Pennock on postmodernism in ID creationism

I've always liked Pennock's approach to deconstructing ID. His Tower of Babel was the first book I ever picked up on the subject and did a thorough job of displaying the emperor's new clothes from angles scientific, philosophical, AND historical.

Once again, someone provides excellent proof for why postmodernism is not how you conduct good science.

Although IDC may intersect postmodernism in some aspects, perhaps this is coincidental. Fundamentalism from its birth in the early 20thC has always distrusted "human knowledge" as a source of truth.[1] It in turn seems to have inherited a late 19thC distrust of science that sprang up originally in England.[2]

The driving force behind this distrust is somewhat murky, but seemed to represent a feeling that scientists were holding themselves out as an elite, not to be questioned.[3] There was no hint of relativism here, merely distrust.

I wonder if this could explain why IDC shares post-modernist distrust of science but not its relativism---that postmodernism merely got swept into a phenomenon that was already operating in fundamentalist circles.

==================

{1] Fundamentalism arose when several denominations split into conservative and liberal factions. The conservative (literalist) leaders most often had no education at all---even in theology, whereas liberal pastors had excellent educations, many including science. (Sorry, the reference escapes me at the moment.)

[2] See, e.g., Garwood, "Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea" (Thomas Dunne 2007).

[3] Organizations more frequently put forth consolidated views, rather than scientists as individuals. This period also represented a shift to institutional financing for projects and paid positions for scientists. See Bowler & Morus, "Making Modern Science" (U. Chicago 2005), esp. Ch. 16, "Popular Science," pp. 367-390.

"...except that the people who really care about debunking creationism essentially universally have no truck with postmodernism either."

Oh, I'd be quite willing to deconstruct ID and Creationism. If you take their writings and put them in outline format, their inconsistencies and logical holes just leap out at you. The arguments of the irrational fundies are not scientific but moral; and their efforts to interpret science and evolution in moral terms is their greatest weakness. Applying their (moral) symbols and their relative meanings to objective scientific evidence gives us fertile ground to deconstruct the living hell out of them. Thank you! Now I've got more essays for my blog.

While many of us have noticed elements of postmodernism in the ID movement, I think that the more hard-core thread running through it and the “scientific” creationism that came before would be the pseudo-science.

And that remains true today with another spin-off from the creationists at the Institute for Creation “Research”, namely Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis gang of ugly pseudo-scientists.

These people are every bit as aggressive in their defense of their stake in the fundamentalist market for a substitute science as Johnson. One can watch their shtick on the TCT channel when AiG does its broadcast and sells its products every week.

Not only are these people aggressive and ruthless in defending their market, they explicitly teach their followers to be aggressive in attacking anyone who is an “evolutionist”; and that includes going to the extreme of accusing scientists to their faces of not understand science. I have often watched lecturers giving their student audiences point-by-point instructions on how to do “devastating gotchas” on scientists and evolutionists.

Jack Chick cartoons are actually precise representations of real characters who believe they are defending their religion against “Big Daddy” scientists and teachers.

Mike Elzinga said: While many of us have noticed elements of postmodernism in the ID movement, I think that the more hard-core thread running through it and the “scientific” creationism that came before would be the pseudo-science.

Mike Elzinga said: I have often watched lecturers giving their student audiences point-by-point instructions on how to do “devastating gotchas” on scientists and evolutionists.

Not only are these people aggressive and ruthless in defending their market, they explicitly teach their followers to be aggressive in attacking anyone who is an “evolutionist”; and that includes going to the extreme of accusing scientists to their faces of not understand science. I have often watched lecturers giving their student audiences point-by-point instructions on how to do “devastating gotchas” on scientists and evolutionists.

Karen S. said: True, and they are so bad they even teach very young children to challenge their teachers with their stupid "were you there" question. (It makes you feel like screaming "The evidence is here!!!")

Do you have a link to those “gotchas” so we can put together a list of “counter-gotchas”?

— Paul Burnett

I see some of these videos at that AiG website Video on Demand section.

But I haven’t found the “gotcha questions” video there yet.

Well they certainly have co-opted moral relativism.

Am not surprised that Pennock sees some evidence of postmodernist argumentation from the Intelligent Design crowd. In his "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul", Ken Miller makes a similar argument, quoting from Harold Bloom and observing that Intelligent Design advocates - if they were successful - would transform science into a body of inquiry all too akin to much of what transpires now in the social sciences, where serious inquiry has been replaced by ideologically driven "research".

Poor design deniers.

Like Truman famously said, if you can't stand the heat...try applying for a get-out-of-Gehena-free pass.

It's easy. All you have to do to apply is think hard about the irrationality of arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your search for truth to what is observable and testable.

Step two is then going forward by contemplating the rationality and logic of exploring knowledge of self and personal experience, which by far has been the driving force of new ideas and discoveries.

Lastly, when you have discovered yourself, and figured out that leaning so heavily on observable and testable claims, was such a slow way to realize truth, then right there you will find your pass waiting for you.

God, the air-con sure feels good.

we do need the grounding in reality that science helps provide

Let the nuancing begin.

Steve P. said: Poor design deniers. Like Truman famously said, if you can't stand the heat...try applying for a get-out-of-Gehena-free pass. It's easy. All you have to do to apply is think hard about the irrationality of arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your search for truth to what is observable and testable. Step two is then going forward by contemplating the rationality and logic of exploring knowledge of self and personal experience, which by far has been the driving force of new ideas and discoveries. Lastly, when you have discovered yourself, and figured out that leaning so heavily on observable and testable claims, was such a slow way to realize truth, then right there you will find your pass waiting for you. God, the air-con sure feels good.

