Re: The status of ID and a personal reflection

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 22:43:05 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

ID is described as "a pseudoscientific argument" on Wikipedia [1],
there's clearly no love for it here, and as far as I know ID has limited
recognition within mainstream science. The general public's awareness
and support of ID I believe is higher but still constrained.
>
ID has been accused of being a creationism Trojan Horse, and at times it
seems to have pursued a political agenda, especially with education.
From to time to time, the Discovery Institute and Evolution News
promote a misplaced right-wing perspective.
>
Personally, I have a degree of ambivalence toward ID. For example, I
think the 'information problem' claimed by ID is real, but I'm a bit
surprised that people like William Dembski have not been able to
progress it further after several decades (I've briefly but fruitfully
corresponded with him regarding this in the past). More recently, on the
topic of junk DNA, I get the impression that Casey Luskin and the Long
Story Short episode on this may have oversimplified and/or overstated
arguments against junk DNA (I've made a corrective comment on LSS's
YouTube channel in relation to this).

There is only one way to understand ID, and that is to understand your
own Self.  Because your Self contains all knowledge that exist,
indcluding knowledge about design in nature. And that knowledge cannot
be found anywhere outside of your Mind.

It is that knowledge that all science is built upon. Science is based
on observations through the senses, and the subjective interpretation
of these observations. Knowledge is not something you "import" from
outside by reading books etc., as commonly believed. You could not
understand anything in any book, unless you already new it - i.e. had
the ability to understand



This ability for interpretation can not be imported from outside, for
logical reasons.


It must be there before you can begin interpreting any information
from outside.

 That is just information. There must be an inner ability to
interprete the information coming from outside in the first place, an
inner logic by which things can be understood.








And that knowledge is not complex, but rather simple. 
Complexity is just simple elements combined in different ways.
Everything in the physical world can be reduced to simple particles,
and anythig  complex are just these particles conbimed and arranged

Not information, for that is what you preceive from outside, via the
senses, and the senses are decitful

ID itself is a broad-ish church, for example with a range of views on
common descent and the extent of evolution (e.g. from micro to macro).
>
So, given all this, why would I speak in support of ID and claim it has
gained and sustained traction [2]? My comments here are somewhat
subjective, but with supporting references where applicable. To be
clear, this is intended as a more a personal reflection and not a
rigorous treatise (in contrast to other TO posts where I believe I
attempt to argue consistently and from evidence).
>
First, the question of origins - either life on earth or the universe
itself - is all-encompassing, multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted,
complicated, etc. One would expect strengths and weakness with opposing
arguments and interpretation of evidence, as fallible humans grapple
with these ultimate questions. So the shortcomings of ID are not in and
of themselves unexpected or disqualifying.
>
At its best, I think that ID correctly and non-deceptively infers a
non-specific intelligent agent from an interpretation of scientific
evidence (while acknowledging many ID proponents are Christians). This
aligns with my own position and I suspect a growing number of Christians
who sit somewhere between YEC and theistic evolution.
>
The traction that ID has I think partly flows from this genuinely
"agnostic" stance when it comes to comes to inferring a designer. This
enables it to focus on the science alone.
>
Something that needs to be understood is the inherent asymmetry between
the positions of naturalism and supernaturalism in terms of how each
applies science. Naturalism is seeking to prove a positive, i.e. to
identify at least one plausible naturalistic explanation of origins.
Supernaturalism, in this context, is required to prove a negative, i.e.
on the basis of science demonstrate that all possible naturalistic
explanations are impossible or extremely doubtful.
>
One misunderstanding of this logical asymmetry is demonstrated by the
supposed counter-argument, which says that positing God merely shifts
the question to 'Who made God?', which is declared to have no
explanatory power, and therefore can be discounted. Dawkins is fond of
this approach. Sorry Richard, but you can't make God vanish in a puff of
pseudo-logic and disingenuous wishful-thinking.
>
In any case, ID has endured now its modern form for about three decades,
and of the various creationism streams is, as far as I'm aware, by far
the most credibly and substantially engaged with current science. The DI
claims a research program and over 250+ peer-reviewed papers published
in mainstream journals [3]. Of course, the validity of these may be
disputed - as are most perspectives and papers in contentious areas
(e.g. string theory).
>
While ID has not delivered a knock-out punch (obviously), it does seem
to continue to track progress in science and develop its arguments
accordingly. Examples include:
>
1. OOL. Although I've mentioned some specific criticisms of the Long
Story Short video series, overall the fact that they can be made today
is revealing. The series critiquing naturalistic abiogenesis [4]
(claimed to made by five "PhD scientists") directly challenges OOL on
the basis of current science, and exaggerated claims of progress (IMO).
Along with this are books like The Stairway to Life [5], and many
others. And James Tour has waded in to this issue, as an ID sympathiser
at least, and despite his shouty and sometimes dismissive manner, I
think his work very much reinforces what ID is saying [6]. YMMV.
>
2. Stephen Meyer on most things. He is now the public face of ID, and
its most prominent intellectual spokesperson, debater, and book author.
His guest appearance on Joe Rogan confirm his popular positioning. His
genteel conversations with skeptic Michael Shermer I think point to the
substantive arguments ID presents. And Meyer's books have deserved
infleunce and impact across topics like first-case, fine-tuning, OOL,
complexity, information, Cambrian explosion, macroevolution, etc.
>
4. The whole complexity thing. Yes, I understand (for example) PZ Myers'
frustration with ID veering toward "complexity therefore design".
However, the complexity problem is real and growing. Science is
discovering more and more complexity in living cells and living things.
This correspondingly increases the challenge to OOL and macroevolution,
and ID knows this and is rightly pressing the point.
>
4. Behe's IC, and more recently his waiting time problem analysis. Your
mileage well vary on this one.
>
5. The information issue. Biology is as much about information storage,
processing and maintenance as it is about physics and chemistry.
Naturalism has not come to grips with this IMO, and I think ID is on the
right track with the focus it has on this.
>
6. ID taking on first-case, fine-tuning, OOL, complexity, information,
Cambrian explosion, macroevolution, etc.
>
That's an incomplete and uneven summary. As I hope I've made clear,
YMMV; I acknowledge that. This post is not an opportunity to dive down
the hundred rabbit holes that this overview touches on. That is
something I've been demonstrably (laboriously) willing to do in many
other threads. Rather, this is an invitation for conversation about your
own journey, perspective, doubts, convictions etc. I'm happy to consider
correction and criticism, within the framework described.
>
If you are convinced that ID (or creation in general) is not something
that can be meaningfully discussed with reference to science, this is
probably not the thread for you.
>
If I haven't been able to convince you in some of my previous posts that
my own faith is definitively not dependent on ID being correct, so be
it, but that's not my interest here.
>
Thank you for reading this far if you've managed that. As always, I
welcome open-ended, open-minded civil dialogue.
>
_______
>
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
>
[2] From a recent TO post of mine titled "To sum up":
"And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive
discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt
Improbable higher and higher. ID has gained and sustained traction
because this trend is real. I would add to this arguments relating to
first-cause, fine-tuning, the Cambrian explosion, etc."
>
[3] Discovery Institute - ID research and responses to criticisms:
https://www.discovery.org/id/research/
https://www.discovery.org/f/10141
https://www.discovery.org/id/responses/
>
[4] Long Story Short - YouTube playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9
>
[5] The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check
https://www.amazon.com.au/Stairway-Life-Origin-Life-Reality/dp/1734183705
>
[6] James Tour cf. William Bains
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RwhAxtqls4A/m/eQFJbd-5AgAJ