ID is bad theology-My visit to the DI

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well it turns out the Discovery Institute has little mini-seminars open to the public. I couldn't resist so I emailed the DI and asked for a seat at an upcoming talk, Is Intelligent Design Bad Theology? They were excited a 'new member' might be interested and I was invited.

Oh, it was fun. Actually, the talk wasn't half bad either. Except it was presented by a guy who didn't buy into it. It might have been nice if the presenter was actually involved in the topic.

So here's the main idea, if God only fits in the gaps, that isn't saying much about God. I thought it made perfect sense. I also thought, gee, this kind of turns the tables on these guys. They are trying to get religion into science, maybe this puts religion back in its place by saying that trying to find evidence of God belittles one's god beliefs.

And so that's the question I asked when the talk was over. I asked what the whole idea of faith was. If we needed evidence of God then shouldn't God just show himself and if he didn't show himself why would there be this hidden evidence of him? The speaker said it was a good question then rambled some pointless stuff that really didn't answer my question but I'm sure it answered it in his mind.

Only one other person asked anything suggesting he might be a non-believer. He asked what did the speaker think when science and religion contradicted each other. The speaker said it meant someone was misinterpreting either the Bible or the scientific evidence. Another apologetic view.

When the speaker said something about Dawkins explaining how something that looked designed wasn't, the whole group loudly laughed about such a position. That was the only group reaction.

Someone mentioned something about evolution theory being important in medical research and another DI member answered that there was a neurologist which they dealt with at the DI who told them evolution theory wasn't necessary to understand the workings of the body. Well d'uh, but that has nothing to do with advances in medicine being based in evolution theory. I held my tongue not wanting to blow my cover.

People asked a few unrelated questions because the speaker had written his own books. He has a whole book apologizing for why the two discrepant versions of Creation in Genesis really aren't discrepant.

Well here's more on the topic of the talk from someone closer to the source, The Ekklesia. Apparently this is a UK Christian think tank with quite a different point of view on evolution than the DI has. That is interesting too. I never knew there was a parallel universe DI.

Theology, science and the problem of ID

Abstract

This paper briefly sets out the religious, philosophical and political context of both the 2007 government guidelines on science teaching and the recent report and statement of the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR), explaining why 'intelligent design' (ID), popular among some religious groups, is neither sound science nor good theology. It includes notes, an overview of 2005-7 Ekklesia comments on creationism and ID, and a select bibliography.

On 7 February 2008, the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR), a network of leading practitioners and theorists based at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge [1], unveiled the conclusion of an investigation by seven specialists in science, theology, philosophy and history on the question of ‘intelligent design’ (ID), which has grasped the imagination of religious conservatives in the USA and elsewhere.

The ID movement says that the scientific understanding of evolution is incoherent, and that certain biological features of life, because they appear to be ‘irreducibly complex’, could not have evolved by natural selection and must therefore have been created by the intervention of an ‘external intelligence’. IISR, by contrast, explains why ID is “neither sound science nor good theology.” ...

So about the DI and my encounter, there was wine and a little bit of cheese and crackers, and some fruit. The room was small but full and most people were clearly church types and seemed to know each other. People were very nice. There were a few books and DVDs for sale and a collection basket that donations were flowing into. I couldn't really tour the place though I wanted to. Maybe next time I will wander further down the hall. And there was a bit of propaganda material out urging people to get involved in the suppression of science and showing Ben Stein's movie pose.

So that's it. Interesting, uneventful relative to how much trouble these guys have given the scientific community. Fun enough I kept my name tag with Discovery Institute on it for a souvenir. And, I will definitely go to additional talks if they sound interesting.

 

[kedo1981]

I sent an op-ed to a local paper challenging any minister who would stand in front of his/hers “flock” and proclaim the tenets of ID (Evolution is true, God guides evolution, the Earth isn’t 600 years old, so on and so forth) as being true then I would convince 10 atheists to go to church every Sunday for the next year. I’ve gotten no bites so far.

 

[articulett]

"divine truths" and actual truths don't blend together very well.

I wish someone would pin down Behe's position on common ancestry and the #2 chromosome.

To me that nails the door shut on Adam and Eve and "original sin"-- the whole reason that JC was supposed to be nailed to the cross.

 

[Wowbagger]

Since when does the existence of God need to be proven scientifically? Shouldn't faith be strong enough, that the outcome of science would not matter?

Is their faith soooooo weak, that they can't believe in God, anymore, unless they can demonstrate God in (a very superficial form of near-) science?

