You asked for one paper. I told you Dover. For the record I have read all the psychobabble coming out of Discovery Institute and the so-called Biologic Institute for many many years. I am no rookie at this. Most of it is nauseating. The rest is comical.
I am inclined to agree with @Agauger here…
She deserves attention because she has been honest, avoided ad hominems, acknowledged and retracted errors, and is bringing important questions to the table.
Reading this thread, I am agree with this too.
It should be obvious that I do not agree with most ID advocates. However, there is no need to bring in the ad hominem. I want the focus here to be on engaging ideas, not on personal attacks. We are going to curtail those that are just repetitively throwing out slogans without engaging others.
@Patrick, you are a minority here as an atheist, so I have tolerated more from you than from others. I need you to help me out with this. We need to be kind to people together. Disagree with people, but kindly. I also think the perspective you give on how atheists see things is important, but it will be helpful if we can do that in a way that welcomes others into understanding it. There is often a lot of validity to your points, but no one will see that if you come of as just being aggressive and bombastic.
Honestly, we are still going to walk away disagreeing on important things. We need a realistic goal. Instead of “making a point”, I want to ask everyone to focus on understanding others, and being understood. That is the only way such a diverse group is going to hang together.
This is what makes Peaceful Science different from most other sites. I think it has largely been that way, but it will take cooperation from everyone (or near everyone) involved.
It will take everyone’s help.
First of all, several people have been frustrated or even attacked the last couple days. i hope you can be forgiving. We have doubled in size over the last two weeks. That is good news. However, it means we have a lot of new people to acclimate to our community too.
What is happening here is important. I hope you can all help us continue on as long as possible. Peace.
You surprise me - he is a pupil and disciple of Barbara McClintock, and makes much of her being ahead of the field back in the 1950s. He’s been in the field for a few decades, too.
I would say that Intelligent Design Theory gave birth to BioLogos in some way. The only thing is: IDT is a newer form of creationism. It can allow for Old Earth Creation or YEC. I can allow for any deity. And actually it is a very old form of creation–going back to the ancient Greeks and the Demirge of Aristotle, i.e. God,. I agree with Denis Lamoureux that it can be matched with Christian evolutionary creation.
Except for the itsy bitsy problem that they do not identify what they do as theology…
Though the idea itself could have theological implications.
Let’s not forget the enormous impact the publication of Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” had. Francis Collins book came out shortly thereafter. My opinion is that Biologos was formed as a reaction to “The God Delusion” (atheism and science) and Ken Ham’s Creation Museum (literal Genesis Evangelical Christianity and pseudoscience). Biologos tries to stay in the middle - origin science is correct and you don’t need to be an atheist to accept it or enjoy learning about its findings.
Well they are certainly not doing science. So what are they doing?
And you are the judge of that?
Projecting “science” as a monolith… or some kind of guild is problematic.
I think the papers they publish falls into the category of science under any definition…
But if course you wouldn’t know that… cos you need a court to decide what is science and what isn’t…
A good gauge is where do they publish? It is not in any of the real science journals where high standards of originality and rigor are the norm. Their papers are always reactionary (and never original) about new scientific discoveries and always find the gaps in knowledge and questions created when new scientific knowledge is being adjudicated by the experts in that field of study. They then insert their “god of the gaps” IDer into the part that is partially unknown or not yet settled science. It isn’t science, as they aren’t doing any science. And it isn’t science reporting as they distort, purposely misinterpret the findings of rigorous scientists who carefully and cautiously make their claims and subject their work to intense pier review and scrutiny.
I absolutely agree! I just feel that the “third way” really isn’t as novel as proponents seem to think.
Why don’t you say that after reading one if their papers…
Ashwin, I’m more concerned by what happened in the Dover Trial and the Kansas Education Board Hearings. You are from India, and may not be aware of how important these events were, and how many bridges they burned.
I read that paper when it came out. I am a Fellow of the IEEE and have studied information theory since 1978. The paper has absolutely NOTHING to with Intelligent Design.
However, I don’t see how a court can decide what is science and what is not… Besides so called “evolutionary science” in high school biology texts are totally out if date and in error… it was the same when I took high school biology.
Do you think papers and ideas should be censored because of who proposes them? Isn’t such an attitude harmful to science in the long run?.
I have read peer reviewed papers which deal with subjects which might be viewed as ID friendly (Such as how the TOL is falsified) make it explicit that they do not support ID. If scientists truly view ID as a theological stand, why behave this way?
Edit: I am sure Dover is pretty bad for Science in America overall. You guys practically threw away your right to self regulate…
It doesn’t. Its application is with respect to “evolutionary search”… you must have realised that right?
Moving us back to the original thread, it is misconceptions like this which made many people feel that an organization was needed to counterbalance ID.