Why Eugenie is talking good sense

This is a reply to the blog: Eugenie Scott says there’s No Contrary Evidence about Evolution and Global Warming at http://www.c4id.org.uk/scott

Greetings Mr Noble. Yours was a polite and clearly written response to Eugenie's talk. However, it lacks in a few signfiicant ways. Before I reply, in the interests of full disclosure, I will confess I am an atheist, although I prefer to call my self an a-God-ist, as I am likewise an a-LochNessMonster-ist. That is, I find no particular reason to believe anything without evidence or a good reason.

First, a little defence of some of the labels Eugenie uses. While 'creationism' is often used as a derogative, I believe Eugenie's use is much more precise. The notion of an external agency to the universe that can interact with the universe is most frequently found in religion. Spiritualism does not necessarily require an external agency, so this can't be considered to be the source of this concept.

In religion, external agency is found in creation myths. Usually the agent has unnatural powers and is able to operate independent of time. Thus, a label of this external agency as creationist is very accurate. The connotation of young earth creationism with the crass right-wing evangelicalism is unfortunate and not of Eugenie's making; and history shows a clear lineage of ID from this position.

However, if we accept your proposition that ID does not suggest religious belief, then it behoves ID to declare the belief premise for its position. For example, the belief premise may be revelation. ID proponents may believe that they have recieved a special message from God. On the other hand, this revelation may simply be a hightened awareness of the natural world - a kind of 'uh-ha' moment.

Each of these has significant challenges. Special revelation has no verification mechanism, by definition. Thus, this is not belief, but belief that belief need not be verified in order to be pronounced truth. Now, such a belief system is simply incompatible with science. Science begins with the proposition that ALL belief is able to be challenged, albeit by proper means.

Challenges that are simply taking a contrary position do not constitute a challenge; a counter-thesis is not an argument nor evidence for a counter-thesis. Unfortunately, ID has frequently suggested that all counter-theses must be considered, including amongst them ID. On this ground, any suggestion (such as The Matrix - all reality is an illusory product of a super-intelligence) must be conteplated and methodically eliminated.

Since resources for winnowing the infinite number of counter-theses are few, science uses common sense to begin investigation; usually experience. This is not fool-proof but is effective. All that aside, special revelation must eliminated (from a scientific point of view) because it is contrary to science doctrine.

Which only leaves revelation through the natural world. Here, ID faces an irresolveable conundrum. If an agency external to the universe is observable via natural means, on what grounds can we claim it to be external? It must, by definition, be natural - thus, accessible to scientific investigation. If it is not observable, then its existence is entirely speculative, and we return to the point of winnowing an infinite number of guesses at why the universe exists.

Analogies are drawn in an attempt to winnow the possible theses. Human design is used to suggest extra-universal design. But why should a process observed on earth necessarily apply anywhere else, especially external to the universe? Unfortunately, the analogy pre-supposes natural processes occurring outside of nature, an impossible proposition logically.

But suppose, for open-mindedness sake, we were to test the thesis of ID - an external agency made the universe. How do you begin to test that? All tests require natural constraints, so all test results would be suspect. Thus, testing this proposition is impossible. What ID proponents rely on, then, is a fallacy of argumentation - namely, failure to disprove does not offer proof. I cannot disprove that you are an alien, therefore I must entertain the proposition that you are an alien?

The final 'bastion' for ID is 'signs of design' (that is - no test will be successful, but we can see signs, like we see footprints). This proposition suffers from a fallacy of argumentation - that of circularity. To be able to identify these signs, one must first know what to look for. Knowing what to look logically means prior knowledge  of God without the assistance of the signs. Hence, the original knowledge of God comes from another source. If that source is the signs themselves, then the argument is circular. If the source is something like a script or witness of another person, it faces the problem of revelation (described above).

The simple issue is this. Put up or shut up. If there is natural evidence to challenge elements of evolution, let us see them and use them to modify our understanding of evolution. Since not other explanations have credibility at any level, entertaining them comes only from one motivation - to keep our religious friends happy.