NY Times: Expelled from "Expelled"?

No, ID proponents do not "insist that ID has nothing to do with religion." That's a distortion. There's obviously some overlap of interest, which is what you're seeing in the marketing of this film.

The two share either an actual rejection of, or an openness to rejecting, philosophical materialism as expressed in naturalistic evolution. But ID is not dependent on religion, not dependent on religious texts (which is why the repeated naming of it as "creationism" is such a tiresome distortion), and religion is not dependent on ID.

People who have a certain "small is better" view of economics have shared interests with scientists who believe in global warming. You would find a considerable overlap of interest there. If there were "small is better" groups out there, then Al Gore most assuredly would have marketed his "Inconvenient Truth" among them. By the logic you're expressing here, a global warming skeptic could say, "see, it's just economic advocacy!"

An overlap of interest between economics and climate science does not mean that climate science is economics. An overlap of interest between religion and ID does not mean that ID is religion.

The two share either an actual rejection of, or an openness to rejecting, philosophical materialism as expressed in naturalistic evolution.

But ID is not dependent on religion, not dependent on religious texts (which is why the repeated naming of it as “creationism” is such a tiresome distortion), and religion is not dependent on ID.

An overlap of interest between economics and climate science does not mean that climate science is economics. An overlap of interest between religion and ID does not mean that ID is religion.

Naturalistic evolution is that which is assumed and understood to be directed only by natural law and chance, or taking place in a closed system of natural cause and effect. Evolution is not necessarily an example of philosophical materialism (theistic evolution is not PM) but naturalistic evolution generally is.

As to the rest of your comments, I could argue further, but you've heard it before. I thought it was worth my time to point out what I've said, but I have no illusions of being able to convince anyone here that ID is science--you didn't respond to the meat of my comment, and I'm pretty sure you have your mind made up anyway...

The link to the "harshest review" seems to be taking me nowhere ...
might be my configuration here, might work OK in an hour, but then
again a check might be worthwhile.

Was there any meat to your comment Tom? I saw some claims about peoples motivations, but nothing about the validity of ID's claim to be legitimate science.

Tom G: ...I have no illusions of being able to convince anyone here that ID is science

--you didn't respond to the meat of my comment, and I'm pretty sure you have your mind made up anyway...

Naturalistic evolution is that which is assumed and understood to be directed only by natural law and chance, or taking place in a closed system of natural cause and effect. Evolution is not necessarily an example of philosophical materialism (theistic evolution is not PM) but naturalistic evolution generally is.

As to the rest of your comments, I could argue further, but you’ve heard it before. I thought it was worth my time to point out what I’ve said, but I have no illusions of being able to convince anyone here that ID is science–you didn’t respond to the meat of my comment, and I’m pretty sure you have your mind made up anyway…

Tom G: Naturalistic evolution is that which is assumed and understood to be directed only by natural law and chance, or taking place in a closed system of natural cause and effect. Evolution is not necessarily an example of philosophical materialism (theistic evolution is not PM) but naturalistic evolution generally is.

As to the rest of your comments, I could argue further, but you've heard it before. I thought it was worth my time to point out what I've said, but I have no illusions of being able to convince anyone here that ID is science--you didn't respond to the meat of my comment, and I'm pretty sure you have your mind made up anyway...

Tom, you can deny all you like (three times before the cock crows?), but the evidence is there: ID is just creationism wearing a lab coat.

And the lab coat is tattered, has been fished out of a dumpster, and smells of old coffee grounds.

This is easily, and amusingly, demonstrable in two words: cdesign proponentsists.

Now, see, what you've done is waded into a blog that's catalogued dozens of very real links between ID and creationism, and you think simply stamping your feet and saying "NUH UH!" is meat?

I was about to respond to CM--but phantomreader reminded me why I don't hang around here much...

But I'll do it anyway, one more shot. It's not because I enjoy the kind of rudeness and complete discourtesy that keeps showing up here, but because there are answers to your questions.

The meat to my comment, CM, was this: that ID has interests that overlap with religion does not, by itself, invalidate it. PvM's post implied that it does, but that's not the case.

Now, I understand there is a strong case on your side that ID is not a science. I don't know why that in itself should invalidate what Expelled is about, however. In fact, I don't know how it has anything to do with the movie at all. I haven't seen the movie, so I have access to no more information than the rest of you have. The movie is not about religion. It's about academic oppression.

Whether ID is "a science" is not the interesting issue. Whether ID is "science" (without the article) is a little closer to the issue, but it's not quite there, either. Here's the question: are there scientists doing real science who have some sympathies with the possibility of Intelligent Design, whether they want to call their science ID or not? And are they free to say that they have those sympathies? And is there freedom for ID to develop as a science, or even for scientists to explore whether there is potential for ID to develop as science? That's what the movie is about.

All this about whether ID is, at this stage, "a science," is a red herring. It might be applicable in other contexts, but it's not the topic this time.

The topic of the movie is academic freedom. PvM implied that it's really religion in disguise. I made the point that this would be like saying that global warming is really "small is better" economics in disguise.

No one has responded to that so far except Stanton, who totally missed the analogy. An "off-topic blurb"? Analogies are like that, Stanton--they are always in one sense off-topic, but for the purpose of clarifying a topic.

Now--a final note to phantomreader: that kind of abuse just doesn't score debate points. You and others can continue it if you like, and if you do, I'll just exit the conversation. I prefer to stick to the actual issues, myself.

The meat to my comment, CM, was this: that ID has interests that overlap with religion does not, by itself, invalidate it. PvM’s post implied that it does, but that’s not the case.

Here’s the question: are there scientists doing real science who have some sympathies with the possibility of Intelligent Design, whether they want to call their science ID or not? And are they free to say that they have those sympathies? And is there freedom for ID to develop as a science, or even for scientists to explore whether there is potential for ID to develop as science? That’s what the movie is about.

The topic of the movie is academic freedom. PvM implied that it’s really religion in disguise. I made the point that this would be like saying that global warming is really “small is better” economics in disguise.

Tom G, perhaps you are one "Thinking Christian"? I think it has been explained to you quite thoroughly on your own blog why ID is not science: because ID plain and simply does not fulfill the requirement of providing scientifically testable and meaningful predictions.

ID is often advertised as following basically the same principles as archaeology, SETI and criminal investigation. But this is simply not true. The last three are not based on gaps in our knowledge. They are based on positive evidence.

For example, SETI does not try and explain any existing observations. It in fact searches for genuinely new kinds of observations: radio signals from other planets. It makes quite a bit difference to predict an observation, as opposed to being merely able to accomodate an observation (and in ID's case, any observation).

Archaeology can, of course, largely explain new observations based on the background knowledge (existing evidence) we have on human civilizations. But when an achaeologist is in doubt, assessing a could-be-designed artefact, she does not e.g. resort to an "explanatory filter". She puts the artefact under a microscope, making a prediction on what she should discover on the surface of the artefact if it was human-designed. This is a genuine prediction, because it is fair to say that she does not know the answer in advance.

In criminal investigation, we need to know quite a bit about the "designer", including her motives and whereabouts at a given time, before anyone gets convicted. Even when reaching a conclusion that a crime probably took place, even though there is no suspect, a criminal investigator can be sure that some human could have, and probably was motivated to have, committed the crime.

ID, on the other hand, only tries to accomodate existing observations without making any predictions. Its logic is also quite curious. Take the flagellum, for example. Because human, the only known designer, can't create a flagellum, and because person X happens to also doubt the ability of evolution to produce a flagellum, without knowing the relevant probabilities, person X should somehow reason that the flagellum probably didn't evolve but was instead designed. Person X apparently can just assume that designers surpassing human skill exist at a high probability.

Tom G: All this about whether ID is, at this stage, "a science," is a red herring. It might be applicable in other contexts, but it's not the topic this time... The topic of the movie is academic freedom.

Tom, based on it's abilities to correctly model and predict what we see in the world, ID doesn't appear to qualify as either "science" or "a science".

Also, having individuals such as Wells and Egnor writing about ID do a disservice to ID's cause, considering their recent posts about the Dardel paper. From their statements, they either a.) do not understand selection or b.) are being blatently dishonest.

Tom G: The meat to my comment, CM, was this: that ID has interests that overlap with religion does not, by itself, invalidate it. PvM's post implied that it does, but that's not the case.

Now, I understand there is a strong case on your side that ID is not a science.

I don't know why that in itself should invalidate what Expelled is about, however. In fact, I don't know how it has anything to do with the movie at all. I haven't seen the movie, so I have access to no more information than the rest of you have. The movie is not about religion. It's about academic oppression.

Whether ID is "a science" is not the interesting issue. Whether ID is "science" (without the article) is a little closer to the issue, but it's not quite there, either. Here's the question: are there scientists doing real science who have some sympathies with the possibility of Intelligent Design, whether they want to call their science ID or not? And are they free to say that they have those sympathies? And is there freedom for ID to develop as a science, or even for scientists to explore whether there is potential for ID to develop as science? That's what the movie is about.

All this about whether ID is, at this stage, "a science," is a red herring. It might be applicable in other contexts, but it's not the topic this time. The topic of the movie is academic freedom. PvM implied that it's really religion in disguise. I made the point that this would be like saying that global warming is really "small is better" economics in disguise.

No one has responded to that so far except Stanton, who totally missed the analogy. An "off-topic blurb"? Analogies are like that, Stanton--they are always in one sense off-topic, but for the purpose of clarifying a topic.

Now--a final note to phantomreader: that kind of abuse just doesn't score debate points. You and others can continue it if you like, and if you do, I'll just exit the conversation. I prefer to stick to the actual issues, myself.

phantomreader42: If, as you claim, ID is not creationism, why was it possible to create an ID textbook by taking a creationist textbook, replacing all references to god with “design” weasel-words, and changing nothing else? If ID and creationism are different things, how can the one be substituted for the other, word-for-word, without any change in meaning? This is all well-documented, the search-replace even left behind evidence in intermediate versions, hence the term “cdesign proponentsists”.

Roger Moore? Bad move by Ben Stein, why would you want to @#$% off James Bond?

minimalist: Tom, you can deny all you like (three times before the cock crows?), but the evidence is there: ID is just creationism wearing a lab coat. And the lab coat is tattered, has been fished out of a dumpster, and smells of old coffee grounds.

David Edwards: ID is nothing more than creationism in drag caught trying to steal a lab coat.

Well after all, the title “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” does say intellicence isn't allowed. They found out this guy has some intelligence, so they tried to disallow him from it. :p

Is there any conceivable experiment that might be performed to distinguish between "naturalistic evolution" and "theistic evolution?"

Tom G: What do you mean when you say it is not an issue whether ID is (a) science or not? Are you suggesting that academics is not about science? Or that non-science should be studied at academic institutions?

sympathies with the possibility of Intelligent Design

Tom G, if you want to head over to After the Bar Closes, you can take a look at the 'Explore Evolution' thread, which is about the textbook co-written by DI fellow Paul Nelson to 'critically analyse' evolution. You can watch as the book is torn up into scraps of creationist arguments, some decades old, all backed up with links to the sources. Then you can ask Paul himself, who's on that thread, if the DI is pushing creationism in a lab coat or not.

are there scientists doing real science who have some sympathies with the possibility of Intelligent Design, whether they want to call their science ID or not? And are they free to say that they have those sympathies? And is there freedom for ID to develop as a science, or even for scientists to explore whether there is potential for ID to develop as science? That’s what the movie is about.

Tom G lied: "But ID is not dependent on religion, not dependent on religious texts (which is why the repeated naming of it as "creationism" is such a tiresome distortion)..."

I think it has been explained to you quite thoroughly on your own blog why ID is not science

If ID is unscientific, then science departments are correct in shunning it and penalizing academics who hitch a substantive portion of their career to it. They would be equally correct in discriminiating shunning Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers. Academic freedom *does not* include the right to waste department resources on non-scientific pursuits.

Patches, I'd recommend Mike Gene's book to you as well.

Tom G said: "that kind of abuse just doesn’t score debate points."

Well that's the thing, isn't it. You see, science does not advance by debate. Debate is a tool to persuade people, often people who have little knowledge of the field involved.

Science advances when theories are able to predict and explain the real world. "Goddidit" does no such thing. Neither does "A designer did it," and for exactly the same reasons.

Tom G said: "But science is not our only basis for knowledge.

No, just reliable knowledge.

Consider, if the questions you think are answered by non-science were really so important, wouldn't the answers be consistent?

Sure, questions of beauty and taste are not scientific questions, but they are also relatively personal. I may not like the same music that others do, in fact, I have pretty good evidence that that is the case. Does that mean I'm wrong? No. So is knowledge of beauty important in a sense beyond the very personal? Nope.

"I know what I hate, and I don't hate that."
Montgomery Burns of the Simpsons.

Hey - hold on a minute. I am NOT the Tom G (above). I am the one who is a scientist who posts comments here fairly irregularly but often enough that my moniker might be recognized and misconstrued by some readers. I disavow any connection with the infamous Tom G herein so that I can continue to use my own former blog epithet in the future without all of you thinking that a creationist is sniping.

I am one of the geologists who lurk around here regularly and could not be a stauncher enemy of ID, DI or any other initials which by any other name stink of creationism.

I just wanted to set the record straight.

Tom (G)

Patches, I’d recommend Mike Gene’s book to you as well.

Tom G:

The Discovery Institute funds research into ID yet has failed to present even a shred of evidence. They have claimed to have a lab and a large team of scientists. Where, then, are their experimental results, where are their papers, their journals, their evidence for anything that says ID should be considered credible?

The answer, unfortunately for you, is that they have been unable to prove that ID is science and they are totally unable to prove that ID has any claims backed up by evidence. There are still holdovers with tenure at various Universities around the US that are doing research and have not published a single thing that hasn't been found to be false on the topic of ID.

So in short, ID has no validity to be accepted as a respectable scientific topic to be even discussed in a classroom. None, zero, zilch and it possibly reaches into impossible negatives.

Your "reasonableness" in this discussion is also not worthy of a continuing discussion, your arguments have all been circular, your logic has been worse. Expelled is a poor attempt to propagandize Christian/religious persecution complexes, and yes, some people have seen the movie (Moore being one) and it is nothing but propaganda meant to persuade gullible people.

But science is not our only basis for knowledge, and it’s worth asking about.

Maybe you meant to ask whether pseudo-science or false “science” should be taught at academic institutions. My position is this: research by scientists who are ID sympathizers should be able to be freely pursued. Expelled makes the claim that they have not been free to do this. Others disagree. I haven’t seen the movie. I’m not going to pronounce on how accurate it is.

Does the fact that the movie is being marketed to Christians make any difference, which is what PvM wanted us to believe, and which is the point I have been trying to discuss? No.

I haven't scanned all the comments yet so it might already be up there;

Tom G,

William Dembski has himself openly admitted that the intelligent design assertian is really religion.

Why should we doubt him?

I think, though, that the movie is going to try to make a case that genuine scientists are being shut down from doing genuine research, on grounds either that the scientists or the research might be favorable toward ID.

what is the motive for marketing the movie to an overtly Christian audience?

"No intelligence allowed" thoroughly explains the disinvitation.

The meat to my comment, CM, was this: that ID has interests that overlap with religion does not, by itself, invalidate it.

The movie is not about religion.

It’s about academic oppression.

Here’s the question: are there scientists doing real science who have some sympathies with the possibility of Intelligent Design, whether they want to call their science ID or not?

And are they free to say that they have those sympathies?

And is there freedom for ID to develop as a science, or even for scientists to explore whether there is potential for ID to develop as science?

That’s what the movie is about.

PvM implied that it’s really religion in disguise. I made the point that this would be like saying that global warming is really “small is better” economics in disguise.

I prefer to stick to the actual issues, myself.

Tom G: Now--a final note to phantomreader: that kind of abuse just doesn't score debate points.

What matters is the conclusions you come to when you do think it through; and one of those conclusions is that ID, while not being itself a religious enterprise, has interests that overlap with Christian interests

Tom G: People who have a certain "small is better" view of economics have shared interests with scientists who believe in global warming.

Flint and others:

Look, this is not a one-dimensional issue. ID supporters (if there are any, and there probably are) who say ID has absolutely nothing to do with religion are wrong. ID opponents, like Flint and others represented above. who say ID has everything to do with religion are wrong. It's complex. The biggest mistake that gets repeatedly made is sloganizing and over-simplifying.

One way it gets over-simplified is this thing that says, because one textbook has creationist roots, therefore everything done by everybody in ID whatsoever has no motivation whatever except to shill religion. You want to see a long jump between evidence and conclusion? There's one for you. The same goes even for the Wedge document.

Sure, you have evidence for a religion connection, about which Phillip Johnson for one has been entirely open and honest. There's a religion connection. That doesn't mean that ID is equivalent to religion--any more than an economics connection means global warming is all about economics (see above).

Tom G. is confused. The design argument has been around for several centuries, is considered an argument for theism but is nondenominational, and is currently discussed in philosophy classes all around the world. It's not taught in science classes because it is not science.

But that is not the same as Intelligent Design, a theo-political movement which indeed has its roots in good old fashioned creationism. While ID has co-opted the design argument (as well as a whole host of creationist lies and fallacies), the two are not equivalent. When Tom G. says ID is not dependent upon religion, he's confused. He should learn something before trying to lecture others.

TomG,

OK, then name the creator. All you have to do to prove that ID is not religion pure and simple is name the creator. If it is God, then it is religion and no other description will do. If it is some agency within the natural realm, then by all means, show us your evidence. That is the way real science is done. Nothing is more telling about the true motivation of cdesign proponentists than their unwillingness to name the creator.

So, you have two choices, prove that ID is religion once and for all, or prove that ID is a failed hypothesis that has no scientific merit whatsoever. Don't complain about censorship. Don't whine that others have gotten caught in a web lies and deceit. Prove your case or quit whining.

I gotta second Flint here, TomG; you say you've been on this site before; have you followed any of the links provided by the posters to "follow the money"?

When you claim that ID is not about religion, well, we have heard that disclaimer a few times before. Why would you think that your claim would be accepted here without some evidence to back it up?
I have noticed a tendency of IDer's to state a claim as if it were a fact, expecting that to be sufficient. Well, not here it isn't. I know that in religious circles claims of faith are rewarded with plaudits and "amen, brother!". But in scientific circles, all you will get is a flat stare and a "what's your source for that claim?"
As the PT saying goes, put up, or shut up. It's not rudeness, it's boredom.

For those of you reading this blog who think that Ben Stein was in any way the motivating force behind this movie, please reconsider.

From the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention Texan interview with Logan Craft (executive producer of Expelled):

http://www.sbtexan.com/default.asp?action=article&aid=5533&issue=2/4/2008

TEXAN: How did Ben Stein come to be involved in the film?

CRAFT: Well, John (Sullivan, producer of Expelled) had a real insight, we believe, into the necessity to have a person, first of all, who wasn’t overtly Christian or overtly religious…

Admittedly there are some aspects of the reseach into the question of ID that are not religious in nature, but demonstrably, the ID/creationist movement is nothing more than a front for conservative christian idealogues promulgating their pernicious religous agenda.

This afternoon, at the NRB conference in Nashville, we will again see a preview of the movie. I also hope to get a photograph with myself and Ben Stein that will appear in AiG’s April newsletter (Answers Update), where I have written a lead article promoting Expelled.

So if science is your only basis for knowledge, then you would have to throw your hands in the air and say, “it’s unanswerable, it’s moot, it’s not worth even asking.” But science is not our only basis for knowledge, and it’s worth asking about.

There’s an overlap between ID’s interests and Christianity’s interests, which has to do with naturalistic assumptions held by many evolutionists.

Actually, Tom, the target audience for any media can make quite a bit of difference. If a movie or book were composed on the topic of "academic freedom in holocaust studies" and marketed to neo-nazis, you would be pretty safe in assuming off-hand that the work itself is a load of crap. Similarly, a work dealing in any way with "the scientific community" which is marketed to a group with a well-known and virulent anti-scientific bias can probably be safely assumed to be...well, you get my point.
I hope that you would agree that when there are two alternate views on a subject, one view supported with evidence and the other an unevidenced, ideologically-driven opposition to the first position, the view for which we have evidence should be the accepted view. Evolutionary biology makes testable predictions, provides knowledge about the world, and is supported by mountains of evidence. ID creationism has none of these qualities, it just tries (and fails) to poke holes in evolutionary biology. If the issue is whether or not ID creationism deserves to recieve the same respect and support as science in our institutions of research and learning, I have to say no way.
ID creationism should not be any more pandered to than astrology, which is similarly barred from the science classroom and laughed out of the science lab, but the superstitious are certainly free to believe what they like on their own time.

Bill, the answer is no, there is probably no such experiment. The two are empirically indistinguishable. Science would not be able to tell us which to choose. So if science is your only basis for knowledge, then you would have to throw your hands in the air and say, “it’s unanswerable, it’s moot, it’s not worth even asking.” But science is not our only basis for knowledge, and it’s worth asking about.

from the times article:

So Mr. Moore traveled to a local megachurch...

'nuff said.

If one has to view a screening at a "megachurch" to begin with, the review pretty much writes itself.

Look, this is not a one-dimensional issue. ID supporters (if there are any, and there probably are) who say ID has absolutely nothing to do with religion are wrong. ID opponents, like Flint and others represented above. who say ID has everything to do with religion are wrong. It’s complex.

from the times article: So Mr. Moore traveled to a local megachurch… ‘nuff said. If one has to view a screening at a “megachurch” to begin with, the review pretty much writes itself.

My position is this: research by scientists who are ID sympathizers should be able to be freely pursued. Expelled makes the claim that they have not been free to do this.

phantomreader42: The best “evidence” for “academic oppression” I’ve seen from cdesign proponentsists has been the fact that an editor who published papers without proper review in violation of procedure lost his status as an editor, . . .

The degree of intellectual horsepower which is wasted by the simple expedient of a some uncredentialed poltroon showing up on a blog and spouting any half-witted tripe is staggering. And we sit at our collective keyboards and do exactly what we are all advised not to do in personal confrontations - Don't debate a creationist. I sometimes think it is a deliberate tactic by creationists to waste our time and to keep some of us from thinking about real things. But then, I am not a consipacy theorist subscriber so I let it pass as a momentary paranoia and get back to what's important.

Tom G(creationist)- your thoughts are years behind the curve of both popular and scientific thinking. (But if you have been put up to this task by a dark and sinister opponent of science, then you can go back and report that you have successfully wasted 20 collective person hours of brain power which would otherwise have been spent figuring out how to corrupt the christian way - and maybe you even stopped us from thinking up ways to cone adolph hitler - as you all seem to think that evolution leads to nazi-ism.

Tom G(eologist)

My position is this: research by scientists who are ID sympathizers should be able to be freely pursued. Expelled makes the claim that they have not been free to do this.

If it is God, then it is religion and no other description will do.

hen you claim that ID is not about religion, well, we have heard that disclaimer a few times before.

You need to first start by defining the “designer”. Is the designer a natural entity? Is it supernatural? If you don’t even know the answer to that how can you get started?

