Free speech at Southern Methodist University

So first global warming alarmists routinely refer to critics as "deniers". Now ID proponents are compared to Holocaust deniers. I generally don't think much of the ID guys arguments. However, it's pretty amusing to call people the equivalent of Nazi-sympathizers as a method to stop speech you don't like. Irony is just lost on some people.

some of the professors likened ID supporters to Holocaust deniers. On the Catholic Answers Forum yesterday, my wife was told that a Christian seeing her pour a libation to Poseidon at the beach would be comparable to a Jew being harassed by Neo-Nazis... there are idiots everywhere.

Rod's commentary says it all.

Rich,
I hope made it pretty clear in my first post that I consider the comparision between "evolution deniers" and Holocaust deniers "extreme." This is obviously because of the history of the word in its association with the genocide that happened during World War II.
But I was simply doing the thought experiment of trying to get at what the SMU faculty member probably meant when he or she used that comparison.
The Holocaust happened, despite what David Irving or David Duke or the President of Iran said. The evidence that it did is overhelming.
Similarly, the evidence is overwhelming that evolution happened, is happening, and will continue to happen as long as life exists on earth. So it's not totally unfair to call people who reject this evidence "deniers," especially since their alternative is simply to say that a supernatural power was involved because the complexity of life makes a naturalist explanation impossible. Despite their claims, this naturalist explanation is advancing every day, in DNA labs and in fossil digs around the world. Where is the "positive" evidence for intelligent design?
The creationist view is doubly problematic given the preditor/prey nature of the living world that the "intelligent designer" supposedly created. Robert Frost's poem "Design" takes up just this problem. So does William Blake's "The Tyger." As these poets asked, why would a superhuman, intelligent being (expecially a loving, Christian one) set up a world in which every living thing except the photosynthetic plants eats other living things? That's a pretty bad example to set for humankind, isn't it?

"Like a Catholic university that bans the Vagina Monalogues or the Laramie Project, SMU is a private university is free to ban speech that it finds goes against the school's intellectual values." That doesn't make it wise or just to do so. I'm no fan of ID, but let them speak.

I agree, GOM, but I'm betting Rod wouldn't be shouting "free speech" if it was a conference advocating gay marriage at Notre Dame.

ID is simply NOT a scientific theory. Period. It may be opinion, conjecture, personal opinion, best guess -- but not a scientific theory. Scientific theories are predictive; they can be verified by observation. So, at least the topic is being presented (I assume) as a contemporary legal issue. That being said -- I think the objective that the ID people have in mind is to sneak religious opinion into the science classrooms around the country.

What snots these academics be. Let's say for the sake of argument that the ID crowd is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. If that were any reason to keep someone off campus, many faculty members would have to clear out by sundown.

Concerning Songtraveler's observation: "The creationist view is doubly problematic given the preditor/prey nature of the living world that the 'intelligent designer' supposedly created." Most Christians who believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible also believe that God has an enemy who is actively and perniciously evil, and that mankind has been corrupted with a fallen nature. Thus in the coming age of restoration, there will be no "preditor/prey" nature of the living world, but rather "the lion will lie down with the lamb." I realize that you are not likely to believe this (and my own views are somewhat more complicated), but the concept of a Creator God should not be negated just because the world reveals an obvious lack of perfection.

Holatos, So the Christian intelligent design argument would be that an evil designer created the preditor/prey world, but that a moral designer plans at some point to modify and improve on that world, although the evil of man is somehow responsible for the moral creator's refraining from correcting the cruelty of the preditor/prey world until some future point in time? Or was it that the moral designer at first created animals who were all vetetarian, but then man sinned, so for some reason in response to man's sin the moral designer turned some of the animals into carnivores, even though as animals they were incapable of sinning themselves? If so, what was the purpose of the moral designer's inflicting all that pain on the prey, when they had nothing to do will the whole thing? Centuries ago, in order to preserve the false idea of geocentrism, the astronomer Ptolemy tried to accound for observational problems with the theory by positing that, in addition to circling the earth, the planets and sun and moon did barrel loops in their orbits as they did so. The principle in philosophy of Occam's Razor (that the simplest theory is likely to be the correct one) favored the idea that the sun was in the center of our local area, not the earth. Heliocentrism required no barrel loops. Isn't evolution a lot simpler a theory than intelligent design? Especially intelligent design of the Christian variety, with its multiple designers and or inexplicable actions?

The principle in philosophy of Occam's Razor (that the simplest theory is likely to be the correct one) favored the idea that the sun was in the center of our local area, not the earth. Heliocentrism required no barrel loops. Actually, it did require something similar: elliptical orbits. Before Kepler came up with that geocentrism was the simplest explanation base on what instrumentation was then available. Scientific theories are predictive; they can be verified by observation. That's not necessarily true. We really can't "observe" evolution in action. We don't have a time machine or long enough life spans. Such is its nature, as evolution is an historical explanation of the evidence we have. To be sure, it's the best one out there, but it can't be "proven" in the same manner stress theory can be. There are also a number of advanced theories in the field of physics that simply cannot be observed. Now, in defense of ID, or at least the free discussion of it: it was the ID controversy that gave me a better understanding of evolution. What happened is that it forced scientists to provide clearer explanations suited for layman of what Evolutionary Theory was all about. I read these, and I came out the better for it. I doubt I'm the only one who did. ID, for all its flaws, is a good framework for a negative argument, and good scientists should welcome the challenge, as it forces them to review their assumptions.

Ok, Pauli. I note that you did not disagree with my statement. But, assuming you DO disagree, what does ID predict that can be verified scientifically? Thank you.

