User talk:FuelWagon/ID
This page is an attempt to boil down the Intelligent Design debate to manageable components. Feel free to edit anything. I reserve the right to refactor and revert. I am trying to compile a list of sources, topics, and viewpoints of those topics (from the POV of the given sources), in an attempt to help direct the intelligent design article to follow NPOV policy, which says report views from their sources.
sources[edit]
List the various notable sources for the intelligent design debate. Place them under supporters or critics.
pro-id[edit]
individuals[edit]
William A. Dembski author of The Design Revolution and Signs of Intelligence
Phillip E. Johnson author of Darwin on Trial
Michael Behe author of Darwin's Black Box
Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon authors of Of Pandas and People
groups[edit]
Center for Science and Culture which is part of Discovery Institute
Institute for Creation Research website is here.
pro-evolution[edit]
individuals[edit]
Kenneth R. Miller author of Finding Darwin's God
Martin Nowak a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology
groups[edit]
United States National Academy of Sciences
National Center for Science Education
American Association for the Advancement of Science website here.
Natural History magazine (article excerpt here)
topics[edit]
Intelligent design This would be the 50,000 foot level view of ID.
Evolution this would be the 50,000 foot level view of evolution.
nature of the Designer (who is it, where did they come from)
points of view[edit]
Given a topic listed above, report a point of view from one of the sources listed above.
Intelligent Design[edit]
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." == The Discovery Institute's website, under "CSC --- Top Questions". [1]
"You can't prove intelligent design by experiment". == Behe. Evolution Wars. Claudia Wallis. Time Magazine, 15 August 2005 edition, page 32
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." == Phillip E. Johnson. Elizabeth Nickson, 2004. "Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin." In Christianity.ca.
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." == Phillip E. Johnson. Joel Belz, 1996. "Witnesses For The Prosecution." In World Magazine.
Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.'s in religious studies and biology specifically "to devote my life to destroying Darwinism." Natural History magazine [2]
According to an early mission statement, the CRSC seeks "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies." [3]
Dembski claims that Artificial Intelligence is impossible. [4]
"As Christians, we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. --Dembski [5]
"The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus." -- Phillip E. Johnson [6] (note, unable to find text in URL)
Johnson attitude expressed in a 1999 article in Church & State magazine “The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God" [7]
"I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed. [...] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he's not getting it." --Dembski [8]
evolution[edit]
"many organisms provide evidence that natural selection can modify existing features -- but only within established species. Breeders of domestic plants and animals have been doing the same thing with artificial selection for centuries. But where is the evidence that selection produces new features in new species? It seems to me, ... that Darwin's theory cannot account for all features of living things." == Jonathan Wells [9]
"Wells contends that "Darwin's theory cannot account for all features of living things," but then, it doesn't have to. Today scientists explain features of living things by invoking not only natural selection but also additional biological processes that Darwin didn't know about, including gene transfer, symbiosis, chromosomal rearrangement, and the action of regulator genes. Contrary to what Wells maintains, evolutionary theory is not inadequate. It fits the evidence just fine." == Eugenie C. Scott [10]
- FW: Neither of these quotes accurately describes evolution, from the 50,000 foot level or otherwise. Wells is an IDer and his comment is inaccurate and misleading. No competent biologist believes that selection produces new features. Selection doesn't even produce new mutations, which Wells, having studied evolution at Berkeley, must know. Scott's argument is not much better, though I'm sure her heart's in the right place. Darwin's admitted ignorance about the nature of inheritance is pretty much irrelevant to the ID argument. Both of these quotes muddy things. Dawkins would be a better source for accurate quotes about evolution. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make in this section. --Eperotao****
wedge strategy[edit]
The wedge strategy was originally brought to the publics attention by a leaked fund raising tool, informally known as the Wedge Document, used by the Discovery Institute to raise money for its subsidiary charged with promoting its science and education agenda, the Center for Science and Culture, at the time called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC). As stated in the Wedge Document [2], the strategy is designed to defeat "Darwinism" and to promote an idea of science "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The ultimate goal of the Wedge strategy is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian values. [11]
- FW: I think the means by which the Discovery Institute et al have created an alternate hypothesis (or whatever you want to call it) is something that should be mentioned. You cover the why thoroughly. But what about the how? They have coopted the superficial trappings of science and conceded a HUGE amount of scientific fact in order to put together an idea (ID) that they can sell to the public as "scientific." I think that it's worth looking at ID as a concession instead of the usual "assault on science." You could say something like, "Although most scientists view ID as an assault on science, Intelligent Design concedes evolution itself, most of modern molecular biology and even microevolution--evolution at the level of individual genes. By conceding many of the facts of evolution, as well as by adopting scientific-style rhetoric, ID proponents of have succeeded in dressing up a religious argument in scientific garb that gives it a public credibility and interest it would not otherwise have as a doctrine of pure faith." --Eperotao****
Teach the Controversy[edit]
Richard Dawkins compares "Teach the controversy" with teaching flat earthism, perfectly fine in a history class but not in science. "If you give the idea that there are two schools of thought within science, one that says the earth is round and one that says the earth is flat, you are misleading children." Richard Dawkins Claudia Wallis. Evolution Wars. Time Magazine, 15 August 2005 edition, page 32
Methodological naturalism[edit]
"If Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific." == Kenneth R. Miller [12]
"In the absence of evidence that natural selection and random variations can account for the apparently designed features of living things, the entire question of design must be reopened." == Jonathan Wells [13]
"he (Jonathan Wells) is in effect recommending that science allow for nonnatural causation. We actually do have solid natural explanations to work with, but even if we didn't, science only has tools for explaining things in terms of natural causation." == Eugenie C. Scott [14]
"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." == Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences [15]
Irreducible complexity[edit]
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin, speaking of his theory of evolution, [16]
"Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications -- I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice." == Michael J.Behe [17]
"The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell. another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot." == Michael J.Behe [18]
"science has long understood, ... that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different -- but still useful -- functions." == Kenneth R. Miller
"A small group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine -- it's used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Although the function performed by this small part when working alone is different, it nonetheless can be favored by natural selection. The key proteins that clot blood ... are modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these (digestive) proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system." == Kenneth R. Miller
"the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons -- because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence." == Kenneth R. Miller
Specified Complexity[edit]
"Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature -- what I call "specified complexity." An event exhibits specified complexity if it is contingent and therefore not necessary; if it is complex and therefore not easily repeatable by chance; and if it is specified in the sense of exhibiting an independently given pattern." == Dembski [19]
"a connection exists between the technical notion of information and that of entropy, so Dembski's argument boils down to a recasting of an old creationist claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. But ... the second law applies only to closed systems, and biological systems are not closed." (The sun continuously adds energy to the biological system) == Robert T. Pennock Ph.D. (Natural History magazine) [20]
""in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable. ... within these sciences there are well-developed techniques for identifying intelligence. Essential to all these techniques is the ability to eliminate chance and necessity. ... chance and necessity are insufficient for the natural sciences and ... the natural sciences need to leave room for design." == Dembski [21]
"one cannot detect an intelligent agent by the process of elimination he suggests. Science requires positive evidence." == Robert T. Pennock Ph.D. (Natural History magazine) [22]
"For instance, how do the radio astronomers in Contact (the Jodie Foster movie based on Carl Sagan's novel of the same name) infer the presence of extraterrestrial intelligence in the beeps and pauses they monitor from space?" == Dembski [23]
"Dembski's archery and SETI analogies are red herrings. A design inference like that in the movie Contact, would rely on background knowledge about the nature of radio signals and other natural processes, together with the assumption that a sequence of prime numbers is the kind of pattern another scientist might choose to send as a signal. But the odd sequences found within DNA are quite unlike a series of prime numbers. Dembski has no way to show that the genetic patterns are "set up in advance" or "independently given."" == Robert T. Pennock Ph.D. (Natural History magazine) [24]
nature of the designer[edit]
The designer could be God or an "alien life force" == William Dembski, 1998. The Design Inference. Cambridge University Press
"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." == William Dembski, Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology.
"the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" and that "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact... only then can "biblical issues" be discussed." == Phillip Johnson. "The Wedge", Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. July/August 1999.
"Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed." == Phillip Johnson. "Keeping the Darwinists Honest", an interview with Phillip Johnson. In Citizen Magazine. April 1999.
"science requires a specific model that can be tested. What exactly did the designer do, and when did he do it? Dembski's nebulous hypothesis of design, even if restricted to natural processes, provides precious little that is testable, and once supernatural processes are wedged in, it loses any chance of testability." == Robert T. Pennock Ph.D. (Natural History magazine) [25]
analogies[edit]
English theologian William Paley, created the famous watchmaker analogy. If we find a pocket watch in a field, Paley wrote in 1802, we immediately infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect. Likewise, he reasoned, the natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator. [26]
We don't know how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids, so aliens must have helped [27].
Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to explain his concept of Irreducible complexity in Darwin's Black Box.
"An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap." It consists of (1) a platform, (2) hammer, (3) spring, (4) a catch, and (5) a holding bar. "You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice." -- Michael J. Behe [28]
Dembski uses the analogy of Nicholas Caputo's court case to explain his concept of Specified complexity in the book Mere Creation.
"Consider the difference between raw pieces of wood and an acorn. Raw pieces of wood do not have the power to assemble themselves into a ship. For raw pieces of wood to form a ship requires a designer to draw up a blueprint for a ship, then take the pieces of wood and, in line with the blueprint, fashion them into a ship. But where is the designer that causes an acorn to develop into a full-grown oak tree? There isn't any. The acorn has within itself the power to transform itself into an oak tree." Dembski, explaining the difference between matter with internal information and and without information. The Design Revolution Chapter 16, pg. 131.