Ahh, interesting -- you link the will to desire. You're not linking it to "free will" concepts. I think of the plane crash victims in the mountains who got hungry enough to eat their dead comrades. Or animals that will chew off their own limbs in order to get out of a trap.

Can you chose what you desire? Or, are we all pulled along on the puppet strings of the desires in our nature.



And the person who best understands how the world really works, including themselves, will do even better.



True enough.



Most people aren't thinking about ends, they're looking for beginnings -- that's why the appeal of a new beginning after death makes religion such a siren song.

I think it's both. We start off wanting what nature tells us to want. We listen to echos of the past in our genes and in our memes. We eventually get tired of just surviving. As we grow older, we attempt to rise above our nature by planting better genes and memes of our own creation for future generations. This is how we survive death.

True.

I would add that it's not enough to understand how the world works, one must understand how it will work in the future. One must understand the collective goals of the world in order to understand how the world will change, and how the changes will affect the future goals.

I have to think more about what it means to find the beginning. Life after death is more of a continuation than a beginning. Were people differ is in questioning the beginning.

Science wants to know how things began, but religion doesn't want to question the beginning beyond what has been written. Religion doesn't even want to question who wrote it. I think this has something to do with fear of spoiling the illusion. Science wants to peek behind the curtain and religion just wants to enjoy the show. I don't think either is wrong for what they want.

You are correct in saying most people aren't thinking about ends. We fear endings. I think most people are looking for the way to eternity. They don't want it to ever end.

Planting better genes? Are you talking about genetic engineering? Are you a ... transhumanist?

Also, I'm not so sure that science, art and philosophy (probably religion of a sort too) aren't in our genes and nature. We may not be rising above nature, but rather doing exactly what a billion years of evolution programmed us to do: Evolve.



And how do you think the world will work in the future?



I said "new beginning" didn't I -- it's what I meant. I wasn't talking about finding our origins.



A few branches do. Most study how things work now.



That sounds better than what I said.

You need to get out more.

Religion can be as open and as liberating as Art and as adventurous as a voyage to distant lands. Early explorers and pioneers relied on their powers of observation and intuition to guide them through unknown lands. Explorers had "faith" in their Quest. Research Scientists, especially theorists are much like explorers.

Religion can be an adventure too, if you are willing to consider and explore the possibility of life after death.

Those who exploit fear to coerce belief should be exposed for what they are. But, in the same way, those who exploit fear to inhibit spiritual adventure and discovery are just as bad.

Maybe we have an instinct; something innate that tells us that death is unnatural... that eternal life is real. Maybe it isn't that we don't want life to ever end, maybe we somehow know that life never ends. Maybe we somehow know that it is only our physical body that is temporary, and we fear not knowing how to live without a body... What you are calling a fear of endings may be more like a fear of falling... Over an edge, into the darkness, down to a depth without a bottom. Perhaps this is what a young bird feels the first time it falls from its nest.

Sounds like we are heading somewhere, doesn't it?

I never meant to imply that religion is somehow less open or less liberating than science or art. In fact, I think religion utilizes science and art more than the reverse. I was only talking about questioning the ultimate beginning.

And I do get out enough, Thank you.

This may be true. But I'm sure doubt is a factor as well. It's that lack of proof of life after death, that haunts the soul.

You may be right about this. But I don't think people would fear falling if they knew they could get back up.

I was thinking more along the lines of natural selection, choosing a mate with good qualities.

I guess we are saying the same thing. Rising above nature (meaning instincts) is what I call evolving.

My best guess is a more decentralized world with a more united agenda. I'm thinking less waste, less friction, more diversity, and better communication. Call me an optimist.

I understood what you meant. I was just contrasting the difference for others who may have read the response.

Cockroaches and hamsters do that. Can't image a desire more natural than sex.



Well, sex certainly isn't rising above instincts. I had sexual urges before I was told what they were for.

Religion might be a primitive instinct we need to rise above.



