Pursuing Truth About Nature -- But Only So Far

A warning about this interview right here: 

If you want to persist in the idea that Intelligent Design is just warmed-over creationism, or that its adherents are dolts, or that "real science" makes a mockery of it,  or that it doesn't pose a fascinating scientific question -- don't listen to it with an open mind.

I've had a chance to talk with William Dembski a few times, and I've also, on several occasions, debated/interviewed reps with the people behind this magazine, which represents the opposing view.  I'm sympathetic to both, strangely, because I think Dembski is brilliant, and I'm every bit as skeptical -- moreso, actually -- than the people behind Skeptic.

(I should note that personally, I am -- putting it gently -- not a fan of the creationist leaders whom Dembski mentions here who are attacking his views.  I think they've done, and continue to do, much damage.  That's another post.)

Whatever you think of the debate, I.D. is hardly the argument of yokels, despite op-ed writers' attempts to press I.D. into their usual self-affirming narratives.  And Sherer himself says I.D. has a place in science classroom discussion.

The debate may not change your mind.  After all, if you've defined science to include design that might be from aliens from outer space, but to exclude design by a Designer -- well, the question is certainly decided, then and there.  Case closed.

By this definition, of course, you've also effectively said, "If the truth about nature is otherwise -- outside my definition of science -- then I will not scientifically learn from this truth about nature, however beneficial it might be to our understanding."  -- an unseemly sort of thing, I would think, for one with an open mind. 

Dembski rightly notes that I.D. principles are already widely-used in pursuits like forensics, archaeology, and the SETI program.  His worthy opponent, Michael Sherer, notes that he, Shermer, would entertain the idea -- and scientists do, frustrated to account for design, here -- that aliens from outer space may have designed life on earth.  But, he says, we cannot consider the possibility of this different kind of extra-terrestrial intelligence. 

And we mustn't allow that possibility -- in the interest of an open mind, you understand.

Again, Chesterton:  Odd that one is said to be closed-minded for allowing that miracles are possible, while the "free-thinker" has decided, without proof, that they are not.