Daily Campus

Originally posted by

Scott Rewak

Back to the same tired "let's hear both sides debate." Once more, nobody is objecting to a debate on whether or not there is a God. The objection is as to the SCIENTIFIC LEGITIMACY of ID, of the which there is NONE. If you are tired of this so called "scientific materialism," then don't get involved in science. ID is attempting to gain legitimacy through shoving its way into the scientific arena, but that does not make it science at all. Science is based on the scientific method, of observable testing. This is NOT involved in ID.

Complaining about "scientific materialism" being shoved down your throat is not a scientific debate, it is an emotional and philosophical one, which is precisely the flaw of ID in this forum. Nobody has forbid other religions from weighing in on the issue when they have a legitimate scientific basis. When ID or any religious entity wants into the debate, it has to be about facts and science. Keep ID where it belongs, because it does not meet this criteria.

Scott,

Your correct that we can not prove ID, nor can you prove evolution and that is the problem. You have less science on evolution, really no science, so get off your soap box. Show me your science!!! There is none proven that has not been exposed as a hoax between species. So you are back to square one. The probability of evolution, from the big bang to the man to ape theory is obsurd and is off the charts on probability.

Good luck, but you need a life and someone to point you to reality

Originally posted by

Scott Rewak

Back to the same tired "let's hear both sides debate." Once more, nobody is objecting to a debate on whether or not there is a God. The objection is as to the SCIENTIFIC LEGITIMACY of ID, of the which there is NONE. If you are tired of this so called "scientific materialism," then don't get involved in science. ID is attempting to gain legitimacy through shoving its way into the scientific arena, but that does not make it science at all. Science is based on the scientific method, of observable testing. This is NOT involved in ID.

For you to state "There is none" as to the scientific legitimacy of ID, you must first allow ID to present the arguments for its scientific legitimacy. All you have done is to define science as materialism. That won't end the argument. You are in effect saying that science negates supernaturalism, or evidences of design because neither is naturalistic. How would you know this without inquiry? You couldn't know it. You have made a tautological argument, by defining science as materialism.

Complaining about "scientific materialism" being shoved down your throat is not a scientific debate, it is an emotional and philosophical one, which is precisely the flaw of ID in this forum. Nobody has forbid other religions from weighing in on the issue when they have a legitimate scientific basis. When ID or any religious entity wants into the debate, it has to be about facts and science. Keep ID where it belongs, because it does not meet this criteria.

Complaining about "scientific materialism" being shoved down the throat is absolutely legitimate, for it recognizes the circularity of naturalistic argumentation, and offers a door to the possibilities beyond naturalism. It also recognizes that naturalism is a metaphysical, not a scientific argument. Antony Flew recognized this when he became a deist. He stated that he accepted the designe argument for the existence of God when he decided to go where the evidence leads. In other words, he stopped arguing himself in circles, and allowed the possibility that there might be an existence that is beyond the natural world, which might hold the keys to our existence. Something I think a Methodist college might be interested in allowing, given its rich history in evangelical thought. But I see the irony in the current controversy on your campus.

Randy

Originally posted by

Ben Wells

Professor Parks,

I would like to clarify a few points you made in your article. I did not write my op-ed piece out of a belief that "the trampled rights and freedoms of materialists, agnostics and atheists everywhere" was an issue in the Discovery Institute's lecturing on campus. In fact I do not know you and you do not know me so for you to make such a claim shows a bias that you obviously assume that I was arguing from such a standpoint. But this is besides the point.

You claim that "materialists" (a term I have read in many interesting e-mails from people upset with my article) arrogantly believe that there was no creator of the universe. First off I had never heard the term materialist before today. It is interesting that arguments from people like you try to lump those who were upset with the Discovery Institute into some preset category - I am simply a student who believes that evolution provides the most rational and logical explanation for our physical presence at this time. Notice I made NO CLAIMS that a god, deity, etc. did or did not create the Earth, evolution, etc.

These claims are coming from you and people like you who put words in our moth (but I must say the Discovery Institutes's attack blogs did it the best - but I am assuming they have a full time staff of politicos to do that). My entire article (had you read it with an unbiased eye) simply stated that it is egotistical and immoral to think that you can prove or disprove the existence of a creator using science. That is impossible.

That is faith. That is fine, but that is not science. Please reconsider your stance on science and figure out if what you are discussing is really faith and spirituality and not material observation. The two can exist side by side but they should never mix - for they are incompatible of proving or refuting each other. They exist for different reasons.

Lastly as for the statement I made that said "drive a wedge" into "scientific materialism" that is actually from a document released by one of the Discovery Institutes founders (an internal memo) - look it up on Wikipedia (not the most scholarly - but since you cited it we will use it for fair measure) if you are interested. Those weren't my words - they were the Institutes words.

Thanks for the critique though! I appreciate you not using all CAPS and insults, as most do.

Do you find it unreasonable that; given that God exists, he should not allow science, whose laws he invented, to give testimony to his existence? For true believers in God, it is a given that God shows his handiwork in nature - in the things that He has created. When people try to separate the creation from the God who created it as if the creation has nothing to do with God, I begin to doubt whether they truly believe He exists. Beleif becomes a convenient manipulatable esoteric philosophy rather than a life-changing reality to which one must submit. I hope you can see the difference, and the difference in those who believe one or the other.

Randy

Originally posted by

Boo

Newsflash: Asserting something is not the same thing as providing evidence. If ID advocates actually have evidence, they're doing an extraordinary job of keeping it under wraps. At present, ID is nothing more than a philosophical assertion, as you have made abundantly clear by invoking Plato. If you know of this "evidence," please provide examples or just sort of point in its general direction, if possible. Until then, philosophy belongs in philosophy class, not science class.

You are however to be commended for at least being honest enough not to try to deny ID's religious underpinnings.

ID has no "religious underpinnings." It is dishonest to say that it does. ID has (for some) religious implications, that come after the evidence. This is what naturalists get wrong every time, and why many of them refuse to take a look at the evidence.

Randy

Originally posted by

Boo

"ID has no "religious underpinnings." It is dishonest to say that it does. ID has (for some) religious implications, that come after the evidence. This is what naturalists get wrong every time, and why many of them refuse to take a look at the evidence."

"For some reason, clicking on reply to this quote only gave me my own previous quote boxed."

Yes, this happened to me as well.

