How about it, SMU profs?

Damn. Really. I wish I could be there.

There is nothing to debate. If the IDers are responsible scientists, they would simply take part in the scientific community like all real scientists, and the only difference would be that they would add a brief footnote saying "and the Lord God made them all." And talk about it in chapel. Unless, of course, (perish the thought) it's just the old "scientific creationism" in disguise.

I didn't know Mick Jagger was an essential part of their argument.

I hope that they accept the offer to debate, and send as their representatives Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. I think that the debate would be lively, informative, and truly a teachable moment for all who attend.

Rod, this would have been a good idea about ten years ago. But Chapman and his spinmeisters have become so intellectually dishonest, this counts as just another stunt, with the usual suspects, to try and lend a credibility to intelligent design it simply does not merit. After 15 years of blather, the DI has yet to produce one paper in a mainstream science journal that has raised the interest of any reputable scientists.

I wouldn't be surprised if the SMU profs in fact don't have the stones for it, but play it off by saying that "to grant the ID people the time for debate validates their ideas and we don't want to do that yada-yada-yada." "I hope that they accept the offer to debate, and send as their representatives Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. I think that the debate would be lively, informative, and truly a teachable moment for all who attend." I too would like to see that one. Maybe the ID guys could get Plantinga to come down from Notre Dame. That indeed would be interesting.

I'd be happy to see Owen Gingerich up against any of the Discovery Institute's well-paid senior fellows. Speaking of challenges, has any one ever wondered why William Dembski, after bragging on his blog about how he looked forward to the Dover Trial--bagged out at the last minute? I wonder why.

Joke all you will about ID and its proponents. At least they give the other side a hearing - that's more than I can say for the SMU faculty.

Like I said, when science is over your head, retreat to "ism" land.

I'll bet the Flat Earth Society would be open to a debate these close-minded, biased scientists in which both sides are given a fair hearing. Which is more open-minded than those crazy "mainstream scientific" spherists. I'll settle for open-mindedness. Thank you very much.

Why dont they also invite the young earth creationists?

No, rob, that would be that cult up in canada, the raeliens, that believe that and guess what-- they are I.D.'ists as well.

~TV wrote: "when he admitted under oath that he was wrong-headed about it in the Of Pandas and People case" The only problem is, TV is making this up because that never happened. wildwest wrote: "If the IDers are responsible scientists, they would simply take part in the scientific community like all real scientists, and the only difference would be that they would add a brief footnote saying "and the Lord God made them all."
The only problem is that ID isn't appealing to the supernatural, and ID proponents have published articles supporting their views in peer-reviewed journals John Farrell wrote: "Chapman and his spinmeisters have become so intellectually dishonest" Hooray! More Darwinist namecalling! Isn't it fun and intellectual to call names?
Then John Farrell wrote: "After 15 years of blather, the DI has yet to produce one paper in a mainstream science journal that has raised the interest of any reputable scientists." The problem is that they have published articles in mainstream scientific journals which have raised the interest of reputable scientists. Who is the "dishonest spinmeister" here? John Farrell wrote: "same BS in front of another audience of sadly gullible Christians." Hooray! More Darwinist cursing, namecalling, and attacking Christians! John Farrell wrote: "Dudes: the "teaching moment" was the Dover Trial. Michael Behe was the only one with the guts of his convictions to be there. Dembski and the other light-weights took a powder." One problem here is that Dembski easily dismantled the arguments of the plaintiffs experts in his rebuttal to expert witnesses. So clearly Dembski wasn't scared off. Another problem is that Behe took no beating--Judge Jones just copied and pasted from the plaintiffs briefs to write a ruling that misrepresented Behe's testimony. Wildwest wrote: "I'll bet the Flat Earth Society would be open to a debate " Hooray! More Darwinist outlandish rhetoric! You Darwinists put up such a great fight :)

I love Darwinists, I have no argument whatsoever with saying "and the Lord God made them all." What more do you want? And what peer-reviewed journals are you referring to?

Aglaios hits on something everybody and their dog overlooks, it seems to me. The ID folks seem to be concerned for philosophy of science (as well as philosophy in general), and the critiques of darwinian scientists evince no awareness of any such thing; that is, they subconsciously *assume* a mechanistic materialist philosophy. So there seems to be a lot of talking past each other. I guess I wish most scientists I read about in the media had a clue that there is a thing called "philosophy of science" and that that domain of reflection has endured much evolution (pun intended) since Newton and Darwin.

John Farrell, My point exactly!

Behe believes in evolution, or slow change over time, he just believes that the scientific evidence is that the process is too complex to be random and without meaning. In other words, Behe agrees with Pope John Paul II. that there are "theories" -- plural -- of evolution and that Christians must reject those rooted in materialistic naturalism.
Perhaps SMU and the Discovery people could include some University of Dallas people, too. They should also invite some classic Creationists who disagree with the ID people from the other direction (this is Texas, after all). Oh, wait, is SMU in Texas?

