Robert John Russell : Intelligent Design is Not Science and Does Not Qualify to be Taught in Public School Science Classes

Can someone in Seattle please read this out loud to the DI?

I would send it to them, but they have shown an amazing propensity to have suboptimal reading comprehension skills.

pointless.

If the DI's mission was to fairly evaluate ideas based on relevance and evidence, they wouldn't be the DI, now, would they.

They made their mission clear in the wedge document. Reading comprehension has little to do with it. What goes in is most certainly unrelated to what comes out in this case.

There is a straightforward reason that "the theory of ID" does not qualify to be taught in public school science classes as an alternative to Darwinian evolution, but that's not it. The reason is that there is no "theory of ID", and thus nothing to be taught. When it comes to specific empirical claims made by proponents of ID, such as that the flagellum is unevolvable, Russell's statement about agency doesn't touch it -- it would not be a valid reason not to teach this claim. The valid reason not to teach the claim is that it is contradicted by both evidence and logic. It might be reasonable to teach in science classes why the claim that some systems are unevolvable is based on faulty logic and is contradicted by the evidence, just as the claim that South America never could have bordered Africa is based on faulty logic and is contradicted by the evidence. And as an aside it could be pointed out that "continental drift is impossible" is not a scientific theory and thus never could have been taught as such in science classes; that science is about seeking explanations for phenomena, not simply denying offered explanations.

Popper's ghost--But isn't "continental drift is impossible" really just an awkward way of restating that present-day geography is in part a result of movement of buoyant pieces of the Earth's crust? Does recasting it as the negative of the original really make it a different theory? The problem is that the allegedly contrary evidence is all horsehockey. Looked at in this way, the "theory" of intelligent design evaporates completely (as you say, 'there is no theory of ID.')

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they were learned men then what seems to be the problem. And what about the opinions the sacred writers held about other happy stuff. :-)

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Yeah, better to convert them with the stuff they have not learnt from experience and the light of reason. You know, their gaps in their knowledge. You know, like the God of the gaps. :-)

Nice article. Thanks for posting it.

But isn't "continental drift is impossible" really just an awkward way of restating that present-day geography is in part a result of movement of buoyant pieces of the Earth's crust?

Does recasting it as the negative of the original really make it a different theory?

The problem is that the allegedly contrary evidence is all horsehockey.

Looked at in this way, the "theory" of intelligent design evaporates completely (as you say, 'there is no theory of ID.')

Robert John Russell states:
"The lesson to Christians is that we should abandon ID as fools' gold..."

Since when were design arguments "fool's gold" for Christians? From the gospel of John (1:1-4):

1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2) The same was in the beginning with God.
***3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.***
4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

John 1:3 is a teleological assertion from a cornerstone text of Christianity. According to Mr. Russell's logic, this verse is therefore "fool's gold" par excellence. Some Christians will beg to differ with him on this point.

Best regards,
apollo230

The IDers don't agree with you, they think god...er the Intelligent Designer, only made a few things. That is why many Christians accuse IDers of having a "little god". Take your Biblical argument up with them.

Since when were design arguments "fool's gold" for Christians? From the gospel of John (1:1-4):

So any contention that God engaged in any act of creation (design) is a theologically dangerous notion, PvM? Are Christians only safe then if they assume that He (or She) was (and is) a total bystander -not intervening in this world in any way, shape or form?

Best regards,
apollo230

Thanks for your personalized response, PvM.

You know and I know that God as Creator (and by logical extension, designer) has been a cornerstone of traditional Christianity. Indeed, the word "Creator" is a veritable synonym for God in the minds of most Christians. My understanding of your position is that for Christianity to achieve intellectual respectability, this core belief must now be cast out. I do not see how such a redaction can take place without changing the essence of Christianity altogether. After all, Jesus was categorically identified as the creative "Logos" by no less than the gospel of John.

Additionally, if God is to be stripped of His traditional role as Creator, can the only logical replacement, namely an endless regression of purely natural (material) causes, explain life's origin and particularly essence?

Best regards,
apollo230

A friendly advisory to all who would respond, I am only airing my thoughts on the matter, there is no intent here to start what could easily become a long-winded discussion, for which I have little desire. Good night, all!

I am only airing my thoughts on the matter, there is no intent here to start what could easily become a long-winded discussion, for which I have little desire.

I still suspect, from what I see in the writings of Philip Johnson, from the "Wedge Document", from people like Ann Coulter and her "Godless" book, and from many of the writings of members of the ID/Creationist movement, that most of the ID/creationist political activity is meant to continue stoking the culture wars.

The pronouncements of these people spring from a really ugly, deep-seated bigotry. Their attacks seem to me to suggest that they think their sectarian views are far superior to all others and anything that disagrees with their religion must be vanquished.

Other religious views that accommodate the findings of science are considered heresy, and the people who hold such views are simply joining those "evil Darwinists". Bigots will see Robert John Russell's views as simply accommodating Satan.