"Anyhoo- ID has no religious underpinnings? UM... yeah. That's why Dembski said ID is the Logos of John's Gospel stated as information theory. "

Dembski is merely aknowledging that mind comes before complex organisms can exist. I've read Dembski extensively, and while he talks about Christianity, he also talks about the evidence. I have also read much of Dawkins' writing, and he is simply on a tirade against religion. Dembski respects his opponents.

"And that's why the DI circulated an internal memo saying among other things:"

You know, Google calls the DI's website a "Christian" website, but I don't see it that way. They have quite a mix of contributors, including a Moony, an Evangelical, several Catholics, and some agnostics, so it's not really a particular religious perspective that is presented. However, it does seem to be ideologically conservative.

"'Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.'"
and that the purpose of ID is: "To replace materialistic explanations with theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.'"

We are in a world where materialism dominates. Either materialism is true and there is no God, or it is false, and God exists. It should not be a matter of faith, but of reality whether God exists or not. If its simply a matter of faith, then no thanks. It would be obvious to me that such a faith would be useless. He either exists, or He does not, and there ought to be some evidence to show that he does. If not, then faith is useless. In fact, Paul stated as much in his epistles.


"and why eyewitness accounts say speakers kept talking about the God of the Bible at this very very scientific conference."

So people who speak about religion are not allowed to talk science? Why do you have a problem with people combining talk of religion with science?

"So once again I ask, if ID advocates have all this "evidence," where are they hiding it? To the best of my knowledge, no ID advocate has ever brought forth a single scrap of positive evidence for ID. The best they can do is straw-man criticisms of "Darwinism" like Dembski's psuedomathematical gobbledygook "Complex Specified Information" and Behe's ridiculous "irreducible complexity" (first predicted by evolutionary biologist Herman Muller to be an expected result of evolution in 1918- see http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html )"

You know, this is a question that is often asked, and the fact remains that IDers as well as Darwinists are looking at the same evidence, and interpreting it different. Dawkins looks at complex biological systems, and recognizes the appearance of design, but he denies design. IDers see the appearance of design, and it causes them to want to know more, so they look and see irreducible complexity, that cannot be explained away by natural selection. So really, the IDers do not need to provide experimentation. The evidence is already provided in DNA samples. HOw can anyone look at the DNA language and not see design. It's clear that DNA is the complex specified information needed to bring about complex biological systems. You can't deny this. DNA cannot be reduced, and therefore, its function is optimal. Optimal systems cannot be broken down to less optimal functions.

"And by the way, I'm a Christian. But I'm one who reconizes that science is not ideology. The most hardcore atheist scientists would be willing to look at the evidence for ID if only anyone could ever find some. Until anyone does, this "debate" is only going to keep going in the same circles its been going in for years. "Gee, this looks really complicated!" is not evidence.

"

Fine, you're a Christian. So am I. I cannot accept Darwinism, not because I am a Christian, but because of the evidence that exists. Darwinism's days are numbered. I believe it will be a myth within the next 20-30 years.

Randy

Originally posted by

MPW

Mr. Parks: "One of its nefarious goals is to 'drive a wedge' into 'scientific materialism'? ... It's about time. Bring it on. Scientific materialists have been force-feeding me their one-sided perspective on reality for way too long."

Given that you think scientific materialism is so off-track when it comes to the origins of species (and the unrelated matter of the Big Bang and the creation of the universe), and are so vehemently offended by its presumption, I figure that you reject some of its other major results, or are at least highly skeptical of them. I'm curious as to which.

For example: Did you type your op-ed on some sort of computer created by non-materialist science? Do you not get into airplanes because you're not sure they'll fly every time, as materialists assume? When you turn the key in your car's ignition, do you call upon a supernatural entity to intervene and make sure it turns on, since you don't trust the scientific materialist principles that supposedly make it run? Are seismologists who are working on better ways to predict earthquakes endangering people because they're ignoring the possible involvement of this or a similar entity, and instead looking only at material factors? Did you or will you bother to get your children vaccinated? Or even make them wash their hands scrupulously when they're sick? After all, the theory that microorganisms cause disease completely ignores any non-materialist intervention.

Feel free to name any other examples if it's none of the above, and please explain how "non-materialist science" accounts for your examples differently and how it tests its hypotheses. Bonus points for explaining any important past results from non-materialist methods. I'm having trouble thinking of any.

It appears you don't understand the term "materialism" which is a philosophy, not science. So "scientific materialism" hasn't created anything. You also seem to be holding some incorrect assumptions. For example, the Big Bang is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of God (indeed, intelligent design advocates have predicted for thousands of years that the universe had a beginning, it was materialists who incorrectly asserted it was eternal).

You also seem to hold the false belief that those who oppose allowing the unscientific philosophy of materialism to hijack science don't believe that there are physical laws which govern the universe. To the contrary, an intelligent design advocate would tell you the physical laws which govern the universe are in fact evidence of design. So your conclusion that those who reject limiting real science to the philosophy of materialism would also call on a supernatural entity to start their car while simultaneously refusing to have their children vaccinated is at best non sequitur.

Originally posted by

MPW

Mr. Parks: "One of its nefarious goals is to 'drive a wedge' into 'scientific materialism'? ... It's about time. Bring it on. Scientific materialists have been force-feeding me their one-sided perspective on reality for way too long."

Given that you think scientific materialism is so off-track when it comes to the origins of species (and the unrelated matter of the Big Bang and the creation of the universe), and are so vehemently offended by its presumption, I figure that you reject some of its other major results, or are at least highly skeptical of them. I'm curious as to which.

For example: Did you type your op-ed on some sort of computer created by non-materialist science? Do you not get into airplanes because you're not sure they'll fly every time, as materialists assume? When you turn the key in your car's ignition, do you call upon a supernatural entity to intervene and make sure it turns on, since you don't trust the scientific materialist principles that supposedly make it run? Are seismologists who are working on better ways to predict earthquakes endangering people because they're ignoring the possible involvement of this or a similar entity, and instead looking only at material factors? Did you or will you bother to get your children vaccinated? Or even make them wash their hands scrupulously when they're sick? After all, the theory that microorganisms cause disease completely ignores any non-materialist intervention.

Feel free to name any other examples if it's none of the above, and please explain how "non-materialist science" accounts for your examples differently and how it tests its hypotheses. Bonus points for explaining any important past results from non-materialist methods. I'm having trouble thinking of any.

