“..it just provides a philosophical space for them to stand on between god had nothing to do with it to god had everything to do with it. ”

The operational term here is PHILOSOPHICAL, and that’s fine.
The question of god, or the supernatural in general, is by definition out of the realm of science. Science can not prove of disprove the role of god, because science addresses only natural phenomenon..
Science has proved that the mechnisms of evolution work. It can not even ask what supernatural forces, if any, inspire the mechanisms or whether evolution is a good thing or a bad thing.

Scinece observes and reports on natural phenomenon. Period.

Scinece and philosophy can co-esist peacefully in individuals and in society unless philosophy intrudes on science, or when science and philosophy come into conflict.

When philosophy wants to frame science in philosophical terms (ID in some of its forms) that’s an intrusion, and can be solved by a simple method of separation. Science on one plane, philosophy on anther, in separate classrooms and areas of thought.
When philosophy disputes science (creationism and the age of earth), that’s an irreconcilable conflict, and there is no middle ground.

Potential presidents like Huckabee need to be clear how they would resolve issues of the co-existence of philosophy and science. While allowing both into his thinking, does he understand the difference between the two?
It’s even more important to know how he would resrolve conflicts between philosophy and science.
Does philosophy trump science in decision making?

With religion as the centerpiece in so many campaigns, it would be important for all candidates to be as clear as what I require of Huckabee.

My puzzlement centers on the inability of many people to say: I don’t know”.

My sentiments exactly, doma. I can’t comment solidly on the physics and mathematics of the very early stages in the Universe, since my field is biology, but I am willing to extend a proffesional courtesy to the miriad of physicists and assume that they aren’t just making shit up. I assume that the models they have constructed are the best ones available at the moment to explain the present configuration of the universe and what we know about it’s past. Of course it doesn’t explain everything, and no one really knows where everything came from, but just because we don’t know, doesn’t mean we put a god there. A god simply sets the problem back one more step (where did god come from?) and gives us no additional understanding.

But at least the origin of the universe IS mysterious, and physics and mathematics are so difficult that even relatively accepted explanations are utterly opaque to the average person. Under those circumstances I guess I can understand using our elevated explanation instincts to put a god figure there. What really GETS me about ID is that it puts a god-figure where none is neccesary. Evolutionary theory gives a good, proven explanation, and it’s general mechanisms are very easy to understand. The tongue in cheek “Intelligent falling” movement could be another example. You take a natural phenomenon, already explained by science, and try to insist that “god did it”. ID is not merely “god guiding evolution” as many educated Catholics say as a compromise, ID is creationism in a cheap suit (how I wish I had thought of that line).

If there’s an uncexplained noise, it’t a ghost. or the devil knociking, or an angel calling.
I say, leave at what it is: an unexplained noise.

while waiting for a provable explanation, you can believe what you want, as far as I’m concerned.
Just keep your cndjecture out of science class.

Maybe I’m the exception, but I have no problem with living with a whole list of unknowables. I’ll move them into the belief column only when I see evidence.

Funny thing is many who believe in evolution are already there. There is no reason not to believe that there was meddling and that evolution from strings of organic material to what we have today are both part of the same picture. Not what I believe but I’ll never be able to prove that, and as long as people can acknowledge the second part I can live with folks belief in the first part.

And Jeff, I think you are getting science wrong. Science is simply our way of describing what we’ve seen happen and trying to figure out why it happened. We only have parts of the picture and we try to make educated guesses on it. Religion decides to not even look at the puzzle and tell you exactly what its about. The examples you have above would take a PHD in cosmology to understand and so of course to laymen they are going to sound rediculous. Frankly, the nuts and bolts of the real world are so complicated unless you have dedicated your life to them its kinda pointless to be concerned with it. Just enjoy the GPS, new materials, and pretty pictures from deep space we get as a result.

3) There is ID vs evolution debate (as listed briefly below). It is not extreme, but it’s there.

per here
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
“These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.”

4 people do not in fact constitute a controversy. Of course, being a minority does not make you illegitimate, lacking in any experimental data to back your claims does. Among the thousands upon thousands of scientists in the world, it doesn’t surprise me that at least a few hold ridiculous views. Actually the number seems rather low. Here’s some info on all these scientists:
Scott Minnich

Dean Kenyon

Michael Behe

William Dembski who I only mention because your quote from the religious advocacy group did, if you look at his bio I think it’s clear he shouldn’t be taken as anything close to objective on this subject, besides not having qualifications in biology.

Take special note of the fact that all of them avoid peer review when writing about ID. The near universal rejection of ID in the world of biology is not some biased conspiracy, it’s that ID is totally unscientific. It saddens me that real scientists would cling to views that so patently contradict their own training, but then again, they aren’t such isolated cases, when you think about it.

