Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID in intellectual collapse?


From mathematician Jason Rosenhouse:

Speaking of the intellectual collapse of ID, its other major blog, the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views” also seems to have fallen on hard times. How else to explain the presence of this article, by Steve Laufmann? … More.

Rosenhouse must mean this article, we think: “Foundational Question: Is Intelligent Design Science?”

What is the other “major blog” (us?). What would an intellectual collapse look like? We can barely keep up with all the news now, and we all work for a living elsewhere. But that isn’t an “intellectual” collapse.

See also: String theorist thinks universe might be designed. Kaku and Rosenhouse should talk maybe.

It was intriguing he chose to keep making such pronouncements right when it is becoming clear that the smart money is staying tuned. News
Rosenhouse is something of an expert on the subject of collapse. Just look at those photos of his confusing and sad combover. lpadron
Yes, Jason Rosenhouse declares that ID has collapsed every few months. If ID has collapsed wouldn't one (perhaps two) announcements of the collapse suffice? Is the monotonous repetition of the announcement of ID's collapse a sign of the opposite? At any rate, this is the same Jason Rosenhouse who boldly declares that it is not impossible that a pile of bricks could account for the mental image of an imaginary unicorn.
We certainly do not know a priori that piles of bricks do not form images of imaginary unicorns, and it is not logically impossible that they do.
With statements like that, I think we can put everything he says in the "grain of salt" category. Barry Arrington
KF #3, excellent response! Origenes
F/N: What a real intellectual collapse looks like, via atheistical Philosopher Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist's Guide to Reality:
FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates. The physical facts fix all the facts. The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live. [W W Norton, 2011]
Oblivious to the implications of loosing grand delusion on the inner life of mindedness. Utterly failing to see the import for the assumed programming of the brain under such circumstances, as in GIGO on steroids. Reductio ad absurdum. Far better, were to start from the requisite that we can only have credible inner thought if we are responsibly and rationally significantly free. KF kairosfocus
If iD is in collapse then this math guy's blog should also collapse since it seems to greatly exist to fight ID!! A line of reasoning. What do math people know about science? what have they accomplished relative to real science? Anyways. I don't read this blog but only this article. He seems to be saying thats its not about boundaries of what science is but whats reasonable about conclusions. Oh brother. give it up already. its just about investigating the evidence of nature and drawing conclusions. YEC/ID do this. Its all about confronting wrong conclusions and making ones own. by the way. ID/YEC is not banned in schools because its not science. Its because its claimed to be religious after it being science is dismissed. Watch the math here. Robert Byers

Leave a Reply