Intelligent Design Seminar at the Discovery Institute
by
Denise Morris
on Apr 25, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Who's in the mood to fight about evolution versus intelligent design?! Just kidding. Let's not do that -- let's all be friends today.
What I would like to mention is that the Discovery Institute has a pretty sweet summer program about intelligent design, and they would like you to attend. That's right -- you!
If you're a college junior, senior or in your first year of graduate school, you should consider attending the nine-day seminar that the Discovery Institute is hosting. It's July 11-20, and if you're majoring in the natural sciences, social sciences or humanities, this course is for you.
Whether you're a science junkie or just want to know more about the intelligent design debate, it looks like this course has something interesting and challenging for everyone:
The seminar focusing on ID in the natural sciences will explore the scientific issues in greater technical detail and include a visit to a laboratory where molecular biological research is pursued from an ID perspective. The seminar on ID in the social sciences and humanities will give more in-depth attention to the social impact of science, the moral implications of science, and legal issues surrounding the debate between neo-Darwinism and intelligent design. Participants in both seminars will benefit from classroom instruction and interaction with prominent ID researchers and scholars such as Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, Douglas Axe, Scott Minnich, Bruce Gordon, John West, and Casey Luskin.
So, you should probably consider attending, especially since students who are accepted have their travel to Seattle, most meals and lodging expenses covered. What's not to like?
The application deadline is April 30, so get to it. Then make sure to let us know what you learned!
1. Sam Hunley had the following to say on Apr 25 at 6:19 AM:
OK, this is an honest question, not a slam or anything like that, but how can ID consider itself a science? I mean, personally, I believe that God created the world, and through science, we can see His glory through His creation; however, since I can not scientifically prove God exists, I am then working off faith. Science does not deal with faith, it deals with fact, so trying to make God a scientific fact simply goes against the basic rules of science. I also believe that it goes against the basic rules of God, too.
One of the most repeated descriptions of God throughout the Bible is that he is an unseen God who we can never under stand. Therefore, by trying to pull into the scientific realm, we are attempting to fully know God and prove His existence to everyone else. God has already proven His existence by what He has done in creation, through His miracles in the Bible, and through his interactions with people today, so what are we doing when we try to make a science? We are essentially saying, "Well, God you didn't do it well enough yourself, so we are going to show you how to demonstrate how you exist!"
I may be a bit off base in my comments. Maybe intelligent design does actually bring people to Christ. I don't know. However, from my point of view, it is demeaning to God in the sense that we have to prove that He exists. Its almost like we are trying to give a sign when all the signs have already been given. God has displayed Himself throughout the world already. If people refuse to see that, then this just may be a case where we have to wipe the dirt off our sandals and move on.
2. Carrie (the original) had the following to say on Apr 25 at 8:30 AM:
Sam Hunley,
Go see the recently released documentary, "Expelled".
3. Sam Hunley had the following to say on Apr 25 at 9:02 AM:
Carrie,
I actually am with my girlfriend's church on Wednesday.
Thanks
4. Melissa T had the following to say on Apr 25 at 9:06 AM:
The study of Intelligent Design is an attempt to point out the complexities and intricacies of something that oftentimes people see as something simple. Take the cell for example. It is an extremely detailed and complex part of our body. There are so many opportunities for a protein to be translated incorrectly or not at all. If you have ever studied cell biology, biochemistry, organic chemistry, physics, or any other "hard science", it is difficult to explain it away with random events and atoms colliding in the universe.
The scientific community is extremely hostile to the word "Creation" and "God". By studying Intelligent Design, the Discovery Institute is simply pointing out the ordered universe, impossible to explain by events that just happened to form themselves into functioning creatures and matter. I don't believe Intelligent Design is offensive to God. It is a way to reach the majority of the scientific community -- bringing them to a point where it is nearly impossible NOT to see that something...someone...must have been behind the design of the world. Maybe at that point they will throw their hands up and say that yes, an Intelligent Maker MUST have put that together. Then, the soil is ripe for them to understand and embrace God...maybe, just maybe.
Intelligent Design study or Christians who are scientists do not claim to understand everything. They just know enough to say that even billions of years are not enough to explain how even a single amoeba is functioning.
