“What You Ought to Know About Intelligent Design”
May 4th 2008
Blog entry deleted: see here.
Study Suggests Math Teachers Scrap Balls and Slices - New York Times
April 26th 2008
This reminds me of so many other untested beliefs. Parents and teachers have been of the opinion lately that students will understand math better using real-world objects to illustrate abstract concepts. Research now suggests this is wrong.
“The motivation behind this research was to examine a very widespread belief about the teaching of mathematics, namely that teaching students multiple concrete examples will benefit learning,” said Jennifer A. Kaminski, a research scientist at the Center for Cognitive Science at Ohio State. “It was really just that, a belief.”
Dr. Kaminski and her colleagues Vladimir M. Sloutsky and Andrew F. Heckler did something relatively rare in education research: they performed a randomized, controlled experiment. Their results appear in Friday’s issue of the journal Science.
[From Study Suggests Math Teachers Scrap Balls and Slices - New York Times]
I don’t have an axe to grind regarding how math gets taught. I’m just intrigued that they actually tested the theory. It reminds me of other theories that have clear and testable sociological implications. Wouldn’t it be nice if somebody actually did research to these to see if these are true:
- Intelligent Design is a science-stopper: if you can say “God did it,” you’ll give up doing research in the natural world.
- Raising children as Christians is child abuse.
But wait a moment: there already is research on that second one.
Do you have any other similar examples of ideas that need sociological research?
How Not to Support Expelled; How Not to Attack Evolution
March 11th 2008
Media reports on Intelligent Design, with their frequent misunderstandings and distortions, can make a person cringe. Unfortunately, there are times when ID defenders and creationists can make you cringe, too. There are plenty of good ways to stand in sympathy with Intelligent Design, to support creationism (not the same topic, but closely enough related to be included in the same post), or to attack evolutionary theory. There are also some not-so-good ways.
Here are the three most serious mistakes to avoid:
1. Speaking Of What We Do Not Know
As an undergrad at Michigan State, I was for a time involved in the controversy on “scientific creationism,” which was drawing a lot of attention in Christian circles at the time. The discussion hinged around whether the fossils, rocks, and stars really pointed to an ancient earth, and whether Genesis 1 and 2 really demanded a young-earth interpretation. I came to a very freeing realization at the time: this is a very complex subject. Much of it is really for specialists. And I was a music major! Sure, I could read evolutionists’ opinions or creationists’ opinions, but could I form a knowledgeable opinion on the science? As for Genesis 1 and 2, even that was a matter of discussion among strongly principled Christian scholars. How literal is it to be taken? It has much of the characteristics of poetry–is it meant to be (at least somewhat) figurative?
I settled on this: I don’t know about the age of the earth. I am not qualified to settle the issue, even in my own mind. I’m thoroughly convinced (on other grounds) that God was intimately involved in whatever happened. I’m firmly convinced (also on independent grounds) that humans are uniquely made in God’s image, that we were created to be in fellowship with Him, that we went wrong in some way that Genesis 2 and 3 accurately portray even if some of it is figurative, and that Jesus Christ is the way back to a right relationship with God. The rest is complex and I need to study more before I decide.
I’ve done a whole lot of study since then. I know a whole lot more than I did then, and I have convictions now about some things I suspended judgment on earlier. But I’m still not a biologist or paleontologist. I could wish that I could study all the books and papers, and form my own independent conclusions on every aspect of the ID controversy, but it’s not possible. So I try to speak to topics on which I’ve done my homework.
Too often ID supporters, creationists, or Christians in general will dismiss evolution for reasons that are just wrong. Too often, it’s because all they’ve read is what ID supporters and creationists have written about it. You can’t understand ID by reading what Richard Dawkins or P.Z. Myers say about it, and you can’t understand evolution by reading what the Discovery Institute says about it. You have to read what each position’s supporters say. Otherwise you’re not ready to take a stand.
I am not saying you can’t have an opinion where you haven’t done your homework. I’m also not saying that what you know about God from other sources–revelation, apologetics, faith in general–has to be put on hold on account of this one topic. I am saying that we allought to admit what we don’t know, especially when the topic is as complex as this one.
ID skeptics aren’t asking my opinion, but the way they often misread and/or distort ID’s claims, it’s clear to me that many (not all, but many) of them have also not done their homework. (’Nuff said.)
2. Speaking Without Respect and Courtesy
ID supporters and creationists take note: evolution is not stupid, and evolutionists are not idiots. Evolution supporters also take note: ID and creationism are not stupid, and their supporters are not idiots. Ravi Zacharias said it well: “To the extent that you can make your opponent’s position look ridiculous, to that extent you probably do not understand it.” He could have added (and knowing how he speaks, I’m sure somewhere he has), to the extent you make it your business to make your opponent ridiculous, to that extent you’re defeating any purpose you have of being persuasive.
I’ve gotten myself embroiled today in a discussion about ID and religion on Panda’s Thumb. As of this afternoon, there are several commenters who have engaged me in this discussion respectfully, on a substantive level. There’s one commenter whose tone has not been so pleasant. Guess which ones I’m more likely to listen to? In fact, I’m not responding to or even reading anything further by that commenter.
Aristotle said rhetoric–including persuasion–involves logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos is the word, the logic, the force of the argument. By itself it produces little persuasive effect, and does little good. Ethos is roughly credibility, that which causes the person to believe that the person has a right relationship to the topic, by virtue of study, experience, trustworthiness, and so on. Pathos has to do with the person’s relationship to the audience. The audience is always asking, though usually not consciously: Does this person understand me? Does his/her view of the topic have any relevance to me? Should I care about what this person cares about? All three of Aristotle’s factors are vital to effective communication.
And need I remind us of Christ’s example and command to love even our enemies, and to treat others as we would have them treat us?
3. Not Speaking of What We Do Know
I don’t want to be misunderstood as advocating a timid stance. That’s not what humility is about. We ought to speak clearly what we understand clearly, and present our convictions as convictions–things of which we are convinced. What we don’t understand clearly, for that matter, we can still feel free to discuss openly.
Tying The Three Together
For those who are Christians, Colossians 4:6 summarizes it best:
Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.
It’s being gracious, and knowing, and from that stance, speaking and answering.
And Applying The Principles
There’s a movie coming out soon, Expelled, which is going to be very favorable to ID, and will certainly raise the volume of this debate. ID sympathizers, let’s not make the mistake of acting triumphalistic over it, or speaking as the whole question is settled for good–even if the movie really succeeds in making its case.
As the volume of debate raises, let’s raise the tone along with it.
Expelled: The Pre-Controversy (Part 2)
March 4th 2008
Yesterday we heard about claims that Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed employed deception in interviews with Intelligent Design opponents. Today, the other broiling controversy:
As for publicity, the filmmakers are apparently relying on bribery to promote their propaganda. Gotta spend money to make money, right? Schools will be “paid” according to the number of ticket stubs they collect. You’d think that a creationist propaganda movie would have other publicity options at Christian fundamentalist schools. But apparently, nothing is a sin when you’re doing the work of God. Bribery, brainwashing, crusading … it’s all for the greater good.
Aaron Elias, New University Online, University of California, Irvine
The charge is that the film’s producers are bribing Christian schools to bring their students to see it. L. Ron Brown (The Frame Problem) echoes:
Producers of the Intelligent Design propaganda film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed are trying to bribe Christian schools in America to facilitate or even force their students to go see their movie.
It’s a marketing tactic. Schools that purchase large blocks of tickets for their students will receive donations from the production company.
Does anybody remember the Golden Compass movie? Its producers tried to market it through an “Amazing Student Sweepstakes (pdf)” and by trying to persuade teachers to make the related books required reading. Sure, I raised a big complaint about that. It was not, however, that it was so horrible to try to market a film through schools, or to use monetary incentives. My complaint was just that it was wrong–on Constitutional grounds–to make required reading of materials that were so markedly hostile toward religion.
So what’s the problem with Expelled? It’s “propaganda,” says Aaron Elias, “brainwashing, crusading … ” The problem, in other words, is that Aaron Elias and L. Ron Brown disagree with the movie’s message. Which they haven’t even seen yet. What if the movie makes its case successfully? Maybe that’s the real fear.
Next in this series: How ID proponents ought to deal with the pre-controversy, and prepare for the real controversy when the movie appears.
Related:
Expelled: The Pre-Controversy
March 2nd 2008
The number one Google or Yahoo! search phrase by which new visitors are coming to this blog now is “Expelled.” Hundreds of you have looked it up on this website alone. This is surprising, since I’ve only blogged on the movie once, way back in September. More than six weeks ahead of its April 18 release, this movie is already drawing a lot of interest.
