Darwin, Intelligent Design, and Freedom of Discovery on Evolutionists' Holy Day

Reader Comments
Back to article

That's very candid and I appreciate your honesty. At least we share a very low opinion of politicians. Politically I'm pretty much in sync with Libertarians of the Lew Rockwell persuasion, which means that I'm anti-war and puts me at odds with most of my Christian friends.
I wouldn't call evolution _only_ a theory, Lars. It is obviously the ascendant reigning theory with which the practice of academic science today is virtually saturated. To me it is untenable, philosophically and in other respects, as I said earlier, but that doesn't mean I summarily dismiss it or its ardent adherents. If you are "fascinated by the need for faith," I am intrigued by the unparalleled labors of Darwinian apologists and the sheer weight of the corpus they have created. If you're an Atheist, then surely Evolution is your best hope for now and all time, and for whatever does or doesn't lie beyond all of us.
Thank you again for your civility in a venue not especially noted for civility. I wish you and your family well.
This will be my last comment on this thread. The roaring lions will probably be back, and I have other catfish to fry, "and miles to go before I sleep."

Kennesaw of TN 10:20PM February 16, 2009

I don't want to deceive you. I am the epitome of a bleeding heart liberal. Pro Choice, Pro Gay Marriage, Accepting of Evolution and Climate Change with more than a slight Socialistic tendency. I was born in Memphis but left TN a loonngg time ago. I am an Atheist, and unapologetic about it. I am fascinated by the need for faith.
I do not question your faith, your need for faith nor your expression of faith. I do fear the lengths some people will go for their faith. Weinberg said "Good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for a good person to do evil, that takes Religion." I fear what they will do to my son. The subtle influences lawmakers will make starting with school curriculum. The need to teach something, that isn't science, as science.
Politicians don't care. Let's get that straight. Left / Right. It's not about truth, it's about votes. Right wing politicians will cater to the fundamentalist crowd and try to push fundamentalist ideals. One of these is creationism, in what aver guise, into science class. Their latest is Academic Freedom. I follow the blogs, the tabloids and the news. Where do you see it stopping. Balanced time, evolution and creationism? Just creationism? Do we start changing geology to conform to a 6,000 year Earth? Flood Theory?
If ID has some science behind it, I want to know what it is. Just so you know, when ever I hear someone says "Evolution is just a Theory" it's like scraping your fingernails on a chalkboard. A Scientific Theory is "The best explanation, as we know it, to cover a set of observations.". It's testable, falsifiable and predictable.
Best Regards,
Lars

Lars of FL 9:13PM February 16, 2009

You sound like an interesting fellow, Lars, and I appreciate your civility, sincerity, and (especially) sense of humor.
We all seem to agree that Evolution is a theory, and I'm sure that many ID proponents prefer to couch the core tenant(s) of ID thought in the form of a theory. To me, though, a layman in this field, ID is not so much a theory as a logical deduction from observable phenomena, namely phenomena that cannot be explained as the culmination of any RM + NS x HLT (Heck of a Lot of Time) process. Behe's flagellum is but one case in point, but, of course, a la Darwin's famous caveat, we only need one to disprove his theory. I know you and your friends will jump all over this ("blind mousetrap-maker" rebuttal, etc.) denying that there are any such phenomena, etc., but I my purpose here is not to substantiate this view (that has, to my satisfaction, already been done by those more competent than I), but merely to state my view, or "theory" if you prefer, which is what you challenged me to do. Unless by "theory" you mean one concerning the actual "mechanism" employed by the Designer. That would be a little beyond my ken.
Your flirtation with New Age culture is interesting. When my wife was at the New School in New York, the issue of evolution vs creationism (this was pre-ID) came up in a philosophy class, and said wife, very young at the time and hardly a fundamentalist, got quite a rise out the predominately pro-evolution class when she asked "How many of you believe in astrology?" But that is merely an anecdotal aside, for your entertainment, not an argument. :)
I am interested in what you characterize as your "separation from God," although this is surely not a proper venue to ask for an elaboration.
Such posts as these are written off the cuff, so I don't want to bedevil you about hastily written words, but, I'm curious, is your "_assumption_ that ID is but a collection of vacuous arguments" to be taken at face value? Does it reflect a naturalistic presuppositional stance that, a priori, proscribes divine intervention?
But, back to "separation from God," I actually am no stranger to that. To arrive at any comfortable certainty regarding an unseen or not immediately self-evident proposition is no trivial undertaking. But one thing I am absolutely certain of, and that is that Darwinian evolution (so-called macroevolution) is philosophically, mathematically, and biologically untenable. ID is harmonious with that certainty, although the latter, in my case, is not predicated by the former. I don't _need_ ID to be certain, just as I can appreciate that you do not need me to "protect" you from the "'scary' alternative. Ha! But aren't the arguments and counter-arguments fascinating? If only we could just better anger-manage the debate....
Anyway, thanks, sincerely, Lars, for your thoughtful response. I thought it deserved a serious reply and apologize for the length of this post

