[_ Old Earth _] Kenneth Miller on The Collapse of Intelligent Design

[Barbarian]

The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the intelligent design movement’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” Also, among the intelligent design movement’s “Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Listed among their “Twenty Year Goals” is: “To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.”


The Discoveroids have failed. Their grand crusade has gone absolutely nowhere. An interesting indicator can be seen in search engine statistics. Check out this history of Google searches on “intelligent design”. It peaked during the Kitzmiller trial in 2005, and it’s been steadily — precipitously — trending downward ever since.


The collapse of interest in the Discoveroids’ “theory” reminds us of the graphic which you see at the start of this post. Were we too dramatic in choosing to post that graphic? Maybe, but one could argue that the intelligent design graphic looks even worse than the one showing the obliteration of Napoleon’s Grande Armée. The Discoveroids have spent millions and they’ve accomplished nothing. Well, they’ve got Louisiana — how wonderful for them.


In contrast, here’s the result of a google trend search on “Sensuous Curmudgeon”. It’s not much, and it certainly looks bad for June, but that month has just begun. Anyway, the trend looks far healthier for us than it does for the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design.


Hey, Casey — if you’re planning on leaving that sinking ship in Seattle, don’t come to us. We don’t have any budget. You may as well stay where you are, as long as it lasts. After that — good luck! Besides, the Discoveroids are the only creationist outfit with political ambitions. When you guys shut down there won’t be much need for what we do here.
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/the-collapse-of-intelligent-design/

If you like watching videos, it's here:

 

[brother Paul]

Please answer these questions?


Is God Intelligent?

Do you believe God knew how to design the forms that would occupy this Universe?

Did God devise the laws and principles that matter and energy follow and obey?

 

[brother Paul]

No Takers pr are all yes's obvious????

 

[Barbarian]

Please answer these questions?
Is God Intelligent?

It's probably a bad idea to anthropomorphize God. An omniscient being transcends mere "intelligence."

Do you believe God knew how to design the forms that would occupy this Universe?

Since humans, lacking God's ability to create, must merely design, it seems certain to me that He could have "designed" if He had chosen to limit Himself in that way. However, it appears that He created things, rather than merely designing them.

As you know, engineers are now realizing that evolutionary processes work better than design for highly complex problems. So it looks like God did it in the most elegant way possible.

Did God devise the laws and principles that matter and energy follow and obey?

I'm thinking, that if we really find out, it will be a single rule or a very few, that produced the world we know. He seems to create with parsimony in mind.

And it looks like "intelligent design" is pretty much over, as far as a movement is concerned.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=intelligent design

 

[Barbarian]

Meet Bob Davidson, 78 year old Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, a devout believer in evolution and member of the First Presbyterian Church.

Oh, he's also listed on the
It turns out, Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat contacted Mr. Davidson and asked him about this. Here's what Mr. Davidson has to say:



"I'm kind of embarrassed that I ever got involved with this," Davidson says.
He was shocked, he says, when he saw the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis."

"It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," he says. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it."

And reality sets in:

"It just clicked with me that this whole movement is wrongheaded on all counts," Davidson said. "It's a misuse of science, and a misuse of religion. "Why can't we just keep the two separate?"Discovery Institute's list of "400 people with scientific degrees...who are said to doubt the 'central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/08/24/140976/-Discovery-Institute-losing-scientists

 

[Barbarian]

Meet Bob Davidson, 78 year old Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, a devout believer in evolution and member of the First Presbyterian Church.

Oh, he's also listed on the Discovery Institute's list of scientists who dissent from Darwinism.
It turns out, Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat contacted Mr. Davidson and asked him about this. Here's what Mr. Davidson has to say:



"I'm kind of embarrassed that I ever got involved with this," Davidson says.
He was shocked, he says, when he saw the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis."

"It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," he says. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it."

And reality sets in:

"It just clicked with me that this whole movement is wrongheaded on all counts," Davidson said. "It's a misuse of science, and a misuse of religion. "Why can't we just keep the two separate?"Discovery Institute's list of "400 people with scientific degrees...who are said to doubt the 'central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/08/24/140976/-Discovery-Institute-losing-scientists

 

[brother Paul]

It's probably a bad idea to anthropomorphize God. An omniscient being transcends mere "intelligence."



Since humans, lacking God's ability to create, must merely design, it seems certain to me that He could have "designed" if He had chosen to limit Himself in that way. However, it appears that He created things, rather than merely designing them.

