Attempt at intelligent discussion on ID

Some of my blog posts are picked-up by the Turlock Journal and reprinted as a column on their editorial page. One such post, which appeared in the October 12th edition, attempts to define the conflict between intelligent design theory and the theory of scientific evolution.

I was not suggesting that evolution shouldn't be taught in the schools nor did I imply that the schools should get on the bandwagon and embrace ID as a valid theory. I'll let people with more scientific minds work out those things. My point was that these two positions are not necessarily antithetical and that some healthy conversation rather than bashing might actually be fruitful. The ID people need to quit jumping all over the evolutionists and evolutionists should at least give an ear to what the ID people are saying. The fight rhetoric is unhelpful.

In a letter to the editor, Eric Julien, who is an outstanding science teacher at Turlock High School, has taken issue with my post. I will accept responsibility for the lack of precise communication. I was aiming to encourage civil discussion rather than for scientific precision.

So, Eric perhaps misunderstood me when I said that "The current scientific establishment advocates a form of Darwinian evolution which states that everything changes and develops through a process of random occurrences." He interpreted that to mean that I was saying science itself is random happenstance. My point was that random encounters with differing environments provide the context for natural selection. When a species encounters a new environment it starts to evolve and does so apart from any specific design. (That is, according to strict evolutionary theory.)

Eric also took issue with my statement that "Most of the (ID) theorists are also Christians and that's why the scientific community tends to see the theory as an attempt to insert religion 'into a place it doesn't belong -- science.'"

He writes: "Scientists are also Christians and so his claim (my claim) is illogical. They would see themselves trying to insert Christianity, their religion into a place it doesn't belong."

Yes, there are many solid Christians who are also scientists. My point was that many of the scientists who hold to a strict form of Darwinian evolution, and who are concerned about the ID issue, are identifying Christian religion as the real motivation behind ID. They perceive that ID is a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt by religionists to dictate what is regarded as science. And as Eric points out, "Scientists reject ID because it is not a scientific theory. It is not based on a tested hypothesis."

This, I believe, is technically correct. But the ID people are suggesting that perhaps a tested hypothesis alone is inadequate to fully identify the process of origins and development. In a nutshell, ID is really based on a theory of mathematical improbability (an irreducible complexity argument suggesting that genetic variations cannot occur apart from specific design, or at least intent) rather than scientific hypothesis. So any discussion on this issue has to include the mathematicians and the scientists. Perhaps this will be the long-term contribution of the ID movement -- to expand the methodology. I'm just guessing.

It's at least worth having a civil discussion. And by that I would suggest that we should avoid pressing school boards to put "warning labels" in the front of science textbooks or that we should be trying to force the issue one way or another in the courts. Any true advances will come through respectful discourse rather than politically heated bantering.