News flash!: Dembski talks about rift between creationists and ID theorists

Bill Dembski details the long-brewing disagreement at Uncommon Descent. It's no secret that many have urged Dembski and others to clarify the key ID theorists' relationship with various creationist groups, and it seems he has. Open acknowledgement of differences (and, it seems to me, in some cases, breakdown of trust) makes a journalist's job easier.

UPDATED! Berkeley student intelligent design club: Written up in The Daily Californian

(The update is that it is NOT true that the club offers membership only to Christians. see the bottom of the post.)

Reporter Christina Bautista writes, regarding the Berkeley student intelligent design (IDEA) club,

As a part of a philosophical minority on campus, senior Tom Kim started up the UC Berkeley chapter of Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness this fall to provide a forum for like-minded students on campus to openly discuss their views without fear of insult.

Rather than researching the merits of intelligent design on their own, opponents of the movement often go along with political arguments against it and are easily swayed by media influence, Kim said.

"I think before people reject intelligent design, it should be examined by careful study where they consider the primary resources themselves rather than listen to what they are told by others. It should be considered with a fully informed mind that has thoroughly considered both sides," Kim said.

In general, it is quite a fair piece. One blooper, however: Bautista offers,

In 1991, Johnson published "Darwin on Trial," the first of his many books critiquing evolution. He is program advisor for the Center of Science and Culture in the Discovery Institute, a national conservative Christian think tank that lobbies for the inclusion of intelligent design in science curriculums.

Discovery Institute does not lobby for inclusion of intelligent design in science curricula:

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.

Indeed, it's no secret that Discovery is not very happy about the current Dover case, which was started by an unrelated group. But in "following the evidence wherever it leads" (the ID slogan), Disco may have opened a bigger can of worms than it can easily close. Still, that's not Disco's fault. And I say good luck to the student ID clubs.

(Note: It's been said that the Berkeley IDEA club offers membership only to Christians. I asked someone there, and they said no, that is not correct:

No, it is NOT true that we offer membership only to Christians. I think this was an issue with the UCSD club (I'm not sure though). I doubt our club will be a "membership-type" club. We're just going to hold events and welcome whoever decides to come (friend or critic). It's more like a publicity group than a club that students sign up for (There isn't anything to sign up for anyway, except for our emailing list. By the way, could you encourage students [or whomever] to sign up for our emailing list? We'll be sending out things like interviews with the ID leaders, so it would be interesting to a wide audience.).

Glad that's settled! ID is not a specifically Christian idea, after all. Ask former atheist philosopher Antony Flew)

Columnist roundup: Right on? Right out to lunch? Left behind? ...

Yesterday was the Canadian Thanksgiving holiday (we celebrate six weeks earlier than the Americans because winter comes earlier here), so I was closing up the garden instead of blogging. But I'm back now, and here are two interesting columnist takes on the ID controversy:

Weighing in from the left, Kurt Andersen opines in New York Magazine:

For several decades the philosophical ground has been softened up by the relativism and political correctness of the secular left, which succeeded in undermining the very idea of objective reality and of calling a spade a spade—so now, in the resulting marsh, fantasies like intelligent design (or Scientology or feng shui or 9/11 as a CIA plot) take root and spread like weeds. Liberals pioneered squishy-minded indulgence of their key constituencies' unfortunate new ideas, like reparations and criminalized hate speech; now it’s the right's turn.

Well, if it is really true that the secular left and liberals were promoting ideas they knew to be untrue or unjust in order to cater to their constituencies, they have indeed made a bargain with Mr. Pitchfork. It doesn't follow that everyone else has. Indeed, Andersen's longish rant against all things ID (and against religion) is itself a symptom of what is really wrong with the left today: self-pity, self-righteousness, and being completely out of touch. And you can't be both out of touch and in power for very long.

To listen to Andersen, he belongs to the tiny minority of the population that are "freaks" because they "believe wholeheartedly in science and the First Amendment." Of the ID people, he writes,

The ID people, Im afraid, remind me of Holocaust deniers. They’re not evil, but they are distorting and ignoring a century and a half of overwhelming empirical evidence to make it easier for people to believe in a historical miracle, just as Holocaust deniers distort and ignore half a century of overwhelming empirical evidence to make it easier for people to disbelieve a historical crime. Both are enemies of truth.

Andersen needs to get out there are read some works by ID theorists so that next time he writes about them, he has something substantial to say.

Meanwhile, in the Detroit News, Orthodox Jewish writer Lynn Meredith Schreiber argues, in the context of the intelligentdesign controversy, that society shouldn't be so uptight if teachers talk about God in school:

What has bothered me most ... is the way that my "open-minded" liberal peers write off anything that religion has to say. To be open-minded in America means open in one direction.

I grew up in public schools, where I learned that not everyone was like me. I sang Christmas carols but didn't yearn to convert. I endured weeks of sex education in fifth, sixth, eighth and ninth grades, but I wasn't having sex at 13. I knew who I was; learning that other people were different did not change that. If anything, it enriched my world view without chipping away at the traditions I hold so dear.

The point of public school, in fact, is learning to see different perspectives. We ended racial segregation in this country decades ago, but it looks like we are holding fast to intellectual segregation under the guise of "open-mindedness."

Would it be so bad if kids learned that evolution wasn't the only possibility for how this wonderful, complex world was created? Religious parents who send their kids to public schools already tolerate the teaching of evolution. Can't secular parents tolerate the reverse?

Schreiber has correctly identified the double standard that is really fuelling the intelligent design controversy at the popular level. Naturalism or materialism is effectively the religion of the school system - but not that of the taxpaying, child-producing public. That's why no court decision, no administrative crackdown, and no bloviating from boffins is going to settle it.

Quite apart from the ID controversy, trying assiduously to keep all talk of God and religion out of school tends to produce curricula that clash with what students actually see, hear, and know — always a bad idea, if you want them to take school seriously. That said, if teachers started to talk about God* in school, as they did when I was young, I doubt the boards could afford all the lawsuits from enraged secularists. No wonder private education is growing. It's a personal response to classic democratic gridlock.

*Back in the mid-Sixties in London and Toronto, Ontario, our teachers didn't preach, but they saw nothing wrong with talking about questions and controversies that we could hear our parents discussing. By doing so, the teachers often introduced new ideas and modeled more tolerant attitudes—not everyone was getting that at home, believe me, not by a long shot.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Blog policy note: This blog does not intentionally accept fully anonymous Comments, Comments with language unsuited to an intellectual discussion, URLs posted without comment, or defamatory statements. Defamatory statement: A statement that would be actionable if anyone took the author seriously. For example, someone may say "O’Leary is a crummy journalist"; that’s a matter of opinion and I don’t know who would care. But if they say, "O’Leary was convicted of grand theft auto in 1983," well that’s just plain false, and probably actionable, if the author were taken seriously. Also, due to time constraints, the moderator rarely responds to comments, and usually only about blog service issues.