"random and without meaning" Well, maybe the process is "random" as far as any scientist can tell. And whether or not it has any "meaning" is not a question for scientists, anyway.

"ID isn't appealing to the supernatural." Well, it at least tries very hard not to.

I say let the debate happen, and hopefully it will be televised so the world can watch. Darwin's theory has its flaws, as did Dr. Freud's. However, both were the pioneering sort who knocked theories in their respective fields for quite the loop. I say better we ask mental patients about cigars and their mothers than spin them in boxes and hook them up randomly to electrodes as we search for the best answers and, likewise, better to believe that man evolved from a fish on our way to a better answer than to believe the fatally flawed cosmogenesis presented in "Genesis." Less people have gotten hurt or killed in either case.

"The theologian's response to the biologist's unbelief must lie in proposing an alternative interpretation of the history and process of the universe. Here we are concerned, not with metaquestions about the pattern and structure of the physical world, but with metaquestions about how its historical process is to be understood. This shift of attention corresponds to a transition from natural theology to a theology of nature. We are not now looking to the physical world for hints of God's existence but to God's existence as an aid for understanding why things have developed in the physical world in the manner that they have. "It has been an important emphasis in much recent theological thought about creation to acknowledge that by bringing the world into existence God has self-limited divine power by allowing the other truly to be itself. The gift of Love must be the gift of freedom, the gift of a degree of letting-be, and this can be expected to be true of all creatures to the extent that is appropriate to their proper character. It is in the nature of dense snow fields that they will sometimes slip with the destructive force of an avalanche. It is the nature of lions that they will seek their prey. It is the nature of cells that they will mutate, sometimes producing new forms of life, sometimes grievous disabilities, sometimes cancers. It is the nature of humankind that sometimes people will act with selfless generosity but sometimes with murderous selfishness. That these things are so is not gratuitous or due to divine oversight or indifference. They are the necessary cost of a creation given by its Creator the freedom to be itself. "Not all that happens is in accordance with God's will because God has stood back, making metaphysical room for creaturely action. The apparantly ambivalent tale of evolutionary advance and extinction, which Dawkins sees as the sign of a meaningless world of genetic competition, is understood by the Christian as being the inescapably mixed consequence of a world allowed by its Creator to explore and realise, in its own way, its own inherent fruitfulness - to "make itself," to use a phrase as old as the Anglican clergyman Charles Kingsley's response to Darwin's Origin of Species. The cruciform pattern of life through death is the way the world is, not only in the familiar tale of biological life on Earth but also cosmically. We are here today because some five billion years ago a star died in the throes of a supernova explosion, scattering into the environment those chemical elements necessary for life, which it had made in the nuclear furnaces of its interior." - John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science Bless, Doug

BTW, I think Polkinghorne's reflections on the "cruciform pattern of life through death" are particularly poignant as we enter Holy Week. Bless, Doug

When it comes to Global Warming, there was a debate. Michael Crichton won it. That's kinda the problem with debates: they are kind of a test of rhetoric over facts at times.

"I believe that God created us, and evolution was the method he used to do it."- Dreher If you already believe in 'guided evolution' why do you need a hearing on I.D.? This alone should be good enough to show that I.D. is really only a political movement. Behe's mouse trap example shows he doesnt understand natural selection and is a creationist at heart. "If ID is as dangerous as the SMU profs say, then they should not hesitate to take it on and try to debunk it."- Dreher But then you open the door to have to debunk every origin theory out there no matter how foolish. Are you prepared to have a very public debate with young earth creationists(YEC's) about their theories on paired galaxies and quasars to red shift? They'll mislead lots of people who will be dazzled by their put-on. Yet, Dreher will drone on about impediments to education. YEC's also have an argument that I.D. causes a big theological problem. I.D. provides no account of poor design such as pathogenic microbes, man-eating carnivores, and viruses. This makes God(Intelligent designer) the author of natural evil instead of man's sinful nature, i.e. 'The Fall'.

"YEC's also have an argument that I.D. causes a big theological problem. I.D. provides no account of poor design such as pathogenic microbes, man-eating carnivores, and viruses. This makes God(Intelligent designer) the author of natural evil instead of man's sinful nature, i.e. 'The Fall'." Not really, for when you move into this territory you are truly moving into theology/philosophy per se, which comes after the fact of a designer's existence. Can science imply that there's a designer? The ID folks say yes. As to what the designer's nature is -- that's out of the realm of science.

Evolution is a theory, which means it attempts to take account for as much of the data as possible and make sense of it all. But that doesn't mean that data that doesn't seem to fit should be excluded. One should at least be open (I would think) to the possible existence of data that doesn't support evolution. (And I speak as a Christian who is wary of ID.) Whether ID presents this data in a responsible way is beyond my sphere of competence. But a priori, I would want to hear them out.

