tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post6591222809913894786..comments2024-02-18T12:18:45.788-05:00Comments on Sun and Shield: More on the Kitzmiller Intelligent Design case, and on Intelligent DesignMartin LaBarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-73067784130594002592009-08-12T03:30:28.383-04:002009-08-12T03:30:28.383-04:00Thanks again, Michael.
I don't think it does ...Thanks again, Michael.<br /><br />I don't think it does follow that we are to "only rely on faith to study the nature of these things," and if I said, or implied, that, I didn't mean to.<br /><br />As I see it, we even have some Biblical mandate to study their nature, both as stewards of what God has created, and which has come to be, and because God reveals Himself (to those who believe in His existence) through nature, in part.<br /><br />As you say, we seem to differ on what may be accomplished in such study. I don't believe that it is possible to prove the existence of God to unbelievers through such study, and part of that impossibility is that we can't prove that things were designed, in some sense, to be the way that they were. I recognize that other people disagree with me here, but, so far, the evidence of history seems to be on my side. I would be most happy to be shown to be wrong. It would, I suppose, make evangelism a lot easier.<br /><br />Thanks.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-36247485222607733752009-08-11T12:26:37.753-04:002009-08-11T12:26:37.753-04:00It appears that we just disagree that there is a d...It appears that we just disagree that there is a difference in exploring design, and setting out to prove that there is a designer.<br /><br />I am not much of a fan of efforts to “prove” that God exists or to extrapolate exactly what type of being he must be based on things that exist. Surely natural theology takes on this task, but ID (regardless of philosophical or religious motivations of its proponents) is directed at something else. But we’ve been around on this issue already, so I'll leave it be.<br /><br />But I did check out the passage that you referenced – Hebrews 11:3. The passage seems to be concerned with how things came to be, that is, there is now something rather than nothing because God spoke such things into existence. It doesn’t say anything about the nature of created things as they exist, but only comments on how such things came to exist. Because we must faith that God spoke things into existence from nothing, how does it follow that we can only rely on faith in studying the nature of these things?Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-88862800890720235202009-08-11T04:42:36.345-04:002009-08-11T04:42:36.345-04:00Thanks, Michael.
I agree that, as you say, if the...Thanks, Michael.<br /><br />I agree that, as you say, if the ID movement wants to accomplish much, it will need to put out some good science. So far, it really hasn't, as no less than Michael Behe has agreed.<br /><br />I personally don't think that such an endeavor, that is, putting forth scientific proof that there is a designer, is possible. Hebrews 11:3 says that such things are comprehended by faith, implying, to me, that they can't be comprehended in other ways. The existence of God has eluded scientific proof for centuries, and I don't see that changing. I don't see such a proof (or disproof, either) as being within the realm of science. I could, of course, be wrong about this.<br /><br />Lest there be any doubt, I do believe in God, and that God caused things to be the way they are now, and that he designed things so that they would come to be as they are now. For example, I believe that he endowed Carbon atoms with certain properties that make them suitable to be an essential ingredient in most of the molecules essential to living things. I believe such things, but I can't prove them.<br /><br />Thanks for your valuable comments.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-63959766066907235372009-08-10T22:18:52.855-04:002009-08-10T22:18:52.855-04:00There’s still a distinction here that I believe is...There’s still a distinction here that I believe is glossed over. One may have an agenda and employ a certain agent in achieving desired goals. But we can never automatically equate the agenda and the agent (Of course, you could dislike both, e.g., and lock up the murderer and ban his gun). Discovery Institute uses ID as an agent, with the agenda of liberating certain fields from a philosophy they find harmful. And I’ll concede the point that this may be the most animating principle of ID (if not, at least, the most popular). But ID must also be judged on its own merits (just as evolution must be judged apart from any atheistic or materialistic agenda some of its proponents might hold). <br /><br />Discovery Institute engaging in a “religious endeavor?” Sure. ID, itself a religious endeavor? Not inherently. If ID has any life behind it, it will have to begin offering positive insight into scientific endeavors. If it is to succeed, I’d hope it be on those grounds, for it is on those grounds that it bills itself regardless of those who want to use it for other ends.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-84058737672378762002009-08-10T06:58:53.196-04:002009-08-10T06:58:53.196-04:00The problem is not with the religious beliefs, but...The problem is not with the religious beliefs, but with a stated goal, which is, as I said in the previous comment, to argue that it's legitimate to study what you correctly say is "outside the realm of science" in science classes.<br /><br />See this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia article</a> on the Wedge strategy, and the document, from the Discovery Institute, which is the first footnote in the article. If that doesn't set forth a "religious endeavor," I don't know what one is.<br /><br />Thanks for your comment.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-4988733758909658312009-08-09T17:41:37.648-04:002009-08-09T17:41:37.648-04:00It’s the word “supernatural” that caught my eye to...It’s the word “supernatural” that caught my eye to begin with. To characterize the designer as supernatural, at this point, seems to be outside of the realm of science. I don’t know of any ID proponents that are arguing for a supernatural designer as determined by science. Most certainly many of them do believe that the designer is supernatural, but they come to that decision via other disciplines. Just as theistic evolutionist certainly don’t base their belief in God-directed evolution on pure science, it seems unfair to characterize ID as a religious endeavor simply because of its adherents religious beliefs. Can one not study design without studying the designer?Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-65549825366114467762009-08-07T05:37:51.292-04:002009-08-07T05:37:51.292-04:00Thank you for reading, and your comment, Michael. ...Thank you for reading, and your comment, Michael. I quote from the Discovery Institute's "Science Education Policy" <a href="http://www.discovery.org/a/3164" rel="nofollow">web page</a>, on this date: <br />"Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner."<br /><br />The first clause is new to me, and, apparently, is a change of direction, probably because of the <i>Kitzmiller</i> case, in part. The rest of it indicates that the Discovery Institute believes that a "scientific debate" over design is possible. I think that shows that they, in fact, <b>do</b> have and advocate the belief that you quoted from my post in your comment.<br /><br />Thanks again.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-74951966291916104932009-08-06T18:05:31.713-04:002009-08-06T18:05:31.713-04:00Sir, you characterization of ID adherents as havin...Sir, you characterization of ID adherents as having the specific belief that “It is possible to demonstrate supernatural design scientifically” is false. There’s a reason Intelligent Design is known as ID and not SD. It doesn’t pit supernatural causes against natural causes. It pits intelligent causes against undirected natural causes.<br /><br />Is the intelligent cause inside or outside of nature? That’s a separate question as to whether an intelligent cause has acted within nature.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-81156555959268184032009-07-06T11:45:22.805-04:002009-07-06T11:45:22.805-04:00Thanks.
Well, there's a lot of that (made up ...Thanks.<br /><br />Well, there's a lot of that (made up one's mind already) on many sides of many issues.<br /><br />You may want to look at my post on the differences between ID and Young-Earth Creationism. (Last post in the list of Significant Posts, on the right of my blog.)Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-75901860384462585142009-07-06T11:44:05.008-04:002009-07-06T11:44:05.008-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-31133765870042997192009-07-06T10:32:24.543-04:002009-07-06T10:32:24.543-04:00Thank you for these posts about the difference bet...Thank you for these posts about the difference between id and ID. You put your finger RIGHT ON the things that just drive me nuts about ID and you said it far better 'n I coulda. :-)<br /><br />At a recent family reunion, a cousin of mine was going on and on with what she thought was "scientific proof" of ID, none of which was either scientific or proof. She had made up her mind and was not about to be confused with facts - - - so I got up and began clearing tables so that I wouldn't "seethe" over on her. :-)Keetha Broyleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07850398844489825600noreply@blogger.com