Well not everyone that says they will get on board with ID thinks the world was made 6000 years ago. I’m ok with someone simply willing to say hey, I don’t know for sure either way, but maybe there is a god who had a direct hand in our creation. Some supporters of ID are that way and I’m sure many of that 31% are.

Totally agree. And the polling data seems to indicate exactly that — that many people are uncomfortable discounting some form of ID completely. Which really makes sense given the religiosity of American society and the difficulty in reconciling the Old and New Testament with the scientific record.

Are you serious??

Anyone who believes in creationism (and ID *is* creationism) is someone who doesn’t understand, or refuses to understand, the very basis of scientific inquiry. Creationism has offered *no* testable hypotheses, *no* workable models for genetic selection and drfit, nor for mutational genetics. Creationists also think God will prevent anything really bad from happening to humanity, so they refuse to think seriously about issues like epidemiology, climate change, drug-resistant diseases – while at the same time opposing medical advances such as genetic-based therapies, cloning, and stem cell research.

Those are all important issues now, and will only become more important in the coming years.

I don’t expect a President to be an expert on evolution. But I damned well expect a President to understand and accept at least the rudiments of science methodology and philosophy, because otherwise s/he won’t be able to understand medicine or climatology, and so won’t be able to make any intelligent decisions on those issues.

Lynx,

My point was to say that ID is not a good measure of what a candidate believes about the nature of our universe. ID can be totally in keeping with a strict interpretation of the bibilical creation story, or it can be as nuanced as to how the scientists referenced below think. To my mind, saying “I believe in ID” provides nothing of value to the voter.

To your points:
1) there are different meanings to the word “theory” – exactly correct. This is a problem when you try to tell someone that ID is not a theory. It IS a theory, just not a scientific theory. So the question must be posed as “do you believe ID is a viable scientific theory” to be of any value.
2) young earth theory: I believe this is a better indicator of how one will allow a strict reading of the bible to guide their decisions. The Genesis story and the rest of the bible provide a solid number for the “beginning of time”. Someone who believes that the Bible is the exact verbatim “Word of God” worries me more than one who believes that the bible is a good book providing solid moral character. I disagree with that as well, but I would not change my vote solely on their belief in the latter.
3) There is ID vs evolution debate (as listed briefly below). It is not extreme, but it’s there.

per here
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
“These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.”
which references here
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html
, for example

In short, ID provides good political cover. It allows a politician to duck the question of their level of belief and satisfy both sides of the argument so that it becomes a non-issue. The 10,000-year-old question separates the wheat from the chaff, regardless of which you believe is the wheat and which is the chaff.

But I do have a problem with someone who thinks that the world is 6000 years old and our ancestors used to play tag with T-Rex before the flood came along and killed the dinosaurs that wouldn’t fit into Noah’s Ark. That person has a serious disconnect with reality and should not be running a country. I don’t know which camp Huck falls into but I doubt its the latter.

believe that the evolution-intelligent design – biblical creation spectrum is a little iffy to try to pin a candidate down. For one thing, they’re all theories – models, if you will.
I am more interested in how the candidates would respond to the question “Is the earth over 10,000 years old?”. According to a Gallup poll taken since the 80’s, somewhere between 52 – 56% of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, as the bible pins the age at somewhere between 5 and 8,000.
There are many scientists who believe in Intelligent Design and the debate on that side will continue to rage for decades and many Christians can allow for Intelligent Design within their biblical beliefs.

Three things here. There is a fundamental difference between a theory in regular language and a scientific theory. ID is not a theory in the way evolution is a theory. Evolution is a theory the way GRAVITATION is a theory. ID has zero scientific credentials. I see you are more concerned about young earth creationism. The fact is that the “young earth theory” is as credible as ID theory, that is, not at all. As for scientists that believe in intelligent design…I’d love to see the data on that nugget, most especially how many of them are biologists or biochemists. There is NO ID vs. evolution debate within the scientific realm. Insofar as there is debate about evolution, it is about it’s mechanisms and history, not about it’s existence, and ID only ever comes up at coffee breaks as an opportunity for some jokes.

No well educated person really believes that ID is relevant, scientifically.

I really don’t see how people can just lump Christians into a group to be dismissed as uneducated

These folks have had it drummed into their heads by religious leaders, who put faith ahead of science.

and indoctrinated.

So, you’ve just said that

One hundred million people in this country are

either too ‘biased against science’, ‘stupid’ or just ‘gullible’ to be on the same level as you. Sounds kind of biased to me.

Honestly, I find the anti-science bias very frightening-because surely Huckabee would be pressured in office to do more than state his opinion.