It is not freedom of speech to assert falsehoods. Why not? Did I miss that part of the First Amendment? And if it's not free speech, how exactly do you plan to stop people from asserting falsehoods? And who decides what's false?

Scientific theories are predictive; they can be verified by observation.--ChuckDFW Science looking backwards in time is not the same as science looking forward in time. With the various assumptions that are made (such as uniformitarianism) and the prior exclusion from the scientific method of what believers call miracles, of course science will find a godless explanation for how we got here. While science can reliably predict what will happen to a ball if I drop it, without direct, prior observation, it cannot state the height from which it was dropped or other characteristics that happened before the observation started.
In the same way, without direct observation of how things really did happen, the best science can come up with is "With this set of assumptions, this is how it happened." If the assumptions are changed, the story changes. ID, from my understanding, isn't challenging science on science's turf, but rather challenging the assumptions that lie behind not the predictive science, but the post-dictive science. Note: I'm using the example of a dropped ball as something that doesn't leave a trace on the environment around it to get around forensics.

0 x 0 = what? Evolution as taught by these "academics." These same people will look at the human anatomy and teach that homosexuality is logical and "natural." It is time to see "academics" for what they truly are.
Nutball proselytizers of the insanity called Humanism.

ID, from my understanding, isn't challenging science on science's turf, but rather challenging the assumptions that lie behind not the predictive science, but the post-dictive science.

Rich, At what point did Marshall and Warren start an ad campaign calling the scientific method a form of religious belief? Did they vilify the established science community for their reactions to their theories? Did they complain that they were being forced to comply with an unreasonable standard? They are certainly not the only theorists to be attacked by scientists. Plate tectonics took several decades to progress from the laughing stock of science to the fundamental framework for all earth sciences. There are two issues here: that a group of people can make false statements and claim that they enjoy the protection of the 1st Amendment; that science, not scientists, is the discipline by which all attempts to rationally explain any phenomena must comply. Please do not let my desire to be brief cloud the issues. I had no intention of filtering the ID debate through slander and libel laws. I simply listed them as obvious limits on the right of free speech. The Dover decision can be construed in similar fashion, and it mentioned neither body of law. I repeat, with clarification: At no point has any proponent of ID been able to answer the challenges of the scientific method. That there are idiots (like the prof who stupidly invoked Holocaust deniers as a comparison) who've managed to establish themselves as bona fide scientists changes nothing. Complete boobs manage to publish valid and methodologically compliant papers in their fields all the time. Do you, perhaps, wish to judge science by the social skills of scientists?

Franklin, as someone who's often found your contributions a model of civility, I felt you didn't live up to your standard with "there are idiots ... who've managed to establish themselves as bona fide scientists." It does seem to me that that's the kind of language folks use who want to vent their feelings and/or shut down/shout down the other side.

Maybe this was a better choice of phrasing: sometimes scientists are science's and the scientific method's worst enemies. :)

Rich, You do make valid points, and I regret that my cynicism and overdeveloped sense of irony (see my response to Major Wooton) cause you to see me in that light. While Marshall and Warren rightly complained, it wasn't for being held to an unreasonable standard: they were the unwitting targets of power politics. Their treatment had nothing to do with science. The standards weren't changed: the people in power refused to comply with them. It does work both ways. Right now, in my home school district of Philadelphia, children are being forced to accept sub-standard education for the sake of doing well on standardized tests. It negatively affects their education in science, math, social studies and language skills. That, my friend, is a crime, and there is little I can do about the fact that every science of child development screams in opposition to these practices, and is a voice being ignored and actively suppressed -- veteran teachers are taking early retirement in droves rather than compromise their standards. ID, from my POV, is a tempest in a teapot by comparison. It does, however, point to a symptom of the sickness I see here: people not only think that superficial results have anything to do with actual educational progress, but that they can arbitrarily change the rules just because they think it will be better for the children. The line you mention is already being crossed. I'm watching alot of children take alot of damage here on the front line. You don't have to convince me of any of that. I see the promotion of ID as science as just another aspect of that damage.

Franklin I can be pretty cynical myself, and I'm with you on our current "pass the test" education system too. The sharpest kids are bored, and the slowest kids can't keep up. It's a lowest common denominator approach to teaching, and it's awful. We are shafting a whole generation of kids. As for ID and it's ilk, I think the best approach is not to argue too much about what is taught or spoken about. Let everybody present their case. But also make sure to teach kids the difference between arguments and proofs. The rest will work itself out.

ChuckDFW, Since we both know that ID is not directly challenging the scientific method (predictive science) but the assumptions on which post-dictive science is based, where should this be explained in school? I still think the best place to discuss the philosophy of science is the science classroom. Similar to how you discuss what poetry is and is not in the English classroom, discussing what is and is not science--and why--belongs in the science classroom.

I agree, GOM, but I'm betting Rod wouldn't be shouting "free speech" if it was a conference advocating gay marriage at Notre Dame. It's a different matter. In the gay marriage situation, a conference promoting gay marriage would directly violate the moral code of the university. Rightly or wrongly, the Catholic Church teaches that gay marriage is immoral. Notre Dame would have much stronger grounds for keeping that conference off campus than a state university (which as far as I'm concerned, has no grounds at all.)
Where is the moral claim being made by ID advocates? I don't know enough about ID to attack or defend it -- my belief is that all life was created by God, and if He did so via the process described by Darwin, that's fine by me. But I do know that ID is a hypothesis that can and should be debated -- most certainly on a campus that at least pretends to be Methodist in its orientation. Even if ID did advance moral claims, it's hard to fathom why doing so on the campus of an ostensibly Christian university should be the least bit controversial.