I'm thinking we might become more than human through the use of nanotechnology and genetics.

I think you have given a good comparison - sex and religion as instincts.

Sex is best when it is "honest". The same is true for religion. It is the dishonesty in religious "relationships" that causes religion to be less that what it could be.

Humans must rise above dishonesty. I think the effort we make to be honest in relationships (sexual, religious or otherwise) can be compared to our efforts at daily hygiene - it is not something that can be done once and then forgotten about.

Sexual and Religious honesty are similar in that both also require a person to be honest within themselves.

I do not regard the bible account of creation as literal; I regard the Genesis story as a metaphor pointing to a deeper truth. I do, however, believe the universe is the product of an "Intelligent Design". I believe (have faith) that the "Designer" is an incomprehensible omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent intelligence that has its own purpose and deliberately guides evolution.

I think the "Designer" intended from the beginning to "evolve" intelligent humans to a level where the humans can be used to help complete the final stages of "evolution".

Has the "Designer" withheld the final details of the "plan", in order to allow individual "consciousness" (in the form of human beings) to implement the last stages of the "design"?

Did the designer intend for humans to be co-creators? Now that is what I would call "an ownership society"!

Amen \o/

This is a very important question.

It appears that we have a limited ability to create some things.

Some argue that it is not us, but rather God working through us. Some argue that it's not creation, but instead rearrangement. I believe it's about how we perceive things.

You are welcome

That is why the field of Religion is defined by "faith". Faith is a promise that we accept and trust. It may be reinforced by intuition and reason but it is primarily an emotion - a feeling of trust.

But, unless a person puts their faith into practice - making it a part of their lives, then it has no value. "Faith without works is dead". I think maybe that is why "political action" becomes a tempting substitute for faith.

I do not see Faith and Science in conflict, except with the biblical literalists who are trying to "prove" their literal beliefs. They too are haunted by lack of proof. The same goes for atheists who need to convince others that "faith" is invalid because it has no "proof"... well duh, that is why it is called faith

This is where Christianity has something to offer: A personal relationship with Christ.

A Christian knows someone is waiting for them on the other side to help them find their “wings”. How do they “know”? The same way they know when someone loves them. It is all about faith.

Another problem Christianity solves, is the fear of an “evil someone” waiting on the other side. Human guilt causes a fear of punishment. Christ's sacrifice on the cross, if and when a human accepts it, "pays" any price the human may fear they "owe". The spiritual debt is cancelled - "paid in full". The evil one has no claim on the human soul who accepts Christ has his/her redeemer.

The context was in response to normdoering's statement:
I'm thinking we might become more than human through the use of nanotechnology and genetics.

I do know it is a more of a crime to be indoors in our fine city. I've considered moving to other cities for this reason alone.

Participation in government is definitely a substitute, but it is not very Christian. Some would call evangelism a form of political activism, but evangelists don't like to compromise. But that's a topic for a different thread.

The only reason I mention faith in the context of this thread, is to show where both religion and science fall short. Science uses some faith, and religion lacks some faith. Even Christians doubt, or they would be able to move mountains by their own doctrine.

Matthew 17:20 "He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

The power to create may come from the imaginable pure faith.

...in theory.

We have to have faith that none of this was written with a misguided or hidden earthly agenda. It's a question of who do we have faith in.

Scientists put a lot of faith in other scientists. But they are free to conduct experiments if they doubt. When we speculate on the afterlife, there is only one way to experiment with it. According to the bible, the experiment was conducted and the hypothesis was proven. But we lack the evidence, that they would have had in their day to help their faith, if it were true. Those who believe the Bible must have faith in the translators as well.

I really like some of what's been said here... couple random thoughts-

it seems to me that there is a lot of 'action' going on in 'the real world' (the Universe) that has little to do with us; so at most we are only part of any Purpose or Design; perhaps religions could become less humanocentric?

we are alive; and think, and feel, and remember; personally for a generation or so, our cultures for centuries or millennia. But other creatures here on Earth have these same abilties to some extent.

some even have converted their learning to instinct; & where is that instinct located in a bee or ant? what does it imply about humans? do we have just a couple simple instincts, or a vast array of complex and hidden ones, modifiable by culture?

perhaps scientists could become less abstract? there are still many great mysteries in both arenas.

Bill- the power to create cannot be assigned to faith; maybe to will, with a helping of knowledge. imho

I think the larger truth, Charlie Brown, is that the power to create can not be avoided. We are condemed with the freedom to create ourselves
and our corner of the universe--Enjoy the ride, we're more like meteorites than you might think. In any case I'm glad we big banged
into each other.

Yes, religion could be less humanocentric.

Religion is just a tool for motivating people to fulfill an assigned purpose. A person can assign his/her own purpose and follow their own religion. Without the purpose, the person is unmotivated to do anything. The purpose of most religions seem to be protecting and preserving what is most important. Religions differ on what is most important.

Humanity seems to be the vehicle for getting to what is important, which makes humanity most important to humans. But the ultimate conclusions of what is most important to the universe has yet to be determined. Humans may evolve to or become sacrifices for something more important than the species.

The instinct (lessons learned or memes) of bees and ants are obviously in the pheromones (the bee and ant media).

That perhaps we are not the dominant species. We could be the dinosaurs of ants and bees.

We could simplify our instincts to survival of the individual, or broaden them to survival of humanity, or broaden them further to survival of the universe.

Scientists may need to become less abstract for their own survival or survival of their only purpose and meaning, which is research and discovery.

I can't rule out either without assigning my own faith and meaning to the meaning of faith. I know that life itself has no absolute purpose or meaning other than the continuation of life.

If the purpose of life, beyond continuation of life, is to create a higher form of life, than we are divided as to what that higher form of life should be. That division, is what threatens life itself.

So we are all here by chance, randomness, accident, or luck?

Because scientists cannot accept the supernatural (the outer limits of scientific ability to research), they call the supernatural, chance.

ah shades of Nietzsche.....the "will to power".....

Actually Bill, some scientists, physicists in particular, are entertaining the thought of the paranormal....remember the article on the holographic universe that I posted in your miracle thread?


"This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature.

Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm.

In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level.

It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolved puzzles in psychology. In particular, Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness. "

http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

I agree.

I wasn't saying that all scientists could not accept the supernatural. I consider myself a scientists studying the emerging science of media. This is where I think everything is connected. Media is the only physical evidence we have that connects social to natural science (software to hardware). We have to study both hardware and software.

Jesus taught the "Oneness of God", the unity of the kingdom of heaven. Scientist are still looking for a vocabulary.

Jesus prayed for everyone who will believe in Him:
"My prayer is not for them (Jesus' disciples) alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." John 17:20-26 NIV

Individual faith is not the creative force. Faith is more like the difference of potiential in a cooper wire that causes the electrons to move through the wire.

Jesus said, "I myself can do nothing" It is the Father (the source) that has done all the work.

it would be good to speculate on the nature of the designer....

myself, i'm greatly inclined towards the writings of marcus aurelius these days... i'm finding him to be most benevolent and an excellent role model.

as for this thing called "jesus christ"...

stuff it ok.

thanks

- perry

The figure of purpose is always against the ground of randomness.We're each and everyone a part of nature. Whether person or meteorite we shine dimly, then brighter, then dimly again. Being a single note in a beautiful melody doesn't
make me less beautiful than the full mellody.

right...what you two are arguing about is objectivty vs subjectivy .....both inform our understanding of reality......
it is through the subjective that we perceive most of life....it relies on our perception through the sensory data we receive.....the objective is understood through space and time....this is how we know that something can exist without us perceiving it. EX: your spouse who is in a room with you then leaves and goes to another room....you know your spouse still exists even if you do not perceive him/her.

