Minor correction: I lived in the Chicago area for a huge chunk of my life, but I've been in Michigan for almost ten years now. ;-)

Thanks Dean, I will enter the change.

Matt:

One quick point - the ID folks themselves do not use the word "creation" (you wrote "Intelligent Design Theory of creation").

James

I'd rather see my kids - or anyone else's - going at just such thorny issues than glomming on to Gender Studies, Textual Analysis, Deconstructionism, or Imperialism 101.

I think that's the heart of it, Matt. I think if Willard was not so dogmatically opposed to the introduction of metaphysical possibilities, he might acknowledge that debating "first-cause/ prime-mover" theories has been and ever will be the ultimate scientific question. Natural selection can only presume to explain the adaptations of life to environment, not the incipience of life itself.

You remember when the Cray computer was applied to randomizing "life shapes," and when seashell outlines appeared, they pointed to that as evidence for a materialistic, undirected origin of life. But a 2-D seashell outline on a computer resembles life the way than iron ore resembles an aircraft carrier-- not even close to the level of complexity.

So I think good science allows for inquiry on the models under which the inanimate-animate matter "missing link" might be explained. It's not equal to a church-run state, that's for sure.

The strongest arguments for teaching ID in the classroom are that students should be exposed to both sides so they can decide for themselves, there's evidence to support the ID, evolution is just a theory, and it is contradicted by the Bible.

These are perfectly legitimate standards, and should be respected as such. We also need to teach the terracentric view of our Solar System in schools for exactly the same reasons. The students should be exposed to both the sides so they can decide for themselves, there's evidence to support the terracentric view of our solar system, the heliocentric view is just a theory, and it is contradicted by the Bible.

Whatever the consolations of philosophy may be, intellectual progress cannot be among them. The the fallacies of yore seem destined to reappear with the regularity of fog in a valley.

The ruling nonsense of the 17th and 18th centuries was the argument from design: Surely there must be a Grand Artificer behind the universe, for behold the wonderous intricacy of nature! This replaced the earlier condundrum: Why is there something rather than nothing? which had stumped the first millennium.

Before we throw these puzzles to elementary students, it may be worth recalling that Voltaire made half his career spoofing the first question (How wonderously my nose has been designed to support my spectacles!), and that David Hume did it in more philosphically in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779).

Modern readers who are still interested in the second question could do worse than look at the second chapter of Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations (1981). Nozick points out that the question Why something rather than nothing? is pretty weird, so the answer is bound to look pretty weird too. He suggests questioning the premise that "something" is what requires explaining. Maybe it is "nothing" that would need an explanation. Or maybe neither.

In any case, it seems doubtful that conjoining these two questions --the argument from design and the puzzle over existence--constitutes yet a third philosophical issue that requires resolution.

The beauty of science is that it attempts to describe the things we perceive in the universe. The beauty of religion is that it accounts for that which we do not understand. The ugliness of "Intelligent Design" is that it attempts to appear to be science, yet describes something that we do not understand at all. "Intelligent Design" is in fact an artifice used to get around prohibitions against religious teaching in the public schools.

Since we have no fossil record of cells, the origin of the first cell has no explanation, only hypothesis. Anyone who can think of no possible path to the creation of the first cell without "Intelligent Design" has not tried very hard, or is borderline innumerate.

In the half-century that I have been here, science has asked far more questions than it has answered, and we know fewer answers today than in 1950 (just read my old science textbooks, if you want to laugh at how many answers science had wrong a half century ago). For answers to the really tough questions, we use theology. Science should be agnostic. Science is also the excuse given by proponents of religious thought, whether the religion of "Intelligent Design" or the religion of "Global Warming," the scientific position is one of asking questions that have not yet been answered to a reasonable certainty. Only God has the answers. So far.

Science is a method of seeking knowledge by proposing theories and testing their validity. Religion is doctrine that proposes to have the answers and discourages questions. ID is religion dressed up as science. It's not a theory, because it's not testable.

