A comment on my previous blog, re: Chuck Colson's article bringing the truth to the myths (some outright lies) about Ben Stein's upcoming movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".
You Said (in italics):
Arianne,
Don't believe everything Chuck Colson says
The Claim
“Intelligent design was being suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion” (Ben Stein, Expelled).
The Facts
Intelligent design has not produced any research to suppress. When prominent ID proponent Michael Behe was asked about his research, and why “you don’t do those tests?” he responded, “I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors.” If even proponents of ID do not think it is a fruitful enterprise, why should the scientific community take any interest in it?
I saw the trial transcript where he is quoted to say he would prefer to spend his time in what he would consider more fruitful endeavors. You have to take into consideration what he said prior to that answer that he would think that someone who thought an idea was incorrect (ie. ID) would be motivated to try and falsify the idea... and then the rest of his answer, that, "hypothesis of design is tested in a way that is different from a Darwinian hypotheses. The test has to be specific to the hypothesis itself, and as I have argued, an inductive hypothesis is argued or is supported by induction, by example after example of things we see that fit this induction."
You Said:
Intelligent design is scientifically unproductive, and this perhaps explains why scientists like Guillermo Gonzalez and Michael Behe publish far fewer papers after they become attracted to intelligent design. Ultimately, intelligent design’s lack of success in science departments is the fault of the flawed and unscientific nature of intelligent design itself, not the result of bias in the scientific community.
First here are a couple of quotes by Darwin, himself.
1. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Origin of Species
2. "The case at present (problems presented by the fossil record) must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." - The Origin of Species
And here are two other interesting quotes, the first by Dawkins and the second by Francis Crick:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
I don't think the issue here is that ID is "scientifically unproductive", it seems rather, that the work in trying to prove it false is actually what comes up short. Darwin discusses his thoughts on the function of the human eye and of the structure of the peacock's feathers in his correspondence with Asa Gray 1960. I wonder, what if Darwin were still around today? He was imaginative and brilliant in his theories, but what would his final say be after "new" evidence for design, i.e. irreducible complexity? And if most of what would prove evolution is simply time to find the evidence for it... more than 120 years after Darwin, shouldn't we have more fossil evidence for all that is required for speciation? Do we now have more or less support for his evolutionary theories?
I don't think that saying that Behe and Guillermo not producing any more papers after being attracted to design is evidence for ID's "lack of success". Is it possible that the scrutiny and negative criticism (and not to mention the seeming consequences) from evolutionists has slowed down their further research or writings? And which ID proponent ever said that design was "unscientific"? Irreducible complexity, unscientific? I think that is super contrary!
You said:
The issue is not the suppression of ID, but the lack of warrant for its scientific claims. And ultimately, ID has an uphill struggle to demonstrate that it is, indeed, science.
I think that even within scientific circles, if we are honest, it is evolution that is lacking in it's scientific claims, and also is the one which should be having the uphill struggle to demonstrate its truth as science. "Punctuated Equilibrium" was offered by evolutionist Gould as somewhat of a band-aid for the lack of evidence in the fossil record. And of course well known icons of evolution which are introduced to kids in public schools as more truth than theory (I was one of those kids...) are all innacurate or outdated. The theory of "directed panspermia" was offered by Crick because of the evidence exposing spontaneous generation as implausible.
You Said:
The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested. Scientific testing requires that there be some set of phenomena which are incompatible with your idea. No observation could possibly be incompatible with a claim that an “intelligent agent” (whom everyone recognizes as God) acted to, say, introduce information into a system. Untestable claims are not scientific claims. Regardless of their attractiveness as religious ideas (although many people of faith strongly reject intelligent design) intelligent design has not passed muster as science.
Physicist David Bohm referred to science as "the pursuit of truth, no matter where it leads."
"Science is the search for truth - it is not a game in which one tries to beat his opponent, to do harm to others. We need to have the spirit of science in international affairs, to make the conduct of international affairs the effort to find the right solution, the just solution of international problems, not the effort by each nation to get the better of other nations, to do harm to them when it is possible." -Linus Pauling, winner of two Nobel prizes.
"Science and lies cannot co-exist. You don't have a scientific lie, and you cannot lie scientifically. Science is basically the search of truth." Bruce Alberts, current President of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences.
If we were true and honestly wanting the good of the study of science for all man kind, then we would not be closed-minded to the possibility that intelligent design is real. Why fight so hard to keep that possibility locked out, and if the truth, shunned as evil and as a lie (refer to earlier quotes by Crick and Dawkins.) If the idea is mainly that evolutionists desire a life apart from a creator, and thus a lifestyle apart from any absolute truths, then let them be truthful and honest in saying so, rather than misleading children and this world by a crumbling theory, which I would venture to say that Darwin would have probably admitted himself.