We can (maybe) never truly know all of the objective. We function mostly in the subjective or through what we perceive......it is (perhaps) inescapable.......we are only human.

Even the objective is assumed. I don't know that my wife doesn't disappear every time she is out of my sensory range. She could be an illusion, but I assume that she is not. My 11 month old daughter makes a different assumption because she cries as if mommy is gone forever whenever she leaves the room.

The point is, as much as we can assume, we have to understand that our seemingly inescapable assumptions are what hinder us from higher levels of understanding. From what I've heard, Eastern philosophy is more open-minded and capable of working with paradox than Western Philosophy.

Spoken as a true phenomenologist. I believe the most usefull interpersonal dialogue is that which provides mutual assistance and support for progressively
making our assumptions more and more explicit. Essentially, this is what the
therapeutic process does--makes explicit what is.

My statement: "our seemingly inescapable assumptions are what hinder us from higher levels of understanding" was not explicit?

getting back to design... lemme add a word here.

we see patterns in the 'real' world; patterns being similarities between unconnected objects/observations, even on different scales (like fractal stuff). Understanding & controlling these patterns is what gives science its power in the real world.

the implication of pattern is that it arises from within

the implication of design is that it arises from without

does this help?

I agree--I might say understanding and using these patterns rather than controlling. I thing evolution proceeds both through the selection mechanism
which seems to account for most of improved adaptation within species and
genetic maturation which is a natural progression towards larger, more complex
organization which perhaps accounts for the development of higher functioning
species. This seems to be consistent with Ray Kurzweil's ideas about nanotechnology. The process that brought us human organisms this far along
continues to improve on the design if we learn to stop interfering with nature.

Just more food for thought:

Both design and pattern recognition is can be either inward or outward process.

You could say design = problem solving. Therefore evolution = design.

You could say that we evolve as groups and individually.

You could say that pattern recognition is creation. We recognize patterns by creating them in our mind first. We also create patterns in the real word.

Cities and institutions are extension of us, built in our own image. Cities and institution become a higher forms of intelligence that outlive us. Mayby something similar happens in our mind on a smaller scale. Maybe our bodies are cities built from stem cells. Maybe our brain cells organize institutions the way we organize them in the real world.

Maybe we are just talking semantics. Maybe the magic of creation and design is just smaller organisims organizing themselves in to larger. What we are calling evolution maybe Creation/ID spoken in a different language. Just by observing our social process, we could be observing our natural process as well.

Bill- I agree with much of what you say, but as science, your method is off-base.

You keep postulating design, not proving it. And then use it to imply 'progress' in evolution.

That was Herbert Spencer's problem too, seeing progress as 'survival of the fittest'; but the fittest for what?

Now that we have a lot more information about the past, that idea doesn't hold water. Whole arenas of creatures evolved along whatever paths, and then something cataclysmic happened to change the rules. Consider the well-adapted mastodons found frozen with food in their bellies; or the fate of the dodo. Or the recent tsunami.

It isn't semantics, or shouldn't be; it's part of the most profound question of all.

We know there is Life, because we are alive. Life (and hence us) are inseparably part of Nature.

We are not above it, we are it. When we raze forests, or extinct species, or run metal grids around the planet, or even change the atmosphere and weather, we are very like the Wind, the Sun, the Volcano- all those 'tinpot gods' of antiquity.

The second thing in the Bible that really rings true to me- our original job as 'caretakers' of all the other living creatures. If we were designed, that's the job we are best designed to do. Everything about us fits that purpose, except our attitude towards it. imho!

I know my logic (postulating) is hard to follow sometimes. The only reason I believe my own social calculations is because those who can follow it agree, and those who can't follow it, also can't find any contradictions other, aside from semantic misinterpretation of meaning. I consider it social math.

I'm open to the possibility of an impossibility to prove. Maybe consciousness is undetectable and undistinguishable from artificial intelligence using the limited scientific process that we use. Maybe the cells in our body have individual conscious and are unaware of the higher consciousness they serve.

