I guess as much as they tried, the structure of the discussion was very poorly defined. Dekkers started out by defining ID, and then saying why it’s ok to be a scientist and a christian (something completely irrelevant and not helpful IMO). van den Heuvel went on to semi-defend the anthropic principle … fine. But then Boersema gets up and critiques the combination of Science and Religion! I thought it was a discussion about ID! Maybe he could have tagged that on at the end, but since ID can logically be areligious, then he should have focused on the main issue.

Unfortunately, ID-as-science could not be defended, because it was not really presented. Dekkers outlined 4 levels which ID can be applied. The first is generic, philosohpical statement about life and the universe. The second and third are “Privileged Planet” and “Privileged Species” concepts (fine-tuning, irreducibly complexity, etc.). These first three are not useful scientific tools as a) they aren’t testable and b) one is effectively giving up and invoking a supernatural agent. They are indeed useful philosophical tools (and as Dekkers pointed out just as valid as the multiverse theory).

The only scientifically useful part of ID is the fourth level, specified complexity. The idea is that you can apply a figure of merit to the level of complexity of an system, with a critical value above which it must be designed. This would be something you could measure in a lab and calculate. But Dekker didn’t know anything about it beyond that. I’ve been around this for ~6 years now, and everytime I hear somebody talk about this they say two things: i) “I don’t know much about this”, and ii) “It’s interesting, but I’m not sure if it’ll work”. Well find out!! Explain it to us!! A biologist put up his hand and asked Cees what he can do with ID, and he didn’t have a satisfactory answer because he didn’t know much about SC. If you’re going be an expert on ID, you should at least know the only measurable part of it. Read more about it here.

My opinion? As a scientist I don’t really care since I can’t really apply it right now, as a christian, I’m content with the fact that the Big Bang implies a beginning which lends weight to a first mover.

Finally, with respect to schools/textbooks in the US, this is really dumb. I guess the real problem is that creationists are borrowing IDs ideas on their own crusade (you don’t want to know how often I’ve heard one talk about Behe as if he was one of theirs … from the pulpit as well). But really, the debate should be moot. Are you really going to explain specified complexity in a high school textbook? How about multiverses? Just stay neutral and take out the word random before mutations and everyone should be happy.

Btw, sorry for the way to too comment, but I needed to say this to somebody :)

I especially liked the following: “[…] b) one is effectively giving up and invoking a supernatural agent.”

That’s exactly why I feel most aspects of ID and the discussion around it has not much to do with science. If you revert to some kind of supreme being because you can’t explain something, you’re doing the kind of science they did in the Classical Antiquity when a thunderstorm was due to Zeus being mad. I hope we’ve gone to a higher level of science by now…

I too am interested in how ID is supposed to work on the molecular level like Prof. Frenken asked during the discussion.

By the way… I’m kinda curious… How did you end up on my website? :P

Greetings from the guy in room 542 of the Oort Building (yes, that’s right above your head :D),
Tijl

You can pat yourself on the back for having the most interesting so far …

It seems the defensive War with Christians has been raging for centuries. I believe it was they who first declared war on all other religions. I seem to recall something about witch burnings, crusades, and inquisitions.

anyway

I saw your ID piece. My friend and I are making a video essay on the subject at the moment.

It is definitely those who wish to inject validation for their religious belief into our schools who are behind this movement. The claim of scientific is a veil, they lack honesty, a characteristic highly regarded by their God. They have been soundly excoriated for their duplicity in our courts.

I’m 50 years old and I don’t think it matters whether the universe was designed or not. It took so long for human life to emerge on this planet, that it is not unreasonable to imagine that so many random events happened over those eons resulting first in the most simple forms of life which over more eons evolved into more complex life forms…. Of course, if the world and all it’s creatures had emerged in 7 days, some other process would be suspected.

But as I was saying, it doesn’t matter to me, I’m going to love it anyway. And that is my problem with the ID movement and the whole theocratic movement in the United States. These people reject social support for the poor, elderly and needy in our society. They attack public goods like education and social security. They support war in Iraq, they reject environmental regulation and deny the reality of Global Warming. They accept hurricane Katrina as a punishment for the people of New Orleans and don’t care that the place is still a wreck. They seem to be at war with compassion, truth and the future. That is a real problem that I do care about.
Nuff said.

With regards to what Lillian said, I’d have to agree with her closing paragraph. It truly is terrible the way religion is being used as a political tool yet again… No wonder ID is being pushed in the schools. I very much doubt wether Bush gives a rat’s posterior about God - religion is just being used as the riegns and bit for controlling his followers which is pure blasphemy in my mind.