# Potentially Interesting New Book by Eric Hedin

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [March 9, 2021, 10:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349 "2021-03-09T22:19:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [March 9, 2021, 10:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/1 "2021-03-09T22:19:46Z")

</div>

There is a new book out, by physicist Eric Hedin. I have not read it, and so make no comment, positive or negative, but the preview pages on Amazon look interesting, and relevant to some of the concerns discussed at PS.

> **[Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See](https://www.amazon.com/Canceled-Science-What-Some-Atheists/dp/1637120001/ref=sr_1_1?tag=swamidass-20)**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 9, 2021, 10:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/2 "2021-03-09T22:32:10Z")

</div>

What is the evidence that atheists don’t want people to see?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 9, 2021, 10:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/3 "2021-03-09T22:44:34Z")

</div>

Jerry Coyne’s own website looks to have a lot of pertinent material:

> **[Why Evolution Is True](https://whyevolutionistrue.com/?s=%22Eric%2BHedin%22&searchsubmit=Find%2B%C2%BB)**
>
> Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.

Of note is the email sent out by Ball State President Jo Ann M. Gora:

> [@](#):
>
> **Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory. Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses. The gravity of this issue and the level of concern among scientists are demonstrated by more than 80 national and state scientific societies’ independent statements that intelligent design and creation science do not qualify as science.** The list includes societies such as the [National Academy of Sciences](http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html), the [American Association for the Advancement of Science](http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=432), the [American Astronomical Society](http://aas.org/about/governance/council-resolutions#evolution), and the [American Physical Society](http://www.aps.org/policy/issues/education/index.cfm).
> 
> **Discussions of intelligent design and creation science can have their place at Ball State in humanities or social science courses. However, even in such contexts, faculty must avoid endorsing one point of view over others. The American Academy of Religion draws this distinction most clearly:**
> 
> _Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Creation science, intelligent design, and other worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature and social science courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others._  
> [Ball State University president unequivocally rejects intelligent design; not good news for Eric Hedin or the Discovery Institute – Why Evolution Is True](https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2013/07/31/ball-state-university-president-rejects-intelligent-design-not-good-news-for-eric-hedin/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [March 9, 2021, 11:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/4 "2021-03-09T23:15:39Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> What is the evidence that atheists don’t want people to see?

Presumably the book contains the answer to that question, so the logical thing for you to do, if you want the answer to that question, is to read the book. From the preview pages, it looks as if it would be an easy and fast read, so it shouldn’t take much of your time to get the answer you’re looking for.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Jerry Coyne’s own website looks to have a lot of pertinent material:

Hedin of course discusses Coyne in the opening pages of the book, readable in the Amazon preview.

If you are interested in hearing why Hedin thinks that Coyne is misguided, you will read Hedin’s side of the story, and not rest content with reading only Coyne’s.

As far as I can tell from the preview, Hedin does not endorse “creation science” in the book, but, as I say, I haven’t read it.

I think the book is largely about cosmic fine-tuning, but I could be wrong. But if it is about fine-tuning, it’s surely relevant to some of the topics discussed here on PS – which is why I mentioned it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 9, 2021, 11:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/5 "2021-03-09T23:24:20Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> Presumably the book contains the answer to that question, so the logical thing for you to do, if you want the answer to that question, is to read the book.

You mean buy the book.

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> As far as I can tell from the preview, Hedin does not endorse “creation science” in the book, but, as I say, I haven’t read it.

ID is creationism. That’s the major sticking point.

Ultimately, it wasn’t Coyne’s decision. It was Ball State’s decision.