Steve P. said: Poor design deniers. Like Truman famously said, if you can't stand the heat...try applying for a get-out-of-Gehena-free pass. It's easy. All you have to do to apply is think hard about the irrationality of arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your search for truth to what is observable and testable. Step two is then going forward by contemplating the rationality and logic of exploring knowledge of self and personal experience, which by far has been the driving force of new ideas and discoveries. Lastly, when you have discovered yourself, and figured out that leaning so heavily on observable and testable claims, was such a slow way to realize truth, then right there you will find your pass waiting for you. God, the air-con sure feels good.

Steve P. said: See what I mean? Can anyone provide supporting evidence for the below statement? How does science = reality? Seriously. How do you folks keep from guffawing in the mirror? How do you not see the irrationality in such a statement? Science = reality ???

we do need the grounding in reality that science helps provide

.

SWT said:

Steve P. said: See what I mean? Can anyone provide supporting evidence for the below statement? How does science = reality? Seriously. How do you folks keep from guffawing in the mirror? How do you not see the irrationality in such a statement? Science = reality ???

we do need the grounding in reality that science helps provide

.

You do realize, don't you, that Pennock is a Quaker?

SWT wrote:

"By the way, how is your study of endosymbiosis coming along?"

So, according to Steve, science is not the way to study reality. I guess he think his way is better, just ignore all of the facts and all of the evidence and make stuff up. Yea, that should get you to reality much faster.

Still waiting for your explanation of all of the evidence for endosymbiosis Steve. You do want to study reality, don't you? You can get to know yourself on your own time.

Steve P. said: ...All you have to do to apply is think hard about the irrationality of arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your search for truth to what is observable and testable....

I don't know if Pennock mentions this in the article, but I always got a huge whiff of postmodernism from Steve Fuller's contributions to the debate (especially around the Dover trial). If pushed hard enough, he would admit that there was no evidential basis for ID, but said that it should be promoted anyway to provide a countervailing voice to the orthodoxy. The irony being that Fuller claims to be a staunch critic of postmodernism.

Ron Okimoto said:

Mike Elzinga said: While many of us have noticed elements of postmodernism in the ID movement, I think that the more hard-core thread running through it and the “scientific” creationism that came before would be the pseudo-science.

I agree. My take is that the ID perps and scientific creationists backed into post modernism because it was the only way to go with their bogus arguments.

Karen S.: True, and they are so bad they even teach very young children to challenge their teachers with their stupid “were you there” question. (It makes you feel like screaming “The evidence is here!!!”)

These students and children are really being set up for what they will get from other secular students and secular institutions. Most will be convinced to go to their church colleges if they go on to college at all.

Steve P. said: See what I mean? Can anyone provide supporting evidence for the below statement? How does science = reality? Seriously. How do you folks keep from guffawing in the mirror? How do you not see the irrationality in such a statement? Science = reality ???

we do need the grounding in reality that science helps provide

.

Like Truman famously said, if you can’t stand the heat…try applying for a get-out-of-Gehena-free pass. It’s easy. All you have to do to apply is think hard about the irrationality of arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your search for truth to what is observable and testable.

Step two is then going forward by contemplating the rationality and logic of exploring knowledge of self and personal experience, which by far has been the driving force of new ideas and discoveries. Lastly, when you have discovered yourself, and figured out that leaning so heavily on observable and testable claims, was such a slow way to realize truth, then right there you will find your pass waiting for you.

God, the air-con sure feels good.

Lastly, when you have discovered yourself, and figured out that leaning so heavily on observable and testable claims, was such a slow way to realize truth, then right there you will find your pass waiting for you.

One can just picture Steve P. standing on the Jersey side of the Hudson River with his back toward New York City and refusing to turn around and verify its existence; and then further denying all other evidence from the people who come and go from that city. That is precisely his mentality.

raven said: One of my minor complaints about creationists is that they set their children up to fail.

They are wealthy, filled with people with money, fancy cars and SUVs, and with political influence and aspirations. Many of them have established businesses in the community. Some have even built an international corporation starting with a business model based on a Ponzi scheme.

Based on other statistics, I would guess that American creationists would have somewhat low education relative to their income, on average, but would not be below average in either category.

harold said: Based on other statistics, I would guess that American creationists would have somewhat low education relative to their income, on average, but would not be below average in either category.

SWT said:

Steve P. said: Poor design deniers. Like Truman famously said, if you can't stand the heat...try applying for a get-out-of-Gehena-free pass. It's easy. All you have to do to apply is think hard about the irrationality of arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your search for truth to what is observable and testable. Step two is then going forward by contemplating the rationality and logic of exploring knowledge of self and personal experience, which by far has been the driving force of new ideas and discoveries. Lastly, when you have discovered yourself, and figured out that leaning so heavily on observable and testable claims, was such a slow way to realize truth, then right there you will find your pass waiting for you. God, the air-con sure feels good.

Interesting post. I am a scientist and an engineer. The results of my research must be objectively observable and must be independent of my belief system -- anyone should be able to follow the procedures I publish and get data consistent with my data. I am not engaged in finding truth, I am engaged in finding repeatable, testable explanations for physical phenomena. It is a slow way to gain information about the physical world, but has the significant advantage of producing information that can be considered reliable. I'm also Presbyterian. I am an active, ordained elder in my congregation. I take the affirmations made in my ordination and installation seriously, including those related to the Bible and the confessional documents of the PC(USA), very seriously. I am in the church because of personal, subjective experiences that I believe were the Almighty calling me back to active participation in the church and its work, which in turn put me in a position to withstand some very difficult personal times. It is clear to me, from prayer, study, and reflection, that Genesis 1-11 are a mixture of myth and polemic, and were intended for theological and not scientific use. The truths that I find there are about the nature of the Almighty and the relationship between the Almighty and humanity, and they form the foundation of the gospel message, which is not about physical phenomena but about our relationship with the Almighty and our relationships with each other. I affirm, based on prayerful study of and reflection about scripture, that the Almighty is capable of producing an orderly, understandable universe in which the divine will is expressed through the natural unfolding of events without the need for frequent (on a geologic time scale) miraculous interventions. I have come to these theological positions following the method you prescribed for finding truth. Since I followed your method, can I assume that you will therefore affirm these conclusions as true and reliable? By the way, how is your study of endosymbiosis coming along?