 

[Civilized Worm]

I sent an op-ed to a local paper challenging any minister who would stand in front of his/hers “flock” and proclaim the tenets of ID (Evolution is true, God guides evolution, the Earth isn’t 600 years old, so on and so forth) as being true then I would convince 10 atheists to go to church every Sunday for the next year. I’ve gotten no bites so far.

That's not ID, ID is opposed to evolution.

 

[brodski]

That's not ID, ID is opposed to evolution.

nope.

ID in its current incantation depends on evolution, ands accepts most of evolution as correct, but claims that there are some things in biology which couldn't have evolved, and therefore must be the product of intergalactic hyper bunnies, or whatever. It's a semi formalised system of intellectual surrender.

 

[Bob Klase]

Only one other person asked anything suggesting he might be a non-believer. He asked what did the speaker think when science and religion contradicted each other. The speaker said it meant someone was misinterpreting either the Bible or the scientific evidence. Another apologetic view.

Actually that's a reasonable (although incomplete) answer. It seems to me that those are the only two possibilities. The fact that it's given by an apologetic person doesn't make it an apologetic view.

I'd even say that it's the correct answer but would add that: someone(s) may be misinterpreting both the bible and the scientific evidence and the fact that one is misinterpreted does not make the other correct.

 

[Kopji]

You might ask them what kind of evidence would convince them that the Bible was wrong. It really goes something more like this:

The purpose of science and reason is to prove God. If your science and reason is not serving that purpose it must not be true science and reason. - Because if it were true science and reason, it could not disprove God. So there you go, pwned.

The 'bad theology' part is probably like this:

The idea is not that God lives in the gaps, it is that science has explained mysterious things that used to be attributed to God. The 'gaps' are what remains - leftovers for God. As theology, I'd challenge this whole notion of ID as something that dishonors God. Either God is the God of the whole universe, or at least give him the dignity and honor of existing only as a philosophical idea.

 

[westprog]

nope.

ID in its current incantation depends on evolution, ands accepts most of evolution as correct, but claims that there are some things in biology which couldn't have evolved, and therefore must be the product of intergalactic hyper bunnies, or whatever. It's a semi formalised system of intellectual surrender.

The mistake here is to assume that ID has some kind of coherent, scientific position. There's a perfectly reasonable theistic view, which is that God created the universe in such a way that evolution took place and created human beings. This is not what ID is about.

The proponents of ID are not trying to put forward real theories about the workings of evolution. They are trying to create scientific controversy where none exists. They may not all be Young Earthers, but they certainly don't accept evolution from ape to man. They are all religiously motivated. The idea is simply to muddy the waters in science class. The kids can then come home and get the real deal from their parents and church.

Trying to figure out exactly what the ID people actually believe can be tricky. They are only concerned with FUD.

 

[brodski]

The mistake here is to assume that ID has some kind of coherent, scientific position.

the current incarnation of ID does have a coherent position, it is neither scientific nor correct, but it does have a position.

There's a perfectly reasonable theistic view, which is that God created the universe in such a way that evolution took place and created human beings.

I fail to see how that is a theistic position.

This is not what ID is about.

quite, ID is theistic in the manner that the position you outlined above is not.

The proponents of ID are not trying to put forward real theories about the workings of evolution. They are trying to create scientific controversy where none exists. They may not all be Young Earthers, but they certainly don't accept evolution from ape to man. They are all religiously motivated. The idea is simply to muddy the waters in science class. The kids can then come home and get the real deal from their parents and church.

Trying to figure out exactly what the ID people actually believe can be tricky. They are only concerned with FUD.

You mistake the ID theorists (people like Behe, Dembski, and Fuller) and with the political movement, the DI covers both, but technically aligns itself with the theorists. The theorists accept evolution in most, but not all of it's forms, but thing there are "holes", or even "black boxes"

 

[RandFan]

nope.

ID in its current incantation depends on evolution, ands accepts most of evolution as correct, but claims that there are some things in biology which couldn't have evolved, and therefore must be the product of intergalactic hyper bunnies, or whatever. It's a semi formalised system of intellectual surrender.

I can't agree with this. ID in its current incantation is a hodge podge of many different and conflicting ideas. There is very little of anything that is coherent about it. I would say that most people who buy into ID and are otherwise ignorant of the subject reject evolution outright.

However there are a number educated individuals who use the term micro evolution as a sop to explain evidence that doesn't conveniently fit in with the idea of a world wide flood that destroyed nearly all of the the animals, an ark and god. The creationist version of evolution, micro evolution isn't foundational to anything. It's simply god's shortcut. God you see, didn't design every type of bird. He designed just one kind or a few kinds and then gave them all the genetic code necessary to adapt to their surrounding. That's it. A dead end that isn't even evolution. To them no new information is ever introduced. The code for any trait already exists. When bacteria are exposed to medicine designed to kill the bacteria some of the bacteria will have genetic code that protects them from the medicine. Those bacteria will survive and reproduce producing more medicine resistant bacteria. No evolution necessary.

