Why Black Churches?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@EricMH

Unless ID is just unconvincing to those not a priori convinced.

The question is not whether it is convincing or not, but whether ID is given a fair hearing. I have rarely, if ever, seen this happen.

I’m doing my best right here.

@Patrick

In science, every idea doesn’t get a fair hearing. It takes more and more evidence and better and better ability to explain until an idea gets even looked at. My view is that ID has gotten way too much of a hearing. From the beginning, ID was invented as a disguise of creationism as science - the wedge document. From there it has gotten nowhere. Young PhDs are wasting their time and talents investigating this rubbish called ID. If you have a faith, use your faith to propel you to do useful science. (Like Dr. Swamidass and Dr. Collins and others) But don’t mix up the two as science is neutral on faith issues.

I’m doing my best right here so Eric can either show me I am wrong, or he can find a better way to use his talents.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@EricMH

The question is not whether it is convincing or not, but whether ID is given a fair hearing.

I give ID a fair hearing. And then I dismiss it.

I follow the ENV blog with my RSS reader. I listen to some of their podcasts. I bought and read Dembski’s “Being and Communion”.

The problem is that there is very little science. Too much of what I see are attempts to find flaws in evolution. It’s a misunderstanding of science to think that would be useful. Scientists go with evolution for pragmatic reasons. They aren’t going to be troubled by a minor flaw that does not seriously affect the usefulness of the theory.

There’s that Dobzhansky quote “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” If ID wants to be taken seriously, it has to prove itself well enough that ID can replace evolution in that sort of statement. As far as I can tell, the ID proponents have a very poor understanding of why biologists see evolution as so central.