Re: A voice of sanity in the ID wilderness

On 24 May 2007 16:06:32 -0700, noctiluca <robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Over at Telic Thoughts a poster named "Bilbo" articulates a position
which echoes the thoughts of many of us who've criticized ID over the
years.
http://telicthoughts.com/gonzalez-tenure-denial-in-a-larger-framework/#comments

It's a breath of fresh air in the midst of all this stale tenure
business.

However, I find myself asking the question, What if the ID movement hadn't
been so aggressive in trying to push ID upon the public? For example, what
if Behe in Darwin's Black Box, instead of claiming that ID was proven, had
merely suggested it as a possible hypothesis worth investigating?

When I first read Black Box, I had no idea of Behe's Christian
relationship. I recall him stating that Intelligent Design could not
say anything about the nature of the Designer. Too bad he couldn't
stay with that position.

Just imagine if our debates centered on likely qualities of a Designer
such as "intent", the whole array of scientific procedures could have
sifted our knowledge of archeology, psychology, sociology as well as
biology and physics to find clues about the Designer.

What if
the ID movement didn't try to change Kansas education standards on
evolution? What if at the Dover trial, Behe had said that since ID was still
in the hypothesis stage, and largely rejected by the scientific community,
that perhaps it would be prudent not to try to teach it in public schools?
What if DI devoted most of its funding to research, instead of to propaganda
and non-related political issues?

In other words, what if the ID movement hadn't tried to use "power from
above" (as a friend of mine refers to these things) to influence the public?
What if it had only relied on "power from below"? What if it had taken a
humbler position about ID? A humbler position about Darwinism? Where would
ID be today?

There is a further point to be built upon these reasonable comments.
The real understanding to come from Bilbo's questions lies not in an
antecedent perspective (What would have happened if...?) but in a
precedent one. Yes, the path he offers would have been far more
fruitful and less antagonistic, but the truth is that this tack could
have been taken only if ID had not been about a religious objection to
the facts of biology. For some very few it might represent a sincere
(if misguided) inquiry into natural mechanisms and not religious
wishfulness, but for the overwhelming majority it derives from the
latter, and the more people on Bilbo's side who recognize and admit
this fact the more anguish we save.

Oh, and be sure to notice Sal Cordova's self-serving, point-missing,
anti-scientific, Dembski boot-licking comment. He continues to be a
strange piece of work.

RLC

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Defining Science
    ... conclusion is sound, logical. ... I question both the facts and the logic. ... It's your conceit that an intelligent designer must be a supernatural one. ... to be operating in nature and that science exists to document the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We are, a mass extinction event.
    ... appears to be in the perspective taken, by the observers. ... Those studying the subject. ... They are approaching the subject, from the perspective of a designer, ... They are not looking at the facts. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Intelligent design" makes the 2005 Google Zeitgeist:
    ... Since you appear to be convinced that ID is science then how do you ... designer may change the parameters of our observation at any time. ... In order for facts to remain ... The judge's rulling was based on council from real scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)