Steve Fuller in ID & Philosophy News

_{June 29, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

UD regular Gregory asked me to pass this on.

A collection of quotations on ‘intelligent design’ by American-British philosopher and sociologist of science and invited Dover Trial witness Steve Fuller from the past 7 years has not long ago been published here: http://social-epistemology.com/2012/05/06/gregory-sandstrom-in-steve-fullers-words-intelligent-design/ If Uncommon Descent blog would wish to discuss these things I (Gregory) will be available on a limited basis to respond and will contact Dr. Fuller with any specifically poignant, relevant or challenging questions to him. Fuller is one of the founders of ID theory and has written and spoken in recent years on science, philosophy and religion dialogue, in addition to his new work on trans-humanism (Humanity 2.0), which is sympathetic to ID in a way that will invite much thought and discussion for years to come.

Also of interest: Steve Fuller, Ed Feser, and Colin McGinn recent had a kind of three-way shootout in this journal, which is bound to be of interest to certain ID regulars.

I’ve got to say, while I’m far more sympathetic to classical theism and Thomism (and thus Fuller and I wouldn’t see eye to eye), the mere mention of Fuller relating transhumanism and ID is interesting to me, since really, I think that interaction is sorely neglected despite being of-interest. Anyway, read and comment away, folks.

[See also: A brief introduction to Steve Fuller, agnostic sociologist of the ID community ]

Comments

LYO: Re:
My initial point was that you (and Fuller) are making the mistake of thinking of ID as an honest enterprise, but it can’t be honest about itself without disappearing in a puff of smoke.
That's a gratuitous smear, and you just put it before someone who takes such VERY seriously. You are being rude, disrespectful and falsely accusatory. You owe the blog an apology and a retraction. As a first step, I suggest you work your way through the summary on ID here, and the weak argument correctives here. (You have already willfully ignored a correction above, on the material contribution of the Christian milieu to the rise of modern science, having dismissed it in a fit of assertive ignorance.) If you cannot substantiate your assertions in the face of these -- and I am morally certain that you cannot, as I have done my homework -- then you owe an apology, bigtime. Otherwise, you are simply being a willful slanderer. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PST}

What about Greek, Roman and Islamic ideas? Did they have nothing to do with the birth of modern Science?lastyearon_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PST}

The problem comes in when he (Fuller) proposes that ID inject theological assumptions into its scientific methodology. If you begin your analysis with the presupposition of design, then any inference to design is redundant, meaningless, and tautological. What function do facts and data serve if the presupposition has already defined the conclusion? (The only valid assumptions in this process are reason’s rules). Take away the legitimacy of the design inference and ID science (indeed all science) is done for. I know that Gregory does not understand this vital fact and I am beginning to suspect that Steve Fuller is confused by it as well. I do wish someone would press Fuller on this point. I raised the issue when he visited this site, but he did not respond.StephenB_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PST}

--lastyearon: "He’s wrong about Christianity giving birth to science because Christians think that the world is intelligible. Even if that were true, he’s wrong that it matters anymore." Christianity gave birth to "modern" science. That is a historical fact and a point about which Fuller is as right as he can be. Just start reading the works of Rodney Stark and Thomas Woods and go from there.StephenB_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PST}

Gregory,
Do people at UD then think Meyer will eventually come around to acknowledge Fuller’s macro-historical view of “the deep theological roots of intelligent design,” as highlighted above and in the link?
No. Not as long as... a) he works for a political organization that aims to get ID taught in biology class, and b) the U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of religion My initial point was that you (and Fuller) are making the mistake of thinking of ID as an honest enterprise, but it can't be honest about itself without disappearing in a puff of smoke.lastyearon_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PST}

--Gregory: "Jon Garvey’s #69 changed the tone of the thread. Notice that cantor, StephenB and other Fuller-doubters have not returned to confess their sins? Stephen C." What sins would that be? My main argument against Fuller remains the same and my concerns, revisited in the second paragraph @77, have not been answered. Would you care to have a go at it? --"Do people at UD then think Meyer will eventually come around to acknowledge Fuller’s macro-historical view of “the deep theological roots of intelligent design,” as highlighted above and in the link?" We already do acknowledge our intellectual roots, both philosophical and theological. A summary can be found in our FAQ, which, of course, you have not read.StephenB_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PST}

LYO: Read here and the onward linked. You are wrong, and wrong because you ignore both sound history and the impact of worldviews and the milieus they strongly shape. As to the impacts of evolutionary materialism becoming dominant among the avant garde under whatever colours, cf here. Yes, 2350 years ago. KFkairosfocus_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PST}

Gregory, Why would I need to be a theist in order to be "genuinely interested in Fuller’s claims of the 'deep theological roots' of ID or even of modern science generally." I read the transcripts or Fuller's testimony at Kitzmiller. I've read sections of his book Disent over Descent. I've read his back and forth with Norman Levitt... http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Fuller.cfm I think he certainly has an interesting take on the Science Religion debate. But he's wrong in many ways. He's wrong about Christianity giving birth to science because Christians think that the world is intelligible. Even if that were true, he's wrong that it matters anymore.lastyearon_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PST}

Jon, There is no problem with linking theological arguments with scientific evidence in order to make sense of the big picture. Rationality demands it. Indeed, that’s precisely what Dembski did when he compared ID to the Logos theory of the Gospel. That’s what ID cosmologists did when they associated Big Bang cosmology with God's command, “Let there be light.” That is what I understand Meyer to be talking about in the context of your report. Truth is unified, which means that scientific truth will confirm Scriptural truth, and vice versa. Why would Meyer not be excited about the prospect of integrating theology with science--we all would. Many of us do. The problem comes in when he (or anyone) proposes that ID inject theological assumptions into its scientific methodology. If you begin your analysis with the presupposition of design, then any inference to design is redundant, meaningless, and tautological. What function do facts and data serve if the presupposition has already defined the conclusion? (The only valid assumptions in this process are reason's rules). Take away the legitimacy of the design inference and ID science (indeed all science) is done for. I know that Gregory does not understand this vital fact and I am beginning to suspect that Steve Fuller is confused by it as well. I do wish someone would press Fuller on this point. I raised the issue when he visited this site, but he did not respond.StephenB_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PST}

lastyearon, I will, perhaps, begin to take your arguments against ID seriously when you actually address the claims of ID instead a strawman. It really is the case that if one's opponent feels he must attack a strawman, then he probably has no answer for one's actual argument. Thank you for demonstrating that you have no answer for ID's actual arguments.Barry Arrington_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PST}

A simple mistake, of course. But in this case you made it twice, lastyearon. The name is Stephen C. Meyer. Not MeyerS. Please get it straight. Again, this is a thread about Steve Fuller's views of ID. You came into the thread in #53, capitalising Intelligent Design and speaking clumsily later of "the religious nature of ID." You didn't even know that nullasalus, who posted this thread on my behalf, is not a "proponent of ID." You just slew away carelessly. Now you speak of 'motivations' when 'presuppositions' and 'precommittments' are more relevant and to the point. lastyearon, a 'theory' is not a 'natural' thing that arises by biological or physiological processes. It is a human-made thing, which is a very different ball game. Please stop trying to help or to piggy-back on legitimate points and perspectives already made in this thread about Steve Fuller's views of ID. You can play-wrestle with 'Timaeus' in the sand-box next door if he'll entertain you. This space is for serious discussion of Fuller's views, not yours seeking elevation. Jon Garvey's #69 changed the tone of the thread. Notice that cantor, StephenB and other Fuller-doubters have not returned to confess their sins? Stephen C. Meyer is a tough figure for them to contradict, after all, and if “Fuller calls for ID to embrace theology – Steve Meyer agrees,” that's a tough call to speak against. Jon Garvey's word is good here and if that's what Meyer said, it is significant. Do people at UD then think Meyer will eventually come around to acknowledge Fuller's macro-historical view of "the deep theological roots of intelligent design," as highlighted above and in the link?Gregory_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PST}

LYO, you specifically asked for an example of an irreducibly complex system in biology. Did you ask that question as an excercise in rhetoric? Or is it your preference to not be confronted with any "content" that doesn't fit easily into the narrative?Upright BiPed_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PST}

