession proffesses today. To learn is to truly live, no?
Alacarte - I'm afraid you do appeal to scientific authority whether you know it or not. When you tell your children the earth revolves around the sun, you appeal to authority. For all I know, the sun orbits the earth, have you ever manually mapped the stars? Traced their trajectories and empirically concluded the earth orbits the sun and not vice-versa? I haven't, because if every person re-discovered all mans knowledge for themselves, we'd never have time for progress. We pick and choose our battles and for the rest, we digress to authority.
JFK_Lib - It is fine with me that you keep ignoring theistic points of view, slandering them as irrational and using persecution to purge us from your ivory towers. Today these institutions belong to you, but tomorrow they will belong to us or they will have been replaced by more robust institutions willing to engage in honest daring inquiry.
Alacarte - Other than the US, christianity has been on the decline in the western world. And is islam not the fastest growing religion?
JFK_Lib - Either way, tomorrow belongs to us and Darwinism will be put on the shelf along with the Bohr atom and Newtonian physics.
Alacarte - The Bohr model and newtonian physics were not proven wrong, they were improved upon. They were stepping stones in their fields. More importantly they were replaced by other NATURALISTIC explanations. There is absolutely no correlation between them and ID.
I think you explain the debate nicely here though, despite our being ideologically opposed on the subject. To summarize, you oppose the current paradigm for science, not because it hasn't served us well for 300 years, but because it leaves no room for your beliefs. Fortunately, although there is massive public support for your side, the scientific community is less persuaded by emotion and mythology.
BTW, did you write this? Not that I think you are incapable, it is just different than your other posts. Regardless it is very good.