As you know, engineers are now realizing that evolutionary processes work better than design for highly complex problems. So it looks like God did it in the most elegant way possible.



I'm thinking, that if we really find out, it will be a single rule or a very few, that produced the world we know. He seems to create with parsimony in mind.

And it looks like "intelligent design" is pretty much over, as far as a movement is concerned.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=intelligent design

So He created very specific forms which function in very specific ways for His pleasure and purpose?

Parsimony? He is God and His resources are unlikely limited in any way...I am sure He used whatever He willed to exist for those purposes.

 

[Barbarian]

So He created very specific forms which function in very specific ways for His pleasure and purpose?

And did it with a very parsimonous set of rules that worked as He intended.

Parsimony? He is God and His resources are unlikely limited in any way...

It is often noted in science that a theory that is ugly-complicated almost always turns out to be wrong. Beauty and elegance marks almost everything we see in nature, when we understand it.

Evolutionary processes are remarkably efficient, in that sense.

I am sure He used whatever He willed to exist for those purposes.

Which is the point.

 

[brother Paul]

Which is the point? Either God established the laws and principles that matter and energy obey and follow (unlike men) or He did not...I say He did. The laws and principles did not invent themselves (and had to precede and govern the formation). The directions for how stars and planets formed were already there for them to follow and so likewise for all subsequent chemical and energetic reactions. Even a blind watchmaker would have to foreknow how to make a watch.

 

[Barbarian]

Which is the point?

Intelligent Design proponents claim that ID is a science, when their own manifesto claims that it's a campaign to put God into scientific theory. Even Michael Behe, under oath, admitted that ID was science in the same sense as astrology is science.

The point is, we don't see design in nature, but we do see creation. And the failure of ID to make their case, is what caused the collapse of their movement.

Years ago, I was interested in ID, when I first heard of it. But then, nothing of substance followed, and then it became clear that it was just creationism with a shower and a new suit of clothes. It was a terrible embarrassment for ID ,when their "ID textbook" was shown to be a creationist book, with God removed and 'designer' inserted in all the relevant passages.

Despite glowing promises and a "design laboratory", nothing came of any of it. Ultimately, ID doesn't do anything at all. And if it doesn't do anything, what good is it?

 

[turnorburn]

Their still trying to make a monkey out of Jesus, doesn't surprise me the world hates him and everything he stands for..

 

[brother Paul]

Defne the "We" who do not see? I see definite designs...especially in living things...amazing and wonderous designs. Designs that dictate function. And either God established the laws and principles that matter and energy obey and follow (unlike men) or He did not...I say He did. The laws and principles did not invent themselves and since matter and energy FOLLOW these laws and principles then it is a logical conclusion that they had to precede and govern even the very formation.

And ID is not a "science" it is a perspective on the evidence that the same science has observed and demonstrated.

 

[Barbarian]

Defne the "We" who do not see?

People who actually study living things.

I see definite designs...especially in living things...amazing and wonderous designs. Designs that dictate function.

If it's God's creation, function is more effective than mere design. This is why engineers are starting to use evolutionary processes to solve problems that design cannot address. God knew best, after all.

And either God established the laws and principles that matter and energy obey and follow (unlike men)

This seems to be obfuscating "design" to merely mean "intent."

And ID is not a "science"

The guys who invented it, claim that it is. They want it in science textbooks.

it is a perspective

More precisely, it's the religious doctrine that God is limited to the point that He has to "design", like a limited creature. It is why IDers say that the "designer" might be a "space alien."

 

[brother Paul]

More precisely, it's the religious doctrine that God is limited to the point that He has to "design", like a limited creature. It is why IDers say that the "designer" might be a "space alien."

Who? Like Crick or Sagan? Panspermia is even considered a possibility by Dawkins....IDers? I think not....

Design is surely not a limitation...it is intentional however and quite creative....we are made in His image.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
More precisely, it's the religious doctrine that God is limited to the point that He has to "design", like a limited creature. It is why IDers say that the "designer" might be a "space alien."

Who? Like Crick or Sagan?

No, I don't think so. Panspermia is the idea that life can be spread from system to system. No "space alien designer" there. Sagan, in Contact suggested that there was a creator who made the universe in such a way as to let all things appear. That's not remotely a space alien.

Design is surely not a limitation...