Mark Bersch Replied: "It appears you don't understand the term "materialism" which is a philosophy, not science. So "scientific materialism" hasn't created anything. You also seem to be holding some incorrect assumptions. For example, the Big Bang is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of God (indeed, intelligent design advocates have predicted for thousands of years that the universe had a beginning, it was materialists who incorrectly asserted it was eternal).

You also seem to hold the false belief that those who oppose allowing the unscientific philosophy of materialism to hijack science don't believe that there are physical laws which govern the universe. To the contrary, an intelligent design advocate would tell you the physical laws which govern the universe are in fact evidence of design. So your conclusion that those who reject limiting real science to the philosophy of materialism would also call on a supernatural entity to start their car while simultaneously refusing to have their children vaccinated is at best non sequitur."

Mark, I'm with you on this one. Francis Schaeffer got it right in "The God Who Is There"when he predicted postmodernism. Postmodernists go way beyond science, and believe that their ideologies equal impirical science. Or else they beleive that there is no impiricism - no truth whatsoever, and therefore, their ideologies are ultimate truth. They would give you the right to consider your own ideology as ultimate truth as well, but are not always consistent with this. This is why it is considered politically incorrect to judge as immoral, the mores of cultures other than one's own. It is politically incorrect to judge anything as immoral beyond what a society has considered illegal. In fact, political correctness itself comes from postmodernism.

Now, those who try to hold onto modernism, are the scientism crowd. They are a bit different than the postmodern majority. They like to make pronouncements about science's contributions to the good of society, and how we couldn't live without 2.3 litre engines and cellular phones, and that all of that we owe to naturalism.

Well, that is wrong. Actually, science owes much more to the rise of Christianity in the West. It was Christianity that gave the atmosphere in which science could be understood. This is so because Christians believed in a reasonable God. A God who had a purpose behind His creation, and One who could be known through learning about His creation. In fact, part of the earliest theological dogmas was that of natural revelation vs. special revelation. Natural revelation is what can be known about God through nature - the creation. Special revelation is what is known about God through His Word - the Scriptures.

It was Christianity that led to the rise of modern medicine, to archetecture, to Western art, to Western music, and a host of other practices that require intellect and skill and precision. We forget this. We want to hold onto the last 150 years as if the centuries before Darwin contributed nothing to the modern world.

Scientific materialists like to take credit for human engineering feats while neglecting the fact that all material things are designed and created by humans. They don't come about by unplanned natural selection. It is also important to understand that many IDers come from the field of engineering. There is a reason for this. Engineers recognize that nothing can be created without thought, planning (not even DADA art), organization, logistics, and implementation by following what is planned and thought out. It's the same way in nature. Complex biological systems are just that: They are systems - machine like. It takes a mind to design complex systems. We see that in engineering, but naturalists make an exception when it comes to nature, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Naturalists have a need to not believe in God at all costs. It seems that they are willing to give up common sense in order to maintain their atheism. But we need to not give up on them. Antony Flew was a naturalist until he followed the evidence of ID to its conslusion that God must exist before anything can exist.

Nature is not self-existent. The Kalam Cosmological argument (philosophy-science cannot bring about truth without good philosophical assumptions) states that there must be a first cause beyond nature that caused all things to exist. The argument is sound, but is more than just that. The KCA is over 1,000 years old, and it came before the Big Bang theory postulate of the "singularity" (Hawking), but is essentially a precursor to the BBT. It essentially lays out its thesis by observing that it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. Therefore, the universe cannot be infinite. It must have been caused, and the cause must not be a part of the universe.

Randy

Originally posted by

Boo

"Dembski is merely aknowledging that mind comes before complex organisms can exist."

If he wants to claim there is scientific evidence of this, the burden is on him to provide it.

He has provided evidence in his book THE DESIGN INFERRENCE. You should read it.

"We are in a world where materialism dominates."

"We are? Wow, I thought this was planet Earth. You know, where Christians are a large majority in the US and the religious are a large majority of the planet. Pretending religious people are being persecuted by atheists is silly, unless you're referring to communist China, which you're not."

I can tell by your sarcasm that you really have an axe to grind with Christians, so I'm going to try to be as fair as I can here. I'm not interested one bit on questioning your integrity, or attacking your character. I do have a problem with the above statement though. If it were true that Christians control the thoughts of the majority (which is what you are implying), then Darwinian Evolution would not be taught in science classes. Darwinism denies the very God that Christians believe in.

I think you would benefit in a course on world religions, and a separate course on Christian theology. I'm not certain that you understand exactly what Christians believe beyond what is presented in the media. This country was pretty much influenced by Christianity in colonial times. However, since then, secularism has taken over. The thought that is dominant in American society comes from Neiztshe (sp?), Darwin, Freud and other materialists. What we don't find in our universities today is people talking about the significant Christian philosophical or theological thought.

"'Either materialism is true and there is no God, or it is false, and God exists. It should not be a matter of faith, but of reality whether God exists or not. If its simply a matter of faith, then no thanks. It would be obvious to me that such a faith would be useless. He either exists, or He does not, and there ought to be some evidence to show that he does. If not, then faith is useless. In fact, Paul stated as much in his epistles.'"

"Your problems with your faith have no relevance in science classes."

Faith has every bit of relevance insofar as faith is belief in what is real. My faith allows me to doubt until such a time as I'm able to determine what is real and what is not. I am allowed to look at the evidence before me, and if it shows irreducible complexity, I am allowed to ask whether that complexity is designed or the result of unplanned natural selection. I am allowed to ask such questions because I believe that faith ought to be in what is real. It's not a blind faith. Therefore, I am allowed to question Darwinism and/or design, and when I do, I find Darwinist natural selection lacking the reality. It is Darwinists who appear to have a faith in Darwinism that does not allow them to question the status quo.

"'So people who speak about religion are not allowed to talk science? Why do you have a problem with people combining talk of religion with science?'"

"Talk all the science and all the religion you want, but try not to confuse the two."

There's no confusion between religion and science when religion points to the God who made the laws that govern the universe. I should expect that God's creation is rational. To deny God is to deny that the laws that govern the universe are designed, and to deny design is to deny that the laws of the universe are necessarily rational. How can unplanned occurrences dictate rational law? That is a philosophical question and not a scientific one. But science does not operate in a vacuum of naturalism. Somewhere down the line, when a person reasons about existence, metaphysical questions inherently come to mind. The naturalists decieve themselves when they claim that they don't think metaphysically about the universe and our existence. Naturalism is a metaphysical position. It posits that there is no God, and that there can be no God. It's a rather narrow metaphysical position.

