withallyourmind.net

Here’s a little 4-5 minute youtube video production that makes one pause and think (and hopefully do a little more than think).

This is the 4th in a series of posts considering the objection of ID critics that ID is nothing more than religion. In my last post, I answered two assertions put forth in support of this claim. What about a third, that is, that because some intelligent design scientists are religiously motivated in their work, their work must be considered religion.

The claim that intelligent design is religious rather than scientific because intelligent design scholars might have religious motivations for their work is found everywhere. In fact, opponents typically spend much time publicizing the Christian beliefs of many of the leaders of the intelligent design movement when attempting to discredit intelligent design.

But, if one’s religious beliefs are enough to disqualify one as a scientist, then wouldn’t the public have to dismiss much of the progress made during the scientific revolution? Many great scientists of the time, including Galileo and Newton were motivated by religion do their work. Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton state that…

… the driving impulse of Newton’s scientific work was… to defend Christian faith against what he saw as an encroaching mechanistic explanation.

Others were also overt in the role their Christian faith played in their scientific discoveries. Morris Kline states that science was a religious quest in which…

… the search for the mathematical laws of nature was an act of devotion which would reveal the glory and grandeur of (God’s) handiwork.

Instead of trying to refute the arguments of intelligent design scholars, opponents commit the genetic fallacy and reject the claim on the basis of their suppositions that its origins are religious.

Additionally, all scientists have some philosophical and religious commitments in their lives. Atheism, after all, is a philosophical supposition about the nature of the universe. Should we reject science performed by an atheist because of his religious worldview? Of course not. We judge the science on its own merits and do not discount his work because of his religious views.

Next, I’ll consider another objection by ID critics attempting to equate ID with religion.

This is part 3 of a short series examining the question, “Is Intelligent Design nothing more than disguised creationism?” In this post I will consider another assertion made by ID opponents who wish to equate ID with creationism.

A related criticism to the one considered in the last post is that ID is a religious movement, not a scientific one. Forrest argues that…

… intelligent design (is) a term that is essentially code for the religious belief in a supernatural creator…

and that…

… it represents an attempt to promote religious belief.

Much of my answer to the previous objection would be applicable to this criticism. Nonetheless, it might still be possible that intelligent design is a religious movement even if it does not espouse young earth creationism. I will make three further observations in response to this objection.

The initial observation, and perhaps the most important, is that intelligent design is based on science, and not on any religious text or teaching. Intelligent design scholars do not appeal to the Bible, nor do they start with any sacred text and look to nature for support. Intelligent design scientists attempt to empirically detect evidence of design in nature. The starting point is observations in nature. Arguing that intelligent design is not science, the American Astronomical Society claims that…

Intelligent Design fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views.

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to explore just what counts as “science,” it is important to note that there is and has always been much disagreement among scientists and philosophers of science as to what is scientific and what is not. Del Ratzsch states that there is “no standard, accepted definition.” Intelligent design is at least as scientific as Darwinism unless one arbitrarily excludes intelligent agency from science. The dual concepts of irreducible complexity and complex specificity, along with the informational content present in the cell, are rigorously defined and are subject to empirical verification.

The next observation is that many special sciences employ the scientific methodology of intelligent design. For example, archaeologists assume that one can differentiate between artifacts of intelligent beings and the results of blind material forces. Similarly, the goal of forensic science is to determine whether someone’s death was caused by the actions of an intelligent agent or from natural causes – they assume that one is able to differentiate chance from design. Also, artificial intelligence, cryptography, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) assume that humans can recognize design. Scholars and educators assume the same in order to detect the actions of intelligent agents in fighting plagiarism and data falsification. The underlying scientific methodology of intelligent design is the same as that used by many other modern sciences.

In my next post, I will make a third observation concerning the assertion that ID is a religious movement and not a scientific one.

This is the second in a short series examining the question of whether intelligent design is “creationism.”

Yesterday, I introduced the subject and defined some important terms like “intelligent design,” “evolution,” and “creationism.” Today I look at the first charge of ID opponents concerning this issue.

First, critics of intelligent design often charge that there is no distinction between creationism and intelligent design. Intelligent design has been called “creationism’s Trojan horse,” “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” and “a slightly sophisticated version of biblical creationism.” Philosopher Barbara Forrest claims that intelligent design is…

… the newest variant of the traditional creationism…

and…

… barely camouflaged creationism.

Is there any reason to believe that the critics are correct? It is certainly true that many Christians are supporters of intelligent design. It is also true that some of those Christians are young-earth creationists. It may even be true that some of those young-earth creationists have misunderstood the intelligent design movement as supporting young-earth creationism. Therefore, it is certainly possible for one to think that creationism and intelligent design are the same thing. This is not, however, the actual case.

Intelligent design scholars do not consider intelligent design to be a form of creationism, despite the insistence of critics to call the movement “intelligent design creationism.” Many intelligent design scholars would not identify themselves as creationists in the sense referred to by the critics (young earth creationists). Some are even agnostic as to the existence of God. Others are non-Christians. Many, although Christian, acknowledge the universe as being approximately 15 billion years old, the earth as 4.5 billion years old, the common ancestry of all complex life, and even the evolution of life from simple to complex. Certainly, it is incorrect to call these individuals “creationists” with the usual connotations of young-earth biblical creationism.

Perhaps more importantly, the two most prominent (young earth) creationist groups, Answers in Genesis (AIG) Ministries and Institute for Creation Research, are highly critical of the intelligent design movement because it does not seek to defend the biblical account of creation. AIG specifically objects to intelligent design because it refuses to identify the designer with the biblical God and because many prominent members in intelligent design reject or are hostile to a recent creation. The fact that not all intelligent design advocates are Christians and not all creationists are intelligent design advocates shows that intelligent design is not identical to creationism. According to a Washington Post article:

University of Wisconsin historian Ronald L. Numbers, an ID opponent and author of “The Creationists,” agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement. But, he adds, it’s “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.”

Next… another assertion by ID critics.

Today, I’ll begin a series consisting of a few posts dealing with the question of whether Intelligent Design is nothing more than disguised creationism.

Opponents say the legislation in the House and Senate is just a veiled attempt to inject religious beliefs about the creation of life into science lessons, but Stein and other supporters denied that.

So stated the Associated Press reporter covering actor Ben Stein’s recent visit to the Florida State Capital in support of academic freedom to question Darwinian evolution in public schools. This claim is heard over and over whenever Intelligent Design is publicly discussed. Intelligent design is often characterized by the scientific establishment as an attempt on the part of religious fundamentalists to smuggle religion into the classroom under the guise of science. The Intelligent design movement denies that it is a veiled attempt to teach creationism in public schools, but is, instead, an effort to return science to an objective search for truth about the natural world. Efforts to paint the movement as “creationism” is a rhetorical tactic to marginalize intelligent design without seriously addressing the arguments presented.

Defining the relevant terms is essential if one is to intelligently discuss this controversy. Intelligent design is defined by those in the forefront of the movement as…

… the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence.

Intelligent Design holds to three basic tenets:

1. Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.
2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity.
3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity.

Evolution is a word with varied meanings. The common sense meaning of change over time is not questioned by the intelligent design movement. What is opposed by them is Darwinian evolution, that is, the explanation that all life is the result of purely material and mechanical processes without the input of intelligence.

Creationism, like evolution, is another term which is susceptible to equivocation. Therefore, one must be clear when using such a term. Creationism may be defined broadly as the belief that a supernatural being created the universe out of nothing. This encompasses many varying viewpoints, from a belief in a several thousand-year-old universe, to a belief that the universe is 15 billion years old and all complex life on earth arose by means of theistic evolution.

In the discussion of intelligent design, by creationist, one usually means a person who believes that the biblical account of creation recorded in Genesis is scientifically accurate. This latter sense is the one most often found in media discussions today wherein Creationism is frequently equated with “Young Earth Creationism,” the belief that the earth is around 7,000 years old.

Next, I’ll consider some criticisms offered by opponents of Intelligent Design that are used in support of equating ID and Creationism.

Richard John Neuhaus, of First Things, has written an excellent commentary, The Strange Ways of Black Folk, on the speech of Barack Obama in which he responded to the uproar over the preaching of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. This piece was written 1 1/2 weeks ago, but I’ve been out of the loop and just saw it today.

Neuhaus raises some important points, among which is the following:

Conceding to him the best of intentions, Senator Obama has inadvertently launched an exercise in the demeaning of black America that is, in consequence, very ugly. Whites are invited to make their peace with the fact that these are the children of Stepin Fetchit and Amos and Andy who have replaced humor with the shuffle of political extremism but are still entertaining the country by doing their black thing. Cut them some slack. Lighten up.

It’s true that white folk have spent decades learning the protocols of respect, sensitivity, and fair-mindedness in dealing with race. But you expect black folk to reciprocate by “acting white”? You’re forgetting who was the victimizer and who the victim. Victims, like children, have a license to indulge in what John McWhorter calls that “crazy stuff.”

By reviving historic stereotypes, Senator Obama’s speech and the uses to which it is being put has dealt a severe blow to race relations in America. It is giving a big boost to what someone has rightly called the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Al Mohler takes a look at the recent Newsweek cover story The Curious Lives of Surrogates in a recent column. Although surrogate motherhood (or “Gestational Carriers” as they now like to be called, discarding the more emotional connotations of the word “mother”) is not new, there does seem to be a growing business surrounding this practice.

Mohler examines the moral issues involved and overall thinks the Newsweek article does a good job bringing these issues to the fore. Among the moral questions raised by the practice of surrogacy, he states:

Christians must also be concerned about the redefinition of motherhood, especially in the experience of the surrogate, who carries a baby for hire. This is where the concerns of Christians and the secular left coincide. Feminists are concerned that the commodification of motherhood and gestation is just another form of prostitution. As Professor Margaret Little of Georgetown University commented, “Surrogacy raises important red flags . . . because you are selling use of the body, and historically when that’s happened, that hasn’t been good for women.”

First of all, I’ve been away from the computer for the past 8 days (languishing intolerably on the Caribbean), so I’m sorry for the lack of posts over the past week. I’m getting back on track now and will be blogging again.

Johnny-Dee, over at Fides Quarens Intellectum, asks, “Is Religious Diversity a Defeater?” Does the mere fact that people disagree over religious beliefs mean that it is unreasonable for a Christian to think that Christianity is the true set of religious beliefs? He does a good job examining the subject and explains the difference between undercutting defeaters and rebutting defeaters for particular beliefs, specifically within the context of religious belief.