Home > Anti-evolution, Intelligent Design > Three views of ID

Three views of ID

May 25, 2010

Christianity Today has three pieces on ID (and where it may be going) from Karl Giberson (theistic evolutionist), Steve Meyer (old earth creationist) and Marcus Ross (young earther). Highlights:

Ross:

ID is not a comprehensive theory of Earth and the history of life.

Meyer:

[T]o keep building a scientific research community, we ID advocates must expose the prejudicial rules of reasoning that preclude consideration of our theory, and keep explaining ID’s strong foundation in evidence.

Giberson:

Stop trying to prove that Darwin caused the Holocaust or that evolution is ruining Western civilization. Agree among yourselves that the earth is old, since science has proven that. Do not call world-class scientists “cranks,” as Meyer implies in Signature in the Cell. Do not claim that evolution is collapsing, when everyone in the field knows it isn’t. Stop claiming that you cannot get your work published in conventional journals when you aren’t submitting papers to these journals.

Instead, roll up your sleeves and get to work on the big idea. Develop it to the point where it starts spinning off new insights into nature so that we know more because of your work. Then the academy will welcome you with open arms. Science loves rebels.

Giberson is channeling me.

  1. May 25, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    …we ID advocates must expose the prejudicial rules of reasoning that preclude consideration of our theory…!?

    Dear Mr Meyer would you care to elucidate?

  2. J-Dog
    May 26, 2010 at 5:28 am

    In simple terms, I think Meyer is just relating that facts have a well-known scientific bias. ID relies on “truthiness”.

  3. Marilyn
    May 26, 2010 at 7:41 am

    What is it about intelligent design that doesn’t ring true to some people, is it the word intelligent or the word design or because both words are put together to form intelligent design. After seeing footage of how DNA is created intelligent design doesn’t seem such a wrong description. To see the intricate deliberate precision of the accumilation and the ensemble and constrution of exqusit craftmanship and to see the incedible dynamic and spectaclar journey from begining to end no one could really describe it as an indiscriminate process that has evolved.

  4. Michael Fugate
    May 26, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Meyer 3rd paragraph is just one big pile of crap.

    ” My recent book on the subject received enthusiastic endorsements from many scientists not previously known as advocates of ID, such as chemist Philip Skell, a National Academy of Sciences member, and Norman Nevin, one of Britain’s top geneticists.”

    Phil Skell has been an open advocate of ID since at least 2005.
    Norman Nevin is a YEC and was openly supporting “Truth in Science” in 2006.
    Here is a quote from one of Nevin’s chapters in the 2009 book “Should Christians Embrace Evolution”:

    “No coherent, cohesive theology has yet been offered that would allow Christians to embrace evolution with integrity.”

  5. EastwoodDC
    May 26, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    Marilyn :
    What is it about intelligent design that doesn’t ring true to some people …

    Ringing ain’t enough – it has to actually work.

    Giberson at least has the right idea: Stop the whining and do the basic science to prove it – Or not.

  6. Wendy2525
    June 1, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    EastwoodDC “- it has to actually work”.

    What are you expecting it to do, different than what it does, that would “prove it-or not”.

    There has been break through research done for cancer cures, these results haven’t evolved but someone has had to use there inteligence to find a preventative or hopefully a cure one day.

    It all should have been built in from the begining is that what you mean.

  7. June 1, 2010 at 7:30 pm

    Roman streets have been in existence for thousands of years. Coliseums, pyramids in Egypt have endured same. We are bankrupt with no great constructional fetes. We evolve in spikes having fallen from grace. Created in perfection for thousands upon thousands of years, until we used our free-will to separate from the One. 1x1x1x1x1x1=1 God can multiply without separation, but man has free-will and chooses to struggle with reincarnation or continued attempts at a higher evolution. You can’t mix oil and water. God can’t receive man back unwillingly. Create. Don’t regurgitate.

  8. June 5, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    Here is another quote from Meyer’s article

    “First, the scientific community is not uniformly opposed to ID. My recent book on the subject received enthusiastic endorsements from many scientists not previously known as advocates of ID, such as chemist Philip Skell, a National Academy of Sciences member, and Norman Nevin, one of Britain’s top geneticists.”

    In my humble opinion Stephen C. Meyer is a liar. According to this quote Meyer states that Philip Skell and Norman Nevin were not previously advocates of Intelligent Design. Let’s set the record straight, Skell is a Signatory of the very discredited “A Dissent From Darwinism”, the list used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support. Meyer is a liar, Skell may not have published a pro-ID fluff piece, but he is an advocate. Nevin is a supporter of “Truth in Science” a United Kingdom-based organization which promotes the “Teach the Controversy” campaign. It uses this strategy to try to get intelligent design taught alongside evolution in school science lessons. Meyer is once again, in my opinion, lying!

    Ted Herrlich
    tedhohio@gmail.com
    http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers

%d bloggers like this: