Dr. Brian C. Melton, Assistant Professor of History at Liberty University, writing at the web site Intellectual Conservative, Human Origins and a Side of Fries: Refuting a Popular Neo-Darwinian Position.
[A] A prime example of this appeared in Expelled, when Dawkins expressed a willingness to accept evidence of cellular intelligent design if it came from aliens, but not if it implied that God existed. While there is manifestly less proof to support the idea of extra-terrestrial life than a supernatural God, the general concept at least fits in with Dawkins’s naturalistic biases, and so he finds it acceptable. Evidence has nothing to do with it.
Brian, the word evidence meaningfully appears in your sentence [A] in two instances: (1) accept evidence if it came; and (2) not [accept] if it implied.
Evidence does have something to do with the difference between its coming from or coming about, and, its pointing toward some implication. But how to research the mechanics of the designer’s biological agency?
The ID crowd argues furiously in favor of this latter implication, that a designer is implied by inferences drawn from the current evidence. Yet, they understand that their understanding as much is impossible to demonstrate within any naturalistic verification methodology, (eg. science,) given the requisite supernatural causation and its mechanics or miraculous (pre?) mechanics.
So, marching off in the direction of “creation science” and post-science, why is it the proponents of creationism get so exercised by science when ID’s verification can’t even exist within the scientific framework?
Melton wants it both ways, on one hand his attitude is given away by the mention of “naturalistic bias,” and, on the other hand, he wants more face time for ID! As is almost always the case, even considering the Liberty University source, Melton trots off the edge to the deep end of the yet-to-be-filled pool.
Regarding whether there could ever be enough evidence behind ID to qualify it as legitimate science, we must remember an aspect of the scientific method itself. In order for a question to be genuinely interrogative (i.e. “Is there sufficient evidence to prove ID as a viable hypothesis?”), it must be open-ended to some extent. In other words, we must be able to answer it honestly. To simply presume the answer ahead of time and then use this “answer” to evaluate the evidence is not only counterproductive, it is intellectually dishonest. In this way, NDs conveniently overlook various limitations in their own theory and application: How does experimental science prove or disprove a specific creation method for the universe, given that the laws that govern science only came into existence after the initial creation moment? Why are they not willing to allow that other intelligent people should be permitted to hold to a position that critiques Neo-Darwinism from a profoundly different perspective, when NDs can question anything they like? Where are the millions of transitional fossils we’ve been told to expect for over a century?
To simply presume the answer ahead of time and then use this “answer” to evaluate the evidence is not only counterproductive, it is intellectually dishonest.
The problem is that the ID crowd hasn’t presented any evidence to be evaluated per the hypothesis that there exists in nature a mechanism via which a designer intervenes in biological generativity. In fact, the ID crowd hasn’t spent anytime supposing what researchable hypotheses might be worthwhile given the intuition that such an intervention may have happened, happens.
(All the work of Dembski, Behe, and others is about the purported ramification of this mechanism. Obviously working backward by way of inference to the unsupported premise defeats the research as a formal scientific exercise.)
How does experimental science prove or disprove a specific creation method for the universe, given that the laws that govern science only came into existence after the initial creation moment?
Let’s forgive Melton his pile up of category errors, (drifting illogically as he does between the ontic creation method, governing science, and the ontic coming into existence of laws.) Melton asks a how question but doesn’t suggest any answers. Hard core young earth creationists have asked a similar question in more brutally ignorant terms: How can we know anything about origins when no human was around to observe the origins. In effect they assert: how can we know anything about the evidence when nobody was around to observe the evidence being made?
But neo-Darwinism hasn’t disproved the existence of an intelligent designer, just as ID researchers haven’t proved the designer’s existence. I give Melton some credit for almost tasking science with the job of investigating origins going back to the moment prior to the universe’s initial development, but, nevertheless, here he wants to relieve science of any opportunity to prove or disprove–literally–the first things of nature, while not daring to introduce his obvious interrogatory assumption: how could anyone prove or disprove anything at all about a specific creation method?
It needs to be said for the umpteenth time: until ID begins to actually do biological science divorced from its wish to altogether end biological science, whining about polemicists such as Dawkins and whining about biologists finding intelligent design to be laughable, while all the while publishing no papers that challenge neo-Darwinian evidence and research on scientific terms alone, is a waste of everybody’s time. I admit my reply here wastes my own time!
Where are the millions of transitional fossils?
Ahhh, the hallmark of the young earth creationist and of the person who can’t be troubled to answer his own question. One needs one transitional fossil to blow up the hypothesis that due to Godly design, there cannot be anything–ever–transitional.