So There is Nothing Religious about Intelligent Design (Part XII)

I have to wonder, if there is nothing religious about ID, why this:

"On a new episode of ID the Future, author J. Warner Wallace talks with Center for Science & Culture research coordinator Brian Miller about the role that Wallace’s work as a cold-case detective played in his first analyzing the evidence for intelligent design. 

. . . 

That evidence played a key role in Wallace’s own spiritual and intellectual journey. He says he was attracted to the story and person of Jesus. However, in the course of exploring religion questions, he asked himself whether science and reason allowed for any view inconsistent with philosophical materialism." ("A Cold-Case Detective Weighs the Evidence for Intelligent Design")

Aside from the idea of the DI even has a 'research coordinator', a question we sort of already addressed in "The Discovery Institute has Opened an ID Center in Brazil! Quite Possibly the Perfect Retirement Job!", I underlined a couple of points to illustrate things that make it harder and harder to separate Intelligent Design from its religious roots.

No, I haven't listened to the podcast.  You might think I am remiss is not doing so, but when the description is so obviously theistic, do you really need to put yourself through it?  I don't believe so.  Like the DI's pseudo-scientific writings -- where they use lots of scientific-sounding language, I would expect this pseudo-detective to use lots of investigatory-sounding words and phrases, but at the heart of it is his personal spiritual journey -- which makes it all suspect from the start.

Now you might think I am overstepping things by calling him a pseudo-detective, after all, he is a detective, or at least he was one at one time.  However, is he acting as a detective when using his 'spiritual journey' as a basis for this conversation?

This is similar to a question we've dealt with before, "Whether or not a Creationist can be a Scientist?"  We've answered it simply that Creationists can be scientists -- but only if they are able to set-aside their creationist-beliefs and look at the world in a more objective fashion.  Those that cannot will forever be known as 'Creation Scientists' and their impact on real science will be marginal.

Those who are acting as scientists, especially those recognized for their work as scientists are those who are produced scientific work that is not based on their beliefs, but on supportable, falsifiable, and explainable science.  Little kennie ham himself once identified such an individual a few years back.  Of course kennie focused on his beliefs -- but never seemed to find a tie between his beliefs and his work.  We talked about him in "Documentary vs Documentary-Style -- aka Reality vs Fiction":

"A Renowned Creation Scientist, Inventor of MRI".  No one has ever pointed to any part of the theories behind magnetic imaging and said "and here is where God did such-and-such." or "here is the part that is based on creationism".  The celebrated work was not based on any religious belief, but on actual science -- supportable, falsifiable, and explainable science.  

So I am sure this detective has had success as a detective, but I am equally sure his religious beliefs were not mentioned in any report when he actually closed a case, much in the way Raymond Damadian's beliefs were not part of his MRI work. Therein lies the difference between a scientist, or a detective, who is a Creationist and a 'Creation Scientist/Detective'.  So when I refer to him as a pseudo-detective, that's the point I am trying to make.  He's no longer acting as a 'detective' when he starts using his religion, but as a pseudo-detective.  But back to my main point.

If there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design, then such a discussion wouldn't be based on his spiritual journey.  But since you cannot intellectually separate the two, listening to this podcast would be a waste of time. This is nothing more than another believer couching his belief in terms that try and mislead the listener into thinking they are some sort of objective investigator, when you already know from the start that it isn't true.

In my opinion anyone who can separate the two is lying and doing their best to mislead people.  If you disagree, just look at the words and 'tactics of mistake' the DI has been using for years.  They try and try to divest themselves of Creationism and Religion, not because they don't believe in it, but because they know it places a huge legal roadblock in worming their way into the classroom.  Look at their marketing efforts and who they keep targeting.  Are they doing the scientific legwork to gain actual acceptance within the scientific community? No, they are marketing to religious groups for support and politicians for legal assistance in pushing their religious agenda.

Of course you can read all their denials, and then they post something like this which makes the ties that bind them tighter and tighter to Creationism.    They whine and bitch about the metaphorical noose that spelled such disaster for them in Dover, and then tighten it even more with posts like this.

Can Creation Scientists do Real Science?

You might be surprised by my answer, which is 'Yes!', but with certain qualifications.  This is something I have said before, and believe it to be true.  Just because you have a particular religious tradition does not disqualify you from being a 'real' scientist.  It's not your belief set that may disqualify you, but the application of that belief set.

OK, let me clear that up a bit.  In a recent post little kennie ham whined that his pet stable of creation scientists weren't being taken seriously as scientists "Can Creation Scientists Do Real Science?"  Little kennie quoted one of his pet 'scientists, Danny Faulkner, who brought up the fact that Issac Newton was a theist.  Danny said:

"The person who literally wrote the book on physics and astronomy, and who invented calculus, was Sir Isaac Newton. And he wrote ten times more on theology and the Bible than he did on math and science. So if you are going to take that approach, you just kicked one of the greatest scientists of all time to the curb because he can’t be a scientist."

