It's funny how Darwinists need to characterize those not convinced as 'creationists'. Some are, of course, most are simply skeptical. Constructing a philosophical world view upon such a theory is the problem. Convinced atheists need it and would like the culture to reflect their beliefs and use the questionable paradigm as support. Very un-scientific.

"the American scientific community�which already has trouble finding enough young Americans to fill its graduate schools"

This is wrong, wrong, wrong. If it were true then supply and demand would drive the wages and benefits of grad students & postdocs to levels commensurate with the value that they actually bring to universities, which in the physical sciences is immense.

Children aren't self-examining.

Peter, I have a copy of Pennock's 'Tower of Babel' available for you. I offered it to Orrin, but he apparently is leery of accepting it.

Neuhaus (whoever he is) seems to be making the same mistake Johnson makes, confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

I am both a methodological and a philosophical naturalist; in other words, a materialist.

But evolution is not based on philosophical materialism. It merely posits that explanations used natural observations of ordinary processes can explain what we observe in the world. Indeed they do.

If Neuhaus thinks that there are any scientists who doubt evolution, let him cite their research publications.

There aren't any.

Orrin is confused on this issue, thinking that the challenge to the IDers is that they have not provided an alternative theory. They haven't, but that is not the challenge.

I could summarize it in a couple more paragraphs, but Pennock takes over 300 pages to read the argument. It would be good for your moral education to study it.

But evolution is not based on philosophical materialism. It merely posits that explanations used natural observations of ordinary processes can explain what we observe in the world. Indeed they do.

No, Harry, it doesn't. It posits how what we observe in the world got there and all the steps it took along the way--the exclusive steps. That makes it as much history and philosophy as observation.

I'm still missing what is wrong with stating that evolution is a theory. It is and Neuhaus is exactly correct on this. We still refer to the "Theory" of Gravity and the "Theory" of Relativity and those are clearly more solid than evolution. I never hear chemists freak out when someone talks about quantum "theory", so why does this happen with evolutionary "theory"?

Peter:

Unfortunately, the problem with ID is that it takes the Cargo Cult approach to science.

Virtually all scientific theories are hypothetico-deductive. In order to qualify, the hypothesis must have deductive consequences.

Regardless of what you think of Evolutionary Theory's truth value, it does carry with it many suuch deductive consequences.

I could here, and have done before, name roughly a half dozen.

ID, in contrast, is a hypothesis without any deductive consequences.

None.

Nada.

Zilch.

Until ID (which also resolutely fails to define either intelligence or design) can come up with even one, it simply fails the litmus test.

There is nothing censorious about that; certainly no more censorious than declining to teach astrology in astronomy classes.

So, if standards mean anything, ID simply doesn't qualify.

Despite that, though, I'm in favor of teaching ID in biology classes, because sunshine is a great disinfectant.

Harry:

If my library doesn't have the book, I will pester you for it, in case Peter or OJ haven't gotten there first.

I want to have somebody else read it. I am all for moral edification.

Peter, workers in evolution do not posit all the steps. They look for evidence of them.

You're a lawyer. Your objection, if valid, would mean you could not hold a trial to determine whether a crime was committed or by whom.

The events of evolution do not repeat themselves exactly, but they leave their traces.

Pennock is excellent on this.

Biologists usually claim that evolution is the observed fact, and natural selection (and other observable mechanisms, like genetic drift) is the theory that explains it.

Newton proposed gravity as an observation without any theory to account for it.

Einstein much later proposed a theory for it, and the quantum mechanists are searching for a quantum theory of it.

If you don't accept relativity as the theory (and the quantum physicists do not), then it would be incorrect to call anything a 'theory of gravity.'

There isn't any such beast.

You could disbelieve that extinctions occur (Orrin's position) or that species change over time. That would obviate the need for a theory to account for it.

Few, except Orrin and the YECs, go so far.

It is not necessary to provide an alternative theory if you can demolish the one on offer.

However, the way science is practiced, if a theory does not account for everything, until a better proposal (theory) comes along, the parts unaccounted for are treated as anomalies, not as refutations of the theory.

The anomaly in the orbit of Mercury was not considered to have disproven Newtonian celestial mechanics, and of course, when the orbit was resolved by Einstein, Newtonian celestial mechanics were not junked but merely improved.

Neuhaus (whoever he is) is clearly unqualified to venture opinions in this area, or he would not make such silly mistakes.

Jeff:

Despite your best and most persistent efforts, you aren't going to get me or most here to shill for ID. Your judgments on its logic are clearly not as settled as you claim, but I'm not qualified to say one way or the other.

Harry:

Your analogy to a trial is interesting. Lawyers do indeed offer theories to the court and then try to present evidence consistent with the theory. The court then makes rulings of fact.

