Intelligent Design and Casey Luskin
Casey Luskin is an old friend of mine from college. He is currently a law student at USD, and he is also the co-founder and co-president of the IDEA Center, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory.
Casey is going to be on the Powerpoint public radio program on NPR on Sunday at 6 pm Pacific discussing intelligent design and evolution. If you’re at all interested in intelligent design and/or evolution, I recommend you listen in (I provide a link below).
But I also want to ask you to pray for Casey. He has put himself in the undesirable position of standing in the gap between science and religion and trying to find common ground where the two can talk - reasonably - with each other. In so doing, he has come under great persecution - especially from the scientific community (I thought they were supposed to be open-minded?). If you check some of the Google results on his name, you can see some of the persecution he’s been under. Knowing Casey as a friend, it really hurt me to read some of the things that have been said about him.
So pray for Casey. Not that he “wins”, but that he is able to love his enemies in the face of this persecution, and even to take joy in it.
And while you’re at it, listen in Sunday at 6 (Pacific). I don’t think it’ll be playing in San Diego, but you can listen online from http://wclk.com/listen_live.htm.
Hi Adam,
This is a great topic. I tried to listen to Casey’s spot but I think the radio station only provides live feeds, no archives. I did check out some of his websites and also the things that people are saying about him. I really respect what he’s doing and I wish that people he tries to talk to about this would at least have the courtesy to disagree politely with his statements, and not resort to personal attacks.
There is so much bad blood around this whole issue, and unfortunately, I have to say that both sides are responsible. I don’t know as much about the ID movement as I do the way the church, in general, has handled discussions in the past. However, I think that we’ve lost a lot of ground by implying that evolution is a complete fabrication, and even worse, part of some conspiracy. I know that churches like ours and, I imagine, the ID movement, have moved beyond this. I just think that this history is one of the reasons for their knee-jerk opposition to their (the ID movement’s) message on behalf of the scientific community.
Of course, the scientific community is also at fault for the polarization and lack of respectful dialogue between both sides.The way that those in the scientific community have taken their supposedly scientific observations to a level of belief and dogma by announcing that evolution proves that God doesn’t exist, is irresponsible and completely unscientific.
For me, as a believer who is willing to overlook the mistakes of the past on both sides and really try to look at this issue objectively, I think that there is plenty of room for honest inquiry. I have decided that I am not going to try to second-guess the motives of the scientific community when they say that they observe natural selection at work in the way life has developed. At the same time, of course, I believe that there is more to the story, something behind the mechanism that mainstream science has not seen yet. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, and He has made it very clear to me that even if evolution is the mechanism that He used to bring us to where we are, it changes nothing about who He is and who we are. It actually fills me with awe.
I know that this won’t make me very popular with a lot of people in the church (although I hope it doesn’t make me too unpopular :-) ). Maybe it helps to point out that there are many other believers, much more qualified than myself (Ralph Winter - Director of US Center for World Missions, for one) that feel the same way - meaning that as Christians, we can’t tell scientists that they are being dishonest or are blind if we ever expect them to listen to us. There is no conflict between the Bible and what we observe in the natural world. Any apparent contradiction is simply a lack of understanding on our part - both believers and those dedicated to purely naturalistc explanations. The Vatican has also issued a statement saying that they see no conflict between evolution and the Bible (which may help or completely invalidate everything I’m saying, depending on people’s opinion on the Catholic church).
One final word on why I think most scientists aren’t in favor of the ID movement. It’s not necessarily that they (ID) are trying to demonstrate evidence of a designer. It’s that (according to them - if this is not true, I’d love to see some examples) the ID movement is not submitting it’s findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It may seem pointless, but this is the only means the scientific community has for validating new findings. When researchers, from any group, are not willing to do this, regardless of the expected outcome, they can pretty much count on not getting any cred from the scientific community. I think that if they made efforts to validate their findings in these journals, it would be a step in the right direction.
I hope all this doesn’t sound like I disagree with what Casey is doing. Anything that we can do to show ourselves as humble and intelligent proclaimers of God’s work is very good. I just wanted to share some of my thoughts and maybe offer a different perspective.
Sorry for the long comment.
Ray
I was going to put this in another post, but I think I’ll just leave it in this thread for now (this’ll be our “science and religion thread” ;-).
I got to listen to the show (I thought Casey did a great job with what little time and focus he was given, btw) and even read some of the debates online. I think that the fundamental issue between intelligent design (ID) and evolution is that ID proponents are pushing ID as science and the scientists are saying that it’s not.
I’ve seen two main arguments why ID is not science, according to the scientific community. The first is that it is based on religion, and is therefore not science. This is a big topic that I won’t totally deal with here, but I think a lot of the problem is with worldview. Scientists generally believe that they are 100% objective and that they leave their personal beliefs and religions behind when they make their observations (one of the evolutionists on the show said this very thing). Of course that’s completely impossible. One’s beliefs will significantly affect the initial hypothesis (which, by definition, is an assumption, even if it is based on previous evidence) which will color everything that comes after it. So where the hypothesis came from doesn’t really matter if it adequately explains the data that has come before it. Intelligent design does that just as much as evolution does, from what I’ve seen.
There is a lot more I could say about why religion and science are not inherently opposed, but I think it would require a whole other blog ;-)
The second main argument why ID is not science, the scientific community says, is because there is no data for it that has been accepted in scientific circles (journals, conferences, etc). The main problem with this is that the scientists are effectively saying, “Intelligent design is not science because you don’t have any accepted data to back it up. And we won’t accept that data you have because it supports intelligent design, which is not science.” It’s a logical circle, and the scientists are safely inside the circle where they don’t have to answer to the data. Or as Casey put it, “It’s just blowing smoke.”
I’m not a scientist. I don’t know what the data is, but everywhere that I have seen ID proponents say “We have data” I have seen the scientists reply “That’s not data, that’s intelligent design.” It’s like saying, “THAT’S not a knife, THIS is a spoon!”
Personally, the science of where we came from does not matter to me at this point in my life, but the apparent closed-mindedness of the scientific community worries me. God did not used to be excluded from science. Looking at history it seems as though science has gone from saying “Nature is evidence of God” to “Nature might be able to explained without God” to “Nature shows that there is no evidence for a god” to “The lack of evidence for a god proves that there is no god.” The facts haven’t changed, just the interpretation.
Yep, that’s pretty much the way I see it. That’s one of the things that’s probably hardest for the ID people to do, is submit their work for peer review, because of course the majority of scientists won’t even look at it.
Absolutely many scientists let their own personal views get in the way.
I’m not a scientist either and frankly I don’t want to get caught up in the data because there is always going to be someone who knows more than me. I don’t really care about the data, I just care about the principle. The principle, to me, is that there is not an inherent conflict between science and religion, and that if evolution is the means that God used to bring us to this point, fine. I don’t think we should stop asking questions either.
I think, ultimately, if we ever want the scientists to listen to us (on a personal level, where relationships happen), I think we have to be willing to drop our outright rejection of evolutionary theory. It may turn out to be wrong, or incomplete, but mainstream science will probably never let themselves see that unless they don’t perceive a threat to their worldview. In a way, by allowing them to “have evolution”, we can take away any “rational” resistance to the gospel by making all of their defenses up to this point a non-issue, if that makes any sense.
This is clearly a conflict of worldviews, which (and in good keeping with scientific values; see below), both explains and predicts. It explains why both sides are so vehement and vitriolic in their approaches to this issue. And it predicts that agreement is extremely unlikely.
On another note, a good point raised by a pro-evolutionist I read today was that ID doesn’t have a lot of predictive power. This is an example of the worldview clash. For many pro-Creationists (I deliberately use that term to denote a different group of people from ID-proponents; there is likely some overlap), this is not important. For those who work in Science, this is very important. If a theory can’t predict future phenomena, what good is it?
I tend to stay away from this issue in general. It’s too specialized a field for me to be able to contribute anything.
-Matt
It has pretty much been proved beyond a doubt in the Dover case that the ID movement is a movement founded by creationists to get around the laws excluding the teaching of religion in public schools. The Discovery Institute is the force behind the ID movement and they are funded and run by very religious people, dedicated to the “overthrow” of materialism. In other words they want to change the very definition of science to include non-material phenomena as real. This is antithesis of science and is what scares scientists so much. Behe actually admitted under oath that under his new definition of science astrology would be seen as a science. Furthermore the Discovery Institute and intelligent design is a really just a public relations campaign. They actually have no scientific program. Rather than do science they attack existing scientists’ work, or try to show that other scientists’ work proves their hypotheses. Their main activities, rather than performing science, is to write books, which need no peer review, and to advise school boards and religious groups on how to spread the word of ID. They actually seek to legislate ID into the schools rather than follow the traditional methods of science. There have been many hypotheses that were scoffed at yet with further gathering of facts and empirical data have come to be scientific theories and made their way into text books…the Big Bang, continental drift, even evolution. This is another thing that worries scientists. They consider this a dumbing down of American science.
How can you portray Casey Luskin as a persecuted victim? He is one of the most dishonest people you’ll ever meet. Yes by all means Google his name, and then read what has been written about him. I’m a Christian who believes in the Creation yet I do not support the dishonest tactics Casey and his employer (The Discovery Institute) use. I am sick of people like Casey Luskin trying to wedge their religious belief in my children’s science class. I am sick of people like Casey Luskin trying to put God in a test tube. I prefer to teach my children about God, Christ and the Creation and do not want some stranger trying to do it in science class, and let’s not kid ourselves, intelligent design is a religious belief disguised as science, one I that I do not support. Casey Luskin is a persecuted victim? Please, spare me the nonsense.
Miles
Wow, I don’t know where I’m getting hits from after 3.5 years (seriously, guys, look at the date for relevance), but if you’re going to attack Casey’s character, Miles, then I’m going to respond. I know the man. I have known him for years, and he’s one of the most honest people I know and a good friend. To call him dishonest is, frankly, ridiculous. I shouldn’t even bother responding, but then you’d probably go on thinking you’re right.
You probably will anyway. But this is exactly the sort of garbage that makes the science vs. religion debate (or creation vs. evolution, take your pick) so worthless to have. You’re not arguing facts. You’re not even trying to have a reasonable discussion. You’re attacking someone’s character when you don’t even know him, and you’re not even doing it in a civil way. Honestly, you’re just being mean.
Seriously, unless you’re still in junior high, how can there be an excuse for this sort of behavior anymore?