It is our limitation. God creates. We design.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the intelligent design movement’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” Also, among the intelligent design movement’s “Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Listed among their “Twenty Year Goals” is: “To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.”


The Discoveroids have failed. Their grand crusade has gone absolutely nowhere. An interesting indicator can be seen in search engine statistics. Check out this history of Google searches on “intelligent design”. It peaked during the Kitzmiller trial in 2005, and it’s been steadily — precipitously — trending downward ever since.


The collapse of interest in the Discoveroids’ “theory” reminds us of the graphic which you see at the start of this post. Were we too dramatic in choosing to post that graphic? Maybe, but one could argue that the intelligent design graphic looks even worse than the one showing the obliteration of Napoleon’s Grande Armée. The Discoveroids have spent millions and they’ve accomplished nothing. Well, they’ve got Louisiana — how wonderful for them.


In contrast, here’s the result of a google trend search on “Sensuous Curmudgeon”. It’s not much, and it certainly looks bad for June, but that month has just begun. Anyway, the trend looks far healthier for us than it does for the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design.


Hey, Casey — if you’re planning on leaving that sinking ship in Seattle, don’t come to us. We don’t have any budget. You may as well stay where you are, as long as it lasts. After that — good luck! Besides, the Discoveroids are the only creationist outfit with political ambitions. When you guys shut down there won’t be much need for what we do here.
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/the-collapse-of-intelligent-design/

If you like watching videos, it's here:

Really enjoying the video so far, thanks for sharing!

 

[brother Paul]

Agreed! The video was good...it presented their case well. So let me ask you is "the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" true or false? Did God create nature and human beings or not? A simple yes or no will suffice...

If you say yes, let me see you defending this position (that God CREATED Nature and man)..if you say no, then stop pretending to be a Christian (because Jesus says He did create them)! You are either in agreement with Christ, or you are against Christ...you choose! Do you BELIEVE HIM or not?

 

[Barbarian]

Agreed! The video was good...it presented their case well. So let me ask you is "the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" true or false?

It's not something science can say. So the argument that it should be part of science classes is completely wrong. Science has no way of evaluating such a proposition.

Did God create nature and human beings or not? A simple yes or no will suffice...

It won't, if you want to suppose that creation means that ID is science. It isn't. While some IDers do admit that humans evolved, most of them still want to put their religious ideas into science class. Which is why they failed. Their new doctrine is useless in science, and is contrary to Christian belief. God is not a "space alien" as ID leader Phillip Johnson suggested. He's the omnipotent Creator, Who has no need to "design." Design is what creatures do. God creates, and doesn't have to figure out anything.

If you say yes, let me see you defending this position (that God CREATED Nature and man)..if you say no, then stop pretending to be a Christian (because Jesus says He did create them)!

You've invented a false dichotomy, and are asking me to endorse it. Sorry, no.

You are either in agreement with Christ, or you are against Christ...you choose! Do you BELIEVE HIM or not?

I believe Him. Which is another reason, I don't believe IDers.

 

[brother Paul]

It's not something science can say. So the argument that it should be part of science classes is completely wrong. Science has no way of evaluating such a proposition.

I was seeking your true and actual opinion...and did not say it should be part of classes in science,,,,



It won't, if you want to suppose that creation means that ID is science. It isn't. While some IDers do admit that humans evolved, most of them still want to put their religious ideas into science class. Which is why they failed. Their new doctrine is useless in science, and is contrary to Christian belief. God is not a "space alien" as ID leader Phillip Johnson suggested. He's the omnipotent Creator, Who has no need to "design." Design is what creatures do. God creates, and doesn't have to figure out anything.

Nice avoidance of commitment to a position you would hold if a real Catholic,,,,ID is a way of viewing the evidence not a science....


You've invented a false dichotomy, and are asking me to endorse it. Sorry, no.

No, you either believe it or you do not, and I sense with all your claims you actually do not....

I believe Him.

So you do believe God created the Universe and man? Either yo do or you do not...which is it? Be hot or cold....

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry, not buying the obfuscation. ID is not science, in spite of IDer's frequent claims that it is. It is an unorthodox religious doctrine that they are trying to make part of science curricula. And it's very encouraging that the movement is grinding to a halt.

I don't mind if they want to believe any of it, but it doesn't belong in public school classes.

I doubt if anyone will buy the idea that you have to accept ID to be a Christian. There were Christians for 2000 years before ID was invented.