Can you define a “bridge” between the natural world and the supernatural? Is such a bridge a natural phenomenon or a supernatural phenomenon? If it is natural, how does it access the supernatural? If it is supernatural, how do we access it? Are human beings bridges between the natural and supernatural? Then why has sectarian proliferation and warfare been such a prominent part of religious history? You need to think through these notions before you criticize scientists for being skeptical of the claims of ID. And you also need to look at the fact that the ID/cdesign proponentsists/Creationists have produced nothing and also, whether you like to believe it or not, ID has it roots in the fundamentalists’ objections to evolution.

What besides science can we use to learn about fossils, geology and the geological column, common descent, genetics, embryology, radiometric dating and related subjects? please tell, I am all ears!

Tom, the target audience for any media can make quite a bit of difference. If a movie or book were composed on the topic of “academic freedom in holocaust studies” and marketed to neo-nazis, you would be pretty safe in assuming off-hand that the work itself is a load of crap.

Good question. Let me ask you this in response. What if we (ID) stipulate the answer is God. Then we proceed to examine natural phenomena on the basis of that stipulation, we make predictions, and we see confirmations of those predictions. Would the fact that God was the starting point mean that none of our work was science?

If, however, there is such a thing as the supernatural, the bridge between it and the natural will not be fully natural. So what kind of bridge do you want?

Or you can continue to view ID and religion as concentric and congruent Venn circles. You can continue to attack ID for something it is not, or defend evolution against an attack that isn’t actually being mounted against it in the form you think it is. Just remember that the more you defend or attack with respect to a misunderstood opponent, the less successful you’re likely to be.

Believe me, I have thought about all these things.

No responsible ID proponent would deny there’s an overlap of interest there.

Some Christian believers wrongly believe our faith stands or falls depending on the evolution debate. Christian belief demands that God be the creator of all, but it does not demand that he left empirically discernible fingerprints in natural history.

— TomG

For me it is “about” challenging the notion of philosophical materialism, which has an intersection with religious concerns but is not identical to them. Some people make a stronger link, some a lesser one.

If, however, there is such a thing as the supernatural, the bridge between it and the natural will not be fully natural. So what kind of bridge do you want?

Tom G: All this about whether ID is, at this stage, “a science,” is a red herring. It might be applicable in other contexts, but it’s not the topic this time… The topic of the movie is academic freedom.

"I think it has been explained to you quite thoroughly on your own blog why ID is not science" And I think I explained in my last comment that this is not the point at issue in the topic PvM brought to us here today.

This afternoon, at the NRB conference in Nashville, we will again see a preview of the movie. I also hope to get a photograph with myself and Ben Stein that will appear in AiG’s April newsletter (Answers Update), where I have written a lead article promoting Expelled.

This afternoon, at the NRB conference in Nashville, we will again see a preview of the movie. I also hope to get a photograph with myself and Ben Stein that will appear in AiG’s April newsletter (Answers Update), where I have written a lead article promoting Expelled.

1. ID is not science, since it relies on supernatural causation and philosophical or theological concepts

2. A concerted worldwide effort by research scientists, scientific journal editors, educators, and the media has unjustly prevented a single valid creationism/ID manuscript from being published.

You are the one making this claim. How do you know what the nature of this bridge is? You provide the evidence. You describe the bridge. How does it work? What research proposal would you submit the NSF to make a definitive test that anyone could replicate and confirm, even those who don’t hold your sectarian dogmas?

James F: TomG, Since you claim ID is science, I respectfully invite you to consider the following. One of the most astonishing things about “intelligent design” movement is that it has never succeeded in publishing a peer-reviewed research paper in any of the journals indexed at the National Library of Medicine, which currently encompasses over SEVENTEEN MILLION citations. Furthermore, amongst these citations no research paper refutes evolution. NLM covers all branches of the life sciences, and a paper providing evidence against evolution would certainly be a blockbuster. So what’s the problem? There are two possibilities:

1. ID is not science, since it relies on supernatural causation and philosophical or theological concepts

2. A concerted worldwide effort by research scientists, scientific journal editors, educators, and the media has unjustly prevented a single valid creationism/ID manuscript from being published.

There’s the choice. If you’d like to check out the NLM public database, go here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ Remember, I’m talking about research papers, not news items, commentaries, letters to the editor, reviews, and so on.

You want a bridge that can be assessed by a research proposal for the NSF to test definitively. You’re defining the bridge between the supernatural and the natural as something that must be entirely natural. But it cannot be purely natural, being the bridge that it must be. So you are asking me to provide you a definition of a purely natural bridge that cannot be purely natural.

CreoTom: "No True IDist Fallacy"?

If you think that all knowledge must be and can be only scientific in nature, realize that the limits of science are well-discussed in the philosophy of science literature–you can consult Michael Ruse in the first edition of But Is It Science?. Though there’s a strong academic tradition of knowledge there, it’s little recognized at Panda’s Thumb.

Tom G., what science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know. Your philosophical speculations are about as useful and as fruitful as pondering the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Keep on in your continued delusion that such musings constitute knowledge and not blind faith. It ensures that your "challenging" of philosophical materialism will have the same affect as beating a brick wall with a wet noodle.

If you think that all knowledge must be and can be only scientific in nature, realize that the limits of science are well-discussed in the philosophy of science literature

You’ve actually answered my question without realizing it. You want a bridge that can be assessed by a research proposal for the NSF to test definitively.

Tom:

Since you take such a dim view of 'scientific materialism', how would you define the opposite?

Should any religion allowed to 'contribute' to science, or only Christianity? Can 'nonmaterialistic' views that contradict Christianity be valid?

You’re defining the bridge between the supernatural and the natural as something that must be entirely natural. But it cannot be purely natural, being the bridge that it must be. So you are asking me to provide you a definition of a purely natural bridge that cannot be purely natural.

speaking of building bridges...

http://myspace.vlee.ch/watch/2025628989/sean-cullen-woman-and-a-chimp/

Tom,

The only four letter word I used was "that". Go ahead, run away if you want, but don't expect anyone to believe that is was because you were treated poorly here.

