It is time to take stock: What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists. If we are to look for ID achievements, then, it must be in the realm of natural theology. And there, I think, the movement must be judged not only a failure, but a debacle.Sagt litt enkelt har flere av oss større teologiske utfordringer med ID, enn naturvitenskapelige. Hvilket i og for seg skulle antyde at ID sliter i motvind i Dekodets sandkasse.
Very few religious skeptics have been made more open to religious belief because of ID arguments. These arguments not only have failed to persuade, they have done positive harm by convincing many people that the concept of an intelligent designer is bound up with a rejection of mainstream science.
The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature. Aside from the fact that such a claim is, in practice, impossible to substantiate, it has the effect of pitting natural theology against science by asserting an incompetence of science. To be sure, there are questions that natural science is not competent to address, and too many scientists have lost all sense of the limitations of their disciplines, not to mention their own limitations. But the ID arguments effectively declare natural science incompetent even in what most would regard as its own proper sphere. Nothing could be better calculated to provoke the antagonism of the scientific community. This throwing down of the gauntlet to science explains not a little of the fervor of the scientific backlash against ID.Nå er det selvsagt for tidlig å si hva som er fremtiden for ID. Men at dette skal bli en sterk og levende naturvitenskapelig tradisjon, er ikke bare tvilsomt, det er - for å si det bastant - umulig. Uansett hvor mye feil, problemer og anomalier man måtte mene å finne i enkelte evolusjonære modeller, er det ikke det samme som selv å drive vitenskap.
Og så lenge det er mulig å vise eller håpe at det ikke er umulig å forklare "ikke-reduserbar" (hva nå det er i praksis) kompleksitet og celler ut fra seleksjon, vil alltid den naturlige forklaringen være mest eh... naturlig.
Det er tilsvarende vanskelig å se for seg ID som den mest enkle eller elegante måten å vise at tro på en (eller annen) designer er rasjonelt.
The ID movement has also rubbed a very raw wound in the relation between science and religion. For decades scientists have had to fend off the attempts by Young Earth creationists to promote their ideas as a valid alternative science. The scientific world’s exasperation with creationists is understandable. Imagine yourself a serious historian in a country where half the population believed in Afrocentric history, say, or a serious political scientist in a country where half the people believed that the world is run by the Bilderberg Group or the Rockefellers. It would get to you after a while, especially if there were constant attempts to insert these alternative theories into textbooks. So, when the ID movement came along and suggested that its ideas be taught in science classrooms, it touched a nerve. This is one reason that the New Atheists attracted such a huge audience.Hvilket ikke akkurat har vært prosjektet på Dekodet.
None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong. Nor is it to deny that the ID movement has been treated atrociously and that it has been lied about by many scientists. The question I am raising is whether this quixotic attempt by a small and lightly armed band to overthrow “Darwinism” and bring about a new scientific revolution has accomplished anything good. It has had no effect on scientific thought. Its main consequence has been to strengthen the general perception that science and religion are at war.