Bigotry seems to be the "in thing" these days. Historically it has often enjoyed political support because politicians find its divisiveness useful in keeping people's attention diverted from real issues. And the bigots who feel they have the support of their kings and political rulers become emboldened in the belief that they are on the verge of winning if only they can sustain a major thrust in their war on their enemies.

Even when we try to ignore them, they still attack. The religion channels on TV continue to show hell-fire-and-brimstone preachers filling their follower's heads full of fear and paranoia about what we scientists and "unbelievers" are doing to grab their children and send them to hell.

You would think that by now we would be living in more enlightened times, but apparently enough people manage to find a way to live in a paranoid echo chamber so that the rest of us still have to deal with the damage they cause.

There's no need to discuss anything, Toejam, with somebody lacking civility.

And I do not mean PvM, I meant you.

LOL.

yeah, calling your response a strawman of what Pim said was certainly uncivil of me.

*slaps own wrist"

naughty, naughty, boy.

Comment #161929 Posted by apollo230 on February 20, 2007 10:17 PM (e) Thanks for your personalized response, PvM. You know and I know that God as Creator (and by logical extension, designer) has been a cornerstone of traditional Christianity. Indeed, the word "Creator" is a veritable synonym for God in the minds of most Christians. My understanding of your position is that for Christianity to achieve intellectual respectability, this core belief must now be cast out. I do not see how such a redaction can take place without changing the essence of Christianity altogether. After all, Jesus was categorically identified as the creative "Logos" by no less than the gospel of John. Additionally, if God is to be stripped of His traditional role as Creator, can the only logical replacement, namely an endless regression of purely natural (material) causes, explain life's origin and particularly essence? Best regards, apollo230

Comment #161931 Posted by apollo230 on February 20, 2007 10:23 PM (e) A friendly advisory to all who would respond, I am only airing my thoughts on the matter, there is no intent here to start what could easily become a long-winded discussion, for which I have little desire. Good night, all!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Additionally, if God is to be stripped of His traditional role as Creator, can the only logical replacement, namely an endless regression of purely natural (material) causes, explain life's origin and particularly essence?

So any contention that God engaged in any act of creation (design) is a theologically dangerous notion, PvM? Are Christians only safe then if they assume that He (or She) was (and is) a total bystander -not intervening in this world in any way, shape or form?

Hello, PvM. I do not understand this strawman rhetoric. All I was doing was phrasing my understanding (interpretation) of your position-there was no offense intended.

So, PvM, are you saying that teleology is theologically unsound in general, or ONLY when it calls itself a scientific position?

Best regards,
apollo230

Richard, I have no idea what John 1:1 means, either. You are going to have to talk to the alleged Chief of Creation to get an answer.

Best regards,
apollo230

Since when were design arguments "fool's gold" for Christians?

— apollo230

...working out a challenging but immanently more honest interpretation of science in light of Christian faith.

— Robert John Russell

David B. --

I read Russell's comment differently. I understood the phrase "interpretation of science in light of Christian faith" to mean "understanding the theological implications of scientific results in the context of Christian faith." I don't think he's advocating changing science to match scripture ... dealing with the implications of actual scientific results is what makes the endeavor "challenging but immanently more honest."

Since these are religious arguments disguised as 'scientific' ones, as such it can only serve to do disservice to Christian faith per St Augustine's warnings.

So any contention that God engaged in any act of creation (design) is a theologically dangerous notion, PvM?

My own view is that God does act within nature and that Darwinian evolution is the result.

ID is scientifically vacuous and theologically risky.

So, PvM, are you saying that teleology is theologically unsound in general, or ONLY when it calls itself a scientific position?

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Thanks for posting this wise advice from Saint Augustine. The resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven indeed cannot be learnt from experience and the light of reason, and even Phillip E. Johnson himself should be proud to hold these wise views. These are some wonderful advices. Thank you.

You seem to be all over the map here with your 'arguments'.

Apollo230 quotes from his bible and then acknowledges to Richard that he has no idea what it means.

I would suggest that closer inspection would reveal that neither apollo230 nor any of his cohorts can demonstrate that they know anything about the mind of god, no matter how much they quote from their holy books.

If they would simply engage in a little more humble introspection about this, we wouldn't be having all these religion wars and religious intrusions into the science classroom.

If they would simply engage in a little more humble introspection about this, we wouldn't be having all these religion wars and religious intrusions into the science classroom.

apollo230 wrote: Robert John Russell states: "The lesson to Christians is that we should abandon ID as fools' gold..." Since when were design arguments "fool's gold" for Christians? From the gospel of John (1:1-4):

Sir_Toejam:

I agree with you completely. It was just one of my whimsical "I have a dream" things.

I suppose if we know anything about these fundamentalists (a preacher friend of mine says the emphasis should be on "mentalist"), it's that they can't seem to help themselves. They live in that paranoid echo chamber with the echoes reinforced and amplified by their religious handlers.

there are only two options for what ''agency'' could possibly mean: either a natural agent or God.<.i>