God has given billions of signs that He exists. However, people have hardened their hearts to Him and often hide behind science. When your worldview is one of chaos, meaningless existence, and the desire NOT to fall under the judgement and love of a higher being - God - it is much more comfortable and accepted to buy into the lack of Intelligent Design and fail to see the signs. Monet's paintings, if viewed up close and scrutinized, just look like a mess of colors and dots. But, when viewed from a distance, we see that a painter put those together in an intelligent pattern to create beautiful paintings. It is the same with God and His creation.
5. Josh had the following to say on Apr 25 at 10:02 AM:
Sam-
I don't think ID *can* seriously call itself a science. I like Robin Collins' perspective that ID is really a metascience, inasmuch as it has some interesting things to say but isn't strictly a scientific theory.
Can't you just picture it though?-
"Well Dave, I think we're ready to start this experiment"
"Sure Mark. We've got our Independent Variable and our Dependent Variables all defined."
"And our control group is all set up in that corner petri dish"
"Look like we're set"
"Oh shoot, wait, did we remember to control for God?"
"Dang, we forgot! How could we forget to control for God?"
"Hold on, we gotta rework our pre-experimental literature"
6. Sarah22 had the following to say on Apr 25 at 10:46 AM:
Man...smart people really drive me nuts sometimes.
Why do you need to debate if it's a science or a meta-science? Why not just learn about it so that you can help point unbelievers to our savior?
You guys are always so critical of everything, it's a real drag...
7. P&P had the following to say on Apr 25 at 11:02 AM:
If people want to counter balance what's presented in Expelled, the PBS science show Nova did a two-hour show about the Pennsylvania court ruling over teaching Darwin. the link to the site is here:
PBS_NOVA_Show
8. Matthew had the following to say on Apr 25 at 11:43 AM:
Melissa T,
You say that ID is a "way to reach the majority of the scientific community -- bringing them to a point where it is nearly impossible NOT to see that something...someone...must have been behind the design of the world."
I have yet to hear of any example of any scientist (especially a biologist) who was first convinced that ID is true and then became a Christian. ID just isn't convincing to many scientists, even if they are already Christians. If you know of someone, please tell me. I think that that would help those of us Christians who don't see the scientific rigor in ID to at least view ID with more legitimacy.
[note: I do not want to debate the legitimacy of ID here. All I want to know is whether or not it has been efficacious in leading people to salvation, especially if they were previously evolutionary biologists.]
9. Caroline had the following to say on Apr 25 at 12:36 PM:
Sam,
"Expelled" has nothing to do with church. I'd recommend the movie along with Carrie. And to go along with Denise's post, "Expelled" features a brief look at the Discovery Institute.
10. Annika had the following to say on Apr 25 at 12:54 PM:
While I appreciate aspects of ID as a philosophy through which to view science, it's not a science.
And I think that many uneducated christians give themselves and the ID movement a bad name by purporting it as a science and by oversimplifying the issues when they really have no idea how molecular bio works anyway.
Sure, the works of God display His glory, that's why I like exploring them as a cell biologist. But I don't think God wants to FORCE us to see Him in nature, because that would remove freedom and faith.
The ID movement seems to want everyone to say that life could not have happened without a creator, but that can't be proved and isn't a science. And it shouldn't be a way to try to force people into the church.
11. BDB had the following to say on Apr 25 at 2:25 PM:
Matthew (#8) wrote:
>> especially if they were previously evolutionary biologists.]<<
Well, evolutionary biology probably isn't going to draw many Christians in the first place, since that part of the field requires accepting so much of evolution.
But it's probably pretty easy to be a botanist, microbiologist or a bunch of other parts of the field where evolution is really not critical to day-to-day activity. If you're looking for a new antibiotic, who cares what Darwin saw in the Galapagos?
12. Tasha had the following to say on Apr 25 at 2:32 PM:
The ID movement is not about forcing people to church, it is about recognizing the minute details present in EVERY aspect of science that cannot be explained by evolution.
Evolutionary biologists' conversion rate is not determinant of ID's legitimacy, for they are trained to see science through the viewpoint of evolution where the gaping holes of evolution are covered up with pathetic excuses.
Learning science is learning about God. Too often we limit God to the Bible and forget that all we see and all we know has been made by Him.