The film’s premise is that for academics, believing in Intelligent Design–no, even having a certain level of sympathy toward it–is asking for trouble. Real, significant, career trouble. I haven’t seen the film, so I can’t comment on how well it makes its case. I’ve been watching the controversy, though. Pharyngula’s P.Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, represents the contrary position. Based on his IM address I conclude he is a Macintosh user–we agree on that, at least! We disagree on much else, though. To say he opposes Intelligent Design is an understatement on about the same scale as “The Ku Klux Klan is unfavorable toward African-Americans.”
The movie’s producers, in pursuit of a balanced perspective on their topic, requested interviews from evolutionists like Myers, Richard Dawkins, and others. They agreed–and now they’re crying foul over it. I think it’s comically sad. When Richard Dawkins produced a BBC television series on the alleged evils of religion, he presented some of the worst examples and edits representing the Christian position, and left (for example) a very intelligent discussion with fellow Oxford professor Alister McGrath on the cutting room floor. Expelled’s producers invited comment from the best of the evolutionist side.
Myers’s specific complaint is that he was deceived into appearing in an anti-evolution film. He could have asked a few questions if he was worried about that. The request for interview they sent him included,
We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.
Did he just assume that nobody in the world who raises that question might disagree with his position? The producers sent him an advance copy of every question they were planning to ask him. You can be quite sure Dawkins did not do that for Ted Haggard. In fact, it’s quite out of the ordinary. Expelled’s producers went out of their way to give fair treatment to the contrary side.
Myers’s complains that the production company gave him a fake name. There was no deception there. It is common industry practice for subdivisions to have different names than their parent companies, which was the case this time.
Myers also says he was misrepresented:
What? I didn’t do any interviews for pro-creation films, and I certainly haven’t said that “freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry” aren’t part of the university. There must be some mistake.
I haven’t seen the film, but it’s easy to see that the mistake is Myers’s, and a rather grandiose one at that. No one said these were Myers’s words. Does he think the whole film is about what he had to say?
Further distortion:
I’m wondering why the Discovery Institute would be so enthused about this movie. It lays it’s [sic] premise on the line: science is flawed because it excludes god [sic--some people don't know that proper nouns are capitalized in English] and the supernatural. It’s one big promo for religion — which means it’s going to further undercut Intelligent Design creationism’s [sic] claims to be a secular idea.
He appears to believe that if the movie exposes institutions’ bigotry favoring philosophical materialism, it is therefore “one big promo for religion.” The two issues do not equate, however. Myers, who hasn’t seen the film either, at least as of the date he wrote this piece, is jumping off a cliff to a conclusion. He doesn’t know what the film is going to say about religion. What we do know about the film–because this is what has been publicly released–is that it is a promo in favor of First Amendment free speech and academic freedom.
I think Myers’s closing was intended tongue-in-cheek, and we ought to take it with a sense of humor. Either that, or he’s back in a grandiose mode. We shouldn’t blame him for that, I suppose; after all, Expelled is making him a movie star. Here’s how he ends his article:
Oh, well. I have two warnings for the creationists.
One, I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That’s going to be fun.
Two, next time I’m asked to be recorded for a creationist propaganda film, I will demand more money, and a flight and a limousine to the premiere. They can pay for my tuxedo rental, too. And my hotel room will have a jacuzzi and a bowl of M&Ms — green ones only.
It’s all a transparent attempt to discredit in advance something that the evolutionist side may have genuine reason to be worried about. What if the film actually succeeds in making its case? What if there really is evidence of unfounded bigotry and thought-suppression in academia? What if it’s presented credibly?
Aside from his caustic communication style, which I can’t say I really enjoy, I wouldn’t mind watching Myers’s having “fun” trying to “disembowel” the film’s arguments. I would even bring him green M&Ms. I wonder if he will actually address the film’s points, though. So far, based on this post of his, he’s exposing straw-man caricatures instead.
Related:
The film’s producers’ perspectives were drawn from these sources:
- Interview with Walt Ruloff, Part 1 and Part 2
- Interview with Mark Mathis
The Design Matrix
February 28th 2008
Book Review
A friend of mine has an overly strong commitment to things she learned when she was growing up. “Doctors say you need to drink eight glasses of water a day” is one. I ran across a repot in which a leading researcher in this field told of his attempts to track down the source of that belief. He found no medical evidence for it. Apparently it just showed up one day in some magazine, and grew. He said there was no truth to it whatever. My friend’s response: “I don’t believe it.” She wouldn’t look at the source material; she already had her facts.