> [@](#):
>
> Teaching religious ideas in a science course is clearly not appropriate. Each professor has the responsibility to assign course materials and teach content in a manner consistent with the course description, curriculum, and relevant discipline. We are compelled to do so not only by the ethics of academic integrity but also by the best standards of our disciplines.
> 
> As this coverage has unfolded, some have asked if teaching intelligent design in a science course is a matter of academic freedom. On this point, I want to be very clear. Teaching intelligent design as a scientific theory is not a matter of academic freedom – it is an issue of academic integrity. As I noted, the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected intelligent design as a scientific theory. Therefore, it does not represent the best standards of the discipline as determined by the scholars of those disciplines. Said simply, to allow intelligent design to be presented to science students as a valid scientific theory would violate the academic integrity of the course as it would fail to accurately represent the consensus of science scholars.
> 
> Courts that have considered intelligent design have concurred with the scientific community that it is a religious belief and not a scientific theory. As a public university, we have a constitutional obligation to maintain a clear separation between church and state. It is imperative that even when religious ideas are appropriately taught in humanities and social science courses, they must be discussed in comparison to each other, with no endorsement of one perspective over another.  
> –President Gora  
> [Ball State University president unequivocally rejects intelligent design; not good news for Eric Hedin or the Discovery Institute – Why Evolution Is True](https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2013/07/31/ball-state-university-president-rejects-intelligent-design-not-good-news-for-eric-hedin/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [March 9, 2021, 11:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/6 "2021-03-09T23:29:16Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> As far as I can tell from the preview, Hedin does not endorse “creation science” in the book, but, as I say, I haven’t read it.

So why not read it before presenting it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [March 9, 2021, 11:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/7 "2021-03-09T23:47:53Z")

</div>

The title is suggestive of Q-anon and other Republican Party paranoid fantasies. Was that intentional?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2021, 12:24am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/8 "2021-03-10T00:24:53Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> You mean buy the book.

You could borrow it from a friend, or from a library.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> ID is creationism.

In the preview I read, Hedin didn’t mention “ID”, so I don’t know why you are characterizing his book by that. In any case, ID isn’t creationism, but as that’s not the topic here (we’ve been over it many times on this site), there is no need to let the discussion slide into that. I just thought someone here might be interested in a new book by an advanced theoretical physicist that appears to deal with fine-tuning. If you’re not interested in what an advanced theoretical physicist has to say on that subject, don’t bother reading the book.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> So why not read it before presenting it?

Because there is no need to do so. If I were making a judgment on the book, it would be mandatory for me to read it first (which unfortunately is not a principle held by all who post on sites like this), but since I explicitly stated that I was making no judgment, but merely informing people of the book’s existence, I have no responsibility to do anything beyond what I did – show that the book was out there and that it seemed to concern a topic some people here have found interesting.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Was that intentional?

How could I possibly know what an author or a publisher intended? I’m not the author or the publisher. I go by the topic of a book, not by the title. The topic sounded of interest to some people here, so I mentioned it. People can read it or not read it, as they please. I have no interest in cajoling people into reading it, or condemning people for not reading it. If it’s interesting, read it; if it’s not, don’t.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2021, 12:24am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/9 "2021-03-10T00:24:57Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> The title is suggestive of Q-anon and other Republican Party paranoid fantasies. Was that intentional?

And–for some this goes without saying–dishonest, because it gives the impression that Hedin was _ **doing** _ something resembling science that was canceled, not teaching a course. The blurb is pure Culture War.

Creationists, since they don’t do much science themselves, relentlessly conflate doing science with teaching about it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2021, 2:41am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/10 "2021-03-10T02:41:16Z")

</div>

4 posts were split to a new topic: [A Book Club on Confident Pluralism?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-book-club-on-confident-pluralism/13352)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2021, 1:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/11 "2021-03-10T13:41:37Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> In the preview I read, Hedin didn’t mention “ID”, so I don’t know why you are characterizing his book by that.

The Discovery Institute says it’s a book about ID\*, and they ought to know, since they’re the foremost pushers of ID and they printed it.

Of course they could be telling porkies. They frequently do.

> [@](#):
>
> In any case, ID isn’t creationism, …

Yes, that’s one of the porkies they tell.

\*Hedin both recounts his story and advances his own case for **intelligent design** from the evidence in his field.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2021, 3:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/12 "2021-03-10T15:33:34Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> How could I possibly know what an author or a publisher intended?

Haven’t you claimed that you interact with people from the DI on a very frequent basis?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2021, 3:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/13 "2021-03-10T15:35:23Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> I just thought someone here might be interested in a new book by an advanced theoretical physicist that appears to deal with fine-tuning.

I would be much more interested in a peer reviewed paper that contained original research. A theoretical physicist discussing his religious beliefs in a popular press book doesn’t interest me as much.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2021, 4:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/14 "2021-03-10T16:40:43Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> In the preview I read, Hedin didn’t mention “ID”, so I don’t know why you are characterizing his book by that.