Steve P. said: The point is the prevalence of the view that science is in the business of investigating only observable natural phenomena. But much of nature is unobservable and untestable. Hence my highlighting Pennock's remark that "we do need the grounding in reality that science provides". It is clear that from his perspective, that he believes reality can only be understood in the light of the current materialistic view of science. Presumptive but mostly just plain mistaken. But its not only Pennock. Mistaking the results of materialistic science to be the best reflection of reality is prevalent here too. How does the line go: “ We can explain nature just fine without appealing to an intelligent designer”. No, you can describe some of it just fine, but not most of it. And you surely cannot explain any of it. Case in point. As a Christian, do you accept the existence of the soul? How do you arrive at this decision? Remember the soul was created, therefore natural. However, it is not (currently) observable or testable. Must we wait for scientists to devise a way to observe it and test for it before we are allowed to assert that in fact we do have a soul? We have loads of abductive evidence supporting the existence of the soul? How much weight would you put on this evidence? Further, is the acceptance of the existence of the soul illogical and irrational since we have not yet observed or tested for it? What I am targeting is the erroneous idea that a person who believes in God is from the get go not capable of logical, rational thought, and thus not capable of doing real science; that belief in God is somehow a drag on one’s ability to understand reality. Rather, it appears to me to be the opposite. God is a rational, logical conclusion, not based on a whimsical daydream, but based squarely on logic, reason,and abductive experience. It is the same with intelligent design. It investigates natural phenomena and makes conclusions based on logic and reason, that the observable universe is only a part of the whole; that there is literally more to the physical workings of life than meets the eye. Information as a separate, immaterial entity comes to mind. Will it be falsified? Could be. Regardless, this ID prediction and contribution to our understanding of reality is neither trivial nor irrational or mythical or whatever adjective a materialist wishes to use to try and dismiss ID.

Steve P. said: It is the same with intelligent design. It investigates natural phenomena and makes conclusions based on logic and reason, that the observable universe is only a part of the whole; that there is literally more to the physical workings of life than meets the eye. Information as a separate, immaterial entity comes to mind. Will it be falsified? Could be. Regardless, this ID prediction and contribution to our understanding of reality is neither trivial nor irrational or mythical or whatever adjective a materialist wishes to use to try and dismiss ID.

Steve P. said: SWT, And a refreshingly civil reply and I thank you for that. The point is the prevalence of the view that science is in the business of investigating only observable natural phenomena. But much of nature is unobservable and untestable. Hence my highlighting Pennock's remark that "we do need the grounding in reality that science provides". It is clear that from his perspective, that he believes reality can only be understood in the light of the current materialistic view of science. Presumptive but mostly just plain mistaken. But its not only Pennock. Mistaking the results of materialistic science to be the best reflection of reality is prevalent here too. How does the line go: " We can explain nature just fine without appealing to an intelligent designer". No, you can describe some of it just fine, but not most of it. And you surely cannot explain any of it. Case in point. As a Christian, do you accept the existence of the soul? How do you arrive at this decision? Remember the soul was created, therefore natural. However, it is not (currently) observable or testable. Must we wait for scientists to devise a way to observe it and test for it before we are allowed to assert that in fact we do have a soul? We have loads of abductive evidence supporting the existence of the soul? How much weight would you put on this evidence? Further, is the acceptance of the existence of the soul illogical and irrational since we have not yet observed or tested for it? What I am targeting is the erroneous idea that a person who believes in God is from the get go not capable of logical, rational thought, and thus not capable of doing real science; that belief in God is somehow a drag on one's ability to understand reality. Rather, it appears to me to be the opposite. God is a rational, logical conclusion, not based on a whimsical daydream, but based squarely on logic, reason,and abductive experience. It is the same with intelligent design. It investigates natural phenomena and makes conclusions based on logic and reason, that the observable universe is only a part of the whole; that there is literally more to the physical workings of life than meets the eye. Information as a separate, immaterial entity comes to mind. Will it be falsified? Could be. Regardless, this ID prediction and contribution to our understanding of reality is neither trivial nor irrational or mythical or whatever adjective a materialist wishes to use to try and dismiss ID.

SWT said:

Steve P. said: Poor design deniers. Like Truman famously said, if you can't stand the heat...try applying for a get-out-of-Gehena-free pass. It's easy. All you have to do to apply is think hard about the irrationality of arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your search for truth to what is observable and testable. Step two is then going forward by contemplating the rationality and logic of exploring knowledge of self and personal experience, which by far has been the driving force of new ideas and discoveries. Lastly, when you have discovered yourself, and figured out that leaning so heavily on observable and testable claims, was such a slow way to realize truth, then right there you will find your pass waiting for you. God, the air-con sure feels good.

Interesting post. I am a scientist and an engineer. The results of my research must be objectively observable and must be independent of my belief system -- anyone should be able to follow the procedures I publish and get data consistent with my data. I am not engaged in finding truth, I am engaged in finding repeatable, testable explanations for physical phenomena. It is a slow way to gain information about the physical world, but has the significant advantage of producing information that can be considered reliable. I'm also Presbyterian. I am an active, ordained elder in my congregation. I take the affirmations made in my ordination and installation seriously, including those related to the Bible and the confessional documents of the PC(USA), very seriously. I am in the church because of personal, subjective experiences that I believe were the Almighty calling me back to active participation in the church and its work, which in turn put me in a position to withstand some very difficult personal times. It is clear to me, from prayer, study, and reflection, that Genesis 1-11 are a mixture of myth and polemic, and were intended for theological and not scientific use. The truths that I find there are about the nature of the Almighty and the relationship between the Almighty and humanity, and they form the foundation of the gospel message, which is not about physical phenomena but about our relationship with the Almighty and our relationships with each other. I affirm, based on prayerful study of and reflection about scripture, that the Almighty is capable of producing an orderly, understandable universe in which the divine will is expressed through the natural unfolding of events without the need for frequent (on a geologic time scale) miraculous interventions. I have come to these theological positions following the method you prescribed for finding truth. Since I followed your method, can I assume that you will therefore affirm these conclusions as true and reliable? By the way, how is your study of endosymbiosis coming along?

" A favourite concept of mine for science is that it doesn’t have a right to claim the prestige of science as long as some detail or angle is not explained by the hypothesis or some angle opposes the hypothesis"

So, gravity isn't science? Or quantum theory? Or the standard model of particle physics?

YEC here.

— Robert Byers

Frank J said: ..... Steve P. is here, and he thinks that the earth and life are billions of years old and that you share common ancestors with broccoli. But unlike us "Darwinists" he doesn't have that nasty prior commitment to (methodological) naturalism.

So can you explain why not a single Intelligent Design proponent has been able to put forth a testable alternative explanation to Modern Evolutionary Theory?

And a refreshingly civil reply and I thank you for that.

The point is the prevalence of the view that science is in the business of investigating only observable natural phenomena. But much of nature is unobservable and untestable. Hence my highlighting Pennock’s remark that “we do need the grounding in reality that science provides”. It is clear that from his perspective, that he believes reality can only be understood in the light of the current materialistic view of science. Presumptive but mostly just plain mistaken.

But its not only Pennock. Mistaking the results of materialistic science to be the best reflection of reality is prevalent here too. How does the line go: “ We can explain nature just fine without appealing to an intelligent designer”. No, you can describe some of it just fine, but not most of it. And you surely cannot explain any of it. Case in point. As a Christian, do you accept the existence of the soul? How do you arrive at this decision? Remember the soul was created, therefore natural. However, it is not (currently) observable or testable. Must we wait for scientists to devise a way to observe it and test for it before we are allowed to assert that in fact we do have a soul? We have loads of abductive evidence supporting the existence of the soul? How much weight would you put on this evidence? Further, is the acceptance of the existence of the soul illogical and irrational since we have not yet observed or tested for it?

What I am targeting is the erroneous idea that a person who believes in God is from the get go not capable of logical, rational thought, and thus not capable of doing real science; that belief in God is somehow a drag on one’s ability to understand reality.

Rather, it appears to me to be the opposite. God is a rational, logical conclusion, not based on a whimsical daydream, but based squarely on logic, reason,and abductive experience.

It is the same with intelligent design. It investigates natural phenomena and makes conclusions based on logic and reason, that the observable universe is only a part of the whole; that there is literally more to the physical workings of life than meets the eye.

Information as a separate, immaterial entity comes to mind. Will it be falsified? Could be. Regardless, this ID prediction and contribution to our understanding of reality is neither trivial nor irrational or mythical or whatever adjective a materialist wishes to use to try and dismiss ID.

... still wondering what a non-materialistic science would look like, and how one would use it to... well, anything, really.

"Nope. No natural explanation for this. Musta been 'POOF'." (shrug) "Oh, well. NEXT!"

Pretty useless.

Important question - and I will consider it very uncivil of you not to answer - Do you agree with Robert Byers and his 6000 year old universe?

— harold

… still wondering what a non-materialistic science would look like, and how one would use it to… well, anything, really.

Mike Elzinga said: Education is one of their prime targets in addition to all the other political activities we have come to associate with the Far Right. And this isn’t even Texas or Alabama.

Frank J and Steve P -

Yes, Frank, you're right, Steve P won't address the issue of Byers version versus his.

This proves his pure and utter hypocrisy.

"Anything goes, except evolution" doesn't make any sense.

The Catholic position is that the Vatican accepts evolution, but it's not a sin to be a sincere creationist. (*Of course, those who falsely claim to be creationists for political or other reasons would be guilty of a mortal sin*.)

I'm not Catholic, but at least there's a coherence.

But saying that 6000 year old earth, or ancient earth but modern life not fully explained by evolution, are both okay, but theistic evolution isn't...that just makes no sense.

A god who cares only about denial of science - anything you say is okay, as long as you deny science...

Sounds as if Steve P's god is a narcissistic projection of his own authoritarian social and political fantasies.

Any chance of a definition of this "soul" thingy Steve P is going on about? If it means "mind", then it's what your brain does- nothing supernatural required- and if it means "I'm not going to die when I die", then that just seems silly.

Steve P. said: All you have to do to apply is think hard about the irrationality of arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your search for truth to what is observable and testable.

James F said:

Steve P. said: All you have to do to apply is think hard about the irrationality of arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your search for truth to what is observable and testable.

Steve P., I honestly thought you were engaging in parody when I first read this. We already have a discipline for issues outside of what is observable and testable: theology. I think it's fair to say that philosophy can fall into this category as well. You're more than welcome to study and contemplate theology, but please don't confuse it with science. It is refreshing, however, to have an ID proponent effectively admit that for ID to be science, science itself must be redefined. Shades of Behe at Dover. It's a totally irrational, insane idea, but at least it's an honest statement.

Rather, it appears to me to be the opposite. God is a rational, logical conclusion, not based on a whimsical daydream, but based squarely on logic, reason,and abductive experience.