"Not really, for when you move into this territory you are truly moving into theology/philosophy..."- Rob Grano And I'll ask again, if you already have 'guided evolution' why bother with I.D.? "...As to what the designer's nature is -- that's out of the realm of science."- Rob Grano
Well thats pretty credulous. If you are using science to study and understand nature to prove that there is a conscious designer you should be able to discern its nature. I think you just should've stuck with the old line 'science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.'

Nice, wildwest. Point for you! :)

"The claim is that reason can bring one to the belief that a Creator exists," Nothing new about that. Proofs for God's existence have been around since writing began. Why not just dust off the old volumes of St. Thomas Aquinas and read them again? "but no further, because any further theorizing moves into the realm of philosophy/theology." But then, where does science end and philosophy begin? Isn't that the main difference here? It seems to be beyond the scope of the scientific method to prove (or "infer") that God does or does not exist. That is the provice of the philosopher/theologian. The ID folks say it *is* the province of science, and I say the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that it is so. And many have pointed to evidence that they have failed in the attempt. And each time they fail they will find a new way to make their point.
Now what I want to know is: what difference does it make whether God can be proven (or "inferred") by the scientific method?

"I'm just saying that it'd be smarter for the SMU professors to engage the ID people in a public forum and show the audience why the ID people are wrong. Refusing even to talk to them is not causing any fewer people to believe in ID. If ID is as dangerous as the SMU profs say, then they should not hesitate to take it on and try to debunk it." A fair if somewhat naive approach. It's far easier to present partial truths and misrepresented interpretations than it is to correct the errors. Take this simple but dumb statement: "If humans evolved from apes, how come there are still apes around?" You probably know or at least have met at least one person who thinks that's a credible argument. One sentence of nonsense can take a paragraph of explanations to correct. There are plenty of 'debates' where Young Earth Creationists (YEC'ers) kicked the butt of very good scientists *in a short debate format*. Why was that? It wasn't because the scientists were wrong or not knowledgeable but because the creationist could muddy the water faster than the scientist in the debate could correct. Now, in cases where scientists completely took apart the YEC'er, this typically happened when the scientist was well informed of the common YEC arguments (i.e. not just aware of the scientific evidence but also of the bad, common arguments behind YEC), took control of the pace (i.e. was a practiced debater), and operated in a venue that allowed longer exchanges. This takes tremendous preparation and debating credentials are not in the CVs of most university professors. There are, however, many scientists who are familiar with ID "research" and arguments (Ken Miller, Wes Elsberry & etc.). These people have debated IDer's many times in the past. Those transcripts are available as are the statements of many in the ID movement (some during cross-examination). There is nothing new from the ID side that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. They've had public forums. How many should they get? How about when they finally (if ever) have something new to say instead of "evolution couldn't do that"? Perhaps when are they come up with a *viable* *positive* alternative.

'But then, where does science end and philosophy begin? Isn't that the main difference here?' Indeed. In effect, the materialists, the IDrs and the YECs all put that 'barrier' in a different place. 'Now, *why* should a designer's nature be outside of the realm of science? Why does everything in ID always *stop* with a designer? "Oh, an unfathomable designer did that. Now our scientific research is completely stuck."
First of all, that's not what they say; they choose to 'stop' there, based on what I said above: that's where they see the line drawn between physics and metaphysics. Materialists on the one hand, and YECs on the other, draw that line in a different place, based on their presuppositions. As to why the line is drawn in a given place, that's a discussion for the philosophers of science, not necessarily for the scientists themselves. 'Plantinga doesn't have the scientific knowledge necessary to discuss the details of biological evolution. I've read much of his work about evolution and he never gets into much specific detail. At best he can say, "Well, it's conceivable that a designer did something, somewhere, sometime... maybe". Further, neither he nor anyone associated with ID have presented a viable methological alternative to current scientific practice.' I don't think that the IDrs have a problem with the methodology of current scientific practice, except when it presupposes a philosophical naturalism. As I heard a Christian philosophy prof once say (one who leans towards ID) when challenged that the reason he opposes Darwinian evolution is that it threatens his faith: "I might consider Darwinian evolution a threat to my faith if I could take it more seriously as a philosophy." "Even the Institute for Creation Research gets it: They repeatedly blast the DI and IDer's for being coy about the presumed nature and identity of the designer." The ICR is wrong; as has been said numerous times, one could be a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, etc. and still be an ID scientist. The ICR and the other YECs presume Xianity to be true, so you can't say the same for them.

Well put, Mr. Evans.

'Established standards for scientific methodology does not "presuppose" philosophical methodology, it rejects it as invalid. Please don't take this personally, but your statements are exactly the water-muddying tactic used by IDers to build strawmen out of thin air.' I nowhere said that a methodological materialism presupposes a philosophical materialism. ID and YEC scientists follow the same methodological model; the problem is when methodological materialism is mistaken for, is absorbed into, or is seen as necessarily leading to, philosophical naturalism. Perhaps someone with philosophical training could explain this better than I am doing.
'And no, I don't accept the IDers "stopping short" of that statement by not identifying the designer. That is sophistry, not science, and not even philosophy.' I beg to differ. Unaided reason can only get one so far in identifying God. One may be able to reason one's way to 'the god of the philosophers' or the Unmoved Mover or whatever, but one cannot reason one's way to Yahweh or Jesus or Allah or Brahma.

