It will be interesting to see how the National Center for Science Education Selling Evolution deals with the growing number of non-religious ID proponents.
It is heartening to see Dr. Dembski give the non-religious supporters of ID a thumbs-up. However, only a few posts later, he turns right around:
The European Council for the Advancement of Atheism
The Council of Europe may justly be renamed as “The European Council for the Advancement of Atheism.” To believe in a God who acts in the world (aka theism) henceforward constitutes “religious extremism.” It will be interesting to see at what point advocacy of ID is regarded in Europe as a “hate crime” against … science? … society? … humanity?
Oh, your’re wondering what this is all about. Check out the following report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the CU (assembly.coe.int).
In case you read through the long passage quoted, it said nothing about atheism. Instead, it labeled Intelligent Design as nothing but a creationist (hah) movement. I'll admit, ID has its roots amongst a group of Christians, however it codifies ideas that are distinct from religious concepts. Here you have two nonreligious bloggers already, writing about ID from a non-religious perspective. Something that Dr Dembski finds encouraging. And more will come.
However, what I don't understand is the apparent duplicitousness. Moments after patting William (Brookfield) on the back, Dr. Dembski uses the "atheism" label to insult the albeit misguided Council of Europe. In my opinion, you can't have it both ways.
I would like to take this moment to note that belief in a creator-god does not equal belief in Intelligent Design. This is a fact that I know Dr. Dembski agrees with. You can believe in a god and be against ID - you can even believe that this god interacts with matter in this universe, however, religious anti-IDists (or religious darwinists) will say that the actions of this god are supernatural, and thus not verifiable scientifically. Thus, a philosophical topic. You can be non-theistic and also be a supporter of ID.
So to call them atheists because they don't care for ID is not only logically unfounded, emotionally charged and stereotypically-based, it works against every effort that Dr. Dembski and other IDists have tried to make to show that ID is not a religious idea but instead a scientific one. And it also alienates those who you seek to attract to your fold.
So what do you think, readers, should the anti-atheist rhetoric be thrown out of the ID movement of is it here to stay? Allow me to suggest that if the polls are to be trusted, then religious darwinists outnumber the nonreligious by at least 3 to 1. Think about that.
(Before everyone jumps on the numbers, I'm assuming 10% of the population is non-religious, and that 40% of the population in one form or another accepts darwinism. Now you can cook the numbers and suggest that only atheists truly accept darwinism, but I'm going off of the polls that allow religious people to agree with evolution without neccessitating that they abandon their religious beliefs in answering the questions.)
8 comments:
Hi EJ,
Thank you for your post.
The title of the European Council Document is ...
"The dangers of creationism in education"
William Dembski's interpretation is..
"The European Council for the Advancement of Atheism"
Another title of another possible European Council Document...
"The dangers of atheism in education"
A "Dembskian" interpretation...
"The European Council for the Advancement of Creationism."
Hopefully, William Dembski would be just as much against the "The European Council for the Advancement of Creationism"
as he is against "The European Council for the Advancement of Atheism."
The problem, as I see it, is not with "atheism" or "creationism" per se, but with the militant fundamentalism being expressed here. Someone it seems, is trying to enshrine their preferred viewpoint into law (force) by claiming that the opposing side (including ID) is "dangerous." I am against both creationist fundamentalism and atheist fundamentalism.
...having said that (about the dangerous EC document) I think you have a valid point EJ about Dr. Dembski's diplomacy (or lack thereof). If the *real* problem is the document's narrow fundamentalism, then it is *that* (not its atheism) that should be addressed. Of course Dr. Dembski is free to speak as he sees fit, and so are we...
Anonymous said...
This is a very funny blog! You ID guys are taking over thw world! Ha ha!
I figure we should all try to be as diplomatic and as funny as possible :)
EJ,
I should just correct you here..
"You can be non-theistic and also be a supporter of ID, such as the both of us here on this blog."
While you do indeed appear to be atheistic (nothing wrong with that!) I am in fact non-religiously theistic. Non-religious in that I treat the theistic hypothesis as a hypothesis not as a religious dogma.
Ah, I see, I misunderstood you. I'll correct the post.
"You can be non-theistic and also be a supporter of ID, such as the both of us here on this blog."
However religious ID proponents are quite clear about who the Intelligent Designer was - if you are a non-religious ID proponent then it means you are saying even less about who the IDer was and how he/she/it went about the design process.
Here are some questions that I really want a non-religious ID proponent to answer:
Who / What was the intelligent designer.
What exactly did the designer design?
How id it do the design and manufacture of whatever it is you are proposing.
How can you verify your claims above experimentally.
While you do indeed appear to be atheistic (nothing wrong with that!) I am in fact non-religiously theistic. Non-religious in that I treat the theistic hypothesis as a hypothesis not as a religious dogma.
But there's something odd about this hypothesis, in that it's one that science can neither prove nor disprove. Do you believe that we ought to take a faith-based approach to science?
Do you believe that we ought to take a faith-based approach to science?
No, a logic based approach (supplimented by empirical testing) to science is what I would suggest.
No, a logic based approach (supplimented by empirical testing) to science is what I would suggest.
So how about you apply your logical and empirical skills to answering my questions?
* Who / What was the intelligent designer.
* What exactly did the designer design?
* How did it do the design and manufacture of whatever it is you are proposing was designed.
* How can you verify your claims above experimentally.
Hi Dobson,
Who / What was the intelligent designer? What exactly did the designer design?
As I said before, in the case of the E-coli flagella I suspect that we have underestimated the intelligence of biological aggregates -- this is my own speculation and it has not been scientifically (empirically) established.
With regard to empirical evidence of (biological) ID (IE., design detection not designer identification) I would suggest the mass experimentation of Behe's
approach;
Study (experiment with) many trillions of generations of organism (malaria, bacteria, AIDs) to see what stochastic (RM&NS etc.) mechanisms can produce (in terms of new forms and form modification).
Study (observe/experiment) with intelligence to see what intelligent design can produce (in terms of new forms and form modifications (beyond what is accessible to orthodox stochastic processes).
Sort all of life’s aspects into two basic categories of;
#1."(modifications for which) intelligent design not required."
and
#2. "Intelligent design required'."
Continue refining categories as new data/evidence comes
to light.
----------------
With regard to "design detection" one is claiming that the patterns are such that they constitute evidence of an intelligent, pattern producing agent.
With regard to "designer identification" OTOH one is claiming to have more information about the designer beyond just "an intelligent, pattern producing agent (exists or once existed) and was required to produce this object/machine/rotary device."
Post a Comment