It could require a better break down of social and behavioral truths from social science similar to the periodic table of elements. I could never understand how natural science can conclude that it knows all of the elements in the universe using just the elements found on this planet. Yet science somehow claims to know.

Maybe there is a social science calculating method, similar to numerical math, that has yet to be defined. Maybe it gets use as a reasoning method to calculate (not just predict) individual and group behavioral responses with better accuracy than statistics.

I just know that there is a whole world of social dynamics that we didn't even begin to explore until Freud. The Creation Theory/ID maybe tested, but not until the model for testing is built. Usually it takes having a theory and experiment to conduct before the test equipment gets built.

OK Bill! models, testing, experiment... the modus operandi of science. Let's work on it.

So there are many things which imply 'traits' about a postulated Designer-
for example, 'recycling materials'.

Galaxies & stars get recycled, creatures get recycled, atoms can emit & absorb energy as well as get recycled into other atoms or energy; right on down into string theory.

what other things would we (and any hypothetical alien) agree are common 'design elements of the real world'?

Purpose

I couldn't guess all of them.

One of the most obvious design elements is the ability to assign meaning to things. Machines can't do this on their own. Machines have to be programed to understand meaning. But life forms have this natural ability to assign meaning to things from within.

Goals (or Purpose) are also elements of design. Without goals, there is no motives, no problem to solve. There is probably trillions of individual goals that can be identified, but they probably come from a hierarchy of simpler goals. Maybe goals can be narrowed down to simpler categories of goals, or even further to the ability to respond to goals.

I come upon a 2 year old with a pencil and paper. He is making marks on the paper and I ask him what is he drawing? He says,"I don't know
I haven't finished it yet."

Don't be so sure machines can't assign meaning to things.

And don't be so sure that human beings can -- our "meanings" might have been wired into us during a few billion years of evolution. They may not be our invention.

And what does "meaning" mean?



Do they? All of them? Can a monkey assign much meaning to a work of abstract impressionism? To the Bible, a novel or an electrical schematic? Can your dog do that?

Experiments have shown they assign value/meaning to monkey porn. They pay big bananas to watch it.



And what are our problems? Survival, getting sex, having fun, judging the truth of things, learning more, evolving faster than your competitors...

Evolution, in the neo-Darwinian frame, is a naturally occuring algorithm for making things that replicate (family and sex to us) and survive (war, food...) better than other things. The first problems arose because of the inevitable math of replication. When a single pattern starts to replicate and prodices more than one copy of itself it is soon replicating at an exponential rate, doubling or more every generation. Then resources start running out and you have to use your cousins -- you start eating them... Predation enters the picture. Then later sex, because sexual species can evolve faster...

All that we consider meaning -- even our curiosity and science -- may have been programmed into us by this process.



Maybe they can all be linked to sex, survival, and evolving.

A very talented artist said something to me once that seems like it might apply here. I asked him if he "saw" the picture vividly in his mind before he painted.

He said, "No. I see the painting for the first time at the tip of my brush as it appears on the canvas. I only feel what I want to paint." His paintings were life like, but he did not have a model to look at.

Maybe creativity is something like a goal or purpose.

I recall a philosopher once saying "Life is its own purpose".


Once our basic needs are satisfied, there is time and energy for something more. Perhaps that something more gives opportunity to latent creativity to express its urges in less primitive, less selfish ways.

Ways in which creativity is its own purpose.

And what do we do with all that free time once our basic needs are satisfied?

Watch movies, read novels, write stories... about love, survival, violence, relationships... Watch or play sports ... paint pictures ... listen to music.... play computer games... write and read on message boards like this... go to social events ... get involved with charities... take adult education classes.... play chess ...

I'm not so sure that creativity is its own purpose in these cases. I think it serves an evolutionary purpose. Mankind was on the scene long before his language and civilization. There was a time when written language was only drawings on cave walls gradually becoming symbolic and quicker to make. We probably discovered a lot of useful things because we play and explore our abilities. And we're not the only animals that play. Cats and dogs play with us, they just never found those extra abilities.

