Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

But do they recognize that there is nothing in the field of ID, at least as it relates to biology (but arguably physics fine-tuning as well) that should make one think the God of any religion is true?

It seems to me [their] efforts are meant to buttress their religious beliefs, but as you mention with Egnor and cloning this seems to be a turn in the wrong direction inviting unnecessary potential for defeat. What if future science shows the refutation of any claim to design, will they all - if still alive - abandon their faith?

I think back to one of the books by Stephen Meyer - I think it was Darwin's Doubt - in which he spends all but the final chapter laying out the evidence for design and only in the last chapter does he talk about his religious views and how it is his personal conclusion that the design is the work of the Christian God. Again, this is his personal conclusion; he does not offer the evidence as proof of this conclusion. I see no reason why any of us can read that evidence and come to different conclusions. 

While there does appear to be a creative imperative, it is wholly unfair to dismiss that creativity as "creationism" (especially in the biblical literalist sense that neo-darwinists insist that ID is really all about).

I didn't read through the thread again before posting this but I feel that I must be repeating myself in making these points.

I think back to one of the books by Stephen Meyer - I think it was Darwin's Doubt - in which he spends all but the final chapter laying out the evidence for design and only in the last chapter does he talk about his religious views and how it is his personal conclusion that the design is the work of the Christian God. Again, this is his personal conclusion; he does not offer the evidence as proof of this conclusion. I see no reason why any of us can read that evidence and come to different conclusions. 

While there does appear to be a creative imperative, it is wholly unfair to dismiss that creativity as "creationism" (especially in the biblical literalist sense that neo-darwinists insist that ID is really all about).

I didn't read through the thread again before posting this but I feel that I must be repeating myself in making these points.

Oh I don't think it's creationism, but rather the distance from the qualities of a Creator are what make the goal of many IDers fruitless.

If God was piddling around with DNA, weighting the dice of probability to favor certain mutations, wouldn't this have been mentioned somewhere in some scripture? More importantly, ID could rule out all naturalistic explanation and we still wouldn't have an answer as to what the processes involved with evolution are.

This isn't to say ID is a pointless endeavor - it could show the influence of some intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or spirit. It could show us some teleological principles at work in the universe. It could even show Psi at work in biological entities.

What it cannot do is show us a good reason to make the logical leap from unexplained aspects of evolution to the Creator of the Real. Anyone making that argument is fooling themselves. This is not an atheistic or anti-theist argument, it was reading the works of the Catholic theologian Feser that convinced me how off track IDer goals are.

Oh I don't think it's creationism, but rather the distance from the qualities of a Creator are what make the goal of many IDers fruitless.

If God was piddling around with DNA, weighting the dice of probability to favor certain mutations, wouldn't this have been mentioned somewhere in some scripture? More importantly, ID could rule out all naturalistic explanation and we still wouldn't have an answer as to what the processes involved with evolution are.

This isn't to say ID is a pointless endeavor - it could show the influence of some intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or spirit. It could show us some teleological principles at work in the universe. It could even show Psi at work in biological entities.

What it cannot do is show us a good reason to make the logical leap from unexplained aspects of evolution to the Creator of the Real. Anyone making that argument is fooling themselves. This is not an atheistic or anti-theist argument, it was reading the works of the Catholic theologian Feser that convinced me how off track IDer goals are.

What IDers?  You imply that the goal of ID is to show that the Christian God has manipulated the strings of life creation and subsequent evolution from the start. To my knowledge, all the leading scientists researching ID have the same approach as molecular biologist Michael Behe (and Stephen Meyer as shown by Kamarling). To uncover and show the overwhelming evidence for intelligent design in the origin and evolution of life, not considering the nature of the agent(s) responsible. This is not considered in the science and the research; the implications (which are not particularly Christian) are not part of the scientific enterprise. And the research conclusions to date are absolutely compelling for any unbiased observer, so the goal of scientific ID (as divorced from new-earth Creationism) has already been achieved. Of course, the culture war over this issue is unresolved and rages on.

What IDers?  You imply that the goal of ID is to show that the Christian God has manipulated the strings of life creation and subsequent evolution from the start. To my knowledge, all the leading scientists researching ID have the same approach as molecular biologist Michael Behe (and Stephen Meyer as shown by Kamarling). To uncover and show the overwhelming evidence for intelligent design in the origin and evolution of life, not considering the nature of the agent(s) responsible. This is not considered in the science and the research; the implications (which are not particularly Christian) are not part of the scientific enterprise. And the research conclusions to date are absolutely compelling for any unbiased observer, so the goal of scientific ID (as divorced from new-earth Creationism) has already been achieved. Of course, the culture war over this issue is unresolved and rages on.