"'You know, this is a question that is often asked, and the fact remains that IDers as well as Darwinists are looking at the same evidence, and interpreting it different.'"

", I've read enough ID materials to know IDers are usually lying about the evidence,"

Well that's an ad hominem.

"like when Wells claims biology textbooks are still teaching Haeckel's embryo drawings as fact when the texts he cited used them as examples of past erroneous claims that have been debunked."

Wells claim is legitimate. I've seen the examples, and they don't debunk Haeckel's claims. They use Haeckel's claims to show the evidence for evolution in embryos of various species. Wells was not lying.

"'Dawkins looks at complex biological systems, and recognizes the appearance of design, but he denies design. IDers see the appearance of design, and it causes them to want to know more, so they look and see irreducible complexity, that cannot be explained away by natural selection.'"

"Actually, by Dembski's definition of intelligence as a force that can choose between options, natural selection qualifies as intelligence."

I give you that - if natural selection is true, it must be intellegent. Therefore, it must have an intellegent mind behind it. Why then do you argue against intelligent design? Personally, I don't see the evidence for natural selection sofar as macro-evolution is concerned. I see natural selection in what you called "adaptation," however, it is a giant leap of faith to say that natural selection can account for complex biological systems that require design.

"'So really, the IDers do not need to provide experimentation. The evidence is already provided in DNA samples. HOw can anyone look at the DNA language and not see design.'"

"!!! Argument from incredulity. Thank you for playing. How can anyone look at me and not see I am the smartest, best looking, badassest chica on the planet?"

It's a legitimate argument when you consider that everything we humans have created that is complex, is designed. We don't go about throwing metal and plastic at the wind and ending up with automobiles. Why should it be any different than with irreducibly complex biological systems? If DNA is a language, then why would we not assume that it takes a mind to invent a language that operates to arrange matter into complex organization? Natural selection cannot be that mind, for it then begs the question. What mind allowed natural selection to become the mind that created the DNA that created the complex biological systems?

"'It's clear that DNA is the complex specified information needed to bring about complex biological systems. You can't deny this.'"

"I can if 'complex specified information' is meaningless gibberish."

But it's not meaningless gibberish. You need to read Dembski's book. Complex specified information is the information in the DNA that allows it to perform the very basic tasks that run your own immune system and other biological systems. It takes complex specified information for DNA to work. Where does the information come from?

"If it isn't, please show me the calculations that demonstrate that DNA posesses 'complex specified information,' and how one determines the probability values for DNA occuring."

"'DNA cannot be reduced, and therefore, its function is optimal. Optimal systems cannot be broken down to less optimal functions.'"

"Actually, experiments have shown that you can knock out quite a bit of DNA with no discernible effect on the organism. You know, experiments. The things that scientists do. When they want to actually figure stuff out without just making assertions.

"

Such as? I would like to know about these specific experiments that show that DNA does not contain CSI.

Originally posted by

MPW

Re: Mark Bersch, posted on 6/25/07 @ 6:30 a.m. (Man, the comment reply function on this board leaves a lot to be desired.)

Mark sez: "It appears you don't understand the term "materialism" which is a philosophy, not science. So "scientific materialism" hasn't created anything."

It's IDists who dragged the term "materialism" into this, and in the comment you're responding to, I'm using it the way they do, to the doubtful extent that I can discern a coherent definition that they're adhering to.

The philosophy of materialism is one thing. What IDists are attacking is methodological materialism, in general (although it's part of their game to be slippery about that). That seems to be how you and Parks are using the term – in a way that's more or less the same as "naturalism" as used in science. In a nutshell, this is the principle that science looks for material, natural causes and the physical laws governing them, by proposing testable hypotheses, rigorously testing them, and ruthlessly discarding those that don't pass the tests. So "materialism" as you use it here is absolutely vital to the methodology of science that has been used with ever-increasing success through modern history – not quite synonymous with it, but central to it.

ID concepts like Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" flout these basics by proposing an arbitrary limit on this process, whereby a scientist is supposed to decide that such materialist or naturalist explanations are impossible for a particular phenomenon, and invoke by default the intervention of a designer who is outside of physical laws and not subject to testable hypotheses.

There doesn't seem to be a coherent or defensible position in ID on where this limit is reached and how we know it's been reached. (Do scientists give up looking for a material explanation and conclude "intervention of the designer" after 10 years? 40? 100?) In practice, the principle seems to be that materialist methodology is abandoned at the point where it conflicts with a particular religiously inspired notion: namely, that a deity intervened in a direct and detectable way to create life or some aspect of it. At the same time, the standard methodology apparently remains perfectly fine for other phenomena like the aforementioned diseases and internal combustion engines.

This essential hypocrisy – this double-think – means, yes, IDists can load their children into an automobile to go get their flu shots while still claiming to reject materialism. It doesn't mean that position is intellectually defensible.

I will respond to both of your posts to me here.

1.) Materialism was not "dragged" into the discussion by Professor Parks, me, or anyone else, this is the core of the disagreement. You see, intelligent design does not challenge science or even Darwinism but rather the unscientific presuppositions of materialism.

2.) You said: "I'm using it the way they do, to the doubtful extent that I can discern a coherent definition that they're adhering to...The philosophy of materialism is one thing. What IDists are attacking is methodological materialism, in general (although it's part of their game to be slippery about that)."

Excuse me, but the only substantive difference between materialism and "methodological materialism" is the word "methodological" in the latter which lends itself to equivocation. With regard to examing the evidence for Darwinism for example, there is no difference between "philosophical materialism" and "methodological materialism." If you really believe there is then feel free to give me just the substantive difference between the two as it regards Darwinism (helpful hint: I wouldn't pursue this particular line of argumentation).

3.) You said with regard to the definition of materialism: "In a nutshell, this is the principle that science looks for material, natural causes and the physical laws governing them, by proposing testable hypotheses, rigorously testing them, and ruthlessly discarding those that don't pass the tests. So "materialism" as you use it here is absolutely vital to the methodology of science that has been used with ever-increasing success through modern history – not quite synonymous with it, but central to it."

