In a message dated 10/3/2000 10:02:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Nucacids@aol.com writes:
> What Becomes of ID?
>
> It is commonly thought that ID is nothing more that some
> form of reactionary religious response to the truth of the
> neo-Darwinian worldview.
It certainly seems to be that way. Behe infers ID when he can eliminate
Darwinian pathways and Johnson et al are on their war path against the
strawman of Darwinism as an ontological methodology.
Neo-Darwinism, after all, represents
> the crown jewel of the non-teleological, reductionist approach
> to life. Some religious people, it is said, make their peace
> with neo-Darwinism and sequester their God to the
> empirically undetectable realm. But it is also said that
> there are the religious die-hards, who think their God needs
> a job or will otherwise become superfluous. Thus, they
> look for gaps in Nature and seek to find a job for their
> God among those gaps.
>
That seems to be what several people including Lamoureux are pointing out.
> And such, I think, is the most common perception
> about basic dynamic behind the existence of ID.
> Put simply, it's the last gasp of a dying form of
> theistic interventionism. A polished, but still
> inherently flawed, form of creationism.
>
It does not have to be but that is in many cases the driving impetus. Of
course ID is flawed on far more fundamental grounds.
> Now, I suspect this perception is accurate for
> some, maybe many or even most. As I participate in some
> debates about this issue, and more importantly, as I lurk
> and watch many others, I do indeed think much of the noise
> is simply about theists and atheists using a different language
> to carry on the alt.atheism type debates that most cyber-surfers
> have probably seen at one time or another. And even if you don't
> quite fit into the context, if you participate, it's easy to get
> caught in their cross-fire.
>
> If I am correct, then what does the future hold for ID? Let's
> say that ID has played its strongest cards - Dembski's EF/CSI
> and Behe's IC. Both cards are played such that they are supposed
> to compel any rational person into accepting ID. But if we survey
> the response of their skeptics, it would clearly appear that they
> have thus far failed. An army of skeptics, who are certainly
> not irrational, have either rejected these cards or found them
> seriously inadequate.
>
Based on quite strong arguments as well. After all if ID cannot exclude
natural selection as the designer...
> Now, I suppose the arguments can be strengthened in the future,
> and periodically various scholars or scientists may join the ID
> "movement," but if that was their best shot, what becomes of ID?
> Will ID always remain marginalized? Will ID find its home only
> among those with fundamentalist-like religious leanings? After all,
> as those gaps keeping getting smaller and smaller, it is going to be
> harder and harder to find a job for God, right?
>
> I think it is safe to assume the vast majority of ID critics would
> respond "yes" to these questions. I think most ID critics think
> that in the future, ID will be viewed by historians as nothing more
> than a desperate last attempt to resurrect some form of theistic world
> view that finally gives way to a non-teleological viewpoint that
> will forever reign.
>
> I think, however, there is a very good chance the future will
> be very different. That is, even if the current ID arguments are not made
> any more rigorous than they are today, I think some form of teleological
> viewpoint, probably including something like current ID, will gain
> a strong foothold in the future and spread much farther than any current
> ID critic can imagine. And not just among the uneducated. Am I really
> that naïve? Am I really such a true-believer? Is it really that hard for
> me to wake up and smell that coffee?
>
> Well, I hope I am not that naïve, I'm not really a "true-believer"
> on this issue, but I do confess to not drinking coffee. Nevertheless, I
> can "see" a very different future than the ID critic and it doesn't even
> depend on some sensational ID break-through.
>
> It's just in the cards.
>
> Shall I explain?
>
Please do. So far ID has done little to gain ground in the scientific arena.
They have attempted to formulate an empirical detector of ID that has failed
on various grounds. When asked to support their claims, they have so far
remained mostly silent.
Will ID manage to gain some foothold among those who find religious comfort
in it? I think that this is likely to be the case.
DOes this mean that ID has a scientific future? Not unless ID gets their act
shaped up.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 01:54:09 EDT