Intelligent Design - Response to MG and Emeryroolz

(Before we begin, view the Rules below. They will be periodically updated as circumstances warrant.)

(This post is a complation of two. I'm trying to keep it short.)

First off, a mark of shame for MG:

MG's quote below is a good example of the misunderstanding I was describing in my previous post about science:

There's no a or b or c. OK? There's one scientific method. (By the by, street cred - engineering degree from the University of Michigan). What Intelligent Design (as Creationism was cleverly renamed in the last 20 years by way of a contest) is lacking is evidence.

My original quote was this:

a) science, as it is explained in textbooks,
b) science, as it is practiced in universities,
c) science, as it is practiced by evolutionary biologists who do not wish
to compete with a contending theory,
d) science, as it is practiced by Intelligent Design theorists,
e) science, as it is practiced by Creationists,
f) science, as it is practiced by damn good scientists.

Careful readers will note that I'm not making the claim that there are several scientific methods. My claim is only that the actual practice of science differs greatly from the textbook definition of the scientific method, and, in fact, that this disparity is centirues-old.

(A brief scolding to MG for the misread.)

I'm running out of time, so I'm out - but next time, I'll explain why Intelligent Design is not Creationism, and, in fact, never has been, though they did latch onto it with all the force of a barnacle at sea.

(The next time:)

I very much believe that ID has scientific merit, and I'll gladly argue that point. But not now; right now, the point I'm trying to make is about how science works, not about how good or bad a theory ID is. I'll argue that later; right now, it's just going to get me off topic.

Here is the point I'm arguing and am perfectly able to give a plenitude of evidence for:

"As regards nuts and bolts of the daily practice of science, Intelligent Design (ID) and Evolutionary Theory (ET) both operate in exactly the same way, and therefore neither is an inherently better theory than the other."

Put another way, IE and ET are like twins separated at birth: we're much more used to ET, but upon meeting the other we find that they do everything the same.

The best and most obvious example of their similarity is the "black box," or the explanation used when all other explanations have failed. In ID, it's a Designer (not Jesus. Shame on Emery for thinking that the only possible reason to disagree with ET would come from religious dogma). For ET, it's Chance.

Take, for example, the complexity found in the boichemistry of a single cell. Both ID and ET have an explanation:
ID - Designer
ET - Chance

A brief word: it might e said that equating "Chance" with "Designer" is fundamentally absurd. "Designer," after all, is only invoked when all other explanations have failed, and so it is not an "explanation" in the scientific sense. "Designer," so it is argued, really means "We don't understand what is going on." And therefore "Designer" isn't a scientific explanation.

That's wrong, of course. To ETheorists, "Designer" means "we don't get it," but ID theorists really do believe it...Designer=Designer (not Jesus). And, ironically enough, ID theorists think that "Chance" for most ETheorists means "we don't get it." ETheorists really do believe in Chance, however. It's not a stopgap for their lack of understanding any more than Designer is for ID. But in each case it's the Black Box, the explanation beyond which any further explanation is impossible. And as stupid as any one person may find the Black Box of the opposing position, the bottom line is this:

they aren't different. In operation, at least. Not at all. (Challenge - show me why one is superior to the other, and argue from strictly Naturalistic grounds.)

So, for ID theorists, Black Box = Designer.
For ETheorists, Black Box = Chance.

And my quarrel with scientists, amateur or professional, that write off ID as religious dogma in order to destroy it? Their animosity isn't scientific in the least. The only relevant reason for hating ID is this: ID's Black Box has a different name and a different shape.*

Now I recognize that there are many significant if ultimately irrelevant) reasons for hating ID, the largest being that it has been heavily pushed and promoted by Creation Theorists, the very same who have often ridiculed and decried the scientific establishment and are now clamoring for re-entry. That, however, as irritating as it may be, isn't sufficient reason for throwing out the theory - only factual or structural problems are reason enough. And the evidence strongly indicates that most scientists haven't been nearly open-minded enough to refute it on those grounds.

As an example, I'll cite my alma mater, Hillsdale College. Hillsdale is arguably the most Christian secular college in the world. If you attend, chances are you fit into one of three religious categories ("Protestant, Catholic, Other" - from the student survey conducted for freshman each year). So when the school decided to hold a week-long seminar on ID, most students thought itw ould get a fighting chance.

It didn't. ID theorists at the convention included Michael Behe, Ph.D; William Dembski, Ph.D., and a host of others. (Stephen Gould was invited, but declined to come, though he'd been to the college before). Behe, it should be noted, is not a Christian, and says so very bluntly in the introduction to his book, Darwin's Black Box. (Even with his outright statements to the effect of "I don't believe in god," any Google search of his name will bring up people claiming he is a Creationist. Shame. They apparently skipped the first page of his book.) Behe's quarrel with ETheory was this, and only this: he doesnt like the way that "Chance" has been used as a Black Box to explain the complexity of the microbiology of the cell. He thinks more explanation is needed.

That was it. That was his entire quarrel. "I don't like Evolution's explanation for this event, and I'd like to propose that something else made it."

No one listened. Our biology professors, otherwise brilliant men, ridiculed ID as Creationism in disguise. No amount of denying this would convince them; nothing was going to convince them, a fact made all the more painfully evident when the professors "refuted" their opponents by pointing out how stupid Creationism was. And if the ID crowd had indeed been Creationist (some of them were, but not the speakers), the argument would have held weight.

It wasn't science. It was dogma defending itself as science ("our Black Box is best!"). The attitude that so graced our professors was roughly the same as the Catholic Church's attitude in Galileo's time, defending science against new and dangerous theories.

Come to think of it, this analogy is great. Consider this: the stereotype of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages (squishing science with faith and dogma) is, for lack of a better word, wrong (another of our historical prejudices carried over from the otherwise brilliant Enlightenment). The stereotypical version of the story goes like this:

Galileo observes, Galileo makes theories, Galileo finds theories in conflict with the Bible, and the Church excommunicates Galileo.

The real version goes like this:

Galileo observes, Galileo makes theories, Galileo finds theories in conflict with Aristotle, the Church promotes him, then changes its mind, then demans that he recant and admit once again that Aristotle was right.

Aristotle's theories, realize, were the prevailing scientific dogma of the Middle Ages. And they aren't anywhere in the Bible. The stereotype of a powerful Church crushing science with faith is wrong; they were actually defending the science of their day, the science that had been around for centuries, and one small amateur scientist challenged it because he didn't like the way it explained some things, like the motion of the planets. And he was right.

The point should be obvious. Many ID theorists stand to ET in the same relation as Galileo did to the Catholic Church. (Obviously there are some holes in the analogy...but hey, it's an analogy, and not meant to do anything but illustrate.)

This is the situation as I see it. Screw all the dumbasses who aren't challenging ET because of a search for truth but because of anger or a vendetta or dogma, and screw the ETheorists who do the same. I don't care about them, and neither should you. It's the legitimate ID theorists you should be paying attention to, the ones who have a serious scientific problem wth the current scientific explanation. Why should they not be allowed to speak?

I anxiously await your reply.

*(ID has, believe it or not, very strict rules to determine when something is probably designed. The rules are based on how much "information" is encoded in a given system. The definition of "information" is dense enough to require its own course in mathematics, which Dembski is currently teaching - the course, not just plain mathematics.)