Before Christmas, ninme besmirched my honor (although I hope you've been reading her in my absence just the same --she remains the Queen of Links, even if. . .). I refute her thus. And then drop the subject for the time being. Strangely --I didn't bring it up-- Intelligent Design was a major topic at Christmas Eve dinner and Christmas dinner at our house for some reason. In our informal poll there were Fundamentalist Protestants, evangelical Protestants, Catholics, agnostic Jews and an atheist at the table and no one believed in evolution. One agnostic mustered a devil's advocate defense to keep things lively, and the patient and longsuffering liberal atheist at our table full of religious and semi-religious conservatives didn't say anything.
Anyway, I continue to believe that ninme & I are in heated agreement but addressing different stupidities (I concur with her assessment of the radio ad that prompted this little tiff, for example), but for the record:
- Yes, I meant "Natural" not national. Touché.
- Bethell in his book address the fact that Colin Patterson says he's sometimes been misquoted in variations on the quotation, but the citation Bethell uses is from notes taken by Patterson's close friend, who was in attendance, and has been confirmed. Moreover the basic point, that Patterson no longer believes in evolution, Patterson does not refute.
- Colin Patterson is not an ID scientist, so his view doesn't bear on my original contention that ID itself is evolutionary (more on that in a sec). The point of the post where I cited him was no longer about ID theory, but about the contention that we're witnessing a paradigm shift in Science --away from the evolutionary theory we were all taught. Hence the comparison with the Ptolemaic system. The post cites several examples --Bethell has gobs more-- that a sizable group of scientists on the cutting edge of inquiry into these matters no longer believes in evolution.
- As for whether ID is an evolutionary theory. I said it is and my philosophy of science guy has persuaded me that I was imprecise. All I meant by saying that ID is evolutionary is that it isn't creationism. Creationism isn't just believing in God; it's got a content. It means presenting the Genesis account of creation as science; belief in literal 6-day creation; no belief in change over time (not even within species) except by direct intervention of God; belief in a "young earth" --less than 10,000 years old; and of course teaching in Science class that we know that God is responsible for creation. Since no reputable ID scientist holds any of those views --not one of them [scientists or views!]-- ID has more in common with evolution than with creationism.
- My phil of science guy, however, points out that the key to evolution is --duh, RC2-- evolution--the idea that one species can give rise to others, and that ID, while not closing off the question, is at least open to the idea of fixed species --with change and development limited to change over time within species. I can't argue with that so in that sense I stand corrected, but as I say, it's not what I was thinking about. I go a bit nuts whenever I see ID referred to as creationism, because I was raised on creationism and it has nothing in common with ID.
- Finally for now, the weakness that I see in ID is that at least so far it is only a critique --a rational, scientific & salutary critique-- of the existing evolutionary model; it doesn't offer a replacement model. Until one emerges, we're going to keep seeing these battles pop up. Paradigm shift. It's happening all around us. . . .