There is research out this week casting doubt on the belief that stretching before sports activities reduces injuries. I’m not going to bother telling my friend. She won’t read the report, and she wouldn’t believe me if I said. She knows we should all drink eight glasses of water a day, and that stretching before exercise reduces injuries. She knows it because that’s what she has always heard.
I expect similar reactions from evolutionists to Mike Gene’s The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues. Everyone in the pro-evolution, anti-Intelligent Design crowd knows that:
- ID is thinly disguised creationism
- ID is just negative science (nothing but picking points against evolution)
- ID has no positive research program
- ID makes no predictions
- ID relies on a “God of the gaps” approach to knowledge
- ID presents no testable hypotheses
- ID is dogmatically driven by people with a theological/philosophical agenda
Everybody knows these things. Mike Gene shows that none of them are true. The evolutionists, I fear, are not going to read it; they’re just going to say, “I don’t believe it.” Like my friend, they will stick with what’s always been “true” for them in the past.
The author uses a pseudonym, obviously, and as far as I know no one has cracked his real identity (or if they have, they’re not telling). He says in the intro to the book that he remains anonymous so that his ideas can be evaluated for themselves, without regard for who has presented them. It seems likely he’s also carrying out some career protection, too. If he’s working in a university biology department (and yes, he does know his science), it could obviously risky for him to “come out” as an ID supporter. (See his Design Matrix website for more.)
The way that he supports ID is refreshingly unique, however. He doesn’t argue for a conclusion of Intelligent Design at all. He argues more modestly, for a suspicion of Intelligent Design. He would have a beef with dogmatists on either side of the issue. Quite helpfully he distinguishes between the strong evidence required for conviction by a court of law, and evidence required by an investigating detective. A detective arrives on the scene with nothing but questions. His first objective is to move toward reasonable suspicions. A little hint there, a vague clue there: these things can move him toward a theory of a crime; and from there he can begin to look for more definite signs. Eventually, much further down the road, proof may come. Mike Gene believes we should recognize ID is in the developing suspicion stage: there is no hard scientific proof of design, but there are hints and clues that raise a most reasonable suspicion, and which can lead to a search for more definite signs.
These hints and clues he summarizes into his “Design Matrix,” four relatively independent factors to test for in nature:
- Analogy with known instances of design
- Discontinuity with observed or means by which evolution works
- Rationality apparent in the design of the natural feature
- Foresight apparent in the design of the natural feature
These are defined such that they can all lead to testable research hypotheses. We’re not talking about black/white, unambiguous research results, however (”Evolution never could have done this!” or “Evolution absolutely could have done this, it’s easy!”). Natural phenomena can be scored on a continuum, Mike Gene says; we’re still in the detective stage, not the judge and jury stage. We’re looking for suspicions of ID, so we should be open to gradations on the scales of the Design Matrix. Only one of them, by the way (Discontinuity), bears any relationship to the tired stereotype that ID is nothing but a negative science that resorts to god-of-the-gaps thinking.
Mike Gene wrote this book with a sense of humor. (Thank God for an evolution/ID-related book with a sense of humor!) The book wraps around a theme of the Rabbit and the Duck. It’s a metaphor about our preconceptions, and the way they can color our perceptions. I won’t try to replay it for you; I’ll just quote the book’s final paragraph, and leave it to you to read the book and chase down the metaphor for yourself:
So as we begin our journey, these lessons, coupled with all the lessons in these chapters, must be kept in mind. We are not engaging in a Duck Hunt; we are going to chase the Rabbit. So, do you see that rabbit hole over your shoulder? Yeah, that one. Wanna have some fun? Well, grab your Design Matrix, and follow that Rabbit.
(There’s much more Rabbit fun on the Telic Thoughts blog, where Mike Gene writes frequently.)
Some of you reading this “know” that ID is nothing but negative science, it’s just god-of-the-gaps, and it’s a mere religious ploy. You won’t read the book; you won’t accept that ID-related thinking can lead to genuine research questions; you’ll just say, “I don’t believe it.” I strongly urge you to get your hands on a copy of this uniquely creative approach to Intelligent Design, and find out where the Rabbit leads you.
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene. No City: Arbor Vitae Press, 2007. 291 pages plus index. Amazon Price US$16.47.
Richards and Hitchens Debate Intelligent Design at Stanford
January 28th 2008
I’m hoping it won’t be long before we can see this on video: last night’s debate between Jay Richards and Christopher HItchens on Intelligent Design. Stanford Daily Online reported on it, including this:
Hitchens then requested the chance to ask Richards a question.
