Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
5
8
15
11
14
12
11
9
7
7
10
8
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Any Larger Implications Do Not Disqualify ID From Having Merit
ID disqualifies ID from having merit
The DI is correct to point out that a lack of merit of ID should not be confused with its religious implications, however the combinations of its religious foundations with a lack of scientific content, provides a strong argument against ID having merit scientifically and delegates it to the realm of theology. As Schloss points out in his review of the movie "Expelled", in response of the following statement by Hugh Ross, who is leads a prominent Christian apologetics organization called "Reasons to Believe"
--Ross:
they affirm that the approach of seeking the right to be heard avoids denigrating the scientific enterprise, either its individuals or institutions…we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. [and] have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique. Our main concern about Expelled is that it paints a distorted picture. It certainly doesn't match our experience. Sadly, it may do more to alienate than to engage the scientific community, and that can only harm our mission.
--
Schloss comments that:
--
While both are important, earning the “right to be heard,” as Ross emphasizes, is surely not the same as demanding the “right to speak,” as Expelled focuses on. Expelled never ends up convincingly demonstrating that the latter is in any real jeopardy, but sadly, it does much to jeopardize the former.
--
Source: Jeffrey P. Schloss, "Overcoming or Raising Walls of Division?" Center for Faith, Ethics, and Life Sciences Westmont College
A right to speak does not mean a right to be earned, the latter one needs to be earned and in order for ID to have any merit to be discussed in science classrooms, it first needs to show a compelling reason as to why. So far ID has failed miserably in presenting a scientific argument. From a theological perspective, the concept of ID seems rather dangerous as it pretends to open up religious faith to scientific scrutiny and thus disproof.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 11:13AM
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.
ID Has Merit
Your comments are strange, because Luskin wasn’t saying anything about Expelled. I think that the other posts show DI has great scientific merit—I think their posts refute your statement that “So far ID has failed miserably in presenting a scientific argument.” As Luskin writes:
“While ID may be a minority scientific view, there is no doubt that its proponents have made their case to the scientific community in mainstream scientific venues and that their views deserve the protection of academic freedom: Not only do ID proponents hold tenured positions at respected universities, but they have published their views in respected scientific venues. If one scrutinizes many of the footnotes I have cited in my six opening statements, they will find some examples of the peer-reviewed and / or prestigiously published pro-ID scientific works come from sources such as Cambridge University Press, MIT Press, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Michigan State University Press, Protein Science, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, and Journal of Molecular Biology.”
But I think you don’t realize the importance of your concession that “The DI is correct to point out that a lack of merit of ID should not be confused with its religious implications.” Do you realize that your concession actually refutes many of the critics’ arguments that the implications of ID make it unscientific? For example, see The Ayn Rand Institute’s posts argue that if ID implies a supernatural creator (at the bottom of a chain of designers), then ID is unscientific. Or the NCSE and AUSCS both argue that ID is unscientific because it’s religiously motivated, but Luskin shreds this argument. Seems like you just handed these common objections to ID to the pro-ID side on a platter.
- taxibound2 September 9, 2008 4:13PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Concession?
--But I think you don’t realize the importance of your concession that “The DI is correct to point out that a lack of merit of ID should not be confused with its religious implications.” Do you realize that your concession actually refutes many of the critics’ arguments that the implications of ID make it unscientific? For example, see The Ayn Rand Institute’s posts argue that if ID implies a supernatural creator (at the bottom of a chain of designers), then ID is unscientific.--
I am very aware of my 'concession' namely that it is not just the religious motivations of ID which disqualifies ID as having merit as a science, it's the lack of scientific contributions (the examples you mention have little or no relevance to the concept of ID but are at best examples of "ID proponents can also do real science") which dooms ID to a lack of merit as a scientific contribution.
That ID points to the supernatural is one of the major reasons why it lacks content as such a 'creator' (oops designer) cannot be constrained and thus explains nothing.
I am not sure if the NCSE argues that ID is unscientific just because it is religiously motivated. I think that their argument may be better phrased as "ID's religious motivation helps explain why it has remained scientifically vacuous". This is after all not really about science.
Sure, ID proponents can do real and even good science, but that hardly has any relevance to the issue of whether or not ID has any scientific merit. I hope you understand this major distinction.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 4:25PM
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.