Well he certainly does seem to have abducted logic and reason.

James F said:

Steve P. said: All you have to do to apply is think hard about the irrationality of arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your search for truth to what is observable and testable.

Steve P., I honestly thought you were engaging in parody when I first read this. We already have a discipline for issues outside of what is observable and testable: theology. I think it's fair to say that philosophy can fall into this category as well. You're more than welcome to study and contemplate theology, but please don't confuse it with science. It is refreshing, however, to have an ID proponent effectively admit that for ID to be science, science itself must be redefined. Shades of Behe at Dover. It's a totally irrational, insane idea, but at least it's an honest statement.

Steve P. said: James F. Actually, science was originally done as a way to help answer the ultimate questions of life. It was a tool to find supporting evidence for theological questions. It is modern science, influenced by business and politics, that seeks to challenge and supplant theology's influence of society, by focusing exclusively on discoveries that can bring practical benefits to human life, thus creating the impression (and illusion) that this practical knowledge is the only knowledge worth having. I.E, forget about God, we give you iPod. So make no mistake, it is not ID that seeks to redefine science. It simply seeks to bring back to center stage the original intent and driving force of scientific work.

James F said:

Steve P. said: All you have to do to apply is think hard about the irrationality of arbitrarily narrowing the focus of your search for truth to what is observable and testable.

Steve P., I honestly thought you were engaging in parody when I first read this. We already have a discipline for issues outside of what is observable and testable: theology. I think it's fair to say that philosophy can fall into this category as well. You're more than welcome to study and contemplate theology, but please don't confuse it with science. It is refreshing, however, to have an ID proponent effectively admit that for ID to be science, science itself must be redefined. Shades of Behe at Dover. It's a totally irrational, insane idea, but at least it's an honest statement.

Actually, science was originally done as a way to help answer the ultimate questions of life. It was a tool to find supporting evidence for theological questions. It is modern science, influenced by business and politics,, blah blah blah...

Steve P. said: James F. Actually, science was originally done as a way to help answer the ultimate questions of life. It was a tool to find supporting evidence for theological questions. It is modern science, influenced by business and politics, that seeks to challenge and supplant theology's influence of society, by focusing exclusively on discoveries that can bring practical benefits to human life, thus creating the impression (and illusion) that this practical knowledge is the only knowledge worth having. I.E, forget about God, we give you iPod. So make no mistake, it is not ID that seeks to redefine science. It simply seeks to bring back to center stage the original intent and driving force of scientific work.

Steve P. said: James F. Actually, science was originally done as a way to help answer the ultimate questions of life. It was a tool to find supporting evidence for theological questions. It is modern science, influenced by business and politics, that seeks to challenge and supplant theology's influence of society, by focusing exclusively on discoveries that can bring practical benefits to human life, thus creating the impression (and illusion) that this practical knowledge is the only knowledge worth having. I.E, forget about God, we give you iPod. So make no mistake, it is not ID that seeks to redefine science. It simply seeks to bring back to center stage the original intent and driving force of scientific work.

Stanton said: So please explain why no Intelligent Design proponent has been able to demonstrate that Intelligent Design is science.

Jesse said:

Stanton said: So please explain why no Intelligent Design proponent has been able to demonstrate that Intelligent Design is science.

That's not true. Behe was able to do so by redefining science so that Astrology is valid science. Never mind the fact that your obstetrician had more gravitational influence on you than Mars did, it's science, or my name isn't George Bush.

Steve P. said: SWT, And a refreshingly civil reply and I thank you for that. The point is the prevalence of the view that science is in the business of investigating only observable natural phenomena. But much of nature is unobservable and untestable. Hence my highlighting Pennock's remark that "we do need the grounding in reality that science provides". It is clear that from his perspective, that he believes reality can only be understood in the light of the current materialistic view of science. Presumptive but mostly just plain mistaken. But its not only Pennock. Mistaking the results of materialistic science to be the best reflection of reality is prevalent here too. How does the line go: " We can explain nature just fine without appealing to an intelligent designer". No, you can describe some of it just fine, but not most of it. And you surely cannot explain any of it.

Case in point. As a Christian, do you accept the existence of the soul? How do you arrive at this decision? Remember the soul was created, therefore natural. However, it is not (currently) observable or testable. Must we wait for scientists to devise a way to observe it and test for it before we are allowed to assert that in fact we do have a soul? We have loads of abductive evidence supporting the existence of the soul? How much weight would you put on this evidence? Further, is the acceptance of the existence of the soul illogical and irrational since we have not yet observed or tested for it?

What I am targeting is the erroneous idea that a person who believes in God is from the get go not capable of logical, rational thought, and thus not capable of doing real science; that belief in God is somehow a drag on one's ability to understand reality.

Rather, it appears to me to be the opposite. God is a rational, logical conclusion, not based on a whimsical daydream, but based squarely on logic, reason,and abductive experience.

It is the same with intelligent design. It investigates natural phenomena and makes conclusions based on logic and reason, that the observable universe is only a part of the whole; that there is literally more to the physical workings of life than meets the eye. Information as a separate, immaterial entity comes to mind. Will it be falsified? Could be. Regardless, this ID prediction and contribution to our understanding of reality is neither trivial nor irrational or mythical or whatever adjective a materialist wishes to use to try and dismiss ID.

The more I learned, the more I recognized (intelligent design) was not a scientific theory; it is a religious intuition that has been repackaged to be science-y.