Not quite my friend. Those who advocate intelligent design approach scientific investigation in the same manner, which still seems to be an area of confusion for you. What you have left out of your definition of materialism is the presuppositions regarding conclusions. While I do not like using Wikepedia you can find a definition of "methodological materialism/naturalism" there which in pertinent part states:

"...which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by similarly natural causes, and with irrelevance to the assumption of the existence or non-existence of supernatural elements, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside of science."

You will note that it says "makes the methodological assumption...are best explainable only by natural causes." That is a philosophical presupposition regarding conclusions, not investigation. So while I have no problem with someone who believes it is not the job of science to look for the fingerprints of God, I do have a problem when people believe it is the job of science to erase them (look again at the philosophical presupposition regarding conclusions that you are married to). More importantly, in that intelligent design theory is an attempt to identify intelligent agency as opposed to mere antecedent cause, to argue against intelligent design theory one would have to find some "natural" explanation for the existence of automobiles that does not involve intelligence.

4.) Regarding Behe and ID you said: "ID concepts like Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" flout these basics by proposing an arbitrary limit on this process, whereby a scientist is supposed to decide that such materialist or naturalist explanations are impossible for a particular phenomenon, and invoke by default the intervention of a designer who is outside of physical laws and not subject to testable hypotheses."

You argue a straw man, in fact a group of them. Behe has not proposed limits to the "process" of investigation, but rather rejects the limits on conclusions imposed by the presupposition of philosophical materialism. You really need to understand that there is nothing at all "scientific" about "materialism," methodological or otherwise.

Your next straw man is with regard to irreducible complexity. Behe did not argue that "something is impossible" but rather that the Darwinian Theory can not account for functional irreducibly complex systems. Incidentally, no credible person has argued that Darwinian processes can account for irreducibly complex systems, but rather they have tried to show that the systems Behe has used for examples are not irreducibly complex. Incidentally, that makes irreducible complexity observable, testable, and falsifiable which is more that you can say about a T-rex giving birth to a chicken.

5.) The scientific method does not need to be tied to a philosophy or its presuppositions. At any rate, Michael Behe has not suggested that anyone should ever give up attempting to find a better answer to anything by any means.

6.) You said: "This essential hypocrisy – this double-think – means, yes, IDists can load their children into an automobile to go get their flu shots while still claiming to reject materialism. It doesn't mean that position is intellectually defensible."

Again, you argue a straw man, there is no "double-think." We are talking about conclusions based on data, not changing the data. No hypocrisy involved. Now if you want to talk hypocrisy how about this: If materialism is true you are incapable of truly reasoning with me. In fact, your belief that you think, reason, and actually make choices is an illusion. In a universe of event causation you can not suddenly introduce free agency. The universe is simply matter in motion governed by natural laws. You are not truly a free agent, you don't get to determine the motion of matter, the motion of matter determines you. So the "hypocrisy" if that is the word you would like to use (I personally just don't think you are aware of this) is that the materialist would attempt to posit any type of rational explanation regarding the existence of anything when rationality is not a property of matter.

7.) Previously in response to your unsupported assertion that Professor Parks does not trust the physical laws that govern the universe, I attempted to explain to you that not only does intelligent design not reject those physical laws but would actually argue that they are evidence of design. To this you responded:

"The burden is then on the ID advocate to offer evidence for this. At least as simply stated here, it's a non-sequitur."

First of all it's not a non sequitur as I did not offer an argument but rather a statement of fact regarding what the theory of intelligent design proffers. If I were in fact profer an argument that the physical laws for the universe inferred design I would indeed offer evidence, such as the fine tuning of the universe. But that is far beyond the scope of anything I plan on responding to here. It is enough to point out once again that your completely unsupported assertion that intelligent design rejects the laws that govern the universe is absolutely wrong.

8.) I mean no offense but I found your last paragraph so amusing that I will quote it in its entirety here:

"Explain to me again how the Big Bang was discovered and described on principles derived from millennia-old theistic claims, without reference to the materialist methodologies of science? You can't, of course, since it was scientists using the same methodologies that all other scientists use who accomplished this. In addition, the details of the Big Bang theory bear little resemblance to those of any theistic creation story, and contain no reference to or evidence of a personalized creative being or beings. To try to yoke the Big Bang to ID creationism is a move of desperation and/or profound misunderstanding."

You do enjoy straw man arguments don't you? I did not say that for millennia theists had argued that the universe had a beginning based on physics. I said that theists had posited the universe had a beginning, materialists argued that the universe was eternal, and the materialists were wrong. While there were theistic arguments for the beginning of the universe such as the cosmological argument, it is true that Judeo-Christian and also Muslim faiths believed the universe had a beginning because of their faith. However, what you are ignoring is the materialists argued it was eternal based on their faith (materialism), as a universe with a beginning must have a first cause, and the metaphysical implications of universe needing a first cause is a universe created by God.

"Einstein admitted the idea of the expanding universe 'irritates me' (presumably, said one prominent scientist, 'because of its theological implications'). British astronomer Arthur Eddington called it 'repugnant.' MIT's Phillip Morrison said, 'I would like to reject it.' [Robert] Jastrow said it was 'distasteful to the scientific [materialistic] mind.'" (Case for a Creator, pg. 112).

I especially enjoyed your last sentence: "To try to yoke the Big Bang to ID creationism is a move of desperation and/or profound misunderstanding." First, another straw man in that ID is not "creationism" (unless of course you believe atheism is Darwinism). More importantly, it is obvious from your statement that you had no idea of the theological implications of the Big Bang which doesn't speak well of your education. At any rate:

"Perhaps the best argument...that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas...being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory." (Astrophysicist C.J. Isham)

Lastly, consider this: If you truly believe in materialism there is no way you can prove yourself correct, or me incorrect. Indeed, there would be no correct or incorrect answer, only the illusion that you actually think.

Mark Bersch

Originally posted by

Scott Beach

Mr. Parks:

You have asserted that, "Mainstream science has chosen, a priori, to ignore massive evidence (evidence, I said, not proof) of a designer, or creator, if you will." Your assertion is not correct.

Scientists establish associations and elect officers and then the officers choose an editor to oversee the publication of the association's journal. The editor is instructed to accept for publication reports about the testing of scientific hypotheses. The editor will not accept reports about assertions of cause and effect relationships if either the cause or the effect is alleged to be supernatural. The editor may or may not have religious beliefs but if he or she has religious beliefs then those beliefs are not supposed to effect the decision about what reports will be published.