[Categories: Intelligent Design, Science](https://www.discovery.org/store/product/canceled-science/)

The DI website explicitly categorizes the book as ID. That said, fine tuning discussions interest me and I would skim the book if I had a copy.

This is the problem with the ID big tent - “we are interested in design, whether from a YEC or OEC or what have perspective.” Among the premises of fine tuning is that the universe presents conditions necessary and sufficient to permit the emergence and sustenance of life". This is exactly what all narratives involving divine intervention deny. It may be possible to formulate some sort of “the universe was fine tuned, but it was not enough to get the job done, so it was necessary to tinker now and again” type scenario, but that is a bit of a muddle. I would suggest that fine tuning is in particular completely incompatible with YEC, which holds that the carbon in our bodies has nothing to do with stellar nucleosynthesis. How can an organization present as scientifically investigating origins, and be evasive or unable to clearly answer the simple and basic question as to where our carbon comes from?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2021, 9:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/15 "2021-03-10T21:28:05Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> What is the evidence that atheists don’t want people to see?

Shhh! Don’t let on that we hid all the unicorns! 👀

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2021, 9:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/16 "2021-03-10T21:28:19Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> \*Hedin both recounts his story and advances his own case for **intelligent design** from the evidence in his field.

Yes, there is no doubt that Hedin talks about intelligent design (lower case) in the book – that’s evident from the excerpt from Hedin’s introduction found in the preview. My point to aquaticus was that ID (upper case) in the sense of the specific position of the Discovery Institute, of Meyer, etc. is _not_ mentioned by Hedin in the preview, nor is creationism or creation science, yet aquaticus dragged these ideas in, based on what had happened at Ball State as interpreted by Coyne. It was clear that aquaticus was not quoting from the preview, and it seemed he had not even looked at the preview, but was just taking Jerry Coyne’s view of Hedin, without looking at what Hedin had to say. That’s an odd way of determining what’s in a book, _by reading only what someone who strongly disagrees with the author has to say, while not reading what the author himself has to say_, even when the author’s words are available for free in an Amazon preview which wouldn’t take more than five minutes to read.

But of course, it’s nothing new around here that some people decide what’s of value and what’s not of value based on hearsay rather than by reading an author’s statements. Anyhow, it’s no skin off my nose if particular individuals aren’t interested in the book. I wrote the notice up in case some other readers here would benefit from knowing about it.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> Haven’t you claimed that you interact with people from the DI on a very frequent basis?

I do, but in this case I did not know until the other day that the book existed. It’s not as if Discovery calls me up every time they are thinking of publishing a book to let me know. Sometimes I hear when a book is in the works, but in this case I didn’t. There’s a difference between having frequent contact with many people from Discovery on intellectual matters and being a staff member in their publishing division, which I’m not. In any case, I immediately wanted to read the preview because the topic interested me, and only afterward realized it was a Discovery book. And I would have put my notice of the book in here whether it was a Discovery book or not, simply because the topic might be of interest to those inquiring into origins.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> I would be much more interested in a peer reviewed paper that contained original research. A theoretical physicist discussing his religious beliefs in a popular press book doesn’t interest me as much.

There we differ. I’m not a theoretical physicist, and would not be able to glean very much (beyond bits from the abstract) from a technical paper in plasma physics (and science being so specialized nowadays, I’m not sure most biologists would be able to glean much more), but I am interested in what a scientist with years of scientific education and research experience thinks about broader questions – philosophical, religious, and other – insofar as his own expertise can shed light on them. I therefore maintain a continual interest in the thought of figures such as Boyle, Newton, Einstein, Hoyle, Heisenberg, Capra, Denton, etc. on subjects of wider human interest. I suspect that at least some of the readers of this site are like me in this respect, i.e., more interested in broader questions of science and faith than in the nitty-gritty technical details of various scientific fields. My book notice was aimed at them.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2021, 9:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/17 "2021-03-10T21:52:10Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> Among the premises of fine tuning is that the universe presents conditions necessary and sufficient to permit the emergence and sustenance of life".