Gentlefolk, I have barely time to let you know that I have no time to respond, yet. I do, however, intend to respond. :) Hopefully, I'll be back in no more than a couple of hours.

Rob Grano: "I don't think that the IDrs have a problem with the methodology of current scientific practice, except when it presupposes a philosophical naturalism. They have a problem for sure, but it has really nothing to do with presumption of Naturalism. It s really because the outcome doesn't seem to support the notion of past disruptive intervention events in the history of life. As I mentioned in a related exchange, what about the Ken Millers of the world? What about most of the members of the American Scientific Affiliation (www.asa.org)? They don't conflate their scientific research with Naturalism. The vast majority of ASA scientists work perfectly well within the methodology of current practice. What they aren't are people who buy into the "scientism" debate: While science may not be able to prove the existence of God, it surely cannot disprove God's existence. In contrast, Johnson et al. appear to buy Dawkins' ridiculous claim that science has the power to demonstrate that God doesn't exist. It is an absurd and reactionary stance but not unfamiliar: Many others seem to want or even have a need to find scientific evidence of God.
"As I heard a Christian philosophy prof once say (one who leans towards ID) when challenged that the reason he opposes Darwinian evolution is that it threatens his faith: "I might consider Darwinian evolution a threat to my faith if I could take it more seriously as a philosophy.'" Maybe he should evaluate evolution as a physical process instead Consider also Paul Nelson, another philosopher, advocate of ID and fellow of the Discovery Institute. His beef with evolution (and an ancient Earth) includes the problem of pain and suffering occurring "before the Fall". His is not a data-driven view.
I wrote: "Even the Institute for Creation Research gets it: They repeatedly blast the DI and IDer's for being coy about the presumed nature and identity of the designer." "The ICR is wrong; as has been said numerous times, one could be a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, etc. and still be an ID scientist. The ICR and the other YECs presume Xianity to be true, so you can't say the same for them." I don't think this response addresses the question: Why do IDers insist that the designer is outside the realm of science? Which version of the designer one happens to fancy says nothing about whether a designer is out of the realm of science. Q: Why would someone claim that the nature of a designer is outside the realm of science? A: When they presuppose that it is God.
The ICR is right. The ICR, like everyone else who is not in the public relations business for the Discovery Institute can read the statements of the principal ID leaders and see the disconnect between what is said in secular and religious forums. Phil Johnson et al. promote ID as part of their primary religious struggle against "materialism". His goal is to support Christianity (his version). The ICR is simply faulting many of the ID leadership for not being forthcoming with their actual beliefs and goals. Honestly, why do IDers insist the nature of a designer must be outside the realm of science? The IDers point to humans as a prime example and the benchmark of a design-capable agent. Can we be studied? Certainly.
*********************************** On a related note: Can you be a YEC and IDer? You bet! It's a big tent for religious believers regardless of their inherent scientific incompatibilities. But have you heard much of an internal debate about whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor or which groups of life are probably related by common ancestry? For any healthy, new scientific area one normally expects to see a vigorous internal debate to establish clear points of view and lay down the fundamental framework for future research. Disappointingly, one doesn't see that much with ID. On the other hand, can you be a deist and ICer? Well, after his last book Michael Denton withdrew from the DI. Go figure. Can you be an IDer and theistic evolutionist who thinks God created species via mechanisms inherent in the universe created by God? Not really -- That drifts too close to 'materialism'. The main reason why Johnson et al. got such a poor reception at the ASA forums had less to do with the clash of scientific paradigms and more with his promoting pretty weak scientific arguments and questionable theology.

""C.S. Lewis did." "No he didn't. He wouldn't have known about the Christian God apart from revelation, which, of course, reason helped him to believe in." Phase One: "Intelligent Design" - use science to infer the existence of a Creator. Phase Two: Use philosophy to help them reason the way from belief in *a* God to belief in *the* God of revelation. It's not too much of a stretch to *infer* that this is the hidden agenda.

