My internet stalker says (here) that the people of Intelligent Design insist that Intelligent Design is not religious. Well, let’s see.
“We are taking an intuition most people have [the
belief in God] and making it a scientific and
academic enterprise. We are removing the most
important cultural roadblock to accepting the role
of God as creator.”
– Phillip Johnson quoted, Enlisting Science to Find the
Fingerprints of a Creator, The LA Times, 3/25/2001.
“If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of
Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully
human and fully divine) and view Christ as the
telos toward which God is drawing the whole of
creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves
Christ out of the picture must be seen as
– William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between
Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press,
“There’s a difference of opinion about how
important this debate [advocating intelligent
design] is. What I always say is that it’s not just
scientific theory. The question is best understood
as: Is God real or imaginary?”
– Phillip Johnson quoted, The Search for Intelligent Design
in the Universe, Silicon Valley Magazine, January 9 2000.
“The world is a mirror representing the divine
life…Intelligent design readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
intelligent design is just the Logos theology of
John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information
– William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August
Well, I’ve said that quite a number of times. I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that I think in fact from — from other perspectives, that the designer is in fact God. Michael Behe Kitzmiller trial testimony
I could go on, but I don’t need to.
Here’s the problem. If the authors of ID have said the things above AND the authors of ID have stated the things that Joe claims…
Then what does it all mean?
It means that Intelligent Design proponents are fundamentally dishonest. The answer you get (if you get one at all) will depend on the location or person asking. If the location is a church or the questioner is a Christian, then the response is that ID is religious, specifically Christian. If the location is not a church or the questioner is a scientist, politician, or court of law, then ID is not religious.
So, which is it? Well, that’s really been settled. Joe does not get to decide, even Dembski does not get to decide. The US federal court (Kitzmiller trial) has determined that ID is fundamentally religious in nature. No one has argued the point in a court, so as far as everyone is concerned, the concept is settled. Until ID starts actually doing science, then there really isn’t any argument about it.
Until ID presents a valid, testable, falsifiable, and discriminatory hypothesis, then it doesn’t matter. ID can’t be science. I guess it could be a philosophy, but as we see from the quotes above, the creators of the notion of ID all say that ID is religious and in fact, Christian.
Again, all it means is that the proponents of ID will say anything to try to influence someone. They aren’t scientists or even clerics, they are salesmen. That’s all.
Aside: I do NOT want to spend this entire blog arguing with JoeG. I’ve had this conversation with him literally dozens of times. In fact, we actually had a formal debate about whether ID is anti-evolution or not (here). Joe is fundamentally incapable of admitting error. He’s spent years trying to support his claim that hail is not made out of water. Some of the latest funnies are when he thought that “mol” was short for “molecule” thereby missing the entire point of a discussion on thermodynamics and entropy. He has made the claim that the “m” in “Mya” stands for “millienia”. Then he gets mad and starts cursing at us. My original blog has dozens of comments that begin with “F*** you” and other similar comments.
I want this blog to be a place where people can have discussions and relate information about science, creationism, skepticism, etc. I do NOT want this to be me arguing with Joe. He’s a jerk. I’ve spent years on the After the Bar Closes forum talking past him. I don’t want the blog to go that route. A forum is better place for that, but he refuses to stay on the forum for long. I think, mainly, because we keep asking questions that he can’t answer.
Honestly, if I had evidence that one of the fundamental theories of modern science is wrong, no one would get me to shut up about it. I’d be sending it out to every peer-reviewed journal in existence. I’d be on every forum, with the full evidence, the full explanation, and be available to answer anyone’s questions. With ID proponents, we get comments like “you’re too stupid to understand” and “I’ve done this already” (no link though).
ID, as a friend says, is just a fish flopping in the bottom of the boat waiting to die. That fish may think it’s going to stand up, kill all the humans, steal the boat, and ride off into the sunset… but everyone knows the truth. The fish just isn’t willing to admit it.