Disentangling science and religion is one of the greatest achievements since we as a species started asking questions about how the world around us works. Reversing that trend is even more dangerous than has been suggested so far.

I am neither an opponent or supporter of ID, but it's obvious some of the people already made up their minds based on flawed media reports of what ID is about.

I suggest that they read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box," William Demski's "Intelligent Design" and/or even Jay Richard's "Privileged Planet."

People, usually ID opponents, who actually read them are shocked (yes, shocked) by the mildness of their claims and by the fact that they do not preach "creationism in disguise" or "religion cloaked in science."

This very issue was discussed by a panel I was part of yesterday (had reps from Discovery and ACLU). Of course I am a biased observer, being part of Discovery, but the Discovery rep made scientific and legal arguments about teaching criticism of neo-Darwinism in class rooms while the ACLU rep resorted to ad hominem attacks, lumping ID suppporters with Holocaust deniers and otherwise generally trying to create an imagery of darker motives behind scientists supporting the ID movement.

Even some of the audience members who supported the ACLU's stated media position were apparently put off by it (from their comments) once they personally witnessed 1) the actual position of Discovery and 2) the ACLU's tactics.

If you look at Deans blog today you'll see he's been involved for a couple of weeks now in trying to prove there's no connection between HIV and AIDS, but that discussion has more scientific merit than the stealth creationism of ID.

Matt says: I'd rather see my kids - or anyone else's - going at just such thorny issues than glomming on to Gender Studies, Textual Analysis, Deconstructionism, or Imperialism 101. This is a very interesting remark, and I think it illustrates why conservatives are inclined to give a pass to the junk scientists of ID/DI while condemning the junk science of the radical anti-American imperialist PoMo left: ID has no independent merit, but if ID's advocates are seen as allies in the culture war they must be all right.

I think this is a poor form of analysis, and it calls into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of anyone who employs it for the simple reason that two wrongs don't make a right. I've read much of the pro-ID arguments by Behe, Dembski, and the people at the DI's CSC (most of whom, like Witt, are not actual scientists but PR flacks and Liberal Artists) and I don't find anything in the way of a legitimate scientific argument in support of the theory that Earth's life forms are the product of a supernatural intelligence. Dembski plays games with statistics and inanely simple models of causality in a way that reminds me of Noam Chomsky's thought process. Behe doesn't deny common descent with modification, but ID proponents try and keep that quiet because it means he doesn't support their central thesis and can't really be called an IDer. His arguments are statistical as well, when they aren't attempting to fill gaps in the fossil record with religion.

Anybody who advocates the teaching of junk science alongside real science without clearing labeling it for what it is does our children a disservice. ID dumbs down the scientific method, softening up the minds of our children so that they're more susceptible to the assaults of the PoMos mentioned above. Actually, leftwing junk science is more persuasive than ID and most kids are smart enough to see that.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and creationism in the biology class is wrong regardless of what goes on in the sociology class or the English class or the history class.

I have always been an evolutionist even though I am a Christian. I cannot handle the belief in creationism created by fundamentalist Christians who cannot provide hard evidence to suggest that the age of our earth is not billions of years. The fundamentalists have a problem discerning God's message in the bible from the men who wrote it, for the people for whom it was written and for the time in which it was written. To me it is not the exact words that are important but the message they send to us(To love one another as human beings, to forgive our enemies and so forth). It concerns me more that fundamentalist Christians rarely quote from the New Teastament and yet are happy to quote from the Old and yet Christs message in the New Teastament supercedes the Old Testament. It is scarey that the fundamentalists are running the most powerful nation on earth and are using Old Testament ideals in their reasoning and their philosophies. And after all don't we scoff the fundamemtalist Moslems and the fundamentalist Jews. In reality all fundamentalists are a bit off the planet.

