Graphic

“New” Creationism: Intelligent Design

The other kind of antievolutionism is the design based form -- IDT -first statement in 1984: Thaxton et al. As Dean Kenyon said in the Foreword to the book, “it is fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems” -This continues to be a theme in modern ID as well: that there are some biological phenomena that by their nature are impossible to explain through natural cause

 Bullet text goes here 40 pt

Intelligent Design: scientific/philosophical Claims: 1. the universe, or parts of it, have been designed by an “intelligence” 2. it is possible to detect evidence of design by “intelligence” -using “irreducible complexity” -using an “explanatory filter” (Design Inference – “complex specified info.”)

Graphic Steve Meyer, (unidentified) Bruce Chapman, Paul Nelson, Jon Wells Discover y Institute (Seattle), “Center for Renewal of Science and Culture” Wm. Demsbki

Goals: To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. From CRSC web site, Oct Center for Renewal of Science and Culture

2 Kinds of “Materialism” Methodological Materialism (Science) Philosophical Materialism (Philosophy) Not the Same!

Intelligent Design Creationism Religious movement to promote theism over materialism Attacks methodological materialism of science as producing philosophical materialism Attacks evolution as example of materialism

“The Wedge of Truth” Science(materialism ) Evolution Society(materialism )

YearIrreducible Complexity Intelligent Design (Engineering/appropriate) / / / / / /0 Total435/3 SCISEARCH (>5300 journals) Note: all ID and IC articles in philosophy journals except 1996, which was a negative commentary in Geology journal. accessed 3/3/02

What is the “Design” explanation for… Nothing but microorganisms for 2 billion years? Then a “bewildering variety” of multicellular organisms that don’t last long? Why the first limbs look like modified fins? Why the first jaws look like modified gill arches? Why the first tetrapods have tail fins like fish? Why the first birds have teeth like reptiles? Why the first humans have brains the size of apes’ brains?

People of differing theological views should learn who’s close to them, form alliances and put aside divisive issues ‘til later. I say after we’ve settled the issue of a Creator, we’ll have a wonderful time arguing about the age of the Earth. Phillip Johnson, Christianity Today, 4/27/98, p. 24

Why Scientists Reject Intelligent Design Content: ID lacks a coherent model of “what happened” Repetition of old ideas; lack of new developments Reliance on criticisms of “Darwinism” rather than positive model-building Extra-scientific “Cultural Renewal” component of movement

Why Scientists Reject Intelligent Design Methodology: ID is an “argument from ignorance” Faulty logic Refutation of examples cannot refute theory –(Escape hatch: this example wrong, but here’s another…) Abandonment of methodological naturalism Avoidance of presentation of argument to scholarly community/lack of candor

Conclusion: Whereas--- ID is questionable as science ID does not contribute to a better understanding of the natural world Presenting ID as a valid scientific alternative to evolution is at best premature Therefore, ID has not earned a place in the high school science curriculum

Crisis center Call: g