Sunday, December 04, 2005

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

Laurie Goodstein wrote in NYT To read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.

I hope so.
In Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design. At a trial of the Dover, Pa., school board that ended last month, two of the movement's leading academics presented their ideas to a courtroom filled with spectators and reporters from around the world. President Bush endorsed teaching "both sides" of the debate - a position that polls show is popular. And Pope Benedict XVI weighed in recently, declaring the universe an "intelligent project." Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a higher being at work. As a political cause, the idea has gained currency, and for good reason. The movement was intended to be a "big tent" that would attract everyone from biblical creationists who regard the Book of Genesis as literal truth to academics who believe that secular universities are hostile to faith. The slogan, "Teach the controversy," has simple appeal in a democracy. Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies.
That is because the MSM has been fooling the academics as to what ID really is, and what it is not. For example ID and the parts of Evolution that can be proven scientifically are completely consistent. A higher intelligence can well have created species that can change, or evolve, to fit niches in their environment. But the part of Evolution which has not, and can not be proven scientifically, is that the same procedure accounts for the creation of new Species. ID just holds that completely new species were created by the intelligent designer.
And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility. On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
That is because ID challenges the Secular Humanist version of the creation of new species. There have been no papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals showing how one can cause one species to "evolve" into a completely different species.
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research. "They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
Which is not surprising. If scientists can't create a new species rom an existing species, how could a scientist be expected to create an experiment which shows God creating a new species?
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. While intelligent design has hit obstacles among scientists, it has also failed to find a warm embrace at many evangelical Christian colleges. Even at conservative schools, scholars and theologians who were initially excited about intelligent design say they have come to find its arguments unconvincing. They, too, have been greatly swayed by the scientists at their own institutions and elsewhere who have examined intelligent design and found it insufficiently substantiated in comparison to evolution.
That is because they are expecting it to be ID or Evolution. The truth is that it is ID and Evolution. ID accounts for the creation of new species, and Evolution accounts for the adaptation of a species to its environment
"It can function as one of those ambiguous signs in the world that point to an intelligent creator and help support the faith of the faithful, but it just doesn't have the compelling or explanatory power to have much of an impact on the academy," said Frank D. Macchia, a professor of Christian theology at Vanguard University, in Costa Mesa, Calif., which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God, the nation's largest Pentecostal denomination. At Wheaton College, a prominent evangelical university in Illinois, intelligent design surfaces in the curriculum only as part of an interdisciplinary elective on the origins of life, in which students study evolution and competing theories from theological, scientific and historical perspectives, according to a college spokesperson.
That sounds like where it belongs.
The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.

Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.
I agree with them.

2 comments:

gary said...

Over my years of experience as a university professor engaged in teaching and research, I have come to the realization that the Evolutionists are right about one thing. Creation Science is religiously based, and teaching young-earth, six-day creationism in the public school system is bringing religious ideas into the classroom. Even the concept of Intelligent Design, which claims that the design in nature is scientific proof of a designer, is Creation Science in disguise.

On the other hand, Evolutionists are dead wrong when they claim that the natural world can only be understood from an evolutionary perspective. Creationists can stand firm on the reality of scripture, and rid science of religious presuppositions by attacking the scientific merit of evolution, rather than promoting creationism.

Don Singleton said...

Over my years of experience as a university professor engaged in teaching and research, I have come to the realization that the Evolutionists are right about one thing. Creation Science is religiously based, and teaching young-earth, six-day creationism in the public school system is bringing religious ideas into the classroom.

You are correct that Creation Science is religiously based. So is ID, and so is Evolution.

Creation Science, or Creationism is based on the position that the story in Genesis is literally true.

Evolution, as it applies to the creation of new species, is based on the Secular Humanism religious position held by athiests and agnostics, that new species were created by the same natural process as the evolution of a species to adapt to its environment, even though the former has never been proven, like the later has.

Intelligent Design embraces evolution as far as the adaptation of a species to changes in its environment, but it postulates the existence of an Intelligent Designer, such as a supreme being, for the creation of new species.

As far as ID is concerned, Creation Science is one possible explanation for the creation of new species, just as Evolution is acceptable for the adaptation of a species to its environment.


Even the concept of Intelligent Design, which claims that the design in nature is scientific proof of a designer, is Creation Science in disguise.

I disagree. Creation Science requires a 6 day creation period. ID does not.

On the other hand, Evolutionists are dead wrong when they claim that the natural world can only be understood from an evolutionary perspective. Creationists can stand firm on the reality of scripture, and rid science of religious presuppositions by attacking the scientific merit of evolution, rather than promoting creationism.

I can see an ID proponent doing that, but a Creationist is very wedded to the literal interpretation of Genesis