Kennesaw of TN 6:52PM February 16, 2009

Francis Collins said about the Genome project that we now understand the "language of God". It changed him from being an Agnostic,or possibly atheist to a 'born again Christen". When considered in the context of the "Big Bang", the "no Bang" and the "Kabbalah" leaving God out of the equation is ignorant.
Furthering your investigation to include the distributiion of matter in space, the formation of the atomic table, the trilions of stars which had to be formed before our sun and earth were positioned to enable life all point to an almost infinitely complex "intelligent design" which will enable us to reach an age of peace. All this without more than the original blue print God used before starting this process almost 14 billion years ago.
Exploring this plan will bring Christians back to their Jewish roots hasten the time when Jews will recognize Jesus as the Messiah and strengthen each of our belief systems.
Plase share this with David Klinghoffer. It outlines our discussion of last night.

Alvin Samuels of TX 5:17PM February 16, 2009

Mr. Williams,
Though my father might agree to your point about me being a "confluence of mindless random accidents", I still would like to hear the "Theory" of Intelligent Design.
I have had the pleasure of growing up in the New Age with trips to Ashrams, Arts Colleges, Yoga retreats and dream therapy. I have partaken in Sunday School for Roman Catholics, Russian Orthodoxies and Greek Orthodoxies. (though the latter was almost unintelligible) My separation from God wasn't quick like my wife's, but gradual and over many years. I feel that you don't have to protect me from this "scary" alternative to Evolution. Feel free to explain. I think I have a very open mind and would love to be found wrong in my assumption that ID is but a collection of vacuous arguments. John Kwok calls it mendacious intellectual pornography.
Compelling evidence, theories, papers and explanations would be nice. I have tried to have this conversation with my friend, a devout Christian, but the discussion has a tendency to be very one sided.
Sincerely,
Lars

Lars of FL 4:46PM February 16, 2009

Imagine that I were to question whether the recent post from Mr. Lars in fact evidences intelligent design, to, after perusing it, demand more cogent proofs, some detailed explication of a more persuasive theory to account for any conclusion in the affirmative, demand to be shown reasons why the information contained therein could not be the product of some fortuitous confluence of mindless random accidents. Would not that be disingenuous in the extreme? And yet the informational complexity of (and level of ingenuity exhibited by) Mr. Lars' few simple sentences pales in comparison to that of the information contained in a single DNA double helix, let alone in a single cell, or an individual, much less in an operating world of intelligent individuals.
Meanwhile, Mr. Lars is waiting still, for, I guess, still more compelling evidence, theories, papers, explanations, Goodness knows what. But his dilemma is that he is waiting to be shown things that he by no means wants to see. I think that what he would most like to see is that ID would simply go away, that he and his fellow materialists could somehow return to those halcyon days when Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism) enjoyed a virtually monopolistic, unchallenged, and sacrosanct position in the field of biological origins, in short, the good old days that are not going to come back, all the frantic attempts to ban ID research from the playing field by redefining what science is allowed to be to the contrary notwithstanding.