Timaeus, I agree that the motivations of the scientists developing a theory are irrelevant. What matters is the evidence. However you are drawing an incorrect parallel between the Ricard Dawkins' of the world & Evolution on the one hand, and the founders of ID on the other. Evolution has scientific content that can be evaluated without regards to the (supposedly atheist) motivations of its founders/proponents. That's why you have religious people that accept evolution (and even work in the field). ID on the other hand has no content other than "certain things were designed by a Designer". Who/What designer? Which things? When? How? ID can't say. Where's the content? What other than religious motivations is there to evaluate? As far as finding a passage in a technical ID paper. First of all, Behe, Dembski, Meyers etc. wouldn't be that careless as to make explicit reference to a religious commitment in a technical paper, because they know who they're talking to. But that's besides the point. All ID arguments are inherently religious, in that they posit a supernatural 'designer' as an alternative to the prevailing natural explanation. Dembski: Things that exhibit a certain level of complexity couldn't have arisen naturally. Behe: Evolution couldn't have produced certain systems (i.e. they couldn't have happened naturally). Meyers: The origin of the gene can't be explained by chemistry (i.e. must've happened supernaturally).lastyearon_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PST}

Fuller/Meyer meeting of minds: a few more thoughts on the Cambridge conference, including Fuller's contribution, here.Jon Garvey_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PST}

Hi Gregory... First point is the context of the "image of God" idea in Fuller's presentation - as the foundational principle of science rather than specifically of ID - maybe a less threatening emphasis to IDers. Interestingly one of the few pure theologians present was saying how modern theology has largely ditched "image of God" in terms of rational nature and so on, though he himself still affirms it. My thought would be that one could convey the same idea in terms of Trinitarian Logos theology, but historically "image of God" is the means that was used in science, and Fuller suggested that theologians may have partly changed their views in interaction with (surrender to?) materialist science anyway - that's certainly the case in TE circles. Second - yes, Fuller gave a potted "testimony" starting with his involvement in the Dover trial, which the chairmen mentioned in his introduction. He pointed out that being asked to be expert witness there concentrated his mind on the issues, and confronted with the arguments he has become intellectually convinced of theism. Gist: "I am one of those people persuaded by the rational arguments for God". He may have actually used the term "rational theist" as well, and if I remember hinted that many believers would consider that insufficient for real faith. So one might regard him, still, as agnostic wrt the Gospel of Christ, but I think he'd say he's still a work in progress - that, of course, has little bearing on his contribution to ID as his grasp of Christian, carefully corrected to "Abrahamic") doctrine is good. The video will correct my recollection in due course, but Meyer's enthusiasm was obvious to all.Jon Garvey_{July 15, 2012
July
07
Jul
15
15
2012
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PST}

Thanks for the news, Jon. Lucky guy to have attended! Let me just clip a few portions of text from your blog on the Cambridge event related to this thread, including the reaction of Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of the Centre for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, ID co-founder and leader to the presentation by Dr. Steve Fuller, Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at Warwick University. "the scientific enterprise began on the Christian (or Abrahamic-faith) assumption that, because mankind is created in God’s image, we are equipped to “think his thoughts after him” - not only by apprehending the rationality of nature, but by recognising the self-same approach to design that humans exercise, in their limited fashion. We detect design, then, because there is a genuine continuity between the Creator’s design and our own. ... And that’s why the assertion that we are created in God’s image is central to ID, re-affirming as it does a foundational principle that once motivated science but has been forgotten." "[Stephen C. Meyer] was...tremedously excited at the prospect [suggested by Fuller] of bringing theology, in these terms, into ID’s research agenda." Note also the term 'rational theist' Jon uses to describe Steve Fuller, rather than 'agnostic' as used by News and nullasalus here to describe him. Did Fuller use this label himself at Cambridge or is that your own interpretation of his position, Jon?Gregory_{July 15, 2012
July
07
Jul
15
15
2012
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PST}

Hi all I just thought I'd interrupt the argument to confirm Gregory's mention of the Cambridge conference at which both Steves (Fuller and Meyer) were speaking yesterday. I drove back from it late last night and believe there was some very significant comment relating to the discussion here. I've posted an article about it on my blog . The strapline is really this: "Fuller calls for ID to embrace theology - Steve Meyer agrees." I feel it was a significant moment, and have outlined it as well as I can - videos of the conference presentations are due to appear on YouTube at some stage, I understand, so you can then check out if I got it right.Jon Garvey_{July 15, 2012
July
07
Jul
15
15
2012
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PST}