Contrary to your assertion, scientists do not "ignore" evidence of supernatural causation. They have simply agreed -- in order to keep the peace within their own organizations -- not to try to inject their own religious beliefs into science.

A scientific hypothesis cannot contain an assertion that a natural phenomenon includes a supernatural cause or a supernatural effect. The assertions that god designed and created the universe, and that each human is inhabited by a supernatural soul, cannot be included in a scientific hypothesis.

The proponents of intelligent design have never presented ID in the form of a scientific hypothesis. They never will. Their assertion that ID is a verified scientific hypothesis (i.e., a scientific theory) is false and they know it. They should stop lying to us.

"Mainstream science" therefore begins with the metaphysical assumption of naturalism, which begs the question. If it is to be assumed that supernatural occurrences are ruled out of scientific pursuits, then if and when supernatural occurrences are operating, we could never know. We could never discover them because we have ruled them out of the equation altogether. Some might say "yes, well this is how science is done. Science deals with natural phenomoenon; what can be tested." There is an inherent problem with limiting science in this way. That is if the supernatural does have a part in the physical laws of the universe, we could never know of such. Thus naturalism is actually narrow in its scope, and begs the question: Supernatural phenomenon do not occur because only natural phenomonon can occur.


You state: "Contrary to your assertion, scientists do not "ignore" evidence of supernatural causation. They have simply agreed -- in order to keep the peace within their own organizations -- not to try to inject their own religious beliefs into science."

If this were true, then there would not be so much disagreement with ID among Darwinists, for the supporters of Darwinism would be interested in "keeping the peace." That is not what is occuring. IDers are losing their jobs, being ostracized, ridiculed, called liars, called all kinds of other abusive and derogatory names simply because of their views; simply because they are willing to allow the supernatural insofar as supernatural forces are at work, to be detected. This is hardly how science is supposed to operate. Science is supposed to be objective. Darwinists are anything but objective when it comes to ID. There is a ferocious animosity directed at IDers. The negative response of science professors at this college towards this ID conference is an example of that animosity. There doesn't apper to be any interest in "keeping the peace." That suggestion is laughable.

Randy

Originally posted by

MPW

"Mainstream science" therefore begins with the metaphysical assumption of naturalism, which begs the question. If it is to be assumed that supernatural occurrences are ruled out of scientific pursuits, then if and when supernatural occurrences are operating, we could never know. We could never discover them because we have ruled them out of the equation altogether. Some might say "yes, well this is how science is done. Science deals with natural phenomoenon; what can be tested." There is an inherent problem with limiting science in this way. That is if the supernatural does have a part in the physical laws of the universe, we could never know of such. Thus naturalism is actually narrow in its scope, and begs the question: Supernatural phenomenon do not occur because only natural phenomonon can occur.


You state: "Contrary to your assertion, scientists do not "ignore" evidence of supernatural causation. They have simply agreed -- in order to keep the peace within their own organizations -- not to try to inject their own religious beliefs into science."

If this were true, then there would not be so much disagreement with ID among Darwinists, for the supporters of Darwinism would be interested in "keeping the peace." That is not what is occuring. IDers are losing their jobs, being ostracized, ridiculed, called liars, called all kinds of other abusive and derogatory names simply because of their views; simply because they are willing to allow the supernatural insofar as supernatural forces are at work, to be detected. This is hardly how science is supposed to operate. Science is supposed to be objective. Darwinists are anything but objective when it comes to ID. There is a ferocious animosity directed at IDers. The negative response of science professors at this college towards this ID conference is an example of that animosity. There doesn't apper to be any interest in "keeping the peace." That suggestion is laughable.

Randy

There is a good reason science explains phenomena by natural processes. Natural processes can be repeatedly tested and the results of these tests can be reproduced. Supernatural causes are not testable.

Who really knows if these processes actually are supernatural- we cannot test this. Sure you blaim science for being limited-even conservative in the conclusions. But it is this conservation that has allowed modern medicine to help fight disease (most of which is based on evolutionary theory).

Scientists are not objective when it comes to ID because, ID is claimed as science (scientists aren't claiming that ID is wrong-it just isn't science). ID claims to have evidence-but their claim- that these arise from a designer is not testable. Furthermore ID fails as a theory because it is not proposed as results from testing hypotheses. ID makes no predictions about how life will evolve in the future as result of intelligent cause. Does ID account for future evidence?

Evolutionary theory encompasses these things.

"There is a good reason science explains phenomena by natural processes. Natural processes can be repeatedly tested and the results of these tests can be reproduced. Supernatural causes are not testable.

Who really knows if these processes actually are supernatural- we cannot test this. Sure you blaim science for being limited-even conservative in the conclusions. But it is this conservation that has allowed modern medicine to help fight disease (most of which is based on evolutionary theory).

Scientists are not objective when it comes to ID because, ID is claimed as science (scientists aren't claiming that ID is wrong-it just isn't science). ID claims to have evidence-but their claim- that these arise from a designer is not testable. Furthermore ID fails as a theory because it is not proposed as results from testing hypotheses. ID makes no predictions about how life will evolve in the future as result of intelligent cause. Does ID account for future evidence?

Evolutionary theory encompasses these things."

I am not saying that scientific theory should not explain phenomenon by natural processes. I never said that, so you are invoking a strawman argument. I am saying that we don't rule out the possibility of processes other than natural ones playing a part in what we investigate and that we don't assume that they do not play a role, or that they cannot be detected by natural investigation. The fact is; we don't know, and to state that they cannot play a role is to beg the question.

You stated "Supernatural causes are not testable." This is an assumption. It is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific on. It begs the question: are supernatural causes testable?

Your next question: "Who really knows if these processes actually are supernatural- we cannot test this.

Excellent question, but you make another assumption that begs the question. Same question.

"Sure you blaim science for being limited-even conservative in the conclusions. But it is this conservation that has allowed modern medicine to help fight disease (most of which is based on evolutionary theory)."

I don't blame science for anything. You pretend that you habe a monopoly on science. Science just is. It is investigation into what is real. Now your saying that Methodological naturalism (a philosophy) is responsible for modern medicine? Give me a break. Christians were the first to create hospitals that care for people - so it really is Christianity that contributed greatest to the practice and development of modern medicine - the desire to help people heal - because people are important. People are important because they have purpose - they have purpose because they are created in the image of God, who created for a purpose. This is the philosophy that led to modern medicine, not Darwinism.