I asked you to name the creator and you replied that it was God. Then you asked why that meant ID was not science. Well, can you name one single scientific hypothesis that uses God as an explanation? Can you name one scientific equation that has a GOD term? God is not a scientific explanation. God is a religious explanation. You might not like it but that is the simple truth.

You are perfectly free to believe in God if you choose. In fact, you are perfectly free to believe in any God you choose. Many of the people who have responded to you have actually risked their lives to give you this right. Just don't insult our intelligence by trying to redefine science for professional scientists. It won't work here and it won't work in court either.

So what kind of bridge do you want?

PvM:

If you think that all knowledge must be and can be only scientific in nature, realize that the limits of science are well-discussed in the philosophy of science literature–you can consult Michael Ruse in the first edition of But Is It Science?. Though there’s a strong academic tradition of knowledge there, it’s little recognized at Panda’s Thumb.

What other knowledge do you propose? Revelation?

OK, I didn't read in detail everything that had been said on this thread ... but ...

I recently received some education on philosophical naturalism (PM) and methodological naturalism (MN). Not being a a Philsopher of Science, I didn't until this education know there was even a difference, but it seems there is much discussion on this thread that confuses the two.

MN is the science as most on this thread will recognize, the scientific method as applied since Galileo. It explicitly insists that science should pursue naturalistic explanations for phenomena, and explicitly does not seek supernatural explanations, indeed cannot even try to explain observations except as the result of natural processes. PM, on the other hand, extends the MN concept, to say that NO other explanations are possible other than naturalistic ones. (Real philosophers of science, please correct me if I've simplified things too much here!) MN doesn't deny supernatural intervention; PM does.

The biggest problem with ID, at least to denizens of this blog, has been ID's insistence that MN is incomplete and too narrow; science should accept their supernatural "explanations", however vacant they may seem to scientists that expect details that ID proponents can't/won't describe; just 'cause. They conflate MN with PM. Several comments on this thread seem to do the same.

TomG (the creationist) used the two terms interchangably during this thread. From an AR lurker, it's important we understand the differences when throwing these terms about.

TomG (the creationist): I commend you on your even, conversational tone through (most) of these comments. You mention you've lurked here before; perhaps you've seen the bizarre postings by folks that are trying to "stir the hornet's nest" with the regulars here, who, perhaps, have had too much of the typical PT troll and react in knee-jerk fashion. I don't agree with most of what you've posted (but it is interesting to read your view), but at least it's nice to see some rational arguments unspoiled by ranting or namecalling.

(Talking at TomG's back, apparently.)

For what it's worth, I did order The Design Matrix. In general, I do not finance ID/creationism. But since you believe so strongly, both here and your Amazon review, that Mike Gene is onto something truly interesting (i.e. testable hypotheses), I want to make an exception. Indeed, the very reason I think God and other Uknown-Designers-With-Unlimited-Skill-And-Unknown-Methods-And-Motives are not compatible with the scientific method is that they can accomodate anything. If, however, ID truly was able to make radical predictions, not only radical as in "surprising" but also radically different from Darwinism, and was made falsifiable by these predictions, it would be very interesting. And it might well warrant a research program. The big question here is: are the predictions postulated by Mike Gene truly radical instead of trivial? I'm curious to find out.

One last comment.

I am not a scientist, as anyone knows if you follow the link to my blog. One of you recommended above that I not try to pass myself off as knowing something I do not know. Read through my comments and you'll find I've tried to do that. You pressed me on ID's status as a science, which was your right to do, but the points I made about ID as science were in fact quite limited. I'll come back to that in more detail at the end of this comment.

What I began with, though, and tried to stick with, was ID's relation to religion. I do happen to know that field. You all seem to be agreed that I'm completely uneducated in it, but no; we disagree on our conclusions but that doesn't make me uneducated. Lots of well-read people disagree on lots of topics, and on this one I have read widely and written much, as I assume many of you have also.

Your responses quickly moved to your position that ID is not a science, that it has a religious connection, and thattherefore ID is religion. I said that there is a genetic fallacy at work there, as well as the mistake of making an overlap of interest into an equivalency. I can't understand why that's so hard for you to acknowledge! This is pretty basic stuff.

Your position, also (at least for some of you), is that what mankind cannot know by science cannot be known. That's logical positivism (or at least a very close relative), which has been discredited for decades. The assertion contradicts itself. Science can know what science can know, which is much, but not everything. One of your own, Michael Ruse (already cited above) acknowledges the limits of science, and that there are other disciplines that lead to knowledge.

Despite what was said about it above, the fact that God's intervention in nature (if it exists, which I think it does) cannot be studied by scientific methods all the way back to God the source Himself, does not by itself mean that it is not true or knowable. One method of knowledge that transcends or bypasses scientific method is language communication. If God has spoken and we have heard, then we have knowledge.

That assertion commonly raises two immediate objections. One is that if we rely on God for knowledge we might as well quit doing science. That's a complete straw man. One of you already rightly stated in this thread that many scientists today are Christians. History includes a few other relative unknowns, some scientific lightweights who were believers: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel and others. I guess they gave up on doing science because they believed in God? There is a certain logic in the belief that a Christian would not want to pursue science, but that logic is based in a false understanding of Christian doctrine (which includes the belief that we can know God better by studying his works), and a complete misreading of the actual social science of the situation (Christians do not in actual sociological fact give up on science). I'll acknowledge our numbers are few in some fields like biology, but the explanation more plausibly is that young students select out because they see it as a potentially hostile environment: not because Christianity in itself is anti-scientific, but because some fields are hostile to faith.

The second common objection to gaining knowledge if God has spoken is that this knowledge seems so muddled and controversial from one person and culture to another. That's a very large topic; I acknowledge it, and I have dealt with it elsewhere as have many others. We recognize that it is controversial, yet we also maintain that Christianity can provide coherent answers. I have to leave it at that: with the respect to you of acknowledging the problem, without trying to solve it in this venue, yet also asking you for the respect of recognizing that it's not an idiotic position, unaddressed and never thought through.

