Intelligent Design: What's New?
What's new in the Intelligent Design controversy?
Little and much.
PBS has regaled the nation with its version of the
Dover Trial, which I did not bother to watch because it won't change a thing.
The NCSE (surprise!) "reports"
that PBS's account was accurate, while the Discovery Institute documents
numerous inaccuracies. There's no sign that either side's arguments are having
the slightest effect on their opponents' opinions. Nothing new
there.
What else is new? Europe has declared ID not only wrong but Evil due to its horrible Creationist connections. Much of the world still considers it Creationism, and labels it Not a Science, and tells us that it will soon be Gone just like Scientific Creationism is Gone. And ID proponents keep patiently explaining that ID is not religion and that it's not Creationism, and that it is testable; and the message is not being heard, any more than it was two years ago or five years ago. It's the same thing again and again.
What else is new? Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution is still current, as is the controversy it continues to stir. Considering that ID is considered not to be a science by its opponents, it's odd to see the discussion here focused, yes, on science. Maybe it's (pardon the grammar) not not science after all.
What else? The movie Expelled will certainly bring a whole new dynamic to the debate next February. Obviously neither The Edge of Evolution nor the movie will settle the issue, and neither will the continual and inevitable counter-arguments launched against them.
However: I believe that something genuinely new is going on beneath the surface in places like IDEA clubs in universities across the country, and in as-yet unpublished (unsafe to publish) research by practicing scientists. I predict that we'll see the shape of the controversy changing in a few years. At this stage, the public face of it seems primarily to be an often distasteful public relations squabble. It's tiring to see opinions and accusations flung back and forth with so much name-calling (especially coming from the Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb peanut galleries) and with so little effect.
Based on discussion with people I trust, though, I believe we will see increasing evidence in favor of ID coming out of the next generations of life scientists. Cosmological ID arguments will contribute to legitimizing biological versions. When the current establishment generation moves into retirement or beyond, ID as science will start to move into the mainstream, for it will become safe someday to mention one's belief that ID may have something to offer, without risk of losing one's career over it. When that happens, strong, credible ID-related research will hit the presses in greatly increased quantity. Unguided, naturalistic evolution's weaknesses will becoming increasingly apparent.
Serious discussion will no longer be as limited as it is now to philosophy (philosophers can publish in favor of ID without threatening their careers). The public predominance of public relations, which seems necessary now (though often a necessary evil), should diminish considerably; although if ID becomes more scientifically established there will be a period of intensified political battles over public science education.
Until predictions like these come true--or until it becomes clear they never will--I don't expect much to change. The various parties in the science battles will continue to disagree, and nothing but the fulfillment or anti-fulfillment of these prognostications will have much effect on that. It's a waiting game now, for those of us who are not in the laboratories. I submit, though, that in the meantime the philosophical side of it remains a significant area of discussion, viz., the question of philosophical naturalism vs. an open view toward supernaturalism.
Those are predictions. I have another to go along with them: I predict that some ID opponent will hoot and chortle and call me gullible and foolish for making those predictions, and they'll remind me that ID is Not Science and that it is Creationism and Religion. This too will be nothing new.
What else is new? Europe has declared ID not only wrong but Evil due to its horrible Creationist connections. Much of the world still considers it Creationism, and labels it Not a Science, and tells us that it will soon be Gone just like Scientific Creationism is Gone. And ID proponents keep patiently explaining that ID is not religion and that it's not Creationism, and that it is testable; and the message is not being heard, any more than it was two years ago or five years ago. It's the same thing again and again.
What else is new? Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution is still current, as is the controversy it continues to stir. Considering that ID is considered not to be a science by its opponents, it's odd to see the discussion here focused, yes, on science. Maybe it's (pardon the grammar) not not science after all.
What else? The movie Expelled will certainly bring a whole new dynamic to the debate next February. Obviously neither The Edge of Evolution nor the movie will settle the issue, and neither will the continual and inevitable counter-arguments launched against them.
However: I believe that something genuinely new is going on beneath the surface in places like IDEA clubs in universities across the country, and in as-yet unpublished (unsafe to publish) research by practicing scientists. I predict that we'll see the shape of the controversy changing in a few years. At this stage, the public face of it seems primarily to be an often distasteful public relations squabble. It's tiring to see opinions and accusations flung back and forth with so much name-calling (especially coming from the Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb peanut galleries) and with so little effect.
Based on discussion with people I trust, though, I believe we will see increasing evidence in favor of ID coming out of the next generations of life scientists. Cosmological ID arguments will contribute to legitimizing biological versions. When the current establishment generation moves into retirement or beyond, ID as science will start to move into the mainstream, for it will become safe someday to mention one's belief that ID may have something to offer, without risk of losing one's career over it. When that happens, strong, credible ID-related research will hit the presses in greatly increased quantity. Unguided, naturalistic evolution's weaknesses will becoming increasingly apparent.
Serious discussion will no longer be as limited as it is now to philosophy (philosophers can publish in favor of ID without threatening their careers). The public predominance of public relations, which seems necessary now (though often a necessary evil), should diminish considerably; although if ID becomes more scientifically established there will be a period of intensified political battles over public science education.
Until predictions like these come true--or until it becomes clear they never will--I don't expect much to change. The various parties in the science battles will continue to disagree, and nothing but the fulfillment or anti-fulfillment of these prognostications will have much effect on that. It's a waiting game now, for those of us who are not in the laboratories. I submit, though, that in the meantime the philosophical side of it remains a significant area of discussion, viz., the question of philosophical naturalism vs. an open view toward supernaturalism.
Those are predictions. I have another to go along with them: I predict that some ID opponent will hoot and chortle and call me gullible and foolish for making those predictions, and they'll remind me that ID is Not Science and that it is Creationism and Religion. This too will be nothing new.
Posted: Wed - November 14, 2007 at 08:45 AM |
Quick Links
Categories
"Do Christians believe we hold the truth? No, it holds us; we submit to it and to the One who gives it. We seek the truth to know it and follow it, that it may grip us tighter yet."
Personal Profile
Guest Speaking
Articles Published Elsewhere
Frequently Discussed Topics
My Other Blog
Email this link to a friend
XML/RSS Feed: Blog Entries
Feedburner Feed
XML/RSS Feed: Comments
Guest Speaking
Articles Published Elsewhere
Frequently Discussed Topics
My Other Blog
Email this link to a friend
XML/RSS Feed: Blog Entries
Feedburner Feed
XML/RSS Feed: Comments
Archives
Knowing God
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 06, 2007 01:04 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 06, 2007 01:04 PM