My beliefs in God are so simple. They are based on the idea that given we all started with the big bang ... and no scientist can as yet tell us how you can get a big bang from absolutely nothing then clearly there must be some metaphysical reason for it to happen. And if this metaphysical reason (call it God as I do if you like) is that powerful then why could He not have put the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry, the laws of natural selection, etc., etc. in place to allow for evolution to take place? I mean He works in such simple ways so whether it took 7 days or 4.5 billion years is of little or no consequence to Him as time is of no consequence to Him. It is only of a consequence to we mere mortals.

Whether this be ID or some other theory is of no consequence to me but it has always explained to me the inexplicable.

"I cannot handle the belief in creationism created by fundamentalist Christians who cannot provide hard evidence to suggest that the age of our earth is not billions of years."

Except that is NOT what ID is about. Furthermore, not all ID proponents are "fundamentalist Christians" or even Christians to begin with. Some don't even belong to an organized religion.

Junk science, blah, blah, blah. I talked to Richard Bennett at length about this. He at first objected to ID proponents engaging in "speculation." When I asked whether what he called "real" scientists (i.e. those who believe in purely material explanations for everything in the universe) engage in speculations too, his response was very telling: "Yeah, but they have the right motives."

There it goes again. Instead of arguing the merits of the science behind ID, opponents often throw ad hominem attacks ("junk science") and attribute deep dark motives as if they are mind readers.

For the record, I neither support nor oppose ID. I am an amused observer.

The theory of Intelligent Design is a metaphysical theory, not a scientific theory. Its truth or falsity--or, more accurately, its plausibility or implausibility--will be fought out in the philosophical journals, not the scientific journals.

To see that this is so, a simple analogy with miracles may help. Hume demonstrated in his famous essay on miracles why they are logically impossible. This is because a miracle, by definition, is a violation natural law; and any convincing evidence of their occurrence would be even more convincing evidence that what we thought was a natural law was not, in fact, a natural law.

By the same token, any evidence suggesting the possibility of intelligent design would be evidence for disbelieving naturalistic explanations of the phenomena. In other words, it would expand the area of our ignorance, rather than our knowledge. Wal Cole is correct in believing that religion occupys the realm that we cannot explain, not the one that we can.

(My apologies to any philosophers who may read this, for my inelegant summary of Hume.)

"The theory of Intelligent Design is a metaphysical theory, not a scientific theory. Its truth or falsity--or, more accurately, its plausibility or implausibility--will be fought out in the philosophical journals, not the scientific journals."

Not so. It is actually being fought on scientific grounds (though most opponents would just cry "creationist" and be done with it). For example, if fossil records of pre-Cambrian organisms in the midst of evolution toward Cambrian organisms were to be found, ID would lose much of its "steam," maybe even falsified.

What does a miracle have to do with ID?

Furthermore, "intelligent design" doesn't mean God or miracle. ID proponents are pretty clear that, while they theorize design, they do not theorize identity or the motive of designer or design.

There are some related concepts that I find intriguing -- like self-designing organisms (or universe).

Personally, I think the advent of ID has been quite exciting to the field of evolutionary biology. It (esp. the Cambrian fallacy) has challenged evolutionary biologists, and in turn the arguments and ideas of the latter have evolved (no pun intended) to address the weaknesses in earlier theories.

Intelligent design theories are related to miracles in the following way. Both are inconsistent with the central presupposition of science, which is that the world is comprehensible by understanding the natural laws that govern it.

In the case of miracles, any evidence of their occurrence would only constitute evidence for disbelief in the natural laws they supposedly violated. In the case of intelligent design, any evidence for its plausibility would only undermine confidence in the evolutionary hypotheses previously accepted.

One cannot use the methods of science to disprove the logical presuppositions of science. This is a logical point, not an empirical one. It is not something that can be resolved by digging something up from the pre-Cambrian or any other period.

There are, of course, interesting arguments going on all the time about the limits of science; but they are metaphysical arguments, not scientific ones.

If you can cite some presentations of intelligent design arguments in reputable scientific journals, I would be interested in reading them. (Admittedly, what constitutes a "reputable" scientific journal is a matter of interpretation.)

"Both are inconsistent with the central presupposition of science, which is that the world is comprehensible by understanding the natural laws that govern it."

As I understand it, ID is not inconsistent with natural laws. The effort seems to be, whether, patterns in manifestations of natural laws are purely random or directed.

"In the case of intelligent design, any evidence for its plausibility would only undermine confidence in the evolutionary hypotheses previously accepted."

That's the thing -- evolutionary hypotheses are NOT synonymous with natural laws. Intelligent design advocates fully acknowledge and recognize evolution as "a" mechanism for changes in species. But they dispute that it -- and it alone -- explains all changes in species (per Cambrian fallacy) and they also recognize that they do not explain how inorganic became organic.

"It is not something that can be resolved by digging something up from the pre-Cambrian or any other period."

Look, intelligient design IS falsifiable. That's one of the first tests of whether an idea is scientific. Intelligent design rests a great deal on Cambrian fallacy. If fossil evidence is discovered that shows that a tremendous explosion of new species in the Cambrian period had prior evolutionary developments, the idea is largely falsifiable.

"If you can cite some presentations of intelligent design arguments in reputable scientific journals, I would be interested in reading them."

You're assuming that "reputable scientific journals" are free of ideological bias. There were article published in peer-reviewed journals (rare because most editorial staff of such journals automatically equates anything related to ID "creationism" and bars them). In one case, an editor was kind of "fired" for letting an ID article on a peer-reviewed journal (see: http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220).

By the way, I do want to make it clear that I am don't claim any expertise in ID despite my affiliation with Discovery. On this topic, I am an intersted and bemused observer.

By the way, here is a back-and-forth between pro & con of ID:

http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/900/924.html

It seems to me that the discussion to which you refer at "Uncommon Knowledge" merely confirms the point I have been trying to make.

The only one of the three discussants who is a practicing scientist, Massimo Pigliucci, states quite explicitly that he considers any explanations of natural phenomena by intelligent design to be outside the enterprise of science. Thus it is not sufficient to point to gaps in the evidence supporting Darwin's theory--such as the paucity of fossil evidence in the pre-Cambrian period--to establish the plausibility of intelligent design. This merely maps areas of our current ignorance, which may or may not be removed.

Until the middle of the nineteenth century it was widely believed living organisms could be put into two categories--those generated from seed and those "spontaneously" generated. Only the intense work of Pasteur eventually persuaded everyone that all life is from seed. Perhaps something like this will "rescue" the gaps in Darwinism. Perhaps not. But that is nothing to the point of establishing intelligent design, because the modern conception of science forbids an explanation in these terms.

Conceptions of science obviously do change over time. Aristotelian science, which prevailed for about 2,000 years and was filled with enough final causes and intelligent designs to delight it contemporary votaries, was replaced by Cartesian-Newtonian science, which in turn has been replaced by modern science. No doubt the present conception will eventually be superseded by something else, too.

But if that something else once again fills up the world with intelligent designs and purposes it will have to be through the introduction of much more persuasive metaphysical arguments than have been adduced so far.

So Jonathan Wells is not a "practicing scientist"? I urge you to read the WSJ piece I linked again. There ARE practical scientists who do ID-related research. They have hard time getting through to journals, for the same reason that conservatives had hard time getting on CNN pre-Fox News era.

Futhermore, ID folks DO point out more than gaps in neo-Darwinism. I urge you to check out the concept of "irreducible complexity." I also find the notion of self-designing universe or organism very fascinating. This is not exactly ID, but can be compatible with ID arguments.

You keep repeating (as if that makes it true) that there are "only metaphysical" arguments for ID. Again, I neither support nor oppose ID, but there ARE actual physical evidences and research on which ID arguments rest.

Opponents keep dimissing ID as "creationism" ad hominem and refuse to argue those physical evidences. It does get interesting when they do argue substantively.