So I freely admit that for purposes here, the "if" in this statement is very large: "If God has spoken and we have heard, then we have knowledge apart from scientific means." If you are completely atheistic in your beliefs, you'll reject that with a snort. Fine, I understand. If you assume that theists are never thinkers, though, you haven't traveled broadly enough.

That was a long way around--now, let me get back to where I was: not all knowledge is scientific knowledge; and the postulate of God being involved in nature is not automatically wrong just because the cause-effect chain can't be traced all the way to its source by natural methods. This is well-discussed in philosophy of science and in religion. If your postulates exclude that possibility, then you are effectively an atheist by force of your assumptions rather than by force of scientific evidence leading you to a conclusion.

Now, back to what I said I would return to at the end of this comment. You have not seen me here trying to make the case that ID has already been successful as science. Obviously it hasn't, if success means something like gaining agreement among scientists. If success means making a valid point and providing evidence to support it, that's somewhat less obvious and more controversial, but as a non-scientist I cannot and do not take a strong stand with Behe, Dembski et al. I'm not pretending to be qualified on that. I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude toward them. (I know, I know, you know there's nothing to wait for. But I'm a non-scientist watching a controversy and waiting to see how it ocmes out. I think that's a reasonable posture.)

What I've tried to say that I do know about ID's status as science is that (a) the movie tries to make the case that ID as science has been oppressed or suppressed, and (b) I don't know if the movie makes that case successfully. I've also tried to say that (c) one recent author, Mike Gene, seriously (yet also modestly--read the book and you'll see what I mean) challenges the assumption that all ID is negative science and produces no testable predictions. I don't think a, b, or c are terribly controversial--do you?

I have also said I think that genuine scientists who are doing genuine research, where the scientist or the research might be favorable to ID, should be allowed to proceed with freedom on that. You've said that if there are any such things, they are being allowed. Great. If the movie makes a successful case contrary to that, then we'll all deal with that. I don't know if it will. I haven't seen it.

And I've also pointed out that over-simplifying the ID-religion relation will inevitably produce errors in thinking, whichever side of the debate you may land on. Is there anybody here who wants to settle for one-dimensional thinking on a three-dimensional matter?

For all this I have been labeled a liar, ignorant, and unthinking. I've been told I am stepping in my own crap. My earlier allusion to four-letter words was an overstatement: the only one I could really point to is "crap," which is overstating the case, obviously. My apologies. Other than what I've already written, I'm not going to try further to persuade you I'm not ignorant or unthinking. I do object to the label of liar. But I'll get over it.

And I’ve also pointed out that over-simplifying the ID-religion relation will inevitably produce errors in thinking

TomG,

I'm sorry but your writing just is not very convincing. You offer various "baits" but you never deliver.

The fact that some kind of God may exist, even though we haven't found a way to verify this existence, is not doubted. Nor is it doubted that science may not be able to reach all truths about the Universe.

There are other disciplines for obtaining knowledge besides science? Well, what are they? As long as you don't define a methodology other than science (and logic in general) for obtaining objective beliefs, your critic does not even need to resort to "logical positivism". It suffices to say that science is the only known method for obtaining knowledge. Your vague hints, whether backed by individual philosophers or not, do not construct a methodology. It is also not helpful, nor even logical, to hint that some such methodology probably exists because "logical positivism has been discredited for decades". Let's not beat around the bush, let's just hear the methodology. Or is the refusal to accept an unknown and vague methodology for obtaining knowledge, unless it is presented for scrutiny, what you call "a very close relative of logical positivism"?

No matter how many times one reads your post, it seems that at the end of the day you are basically just equating faith with knowledge. You recognize that faiths in fact seem to produce extremely subjective, and largely contradicting, knowledge. But then you say that this problem has been thought through somewhere. And the solution to the problem, or so it sure seems to me, is that the Christian faith is true knowledge while contradicting claims made by other faiths are false knowledge. Is this, too, backed by a philosophical argument?

In short, why on earth do you waste time on vague hints when you should be delivering something truly meaningful? Rigorously present the methodology you are promoting, and try to solve the problems you recognize in it. Don't just complain that people have made up their minds already. First deliver readers something to make their minds about. It is necessary to abandon claims that are too vague to contain anything meaningful.

I'd also like to present fairly gentle criticism on your own behavior on this thread. Among your "baits" seems to be the claim that ID indeed is scientific, or that it can at least become scientific. Take your comments about Mike Gene's work, for example. But at the same time you block all responses to this claim by saying that this question is off-topic here.

I wonder if TomG is even aware of the history here? That teaching creationism as science was outlawed. But rather than saying "gee, it's illegal, we better not do that" creationist simply relabeled it as "creation science" and then CLAIMED it was science. It must be - they put "science" right in the label!

The courts were not fooled, and outlawed "creation science" as well. Should be stone obvious that teaching creationism as science is against the law, illegal to do, right? Nope, creationist simply re-named creationism as "intelligent design" and (once again) CLAIMED it is science. And once again, the court was not fooled, noted that ID is religion and "cannot be decoupled" from creationism, and outlawed it.

Does anyone here think creationists will suddenly discover honesty? If so, none of them show the slightest sign of doing so. Instead, they have re-branded creationism as "academic freedom" and made a dishonest movie (interviewing people under false pretenses) the few reviewers who got into the CHURCHES to watch it (but it's not religion, oh no!) recognized as lies and spin.

My dictum that creationists simply CAN NOT HELP lying, because creationism rests only on lies, remains pristine and intact. As TomG continues to demonstrate.

Tom,

Thanks for coming back and thanks for remaining civil.

Certainly science is limited. Certaiinly it cannot provide all the answers to all questions. Certainly it cannot disprove the existence of God. But none of that makes ID science.