First of all, there is a subtle lie in Danny's comment.  Where is it said that someone who believes in any religious tradition cannot be a scientist?  It isn't!  That's a straw-man that folks like Danny and little kennie like to parade out regularly.  If you think it is carved in stone somewhere, tell me something . . . where is Newton's theology in his discoveries in physics and astronomy?  Even looking at calculus, where is the theology?  It isn't there, is it?  Newton is a prime example of a theist who refused to be blinded by his religious beliefs.

Like I said, this topic comes up often, just a couple of years ago little kennie also had this post, "A Renowned Creation Scientist, Inventor of MRI".  Basically he was bragging about a Creationist who does science.  I had a question for kennie then, and it's the same question as now:  "Just where in the scientific work of Raymond Damadian (he's the Creation Scientist kennie was bragging about)  do you see where God enters the process?"

I know little kennie misses my point, but hopefully you don't.  Whether you believe in one religious tradition or another doesn't matter when it comes to science.  Because at no point in actual scientific work do you use the concept of a deity.  Newton didn't, Damadian didn't either.  Whatever religious beliefs any scientist has does not become part of their scientific work.  If you disagree, show me where in the actual science does God do a part?  You cannot find what isn't there!

I know, little kennie will misdirect and say things like 'God's handiwork is present when two chemicals combine, or when gravity does this, or when fires are lit -- it's all part of God's Plan.  That's what is called a 'Rationalization', and while kennie will never admit it, the reality is that is nothing more than a rationalization.  Little kennie, and the like, want so desperately to see, to invoke, and pay homage to their deity that their rationalization is an absolute requirement.  They claim many things, but when you look at the science, you don't see the application of their religious beliefs.

When I see the handle of a 'creation scientist', I am not think about Newton, but someone much more like Answers in Genesis (AiG)'s Faulkner or the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)'s Jason Lisle. While they have the same education as others in their field, they filter everything through their religious beliefs.  Creation scientists, like them, share certain traits that people like Newton and Damadian did not.  Folks like Faulkner and Lisle start their work with their religion, filter everything through their religion, and form their results based on their religion.  That is not the hallmark of a scientist!

The first thing is how much science gets dismissed by them.  For example they start with the presumption that the Earth is 6,000 years old, so when faced with any evidence it's older, they deny, prevaricate, and rationalize.  They 'know' the age of the Earth, so nothing can interfere with that belief.  This is what allows them to say things like "it's the same evidence, just different results" when faced with radiometric dating which concludes that the Earth is not 6,000 years old.

When faced with the speed of light, creation scientists come to the conclusion that the speed of light isn't the same everywhere or throughout history.  In fact one quote from Lisle:

"creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically" (You Tube:  Jason Lisle)

Regardless of the fact there is no evidence to support their conclusions, they glue themselves to the rationalizations because of their religious beliefs. When pushed they fall onto things like the above quote.  That is the hallmark of a 'Creation Scientist', not the fact they have a theistic belief set, but that belief set contaminates their efforts at science.

It doesn't matter what discoveries are made, they twist and rationalize an explanation to either force it into their religious view, or they ignore it completely.  When faced with criticisms, they pull the conspiracy card out, claiming they are being discriminated against, that schools refuse to recognize their 'scientific work' in awarding degrees and research funding.  However . . .

Both Danny Faulkner and Jason Lisle are also examples that contradict such an assertion.  Here's a quote from Lisle's bio from the RationalWiki:

"Although some creationists claim that a creationist would be unable to earn an advanced degree from a secular university because of institutional prejudice against their beliefs, Lisle's academic progress was not hindered by his creationism. While members of his Master's thesis and Ph.D.dissertation committees might have been aware of his young Earth beliefs, their evaluation of his work was based on his research and not his personal beliefs." (RationalWiki: Jason Lisle)

Faulkner has degrees from Clemson and Indiana University and even taught for a while at the University of South Carolina.  That is proof that it's not personal beliefs that cause problems being a scientist, but it's the application of those beliefs that can cause you to be labeled a 'Creation Scientist' and, as a result, not be taken seriously as a scientist. 

Even working in a  place like AiG or ICR you can continue to perform actual science, but  . . . when you submit to actual scientific journals, if your work is steeped in your religious beliefs, it will more than likely be dismissed . . . as it should be.  Besides, imagine if Danny Faulkner tried to publish something that contradicted his boss' religious belief set!  Don't forget who owns AiG, little kennie ham, and don't forget you have to sign a Statement of Faith that basically tells you to suspend rational thought and buy into the belief set or go home.  I don't believe that Danny will ever make a discovery that will contradict his beliefs, he won't allow himself that much freedom of thought.   Remember what happened to Wild Bill Dembski when his bosses, at the time, thought he was contradicting the Bible?  He was an actual casualty of these cultural wars, not an imagined one.

Going back to my original question, where in all of Newton's science and mathematical work do you find preconceptions formed by his religious beliefs?  You don't!  When a scientist starts with a set of per-conditions that causes them to reject evidence, they tend to not be scientists for much longer.  To paraphrase Dembski, 'Theological Correctness' is much more highly regarded than science in such Evangelical circles like AiG and ICR.