I think Pennock slightly misunderstands Postmodernism. It's NOT that all narratives are equally as valuable, or likely. That is not the case. It's that all narratives... all versions of objectivity , if you will, have a set of underlying assumptions which should be exposed and interrogated. Once you've done that, you can determine which narratives are of value to you and which are not. In the case of creationism, for example, the underlying assumption is the literal veracity of the Bible. That a cultural artifact is the source of objective truth. OTOH, the scientific method assumes a knowable, discernible set of empirical facts from which we can draw conclusions and test hypotheses, and a naturalistic explanation of those facts. Certainly there are underlying assumptions there that can be challenged (our perception of the data, the naturalistic presumption, for examples), but one is clearly not equal to the other. One clearly has more value to us.

Actually, science was originally done as a way to help answer the ultimate questions of life.

It was a tool to find supporting evidence for theological questions.

It is modern science, influenced by business and politics, that seeks to challenge and supplant theology’s influence of society,

by focusing exclusively on discoveries that can bring practical benefits to human life,

thus creating the impression (and illusion) that this practical knowledge is the only knowledge worth having. I.E, forget about God, we give you iPod.

So make no mistake, it is not ID that seeks to redefine science.

It simply seeks to bring back to center stage the original intent and driving force of scientific work.

I wonder if Steve could go over to the thread on how to make a snake and enlighten us as to the theological merits of that research. Are the researchers trying to understand what happened in the garden of Eden?

Could it be that the real motivation behind most science is simply trying to understand how the natural world works, regardless of one's theological inclinations? Could it be that Steve is just rewriting history to conform to his own prejudices? Could it be that he still has no answer for the evidence for endosymbiosis? Perhaps he would like to enlighten us as to the theological motivation for that research as well.

At the end of the day, all Steve P. could do was try, in a desperate and not very honest way, to change the subject.

He just kept going on and on about philosophical issues that have nothing to do with ID/creationism or the theory of evolution.

I guess his dishonest goal was to create a false equivalence between some straw man pseudo-Hobbesian "materialist" philosophical stance, and the methodological materialism of mainstream science. Then he could move from there to the non sequitur "conclusion" that since mainstream science (as he distorts it) has been rejected (by him), "ID", of all things, must win by default. How lame can you get?

He seems to think that it's his role to try to trick or force other people to acknowledge him as some sort of spiritual authority, even though he isn't. What a waste of time.

He seems to think that it’s his role to try to trick or force other people to acknowledge him as some sort of spiritual authority, even though he isn’t. What a waste of time.

— harold

Jesse said:

Stanton said: So please explain why no Intelligent Design proponent has been able to demonstrate that Intelligent Design is science.

That's not true. Behe was able to do so by redefining science so that Astrology is valid science. Never mind the fact that your obstetrician had more gravitational influence on you than Mars did, it's science, or my name isn't George Bush.

This article was not meant to be an argument against IDC, which has been well debunked and has not had any new ideas worth debating in over a decade. Like the undead Creation-Science movement, IDC now operates in a zombie state of mindless attack and repetition of long-buried arguments against the possibility of any natural explanation for ‘‘irreducible complexity’’, ‘‘complex specified information’’ and the ‘‘purposeful arrangements of parts.’’ Strictly speaking, those arguments were themselves not even new, but just variations of Creation-Science chestnuts. In detailing the postmodern element in IDC, my goal was mainly to explain a feature of IDC that was especially distinctive and to give a history of its genesis.

Could it be that Steve is just rewriting history to conform to his own prejudices? Could it be that he still has no answer for the evidence for endosymbiosis? Perhaps he would like to enlighten us as to the theological motivation for that research as well.

Steve P. said: So make no mistake, it is not ID that seeks to redefine science. It simply seeks to bring back to center stage the original intent and driving force of scientific work.

I am glad that Pennock has examined the postmodernism
connection to the modern ID movement.

I would say, however, that a major flaw of the philosophical tact taken by Pennock and many others is the statement that science is based on "methodological naturalism".

There was a time when "the Church" (in whatever incarnation you prefer) determined what was "supernatural" and all of the rest was the purview of "natural philosophy", but
much was part of the mysterious praeternatural.

With the success of the scientific enterprise the term "natural" has come to mean "anything that is scientifically studiable" and the term "supernatural" seems to refer to those things which fail to be scientifically studiable.

A more precise notion would be to recognize that "science deals with processes", whereas things that we would call "paranormal" or "supernatural" fall in a category where there is no process that provides a causal connection between a presumed "cause" and an assumed "effect".

For example, intelligent design proponents boldly claim that they have a "design detector", but when pressed for process information, they cannot
deliver. Indeed, the "design detector" is presumed to be independent of any process, nor does the
consideration of models of such a process even
enter into the discussion.

Compare with astrology. The positions of planets with respect to astrological signs are interpreted as having specific effects, but no causal connection of a process is provided.

We might point to other examples from parapsychology and claims of the paranormal.

Indeed, it goes beyond this. All of these disciplines do not even attempt to create models of processes. In short, these are not investigative programs, but are basically complete sub-worldviews adopted by their proponents, and
which there is no structure within the discipline to provide criticisms.

What then is the activity of such disciplines? Basically, each has an activity that is interpreted in terms of the cause and effect explanation (with no postulated testable process). We would say in science that each of these types of disciplines engages in cherry picking of data to find examples that fit within the worldview represented by the discipline in question.

For exampe, ID proponents cherry pick structures out of biology that are claimed "designed". Astrologers compute elaborate charts and make interpretations of fortunes for clients. Parapsychologists perform esp tests, engage in remote viewing experiments, all to capture the alleged phenomenon, each by cherry picking the data.

None of these disciplines engage in tests of the assumptions of the discipline.

John Stockwell said: A more precise notion would be to recognize that "science deals with processes", whereas things that we would call "paranormal" or "supernatural" fall in a category where there is no process that provides a causal connection between a presumed "cause" and an assumed "effect".

eric said:

John Stockwell said: A more precise notion would be to recognize that "science deals with processes", whereas things that we would call "paranormal" or "supernatural" fall in a category where there is no process that provides a causal connection between a presumed "cause" and an assumed "effect".