You say that humans can gain knowledge through devine revelation. Perhaps, but even if that is true, then we must still have some way to objectively verify the information or else it is just faith with no evidence. Lots of people say they talk to God, how do we know if they are correct? What do we conclude when their claims are mutually contradictory? And what do we do when their claims are directly contradicted by all of the evidence? This is the situation we find ourselves in with creationism and ID. Sorry, but God did it because God said so just won't cut it here.

If you acknowledge that science can find the answers to some questions, then why not accept the findings of science? Why try to make God fit into the box of science? Why not just let God be bigger than that? Science and history are both against you here. Creationism and ID will never be science and that should be just fine with anyone who has any real faith.

Tom,

You offered a clear definition of an extra-scientific source of knowledge:

"One method of knowledge that transcends or bypasses scientific method is language communication. If God has spoken and we have heard, then we have knowledge."

I'd agree that language is pretty special, but I disagree that it transcends or bypasses scientific method. Language communication happens to be my field of specialization. If one believes one has heard speech, there are only two possibilities. One may have indeed heard speech, which means there must have been a natural speaker who produced the physical energy that your brain interpreted with the help of your knowledge of grammar and a lexicon. No mysteries there.

Another way an individual may come to believe that speech has been heard is when there is a malfunction in the normal neural pathways in the brain that produces the illusion of speech. This can occur in various forms of dementia, in schizophrenia, and various other pathologies. No mysteries there, either.

There is no other way we know of that language communication can (appear to) happen.

I am curious, though. Why would even a firm believer in a supernatural god suppose that a god would employ human language? Isn't such assumption imputing human characteristics to a god? If so, is that acceptable theology?

MacT: There is no other way we know of that language communication can (appear to) happen.

Despite what was said about it above, the fact that God’s intervention in nature (if it exists, which I think it does) cannot be studied by scientific methods all the way back to God the source Himself, does not by itself mean that it is not true or knowable. One method of knowledge that transcends or bypasses scientific method is language communication. If God has spoken and we have heard, then we have knowledge.

MN is the science as most on this thread will recognize, the scientific method as applied since Galileo. It explicitly insists that science should pursue naturalistic explanations for phenomena, and explicitly does not seek supernatural explanations, indeed cannot even try to explain observations except as the result of natural processes.

Your position, also (at least for some of you), is that what mankind cannot know by science cannot be known. That’s logical positivism (or at least a very close relative), which has been discredited for decades. The assertion contradicts itself. Science can know what science can know, which is much, but not everything.

Tom thinks stringing together a series of "IFs" constitutes a rational argument. IF god exists and IF he talks to people and IF they accurately transcribe his message and IF this message is accurately passed down through the generations and IF... etc.

Yeah, that's not knowledge, Tom. That's called self delusion or wishful thinking--believing your own bullshit--and it's pretty much the opposite of knowledge.

EXPELLED PREVIEW Yesterday, I had the opportunity to personally meet Ben Stein (who stars in the Expelled movie) and to again see a preview of this very revealing movie (that we are encouraging all our supporters to see). After the showing at NRB, the crowd jumped up cheering and gave a standing ovation. Christians are tired of being beaten down, and they are excited when a movie like Expelled (which is not a Christian movie, but an excellent one nonetheless) exposes the loss of freedoms in America, the academic bias/snobbery, and the censorship of anything pertaining to God. AiG has told the producers we will promote and support Expelled, and we ask you to get your churches to buy out theaters—invite school board members and other leaders in the community—invite your neighbors and friends.

Your responses quickly moved to your position that ID is not a science, that it has a religious connection, and thattherefore ID is religion.

— Tom G

Despite what was said about it above, the fact that God’s intervention in nature (if it exists, which I think it does) cannot be studied by scientific methods all the way back to God the source Himself, does not by itself mean that it is not true or knowable. One method of knowledge that transcends or bypasses scientific method is language communication. If God has spoken and we have heard, then we have knowledge.

And I’ve also pointed out that over-simplifying the ID-religion relation will inevitably produce errors in thinking, whichever side of the debate you may land on. Is there anybody here who wants to settle for one-dimensional thinking on a three-dimensional matter?

— Tom G

Your position, also (at least for some of you), is that what mankind cannot know by science cannot be known. That’s logical positivism (or at least a very close relative), which has been discredited for decades.

The second common objection to gaining knowledge if God has spoken is that this knowledge seems so muddled and controversial from one person and culture to another. That’s a very large topic; I acknowledge it, and I have dealt with it elsewhere as have many others. We recognize that it is controversial, yet we also maintain that Christianity can provide coherent answers. I have to leave it at that: with the respect to you of acknowledging the problem, without trying to solve it in this venue, yet also asking you for the respect of recognizing that it’s not an idiotic position, unaddressed and never thought through.

I'm not a scientist but the impression I get is that the theory of evolution must be pretty weak if it can't stand the challenge of a "pseudo-science" theory. If ID is so fake, a lie, religion in disguise than you evolution zealots should have nothing to fear. The reactions on this board by supposedly open-minded scientists just makes me want to learn more about it.

"why should science believe your claim that Christianity can provide any more ‘coherent answers’ than, say, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, or, for that matter, Scientology?"

Who decides what "science" should believe? You? Me? Some self appointed group of scientists? Maybe we should put it up for a vote and let the people choose a group of scientists who will decide what scientist should be studying.

Headline: "Baptist professors featured in new film"

http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=5527

No... No religion here.

Rich...

Check out this link: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/science-way-of-knowing.html

It's a very good discussion of what science IS, and what it isn't.

Now, I'm not an 'evolution zealot.' (Your use of the term does provide a strong hint of your pursuasion, however.) I'm not a scientist. I am a strong science supporter, though.

The main reason that many of us get incensed over ID is the ID proponents insistence that ID be treated as science in schools, when it is absolutely nothing of the kind. It takes critical science teaching time away from the science teachers.

In addition, we get very tired of replying to drivel. Some of the drivel is more cleverly disguised than others, but, it is still drivel, nonetheless.