“Do you believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin?” he asked when Richards assented. “Do you believe he was resurrected from the dead?”
Richards said that he did.
“I rest my case,” said Hitchens. “This is an honest guy, who has just made it very clear [that] science has nothing to do with his world view.”
Earlier Richards had pointed out the obvious: “a sneer is not an argument.” He could have said it again here. (As a debater, Hitchens is definitely quick with the smug sneer of superiority.)
Hitchens’s point seems to be that belief in miracles precludes science being a contributor to one’s worldview, and vice versa. What would have to be true in order for that to be the case? First, it would mean that Isaac Newton’s and Francis Collins’s worldviews have had nothing to do with science, to say nothing of hundreds of other eminent Christian scientists. Is that not just a bit unlikely?
Second, it would have to mean that the virgin birth of Christ is so contradictory to science that no person could accept both at the same time. But this distorts the Christian position regarding miracles in general, and the virgin birth and resurrection in particular. Christians believe the universe behaves regularly, according to natural law, reflecting the rational mind of God; but that God as a personal Being interrupts this regularity from time to time, for the sake of relationship with the people He created. Interventions of the clearly miraculous sort are rare, rare enough that science can successfully discover the regularities that do exist. There is no contradiction there.
Hitchens might argue that science has proved miracles are impossible; but this is a metaphysical assumption, not a scientific conclusion. Science studies regularities, that which usually happens. It does not know whether the usual always happens. If science says the usual must always happen, it is speaking outside its field. It can only study what is normal, regular, usual. How could it prove God never intervenes?
So Hitchens’s sneer is empty. We do not know how Jay Richards responded. According to the report, moderator Ben Stein got there first:
“Many people are deeply religious,” he said. “Are they just stupider than you?”
I wonder where he got the impression that Hitchens feels that way.
Good Media Commentary on ID and Evolution
January 20th 2008
Two weeks ago the CBS affiliate in Dallas/Ft. Worth presented a 5-minute television news commentary segment (Tracy Rowlett’s Perspective) on “Teaching Evolution in Public Schools” (click on the video of that name). It’s one of the better overviews of the issue I’ve seen in the media.
HT to Evolution News and Views
“POSITION PAPER on INTELLIGENT DESIGN: A BALANCED, RESPECTFUL and RATIONAL PERSPECTIVE”
January 16th 2008
From BRITES:
The veiled agenda of Intelligent Design bleeds through its empty rhetoric like a gushing chest wound staining a freshly bleached T-shirt. ID is a fascist politico-religious movement that masquerades as science and attempts to force a wedge between the scientific community and the wider culture. The ultimate goal of this wedgie is to establish a theocracy in which the Bible becomes federal law and the Biblical creation account in the book of Guinness is taught as fact.
You owe it to yourself to learn the truth about this menace! 
Against One-Dimensional Thinking
January 16th 2008
“Pantalaimon,” a commenter on Thinking Christian, supplied a number of quotes yesterday to show that (in his words)
ID is not a scientific research program in any sense, and never has been. Scientific understanding is of no intrinsic interest to ID. Any “research” they may undertake is strictly subservient to the philosophical goal of crushing naturalistic science for religious and philosophical purposes.
Strong generalities like that are risky; nobody is one-dimensional, and in fact Pantalaimon’s quotes were a great example of quote-mining out of context. When I pointed that out to him, he graciously offered me the opportunity to track down the source of the quotes myself and put them in correct context. I have declined his generous suggestion. Instead I’m going to try to put the issue in its proper full perspective, based on my entire experience with Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design is entirely a ploy, manipulating science in order to win religious/political battles. That’s the charge. This statement touches, albeit lightly, on something like the truth of the matter. Many leaders of the Intelligent Design movement are Christian believers, and one (Jonathan Wells) represents the Unification Church. (Unification Church theology as I understand it has little in common with Christianity, other than a belief in some spiritual reality.) These ID leaders recognize strong opposition between a certain dominant form of evolutionary theory–naturalistic neo-Darwinism–and their religious beliefs. Not surprisingly, they consider their religious beliefs not only true but also important. Thus there is a conflict.
I don’t know anybody who has ever handled a major conflict perfectly. I do not need to be convinced that everything ID leaders have done was done just right. The infamous “Wedge Document” was a strategic mistake, in that opened a wide and inviting door for interpretations of evil scheming. The Discovery Institute has worked hard to correct misinterpretations related to the Wedge, not entirely successfully. I think it’s fair to acknowledge errors, to learn from them, and move on wiser than before.