ID counters the madness presented by the scienitist that can punch 0 x 0 on his or her calculator and come up with Darwinian hysteria. Evolution has wrought (and justified) immorality on a scale never seen before in human history. There is no crime in the animal kingdom for rape and murder, dominating the weak, land theft and genocide. Sound familiar? Sounds like science and politics joined at the hip.
You think the powers and prinicipalities behind evolution's anti-religious fanaticism are going to let it be challenged now? Seems the kinds of people that founded SMU are far more "tolerant" of opposing ideas than the garden-variety science folk of today.

'Only the faithful buy into this because it's about faith intentionally disguised as science.' And only the faithful materialists fight against it because their closed system cannot and will not deal with metaphysics, which is really what this whole thing is about.

Add them all up, Harvey, and they still don't equal those murdered by atheist states in the 20th century. Also, when Christians behaved in such ways as you mention they were acting against the tenets of their religion not as a result of them. Can't say the same for the various and sundry Commies.

Add them all up, Harvey, and they still don't equal those murdered by atheist states in the 20th century. Also, when Christians behaved in such ways as you mention they were acting against the tenets of their religion not as a result of them. Can't say the same for the various and sundry Commies. Rob Grano First thing Rob, I wasn't talking about Christians, Muslims, pagans, and Hindus aren't Christians the last time I checked. As for the numbers you seem to be so hung up on, that's all about opportunity, religion didn't have the numbers or they'd have stepped up to the plate, er, uh, pulpit.

Rob, what do you say about the judge's statement in his judgement about the proponents of ID? The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. Read it for yourself here

Conference attendees will interact with intelligent design scientists and experts whose discoveries in cosmology, biology, physics, and DNA present astonishing scientific evidence that is overturning the evolutionary thihnking of the past. ASTONISHING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!! Strange how they present it first to an lay public before presenting at the proper scientific conventions and peer-review journals, you know, the place where REAL SCIENCE is presented FIRST.

"Even if ID did advance moral claims, it's hard to fathom why doing so on the campus of an ostensibly Christian university should be the least bit controversial." Because SMU isn't a bible college, but a serious academic institution that doesn't need to promote flat-earth theories that defy academic rigor. Just because it is a Christian university doesn't mean it needs to promote ideas supported by fringe, far-right religious groups.

"Just because it is a Christian university doesn't mean it needs to promote ideas supported by fringe, far-right religious groups." As per usual with liberals, to hell with the free marketplace of ideas.

Rob G.: I want to show my appreciation for your civil approach to this. It's a hot button topic, for sure. You ask why ID can't have a place in the grand scheme of science. You ask for evidence or explanation of why ID is rejected by science. I submit that you are asking these questions of the wrong people (speaking for myself there, mostly). Ask the scientists who support ID what their actual credentials are; very few of them have training in the life sciences directly connected with evolution, let alone are specialists in those disciplines. As a well-read layman, claiming a close understanding of the scientific method, their (lack of) credentials allows me to put myself on an equal footing with them, when it comes to evolution. But I don't say that to contradict my opening statement. You really shouldn't be asking me those questions. Please look at the actual evidence. The Dover judge did not indict ID per se, he ruled on the very specific evidence cited by Aaron: a text book identical in every way to one published to teach creationism, except for the substitution of intelligent design for creation. Please, how credulous do you want us to be? I take a bit of exception to your invoking "free marketplace of ideas". It exists without you are I making any sort of effort for or against it. It has not one whit of relevance to the scientific method, which starts out with strict definitions of what constitutes qualifying "ideas". There's nothing free about it. Ask the average lab technician in a research institution. They buy respect and qualification with months and years of hard work. ID has one simple premise: an agency outside of science is responsible for science. It contributes absolutely nothing to science, and in fact it obviates the cornerstones of the scientific method: falsifiability, testability, repeatability. That is what ID fails. There is your "broad brush", one that every scientist worthy of the label must pass. ID wants to come in the door without even one of them. If you can find a peer reviewed, experimentally repeated process that proves ID, and has survived all attempts to falsify it, I'll take a respectful look. Right now, you can't. (Well, if you can, I'll eat those words. :) )

"As per usual with liberals, to hell with the free marketplace of ideas." A private university isn't a free marketplace of ideas. Just as Notre Dame can ban debate supporting gay marriage or abortion, so can SMU attempt to stop discussion of flat-earth theories that are incompatible with its academic mission.

But it seems to me that one side here is being denied the right to present its evidence,... It's not science's fault pro-ID scientists fail to publish evidence for the theory yet to be named

"It's not science's fault pro-ID scientists fail to publish evidence for the theory yet to be named." Perhaps they do publish or attempt to publish -- I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me in the least, though, to hear that they were being excluded not on the basis of their science, though, but on their metaphysics.

Aaron -- although ID proponents have some overlap with creationists, the terms aren't interchangeable. Many anti-ID people don't know to (or care to) make the distinction.

I share Mencken's disdain for the snake-oil hucksters that push creationism and intelligent design. They are vile, ignorant, under-endowed blow hards. The lot of them. Which is exactly why I support, nay encourage, them to talk about their special little cause as much as possible. The more they speak the less relevant they become. Scientists should be ashamed at their inability or refusal to confront this fringe element head-on. The ID crowd may win a few short-term victories but over the long-haul truth, and therefor science, will prevail. Thinking people need more courage.

If you read the guys that are actually doing the science (not the popularizers or PR men) you'll see that ALL they are attempting to demonstrate is that certain aspects of the material world are better explained by the existence of a designer than by the idea that they have been generated by random chance. But how do they come to that conclusion? While I can respect that intelligent designer would be considered a "better" explanation than random chance, the comparison is specious, as science doesn't argue any such thing. Matter has properties which when combined in particular ways act with predictable results. That is not random. That is saying "given X, Y should occur." Such is observable, testable, and verifiable.
Now, regarding the question of "why" matter has those properties, what evidence do they offer that points to an intelligent designer? In what way is such a theory observable, testable and verifiable?
It's simply *not* science.

Get it? No 6,000 year old earth, no Genesis flood, no dinosaurs and man coexisting...that's creationism, not ID. //This function will magically replace creationism with ID 1 Take creationist textbook Panda's and People 2 Find all instances of creationism 3 Replace all instances of creationism with ID 4 Market new instance of book as ID book 5 End function

Rob,
To say this for the 100,000+ time: evolution does not claim that life on earth came about by "random chance," as you assert in your post. Anyone who believes that it does has failed to understand the driving force of evolution--natural selection. While the "selection" is not conscious (at least not up until we humans developed big enough brains to start selectively breeding plants and animals), it is anything but random. The selection is based on whether or not a trait increases the reproductive success of the individuals possessing it.
As for the intellectual seriousness of ID, yes, some proponents, like Michael Behe ("Darwin's Black Box") have advanced degrees in relevant subject matter. But they are pretty rare birds. Check out this website, which at first reads like a parody of ID: fixedearth.com This site tells us that godless evoultionary scientists have told us the lie that the earth moves around the sun. According to these experts, it actually sits still in space, not even rotating! I'm not making this stuff up. Then there's the "Creation Museum" in Kentucky: www.answersin genesis.org/museum This is a multimillion dollar museum opening this summer that has exhibits showing how man and the dinosaurs co-existed. It "proves" that, just as the Bible teaches us, the earth is 6,000 years old. Far from limiting themselves to talking about "metaphysics" (bodiless mental abstractions would be another name for it), ID proponents busy themselves advancing all sorts of EMPIRICAL absurdities. Now if you doubt that a stationary earth in the middle of the solar system or people hanging around with dinosaurs are absurd--well, I guess it's true that I'm willing to shut off "debate" with you. I just don't see any point to it. However, if you'd be willing to explore what evolution does actually posit about how life came about, at least to the point of understanding that "random chance" is the opposite of what it posits, well, that's a different matter.

songtraveler- There's a bit of doublespeak going on among the crea-ID-bots. When they say "random" they mean godless, undirected, purposeless, anti-christian, baby-eating, "random". When "random" is used properly, it means mathematically random, metaphysically however, god could still be directing the "random"

ChuckDFW: "Ok, Pauli. I note that you did not disagree with my statement. But, assuming you DO disagree, what does ID predict that can be verified scientifically?" So what. The debate can center on the demarcation problem, paradigm shifts or any other topic that the philosophy of scientist smart guys are into now-a-days. That's what college is all about, big giant BS sessions, right?

And for those who claim that ID is NOT Creationism, the board at Dover discovered that the proposed textbooks for the ID class was the exact same as the proposed textbooks for a Creationism class, with the word 'Creationism' replaced with 'ID', and Creator with 'Designer'.

"To say this for the 100,000+ time: evolution does not claim that life on earth came about by "random chance," as you assert in your post. Anyone who believes that it does has failed to understand the driving force of evolution--natural selection." ST -- Explain to me how natural selection worked before the arrival of life. Was there some sort of mysterious force working in the chemicals that came together randomly and resulted in life? Aaron -- there's no point in continuing this discussion with you, as you refuse to debate things in an intellectually honest manner, instead resorting to disinformation and ad hominems.

as you refuse to debate things in an intellectually honest manner, instead resorting to disinformation and ad hominems. Aww you didn't like being called a bot so you take your ball and go home. Me thinks more likely because you couldn't counter the textbook charge, which ruins your case.

Which means zilch except that the textbook was bad. Yet they wanted it taught to school children as the ID answer to 'evilution'. This after-the-fact analysis is quite stunning. I'm sure it was a perfectly "good" textbook before the trial.

I think the Anthropology Department makes a good point with this part of it's statement:
"These are conferences of and for believers and their sympathetic recruits," said the letter sent to administrators by the department. Let's say that, in the interest of "academic freedom" this debate went forward without a protest.
What guarantee is there that those selected to represent the "Evolution" side of this debate would actually be credible scientists who accept the findings of evolutionary biology, etc., and not simply Discovery Institute plants?
This reminds me of a book I read recently which compared the ideas of Freud and C.S. Lewis. I lost respect for the author because he clearly began writing his book with his conclusion in mind - which was, essentially, "Christianity is better."
I thought he was intellectually dishonest, and I think the same about the ID people.

Put it this way: I've been following this stuff since the first Touchstone/ID conference back in 2000. Touchstone Magazine has been a strong supporter of ID; indeed their special ID issue was republished as a book, 'Signs of Intelligence.' Not once in the ensuing 7 years has anything appeared there among all the pro-ID articles that could be described as 'creationist.' If ya don't believe me, go back through the archives yourself. ID does not equal 'creationism,' and ID folks are often at pains to point this out. Of course, it seems to always fall on deaf ears.

Again, Rob, if they aren't talking about the methods used in the Creation story of the Bible. The timing, the order, the method.. And if the only thing they say is that an intelligence was responsible for how this world came into being, and how it works, why would it be in a debate with Evolution? They don't deal with the same issues, and nothing in the two conflict. There is nothing in Evolution that talks about why the universe developed in such a way that the evolutionary process works. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life, much less the universe. Only the development of life. Anymore than germ theory talks about how germs originated on the planet, only how they grow, change, and how to deal with them.
And there is nothing in Evolution that directly disallows for a designer that could've created the universe and made it the sort of place that Evolution works. It doesn't allow for it either. Its simply not in the theory whatsoever. So, if this is about Evolution VS. ID, what in ID is 'vs'' Evolution?

Rob, One example of what could be called natural selection that predated life would be the arrangement of stones on beaches, with the largest stones closest to the water, and smaller ones further inland. Gravity and wave action explains the apparent order, not conscious design. As for how inorganic matter crossed the boundary into living matter, lots of interesting work is going on there, with one idea being that natural "copying" mechanisms--such as those in crystals--could have been the precursor to the more complex chemical copying of RNA and then DNA. Scientists have had to tools to work on this bridge from inorganic to organic chemestry for only a few decades now. Time will tell how difficult this profound issue will take to solve. It's possible that it will baffle scientists for centuries, which would probably be the best hope for the ID people to stay in the game, or at least on the sidelines.

Natural selection is the means. Even theistic Evolutionists wouldn't disagree that if life changed from one time to another, it did so in response to changes in the environment.
The idea of a theistic Evolutionist is that God wasn't necessarily micromanaging every development of life. That systems were put into place for adaptation, but that the Deity is the one who, so to speak, made the parameters, the rules of the game within which evolution operates. Perfectly in line, for instance, with Deism.
There's nothing, in other words, even in 'Natural Selection' that precludes a DESIGNER. (It might, however, preclude a THEISTIC designer. But then you have to start dealing with WHO the designer is, and how they did things.)
And that's where ID isn't about any Designer, its about a PARTICULAR type of Designer.

Kannbrown -- Well, no, not really. One could conceivably be a Deist and an ID proponent as well. Not many Deists left these days though. And ID doesn't argue against natural selection per se, only that it's insufficient as the primary engine of the evolutionary process.

And, unless you are stating ID is a religious argument, then the religion of the ID proponent shouldn't have any bearing on the theory, or the debate.

Insufficient doesn't mean in conflict. For it to be in conflict, you would have to have something in ID that is CONTRARY to Evolution. Not 'in addition to'.
ID proponents have problems with it because they ID isn't about A Designer, no matter what they are saying. It is about a SPECIFIC designer. A truly neutral theory that just says that some Intelligence had a role in setting up the universe and the formation of life, there is nothing in THAT that contradicts Evolution. But ID says more than that, doesn't it?

And of course they are loathe to use that name. That would be very.. telling, wouldn't it? But, I showed a Designer that would have no problem fitting in with Evolution, and I got 'But there's not a lot of Deists around'. What does it matter how many members of a particular theology are around in a (cough) Scientific theory?

Rob G., I mean this with due respect, I really do, but your word and phrase choices are very familiar. A person who happens to be a scientist, who makes that leap from methodology to philosophy, immediately stops being a scientist and starts being a phiosopher. Your statements above quite clearly define the contradiction inherent in your entire argument so far: that science rejects philosophy. Of course it does, it's designed (sorry) to be that way. Stating the obvious and calling it wrong is precisely what ID apologists have as their sole debating point. You have not acknowledged my statements supporting the assertion that ID is not science. I do hope you will at least explain why. In short, you are using precisely the same arguments and approaches as the ID apologists, and you are offering nothing (other than a vague speculation concerning whether ID has been submitted for strict methodological review: to my knowledge, it has not) to rebut the ID is not science assertion. And, good sir, claiming that anything in science, let alone evolution, is directly based on random chance is right at the top of the ID list of catch phrases. It is a bold and deliberate misrepresentation of the statistical analysis used in many branches of science. I suggest that you read the actual explanation of evolution and its components, like natural selection, written by biologists who specialze in evolution. The science section of the non-fiction part of any large bookstore will have several to choose from. I urge to take note of those aspects which are contradicted by ID. The contradiction, in every case, will be based on metaphysics and be incapable of scientific examination.

But the fact is, the only issues in conflict (and this is about debating Evolution, after all) with Evolution are those that support the specific designers posited by YEC proponents. What, in the strict definition of ID, would they actually be debating ABOUT? The only elements that could conflict are in the realm of philosophy, metaphysics, and theology. And there, they may conflict more with proponents of OTHER designers than with Evolutionary Biologists.

Kannbrown, you missed my point, which was that even though a Deist could be an ID proponent, you're unlikely to find one, since Deists are rare these days. An ID proponent could, however, be a Jew, a Catholic, a Muslim, a Hindu -- whatever. All that is posited is an intelligent designer. Franklin, if I'm reading you right, you proved my point. Methodological naturalism can neither prove nor disprove metaphysics. When science makes the leap into 'proving' the non-existence of the metaphysical it errs. Likewise, ID can't 'prove' the existence of a designer, it can only offer evidence and argument. ID finds Darwinian evolution wanting both scientifically and philosophically, but it can't be proven scientifically; neither can its converse, scientific naturalism.

But the point is, ID, as proposed, isn't ABOUT what religion the proponent holds, or does not hold. Why should it, if isn't a religious theory? As long as ANY Designer can be proposed, then ID's needs are served. If the Jews, and Christians and Muslims and Hindus object because it isn't THEIR God, that's a whole other kettle of fish.
And if ID finds Evolution lacking, but in areas that Evolution does NOT actually deal with, and that nothing in ID actually contradicts or rebuts Evolutionary theory.

