ChrisM

Hi, I've been lurking for a while but have only posted once or twice. Anyway, I don't know if this has been posted before, but I thought this was a good review of Dembski's book No Free Lunch:

<a href="http://www-polisci.mit.edu/BR27.3/orr.html" target="_blank">http://www-polisci.mit.edu/BR27.3/orr.html</a>

Kevin Dorner

It has been, but it was such a long time ago that it's certainly worth a re-read of this excellent essay.

Welcome to the IIDB, Chris! If you haven't introduced yourself in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">Welcome forum</a> please feel free to do so, and enjoy your stay.

Albion

The first bit of that review reminds me of Philip Kitcher's essay "born-again creationism" in Robert Pennock's book about intelligent design. Not sure where Alan Orr's got the idea that scientific creationism is extinct, though. Must be an optimist.

Truly, the most complex things these IDists come up with are their wretched books. I've never seen those biochemical pathways made so incomprehensible as in Behe's book.

Camaban

My guess he looked at what science is, looked at what creation science is, and decided that while once it might have been science, it isn't now

Richiyaado

So-called 'creation science' may not be extinct, but it's unlikely to make much more headway into public school curricula due to a number of court decisions. Perhaps this is what Orr was thinking about.

ID, on the other hand, seems to be as much a legal strategy as it is anything else. By being cagey about the 'designer's' identity, its proponents seek to get around the establishment clause. When the time comes for a major test in court, they will likely argue that attempts at keeping ID out of school science curricula constitutes some sort of 'viewpoint discrimination'.

theyeti

Yes, the cagey-about-the-designer strategey seems to have three purposes:
<ol type="1">[*]Get around the Establishment Clause[*]Facilitate "big tent" politics -- that is, keep the YECs and OECs hanging on.[*]Prevent falsification. Lack of detail = lack of testability.[/list=a]

However, while this strategy may be politically useful, it's terribly dishonest, because it makes it impossible for the IDists to have a consistent viewpoint. The stated goal of the ID movement is "cultural renewal", that is, changing culture and law with the "scientific" recognition that God created us, wants us to sit up straight and blah, blah, blah. But of course it's is impossible for ID to do this by their own arguments. If ID can't tell us who the designer is or what he/it wants, then how the hell is it supposed to be used for "cultural renewal"?
This is their ploy, I think, but it won't work. This is the same ploy that they tried to use in the Edwards vs. Aguillard case. The justices saw through the ruse. By claiming that evolution is "anti-religious" and by then saying that creationism would "bring balance", they were essentially saying that creationism was pro-religious. But of course that defeated their argument that creationism was purely secular science.

If the IDists fail in the school boards, it's their plan to go to the legislatures. If they fail there, they plan to take it to the courts. They don't have a prayer of making it in the courts though without some sort of statutory backing.

theyeti

Richiyaado

Exactly right. Which is why I think the constant refrain of evolution=atheism that we hear from several high-profile ID proponents (Johnson, Dembski, Wells, etc.) will come back to bite them in the butt. All they're really doing is privileging their particular brand of theism. In doing so, they will have to prove that the many theists whose religious views are entirely compatible with evolutionary biology are, in fact, not theists—and are anti-religious to boot.

Albion

Well, as long as Wells isn't going along with the "let's be terribly coy about the nature of the Designer, um, designer" and is plastering the Web and the printed press with his "praise God the Designer and his Son our Lord Jesus Christ" messages, they're going to find it a bit hard to maintain plausible deniability there.

Albion

Well, I don't know about that. They certainly shouldn't, but they persuaded Scalia and Thomas last time.

theyeti

Yes, but that case did have statutory backing. The IDists' strategy is to sue to get ID into schools even without a state law mandating it. It's a tougher battle to show that the 1st amendment requires that ID be taught rather than show that it doesn't prohibit it. By their previous logic, Scalia and Rhenquist (this was before Thomas) should vote against ID unless there is a state law mandating it, in which case they would defer to the state law (but not the lower courts!). Not that I expect those jokers to remain consistent though.

theyeti