You could say that -- but if you did, you'd be saying something wrong and silly.

The pattern actually has to be out there in the world in order to see it. But then again, mankind has created a lot of words for things that don't exist.



Remember the "re" in recognition. Before you can recognize something you had to have cognized it before.

I also view novelty seeking behavior as genetically coded. I see our behavior as at least 50% the result of hard wiring due to evolution. I think our behavior is closely related to our arousal level (and I'm not talking monkey porn here, norm! ) We see this in babies, and I see the pattern in adults. There is an optimum emotional arousal level where our ability to learn and make use of new information peaks. Below and above that optimum level our performance falls off. That's not to say I don't think there's an unexplained, mysterious, divine, mystical element within the machine. I believe in God, pray the rosary (especially when overstimulated), etc. But looks like belief in God has a neuroanatomical location, as well, and may be the result of evolutionary forces.

Does that make God any less real? Not in my opinion.

Are you guys done yet?!!

I was perusing this thread a little while back...having my jollies watching all the armchair philosophers having a go at, well, the exsistence of intelligent design. (!)

Because, since the dawn of time, no one has gotten any closer at ALL to an answer on this, I thought surely the good people on this blog would sooner or later realize the folly of their ways, and know that this can be debated ad nauseum until, oh, INFINITY, and no one will STILL be any closer to an answer. So I posted, bemused, that I would return later to this thread, where, I predicted, I would be sure to find the debate still raging on aimlessly.

THAT WAS TWO WEEKS AGO.

And WHAT have we come up with since then...? Anyone? Anyone?

You now have my permission to take your exhausted neurons OFF the little hamster wheel and REST, for God's sake! (Don't get started on God again, it's just an expression!)

Oh, and by the way, I'll come back in another couple of weeks to check on your progress...again...

Which half isn't wired by evolution?

To some degree there are arbitrary specifics. China evolves a different language than Europe and India different than either -- and the languages evolve and you can draw their evolutionary trees... but all are languages and accomplish the same end with maybe slight modifications that might give one an evolutionary advantage. Religion has a similar characteristic. Different groups evolve different religious views, but they amazingly take similar forms: all have weekly/daily rituals, slow beat music, art, priesthoods. etc... and seem to serve a similar function, though not as useful as language it too has an evolutionary tree you could draw.



In my opinion it does make God "less real."

What it makes real is a "religious instinct" that can take many forms, just like the language instinct takes many forms. What it makes real is a function for grouping slow beat music, ritual, pseudo-scientific explanations, and creating religious authority figures. This is what is unchanging about religion -- these patterns.

All the names of gods, all the creation myths, whether there's one or many gods, what exact rituals are performed -- all that varies over time. Thus Jesus is no more "true" than a language needing a letter "J." Language can have an entirely different kind of symbol system and still work.

You might as well say science is futile because it doesn't discover any final truth and may go on forever.

You might say that education is futile because people die and you have to educate a new group of ignorant kids. Or say it's futile because not everyone can become a rocket scientist.

Arguing is a form of mutual teaching. People learn the nature of their differences.

Most of the problem I see with intelligent design proponents is that they first of all have no scientific discovery to back their proposal, and secondly it has a political agenda. In the first case they have no substantiation and it the second they spend more time and money lobbying politcal officials than establishing or doing the work of actually having an explanation.

knowledge should be free, easily accessible, and unbiased, and definitely not political.

Ah, but they do have a bunch of new catch phrases that sound just like new discoveries. They have the phrase "irreducible complexity" which you've got to admit doesn't sound as silly as "string theory" or as meaningless as "M-theory." They also have the phrase "specified complexity" and that can be combined to make "irreducible, specified complexity."



Get ID into schools -- get people questioning evolution -- get people misunderstanding evolution.