If I ascribed ill-will, I apologize. In fact, the agenda isn't even hidden, so I apologize if I accused anyone of duplicity or manipulation. I realize Phillip E. Johnson is only one proponent of ID and would not claim to speak for all of its proponents, but I found the following lengthy quotation from him on his bio. page on wikipedia.org:
"I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science." ..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?" ..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." [15] "In summary, we have to educate our young people; we have to give them the armor they need. We have to think about how we're going on the offensive rather than staying on the defensive. And above all, we have to come out to the culture with the view that we are the ones who really stand for freedom of thought. You see, we don't have to fear freedom of thought because good thinking done in the right way will eventually lead back to the Church, to the truth-the truth that sets people free, even if it goes through a couple of detours on the way. And so we're the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That's what America stands for, and that's something we stand for, and that's something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let's recapture that, while we're recapturing America." [15] "What I am not doing is bringing the Bible into the university and saying, "We should believe this." Bringing the Bible into question works very well when you are talking to a Bible-believing audience. But it is a disastrous thing to do when you are talking, as I am constantly, to a world of people for whom the fact that something is in the Bible is a reason for not believing it." ... "You see, if they thought they had good evidence for something, and then they saw it in the Bible, they would begin to doubt. That is what has to be kept out of the argument if you are going to do what I to do, which is to focus on the defects in their [the evolutionist's] case the bad logic, the bad science, the bad reasoning, and the bad evidence."[16]

Rob G., I do desire to offer the benefit of the doubt, I really do. It becomes increasingly difficult to do so, when the stated and explicit goal of the Discovery Institute and IDers in general is to make a fundamental and 180-degree change to the core of scientific methodology. In short, no one has provided an explanation of how metaphysics can fit into the scientific method. No one.

"In short, no one has provided an explanation of how metaphysics can fit into the scientific method. No one." My understanding is that it can't. But it seems to me that this is not what most of the ID crowd is trying to do. Look at it from the other direction, so to speak. If metaphysics can't "fit into" the scientific method, neither can the scientific method lead necessarily to any one specific metaphysic. What the ID folks seem to want to do is to force the scientific community to exorcise the revenants of positivism that still haunt it, and admit that a commitment to methodological naturalism need not preclude metaphysics as a possible inference.

Rob G., What the ID folks seem to want... and the following is, IMO, a very reasonable reiteration of why I object to their position.

So let's see if I understand. 1. The scientific method is not equipped to verify the existence or non-existence of God. 2. Dawkins jumps the gun and uses the scientific method to prove God does not exist, which the scientific method cannot do. IDers respond by doing the opposite and claim that the very idea that the scientific method cannot verify metaphysical conclusions is actually making a metaphysical claim, namely that there is no God. 3. Both Dawkins and The IDers miss the point. The scientific method simply cannot address metaphysical questions. Period. I think I can usually understand philosophy once I get past the jargon. OK. I wish we all realized this. The scientists make their scientific statements based on the scientific method. The I make my metaphysical statement: "And the Lord God made them all." And then Dawkins makes his metaphysical statement: "Pooh-pooh." Well, he and I can argue, but it's a different subject now, not science. OK. Can we all get along?

David writes: "I liked Ken Miller's _Finding Darwin's God_. Any particularly salient resources in the same vein that you would suggest? Science/religion interface: Robert Pennock: Tower of Babel Polkinghorne was referenced previously. Try also the American Scientific Affiliation website: www.asa3.org The ASA also has an email reflector and you can find archived posts here. A bit low signal-to-noise a but definitely worth wading through: www.calvin.edu/archive/asa George L. Murphey (http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/) Cornucopia: www.talkorigins.org (a bit militant but good resources) Basic philosophy of science w.r.t. biology: David Hull (Science as a Process), Elliott Sober (Philosophy of Biology) Perspectives of where we've been... Ernst Mayr - The Growth of Biological Thought (a bit of a blowhard but he was there at the start of the New Synthesis). Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species? Odd recommendation: Jacob Bronowksi (Science and Human Values). Bronowski was best know publicly for his "The Ascent of Man" book and series on PBS about 30 years ago.

that IDers reject; I'd say they believe that too. It's the idea that the methodogical naturalism of the SM (which is proper) is somehow translateable to, or part and parcel of, or is a function of philosophical naturalism. This is the carryover from Logical Postivism: claims that cannot be verified logically or empirically carry no cognitive value. No, they pretty much reject the SM as well, just look to their disdain of theistic evolutionists for evidence. Afterall, theistic evolutionists go into the lab per your example, leaves buddy Jesus at the door, does hir SM, walks back out the lab door and praises Jesus.

wildwest,
The thing is, everyone, except some incensed religionists, knows that Dawkins speaks his opinion. And everyone knows, except some irate religionists, that Dawkins opinion is not science. Afterall, how can both Dawkins and Collins do the same science if it allegedly reaches diametrically opposited conclusions? Oh wait they do...

That's why "Science says..." is always a falacious statement. Science doesn't say anything. Scientists do. It's getting clearer to me all the time. :-)

That's why "Science says..." is always a falacious statement. Science doesn't say anything. Scientists do. It's getting clearer to me all the time. wildwest, here's a quick litmus test, if "Science says..." is followed by excruciatingly boring technical jargon and lots of numbers, it just might be science. If, "Science says..." is followed by philisophical, theological, political or other such ramblings, it's probably opinion.

"No, they pretty much reject the SM as well, just look to their disdain of theistic evolutionists for evidence." Can't say I've seen much 'disdain' for theistic evolutionists -- impatience, perhaps. In any case, I'm not sure how that translates to a rejection of the scientific method.

