Intelligent Design is Real Science! (Part 3)

This article will address objections #4 and #5 on my list of the top 5 objections to ID by Intelligent Design Skeptics, concluding the series on the topic. Scroll to the bottom of <a href="http://thegenerallifeblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/intelligent-design-skeptics-and.html">this article to read all 5 objections.

#4 Intelligent Design's proponents have a moral bias which jeopardizes the scientific credibility of their work.

Answer:
First of all such proponents do have a moral bias. Second of all it in no way jepordizes their work, and all scientists of any other science have a moral bias anyway! Thirdly, the moral bias 'suffered' by ID advocates includes an exceptional commitment to honesty. The third point is the heart of the matter.

What is morality? Morality in the sense we are using it means what each individual thinks he or she ought to do. Of course those who endorse ID think they ought to endorse ID! Otherwise they would not do it! Does this mean that those who do not endorse ID have a moral bias in the opposite direction? On the surface this objection is stupid and redundant, yet there is another, implied layer.

The problem with the criticism is that it presumes that the choice to think "I should believe this ID stuff" (the 'moral bias') derives from outside of the science itself. It invalidates the science before even considering it! These critics are saying that these ID scientists have a worldview which forces them to override rationality and accept ID while rejecting other points of view. Of course this critique is silly for several reasons:

1) There is no single worldview held by ID advocates.

2) Although ID proponents include even <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/08/tom_gilson_reviews_bradley_mon024071.html">atheists and <a href="http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2011/03/creationism-is-biblical-intelligent-design-is-agnostic.html">agnostics, Christians are the leading constituency. In Christianity it is a moral obligation to speak truthfully! Therefore the bias would be towards accurate interpretation of the data, not away from it! Unless they are not abiding by the Christian morality, in which case there is no worldview bias to object to. In either case the critique fails.

3) The critique seeks to dodge the question of whether ID itself is accurate. If ID is accurate then it would seem reasonable to conclude that the truth of the science is the leading driver of acceptance of the science.

Furthermore all scientists suffer this 'problem' (which is really no problem at all.) There is no such thing as a truly objective scientist nor an amoral person. Every person has a morality they live by whether or not they admit it. If they are religious they carry a worldview. If they are irreligious they carry a worldview. If they are anything except dead they carry a worldview. If other sciences carry on with these people in them why can ID not? There is no good reason.

Have a Stephen Meyer vid on the subject:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwZlfNvZBRM&w=420&h=315]



#5 Intelligent Design is not legitimate because there are no, or at least no "good," peer reviewed scientific articles which support the theory.

Answer:
"In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publications continue to appear."

<a href="http://www.discovery.org/a/2640">According to:
Staff. "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)." Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated). Discovery Institute, 01 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 Jan. 2013.

However "good" is determined by the one who is speaking. I would admit that it is true that the mainstream hasn't jumped on the bandwagon yet, but really, when is it good to be mainstream? From here we could jump into a discussion of how the whole science journal system is all screwed up, but I will leave you with a video instead.

Have another Stephen Meyer vid on the subject:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnj_OtkUK3I&w=560&h=315]