They've certainly spent a lot more money on PR and media than on research. All their research seems to consist of introspective philosophizing -- like theologians do it.



Do they have a lobbying group in Washington?



Dream on.

We should try to keep scientific knowledge as objective as possible -- but this stuff does have theological, metaphysical and political consequences.

I'll try to find some info on that......




I can dream huh? Yes, I realize the implications, my statement was idealistic, but more in the general context of sharing knowledge.....and perhaps in light of ID proponents pushing an agenda that is primarily political....they are dressing up this theory to make it appear somewhat more reasonable than science alone.

Design Yes, Intelligent No

A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism
The claims by Behe, Dembski, and other "intelligent design" creationists that science should be opened to supernatural explanations and that these should be allowed in academic as well as public school curricula are unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of both design in nature and of what the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is all about.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html


The Newest Evolution of Creationism
Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science.
By Barbara Forrest

Intelligent Design (ID) proponents put most of their effort in swaying politicians and the public.
The infamous August 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to delete references to evolution from Kansas science standards was heavily influenced by advocates of intelligent-design theory. Although William A. Dembski, one of the movement's leading figures, asserts that "the empirical detectability of intelligent causes renders intelligent design a fully scientific theory," its proponents invest most of their efforts in swaying politicians and the public, not the scientific community. The leading ID organization is the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC).

Launched by Phillip E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (1991), the intelligent-design movement crystallized in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank. Johnson, a law professor whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts, assembled a group of supporters who promote design theory through their writings, financed by CRSC fellowships. According to an early mission statement, the CRSC seeks "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies." The CRSC calls its strategy the "Wedge," because it wants to liberate science from "atheistic naturalism."

Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log -- meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of "atheistic naturalism." Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures. Philip E. Johnson: "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."
The Wedge aims to "renew" American culture by grounding society's major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." According to Dembski, intelligent design "is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Wedge strategists seek to unify Christians through a shared belief in "mere" creation, aiming -- in Dembski's words -- "at defeating naturalism and its consequences." This enables intelligent-design proponents to coexist in a big tent with other creationists who explicitly base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of Genesis. At heart, ID proponents are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise.

"As Christians," writes Dembski, "we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. … Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God's interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question we must look to science." Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility. Yet neither has actually done research to test the theory, much less produced data that challenges the massive evidence accumulated by biologists, geologists, and other evolutionary scientists. Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.'s in religious studies and biology specifically "to devote my life to destroying Darwinism." Behe sees the relevant question as whether "science can make room for religion." At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith. The ID movement is advancing its strategy but its tactics are no substitute for real science.

Wedge supporters are at present trying to insert intelligent design into Ohio public-school science standards through state legislation. Earlier the CRSC advertised its science education site by assuring teachers that its "Web curriculum can be appropriated without textbook adoption wars" -- in effect encouraging teachers to do an end run around standard procedures. Anticipating a test case, the Wedge published in the Utah Law Review a legal strategy for winning judicial sanction. Recently the group almost succeeded in inserting into the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 a "sense of the Senate" that supported the teaching of intelligent design. So the movement is advancing, but its tactics are no substitute for real science.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

This is the real world -- science is political. If you find we're producing enough poisons to damage the environment, you've unavoidably made a political statement because obviously we have to do something. If you discover cigarettes can cause cancer, well, you've got an industry that will try to hide that. Politicians use science -- do studies just to get data to support their political objectives. If you fill in another gap in our knowledge where theologians put gods, you've got theologians who will argue with you.

No argument here....what you say is very true......however, I was pointing out the efficacy and motivation behind this theory.

Nature is both reductionist and expansionist. Human language and logic is both
reductionist(deduction) and expansionist(induction). Science observes individual
instances untill it induces a theoritical explanation(theory) from which it can
deduce a testable hypotheses which it tests by observing a set of instances. The
more hypotheses are deduced and withstand dis-confirmation, the more confidence
is placed in the theory.