Dressing Up ID Is No Substitute for Real Science

In fact High Ross had a paper in the Mere Creation collection edited by Dembski, and participated in conferences of ID crowd at Biola. It does not look like he has ever really spoken against ID crowd. It is not important, though, whether he differs in some particular details from the line of ID or fully supports them, as he is a crank in his own right. His books are full of crap, and his organization named Reasons to Believe is every bit as pseudo-scientific as the DI is, differing only in nuances. It is fun, though, to watch the squabbles within the ranks of cranks.

"As currently formulated, 'intelligent design' is not science," says internationally respected biochemist, Dr. Fazale 'Fuz' Rana.

Knowing
That you lied
Straight-faced
While I cried
But still I look to find a reason to believe

What a fitting name this group has.

About Hugh Ross's output, see here and here .

Why, exactly, are you quoting these crackpots?

I assume because the crackpots' personal relevance to recent events causes their statements to qualify as news, regardless of whether they are trustworthy.

I think that any time the name "Hugh Ross" is brought up in public, somebody should mention *this*:

Ross's recent book (co-authored with two other fundie kooks) is
entitled "Lights In the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational
Christian Look at UFO's and Extraterrestrials" (NavPress, Colorado
Springs CO, 2002).

Over several chapters, Ross dismisses, on scientific and Biblical
grounds, the existence of any life other than terrestrial. But, he
declares, there are so many reliable UFO reports that they can't all
be mistakes or hoaxes (he calls the remaining reliable reports
(Residual UFO's"). His "rational Christian" conclusion is something
he calls the "trans-dimensional hypothesis"---flying sacuers are
actually entities that come from "beyond out space and time
dimensions" and which, although real entities, are not physical
beings. OK, so what ARE the flying saucers, then? Hear the
gospel according to Ross: "It can now be determined who is
behind the RUFO experiences. Only one kind of being favors the
dead of night and lonely roads. Only one is real but nonphysical,
animate, powerful, deceptive, ubiquitous throughout human history,
culture, and geography, and bent on wreaking psychological and
physical harm. Only one entity selectively approaches those
humans involved in cultic, occultic or New Age activities. It seems
apparent that residual UFO's, in one or more ways, must be
associated with the activities of demons." (pages 122-123).

Want to see how Ross's "UFO's come from the Devil" hypothesis
can be scientifically tested? Well, we flip to page 124 and find:
"The conlcusion that demons are behind the residual UFO
phenomenon is a testible one." Ross points out that "according to
the Bible" demons only can attack people who dip into the occult
and make themsleves vulnerable. Ross declares, "All that is
necessary to further prove the conclusions of demonic involvement,
therefore, is to continue surveying people to ascertain who has
encounters with residual UFO's and who does not. If the demonic
idenficiation of the RUFO phenomenon is correct, researchers
should continue to observe a correlation between the degree of
invitations in a person's life to demonic attacks (for example,
participation inseances, Uija games, astrology, spiritualism,
witchcraft, palm reading, and psychicreading) and the proximity of
their residual UFO encounters." (Ross of course neglects to
mention another possible reason for these "correlations" --- people
who believe one goofy thing are more prone to believe other goofy
things as well.)

And why is that scientists and other researchers decline to study
Ross's, uh, "theory"? Why, because they're all ATHEISTS, silly:
"One reason why research scientists and others may be reluctant to
say that demons exist behind residual UFO's is because such an
answer points too directly to a Christian interpretation of the
problem." (page 125)

(Does this sound familiar to anybody? Is there some other topic
that Ross thinks involves the supernatural, but nobody takes
seriously because they are all atheists . . . . ?)

Believe it or not, though, Ross isn't the first creationut to yammer
about flying saucers and the Devil. Creationist theologian Norman
Geisler was one of the witnesses at the Arkansas creationism trial
back in 1982. During his pre-trial deposition, Geisler was asked if
he believed in a real Devil. Yes, he replied, he did, and cited some
Biblical verses as confirmation. The conversation then went:

"Q. Are there, sir, any other evidences for that belief besides
certain passages of Scripture?

GEISLER: Oh, yes. I have known personally at least 12 persons
who were clearly possessed by the Devil. And then there are the
UFOs.

Q. The UFOs? Why are they relevant to the existence of the Devil?

GEISLER: Well, you see, they represent the Devil's major, in fact,
final attack on the earth.

Q. Oh. And sir, may I ask how you know, as you seem to know, that
there are UFOs?

GEISLER: I read it in the Readers Digest."

At trial, Geisler testified under oath (apparently with a straight
face) that flying saucers were "Satanic manifestations for the purposes of deception".

Several people have wondered why I comment on Ross and Rana's rejection of Intelligent Design. Let me try to explain. First of all, I consider reconciling faith and science important. Passing off something as if it were science and denying that ID is religious in nature, when it so clearly is, has caused more than one Christian scientist with whom I spoke, to state how upset they are with ID for exactly these reasons. In other words, many Christian Scientists hold to the same opinion. Ross and Rana just happen to be the more outspoken ones.
Does this mean that I therefore agree with their 'theories'? Nope but at least it is easier to address the claims made by Ross and Rana than the vague concepts of complexity, complex specified information and irreducible complexity as proposed by ID.
Reconciliation of faith and science is an important issue to me and many other Christian scientists. Personally I see no problems between faith and science as they are about two very different issues. Making claims that science can prove (and thus disprove) the actions and thus existence of a God does a disservice to both science and religion.
Being upfront about one's position is something I can far more appreciate than hiding behind shallow words.
Personally I have found Ross's comments to be often unreasonable scientifically. Ross and Conners' rebuttal of Humphreys' starlight was however quite impressive as it exposed some major flaws in the arguments proposed by Humphreys.
Ross et al may be wrong in their beliefs that they have a scientific theory of creation but they seem to make an effort to propose a positive theory/hypothesis. As with all theories/hypotheses, it will either fade away or gain scientific acceptance. So far I have seen little of this so called creation hypothesis. To me the best creation hypothesis is the theory of the Big Bang.

Can you imagine a more faithless pursuit than trying to prove the existence of God? Yet that is what the whole "intelligent design" movement is really about, and it seems to me that people of faith should rejoice at the federal court decision Tuesday forbidding the schools of Dover, Pa., to read a statement touting intelligent design in science classes. The eloquent ruling by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is a Christmastime blessing.

"Ezekiel saw a wheel a-rollin'
'way in the middle of the air.
A wheel within a wheel a-rollin'
'way in the middle of the air.

"and the big wheel ran by faith
and the little wheel ran by the grace of god"
A wheel within a wheel a-rollin'
'way in the middle of the air."

By GEISLER's interpretation, the "great prophet" Ezekiel was possessed by Satan!

Fit that into the model!

At trial, Geisler testified under oath (apparently with a straight face) that flying saucers were "Satanic manifestations for the purposes of deception".

"At Reasons To Believe, our team of scientists has developed a theory for creation that embraces the latest scientific advances. It is fully testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts the current discoveries in origin of life research." Dr. Ross and Dr. Rana present their testable model for creation in The Creator and the Cosmos and their two new books, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off and Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man. For the first time in over 80 years, this model catapults the evolution/creation controversy to an all new level--from science vs. religion to science vs science. ... "With the creation model approach every scientific idea is encouraged to participate in this process to see which theory best fits the emerging data," says Dr. Rana. "With this cutting edge program, where advancing scientific discoveries determine which model's predictions are successful, no philosophical or religious perspective is denied access."

Ross and Rana do not represent the reasonable theistic evolutionists with whom some hope of reconciliation between reason and religion lies (or, at least, the orderly retreat of religion). They are creationist kooks. Any 'hypothesis' they concoct is based on ignoring and twisting the evidence to support a religious confabulation.

Infighting among the crackpots is amusing, but nothing more.

Mr. Butler, AR links analysis of some of Ross's earlier works near the top of this thread. Google turns up this review of "The Creator And the Cosmos". The other two listed in that quote don't seem to have science-based analyses available as of yet; they may just be too recent, as the former came out last april, the latter came out just a couple of months ago. Perhaps it would be worth it for someone to look into that, but frankly, it seems like this guy just says the same thing over and over in every book.

Humorously, the Amazon page for "who is adam" contains mostly a debate between the people heaping lavish praise on the book, and some people denouncing the book as "anti-Biblical evolutionistic progressivism where millions of years of pre-adamic life lived and died, killed and were hunted as prey and predator leaving gradual fossil remains before the Fall into sin". The one exception is the post by Mr. "Scott A. Hatfield", labelled "A Testable model: But what's being tested?", and you actually may want to take a look at that one.

I have to agree with PZ - RTB's rejection of ID carries no more significance than similar rejections from YEC crackpots, which are equally (or more) "upfront about [their] position". It may be fun to see catfights going on between the various shades of crank creation scientists, each claiming a higher degree of idelogical purity and/or scientific rigour, but ultimately these arguments are all meaningless.

RTB, just like YEC organizations and ID, is without doubt more of a hindrance to the "reconciliation of science and faith" than a positive factor (assuming such a reconciliation is necessary at all, as opposed to an amicable consensual separation). Ross and Rana most definitely do not deserve a C for effort on the matter.

"I consider reconciling faith and science important"

Why?

I've listened to some of Ross's speeches, and read parts of his website. He is as much of a crackpot as the YECs. He is, however, like the YEC's in that he does berate the IDists for a) being deceptive about who they think the designer is, and b) not making actual testable hypotheses. These are admirable points to make about ID, but they don't make Ross's own ideas any less crackpotty.

"As currently formulated, 'intelligent design' is not science," says internationally respected biochemist, Dr. Fazale 'Fuz' Rana. "It is not testable and does not make predictions about future scientific discoveries." Dr. Rana is the Vice President for Science Apologetics at Reasons To Believe and a leading expert in origin of life research.

"I consider reconciling faith and science important"

PvM,

You did mean because you "consider it important TO YOURSELF (and to other Christians who are willing to accept your form of reconciliation) as a scientist and as a Christian," I hope.
I would never wish to deny the right of anyone else to beliefs of any kind, as long as they don't tell me their interior experience represents the shared realities.

Now, I don't think you yourself meant otherwise, but the single nastiest habit (to me) of Christians of even the finer types (and this is certainly not at all limited to them, though they are surprisingly numerous, very often a bit too smug, or gullible, and terribly noisy!) is to declare their version or experience to be uniquely true, and uniquely real, and therefore demanding of special attention. Atheists and agnostics attitudes and arguments, even when angered by misrepresentation, possess far more clarity, as well as both honesty and humor.

ts, you're not gonna start another pointless religious war, are you?

0. The fundamental problem is Political Creationism.

1. For more information on on Hugh Ross just search the Talk.Origins Archive.

2. A significant part of DIC (DI creationism) is to tell the public over and over: Creationism = young earth creationism (YEC). We DIC's take no official position on the age of the earth, so we couldn't possibly be creationists. In fact old earth creationists (OEC) are a major and venerable branch of creationism. The various branches (OEC, YEC, DIC) are well aware of each other. One very good reason for PvM's (Pim) article here is to make more people aware of OEC. I'm sure he has written before about the DI's "big tent strategy" of trying to unite all creationists against the common enemy (science) by taking no position on the age of the earth.

3. It is, as Pim said, important to reconcile science and faith. Many people like both, and don't want to be irrational just for the hell of it. That one not only can but should reconcile the two is a no-brainer: you don't honor the Creator by stubbornly refusing to believe the creation. What then of the Bible? Without making reference to modern science, you should have no trouble finding as many reasons as you wish to not take it as literally correct word by word, so there is no reason to even try to use it as a science text.

