DISQUS

Dave Jilk · 4 years ago

With recent news I also have impulses to want to make this sort of argument.

But is there really anyone on the fence on this issue? Supporters of Intelligent Design have as their first axiom that there is an original Creator. ID itself is merely a way to describe their theory of how the world was created, GIVEN THE AXIOM. They certainly are not subject to Occam's razor with respect to their first axiom.

And epistemologically they believe (to the extent they have thought about it) that one's first axiom is necessarily based on faith. So they don't accept your approach of working back from reality to explanations -- for them the explanation comes first.

The only reason they've even bothered to invent ID is to influence teachings in public schools. Yet another reason to end public education.

Bill Korner · 4 years ago

I'm now convinced that ID is motivated by a desire to teach the closest to creationism that can gotten away with and, ultimately, to influence the conduct of science. This is a different goal from trying to get scientists and pedagogues discussing religion and the relation between the science and religion. While that latter goal is perfectly legitimate, ID is unflinchingly devoted to subverting science and science teaching.

Will Wilkinson · 4 years ago

Bill, I agree.

Dave, I think you're right about how IDers operate. But the pretense is that this is science, and has nothing to do with faith. So they can't have faith-based axioms. The ID hypothesis that that fully rational inquiry will lead to a designer. I'm just trying to show that that gets them nowhere.

I also think you're right about the public schools. This issue would not be an issue but for the state enforced hegemony of secularism in public institutions that should not be public. ID is a predicatble form of self-defense by believers given the nature of our over-politicized institutions. The fact that our institutions would lead to a movement "unflinchingly devoted to subverting science and science teaching," in Bill's words, shows that there is something deeply wrong with our institutions. That is, state-sponsored hegemonic secularism breeds its own opposition. So we have a kind of Marxist "cultural contradiction." The way to cut the knot is to get the state out of the provision of education, even if it remains in the business of financing education.

Gil · 4 years ago

Will,

I'm as opposed to government involvement in "education" as anyone, but I don't think your conclusion follows.

I don't think liberal neutrality requires the teaching of anything like ID in science classes, so I don't think this is a legitimate backlash or indication of a problem with the institution (there are many others, though).

If there was a racist backlash to a legal system that treated all races equally, would you conclude that this "shows that there is something wrong with our institutions."?

Will Wilkinson · 4 years ago

Gil, The point about liberal neutrality is that it doesn't require that ANYTHING in particular be taught in classes, other than the minimum necessary to give someone a decent chance in life. A good school, almost by definition, won't teach ID. Some religious schools might. And a neutral state should have nothing to say about either, as long as the kids are getting reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic.

Gil · 4 years ago

Will,

Thanks. I think I misinterpreted you.

And, I agree that this issue could be avoided (at least in its political form) if the state would stay out of this area which is unnecessary for it to protect basic rights.

But, many will argue that ensuring the learning of basic science is as important to a decent chance in modern life as the three R's.

Phelps · 4 years ago

I think that dismissing ID on this basis is a falacy. Evolution, for example, is silent on abiogenesis (which is what most religious people are railing against, whether they know it or not) but that makes it no less science. (I personally think the Evolution is fatally flawed, but I don't deny that it is science. It is just wrong.)

To give credence to ID, a mechanism must be found. Genetic manipulation, tinkering with quantum probability, something. If that mechanism is identified, then it doesn't matter WHO did it, the same that abiogenesis is irrelevant to Evolution.