Kennesaw Williams of TN 3:42PM February 16, 2009

Mr. Williams,
As the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial unfolded, in the fall of 2005, I attended an alumni gathering in the auditorium of my high school alma mater, New York City's prestigious Stuyvesant High School, which is widely regarded as the finest American high school devoted to the sciences, mathematics, and technology (Its distinguished alumni include four Nobel Prize laureates, many distinguished scientists, doctors and engineers like eminent Harvard University physicist Lisa Randall, and two key advisors to President Barack Obama.). In reply to an alumnus' question, the school's current principal pledged that Intelligent Design would never be taught there as long as he continues to serve as its principal. When I received an unsolicited e-mail from my "pal" Bill Dembski, in which he noted that he knows scores of Texas high school principals who want ID to be taught only - and not evolution - in science classrooms, he couldn't answer when I asked him how many of these principals teach a rigorous freshman only introductory physics course (which Stuyvesant's principal still does, to the best of my knowledge). I respectfully submit that the overall quality of American science education would improve if the principals of other schools - private, parochial as well as public - followed in the lead of Stuyvesant's.

John Kwok of NY 10:58AM February 16, 2009

Mr. Williams,
I join Lars in demanding from you a sincere, comprehensive, explanation as to why you think Intelligent Design creationism does a better job - than modern evolutionary theory, which I will admit is "imperfect" - in explaining the origins, history and current composition of Earth's biodiversity. I've demanded such an explanation from the likes of Dembski and Behe, and have yet to read anything remotely close. Could you perhaps enlighten us, then?
I'm not taking "cheap shots" at Behe, Dembski, Luskin, and the rest of their risible, mendacious ilk. Their own abominable behavior towards their opponents merely demonstrates their ongoing hypocrisy as supposedly devout "Christians". Indeed, I have seen far more ethical behavior from atheists, agnostics, fellow Deists, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims, than I have read or witnessed personally from them. For these reasons they deserve to be regarded as mendacious intellectual pornographers.

John Kwok of NY 10:34AM February 16, 2009

Mr. Williams,
I have waited a long time for the Discovery Institute to provide some research evidence. I have waited for the peer-reviewed papers. I have waited for some semblance of scientific method from the ID proponents.
I don't want to read a popular novel about ID. I don't want to read a slick PR website. I would like to see ID put out a hands down, no holds barred explanation of not only what ID is, but why I should believe in it. I have asked a good Christian friend of mine to explain what the "Theory of Intelligent Design" is, but he is at a loss for words. Please, for his sake, enlighten me now.
I don't care who says what in regards to evolution or ID. I don't care if Darwin himself, on his deathbed, said ID was the one truth. I just ask for a simple explanation of ID.
Waiting,
Yours truly,
Lars

Lars of FL 12:47AM February 16, 2009

Thank you Mr. Kwok for the promptness of your response.
Eschewing the temptation to say tersely "I rest my case," which might well suffice, let me try to be more kind:
1. Insofar as I believe that virtually all ad hominem attacks, or character assassinations, irrespective of to whom directed or however instigated, are cowardly, I can only sympathize with you if you have been thereby maligned. Just do please note that I say "however instigated."
2. On a more consoling note, I wish to reassure you that if ID proponents are indeed no better than "mendacious intellectual pornographers," as you characterize them, then hardliner Darwinists surely have little to fear from their endeavors, and may rest content and secure within your unassailable bastions, protected by walls of academic exclusionism, reinforced by court injunctions, mustered to by great hoards of defenders, supported by goal-predestined and often state-sponsored research, championed by popular and scientific media, and perpetuated in high school and college classrooms where no serious challenge is to be brooked, no textbook caveat tolerated.
3. On a more personal note, I assure you that I am very deeply interested in what more sober-minded ID opponents have to say in this debate. There are good minds at work on both sides, and all should be afforded fair hearing. But neither cause is aided by malicious, demeaning language or the kind of cheap shots you seem to delight in taking at Behe, Dembski, et al. Or, is there perhaps some underlying psychology at work here that engenders incivility and precludes arguing the case on the merits alone?

Kennesaw Williams of TN 11:19PM February 15, 2009