Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: ID is Constitutional and has Educational and Legal Merit
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
ID is Constitutional and has Educational and Legal Merit
- From Discovery Institute
By Discovery Institute - A Positive Vision of the Future
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Scientific vacuity in their own words
Needless to say, even ID proponents have come to realize that ID is lacking scientifically speaking
For instance Young Earth Creationist, philosopher and ID proponent Paul Nelson is on the record as saying
--
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.
--
Paul Nelson, Touchstone Magazine 7/8 (2004): pp 64 – 65.
More recently, godfather of ID, lawyer Phil Johnson has stated
--
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
--
Michelangelo D’Agostino "In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley", Berkeley Science Review, issue 10, spring 2006
Now remember that Johnson has described quite accurately the goal of ID
--
“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”
--
Source: American Family Radio, Jan 10, 2003 broadcast, in which Johnson “discusses his book The Right Questions, encouraging Christians to actively debate issues of eternal value.”
Various other ID proponents have similarly come to this conclusion, not only arguing that the issue of ID is not really about science, since ID lacks much of any scientific foundation allowing it to be a scientific hypothesis, but also that it is all about religion.
It's not the religious motivations which doom ID to irrelevance, it's the lack of scientific merit and content which makes ID at best a flawed religious argument, an argument which many Christians, including me, have come to reject.
The ASA (American Scientific Affiliation) is an organization where scientists of Christian faith can share their faith and science and they have come to reject Intelligent Design because it is scientifically vacuous and theologically flawed.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 9:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Failure of Scholarship
This post by Casey Luskin graphically illustrates why Intelligent Design is not science. Lack of even simple standards of scholarship fatally flaw ID arguments. For example, in attempting to discuss a paper by Pancer et al., (Nature, 2004 Vol. 430: 174-180) that Luskin thinks shows that there was a big gap in the origin of the vertebrate immune system, Lusking claims:
Furthermore, when these authors say that the usage of IG domains is “untraceable,” they are not asking the question “from what were these materials co-opted during evolution?” IG domains are found throughout biology from bacteria to humans and thus it is simple to imagine where higher vertebrates might have co-opted such domains. Rather, this paper is talking about the type of deeper question Behe raises: by what Darwinian pathway did IG domains evolve into the type of IG domain used by antibodies in the adaptive immune system of higher vertebrates?
This completely misrepresents the Pancer paper. It was not in anyway about the evolution of Ig domains, and as such it did not ask questions about Darwinian pathways to Ig, contray to what Luskin implies. The Pancer et al., paper reports the discovery of the class of molecules that produced allograft rejection in Lampreys. They found it was not an Ig system, as in jawed fish and the rest of us vertebrates, but due to a completely different class of molecule. In Jawless fish, there is no adaptive Ig system. The one throwaway line line that Luskin quotes needs to be seen in the context that the paper was written (discovering the mechanism of adaptive immunity in an organism without rearranging Ig molecules), it is not saying that we have no idea of how Ig molecules evolved. In fact, it says nothing about the evolution of Ig molecules at all.
For a paper that actually does look at the evolution of Ig molecules, one need look no further than another paper Pancer et all published in 2004. Note that before this paper was published, it was already known that several Ig-like molecules had been identified in amphioxus and sea squirts that could play the role of the ancestor of Ig. This is not just proteins with the Ig fold, but deeper Ig structure. In sea squirts there are Ig fold proteins (nectin and Junctional Adehesion Molecules) with an Ig fold and a Constant-Variable domain architecture just like the immunoglobulins. Also in amphioxus there is an Ig protein which is used in innate immunity (the Variable Domain Chitin Binding proteins) that was known in 2004 (in 2006 a protein that is a very similar to the T Cell Receptor and is involved in innate immunity was found in the amphioxus, be here I'm dealing with 2004 knowledge relevant to Behe's testimony).
Pancer's paper on the evolution of Ig molecules Pancer Z, Mayer WE, Klein J, Cooper MD (2004) Prototypic T cell receptor and CD4-like coreceptor are expressed by lymphocytes in the agnathan sea lamprey. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:13273-13278 . Here they report finding a molecule in the lymphocytes of Lampreys that looks very much like the immunogloblulin T Cell Receptor. Not only does it have an Ig fold, and a constant-variable domain structure, it also has a joining, constant and cytoplasmic chain structure that matches the structure of modern rearranging T Cell Receptors. It looks just like you would expect a non-rearranging ancestor of TCR/Ig to look like. SInce then several other memebrs of non-rearranging Ig like molecules have been found in Lamprey lymphocytes.
Now, it wouldn't take much to discover this paper on Ig evolution, a simple PubMed search would have found this paper, it is also listed in reviews on the evolution of adaptive immunity from 2004 to 2005. Yet Luskin ignores it completely and discusses, as his key argument against our account of the evolutuon of immunity, a paper which does not look at the evolution of Ig at all.
Let me repeat this, Luskin is using a paper that reports that a) Lampreys have an adaptive immune system and b) the Lamprey genome does not adaptive immunoglobulin genes, and then discoverers the mechanisms that produce adaptive immunity (a novel variant of an innate immunity mechanism) to claim that we have no accounts of how Ig molecules could have evolved. He ignores the paper by the same group that reports the very protein that Luskin claims is missing from our account of immune system evolution.
If a prominent ID advocate can't even get the description of one basic paper right, how are they going to handle more complicated papers on the evolution of the immune system?
- Ian Musgrave
September 18, 2008 7:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Design inferences
--Ian asks
If a prominent ID advocate can't even get the description of one basic paper right, how are they going to handle more complicated papers on the evolution of the immune system?
--
In other words, it's not just the ignorance of science but the ignorance of the ID proponent which seems to trigger 'design inferences'. The subjective nature of the design inference seems to be another problematic component. And remember, according to Dembski if the filter triggers a false positive (detects design where there is none) it would render the filter useless. Dembski goes on to claim that no false positives are ever triggered by the filter but we already know that this is wrong.
- PvM
September 18, 2008 8:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, it's not a scientific theory.
"ID has legal and educational merit because it is a bona fide scientific theory ..."
The problem is that the word "theory" has a scientific definition and " intelligent design " has never provided any definition that would qualify it as a "scientific theory".
"Legally assessing whether ID science or religion is complicated by the fact that courts have not agreed upon a consensus definition of science or religion."
Fortunately, the courts have let scientists decide what is science and theologists decide what is religion. Since "intelligent design" is not actually science, whether or not it is religion is irrelevant. But the words "intelligent design" are clearly used by creationists in their attempts to claim that evolution is wrong. So if those words actually had any meaning, everyone would assume it was a religious meaning.
- onein6billion
March 11, 2009 9:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.