Fascinating discussion on ID and Evolution in Seattle

I just found this recorded TownHall debate on the web:

http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archived/WME.cfm?EVNum=2006040103&TYPE=V

Its with one of my biology professor Ward and Steve the Director of Discovery Institute - proponent of Intelligent Design.

It was really interesting to hear some of the new arguments the ID camp had came up with, and I got a better understanding of how they defined "Intelligence"

Also... I was really disappointed with how my professor reacted in this video.. he seemed pretty childish on stage.. a side of him I never saw...

Nevertheless, I can tell there's a huge bias and leanings in this.. and the christian crowd at the meeting weren't very nice either.. a couple of hecklers...

Well, it seems like I.D. has accepted most part of Evolution theory under their wings.. its just that they do not agree at certain points in history - the first life.. and the cambrian explosion.., mamalian radiation.
A little issue is that ID does not state whether they accept that the earth is a few thousand years old or a few billion years old.
Steve also accepts that Natural selection does play a role, and that there's change over time - unfortunately, with the skeletal fossils of apes - its going to be a little challenging for ID to claim that humans are not from apes.
I guess a way around it would be to claim that Humans were created seperately and never evolved.

Unfortunately that's a deviation from their main thought - that the coding of DNA information was not random but directed - which means the first human, Adam must have had to have a biological machinery to nurture that first cell with directed change in DNA into a human.
The I.D. hypothesis seems to be a little contrary theologically in this regard.

And I believe if the group of 600 scientists were cornered into choosing, based on scientific literature, on the age of Earth, you'll get another split.

I.D. claims that Information is proof of intelligence and that DNA - being a storage of information - like a software code is proof that someone created it. Well, of course, its created - but its logic is slightly flawed. The way the rainbow is formed in the sky does not contain any information, the nature of how stars and planets are formed are not based on information directing them - rather - every single quark, proton, electron, neutron - every photon bending through the water medium goes through random assortment.
But what makes them so amazingly beautiful? Its the very laws of physics that governs them.
So if you ask an atheistic scientist - if a rainbow formation is planned - he would most certainly say no - its just photons following the laws of physics.
If you ask a christian who is a scientist - the answer would be yes.
So what's the difference here?
When you happen to be there and the exact spot where God allowed you to minister to someone.
Was it random? or was it pre-destined?
Of course an Atheist would say its random, a christian can tell if its God.

So how can you test scientifically that the special event was pre-destined?
You would want to look for signs of pre-destination -
And what determines "pre-destination"? Maybe - It is when a particular situation comes to a fruitful end which seems unlikely.

Unfortunately, if such a hypothesis was to go under scientific rigours - it would not stand - because it's like Cherry Picking - choosing certain events that apply to a hypothesis and champion them.

If it were to undergo the probability test.. it'll be a very small abnormaility compared to the normal.
considered an outlier

But the truth of the matter is that God works miracles - and these are things that are not in the realm of repeatable probabilities.
If God did indeed create us through through some divine means/avoiding all physical and chemical laws He created - it is an abnormality that wouldn't show in scientific experiments... its not repeatable nor testable.

The problem with I.D. is that it tries to define what intelligence is based on human construct - that most of the scientists who subscribe to I.D. are not biologists but engineers and people who build things. And it is trying to look for intelligence within random processes.
For example - clouds - people see clouds forming into shapes we are familiar with and therefore we start assigning names to clouds - it's a dog/hat/cat/cow.. etc.. does the cloud form into those images through an information source? of course not...its entirely random.. wind.. etc..
what if God spoke to someone by forming a shape in the cloud?.. is that random? Never! Was there an information source? Not exactly - God created everything - but don't forget He created the systems and Laws too.. Randomness in something does not exclude the existence of God.

The I.D. movement is fantastic.. its like the Davinci Code, a contraversy that will encourage people to dig deeper into the science..
Unfortunately, it is using the wrong medium - the amount of scientific data in can produce is very limited.
It tries to get around this by claiming science is limited by "materialism" or "Naturalism"  and it should open up to be more inclusive so that we can learn more.
The problem with such a thought is that if science is "opened" up.. almost all theories with non-repeatable evidences can be admitted.
So, we should start teaching UFOlogy in schools, we accept that Ghosts are "things" that emit EM waves, that palm reading and astrology are indeed true.
How about the conspiracy theories? As long as there are 600 experts, it should be allowed to be accorded same status as well founded theories - so the 9/11 crash in the pentagon is made up - no plane crashed into it. it was blown up.
No one stepped on the moon - it was all filmed on earth.
The Davinci Code has to be true based on those few pieces of Evidences.. despite overwhelming evidence that suggests otherwise.
Everything lines up just so well.. its so improbable - it has to be truth.

What's common between conspiracy theories and I.D.? Its all about finding pattern, based on pre-conceived notions of an entity/event/person, in a couple of isolated examples while downplaying the overwhelming evidence that points otherwise.
Its mathematical formulas that try to prove their point are not conclusive (Infact I wrote a card to them disproving one of their calculations even while I was still an I.D. proponent)
It's very michael moorish in their methods to push forth their hypothesis as scientific theory.

That being said - I.D. has plenty of ground as a philosophical theory or a theological one. Unfortunately as a scientific theory - it fails.

I know God created us and the world and even though I agree with I.D. that there is a creator, and that natural selection and change over time is guided by God - I don't agree that I.D. is something Christians should subscribe to.

I mean, I think it's insulting our Creator - to limit God's creativity to the level of our own engineering capabilities - our own preconceived notions of what intelligence is...and worse of all - to put God at the same level as Aliens/ Buddhist/any other god

So why are Christians so stubborn about supporting I.D.?
So that once the scientific community accepts this theory, we can start to infuse Creationism into science textbooks?

So why do Christians want to have God in Science textbooks? Why not fight for it to be in all other fields - art - history etc?

Is it because science seems like a very good predictor of many things that are previously unknown... and many people have begun to take science as truths...?
Are Christians one of them? Are Christians so afraid that science will one day undermine the validity of the bible?
It certainly seems so in the many books and talks the I.D. people give - that most Scientists are all out to destroy the bible with all these research. How true is that? Does interviewing a minority of anti-christians who happen to be scientists by profession representative of all biologists?

Does it change your faith whether science explains creation?
Can the theory of evolution ever kill your faith in the bible?
If not, why are we blindly supporting an ideology that supports most parts of evolution theory and puts God on the same level as Aliens and other gods. How different is it from cults or mormonism where God is just one of the many gods out there?

As noble as its intentions are, I.D. is an insult to science, and most of all, an insult to God.
A sheep dressed in wolf clothing to impress, and a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing to deceive. Respectively.