This computer I am typing on was made by the principles of science set by God.
This web page is built on the technology that comes from the principles of science set by God.
We may choose to see God in every aspect of life, or believe that He must "force" us to see him. Really, its just our hard hearts.
It seems that too often we forget that missions is not just to poor countries, but to all people. In this age of doubt, people value proof and reason. The mission of gaining evidence to prove that a Intelligent Being exists is a first step in showing that Christianity is not a crackpot religion of crazies, but a true, logical, mind-blowing faith in a glorious God.
13. Matthew had the following to say on Apr 25 at 3:17 PM:
BDB (#11) and Tasha (#12),
The point that Melissa T was trying to make is that since ID is supposedly bringing lots of convincing evidence to the table, scientists who are concerned with scientific evidence should be able to see the facts, realize that God must have created the world, and turn from being atheists to being Christians. I would like to see an example of this, as it would help me to respect ID as a possible means of evangelism even if I don't agree with it intellectually.
14. Sam Hunley had the following to say on Apr 25 at 5:26 PM:
"Man...smart people really drive me nuts sometimes.
Why do you need to debate if it's a science or a meta-science? Why not just learn about it so that you can help point unbelievers to our savior?"
I understand what you are saying, yes leading people to Christ IS the most important thing.
BUT you can NOT call something what it is not. a pillow is not a rock simply because you want it to be. In the same manner faith cannot be science. if you try to make it science, i truly believe you have missed the point. Hence, my slight annoyance at calling ID a science. they are trying to make it something that it is not, pushing people away from Christ.
15. Jacob had the following to say on Apr 25 at 6:22 PM:
ID needs to be demarcated from creationism. While they are cousins, on a theoretical level, the differences are stark enough that for Christians to call it "creationism" is just as wrong as Darwinists calling it "creationism." The point that most creationists forget is that ID, as a theory, does not speak to the identity of the designer. While various ID proponents believe it was God, such as Dembski, even he admits that it could have been extra terrestrials or time traveling scientists (many Darwinists have theorized that live could have been seeded here by extra terrestrials). Further ID is comfortable with natural selection accounting for the vast majority of organisms, and only in the presence of irreducibly complex organisms do they feel the need to call in a designer. Creationism does not allow for this, and is very clear on the identity of the designer.
I explored more of these distinctions in a blog post I wrote a few weeks back:
http://jdouvier.blogspot.com/2008/04/creationism-and-intelligent-design.html
16. Sam Hunley had the following to say on Apr 25 at 6:31 PM:
"While I appreciate aspects of ID as a philosophy through which to view science, it's not a science."
In a few words, this is what I'm trying to say.
17. Don had the following to say on Apr 27 at 12:50 AM:
In the film "Expelled" Ben Stein gets Dr. Richard Dawkins, the atheist scientist that wrote the book "The God Delusion" to admit that intelligent design is a possible explanation for the origin of life on this planet.
Really, intelligent design goes to the origin of life, because the odds that a bunch of chemicals in mud could be struck by lightning and create life is so small, it would seem that life on this planet had to be designed, or started, by someone or something outside of the Earth. Whether that is a god or aliens or what have you, it is a valid theory that could be an explanation for something that scientists do not know and cannot explain with scientific evidence.
As a side note, the film "Expelled" is not a religious film. It has been incorrectly labeled as such because it defends the freedom of scientists to express an alternative view of the origin of life on Earth, which many people incorrectly label creationism, without being persecuted and threatened. This film is really about freedom, and how in American society, the very thing that we say defines us, is being taken away from certain groups of people. The case of intelligent design, and what has happened to those who have tried to express/explain this idea, is the most obvious example of the freedom of speech being taken away from people. If no one stops and tries to prevent this from happening, then it becomes that much easier to take certain freedoms away from other groups of people, until the very thing that we say defines our country, does not really exist in our country.
The film covers intelligent design, and even looks into other areas where freedoms were taken away from people, for example Nazi Germany and the practice of Eugenics (deciding the value of groups of people and then deciding whether they deserve to live or not), which the United States was also involved in in the early 20th century.
I encourage people to see this film, certainly because it may open people's minds to the possibility that there is a god, which may lead them to finding Christ, but mostly because people need to be aware of the threats to freedom that are taking place in our own backyards.
18. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Apr 27 at 1:03 AM:
Sam Hunley,
I would agree that ID is more of a philosophy through which to view science, rather than a science in itself. The problem is this: The theory of evolution has been misused by many atheists as the same kind of thing. In other words, they have turned the theory of evolution into something it isn't, which is a philosophy through which to view science; in this case, the philosophy is an atheistic one. I don't know if there's a name for this misuse, but I'll refer to it as "meta-evolution." I believe that ID is the theistic answer to meta-evolution.
Unfortunately, it is all too easy to attack ID on the basis that it isn't science (and, by implication, is myth or fantasy). It is not so easy to attack meta-evolution because it hides itself behind the more defensible theory of evolution. I think that ID is a good thing, but rather than calling it "science," I think it would be more effective to expose meta-evolution by giving it a common name that differentiates it from the theory of evolution itself. If evidence of God's existence cannot be considered science, then it is time we stop tolerating the idea that "evidence" of His non-existence is science.
Another thing that would help address the problem is to always pin down what people mean when they say "evolution." The word "evolution" encompasses or implies several things in its common usage, some of which are perfectly compatible with Bible-based beliefs, and others which are clearly not. We all need to understand that we do not have to take micro-evolution, macro-evolution, and meta-evolution as a complete and inseparable package.
On a side note, your comments about not making God a "scientific fact" remind me of a passage from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... The gist of it is that a creature called the Babel fish is so remarkable that it proves God's existence, and since God requires faith, God promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. :) I don't think it's demeaning to point out that certain scientific facts (which are aspects of creation) seem to point to a Designer. Also, have you read the chapters on Faith in C.S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity? He points out that real faith is not so much about accepting something we have no "proof" for, as it is about trusting something we know to be true even when circumstances would sway us to distrust. I think his definition aligns better with the biblical definition given in Hebrews 11:1.
19. Philip had the following to say on Apr 27 at 2:17 AM:
I'm intrigued that the course will "include a visit to a laboratory where molecular biological research is pursued from an ID perspective". I'd love to know what that research is.
20. Jethro had the following to say on Apr 27 at 3:27 PM:
The obvious problem with ID is that it points equally to God, Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster and even Xenu, if you're a particularly keen Scientologist.
21. Jacob had the following to say on Apr 27 at 7:15 PM:
#20
The identity of the designer makes no difference to the ID theory, so long as it is an entity capable of manipulating biological systems, so why is this a problem for you?
22. Joseph had the following to say on Apr 28 at 2:12 AM:
ID is a science just as much as evolution is deemed a science. Both are really metasciences because they inherently address a worldview/philosophy.
ID is the scholarly response to the ontological arguement for God's existence, the fine tunning observed in all scientific disciplines, and non-atheistic view of origins.
Whereas it is easy to watch a movie (which I look forward to seeing) I think it is much wiser to study for yourself the points of ID and how they fit with our Faith. Answers in Genesis have what I call a must read among Christians concerning origins, scripture, and science.
Not to mention Michael Behe's news book too.
23. Sam Hunley had the following to say on Apr 28 at 5:52 AM:
Carrie Lea,
OK, what you said about pointing to God through science: that makes so much more sense than what I was saying. In fact, what you said actually helped me to better understand those scriptures, so thank you for that. I really need to read Mere Christianity.
About what you said about meta-evolution. Yea, i totally agree. That sorta thing frustrates me to death because what people mean gets so confusing. I personally believe that evolution has occurred and continues to occur; however, I believe that God uses it as His device to mold creation into what He wills it. Therefore, in my mind, I am a evolutionist AND a creationist because i believe that God created the world, but if I went and told someone that I was either a evolutionist or a creationist, they would begin making extreme assumptions about not only my scientific beliefs but also about my lifestyle as a whole.
Just because I have never used this word in a sentence before, we need a new lexicon.
I used a big word :D
24. Carrie (the original) had the following to say on Apr 28 at 10:38 AM:
At this point, I am ever so thankful for my Christian, liberal arts, college educuation.
I can understand how one cannot call faith "science". I also have no problem "embracing tension" when it comes to science and philosophy. I can see where this is a struggle for so many people.
I also appreciated the fact that "Expelled" used the term "worldview" over and over again. People that graduate from my alma mater hear that word 20 times a day and are "worldview" experts by the time they graduate, even if they pulled a C average.
You cannot seperate philosophy from science any more than you can seperate the soul from the human body.
Also, I will plug my alma mater and say "In all things Christ pre-eminent".
Yessir, He is.
25. Matthew had the following to say on Apr 28 at 1:31 PM:
Sam Hunley, (#23)
Francis Collins calls it BioLogos. Read his book, "The Language of God."
26. Jethro had the following to say on Apr 28 at 5:57 PM:
Jacob (#21),
It's not a 'problem' for me, but it hardly makes ID a knockout argument for Christianity does it? In fact as far as I can tell it basically leaves you exactly as you were before, which is arguing solely from the Bible. That of course is fine, but the whole point of ID is to provide a 'scientific' basis for Christian belief. In my opinion it fails in that task.
27. Jacob had the following to say on Apr 29 at 12:06 PM:
Jethro #26,
I agree. Too many Christians have jumped on the ID bandwagon without realizing what exactly ID is and claims to show. Nearly as many evolutionists have brushed it aside for similar reasons. Creationists would be wise to pay attention to the fact that ID, at best, brings us to theistic evolution (assuming you think the intelligent designer was a supernatural being).
28. Michele had the following to say on Apr 29 at 12:44 PM:
Okay, even Richard Dawkins concedes that they don't scientifically know how life began, and that it might have been an "intelligent force."
He thinks aliens, but whatever. Point is, ID is perfectly legitimate science so long as there is no scientific disproval of it. You can't prove, with science, that there wasn't and isn't an intelligent force behind creation and evolution. So forcing ID out of classrooms and punishing teachers who speculate that ID could be legitimate is nothing but attempted thought control.
29. Jethro had the following to say on Apr 29 at 4:25 PM:
Michelle (#28),
I don't agree with you when you say that "ID is perfectly legitimate science so long as there is no scientific disproval of it"
By that logic it would be equally scientific (and thus equally valid) to teach that the earth is inhabited by millions of invisible fairies whose wing flapping causes strange weather phenomena. I mean, you can't disprove this, can you?
30. kman had the following to say on Apr 30 at 1:59 PM:
Jethro-
There's no way to disprove evolution. It just changes with the evidence.
Changes happen slow and quickly, everything is a transitional species and none are because it happens so quickly.
A beneficial trait proves evolution because the organism benefits from it.
A non -useful trait is one that is evolving away.
Etc.
31. faye had the following to say on May 1 at 8:35 AM:
(#29)
So what I hear you saying is that students are no longer able to explore the teachings of a classroom... To question, to search, to ... gasp... create a hypothesis?
If people think, MAYBE there are fairies, then test it. That's what Science is all about.
I don't think you intended to take away freedom in the classroom, did you?
32. Matthew had the following to say on May 2 at 12:18 AM:
(#31)
We hear a lot of ID hypotheses, but not very many tests. And even fewer results. If ID can't prove itself with scientific rigor, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.
33. faye had the following to say on May 2 at 10:21 AM:
I think it's immeasurably conceited to think that one should allow one hypothoses in a classroom, and not another. Is there a monopoly on hypothesis in the classroom?
I sat through many a lesson on evolution but no one could show me the bones of my half fish half/ half human anscestor. I would love to see that, truly.
For me, and I think many others, seeing is believing. What I see all around me is intelligence. Every little thing to me is a question, a hypothesis. I think, to take that away from a student... one who questions ID or one who questions evolution, is a grim task indeed. A dead world of discovery-less lives... never questioning, never finding. never living.
What the origional post was suggesting is that the process of discovery is wonderful. I'm impressed with all statements made here- pro evolution, pro ID. I'm so happy we're discussing it, because I'm not sure I know all there is to know about it yet.
34. Lukas had the following to say on May 7 at 11:45 PM:
kman (#30)
Sure you can disprove evolution. For example, old "poodle in the permian" example. If a fossilized poodle were to be found in a rock stratum 275 million years old, evolution would be disproven. Sure the theory changes with evidence, like any theory, but that would be bending it past its breaking point.