Gregory (re 67): The deliberate slight, and more important, the conscious evasion of my intellectual challenge regarding the thought of Fuller, are duly noted. Readers here will draw their own conclusions, as I've drawn mine, about your level of understanding of Fuller's position. Cantor (re 41): Thanks for trying. And by the way, I have no idea where Gregory's off-the-wall remarks against you (44) came from. Perhaps he got you confused with me. If so, I apologize for unintentionally causing heat to come your way.Timaeus_{July 14, 2012
July
07
Jul
14
14
2012
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PST}

Coming back to your #52 nullasalus... You wrote: "Where is this 'meaningful and personally significant' stuff coming from? Who decided this was part of ID’s 'mission'? / Whatever the case, please stop asking if we’re all ready to hear your option, and just spell it out. What is this great, cutting-edge, academic approved, scholar endorsed, wild and amazing and wonderful key?" Let me confirm that it is both ready and also not "part of ID's mission." It is an alternative. I have just sent the final version to you by e-mail for posting here at UD. This is a response to your request to "just spell it out." It is also an answer to what Dr. John West could not have imagined when I wrestled with him with 'one hand behind my back' in Seattle and when I asked Dr. William Dembski why he refused to include theology along with science and philosophy in a cooperative dialogue about ID. If you are willing to post it, nullasalus, after having already privately seen it and given constructive feedback to it, the key that I am proposing since 2001 and have hinted at on ASA, Telic Thoughts, ASA, BioLogos, CiS, The Skeptical Zone, Random Arrow, and UD will finally be revealed. I am encouraged that this message is #67 instead of #66.Gregory_{July 14, 2012
July
07
Jul
14
14
2012
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PST}

Gregory: I know you probably won't answer me, but I'm addressing this to you anyway, since you issued to me, without naming me -- I was clearly referenced obliquely in your side-remark about lastyearon -- a challenge; and, since it's a challenge I have already met, you therefore owe me an answer, whether you acknowledge that conversational obligation or not. I quote: "If lastyearon would engage directly with quotations from Steve Fuller’s work on ID, which is the main topic of this thread, they would be welcome. Otherwise, he and his opponent are just seen as distractions to what this thread is about." It takes a lot of nerve for a man who refuses to supply quotations from the technical works of ID authors when he makes statements about their thought to demand quotations from others, but be that as it may, here is my comment: I did not employ "quotations" from Steve Fuller's work, but I did discuss directly what Steve Fuller has to say on a couple of points, and I represented his views accurately. If pressed, I could come up with passages from his books and blogs which support my reading, but I shouldn't need to, as my characterization of his claims is based on things he has said many times. My remarks on the misfit between Fuller's thought and your own were given in 37 above, 12 days ago. In case you possibly missed that post -- which I doubt -- it was highlighted for you again by cantor in 41 above, 11 days ago. I doubt you missed that one, because you snarled at cantor in 44 above, so obviously you are paying attention to cantor's posts. So I infer that you read my response, but ducked it. And my response was about Fuller's thought and your own, and therefore was directly on the topic of this thread, hardly a "distraction." So, Gregory, how about it? How can you claim that Fuller supports your position, when he says things -- I've specified what they are -- which go directly against your position? I will take silence on your part as a concession that I am right, i.e., that you and Fuller are in fact in disagreement on the points specified. On the other hand, if I am wrong, if you can show me that I have misinterpreted Fuller's ideas then I am willing to be corrected. Just point out the passages from Fuller that show where I have gone wrong.Timaeus_{July 14, 2012
July
07
Jul
14
14
2012
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PST}

Correction: Steve Fuller is not at Oxford today, but rather at Cambridge University, along with Stephen C. Meyer of the DI, i.e. the latter's alma mater. Information about the event can be found here: http://www.tyndalephilosophy.org.uk/Events/24500%20Design%20in%20Nature.pdf But surely the poster 'cantor' is making a more 'front-line contribution' than this, though we'll likely never know who he/she actually is? It's a 'secret,' just like who the 'designer/Designer' in IDM-ID is! ;) Let's add to the repertoire of Steve Fuller's contribution to ID with this TEDxWarwick talk: Humanity 2.0 - A 21st Century View of 'The Two Cultures' ProblemGregory_{July 14, 2012
July
07
Jul
14
14
2012
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PST}