ID finds Darwinian evolution wanting both scientifically and philosophically.. I disagree. ID finds evolution wanting philosophically, then tries to attack its only strength, science. However, the attack comes after the philosophical justification. The evidence doesn't drive ID's conclusions, religious agendas do, and most of those agendas are YEC.

Rob, Respectfully, I think you're a little too willing to give the textbook a pass. YOu state that the problem was with the textbook, not the ideas. I submit the problem was with the people who tried to pass off a creationist text as if it was not creationist, and by extention, tried to pass of ID as if it was another animal unrelated to creationism. Creationism has been determined to be not science. Changing the name to ID does not make it science. Why, then, the duplicity? How can we *not* believe this is agenda-laden if they're not willing to be up-front about their theory - that it is creationism with a more scientific name? I read some articles on Behe. He testified in court under oath that "irreducible complexity" relies on functionality, and conceded that it is possible that over time parts "find new uses" as their complexity increased through natural selection. If I understnad the court transcripts correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, flagella were one example of what he called called "irreducibly complex" because of their functionality as they exist now would not exist in a simpler model. He did, however, concede that it is possible flagella served another purpose before attaining their current rotary motion ability. So... even Behe doesn't believe what he claims to believe without taking some serious leaps.

Its about the process used, and the type of claims being made. Not what the claims are made about. If someone makes a claim about a deity that CAN be examined through the scientific process, that's a legitimate field of study.
If someone makes a claim, about science or any other area of life that is not examinable, and is not examined through the experimental process, it doesn't matter if the subject is God, or a scientific theory. The claim is not scientific.
Its about the process, not the area of life in which it is used.

"Have I stated it accurately?" No. From what I can see, ID has no problem with methodological naturalism. One does not assume that a given structure shows evidence of design. But when one finds a structure that seemingly could not have evolved due to its irreducible complexity, it's not unscientific then to infer that such a structure may have been designed. But to rule such an inference out of court a priori because it posits the possibility of a designer is just as much a metaphysical claim as is its converse.

Actually, the level of assumptions and the immediate leap are NOT scientific, Rob, in that instance. There's a process. First, you examine evolution. You determine if there is anything in evolution that contraindicates the ability to develop something with that 'level of complexity' (which seems to be on the level of opinion.. is there a scale of complexity out there?). Then you study and research that issue. If not, you can't immediately leap to 'Designer'. Even the total discrediting of evolutionary theory does NOT prove ID. It only disproves evolution. Proving ID would involve its own participation in the same type and level of research and experimentation that went into proving/disproving Evolution. And there is where the issue breaks down.

"Proving ID would involve its own participation in the same type and level of research and experimentation that went into proving/disproving Evolution. And there is where the issue breaks down." Give it time -- it's still a young (but growing) field.

But until it does so, or is showing it is at least engaged in that process, it is NOT more than a hypothesis, much less a theory.
When its done, then it can, using those findings, go on a debate with Evolution and ITS findings.

So, the first area of study is to quantify and define those 'levels of complexity'. (Sorry, we're dealing with science. It DOES require standards, hard definitions, etc.)
You have to prove that after a certain level of 'complexity', evolution can not be responsible for that development. (A process, again, entirely separate from proving ID WAS.) Then, and only then, can you begin to test, research, and experiment on if a Designer WAS responsible for that.
However something like that would work. But for it to be a scientific theory, it HAS to fit within the scientific process. And not everything does.
And remember, the answer could always be Not A OR B, or A, but only with B, as well as just A, or just B.

Exactly. Always the option of 'none of the above', and an entirely different thing altogether. I love that quote by Asimov that says.. The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka' (I found it), but rather, 'Hmm.. that's funny...'

Freeman Dyson: My opinion is that most people believe in intelligent design as a reasonable explanation of the universe, and this belief is entirely compatible with science. So it is unwise for scientists to make a big fight against the idea of intelligent design. The fight should be only for the freedom of teachers to teach science as they see fit, independent of political or religious control. It should be a fight for intellectual freedom, not a fight for science against religion. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/freeman-dyson-comments-on-id/#comments

And since this blog post by Rod was more about academic freedom than the specific merits of ID/evolution, readers should understand that the blod cited above, uncommondescent, is notorious for banning and censoring pretty much anyone who disagrees with ID.

"...a conflation with philosophical and methodological naturalism.' Indeed. This is by far the most important issue to my mind. Methodological naturalism has been absorbed into philosophical naturalism. Logical positivism, although long debunked as a philosophy, still operates in labs and science classrooms. Science too often has become scientism.

sorry, that anon was me

To get into the classroom is the whole point of the I.D. movement, Rob.

Rod, I find it fascinating that you devote a column to defending a creationist theocratic organization Do you even know what "creationist" and "theocratic" mean? Or are they just buzz words? I suppose one could debate on whether or not to call the Discovery Institute "creationist," but where on earth do you get the idea that they support government by divine rule? Answer: they don't. You're just throwing meaningless words around because, apparently, in your mind, religion = bad.
...on free speech grounds and when a much milder example is introduced of the shoe on the other foot, you go scurrying behind religious dogma. Do you not grasp the essential difference between moral claims and scientific claims? Between private and public realms? If SMU wanted to exclude from campus a ministry that campaigned against homosexuality, I would have no problem with that in principle. It could well be that for that private university, the traditional Christian moral teaching on homosexuality is now seen as immoral. I would think them mistaken to make that decision, but it would be credible.
On ID? The ID people put forth a set of scientific claims that are subject to scrutiny. What is wrong with allowing people to scrutinize those claims and make up their mind based on the evidence? Is it immoral to believe that the universe was intelligently designed? Foolish, maybe, but immoral?
Frankly, comparing ID with Holocaust denial is an excellent analogy. Both are drivel masquerading as science. To say that denial that six million Jews and others were gassed to death is on par with asserting belief in an intelligent designer is to my mind evidence of utter silliness at best, and moral derangement at worst.