It seems pretty clear that the goal of many IDers is to support the existence of the Biblical God, just as many materialists true goal is oppose the same God's existence. My point is that this entire conflict is deeply flawed intellectually, as per Feser's "Where's God" essay.

But I'd be curious what evidence can distinguish top down intelligent design from teleological principles or Psi effects.

What it cannot do is show us a good reason to make the logical leap from unexplained aspects of evolution to the Creator of the Real. Anyone making that argument is fooling themselves. This is not an atheistic or anti-theist argument, it was reading the works of the Catholic theologian Feser that convinced me how off track IDer goals are.

Yes, I agree but I don't think that Meyer and colleagues have made that leap other than, perhaps, in their personal philosophy. From listening to their arguments in panel debates, they seem to be at pains to present the evidence for some kind of intelligence - even maybe some teleological purpose - but not to promote a religious interpretation. That is left to those listening to the arguments to decide. I find myself convinced that creative intelligence is involved - probably fundamental - but I am far from convinced of the existence of a celestial designer. 

Where I agree with you is in the observation that support (financial and material) for ID does come from organisations committed to that religious interpretation. It then becomes difficult to separate the scientific evidence from the ideological motivation but I believe that Meyer, Behe and others do try to maintain that separation.

Where I agree with you is in the observation that support (financial and material) for ID does come from organisations committed to that religious interpretation. It then becomes difficult to separate the scientific evidence from the ideological motivation but I believe that Meyer, Behe and others do try to maintain that separation.

To be clear I'm not criticizing the research, that can in theory show some probabilistic critiques of evolution occurring by unguided chance alone.

Where the criticism lies is in the idea that any inference from this ID research to God in the sense of the Ground of Being who created the Real is in error. There's no valid way to get to God in the big-G sense by looking at ID research. [Also the other direction is flawed, a complete disproving of ID in some future science is not a reason to abandon belief in God either.]

I'm not even sure one can definitively distinguish design from other "paranormal" explanations, but admittedly I'd have to look deeper at the research.

It seems pretty clear that the goal of many IDers is to support the existence of the Biblical God, just as many materialists true goal is oppose the same God's existence. My point is that this entire conflict is deeply flawed intellectually, as per Feser's "Where's God" essay.

But I'd be curious what evidence can distinguish top down intelligent design from teleological principles or Psi effects.

ID research shows ingenious planning, purpose and even foresight. In our experience, only mind, not a mindless process like Darwinian evolution, is capable of that. Not even "teleological principles", or psi effects on their own.  As unacceptable as this conclusion is to the modern mindset. The nature of that mind or minds is another matter.

I think back to one of the books by Stephen Meyer - I think it was Darwin's Doubt - in which he spends all but the final chapter laying out the evidence for design and only in the last chapter does he talk about his religious views and how it is his personal conclusion that the design is the work of the Christian God. Again, this is his personal conclusion; he does not offer the evidence as proof of this conclusion. I see no reason why any of us can read that evidence and come to different conclusions. 

While there does appear to be a creative imperative, it is wholly unfair to dismiss that creativity as "creationism" (especially in the biblical literalist sense that neo-darwinists insist that ID is really all about).

I didn't read through the thread again before posting this but I feel that I must be repeating myself in making these points.

I'm not sure whether there's a missing or extra "not" or negative here, or I'm just misreading it:

"I see no reason why any of us can read that evidence and come to different conclusions."

That sounds as though anyone reading the evidence must come to the same conclusion - that the Christian God did it.

However I'm not sure whether or not that was the intended meaning. If it was, then I disagree.

ID research shows ingenious planning, purpose and even foresight. In our experience, only mind, not a mindless process like Darwinian evolution, is capable of that. Not even "teleological principles", or psi effects on their own.  As unacceptable as this conclusion is to the modern mindset. The nature of that mind or minds is another matter.

Could you give some examples of the bold? Thanks!

I'm not sure whether there's a missing or extra "not" or negative here, or I'm just misreading it:

"I see no reason why any of us can read that evidence and come to different conclusions."

That sounds as though anyone reading the evidence must come to the same conclusion - that the Christian God did it.

However I'm not sure whether or not that was the intended meaning. If it was, then I disagree.

Badly phrased. What I mean is that Meyer, for example, concludes that the evidence points to the Judeo-Christian God. For me, the evidence is not proof of such a deity and others might interpret the evidence differently again. Examples might include some kind of collective mind or alien manipulation or living in a virtual reality ... any number of possibilities with one of the least likely being the neo-darwinist orthodoxy, IMHO.