4. Returning to the fundamental issue: political creationism in the USA depends on lying. PC's must claim (depending on the audience) that it is not a deliberately disingenuous religious crusade. PC also depends on convincing the public that science and faith cannot be reconciled. The DIC's know that in fact many people do reconcile the two. Their own egos and lust for power cause them to create an unnecessary conflict in society. Pim is correct that many religious people are quite displeased with this.

Once again: political creationism is not about science. It is religious politics. Certain people advocate crank science in order to convert the general public to crank theology. They do this by disingenuous means. Much of the public is distrustful of scientists - thanks to DIC propaganda among other things. Hence, in helping the public to see through political creationism it very appropriate to point out, as Pim does here, that many people of faith recognize PC's mendacity.

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on December 26, 2005 09:06 AM (e) (s) 0. The fundamental problem is Political Creationism...

You did mean because you "consider it important TO YOURSELF

Almost every news article (about ID) I have read seems to cut and paste the same paragraph. Approximately "ID, the theory that some things in biology are too complicated to have been made by chance".

There's a piece on Ken Ham's blog on the AIG website about a debate between AIG and Reasons to believe on the John Ankerberg show. AIG will have Ken Ham and Dr.Jason Lisle representing them against Hugh Ross and Walter Kaiser of Reasons to believe. There's a series of 6 or 8 programmes apparently.

The folks at AIG don't like Ross's organisation much since he has committed the cardinal sin of excepting billions of years and the big bang so it will be interesting to see how this debate goes. (some of the articles about Hugh Ross's beliefs on the AIG website are in my opinion quite aggressive and nasty).

Judging by the tone of some of AIG's articles on ID they don't much care for them either since ID proponents can't (or won't) say how old the earth or universe actually is.

The John Ankerberg show is on INI (Sky Digital channel 678) on Sunday at 12.30 pm although I'm not sure how up to date it is compared to the US schedules.

"I consider reconciling faith and science important" Why?

Andrew McClure: Thanks for the links you provided. Ross 'n' Rana seem to be paragons of old-earth creationism: not biblical enough for the fundies, not glib enough for the ID crowd, not clear enough for anyone with a scientific outlook. Must be a lonely position (since I doubt they take much comfort in PvM's acknowledgement here of their ideological existence).

BTW, previous press releases have declared Dr. "Fuz" Rana to be "one of the world's top three leading experts in origin of life research", yet now he's merely "a leading expert." Perhaps he didn't make the finals in this year's competition - alas, ESPN didn't carry that in my broadcast area.

These are admirable points to make about ID, but they don't make Ross's own ideas any less crackpotty.

PvM looking at your statement "I consider reconciling faith and science important"

Those unable to properly use the "evidence" method would see your statement as "I consider reconciling pseudo-science and science important"

Those who see science as evil child stealing bomb makers and moral free liberals would see your statement as "I consider reconciling politics and science important"

Use your imagination for other world view projections.

The statement seems to me no different to a politician saying
"I consider reconciling faith and law important"

I would have said "I consider reconciling (my personal opion) faith and reason important"

Fortunately a great many scientists have that figured out and this allows them to "play by the rules" the game called the scientific method.

The reconciliation if any is needed it all up to Organized Religion which is really Identity Politics and manufactured world view when you get right down to it. They are the ones obscuring the messages of the Great Mystics time after time.
Generation after Generation have to re-uncover and re-understand those messages and the biggest problem is Organized Religion/Identity Politics.

Oh Sure. "When did this guy become internationally respected? :p"

Apparently on May 26, 2005 at the wacky "Blogorithm"

""The most recent scientific evidence shows the use of human embryos for therapeutic stem cell research to be ineffective and unnecessary," says Dr. Fazale Rana, one of the world's top three leading experts in origin of life research.

News Advisory, May 26 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Internationally respected biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana calls embryonic stem cell research "sloppy science" and says that the most recent origin of life research shows stem cells derived from alternative sources hold more promise than those taken from human embryos."

Love the Creation Expedition to find evidence of the bible in fossils.