Randy

Originally posted by

MPW

Re: Randy - posted 4/28/07 @ 2:13 PM EST

Your comment covers a lot of ground: postmodernism and modernism, political correctness, the arguable role of Christianity in creating the cultural context for the growth of science, and (sigh, once again) that favorite red herring of evolution deniers, the Big Bang and the creation of the universe, which of course is not part of evolutionary theory and cannot be made to be evidence either for or against it. Fascinating and complex issues all, on which you and I clearly disagree a lot and could argue back and forth until we're old men. But of course they're irrelevant to the question of which view has more evidence in its favor, evolutionary theory or intelligent design.

This is yet another example of evolution deniers hand-waving their way out of presenting any actual science, by waving philosophical and historical assertions around like shiny tinfoil to try to distract people. The queries I posed earlier go unanswered: How does the "real," "non-materialist" science trumpeted by you, Roger Parks and Mark Bersch differ in its methods from materialist science, and what scientific successes can be demonstrated for it? Does non-materialist science pose empirically testable hypotheses and then test them through laboratory and field research? If yes, why has ID not presented any such hypotheses nor any original research? If no, what method(s) does non-materialist science use, and how? Are these the same methods used in science whose results you presumably accept, "real science," such as the aforementioned germ theory of disease and related methods of vaccination?

These seem to me the relevant questions when arguing about the place of materialism/naturalism in science. Tangents about religiopolitical history and the assertions of individual philosophers don't tell us much, beyond usefully demonstrating IDists' lack of any scientific substance to talk about.

Randy 5/04:
"I am not saying that scientific theory should not explain phenomenon by natural processes. I never said that, so you are invoking a strawman argument. I am saying that we don't rule out the possibility of processes other than natural ones playing a part in what we investigate and that we don't assume that they do not play a role, or that they cannot be detected by natural investigation. The fact is; we don't know, and to state that they cannot play a role is to beg the question.

You stated "Supernatural causes are not testable." This is an assumption. It is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific on. It begs the question: are supernatural causes testable?"

Fine: Are supernatural causes testable?
Science is founded on philosophies. I was attempting to state that scientific conclusions must be testable and produce repeatable results. These conclusions must be dynamic enough to account for future evidence and make predictions about future events. ID does not encompass these principles (as biological evolution and gravitation do).

Scientific truths are tentative- new evidence often changes views of the truth. ID is an absolute truth.

In other words, scientists' objections to ID are not that "Intelligent design did not occur", but that "ID is a different philosophical conclusion than a scientific one." It's okay in science to state that we don't know.



[Your next question: "Who really knows if these processes actually are supernatural- we cannot test this.

Excellent question, but you make another assumption that begs the question. Same question.]

refer to prior comment.

My comment (5/3):
"Sure you blaim science for being limited-even conservative in the conclusions. But it is this conservation that has allowed modern medicine to help fight disease (most of which is based on evolutionary theory)."

Your response (5/4):
"I don't blame science for anything. You pretend that you ha[v]e a monopoly on science."

However, based on your comment from (5/2) you directly blame science for being limited:

"" Science deals with natural phenomoenon; what can be tested." There is an inherent problem with limiting science in this way. That is if the supernatural does have a part in the physical laws of the universe, we could never know of such. Thus naturalism is actually narrow in its scope, and begs the question: Supernatural phenomenon do not occur because only natural phenomonon can occur."

So science is limited.

"Science just is. It is investigation into what is real. Now your saying that Methodological naturalism (a philosophy) is responsible for modern medicine? Give me a break."

Antiobiotics and vaccinations are repeatedly tested and have produced repeatable results before they are introduced on the market. (Scientific method- also a philosophy).

"Christians were the first to create hospitals that care for people - so it really is Christianity that contributed greatest to the practice and development of modern medicine - the desire to help people heal - because people are important."

Good, I won't disagree that Christianity inspires genuine goodness towards others.
The scientific method is directly responsible for having safe effective drugs on the market to combat disease. Evolutionary theory and genetics are strongly influential in our understanding of disease, how disease behaves, and how we can combat disease.

"People are important because they have purpose - they have purpose because they are created in the image of God, who created for a purpose. This is the philosophy that led to modern medicine, not Darwinism.
Randy"

Are you suggesting that diseases do not respond by genetically, behaviorally and morphologically to their ever changing environment? These changes are why new vaccines are developed every year.

Randy: "You stated 'Supernatural causes are not testable.' This is an assumption. It is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific on. It begs the question: are supernatural causes testable?"

MPW: "Fine: Are supernatural causes testable?"

This is the very question that is begged. It's an excellent question, and it is a scientific question that ID implies, but ID does not really answer whether it is supernatural or not. The conclusions of ID - that irreducibly complex biological organisms contain complex specified information that comes from design. The implications one can infer from this is that there is a designer. Once we get to identifying the designer, however, we leave the realm of science, and enter the realms of philosophy and religion. ID does not go that far. This is what people don't understand about intelligent design. They want to slap a religious label on it - but that is premature.

If intelligent design is a reality, there are for certain, philosophical and religious implications, and one must infer by the implications that perhaps there are some assumptions within the evolutionary framework that need some re-evaluation; such as the notion of speciation (or what some have termed macro-evolution). But what is referred to as "adaptation" can still find a reality within an intelligent design framework.

MPW: "Science is founded on philosophies. I was attempting to state that scientific conclusions must be testable and produce repeatable results."

But the notion of natural selection does not produce repeatable results, and neither does speciation. We see small changes in organisms, but we don't see the kinds of large scale changes from one species into another. The fossil record is not adequate enough to make those kinds of conclusions, because ID can very well come up with other valid interpretations of the same data. Again this is not testable data. It is only interpretive data, and it is interpreted within the framework of methodological naturalism. Therefore, it too, begs another question: "Do the fossils represent a clear picture of speciation, or is there another explanation?"

MPW: "These conclusions must be dynamic enough to account for future evidence and make predictions about future events. ID does not encompass these principles (as biological evolution and gravitation do)."

ID actually gives us the ability to make dynamic predictions about future events. ID looks at complex specified information. Insofar as complex specified information is involved in irreducibly complex organisms, ID can predict what changes are required in that information to allow a species to adapt to new environments.

