PS I liked the text of the judgment best

I’ve read Darwin’s Black Box, The Design Inference, No Free Lunch, numerous essays by Behe, Dembski, West, Dembski’expert witness reprt in the Dover case, Behe’s trial testimony, deposition testimony and expert reports in the Dover case and in the Christian Schools case, along with Discovery Institute and ARN materials published online.

These were sent to my sons school by a group claiming that ID was a genuine scientific school of thought, but these materials contain no genuine scientific learnings, just lies and distortions mixd up in logical fallacies and very high production values.

The group’s web site claim that ID is not based on religion at all but a little research revealed this statement from them before they sent out the DVDs or set up the web page;

“It is a concern to many when science is wrongly taught in our schools, colleges and universities. In particular, macroevolution is taught as though it were a proven and unchallengeable fact. For our children and grandchildren, God is thus robbed of His glory. Young people are encouraged into a way of thinking that leads to atheism, hedonism, despair and moral bankruptcy. Belief in a Creator is often ridiculed and anyone advocating such a view is portrayed as either foolish or naïve.
In reality evolutionary claims often constitute speculative beliefs about the past and use explanations that are contrary to the spirit of empirical science. For example, human origins are typically presented with simplistic diagrams supposedly showing the progression from ape-like ancestors to modern man. We believe this amounts to deception. Problems with evolutionary theory are well documented but many scientists seldom acknowledge this, choosing rather to gloss over them. This matters because a false view robs us of our sense of value and purpose before a Sovereign Creator God.
“If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3
To respond to this, a group of professional and business people are meeting under the heading TRUTH IN SCIENCE [TIS]. As citizens with a concern for the family we seek to encourage Christians to be confident that God’s spoken command in space-time history resulted in supra-natural creation. Non-believers must be challenged in such a way that they can no longer hide behind the delusion that science has disproved the existence of God. TIS seeks to encourage scientists to present the truth fairly and to expose as charlatans those who deliberately mislead. Our aim is to compliment the work of existing Creation groups by targeting education in particular.
Do you share this vision? We believe that as children of the Lord Jesus Christ, bought at the price of His own shed blood, we cannot sit back and allow this situation to continue unchallenged. Do you wish to see our children being taught the truth rather than having their moral and spiritual lives undermined? Although TIS have ways and means in mind, at this early stage we are flexible about the best approach. If finance is made available have you the time and ability and commitment to be the driving force, co-operating with us, in this venture to effect the education of young people in our land. If so, we wish to hear from you.”

Perhaps you could get around to answering some of the points I made now?

Regards,

Psi

Please tell me what Intelligent Design literature you’ve read.

Dembskis Explanatory filter is nothing more than pointing at something and exclaim:”Design!”

Please tell us what you think Dembski’s explanatory filter is.

Both methods contain non-testable, purely subjective elements.

All science contains purely subjective elements, including the so-called scientific method. Tis the nature of human endeavor, and the impulse behind the shifts in philosophy of science over the last two-hundred years. I recommend reading Del Ratzsch’s Battle of the Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate, specifically his two chapters on the philosophy of science, for more on this.

1. Just to make it three in a row - what science backs up ID?

I can’t find any. You haven’t given us any yet. Please be our guest.

2. The origin of life is not a part of evolution theory. Do you realise this?

2a. Your argument is known as the logical fallacy known as the “argument from ignorance” or god of the gaps.

3. ID claims are completely agreeable with ALL the evidence we have plus ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WE CAN IMAGINE - god is omnipotent remember?

4. If you are claiming that rational argument is a faith position which can’t be proved without the use of rational thought then you are philosophically correct and have just pulled the theoretical/philospohical rug from under any and every world view. You can use your point to argue the world does not exist other than in your head. Feel free to inhabit such a philosophically consistent and nonsense world - I will stick to the real universe and evidence.

I choose to stick with rational thought anyway - human history and science in particular has been keeping score and rationalism is winning against irrationalism by several billion to zero.

When you leave the room will you use the door or the window?

That’s one more to rationalism

You said that in a post before and I asked you then to provide the rigourous definition and the empirical verification.

Here were my questions from the earlier post:

“Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.”

Can you describe a method of reliable detectibility of specified complexity?

Do you have an answer to these questions? If you don’t, your repeated assertion that irreducible complexity is rigorously defined and empirically verified is unfounded.

Actually, they are not. For example, Dembskis Explanatory filter is nothing more than pointing at something and exclaim:”Design!” The same is true for Mike Genes Design Matrix. Both methods contain non-testable, purely subjective elements.

ID proponents failed up to this day to provide a scientifically testable method to identify design. THAT’S why it isn’t science (among other things, e.g. that they do not even try to test their methods).

The problem with your argument is that you haven’t explained the origins of reproducing organisms, what produces those? And please, any reference to “Promissory Materialism” (ala Karl Popper) is just as much a faith claim as anything else.

ID applies the princeples of design and information theory from these fields (SETI, archeology, forensic science) to biology, so where is the problem?

And just a clarification, there are many aspects of evolution that are consistent with ID, it simply critiques evolution’s 1) ubiquitous atheistic overtones as a “mindless, unguided process” and 2) over confident claims of the factual basis of universal common ancestry.

cheers

To your second observation that archeologists assume intelligent design of manufactured objects like say a comb or a shoe I would simply point out that these objects don’t reproduce and so they can’t evolve and so we know no other way for them to be produced - as long as we rule out ancient magicians conjuring them out of thin air.

Likewise radio signals can not reproduce and so can’t have evolved.

Living things do reproduce, they do vary and not all of them survive to reproduce - this is what evolution is.

Regards,

Psi