Phillip Johnson is regarded to be the father of the ID movement. At the core of his message is a direct, unflinching, head-on assault against philosophical naturalism, a form of atheism. From his first foray into this field, Darwin on Trial, Johnson has highlighted the close association between Darwinism and philosophical naturalism. His disagreement with Darwinism has been based in part on its assumptions that nothing could have happened, and nothing ought to be explained, by any means other than strict natural cause and effect.
Johnson has been accused of falsely assuming all evolutionists are Richard Dawkins; that is, that evolution is equivalent to atheism. I don’t know that he has actually always made that error. Nevertheless there is a strong association between evolution and atheism in this sense: evolution may not entail atheism, but atheism certainly entails evolution. Without evolutionary theory, atheism has no explanation for nature whatsoever.
Confronting philosophical naturalism has been one aspect of Johnson’s approach to the issue from the beginning. Further, he took a very long and careful look at the scientific literature, and came to the conclusion that evolutionary theory is not well supported by the evidence. Though he is a lawyer, let that not blind you to the fact that he was approaching the question from the basis of science and the available evidence. He concluded that evolution’s explanatory strength depends critically on the assumption that all explanations must be in terms of natural causes and effects and nothing else. This, he rightly noted, is a philosophical assumption that is open to question, which puts evolution itself open to question.
So in Johnson, back at the start of it all, there were three intersecting streams: religious, scientific, and philosophical. He was not an expert in all three (with apologies to all of you out there who are). He proceeded to gather conferences and symposia of scientists and philosophers to explore the question further. Out of this the Intelligent Design movement was born.
The three intersecting streams still pervade the question, but not monolithically so. When David Berlinski’s new book, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions comes out, don’t expect a shrill screed for some kind of fundamentalist American Christianity. He is a secular Jew living in Paris. Whether or not Michael Denton wants to be associated with ID now, the fact is his Evolution: A Theory in Crisis critiqued evolution strictly on scientific grounds, and set a course that is still being traveled.
Anti-theists also follow the same three threads. Daniel Dennett employs philosophy and evolution in service of dissolving what he calls religion’s “spell” of misunderstanding. Richard Dawkins uses science, and something reminiscent of philosophy (I can’t call it better than that), to call God a delusion. They both have a strong interest in defeating religion, but that hardly means they are uninterested in science–though it would be easy to quote-mine them and make it appear that way.
By the same token, if ID leaders have an interest in philosophy and/or religion, as represented in the quotes Pantalaimon pulled, that hardly means they are uninterested in science. The relation between science and design is controversial; commenter Holopupenko is convinced design cannot be detected through the sciences and that ID scientists are philosophically naive; meanwhile ID-supportive philosophers like Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and my friend Rob Koons are confident it potentially can be. On that basis, the scientists in the ID movement proceed with their research.
Let’s grant the obvious, looming in the background, which is that ID’s record of published science is hardly stellar. That in itself does not show there is no interest in science, which was the charge Pantalaimon made. The activities of Minnich, Behe, Marks, Dembski, Seelke, Gonzalez, and many others put the lie to that. Their low published output could be attributed to the difficulty of defining relevant research problems, the fiery-hot hostility toward ID among other scientists and journal editors, the relative youth of the field, or many other explanations. Many observers think they know another reason, which is that ID cannot actually produce science. My somewhat educated word of caution is not to rush to judgment on this. Whatever science ID could produce, conditions are so set against it being published that it’s worth giving it considerably more time.
There is a fourth stream that has been sometimes bundled in with ID, the political, especially in regard to public education in America. Where schools have been pressured to teach a positive theory of Intelligent Design, that has been nothing but a mistake. On the other hand, schools’ resistance to bringing up evolution’s evidential difficulties seems puzzling to me, except as just another facet of academics’ ID-phobia. In hindsight, though, I believe it would have been preferable to leave even that question off the political table, innocuous though it should have been. ID miscalculated the opposition and ended up stirring up even more antipathy without much advancing its primary agenda, which is research. Now it has become difficult to pull out of the PR battles and get focused. Nobody gets everything right.
So to Pantalaimon, in summary, I see your own deep animosity toward ID seriously distorting your view of the matter. ID is not uni-dimensional. (Not even Richard Dawkins is uni-dimensional!) Intelligent Design cannot be defined by mined quotes. It has to bear responsibility for its missteps, but so do we all. It wasn’t very long ago that evolutionists confidently spoke of the useless, vestigial appendix and junk DNA as evidence for their theory, after all.