I took a look at their site already. I couldn't find anything useful after a quick look. I'll look harder.
EDIT:
I got an answer of sorts. I have not read it yet since it's 3 am and I'd like to go to sleep. I just quickly checked my email and this forum. I'll read it tomorrow since it's lengthy.
~~~~~~~~begin email~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Alex,
Greetings and thanks for your e-mail and your questions. I’ll briefly try to respond to your questions:
You wrote: “I've been wondering what is the goal of Intelligent Design? Shouldn't these questions be answered, if Intelligent Design is true:”
I reply: The goal of intelligent design is to take a strictly scientific approach to studying nature to determine if natural objects contain the informational properties which indicate they were designed. Because intelligent design takes a scientific approach, it does not try to address religious questions about the identity or nature of the designer. As William Dembski writes:
"Intelligent design is modest in what it attributes to the designing intelligence responsible for the specified complexity in nature. For instance, design theorists recognize that the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 42)
Similarly Michael Behe writes:
"The most important difference [between modern ID and Paley] is that [ID] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo. (Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165, emphasis added.)
Similarly the textbook Of Pandas and People stated:
"If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist. This is no different, really, than if we discovered life did result from natural causes. We still would not know, from science, if the natural cause was all that was involved, or if the ultimate explanation was beyond nature, and using the natural cause." (Of Pandas and People, a pro-ID textbook, pg. 7, emphasis added)
What you are dealing with here are epistemological limits of a scientific theory. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, or how we know what we know and involves investigating when a person is justified in holding a particular belief. Many of the objections and questions your e-mail relate to the specific claim that intelligent design theory makes, or supposedly ought to make. Implicit in many of the questions seems to be the belief that intelligent design is silent on certain issues when it shouldn't be.
Science is a way of knowing and science studies nature using the “scientific method.” There may be some things that are not amenable to study using the scientific method. A scientific theory makes claims about the natural world based upon observations of the natural world and employing empirically-based mechanisms to explain those observations. A scientific theory cannot make claims which go beyond things that are possible to observe and cannot employ mechanisms which in principle could not be empirically-justified.
Every theory therefore has empirical bounds and limitations. In other words, a theory can only explain those things which are possible to observe and explain using empirically-based mechanisms and the tools and technology available to us. Theories simply are not capable of explaining things beyond their empirical bounds and limitations.
Intelligent design is a scientific theory that also has a particular scope. All scientific theories have limits. ID cannot be faulted if its scope is limited; nor can it be ignored or dismissed on answers it provides to questions within its scope simply because it fails to address a question we would prefer to lie within its scope, but doesn't. Asking intelligent design to answer questions outside of its scope is to make a category fallacy. It is like asking a bachelor to whom he is married, when a bachelor is by definition unmarried. To fault intelligent design theory for not explaining enough, when its empirically-based scope limits what it can explain, is to fall trap to the same mistake.
But what happens when questions are posed to the intelligent design theorist such as, "Who is the designer?" or "Can we communicate with the designer?" The question must be asked, "What is the explanatory scope of intelligent design theory?" or more specifically, "How much can intelligent design theory explain based upon observations which are possible from the natural world?"
Fundamental to intelligent design theory is the fact that the ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When observing intelligent agents, Intelligent design theorists find that when intelligent agents act, they tend to produce high levels of "complex-specified information." In our experience, complex-specified information is always the product of the action of intelligent design. "Complex specified information" is basically a scenario, or a circumstance, which is unlikely to occur (making it complex/high information), and conforms to a specific pattern (making it specified). Both language and machines are good examples of things with high levels of complex-specified information. However, when we look at biology, similar complex machine-like entities exist, which must be exactly as they are, or they cease to function properly. They are specified, because they conform to a particular pattern of arrangement and organization which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts.
The high level of complex-specified information in these biological machines makes them irreducibly complex: they have many interacting parts (making them complex) which must be exactly as they are in order for the machine to work properly (making them specified), and any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function, and make the machine stop working, thus making them irreducibly complex (they could not be any less complex and still function).
It is possible to recognize that a computer is designed by knowing certain features about it (like that it is complex and carries information) and know that it had a designer. However, simply because can infer to the best explanation that the computer was designed does not necessarily mean that one can identify the designer or communicate with him or her.
In this regard, the following questions are outside the empirical scope of intelligent design:
“1. What is the name of the designer or designers?”
“2. How do we communicate with this designer or designers, if they're still alive?”
Regarding this one:
“4. How did the designer actually design life? If this is unknown, what can be done by humans to determine how the designer designed life, and how the designer actually built it?”
..there may be some things that can be known, but generally it is not a question that is necessary to answer if we can detect design. In this regard, I refer you to this page for a good answer:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1175
You also asked:
“3. What do we do with Intelligent Design in schools? In Biology class, should teachers simply say, "A designer did this," and then continue with normal cirricula? Specifically, what changes in science classes?”
I reply: Regarding ID in education, Discovery Institute opposes mandating ID in public schools. However, if ID were taught, then a teacher could discuss how intelligent design theorists detect design in nature, and then discuss the informational properties (i.e. irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and other experimental data) showing that various natural objects were designed. There is SO MUCH TO STUDY within ID that is incredible.
By the way, I took over a dozen courses covering evolutionary biology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and I was often simply told “evolution did this” with no further explanation given. In my experience, ID provides us with no fewer details than does Darwinian evolution about the history of life.
Thanks and I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Casey Luskin
~~~~~~~end email~~~~~~~~~
Don't threadjack.
