Faith Well Grounded

The custom was that science was allowed as science and good science would be separated from the bad science by whether it held up.

As it is today. Nothing ID has yet provided has “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.
[emphasis added]

I dispute the part in bold. Your “Nazi” comment betrays excessive viewings of Stein and/or readings of Coulter. I’ll refrain from invoking Godwin’s Law, however. It is absurd to think Newton would be prevented from practicing science today. He would be expected to remove the (easily separated) “moral philosophy” from academic science publications, though he might choose to include it as part of popular works, or submissions on theology or philosophy. Quite a chilling Final Solution, huh?

You've negated ID science from speaking of the designer

No I haven’t, nor has anyone else. ID isn’t excluded because it speaks of a Designer, it’s excluded because it promotes an idea without any evidence. Anything that does not rest on empirical evidence is excluded from science.

Why is it a valid subject matter for evolution (to deny) and not a valid subject for ID claims/study?

Is it valid for medical science to describe the causes of disease without allowing equal time to those that claim spirits are responsible? Is it valid for physics to describe planetary motion without staying open to the possibility of Newton’s ideas of Creator intervention? Are these examples a denial of the supernatural? I think you’re confusing the removal of God from a known and observed process with the absolute removal of God.

Wow. Now you're changing the criteria aren't you. Let's be fair.

??? What criteria have I changed?

Hmmm... I'd love to see their evidence that philosophical materialism is true, that matter is all that exists,

I will agree that the passage quoted is poorly written (at best) and somewhat out of place in a scientific textbook. I will also point out that the context of these statements is historical and in a section titled “Philosophical ramifications.” I don’t believe the intent is to say that philosophical materialism is a prerequisite for accepting evolution, but rather that people in Darwin’s day would’ve taken that view. The statements as written are also directly contradicted by the last paragraph in that same section:
Darwin remained to the end a devout, if somewhat unorthodox, Christian. “I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone,” he wrote.

Now, why was that allowed in a scientific textbook when the opposing viewpoint is not?

I would say neither have a place there, as did the co-author, Miller. He has stated clear objections to this and a few other of Levine’s ill-formed contributions, resulting in their removal from later editions.

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

In other words, he provided a scientific explanation of the development of life’s variety that doesn’t require an occult component. The same could be said for the discoveries of planetary motion since Newton’s day, or the germ theory of disease. That does not equate to saying, “God does not exist,” or “God absolutely did not intervene.” I don’t have the context of the above, but it’s obviously history-of-science stuff. You may find the words “undirected”, “purposeless”, and “uncaring” to be loaded, but I would expect that these were intentionally chosen to contrast with the prevailing viewpoints of the day.

“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.

This is a description of the process of evolution. It’s not a denial of god. The intent is to break students of the common misconceptions that evolution always moves in a linear fashion, from simple to complex, from primitive to advanced, in a direction towards a goal. I suspect context would bear this out, but I cannot provide it at this time.

“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.”

Again, a description of the process to go against the intuition of a goal-directed movement. This is used to contrast evolution with Lamarckism and orthogenesis.

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...?

The quotes above (with the exception of the first) are all descriptions processes that are elsewhere supported by evidence. Why should such descriptions include a consciousness component absent of evidence? Why aren’t you complaining about the current descriptions of planetary motion that lack the consciousness component endorsed by Newton, or germ theory?

I presume your quote list was selected from the somewhat longer list compiled by Casey Luskin and widely disseminated around the ‘net. You’ll have to pardon my suspicion of the context-free content. Mr. Luskin has a long track record of unabashed quote misrepresentation.

Perhaps they feel that the evidence doesn't infer the "who"…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.

Not compelling? Judge Jones found it VERY compelling. Do you honestly dispute the motivations I’m purporting? Ignoring the question won’t make the implications go away.

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.

I’m having a bit of trouble reconciling that statement with: “as well I feel they should refuse [to attribute a name to the designer].” Your “ultimate cause” is OK science as long as it’s unnamed? A rose by any other name (or none at all)…

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’ll stay out of the danger zone and just claim that the vast majority of ID proponents approach their “science” by beginning with their conclusion and working backwards from there. I’m sure you might claim the same of evolutionary biologists, but that just isn’t the case. Their conclusions are based on the available evidence. No evidence of a Designer means no Designer in the scientific conclusion. Keep in mind that evolution was proposed during a time when most scientists were creationists, and yet the evidence was convincing enough to change many of their minds.