I think the best example of this has been the vocal Resistance to the Pepper Moth example. Sadly, this was one of those instance where science was caught tweaking the evidence. It happens. However the observations have been replicated using better methodology.

Bottom line, if the ID folks truly embraced evolution (micro evolution) they wouldn't have a problem with the Peppered Moths since Peppered Moths fit nicely with micro evolution. They really don't know what the hell they believe. I mean that with all sincerity.

 

[kedo1981]

But the point is that ID is really running counter to any Christian belief as expressed in the Bible. It's plainly "the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and I’ll burn him at the stake latter".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually that's a reasonable (although incomplete) answer. It seems to me that those are the only two possibilities. The fact that it's given by an apologetic person doesn't make it an apologetic view.

I'd even say that it's the correct answer but would add that: someone(s) may be misinterpreting both the bible and the scientific evidence and the fact that one is misinterpreted does not make the other correct.

So the option that one is true and the other false isn't on your list of possibilities? The apologetic answer is science and the Bible don't really ever contradict each other, it is we who are mistaken.

Are you trying to claim that the Bible myths have proper interpretations? Heck, the Bible contradicts itself repeatedly. I say the Bible consists of a bunch of myths, some of which have either completely lost their meaning and most of which likely never had any meaning in the first place.

If you are going the route of literal truth to the speaker's answer and that the misinterpreted Bible is the interpretation it actually means anything other than myth, well then you can win the semantics argument. That's fine.

 

[RandFan]

But the point is that ID is really running counter to any Christian belief as expressed in the Bible.

If ID were coherent I would perhaps agree with you. As it is ID is what ever anyone wants it to be (see Expelled the movie). I would say that to most Christians and Jews like Ben Stein there is no conflict because ID is flexible enough to allow for any belief expressed in the Bible. Every belief expressed in the Bible is ID if you want it to be.

One thing people need to keep in mind is that ID is neither dogmatic nor scientific. It's a series of criticisms of evolution and an idea (*non-scientific theory). As a former ID proponent I can't stress this fact enough.

In any event, do you have an example of a bible belief that you believe is in conflict with ID?

*What distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is that a scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would logically prove the theory wrong.

 

[westprog]

the current incarnation of ID does have a coherent position, it is neither scientific nor correct, but it does have a position.

If there is a position, it's not a position which its proponents actually believe. It's an arguing position only.

I fail to see how that is a theistic position.

If it starts with "God created the universe" then ipso facto it's theistic. What else could it be?

quite, ID is theistic in the manner that the position you outlined above is not.



You mistake the ID theorists (people like Behe, Dembski, and Fuller) and with the political movement, the DI covers both, but technically aligns itself with the theorists. The theorists accept evolution in most, but not all of it's forms, but thing there are "holes", or even "black boxes"

I don't know to what extent the ID theorists really believe in their ideas - however, it's reasonably clear that the motivation for the whole ID as science, teach the controversy movement is not to legitimise evolution of species, but to neuter the teaching of biology.

 

[Bob Klase]

So the option that one is true and the other false isn't on your list of possibilities?

Isn't that option possible in the original answer even without my addition?

Are you trying to claim that the Bible myths have proper interpretations?

I didn't try to claim anything of that sort. Are you trying to claim the bible myths don't have more than one interpretation?

I say the Bible consists of a bunch of myths, some of which have either completely lost their meaning and most of which likely never had any meaning in the first place.

So I guess that means that in every case of a contradiction, the bible is being misinterpreted. Since that's included as a possibility, exactly what are you disagreeing with?

If you are going the route of literal truth to the speaker's answer and that the misinterpreted Bible is the interpretation it actually means anything other than myth, well then you can win the semantics argument. That's fine.

I win!

 

[Mashuna]

If it starts with "God created the universe" then ipso facto it's theistic. What else could it be?

If it doesn't go any further than that, presumably it's a deistic position.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Regarding the ID 'position', one need merely look at the history of the movement to decipher the things Mashuna and westprog are debating.

ID evolved from a theist attempt to frame the Creation myth as a viable scientific hypothesis. Framing many Biblical myths as scientific hypotheses was a way of trying to stop the hemorrhaging of Biblical truths.

The Grand Canyon is evidence for Noah's flood and that silly means of dating rocks that you are blissfully ignorant of must be unreliable. Never mind the tree rings, the ice cores and the fact that biological, astronomical and geological sciences all come to conclude the age of the Earth by different kinds of evidence and happen to agree, after all, one need merely refuse to learn about such things and claim victory. This attempt to join 'em since you can't beat 'em began long before the ID hypothesis emerged from it.

Before ID was hypothesized, and after the Scopes trial had faded from view, evolution theory had become mainstream and this offended many a parent who objected to the public schools teaching their children that the Biblical version of Creation was a myth. So early on, there was an attempt to have the Creation myth and the Noah's flood myth given equal air time so to speak in some public schools where the religious community was particularly dominant.

But challenges to these intrusions were successful as the courts continued to view this as teaching theological viewpoints rather than teaching science. That didn't stop false claims about what the evidence did and didn't support being passed from believer to believer. If you were blissfully ignorant of the science involved and you were an enthusiastic Evangelical and someone told you evolution theory really lacked supporting evidence, you would be all too happy to believe that, and to pass it on to the next blissfully ignorant enthusiastic Evangelical.

So the original premise that was a precursor to ID was all theology trying to discredit scientific evidence and trying to fit the evidence to the Bible conclusions. And this included attempts to 'wedge' a foot in the door by framing Creation as an alternative scientific theory. At this point ID wasn't yet proposed.

Fast forward to Michael Behe. Lots of scientists would love to discover something new that resulted in a new paradigm. You could be as famous as Darwin if you discovered something that challenged evolution theory. Behe thought he discovered a flaw in evolution theory. If he could show one organ or other unit of a living organism that didn't evolve, he'd be famous.

There had already been a futile attempt to claim that evolution theory could account for micro but not macro evolution. All sorts of hypotheses that new species and new genes could not be explained by evolution theory were proposed. This was science, not theology.

Behe thought he found that a unique organ, the bacterial flagella, had no known precursor. The flagella fully rotates like a machine wheel on an axle. A lot of people think it has a whip like motion, but it doesn't.


Of course Behe found an instant fan club since the use of terminology and the concept of the flagella is that of a machine, IE a designed machine. When you are looking for fame and someone gives you a lot of attention, it is no wonder Behe fed off that and couldn't see that genetic science was about to answer what the flagella evolved from.

Irreducible complexity had become the evidence the Creationist were looking for and ID became the new frame to make Creationism a scientific concept rather than a theological concept. But the seeds of its demise were already sown.

Fast forward again to the present. The genetic science I mentioned answered the question of how the flagella evolved. It turned out the precursor structure simply had a different function. Behe had staked his career on a failed hypothesis. He has been trying to rationalize the idea of intelligent design and continues to claim irreducible complexity is still valid. If not the eye, not the flagella, then it must be that evolution theory cannot explain the complexities within the cell. The people I talked to at the DI were simply shifting as Behe is, to the next gap.

They are now claiming that mitochondria are irreducibly complex. This is why Stein used "The Inner Life of a Cell" in the movie, "Expelled". This is the new irreducibly complex gap that the ID proponents are staking their hypothesis on. It is science. But rather than following the evidence which with genetic science suggests the cell is not too complex to have evolved, they continue to try to fit the evidence to the hypothesis that evolution theory is wrong and the complexity of the cell proves it by being irreducible.

This too shall pass.


BTW, if you haven't seen The Inner Life of a Cell, do watch it. It is an incredible animation.

 

[westprog]

Regarding the ID 'position', one need merely look at the history of the movement to decipher the things Mashuna and westprog are debating.
...
The people I talked to at the DI were simply shifting as Behe is, to the next gap.

They are now claiming that mitochondria are irreducibly complex. This is why Stein used "The Inner Life of a Cell" in the movie, "Expelled". This is the new irreducibly complex gap that the ID proponents are staking their hypothesis on. It is science. But rather than following the evidence which with genetic science suggests the cell is not too complex to have evolved, they continue to try to fit the evidence to the hypothesis that evolution theory is wrong and the complexity of the cell proves it by being irreducible.

While ID uses bits of science, it's the fact that it starts with it's conclusions and merely hoovers up what evidence it can find to support them that makes it either bad science or not really science at all. They don't do research that might come to the wrong conclusions. As everything in biology will sooner or later turn out to be evidence of evolution, that means that they have to leap from topic to topic, abandoning it as it collapses beneath them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

One thing people need to keep in mind is that ID is neither dogmatic nor scientific. It's a series of criticisms of evolution and an idea (*non-scientific theory). As a former ID proponent I can't stress this fact enough.
.

It is not like ID is a single set of criticisms or just one idea.