Those who insist that natural selection is the mechanism for change are avoiding the equation of complex specified information. This is because information is outside of methodological naturalism - yet it can be detected in DNA.


MPW: "Scientific truths are tentative- new evidence often changes views of the truth. ID is an absolute truth."

I agree that scientific truths are tentative. ID provides us with new evidence in CSI. It is not absolute. We know very little at this time. More needs to be researched. But the fundamental differences between how science is being done today with the assumption of methodological naturalism can find profound insights by allowing ID to have a voice in the mainstream halls of scientific inquiry.


MPW: "In other words, scientists' objections to ID are not that "Intelligent design did not occur", but that "ID is a different philosophical conclusion than a scientific one." It's okay in science to state that we don't know."

It's also OK in science to have opinions and philosophical assumptions. One must be willing to set one's philosophical assumptions aside, however when new information contradicts those assumptions. ID provides new information that challenges methodological naturalism. This is why there is so much resistance to it. Incidentally, I believe that most scientists' objections to ID are philosophical objections, and not scientific ones.






MPW: "However, based on your comment from (5/2) you directly blame science for being limited:

"" Randy: "Science deals with natural phenomoenon; what can be tested." There is an inherent problem with limiting science in this way. That is if the supernatural does have a part in the physical laws of the universe, we could never know of such. Thus naturalism is actually narrow in its scope, and begs the question: Supernatural phenomenon do not occur because only natural phenomonon can occur."

MPW, you use the word "blame." Again, this implies that you think you have either a monopoly on science, or a better understanding of how science works. I don't think you do. I don't think I do either, but that's beside the point. I think that Darwinists don't understand intelligent design. They don't understand it because they have a superiority complex, and they believe philosophically that ID theorists don't know what they are talking about because of religious motives and assumptions. This is entirely incorrect.

MPW: "So science is limited."

Yes, science is limited. It can answer some questions for us, but it cannot answer all questions for us. We have to seek other methods for undestanding reality beyond science in order to be "intellectually fulfilled" to use a term from Dawkins. In fact, Darwinism is a philosophy that answers some questions for Darwinists that cannot be answered by the raw data provided by scientific exploration.

Randy: "Science just is. It is investigation into what is real. Now your saying that Methodological naturalism (a philosophy) is responsible for modern medicine? Give me a break."

MPW: "Antiobiotics and vaccinations are repeatedly tested and have produced repeatable results before they are introduced on the market. (Scientific method- also a philosophy)."

Yes, but the repetitive testing is not the same as methodological naturalism. It is simply how science is done. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical interpretation of the data compiled from the reptitive testing.

Randy: "Christians were the first to create hospitals that care for people - so it really is Christianity that contributed greatest to the practice and development of modern medicine - the desire to help people heal - because people are important."

MPW: "Good, I won't disagree that Christianity inspires genuine goodness towards others.
The scientific method is directly responsible for having safe effective drugs on the market to combat disease. Evolutionary theory and genetics are strongly influential in our understanding of disease, how disease behaves, and how we can combat disease."

The scientific method and methodological naturalism are not one and the same. One is investigation and the other is philosophical interpretation.



Randy: "People are important because they have purpose - they have purpose because they are created in the image of God, who created for a purpose. This is the philosophy that led to modern medicine, not Darwinism.
Randy"

Are you suggesting that diseases do not respond by genetically, behaviorally and morphologically to their ever changing environment? These changes are why new vaccines are developed every year.

Are you suggesting then that I don't accept evolution as a reality? I do, you know. I don't accept natural selection as the mechanism for evolutionary change, and I have problems with concluding that all species evolved from random mutations over time, and that it was purposeless and unplanned. The evidence of complex specified information in DNA lead me to conclude that the Darwinian philosophy is not a reality.

Randy

Randy:
You are correct: philosophical naturalism is beyond science.

Biological evolution, as all scientific explanations do, follow the principles of methodological naturalism- theories (like Gravitation, Plate tectonics, and Continental drift) are restricted to natural causes.

Science (and biological evolution) is not based on the premise that natural causes are the only causes (this is philosophical naturalism). The equivocal usage of philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism is misleading.

Natural selection is testable, and is tested by the fossil record . A misconception is that the fossil record is inadequate. The fossil record accurately demonstrates that organisms evolve directly to changing environments.

One example of this is the co-evolution of vegetation and herbivorous animals illustrated many times by the fossil record.

One instance directly correlated with global climate having cooled significantly over the past 45 million years (this is detectable by stable oxygen isotopes, ancient soils and sediments derived from the onset of glaciation about 30 million years ago.)

The fossil record illustrates a corresponding change in vegetation. The fossil record preserves the expansion, and diversification of grasslands in North America about 16 million years ago. Grasses thrive in cooler and more seasonal environments. Correspondingly, the North American fossil record preserves an increase in diversity of many groups of herbivorous mammals (horses and camels) which evolved high crowned teeth which continually grow (that can resist the abrasion of tough grasses).


"ID actually gives us the ability to make dynamic predictions about future events. ID looks at complex specified information. Insofar as complex specified information is involved in irreducibly complex organisms, ID can predict what changes are required in that information to allow a species to adapt to new environments."

What predictions does ID make?

Since a mechanism for intelligent evolution has not been put forth, how can ID make predictions about future directions of evolution?

Biological evolution is a dynamic theory. It is this that allowed the discoveries of DNA and genetic behavior to bolster evolutionary theory- not destroy it. Evolutionary theory predicts that successful organisms will evolve to adapt to their ever changing environments (whether this be behavioral, structural [morphological], or chemical adaptations). Just as new evidence is discovered evolutionary theory will change to explain these.

We observe bacterium that evolve new processes to digest certain substances (like nylon for instance- a relatively new substance in the world). Metabolic pathways are complex systems, and this is evidence of a novelty evolved by natural selection.


The scientific method is rooted in methodological naturalism not philosophical naturalism. This is why the effectiveness of medicines and drugs can be explained by natural processes- which are supported by repeated testing with reproducible results.

Intelligent design is vaguely defined and offers a vague explanation for evolution. The arguments underlying CSI are based upon probabilities. Probabilities which we do not have enough information to calculate, less really comprehend.

Intelligent design provides no evidence- just as biological evolution provides no evidence, they explain of evidence. Yet, Evolutionary theory is based on the scientific philosophy of methodological naturalism (again not philosophical naturalism), which intelligent design is not based on. This is why Intelligent Design is not science