Philip Johnson once said, liberal Christians [theistic Christians] are worse than atheists because they hide their naturalism behind a veneer of religion. (University of Kansas, April 8, 2000) William Dembski wrote, Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution. As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism. What theistic evolution does is take the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptize it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific content, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution, accepting as it does only purposeless, naturalistic, material processes for the origin and development of life. What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design, William A. Dembski, Ph.D., 1995

Interesting link. In contrast to the ID approach, the "theistic evolutionist" approach is explained thusly: "Many orthodox Christians accept science and evolution. They believe that God acts continuously through natural causes in ways that are beyond the comprehension of human beings. They therefore accept science as a powerful, but limited, way of knowing about God's creation. They understand that science does not address questions of spiritual reality. They don't need to find specific scientific proof of God. All of nature is a testament to God's continuous creative action." Now what I want to know from the IDers is, what's wrong with THAT?

In the first "phase" of this discussion here on Rod's blog, "Free speech at Southern Methodist University", the philosophical vs. methodological discussion between Rob and I went around the block several times. Here is a post of mine as an anchor in that combox. It gets jargony for your taste, I believe, but it will help you catch up.

For ID to quit pretending it's science.

I am grateful for the references to blogs, articles, documents, etc. Some day I may read them all. Meanwhile, anyone want to take a crack at answering my question as to what is wrong with theistic evolution, particularly as described in the paragraph I quoted? As jargon-free as the paragraph itself? Aaron, by the point I mean the crux of the difference between IDers and the "evolutionists" on this blog. The conversation seems to have been circling round and round the crux, but the crux itself is avoided. I want to put my hand on it and keep it there!!!

Why isn't theistic evolution good enough?
HOW does it show that ID is "a philosophical dead end and a scientific fraud?"

Rob, Ouch. You are correct, and I do offer an apology. As I recall, I labeled what you wrote as disingenuous, not you, but the distinction is small and I was out of line. Wildwest, our dispute is mostly about a boundary. Where, I ask rhetorically, do we draw the line between philosophy and abstract science? Or, as in the case in Dover, PA, between religion (and its practical applications) and the findings of science? My conflict with the philosophers is complex, something I've come to explore with greater clarity with Rob's help here, but I think it can be accurately summarized thus: for philosophy to make valid claims in its premises, it must match them with prima facie evidentiary statements (direct, unequivocal facts of the first order) made by the abstract level of science. For me, the primary failure of philosophy is its (so far) inability to provide such statements. My conflict with the religionists is simple: their primary charge is that science denies God (they being, mostly, Christians). This is on its face disingenuous, because science goes out of its way to say exactly nothing about deity. Religionists, for their own reasons, ignore the logical and necessary pairing of concepts in the single phrase neither accepts nor rejects the notion of deific intervention. If you'll forgive what lately is my usual infusion of cynicism: the "dispute" between ID and "theistic evolutionists" is simple. One group denies the overwhelming body of evidence, decades of research and experimentation, and the continued succcess of the predictions of evolution as an integrated scientific theory, for the simple reason that not one scrap of that entire universe of thought and effort supports their core claim. The other group does not.

Apology accepted, Franklin. My take on the ID vs. theistic evolution dispute is this: the former side rejects, on both scientific and philosophical grounds, what is loosely called the Darwinian model of evolution, while the latter does not. Neither group denies that evolution has happened -- it's the 'method' of evolution that is in dispute.

Franklin wrote, "...for philosophy to make valid claims in its premises, it must match them with prima facie evidentiary statements (direct, unequivocal facts of the first order) made by the abstract level of science." This is, I think, where Franklin and I would disagree, and where I would see the lingering presence of Logical Positivism in the discourse, i.e., that premises to be considered valid must have 'scientific' (logical or empirical) facts as evidence. Of course, I don't believe my objection applies to the laboratory, which is a "closed" system; but I also don't believe that the universe is a similar closed system, and furthermore, I don't believe you can either prove or disprove by scientific means whether the universe is either a closed or open system.

Rob, That is a most acceptable distinction, closed vs. open; I'd not thought in that direction before now. It must be conceded that there are areas of science and aspects or components of scientific theories that are accepted at face value without having passed the rigorous standards of the full scientific method. I can, intellectually, respect the objections to that as pushing the edge of naturalism beyond reasonable boundaries (acknowledging the closed-open dichotomy). I would ask those who object, though, to avoid the broad-brush reaction, because when it comes to both biology and physices (with notable exceptions), those reasonable boundaries are minimally stretched, and the stretching is done explicitly and with due diligence. Can we, for example, further acknowledge that ID is pushing the same boundary without admitting it? For example, one problem with the "desinger" is that it really has no affect on biological diversity or the demonstrable mechanisms of evolution; it is, for wont of a better term, cosmological and not biological. Personally, I'd be much more sympathetic if ID had the Big Bang and black holes in its crosshairs instead of biology. Evolution covers nothing, and that would be exactly nil, outside and before the advent of biological life.