Ross 'n' Rana seem to be paragons of old-earth creationism: not biblical enough for the fundies, not glib enough for the ID crowd, not clear enough for anyone with a scientific outlook. Must be a lonely position.

— Pierce R. Butler

Hence, in helping the public to see through political creationism it very appropriate to point out, as Pim does here, that many people of faith recognize PC's mendacity.

— Pete Dunkelberg

Oh and check out this liar and denier

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/jbendewald_20051021.html

somebody needs to spank these people over and over again and again...

somebody needs to spank these people over and over again and again...

"I consider reconciling faith and science important" Why?

— ts

BTW, previous press releases have declared Dr. "Fuz" Rana to be "one of the world's top three leading experts in origin of life research", yet now he's merely "a leading expert."

It's a little difficult to decide which F Rana is which on PubMed, but this pdf ( http://www.kauaichristian.com/bulletins/KCF_Bul_2005_10_23.pdf ) from a couple of months ago says he has "over fifteen articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals." There are only 22 "Rana F" hits on PubMed, and just six of those are "Rana FR," who I suspect may be he, based on institutional clues.

More than I have, but nobody claims that I'm a "leading expert" in anything.....

Forum readers may disagree with his theology, but in matters of science he seems to be more friend than enemy.

"It is, as Pim said, important to reconcile science and faith. Many people like both, and don't want to be irrational just for the hell of it. That one not only can but should reconcile the two is a no-brainer: you don't honor the Creator by stubbornly refusing to believe the creation."

I think that there is a very deep fallacy here. What you end up doing is to find a way to spin the claims of each side so as to achieve an apparent "reconciliation". Many people do this by claiming that, for example, God "uses" evolution to create the species, or perhaps, God "creates" the laws of physics and then lets the Universe run.

But the "reconciliation" is just a matter of words. There is no evidence of anyone "using" evolution. Nor is there any evidence of the laws of Physics having been "created" by an external intelligence.

All that has really happened is that in a desire to reconcile two ideas which are not so much in conflict as completely orthogonal, one of the ideas gets a lump of accretion added to it which is in no way justified by its methods. We are no more entitled to add the notion of God creating the laws of physics, without some evidence than we are entitled to the idea that planets "want" to follow their orbits.

Scientifically speaking you are of course correct.

However, when you try to apply science to the questions of theology, you would be as incorrect as the IDiots who try to shoe horn ID into the science class room.

When it comes to personal belief, there's not accounting for tastes. Science just has no way to address them.

"However, when you try to apply science to the questions of theology,..."

Maybe you could restate this. I'm not trying to apply science to questions of theology. I'm saying that either way round, the notion of "reconciling" science and faith makes no sense. They are independent areas of thought.

Applying science to theology makes as much sense as plastering some theology around science. No sense at all.

Agreed.

ts, you're not gonna start another pointless religious war, are you?

I'm saying that either way round, the notion of "reconciling" science and faith makes no sense.

Ya gotta admit that it was getting kind of boring around here lately

Intelligent design creationism might be dead but its remnants are still breathing. A nutjob in Utah (Chris Buttars-R)is proposing legislation that promotes the idea that evolution should not be taught as fact, that many scientists disagree with it. In short he wants to stop "opinionated teachers" from portraying evolution as a fact. This is the same crackpot that previously wanted "divine design" taught in Utah schools...He changed his tune after the Dover trial ruling and now simply wants to bash away at biology.

He is callin this an origins of life legislation. That's right, not origins of species but origins of life.

Intelligent design creationism could be dead but the Discovery Institute is not. Nor are their misguided dupes.

I hope I am wrong but I suspect this thing is far from over.

No, it'll never be over. The question is how much of a threat is it? With Judge Jones's ruling, the threat level of IDC went way down.

A couple of people expressed curiosity about these books but didn't want to buy them. I'll order(since I don't actually have to buy them) and read them. While I'm incapable of producing the kind of erudite examination that Vic Stenger or Dr Perakh are, I'll pass on anything I can for those who don't mind the efforts of a rank amateur.

Sincerely,
Paul