I suppose one could debate on whether or not to call the Discovery Institute "creationist," but where on earth do you get the idea that they support government by divine rule? Answer: they don't. You're just throwing meaningless words around because, apparently, in your mind, religion = bad. ID=Creationism, we've seen the textbook. Discovery Institute=Theocracy, apparently you don't know the power players behind the Disco Institute.

Bingo, Rod. I'm neither a theocrat nor a creationist, and none of the ID proponents that I know personally is either.

"...apparently you don't know the power players behind the Disco Institute." 'Noam Chomsky, call your office.'

Oh, and I'm on the site for Discovery Institute that names the Board of Directors. Oddly, I don't see Noam Chomsky listed.

"Oh, and I'm on the site for Discovery Institute that names the Board of Directors. Oddly, I don't see Noam Chomsky listed." Good thing, too.

You ascribe ill will to me by rejecting my word and personal knowledge of ID through my connections with a journal that strongly supports it, because "we've seen the textbook!" As I said above, go through Touchstone's archives on the ID issue and find one piece that promotes theocracy or creationism. Wedge Document, have you read it?

-- and that they think the Discovery Institute is trying to create a theocracy. Don't y'all understand how absurd this all sounds? Wedge Doucment, have you read it?

"...the SMU professors -- they overreacted so crazily..."-Rod Dreher By firing off letters?

I read 'The Wedge' some years ago and didn't find it problematic. I will reread it. You can read Philip Johnston's interview where he discusses it here: http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-05-037-i

Oh God, I remembered why I stopped reading Philip Johnson, the pseduo-scientific inanity hurts my brain. Thanks for the link.

Still, inane or no, Johnson's no theocrat.

I think a university would be an appropriate place to have a series of discussions between appropriate people on ID vs. the mainstream on evolution. But I would like to see the series sponsored, not by a philosophy department or a biology department but by a speech communications department, with the idea that first of all the series was about civil discourse. I would like students be able to see, let's say three 90-minute sessions in which the participants discussed this issue without even once resorting to the kinds of rhetorical ploys that are censured in freshman speech courses, such as ad hominem arguments, wilful distortion of another's point of view, refusal to listen, etc etc. Let the students see the participants, for example, start by defining their terms, by stating what they regard as admissible evidence and why, etc.
We already know that the talks would end with the participants thinking as they did before talking. But it would be good for students and others to be able to see some civil discourse - - rational people talking about highly controversial things in a civilized manner. "You may say I'm a dreamer" for propsoing such a series, but perhaps "I'm not the only one"!

Oops. "I see no problem... I should have hit preview before I posted the above...

Major Wootton just defined my reason for doing the comboxes.
"We already know that the talks would end with the participants thinking as they did before talking. But it would be good for students and others to be able to see some civil discourse - - rational people talking about highly controversial things in a civilized manner." For me these discussions serve two purposes. The primary one of course is the sharpening of my own perceptions. Daily I'm exposed to statements that enable me to expand my own thoughts and beliefs on topics dear to my heart. I also accept that folks on the other side of the forum are as likely to change their position as I am mine. But out there in cyberland are those who haven't made up their minds yet. And they deserve to hear and read both sides of the topic at hand.
Plus this is much more fun than watching the telly or reading D Magazine. (sorry Tim)

'One wouldn't get that impression reading Phil Johnson or William Dembksi. They equate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism asking, "What's the difference?". On a related note, Dembski even wrote that intelligent design is no friend of theistic evolution.' Dembski and Johnson have problems with methodological naturalism because in the modern science classroom it has been subsumed into philosophical naturalism; hence their question, "What's the difference?" If today's methodological naturalism functions under the metaphysical umbrella of philosophical naturalism, there really isn't much of a difference. To put it another way, philosophical naturalism is functioning under the guise of methodological naturalism. As to theistic evolution, Johnson, in the Touchstone interview I cited above, states that it's theistic evolutionists who have a problem with ID, not the other way around. He says, "I was the biggest troublemaker of all, so I found myself bitterly resented in the Christian academic world. Theistic evolution is the same thing as atheistic evolution with a certain amount of God-talk. They don t see any merit whatsoever in alleging that God left us some fingerprints on the evidence." The key point is that last sentence. My point about Touchstone as a source for ID discussion relates to its function as a cultural/theological journal, not in regards to the 'hard' science of ID. For that, as U.S. Reader says, you'll have to look elsewhere. My point about Touchstone was related to the notion that the ID movement is theocratic and creationist. One place you'd expect this notion to come up is in a journal like Touchstone, which is sympathetic to ID, and is cultural/theological in focus. But it doesn't.

Ridiculous, Aaron. In any case, I'm done with this. Keep on believing your goofy Wedge conspiracy theory in spite of the contradictory evidence that's out there. No one is blinder than he who will not see.

