The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Pt 4

The fourth point of the Intelligent Design Network statement of principles says:

"Institutional insistence for either a non-refutable materialistic or a Teleological assumption compromises the integrity of good Origins Science. Non-refutable assumptions are counter to the inherent skepticism of Science. They frustrate a search for an inference to the best of multiple competing explanations. These assumptions convert the protected explanation into an explanation designed to fit a preconception. The Institutionally protected explanation then becomes the prevailing orthodoxy or dogma rather than a scientific explanation open to question."

The key words here are rather straightforward.  “Insistence”, “Assumption” and “non-refutable”. 

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Part 3 .

I’ve been pondering the general statement of objectives of the Intelligent Design Network intended to plead for objectivity and against the forced orthodoxy of naturalistic assumptions in the teaching of origins.  The first two points dealt with the subjectivity of explaining the unobservable events of the distant past by making inferences from present processes and the insistence that those inferences be given the status of irrefutable fact.  While those points are very well crafted, Item C is the part of the IDNet statement of that I find most critical.

"Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact Religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implications of materialistic explanations of origins support the central tenets of non-Theistic Religions, while the implications of Teleological explanations support the central tenets of Theistic Religions. Both Theistic and non-Theistic Religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics."

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Part 2

I started a series on a resource at IDNet which attempts to make a case for including ID as one acceptable theory of origins.  ID is not creationism as it makes no connections whatever to the Genesis account either in its assumptions nor its conclusions.  Nevertheless, ID has been tossed out of the public sphere by the courts on several occasions for failing to comply with the assumption that all things can be explained in terms of natural law alone. 

The second point of the IDNet statement of objectives is:

"The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of abductive2 reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of Historical Hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation."

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense

Found a good source for Intelligent Design info at the Intelligent Design Network

Managing director John Calvert’s many documents on the site are some of the more readable and insightful I’ve seen. I am particularly interested in the “Statement of Objectives” IDNet sets out that are intended to get around the impasse between ID and Darwinism.

So I’d like to take some time to work through the main points. Here’s the first: