ID peer reviewed article published.
This is not peer reviewed science
No ned to read the article. This is a philosophy article from the Jonathan Wtt, Logan Gage "aesthetic Intelligent Design" school of philosophy. Not even good philosophy and certainly not even science.
If this is the best ID can do, it's dead.
No.
A great interview with Edward O. Wilson on Intelligent Design's many shortcomings.
He makes the point that the public version of ID concedes evolution inthe vast majority of the cases. Once that concession is made, there's not much left.
He also makes the point that anybody who can develop ID as a scientific theory would be come famous, winning at least the Nobel and Templeton Prize. For that reason alone, he pooh-poohs any claim of a vast Darwinist conspiracy. Scientists in competition with each other can't keep a secret.
A matter of fact takedown of Intelligent Design. Good Job!
(More about Edward O. Wilson here.)
Intelligent design has been called “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”
John West of the Discovery Institute finds his tuxedo disintegrating. John, spend some money on one and dump that cheap one.
He complains that people, for some reason or another think ID has a religious
component. Go figure. Here he is:
“If this legislator wants to promote creationism, he should
say so plainly. But by invoking the term design, he wrongly conflates
creationism with intelligent design.”
If John West is going to challenge fellow creationists who recogize intelligent design for what it is he will be a very busy man. Here’s a short list of sites to get him started—each
site is a religious /apologetic site that comfirms intelligent design and
creationism are one and the same. This is really no surprise to fundamentalist
Christians, and who "misled" them in the first place? Was it the National Center
for Science and Education that was hawking ID books at all those Biola "Mere Creation" conferences? I don’t think so.
I expect he will contact the site managers of each of the following to point out their errors and request a correction. I hope he has an open calendar:
http://www.allaboutgod.com/science.htm
http://www.reasons.org/resources/links.shtml
http://www.probe.org/content/view/759/67/
http://www.abideinchrist.com/links/helps.html
http://www.tsoup.org/redirect.php?referer=links.php&link=http://www.newcreationism.org
“intelligent Design
is complementary to creationism”
http://www.tsoup.org/links.php
various creationist sites listed alongside discovery
institute
http://www.str.org/links/apolorgs.htm
approved organizations include Discovery Institutte, IDEAnet
and Reasons to Believe and Answers in Genesis
http://www.leaderu.com/menus/apologetics.html
Leadership U lists intelligent design under “apologetics”
http://christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html
great creationist film setting out intelligent design
arguments
http://www.worldbydesign.org/
title says it all.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-booklist.htm
creationist indiscriminate reliance on ID materials
Here's Phillip Johnson defining “creationism” to include
Intelligent Design in 1992 before he got the memo and declaring himself as a
creationist in 1990 when it was still politically correct to do so:
http://www.apologetics.org/articles/whatisdarwinism.html
and PJ again,
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm
and again:
http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson_evolutionofacreationist.html
see also,
http://www.creationresearch.org/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=BI
be sure to check out their bookstore!
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/
Intelligent Design is “A testable, falsifiable, predictive
biblical creation model”
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
send e mail to Cre8ionist@intelligentdesign.org
and don’t forget, Intelligent Design is the “Bridge Between
Science and Religion”
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830815813/ref=ase_christianhomes04/002-0013278-3164862?v=glance&s=books
I guess Dembski didn’t get the memo either.
http://www.origins.org/mc/
"Mere Creation: Scholars united under Intelligent Design"
didn't get the memo either...
And the smoking gun from New Mexicans For Science and Reason.
I’d really like to hear Mr. West’s explanation for that last one. Meanwhile I simply got bored checking out all of the fundamentalist sites claiming Intelligent Design as their own.
Thanks, Panda's Thumb
Intelligent design proponents, especially Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Witt, and William Dembski, claim that the evolution/intelligent design debate is nothing other than a clash between two worldviews: a dogmatic naturalist world view and a religious worldview (apparently they miss the ironic use of "dogmatic" in reference to naturalism, certainly "dogmatic" is a term based in religion).
These proponents attempt to create the false dichotomy of religion versus scientific atheism. Touchstone Magazine was especially despicable in this regard recently. Its June/July 2004 issue "Darwin's Last Stand" opened with a nice photograph of an Auschwitz oven open door and repeatedly compared "Darwinists" to nazis. And yet ID proponents decry the incivility of the debate! (For futher discussion and comment see here and here.)
ID is bad enough as science. It's flat out terrible as theology. Johnson's credentials as a theologian are worse, if possible, than his credentials as a biologist. I've set up a series of links on the left rail to articles and discussions discussing the theological shortcomings of Intelligent Design. I'd appreciate any suggestions or additions. Several more are in the works.
Interestingly, the response of the ID proponents to this theological critique is exactly the same as their response to scientific critique. They claim that "mainstream" theologians are set in their ivory towers and are not "rank and file" Christians. ID proponents claim also that "mainstream" theologians are just as rigid in their thinking as mainstream scientists are in theirs. Finally they attack Christians who think that IFD is theologically bankrupt as "accomodationists" and not true Christians at all.
There are two main theological objections to ID:
1. it is a form of natural theology discredited since Paley. See Dembski's unsuccessful effort to wiggle out of that accusation in the left rail article.
2. Proponents of Intelligent Design are not acting as Christians because they twist the facts, subvert the truth and essentially violate this Commandment. They lie for God. This is a peculiarly ineffective way to "witness" for your faith, but very bad theology in any event.