Ridiculous, Aaron. In any case, I'm done with this. Keep on believing your goofy Wedge conspiracy theory in spite of the contradictory evidence that's out there. No one is blinder than he who will not see. Let's see, the whole Panda's textbook change from creationism to ID followed the 1980's court decision ruling that creationism is religion and cannot be taught in public school classrooms. So we get the great idea of having an unnamed designer (ignore that Jesus behind the curtain), rehashed creationist arguments, textbooks that are nothing more than find and replace, Wedge documents outlying the strategy...to quote a smart man:No one is blinder than he who will not see.

I suspect most I.D. theorists also believe the supreme court has banned prayer in public school(which it didnt).

Rob Grano writes: "Dembski and Johnson have problems with methodological naturalism because in the modern science classroom it has been subsumed into philosophical naturalism; hence their question, "What's the difference?" If today's methodological naturalism functions under the metaphysical umbrella of philosophical naturalism, there really isn't much of a difference. To put it another way, philosophical naturalism is functioning under the guise of methodological naturalism." The metaphysical umbrella under which methodological naturalism operates depends on the operators themselves. Does gravity operate differently depending on whether one is a Christian, Jew, Buddhist or atheist? Is the math different? Exactly how would a 'theistic science' look? Does the inverse-square law for electromagnetism demonstrate the existence of God? Yes, there are those who use scientific facts to bolster their personal metaphysics, but that doesn't mean that their claims are valid or that the process of science is inherently wrong or flawed. The fact is, there is a difference between metaphysical and philosophical naturalism. One common error is to assume that the success of metaphysical naturalism 'proves' that philosophical naturalism is valid. The second common error is projecting "guilt by association", rejecting methodological naturalism as a valid research approach because some people (incorrectly) think it bolsters a case against God. The queerest thing of all is that the same scientists who promote ID routinely employ methodologically naturalistic methods in their own field of study. Go figure. If it's such a bad and shortsighted practice, why are ID arguments formulated with it?
"As to theistic evolution, Johnson, in the Touchstone interview I cited above, states that it's theistic evolutionists who have a problem with ID, not the other way around. He says, "I was the biggest troublemaker of all, so I found myself bitterly resented in the Christian academic world. Theistic evolution is the same thing as atheistic evolution with a certain amount of God-talk. They don t see any merit whatsoever in alleging that God left us some fingerprints on the evidence." The key point is that last sentence." Thanks for providing that quote. You've got the argument backwards. It is irrelevant why or whether most religious scientists reject current formulations of ID: Regardless of the reception to his ideas, Johnson's position will not accommodate theistic evolution. The key point is in the sentence before the last: "Theistic evolution is the same thing as atheistic evolution with a certain amount of God-talk." That's the indicting comment that confirms what I wrote: Johnson and Dembski have an a priori problem with theistic evolution. It does not conform to their belief about how God worked in the world.
Johnson lumps scientist Christians who think God created via evolutionary mechanisms in the same bin as Richard Dawkins et al. He thinks they're simply aiding and abetting 'materialists'. *That* is the key problem of Johnson's position. If you've followed discussions, articles and books sponsored by members of the American Scientific Affiliation (a rather large organization of Christians who are professional scientists), you'll find that nearly all of these scientists who might identify with theistic evolution strongly disagree with Johnson's allegations. They *do not* fall in line behind Dawkins. Quite the opposite. And it is simply not true that theistic evolutionists find no merit with the possibility that God left some "fingerprints". First, these people are Christians, and so they accept the revelation of the Bible and the historical existance of Jesus. Second, they aren't opposed to the idea that God could leave 'interruptive' artifacts in biological history; they simply happen to know from a historical perspective and intimate experience in their fields that the data for that is not good. For all theist scientists, the totality of the universe *is* an example of God's work. Many would welcome evidence of divine intervention but remain unconvinced (despite Johnson et al.'s cheerleading) that an often promised but never delivered "theistic science" of ID is the way to go. For Johnson's writings, it is easy to discern that his theological beliefs depend highly on the notion that God's fingerprints are necessarily manifested as a series of 'disruptive'interventions in natural history. As many others have noted previously, the evidence he has reguritated in his books is not good science and the philosophical arguments he deploys are not terribly good theology. On a related note: Earlier in this discussion, Rob Grano mentioned the possibility of Deist IDer's. Well, here's an example: Michael Denton. Recall that Denton's first book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" was cited by Johnson as an inspiration for his own jumping off into ID (I'd say Johnson lifted a couple chapters of his own book straight out of Denton's). In a domino-like manner, Behe later cites Johnson's book as a driver behind his own book. Now, fast forward a few more years after Behe publishes: Denton comes out with a second book, "Nature's Destiny", in which he claims that the intergradations and molecular distances between species demonstrate the common relatedness between life and that the bridges between organisms are tiny and readily crossed by mechanisms naturally present in the universe. Denton claims that the universe was designed at the very beginning such that life would naturally emerge as the result of the built-in laws of nature. So, according to Denton, there were no 'disruptive' interventions that were necessary once the universe was created. Further, he says that the manner by which organisms arose can be understood as the consequence of the interaction of physical laws in nature (e.g. conventional science). It's no wonder that Behe and Johnson seemed poleaxed during a roundtable discussion of Denton's second book.

For most of the 20th century peptic ulcers were believed to be caused by stress or poor diet. Two Australian physicians named Barry Marshall and Robin Warren theorized that most peptic ulcers were caused by a bacteria called Helicobacter pylori. They were almost alone in this belief, and took an enormous amount of abuse from collegues in medicine. For most of the 1980's they were scoffed at as crackpots. By the early 1990's they had been proven right. They won the Nobel Prize in 2005. At what point in the 1980's do you believe it would have been appropriate to prosecute them under libel or slander laws?