A good analogy I can think of all this are crop circles. Now there are varying theories. Some argue that random meteorological conditions created them. Others argue that people created them (in fact, some people claimed to have created them). Others argue aliens or whatever strikes their fancy.

To approach the issue scientifically merely requires that you review the evidence and then infer a solution. It does NOT require you to only pursue the theory that the circles were randomly created by nature ("meteorological conditions").

It's perfectly scientific to pursue the possibility that the phenomenon was intelligently designed IF there are evidences pointing to the direction.

It is certainly true that the best theory to account for observed events is science. It does not follow from this, however, that intelligent design becomes the best theory because it is the only one on the table.

Scientists tend to be a rather cautious lot and do not offer explanatory theories until they think they actually explain something. Until then they are perfectly content to admit ignorance. Whereof one cannot speak, as Wittgenstein once phrased the ethic, thereof one should be silent.

Would that proponents of intelligent design (or is it now "irreducible complexity"?) were similarly circumspect. Instead, they throw out intelligent design whenever they find gaps in our knowledge, much like the medieval quacks who offered phlogiston to account for the gases escaping from combustion. Works only so long as no one really understands what is going on.

But it is actually worse than that. Intelligent design is not really an explanation at all. It bears a grammatical similarity to an explanation--it has a subject followed by a verb and a predicate--but that is where the similarity ends. Until we can understand how intelligent design works, and why, postulating its occurrence explains nothing.

You attribute the exclusion of intelligent design research from the prestigous scientifc journals to some sort ideological bias. I think it is simply a matter of clarity about one's job. No sensible person treats all questions as open questions all the time; and no university worth its endowment is going to hire someone to teach geography from a flat-earth perspective or biology from an intelligent design perspective. This is not because such perspectives could not possibly be true, but because we know enough now to do useful work on the assumption that both are either false or irrelevant.

It is up to the advocates of intelligent design to show otherwise.

"Scientists tend to be a rather cautious lot and do not offer explanatory theories until they think they actually explain something."

Okay. If you say so. This reminds me of Richard Bennett's argument "ID people speculate, real scientists don't."

But scientists do speculate!

Bennett again: "Yeah, but they have the right motive. ID people have the nefarious motive of pushing closet creationism."

I looked up the WSJ article you referenced, which reports on the sad story of Richard Sternberg's near career-death experience for agreeing to publish Stephen Meyer's pro-ID essay in a peer-reviewed science journal.

Interestingly, Dr. Meyer's Ph.D. is in the philosopy of biology. Mmmm. Philosophy of biology; philosophy of science. These are sub-disciplines of what used to go under the rubric of metaphysics in my undergrad days. (Admittedly the Stone Age of thought.)

Meyer is on the right track, even if in the wrong choo-choo train. ID folks need to clarify what they think an explanation means, and what they think an explanation in terms of intelligent design explains. These are metaphysical issues, and the metaphysics of modern science must first be swept aside or there will be more extinct careers hitched to ID.

I doubt this can be done, but good luck.

There is really only one reason people object to Intelligent Design: the possibility of a Designer, who just might turn out to be Someone with Whom they must deal! So long as they can hide behind scientific half truths, like Bennett, and shield their eyes from the possiblilty of a God-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed, they feel safe in their self-approved morality. But a Creator might have his own standards; and consequences.

It is this entirely personal and relevant implication of ID that prevents otherwise rational people from taking a closer look at irreducable complexity or the Cambrian Explosion, or the implications of the fossil record.

For the record, I think that Intelligent Design is an interesting theory, but more importantly, that neo-Darwinism is a horrible, generally falsified theory, which has crumbled to dust and ashes in the last 10 years. These guys just can't let the corpse drop, though, lest God spy themin their game of hide and seek. (You can't see me - I've got my eyes closed!")

Of course, if you believe in a merciful God, as taught by Jesus, there is no threat. I don't know what these evolutionists have been taught about God, but it's pretty clear they didn't learn it from what Jesus said.