Scientific Intelligent Design

I must take issue with James Pinkerton writing in Tech Central Station about what he calls the "Real Intelligent Designers." The article isn't all that wrong, that ID is a justifiable explanation for the creation of the universe is arguable either way. However, Pinkerton uses some pretty bad writing and flat out stupid statements on the way to his conclusion.
Pinkerton separates Intelligent Design (ID) believers into two areas, Religious ID (RID) and Scientific ID (SID). He gives RID a little respect, but for the most part, his view of this arguable position is pretty evident. A little sample.

No serious scientist believes the literal Biblical creation account, but many earnest and well-credentialed scientists do believe in Intelligent Design (ID), as a perspective on evolution. And ID, of course, is religiously inspired.

Well, that's a pretty universal statement that "no serious scientist believes..." and I'm sure it's not true, as you can always find serious scientists who believe the Bible literally. But you really need to qualify literally, as some Christian's believe that the literal translation of Genesis has definite dates and the age of the earth can be found by following the ages of people back to Adam (which comes out to something like 6000 years ago). Other Christians believe that the beginning chapters of the Bible are more prose and are there to illustrate God creating the world, but not a literal 6 days.

One of the best known ID-ers is Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and author of Darwin's Black Box. Behe argues that it just isn't possible that random evolution could have produced the flagellum -- the propeller/tail -- on a bacteria. Such an organ, he concludes, is "irreducibly complex," which is to say, only a Master of Complexity could have created it.

But it's a fallacy to argue that just because one person -- or even all the people of an era -- can't figure out how something works, therefore such mysterious workings are beyond any human comprehension, ever.

Which is an OK logical refute, but I think Pinkerton misses the point. We might figure out how the flagellum works, but we might not understand how a simple cellular creature could develop one on its own by evolution. We'll see. Let's say for now that Darwinism still hasn't been proven by observations in fossil records.
Oh, and the example he uses to back up his fallacy argument is pretty ridiculous. Really, James, couldn't you have thought of something besides you not being able to figure out how Siegfried and Roy performed slights of hand in Vegas? Dumb.

But the ID-ers can't wait. They say that they must "study" evolution now, because, in the words of the IDN, "it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion." So to defend their particular religious worldview, they must undercut the work of Charles Darwin. Similarly, the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (DI) presents itself as a serious-minded explorer of possible options. The DI's Center for Science and Culture, for example, presents itself as just another group of think-tankers committed to open inquiry, although clearly stating that it "supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory" even as it "supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design."

So by just supporting research by scientists challenging Darwinian theory, Pinkerton summarily dismisses the Institute? That's what I read in his statement that the institute "presents itself" as a think tank committed to open inquiry. Inferring that they aren't?

But the true mission of the DI was fully revealed in a 1999 posting of an internal DI document called "The Wedge Project" -- a document corroborated recently by The New Yorker -- which described not only the DI's anti-Darwinian goal but also its plan for achieving that goal. The paper begins by decrying the "devastating" effect of Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism, upon the "bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built."

OK, so they aren't exactly neutral, but as a conservative organization, they are trying the battle the general dogma which states that Darwinism is a fact, not an unproven theory. They are correct that the accepting of this theory as fact has influenced much of society.

"There's plenty of room for God in a Darwinian universe. Darwin operates on different plane altogether from theology."

To be fair here, he is quoting Nick Schulz. But as a Christian, I would take issue with considering Darwin on a different plane altogether from God. God does not fit into anyone's universe. We all fit into his.
Which brings up another issue that non-Christians tend to wash over by saying that Bible thumpers are all anti-science. To which nothing could be further from the truth. Most Christians whom I have ever met would say, as would I, that all scientific exploration is good, and helps to reveal the complexities of God's creation. In fact, the more that scientific discovery reveals about how truly complex God's creation is, the more fantastic it seems.

And that's the problem with ID: it's simplistic. To argue that complex biological phenomena are "irreducibly complex" is to abandon the scientific quest. As Richard Dawkins, who boasts the bold professional title of Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at OxfordUniversity, explains in The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design,

To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like "God was always there," and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say "DNA was always there," or "Life was always there," and be done with it.

So the better mission for the ID-ers, should they choose to undertake it, would be to identify the Intelligent Designer. That's a question that's been wrangled over by theologians for eons, with no firm conclusion yet. But of course, such inquiry has nothing to do with science.

As Schulz suggests, religion is simply on a different plane than science. The whole point is that you take it on faith: you either believe or you don't. In fact, the Catholics put Mysterium Fidei, the mystery of faith, at the center of their belief system. Which is fine, but once again, it's not science.

OK, got lots of problems with this.
1. Why is arguing that things are incredibly complex and abandonment of the scientific quest. Like I said above, modern thinking Christians welcome scientific discovery.
2. Nice, so we are quoting from people who would completely divorce science from God. Religiously, you can't separate nature or science from God, if in any form you believe that God or some Intelligence created the universe, then they must go hand in hand.
3. Another diatribe about religion being on a different plane than science, with the extension that the difference between the two is that one is taken on faith and the other is not. I refer you again to the fact that many scientists disagree that Darwinism is actually fact. Therefore if you believe in Darwinism it's a sort of faith.
4. Our mission is to Identify the Intelligent Designer? What kind of idiotic statement is that? Does he think that we'll find God walking around the streets of Brooklyn one day? Christians have already identified Him. He is our God. One could argue that all religions have found him in one way or another, but to say that we are still supposed to be looking for some divine Waldo is asinine.

OK, I'd like to be done, but Pinkerton brings a totally new subject in, which is SID.

Indeed, early examples of SID have been visible for a long time. Plant and animal breeding, using mostly proto-scientific empiricism and intuition, reaches back probably 10,000 years. Consider, as one example of early SID in action, our best friend, the dog. Gazing down at a Chihuahua next to a Cocker Spaniel, it's hard to believe that those different breeds are the same species, Canis lupus familiaris. And all dogs, however cute, are descended from the fierce wolf, Canis lupus. Yes, these interconnections are hard to believe at first, but biologists can prove them.

OK, some terminology clarification would be helpful here. Is what humans have been doing for centuries really creation? I don't mean to be too picky here, but is breeding animals really creating something new, or is it taking a process of creation (moderated by our friendly intelligent being) and manipulating it to reach certain desired outcomes.
In fact all of the examples that Pinkerton uses, prosthetics, robotics, virtual reality, cloning, are just tools, or the result of tools. Really its just a glorified version of the stick that apes use to get ants out of an anthole for their dinner. We have just rearranged elements of a God Created world to achieve some sort of physical end.
Human creation, which is creating something from existing material, is quite a bit different from creation of something from nothing. Or creation of life from non-living matter.

It'll be interesting to see if we can every create living cells from inanimate matter, as some scientists are attempting to do. But until then, Darwinists are going to get lots of flak from those who don't buy it as absolute fact.
It's a shame that Pinkerton can add nothing constructive to this debate.