Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
FtK:
| Quote |
Wes, including the supernatural in the science classroom is merely a fear tactic on your part. You know as well as everyone else that you don't have to mention the evil word "supernatural" even once in reference to ID unless you're an evolutionist. Then you have to use the word repeatedly.
|
The IDC movement has spent a considerable amount of effort on rhetorical issues, such as how to introduce concepts without introducing the terms that describe those concepts. It was established during Kitzmiller that the effect of the proposed change in defining "science" was to permit supernatural causes; whether you actually say the label itself is not at issue here.
Let's see how DI Senior Fellow and Lehigh Professor Michael Behe handled this under oath in 2005:
| Quote |
[285]BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
[286]Q And you say, "The problem is the following. Currently we have knowledge of only one type of natural intelligent designer even remotely capable of conceiving such structures as are found in the cell, and that is a human. Our intelligence depends critically on physical structures in the brain which are irreducibly complex. Extrapolating from this sample of one. . . " -- that's humans, correct?
[287]A Yes, that's right.
[288]Q ". . . it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture.
"I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. The chemistry and physics that we do know weigh heavily against it. If natural intelligence depends on physical organization, then the organization seems likely to have to be enormously complex and stable over reasonable periods of time. While simpler systems may perform the tasks that irreducibly complex systems perform a terrestrial life, they would likely perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so that the complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be achieved. Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity."
You don't absolutely rule it out, but you're not taking it very seriously, are you?
[289]A Well, I've said that quite a number of times. I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that I think in fact from -- from other perspectives, that the designer is in fact God. But if you turn back to page 699, there's a section entitled, "Is it possible that the designer is a natural entity?" And I won't quote from it, but I come to the conclusion there that sure it's possible that it is, but I do not -- I myself do not find it plausible.
|
Ooops... Behe said "supernatural". But even if we expunge the explicit word from the exchange, there is no doubt about what concept Behe was on about.
Defense expert Steve Fuller's rebuttal report also said "supernatural" right out loud:
| Quote |
[187]Q. Now, intelligent design is committed to introducing supernatural causation into the current science paradigm. Is that correct?
[188]A. That's not exclusively what it does, but it's certainly open to that.
[189]MR. WALCZAK: May I approach, Your Honor?
[190]THE COURT: You may.
[191]BY MR. WALCZAK:
[192]Q. I've given you a copy of your rebuttal expert report in this case.
[193]A. Yes.
[194]Q. If you could turn to Page 18 of your report, please.
[195]A. Yes.
[196]Q. And if you could look about halfway down that paragraph, there's a sentence that starts, Third. And I'm going to read it. It says, Third, ID's rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism does not make it unscientific. Did I read that correctly?
[197]A. Yes.
|
And DI Fellow Scott Minnich, what did he say under oath?
| Quote |
[336]Q. Would it be fair to say that intelligent design does not exclude the possibility of a supernatural cause as the designer?
[337]A. It does not exclude.
[338]Q. And, in fact, a designer could be a deity, correct?
[339]A. It could be.
[340]Q. And that would clearly be supernatural, right?
[341]A. Right, but that's -- that would be a philosophical addition to that science isn't going to take, isn't going to tell us. I think I made that clear.
[342]Q. But intelligent design holds open the possibility that the designer might be supernatural?
[343]A. Flip it around. If you're a true naturalist, then you can use your data to argue for atheism or materialism. So regardless of which side you fall on this question, there are metaphysical implications.
[344]Q. Intelligent design theory specifically holds open the possibility that the designer is supernatural, true or false?
[345]A. True.
|
So, we find that far from avoiding "supernatural", the IDC defense experts testified concerning that word specifically. Further, they specifically say IDC holds open the possibility of "supernatural" intervention. The correct way to demonstrate that "supernatural" is superfluous to IDC is not to find a synonym to replace it or eschew uttering it, but to repudiate the concept entirely: 'Intelligent design rejects the intervention in the material world of any supernatural entity; whatever design occurs is due to natural processes exclusively.' That won't happen, will it? So please get a backbone and stand up for the "supernatural" when it is clear that IDC is committed to getting a pass for the supernatural to be respected as part of science again.
Another disgusting bit of rhetorical legerdermain during Kitzmiller was the fiction that there was a distinction that made a difference between a teacher "mentioning" IDC and "teaching" IDC.
Like I said before, IDC offends those with respect for truth and honesty, who get repulsed by sordid rhetorical tricks, like "But I didn't say supernatural!"
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