OK, but when you go on to say:

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> This is exactly what all narratives involving divine intervention deny.

you miss the point that intelligent design is not exhausted by interventionist scenarios. A scenario in which the laws and constants, the initial amount of matter and energy in the universe, etc., are fine-tuned so as to produce life, is just as compatible with intelligent design as an interventionist scenario is.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> I would suggest that fine tuning is in particular completely incompatible with YEC, which holds that the carbon in our bodies has nothing to do with stellar nucleosynthesis. How can an organization present as scientifically investigating origins, and be evasive or unable to clearly answer the simple and basic question as to where our carbon comes from?

You’ll have to take up these questions with a YEC advocate. Since YEC is not my position, I don’t feel obliged to imagine myself a YEC and try to concoct a rebuttal.

I don’t know Hedin’s personal version of “intelligent design.” I don’t whether he is in the Behe camp (ID-evolutionist), the Meyer camp (ID-OEC), or the Nelson camp (ID-YEC). I haven’t read the book. If I ever get down to reading it, I’ll know then.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2021, 10:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/18 "2021-03-10T22:39:56Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> you miss the point that intelligent design is not exhausted by interventionist scenarios. A scenario in which the laws and constants, the initial amount of matter and energy in the universe, etc., are fine-tuned so as to produce life, is just as compatible with intelligent design as an interventionist scenario is.

Yes, you could have front loading, but then how would that be distinguished from blind natural law, or detectable as design? The tuning parameters themselves seem to be arbitrary, at least until you consider the possibility for subsequent emergent phenomena.

I think the fine tuning argument is interesting, and does invite consideration of agency and teleology. I do not agree that it is a simple extension of Intelligent Design, as by definition fine tuning infers that natural law is sufficient to account for all of nature, whereas ID posits that design is detected by insufficiency.

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> Since YEC is not my position, I don’t feel obliged to imagine myself a YEC and try to concoct a rebuttal.

Understood. My complaint is that ID presents as cohesive, but ID seems beset by some sort of inverse “I _am_ the true Scotsman” fallacy, where people speak for ID but hold incompatible positions, and just paper over essential differences so as not to divide their audience.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [March 11, 2021, 12:16am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/19 "2021-03-11T00:16:20Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > Haven’t you claimed that you interact with people from the DI on a very frequent basis?
> 
> I do, but in this case I did not know until the other day that the book existed.

Is this anything like your claim that you did not know that ribozymes are RNAs?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [March 11, 2021, 12:38am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349/20 "2021-03-11T00:38:53Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> Yes, you could have front loading, but then how would that be distinguished from blind natural law, or detectable as design?

We can’t really discuss either fine tuning or front-loading in relation to Hedin’s thought (and by the way, I don’t think that fine tuning in itself requires front-loading, the latter term being much more specific and the first much more general, pertaining strictly only to the possibility of life and not implying its necessity), for I haven’t read Hedin yet, so I don’t know what he would say. I think the time to relate these subjects to Hedin is after some of us have read the book.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> whereas ID posits that design is detected by insufficiency.

No, not “ID” as such, but _some_ ID proponents argue that. Maybe even the majority of ID proponents.  
But I have never argued in that way. Nor has Denton. ID is a big tent. But this is a topic on its own, and I think if anyone wants to debate this proposition, he/she should start a new topic, which is not Hedin-specific, but a more general issue.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> where people speak for ID but hold incompatible positions, and just paper over essential differences

You need to distinguish between family resemblances that hold all ID people together, and differences that distinguish them. All three sub-groups of ID people, the ID-evolutionists (Behe, Denton), the ID-OECs (Meyer, Luskin), and the ID-YECs (Nelson), agree on two broad general points:

1-- there is evidence in nature for design  
2-- purely unguided and unplanned processes do not account for what we see

It is these agreements that hold ID together. Within that framework of agreement there are camps which as you say hold incompatible views. But they are all views within the broad ID family.

I do not find this diversity a problem. Greek Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Reformed Christianity are all “incompatible” on many points of detail, but all are still Christian. I see no problem with people from all of these churches working together to oppose, say, secular humanism, which they all regard as erroneous. And just as the falsification of, say, Reformed theology would not prove that Christianity itself was false, so the falsification of, say, the YEC version of ID would not prove that ID is false.

If you find that sort of loose agreement unsatisfying, if you would like to see a tighter agreement among ID people, that’s an interesting subject, but it belongs elsewhere; here I’m merely alerting people to a particular book.

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/potentially-interesting-new-book-by-eric-hedin/13349.md?page=2)