But nobody pretends they are in the realm of objective reality. It is understood the rulings are human historical judgments that are made on the balance of probabilities. If you had a friend convicted of striking his wife and he told you after the trial that he didn't do it, would you say: "Of course you did. The court found that you did and so it is now by definition a matter of objective historical fact. Please don't tell me you didn't because that is a factual error"?

If science works on the basis that unaccounted parts of a theory are by definition anomalies absent a better comprehensive theory, then what you are saying is that the scientific world has no room for a sceptic who simply says that he is unconvinced, and also you are admitting you are in the realm of theory, not fact, which is Neuhaus' point. As to who Neuhaus is, he's just some guy I met on the street the other day.

Peter:

I'm not trying to get you to shill for ID.

I'm refuting the assertion that resistance to teaching ID in classrooms qualifies as censorship.

The proponents of intelligent design, however, are not making their argument from the authority of the Bible but from what they are persuaded is the scientific evidence.

That ID proponents have convinced themselves is irrelevant as to whether ID qualifies as a scientific theory. As I noted above, it simply does not.

Their opponents contend that their argument is discredited because most of them are Christian believers.

Pure strawman. Their opponents note that ID proponents are all theologically exercised; but oppose the teaching of ID because of its comprehensive failure as a scientific theory.

Harry is precisely correct in noting the difference between observation and theory. Its a shame Neuhaus couldn't apprehend the difference.

Jeff:

Neuhaus understands the difference and articulated it very well. It is Harry who conflates the two.

Peter, science has room for skeptics who argue within the context of scientific inquiry.

If YECs want to propose that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous, that's skeptical of accepted science, but it's also crazy. It is not an alternative, it's on another planet. You cannot teach it as an alternative scientific concept, because there's no evidence for it.

Edis, 'Why Intelligent Design Fails,' approaches ID not from the perspective of philosophy of science, like Pennock, but simply as a lab problem. So far, ID fails at that level.

It is not an argument against the content of ID to say that all of its proponents are also preachers of a particularly Dark Age kind of Christianity. But it does raise an eyebrow about their claims not to be pushing a particular cult.

Henry Morris originated the argument that there was something wrong with the science of biology, and that this was independent of Christian religion; but I went to hear Morris, and I got a sermon.

The honesty of ID proponents is at least put into play by Johnson's 'wedge document.'

science has room for skeptics who argue within the context of scientific inquiry.

Bully for science. But if that is the limit of what science says is accpetable scepticism, no wonder it gets itself into such trouble. Harry, let's take morality. A materialist might say (many have)that morality stems from a particularly subtle, complex kind of natural selection process. He spends much time hypothesizing about how this or that altruistic act actually is consistent with or promotes survival. Another individual reflects hard on what he sees and experiences and concludes that is simply not right and is woefully inadequate, but he doesn't have an alternative scientific explanation. He may even doubt there is one. Are you saying that the first one is the only one worth listening to? Or that the dissenter's arguments (which really in the end amounts to a comment on the philosophical limits of scientific inquiry) must not be mentioned in a science class?

You know, all this talk about keeping scientific classes and classrooms pure and unpolluted by philosophical challenges to scientific orthodoxy is going to end up looking very silly and being very anti-intellectual. I'm getting the impression that the scientific elite doesn't care anymore whether they teach in religion class that God turns water into vapour in response to prayers provided they get to say God had nothing to do with life in science class. That strikes me like an argument of one trying to keep his job rather than worring about educating kids.

Interesting you should say that, Peter.

Pennock explicitly -- and repeatedly -- says that exactly those questions are beyond science. I disagree with him there.

I think morality is subject to scientific methods, though it would be absurd to say that science has made much progress there so far. But then, neither has religion.

You are conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

What it boils down to is that one side says, 'let's look at the evidence,' and the other side says, 'don't bother. the Big Spook did it.'

As a practical matter, one side gets results and the other doesn't.

You don't even have to get to philosophy to know which to choose.

How would you present God in science class. Let's take it away from biology, which sets up people's hackles so readily.

Try chemistry. The limitation on how many electrons can occupy each shell. Are you going to suggest to the children that God decreed that only 2 electrons can occupy the innermost shell, while some of the outer shells can have 18?

And let's say they accept that. Then what?

As Pennock says, migrated philosophical naturalism into science is intellectually lazy, because whenever you come up with the question that requires really hard thinking, you just wave your arms and say, 'god did it.'

The IDers are notably lazy. Behe, for example, announced that nobody could possibly explain how the bacterial flagellum had evolved step by step.

At the time he said that, it was true that nobody had done so at the atomic level.

Now they have.

The biologists now understand the flagellum system at a much deeper level than they did just 5 years ago. Behe's understanding is frozen at around the period 1985. Orrin's at around 500.

I think morality is subject to scientific methods, though it would be absurd to say that science has made much progress there so far. But then, neither has religion.

Harry, that sounds to me like the statement of a very isolated man. Anyway, no offence old buddy, but you are so lost in caricature that it's hard to know what to say. But your posts have described scientism very well.