"Reardon's objection to logical positivism also does not apply in this case." It does when anti-ID writers, like Pennock, claim that their methodological naturalism does not reflect a deeper philosophical naturalism. This is not to say that all MN masks a PN, but Reardon's point, and Johnson's too, I think, is that much of today's does, and that there is a considerable blurring of the distinctions between the two.

'They do venture into that area but it's a bit sterile (pace "The Privileged Planet"). At best they say, "Isn't this universe special? It was made just for creatures like us." Trouble is, it reeks too much of deism to be palatable for many within the ID "big tent" and so the main focus is also on biology.' And this works in reverse too, somewhat. Some non-ID folks, like Francis Collins, don't have too much of a problem with ID when it comes to cosmology, but reject it vis a vis biology.

Rob Grano: "And this works in reverse too, somewhat. Some non-ID folks, like Francis Collins, don't have too much of a problem with ID when it comes to cosmology, but reject it vis a vis biology." Yes, it's interesting how easy it is to go wrong when one ventures far out of one's field of expertise...

It isn't obvious to me that you and U.S. said the same thing.

U.R. -- the objections you raise can be answered, I think, but to be honest, I feel like we're stuck on a treadmill here. We can make distinctions and attempt to clarify things till the cows come home, but I don't believe it'll help. Like Moe used to say on the Three Stooges, "We're getting no place fast." I have the feeling this could go on endlessly, so I hereby bow out -- you guys can have the last word.

This box; I can't claim I'll be able to resist the temptation if it comes up again. Maybe a real ID-er will pick up the slack; I'm just a fellow-traveller.

Oh, great! Now Rob bowed out. Just when I had my hand on the crux, you guys argue about the definitions of philosophical terminology. Hope he comes back, cause I really want to know the difference between ID and theistic evolution. scientific statement: evolution, natural selection, RNA, DNA, blah blah blah metaphysical statement: and the Lord God made them all So what's the problem?

"Now... in plaaaaaaaaiiiin English... what does that mean?" I'm back, merely to clarify. Theistic evolutionists would accept the Darwinian model, i.e., evolution by natural selection and genetic mutation, as the way that God created and developed life. The IDers find this model scientifically insufficient, since some components of life appear to be designed rather than "randomly" developed. They want to investigate scientifically this aspect of life in a belief that it implies a designer. In other words, as Phillip Johnson has put it, ID believes that the designer has left 'fingerprints' on the design, theistic evolutionists don't.

WW -- can't really clarify beyond what I said. I haven't read deeply enough in the ID literature to define what they mean, exactly, by fingerprints. My guess would be, things whereby one could scientifically infer a design, thus a designer.

No problem -- wish I could be of more help.

Well, I certainly don't think the 'fingerprints' I see every day are "admissable in any scientific scrutiny." They prove not a thing, let alone the existence of a designer. Nevertheless, they are all *I* need to motivate me to worship. That said, *are* there such 'fingerprints' that "cannot be interpreted as other than a fact of the designer's existence"? I suppose only a scientist rigorously applying the scientific method can answer that question. But my sense of awe and wonder at it all is not dependent upon the results of any scientific discovery. And don't worry. I have LOTS of salt to spare. ;-)

WW asks: "Why isn't theistic evolution good enough?
HOW does it show that ID is "a philosophical dead end and a scientific fraud?" Rob Grano responds: "I'm back, merely to clarify. Theistic evolutionists would accept the Darwinian model, i.e., evolution by natural selection and genetic mutation, as the way that God created and developed life. The IDers find this model scientifically insufficient, since some components of life appear to be designed rather than "randomly" developed..... In other words, as Phillip Johnson has put it, ID believes that the designer has left 'fingerprints' on the design, theistic evolutionists don't."
Rob Grano summarrized the positions accurately. Now think about where that leaves us for a minute. If Theistic evolution is correct and God works through evolutionary processes which are capaable of a complete explanation for the varitety of life forms we see around us today, then we will not be able to distingush any specific action of God from what we would call "natural phenomena."
It's like saying God holds the planets in orbit through laws of motion that were discovered by Newton. No supernatural interventions are ever required. Millionso f years later--Yup--the plantes are still there going around in circles--not an angel pushing any one of them. ID--to the contrary-says that God intervened at specific intervals in the path of evolution. These interventions are the "fingerprints" and can be detected either because the biological object in question is "irreducibly complex" according to Michael Behe or exhibits "complex specified information (CSI)" according to William Dembski.
In 1996, Behe identified 5 or 6 bilogical systems apparently exhibiting irreducible complexity--meaning they could not have evolved naturally.
Dembski's CSI is essentially a mathematical probability calculation. Since 1996, it's been shown that most of Behe's examples are not irreducibly complex and could have evolved naturally. Behe admitted in 2001, that his defintion needs refinement. Since 1996, Bhe has identified exactly zero new systems that he belives exhibit irreducible complexity. Dembski has calculated the complex specified information probabilities for exactly zero biological systems. That is the same number of UFOs actaully inspected by UFO enthusiasts. Coincidence? I don't think so. If theistic evolution is correct, God simply works through the natural laws He set up governing evoution. No further interventions are required and intelligent design adds nothing.
ID proponents know this. Thats why they call theistic evolutionists "accomodationists."

Thank you, unapologetic catholic.
That clears things up. That's the beauty of theistic evolution. Just when someone thinks, "Aha! I have evidence of something that the *only* explanation for could be a god of some sort," a valid alternative explanation comes along. That valid, alternative explanation does nothing to disprove God, however. It only demonstrates to me how limited my understanding of God really is, and that there is always more to learn. Kind of humbling, actually. Excuse me while I get on my knees to marvel at it all.

Well said, wildwest and unapologetic. That's the thing. You can settle for the impoverished 'god of the gaps' approach of the ID types, or recognize that as far back as the Middle Ages, Aquinas, Buridan, Oresme, et al, realized that God works through secondary causes, and that by studying secondary causes without recourse to supernatural explanations actually gives God greater glory than the desperate hand-waving of Christians stuck on a simplistic version of the argument from design. A simplistic version that must always rely on the desperate hope that science won't eventually figure out whatever it currently doesn't understand.

John Farrell: "A simplistic version that must always rely on the desperate hope that science won't eventually figure out whatever it currently doesn't understand." Yes. That assumption also carries a threat. If direct, divine intervention is used as a crutch to support a weak faith, what happens to that faith if the phenomenon is later found to have a non-divine explanation? Many of the early theologians recognized the importance of carefully invoking God in the absolute minimum number of cases that were essential to the faith. What happens when a young earth creationist finally understands that the data really points to an ancient world? Nearly all experience a crisis of some sort and many leave the faith altogether. That's what can happen when you base your faith on the wrong core beliefs. The caveat is that identifying the 'correct' core beliefs is often hard and subject to a lot of disagreement.
************************************ wildwest: "If Behe were a scientist, the new information would cause him to change his mind." That's the theory and he is a scientist. But the difference between theory and practice is that in theory, theory and practice are the same, except in practice, they're different. So, there's no saying what information would be compelling to someone -- Human diversity kinda suggests things might fall along a bell curve. An alternative to changing one's mind is to retreat deeper and increase the level or types of proof required. Some call this "moving the goalposts" to save a pet theory. He might call it, "being flexible". There's no accounting for taste.

UR: you make excellent use of my favorite Yogi Berra-ism. A printed copy of it has a prominent place on my cubicle wall, along with... 24% of all statistics are meaningless. I'd already thought this more than once, but I'm writing it now: I'm very glad to see your writing here. :)

ILoveDarwinists said that IDists have published peer review science articles. I did a quick search of the largest free public database of such research, PubMed, and could not find any article on original research, and only two that support ID. Can you give me a list of the top five articles from Nature and Science, and the top ten or 15 papers from other major journals? Evolutionary biology has about 10,000 papers a year published -- 180,000 papers on evolution in the 18 years since the Foundation for Thought and Ethics invented the term "intelligent design" to replace "creationism" in their dastardly high school textbook. Surely there should be 20,000 or so papers on ID, if it is science. Can you give me 20?

Looks like the SMU profs have decided to say something: Some scientists at Southern Methodist University have been labeled "intolerant, close-minded and bigoted" because we have spoken out against the misrepresentation of religious belief as science in our protests of the upcoming intelligent design event scheduled at SMU. The organization behind the event, the Discovery Institute, is clear in its agenda: It states that what the SMU science faculty believes to be so useful (science) is a danger to conservative Christianity and should be replaced by its mystical world view. We do not argue against the basic right to believe, worship and express oneself as one desires. We are, however, vehemently opposed to the deliberate deception of presenting politically motivated religious viewpoints as science. It is destructive and antithetical to the usefulness of science, and history has shown that similar politicizations of science have been incredibly destructive to our moral, ethical and material progress. We have a duty as practitioners of science to speak out against such deceptions, and we have done so. Dr. John Wise is a faculty member in biological sciences, Dr. Ronald Wetherington is a faculty member in anthropology and Dr. Robert T. Gregory is chair of the geological sciences department. More than 20 additional faculty members, scientists and chairpersons in the departments of anthropology, biological sciences, chemistry, geological sciences and physics at Southern Methodist University are signatories to this essay. Can't wait to see how the DI flaks spin this....

Wildwest, This is the way things go in Blogland. Displays are limited to a certain number of posts. I do have some suggestions: 1) Take note of the "archives" listing of links, by month, in the right hand column. You can always find a blog post if you remember the month in which it was posted. 2) Click on the title of the blog post. The URL that shows up in your "address" box can then be saved to your favorites, and you can use that to return to the blog. In any case, you need to understand that most people let their interest wane as the topic gets closer to the bottom of the page, and rarely come back to a topic after it drops off the bottom.