I don't think this is exactly right. I suspect a ghostly manifestation would be of interest to science even if we had no idea of the process that produced it - as long as we had strong evidentiary support for the event itself. We would then try and hypothesize possible processes, and test those hypotheses. But scientists don't need an a priori process to do science, just an event (or evidence of an event) available for study. Its the "strong evidentiary support" part that seems to be the problem with the supernatural. There's no evidence there are any supernatural events to investigate! The perception by some that there are supernatural events worth investigating is probably, as you mention, a result of cherry-picking data or confirmation bias. Its easy enough to come up with a long string of Zener card hits if you run enough trials and ignore (or unintentially forget) most of the results.

Ginger Yellow said: " A favourite concept of mine for science is that it doesn’t have a right to claim the prestige of science as long as some detail or angle is not explained by the hypothesis or some angle opposes the hypothesis" So, gravity isn't science? Or quantum theory? Or the standard model of particle physics?

its not just that I am confident its false its that i see a idea as just endless speculation on speculation.

— Robert Byers

How can you folks stand to read past the first "sentence" of any of Byers's stuff? I spent many years marking up essays for correction by often barely literate high school sophomores. Rarely did I see such a profusion of errors in mechanics, diction, and syntax, let alone pathetic logic.

With a paper like that, my usual response was to mark everything in the first paragraph, write, "Fix similar errors," and hand it back.

Students arrived in my class thinking that their unreadable BS was just fine because no one had ever told them the truth: that it wasn't. Their fragile "self esteem" had been protected--until I shattered it with the ugly truth. Then when they actually learned how to write readable English, by correcting all the errors that I refused to accept, they really had something to be "esteemed" about.

As much as I am repulsed by the thought, part of me relishes the fantasy of getting Byers in my English class.

Byers, in my class you could even write pro-creation essays (many kids did), but it's an ad hominem attack on YOURSELF when you fill them with elementary English errors. It makes you look stupid, thus discrediting your own argument. Oh, and you have to be logically consistent. If you state something as a principal, then you have to apply it in ALL cases, not just the ones that you like. And if you're not an authority on a subject, then your opinion, or how you "see" things carries no weight at all, convinces no one, and makes you look foolish.

Just Bob said: How can you folks stand to read past the first "sentence" of any of Byers's stuff? (snip)

Just Bob said: How can you folks stand to read past the first "sentence" of any of Byers's stuff?

Stating something as a principal, and applying it in all cases, would be a good principle for a school to be run on.

But what Alex H said, in spades, passed by acclamation. I've never forgiven those guys for making into meaningless, profitless, pointless drudgery what ought to be purely joyous.

And in the hopes of trying to steer this conversation back to something that could be mistaken for "on topic," I'd like to say that ID would lose a lot of support among the general public if there was a shift in the way science was taught in public schools. A lot of what I had was just facts handed down to be memorized. That's A) pretty boring, and B) gives the appearance of simply being handed down from on high, and leaves a lot of people without the ability to separate out fact from fiction. If you don't have much understanding of how the organelles in a cell work, it's much easier to think that a flagellum is "irreducibly complex."

How can you folks stand to read past the first “sentence” of any of Byers’s stuff?

— Just Bob

"Most significantly, Pennock demonstrates that he neither understands Johnson nor Derrida when he equates the two. Here's the money quote: "And so we are back again to Original Sin—it is the sin of pride that comes before the fall. Naturalism, liberal rationalism, postmodernism and the morally hollow culture they purportedly cause are the result of the prideful attempt to usurp the authority of God. In postmodern terms, it is the rejection of any God’s-eye view or master narrative. Because everything is but an interpretation, we become the authors of our own narrative." Notice how Pennock lumps naturalism and PoMo as equally bad in Johnson's eyes, which is a peculiar thing if Johnson really is a PoMo. Then he goes on to say that PoMo sees sin as the rejection of a master narrative. No, Pennock, that is called "Christian"; PoMo denies that there IS a master narrative, and hence rejection is a good thing. Only the last sentence might be PoMo, but it is actually a Christian condemnation, not a victorious PoMo commendation. So in essence, Pennock confuses a Christian critique with a PoMo assertion, and the thesis of his paper is complete bunk. Johnson is no more PoMo than Pennock is a Christian. If I can interpret Pennock's confusion, he seems to think that modern science has made the Bible irrelevant, and so the sting of Johnson's critique can't be due to pre-modern Fundamentalist dinosaurs, so it must be due to some recent development. [Joseph Bottum explains this peculiar link between pre-moderns and post-moderns.] And the name-calling is there just to establish his liberal, sociological bona-fides. "

Steve P. said: BOT. In order to provide a balanced perspective on Pennock's article, I hope noone minds my taking the liberty to C&P excerpts from Robert Sheldon's own review of the same: [snip!]

Since most Fundamentalists would deny any relation to PoMo, and most Presbyterians would deny being Fundamentalists, I had to read the article.

Pennock starts out with the worst name-calling he can think of, calling Johnson "illegitimate" and a "bastarde" child of his two worst nemeses: fundamentalism and post-modernism.

Johnson is no more PoMo than Pennock is a Christian.

Philip Johnson said: I told them I was a postmodernist and deconstructionist just like them, but aiming at a slightly different target.

f you don’t have much understanding of how the organelles in a cell work, it’s much easier to think that a flagellum is “irreducibly complex.”

Yes, dammit, it's "principle". That's the kind of thing I would mark on a kid's paper and make him correct it (without telling him the right answer). Just shows how you can never proofread enough.

