(And one of the very few who grasp the key issues.)
For those interested in the discussion developing here at “Steve Fuller in ID & Philosophy News”, Steve Fuller, agnostic sociologist at Warwick University (Britain), is the author of Dissent over Descent.
Here he argues that “ Darwinism is the astrology of science” and here he discusses the “Darwinian wars.” ID, he says, is no more “antiscientific” than Protestant sects were atheistic.
He also asks, why shouldn’t religious commitments influence one’s science?
Here he reviews Francis Collins. Here he looks at theistic evolution. And here’s his response to Sahotra Sarkar. And here are his thoughts on the banishment of Michael Reiss.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
One Reply to “A brief introduction to Steve Fuller, agnostic sociologist of the ID community”
Though this is not meant to be apologetics for a person’s beliefs, here is a link to an article published on the beliefs of scientists and public figures, which may shed more light on Steve Fuller’s ‘faith’ position among others.
“I am a product of a Jesuit education (before university), and my formal academic training is in history and philosophy of science, which is the field credited with showing the tight links between science and religion. While I have never been an avid churchgoer, I am strongly moved by the liberatory vision of Jesus promoted by left-wing Christians.
I take seriously the idea that we are created in the image and likeness of God, and that we may come to exercise the sorts of powers that are associated with divinity. In this regard, I am sympathetic to the dissenting, anticlerical schools of Christianity – especially Unitarianism, deism and transcendentalism, idealism and humanism. I believe that it is this general position that has informed the progressive scientific spirit.”
Calling him an ‘agnostic sociologist’ thus might not be an accurate claim by News, though it does appear he is not ‘Catholic’. Fuller is certainly not an ‘unknowing’ sociologist, but rather an intriguing (if not also controversial) leader in the field. That he is pushing the limits of ‘intelligent design’ and has investigated the concept’s theological roots should not make him an outlaw among the IDM’s rank-and-file who would promote ID as ‘science-only’. Fuller shows why this strategy is outdated and unnecessary in the 21st century.