Faith Well Grounded

Dogg, I'd like to just reply to a few of your points.

As to Newton... You're actually getting to my main point in this discussion with your comments to the "customs" at Newton's time. The custom was that science was allowed as science and good science would be separated from the bad science by whether it held up. It was not a Nazi-ish regime trying to keep people such as Newton, who practiced his science from the perspective of a designer and gave that designer preeminence in his scientific practice, from practicing science. The cultural change has been to establish a "true Scottsman" approach that is unhealthy for the process.

As to:

"Huh? I don’t follow you here. Darwinism merely presents an explanation that best fits the facts as we have them. Your Designer isn’t addressed because evidence of Him is absent. How is that an argument against Him? All it says about Him is that if He was here He didn’t leave any footprints. If you’ve got evidence of those footprints, then by all means, let’s have it."

You've negated ID science from speaking of the designer while allowing Darwinian science to speak to his absence. I was pointing out the double standard. Why is it a valid subject matter for evolution (to deny) and not a valid subject for ID claims/study? You actually started answering this point immediately following this quote with:

That’s because the processes being described have no evidence of oversight or guiding component....

and ended with...

Can you show me where a science journal or textbook explicitly says that god does not exist, or ABSOLUTELY did not have had a hand in any biological development?

And as to your ending... Wow. Now you're changing the criteria aren't you. Let's be fair. Elsewhere you wrote:

That’s because the processes being described have no evidence of oversight or guiding component. That is not the same as saying there couldn’t be one, just that there’s no evidence suggesting one was directly responsible for the thing being explained, and no gaps in the explanation (yet found) that require one (please note that I did not say there aren’t gaps).

(see below. There's a BIG difference between not talking on the subject and making positive claims)

and

What would you have them do? Should they write, “Here’s an explanation of nature in completely scientific terms. Now, remember kids, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural or unobservable or occult, so don’t forget about the Big Man upstairs. He could’ve done all this with a snap of His fingers and we’d be none the wiser.” Would that help you sleep at night?

Instead of giving you assurances that I sleep fine at night, let me just give you examples of Evolutionary textbooks making positive statements on subjects that they claim ID should not speak on. How's that?

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products.M Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”

(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

Hmmm... I'd love to see their evidence that philosophical materialism is true, that matter is all that exists, that evolution is positively purposeless, heartless, that the human mind is a mass of evolving neurons and nothing more... Lot's of positive claims there, huh? Now, why was that allowed in a scientific textbook when the opposing viewpoint is not?

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”

(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.) (from the cover, "...Evolutionary Biology is the most comprehensive textbook in its field")

“Of course, no species has chosen a strategy. Rather, its ancestors little by little, generation after generation merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. [J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.

(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“Nothing consciously chooses what is selected. Nature is not a conscious agent who chooses what will be selected. There is no long term goal, for nothing is involved that could conceive of a goal.”

(Evolution: An Introduction by Stephen C. Stearns & Rolf F. Hoeckstra, pg. 30 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005).)

So, ID is negated the ability to claim a consciousness, but evolution is allowed the ability to deny it? If the subject is off-limits...?

As to your specific questions:

- Why would ID explicitly stop short of examining the designer that they say is so obviously suggested by the evidence? Please show me just a shred of evidence dating this tenet of ID to a time before the Edwards v. Aguillard case.

Perhaps they feel that the evidence doesn't infer the "who". I guess you'll have to write Mr. Behe, et al and ask them. As a matter of fact, that was the answer he gave in Black Box, 10 year edition, as I mentioned above.

I'm not interested in dating ID. I'm sorry. I don't find this a very compelling subject matter. Whether you attribute motives or not, ID is refusing to attribute a name to the designer, as well I feel they should refuse to do so. Now, back on topic... Did you read the textbook quotes? Why is it that ID is scientifically banned from speaking on these matters and evolutionary textbooks aren't?

Do YOU think it’s a scientific conclusion to equate ID's proposed designer and "the ultimate cause"?

I believe that it is a perfectly valid philosophical inference based on what we know scientifically of the reality around us. Thus, I believe that scientific pursuits based on that inference are valid science.

Would you agree that ID "serves an apologetical purpose" for its proponents?

I believe that it could be used for that purpose. I also believe that you're in a danger zone if you seek to ascribe that purpose to all ID scientists against their "will" if they make assurances otherwise. I'm positive Dawkins' motives as a scientist don't carry over to every evolutionist. It seems appropriate to extend the same respect to both camps.

Can you show me where a science journal or textbook explicitly says that god does not exist, or ABSOLUTELY did not have had a hand in any biological development?

See above.

And, again, you're skirting my point. My point is that evolutionary science is making positive claims on subjects they claim ID has no scientific basis to make their own claims about.

I would also invite you to read my newest post. I find it interesting that in Darwinian Evolution, we have a scientific theory that introduces the philosophical necessity that the scientific process is untrustworthy.

As always, I appreciate your input.