The Troglodyte on "Mark Shea Still Doesn't Get the ID Controversy"

The Troglodyte has some interesting things to say about the ID controversy. He addresses Mark Shea's recent dust-up with readers, whose sentiment appears to be one of "'Shut up', they explain":

Much bustle on the ID thread below. Some of my reader write in that "Shut up, he explained" way that leaves science amateurs like me feeling simultaneously yelled at and yet no closer to understanding what the big problem is. Here's a sample of that kind of rhetoric:

Sorry, You're blind on this one.

Fellow Christians have challenged the DI on its honesty. First Things has rightly challenged Phillip Johnson in particular on his honesty. The reason is these people act dishonestly. They misrepresent facts.

When you write about the discovery institute, it's not materialistic atheists who tell you you are all wet. It's fellow loyal Catholics swarming your comments boxes telling you the DI is a fraud.

Ask your nice friends at the DI for me this question:

"How many dollars does the DI spend on applied biology research annually?"

Mark...the answer is "zero."

Ask them to list, oh, ten biological examples of your "specified complexity." They don't have them--because not even one can be shown to exist.

They aren't asking questions at all. They aren't doing any applied research. No development of a list of complexly specified systems. They should be up to a couple of hundred examples by now.

Go ahead. Take a stab. Isn't a rattlesnake fang/venom system complexly specified? Yes or no? Do you know? Does the DI?

Do they care?

No, they too busy are running a Jimmy Swaggart style money campaign.


Let's be clear about how this conversation proceeds. I'm not a scientist. I don't claim to be. I don't claim to have plumbed the depths of the argument between the Darwinian Establishment and Its Discontents. I'm just this guy. In other words, I'm like the vast majority of ordinary people trying to understand the controversy.

Now, as one of these ordinary people, I have certain things in my religious tradition which my Faith asserts as "true". True, not in some Pickwickian private sense. True, not simply when I am at Church or having some religious discussion with like-minded members of my Faith Discourse Community[TM], but true on Tuesdays. True even when a guy in a lab coat tells me they are Primitive Myths without basis in Hard Scientific Fact. Among other things, these truths include the proposition that God is the creator of all things, both seen and unseen and that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God.

Now not all, but a great many people regard the biological sciences in general and Darwinism in particular, not merely as not supporting these propositions, but as actually contradicting them. According to one classic definition of Darwinian dogma "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." Slice it however you like, this is not simply saying "You can't use science to prove that God made man." It is saying "You *can* use science to prove that God did not make man. He's an unnecessary hypothesis and he doesn't exist."

He offers a lucid response the great Shea's "confusion:"

I am not sure I buy that, but OK, whatever. His is a question that can't be answered by asking what the big deal is, but by looking at who is it that is doing the wailing and gnashing of teeth. There are three basic groups aligned against the proponents of intelligent design. The first is a hold-over from the election, those who see ID as a proxy for the "America is becoming a theocracy" battle that exists in their alternate universe. The second group is those who are responding predictably to their neo-Darwinian worldview potentially being challenged as normal science preludes scientific revolution in the Kuhnian sense. The third group is the misinformed, operating from false premises about what ID actually is and what its proponents, like the Discovery Institute, are actually proposing, including many Joe and Jane Sixpacks. Curiously, or perhaps not, all three groups gravitate to the same stock phrases, albethey for different reasons. "ID is not science!" "ID is creationism!" "ID is not testable!" "ID teaches religion in the classroom!" yada yada yada.

There really is nothing to say to the first group, other than to kill them with kindness, I will not consider them further. The big deal to the second group is that they are afraid their world is going to be rocked. For the third group, it is that they don't know better (or don't want to know better?). To see this you have to do something that many supporters of ID do not want to do, separate the science from the movement, i.e., from those who are pushing ID precisely because in the abstract it is more consistent with their metaphysical presuppositions. The emotional strength of the hysteria of the theocracy crowd, in response to its popular caricature of the ID movement, has influenced the other two groups, which is why they all sound the same. Nevertheless, the strength of ID is the science qua science, and as such, the separation of the science from the movement also means that ID should be removed from consideration for presentation in the classroom.

I have been on the record as not supporting teaching ID as part of a general science curriculum, or even "teaching the controversy." The thing is, neither is the Discovery Institute. Why not? Simply put, ID is not yet ready for prime time.

The Trog makes explicitly clear what Mr. Shea, other Fools and I have said repeatedly: Neo-Darwinism as a metaphysical statement or materialistic philosophy is bunk, not a logical outgrowth of legitimate science. The Trog makes an excellent case here for why the science, not philosophy of ID, makes important contributions to biology as a micro-evolutionary theory. Thus, it's very specialization makes it inappropriate for High School:

Many make a big deal out of the notion that intelligent design is not science because it does not provide a testable theory. This is nonsense. The ID process of categorizing "irreducible complexity" using "specification" is most certainly science because it is only the attempted accumulation of particularly troublesome anomalies that poses a serious problem for the existing disciplinary matrix of neo-Darwinism. In Kuhn's context, this is a precursor to a scientific crisis, for macro-evolution , or speciation, in this case, but does not represent a revolution in and of itself.

So should it be taught? Well, given its derivative nature, I have to say, "No." But given how little macro-evolution has to do with the practice of normal science, I must conclude the same thing for speciation. There are plenty of other scientific and mathematical topics (Newtonian mechanics, quantum physics, organic chemistry, Mendelian genetics, micro-evolution, calculus, linear algebra, geometry, etc.) to master before having a solid understanding of the most important dominant models and techniques for applying and expanding science.

Having team-taught inclusion biology and earth science (where special education and general education students learn side-by-side) in a city high school, I agree with the Trog. In NY, we prepare students to pass the NYS Regents exams. From a science point of view, ID calls for far too great a microview of the sciences then High School students on a regents track require. Perhaps an Advanced Placement science class, or an integrated science/philosophy seminar. I could see some benefit for college students to study ID. The discipline may be ready for that. Soon.

ID isn't going anywhere. The scientific and epidemiological problems that Darwinian Evolution have not addressed aren't going away. Sooner or later, a scientific theory that addresses these phenomena needs articulation and consideration. There's no non-biased reason why ID can't merit this attention. If it's science doesn't address the reality of the observed phenomena, fine. That's what science is about! To not consider it because it offends the established Reasonable scientists' materialist sacred cows breaches the integrity of the entire discipline. If the "Joe and Jane Sixpacks" of the world are to continue placing their trust in science's discoveries, Then scientist had better not give them reasons not to. It's time for these Reasonable philosophers be the Foolish scientists their discipline calls them to be.