Byers, do you actually proofread what you write before hitting submit? If so, do you ever change anything?

US Presbyterian Church, PC(USA); IIRC, this is also Philip Johnson’s denomination (and mine).

raven said:

US Presbyterian Church, PC(USA); IIRC, this is also Philip Johnson’s denomination (and mine).

Philip Johnson is a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian church. This is a small ultra conservative group that split from the main US branch long ago. The Split Pea's have shattered into so many sects that the name no longer tells anyone anything. Most mainstream P's that I know seem to be pretty moderate.

More irony from the ID creationist crowd « Playing Chess with PigeonsMar 30, 2008 ... Terry Gray – convicted of heresy by his church for suggesting that ... whose negative review of Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial sparked [. ...

PCUSA.org: Evolution Statement In light of recent developments regarding the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in public schools, the Office of Theology and Worship offers the following, the Presbyterian Church U.S. 1969 GA-approved theological statement on the subject. EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE Primary Reference: GA Minutes 1969: 59-62 Denomination: PCUS Conclusion from the Study Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory.

raven said:

More irony from the ID creationist crowd « Playing Chess with PigeonsMar 30, 2008 ... Terry Gray – convicted of heresy by his church for suggesting that ... whose negative review of Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial sparked [. ...

Wikipedia says it is the PC USA. The connection with the OPC seems to be that Terry Gray of the OPC negatively reviewed his book and was tried and convicted of heresy for not being a creationist. Expelled as it were.

PCUSA.org: Evolution Statement In light of recent developments regarding the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in public schools, the Office of Theology and Worship offers the following, the Presbyterian Church U.S. 1969 GA-approved theological statement on the subject. EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE Primary Reference: GA Minutes 1969: 59-62 Denomination: PCUS Conclusion from the Study Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory.

The PCUSA doesn't have a problem with evolution. Their statement on their website dates from 1969.

Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of ours. The truth or falsity of the theory of evolution is not the question at issue and certainly not a question which lies within the competence of the Permanent Theological Committee. The real and only issue is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution. We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church.

Just Bob said: How can you folks stand to read past the first "sentence" of any of Byers's stuff? I spent many years marking up essays for correction by often barely literate high school sophomores. Rarely did I see such a profusion of errors in mechanics, diction, and syntax, let alone pathetic logic. With a paper like that, my usual response was to mark everything in the first paragraph, write, "Fix similar errors," and hand it back. Students arrived in my class thinking that their unreadable BS was just fine because no one had ever told them the truth: that it wasn't. Their fragile "self esteem" had been protected--until I shattered it with the ugly truth. Then when they actually learned how to write readable English, by correcting all the errors that I refused to accept, they really had something to be "esteemed" about. As much as I am repulsed by the thought, part of me relishes the fantasy of getting Byers in my English class. Byers, in my class you could even write pro-creation essays (many kids did), but it's an ad hominem attack on YOURSELF when you fill them with elementary English errors. It makes you look stupid, thus discrediting your own argument. Oh, and you have to be logically consistent. If you state something as a principal, then you have to apply it in ALL cases, not just the ones that you like. And if you're not an authority on a subject, then your opinion, or how you "see" things carries no weight at all, convinces no one, and makes you look foolish.

John Kwok said: Booby Byers claims to be an employee of the Canadian national government. Obviously their hiring standards plummeted to indeterminable lows when he joined it:

Dave Luckett said: SWT said:

The more I learned, the more I recognized (intelligent design) was not a scientific theory; it is a religious intuition that has been repackaged to be science-y.

Quite so. With respect, I would go a little further even than this. There has been no repackaging, in the sense of rearranging or renewing even the outer layers. The total change is to call the supposed act of creation "intelligent design" and the supposed Creator deity "the designer", but to avoid making any other specification whatsoever, and to assert that this is a scientific theory. Apart from a minor variation in nomenclature, the only change made by "intelligent design" to the creationist assertion that God created the species severally by supernatural means is the excision of actual content. It's not so much a repackaging as a mere rewording in vaguer terms. That rewording is meant firstly to mislead people who don't understand science into thinking that this is science, and secondly to create a smaller target. Leaving out all specifications as to how or when or where or by what means or to what effect intelligent design is supposed to have taken place makes it more difficult to falsify. But that is purely a political tactic, and a thoroughly dishonest one; and of course, the very opposite of what a scientific theory does.

fnxtr said:

John Kwok said: Booby Byers claims to be an employee of the Canadian national government. Obviously their hiring standards plummeted to indeterminable lows when he joined it:

Erm, if it's the same guy looked for before, it's the Ontario Ministry of Education. Education is under provincial juris diction. I mentioned this at least once before. Of course, it could be a different RB.

John Kwok said: Yes, I think you're right. That's for the correction, fnxtr. Regardless, it is still a poor reflection of hiring standards for that governmental agency, the Ontario Ministry of Education:

fnxtr said:

John Kwok said: Booby Byers claims to be an employee of the Canadian national government. Obviously their hiring standards plummeted to indeterminable lows when he joined it:

Erm, if it's the same guy looked for before, it's the Ontario Ministry of Education. Education is under provincial juris diction. I mentioned this at least once before. Of course, it could be a different RB.

Frank J said:

How can you folks stand to read past the first “sentence” of any of Byers’s stuff?

— Just Bob

Especially when he starts with "YEC here." Those who appear to favor a young earth position usually just call themselves "creationists." Sort of like how Fundamentalist Christians merely call themselves Christians. They want you to think they're the only "kind" in the larger group. As I apologize for "feeding" and straying from the topic, let me remind everyone, however, that these people generally disappear when we ask them to discuss details of their "theory" and differences with other "kinds" of evolution-denier. Note how Steve and Robert are ignoring me and each other. Can't feed them if they ain't here.