@ nullasalus #50 and #52 "ID proponents have the hope of eventually replacing those academics" - nullasalus Yes, this is exactly what I meant in #49 (4th paragraph) speaking about "the generation of neo-Darwinists to die out." We're perhaps more on the same page than it may appear on the surface. "Really, anthropology, sociology and the like is off most people’s radars when it comes to discussing science. They’re closer to the English majors. Harsh, maybe even wrong of them to do so, but I think it’s true." - nullasalus Like I've said before, anthropology and sociology are 'science' in my view and in the view of the most significant philosophers of science of the 20th century. Paul de Vries and his followers are partly to thank/blame for the "only-natural-science-counts-as-science" movement that has swept N. American scholarship. It's a sad state of affairs, which I'm glad you see maybe as 'harsh' in its own myopic way. Worth noting, it seems, is the recent book by Gauger, Axe and Luskin which does involve anthropology. Of course, their interest is mainly physical anthropology and palaeontology, rather than linguistic or cultural anthropology (according to Anglo-American distinctions) or even philosophical anthropology. The latter imo is the most important feature of the 'controversy' we're engaged in discussing here, but very few people display competency or knowledge from having studied this topic. Theological anthropology, well, that's another iron in the fire, isn't it? Of course, that could not possibly (!) have anything to do with 'intelligent design' according to current IDM-ID conceptualisations, which view ID as predominantly a naturalistic field (i.e. a field for natural sciences to decide and dictate meanings to others). "Who says ID proponents want to ‘get further’ than that, with ID?" - nullasalus Maybe they don't wish to 'get further' than naturalistic theories of ID. Perhaps you're right and that's their main goal; to seek respectability among natural scientists by following tried and tested natural scientific methods. But Stephen Meyer's claims of a new scientific revolution and changing the definition of (natural) science seem to speak against that. So is there a neo-naturalistic or a post-naturalistic desire involved in focusing ID's attention 'mainly on biology,' but not on 'design' which has already been studied rigorously by many decorated scholars? Your "hooray for the internet," nullasalus, is precisely what Steve Fuller is exploring with the concept of Prot-Science, which nobody here has taken up the links to in the OP to constructively or critically discuss. I find his explanation of the freedom to investigate science by non-scientists via the internet a fascinating discussion. Though of course it is not limited to only discussing ID, evolution and creation. I'm quite sure this would be a topic of interest for you, who challenges the legitimacy of scholars and academics on the production, creation and possession of knowledge. "They [IDM-IDers] aren’t looking for scientific demonstrations of God’s existence in what they argue." - nullasalus Yes, I confirmed this with you above. They assume God's existence, it is their 'presupposition,' their 'pre-committment,' their 'background context' for positing ID in the first place. Hopefully you understand this now. But materialists should not try to take away their belief that they are personally made in imago Dei, otherwise there would be a problem. It may not be a 'natural scientific' problem, but a problem nevertheless it will be, in the collaborative and integrative discussion of science, philosophy and religion/theology. To your game: "ID requires a belief in the Imago Dei according to you. Fuller, however, is an agnostic according to my understanding. Ergo, Fuller rejects the Imago Dei. Ergo, Fuller is not an ID proponent. / Sound about right?" Well, nullasalus, in this case "according to your understanding" is not enough. I've met Fuller and asked him specifically on this topic. Fuller does not "reject the Imago Dei," as you (and News) presume he does. Calling him 'agnostic' is merely a convenient cover ("my enemy's enemy is my friend," but let me try to demean him by saying he is 'unknowing' anyway!) for a man whose views of ID, evolution and creation are more sophisticated, well-educated and insightful than pretty much anyone in the IDM. (He's at Oxford University today, by the way, for a conference on "Design in Nature," where Stephen C. Meyer will also attend and speak; an event advertised by IDM-ID.) This below is copied from the other thread which pejoratively introduced Steve Fuller as "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 several scientists and public figures - titled "I'm a believer" - which may help 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’ (at least, as it is 'supposed to be'). Fuller shows why this strategy is outdated and unnecessary in the 21st century.
In regard the last part of #52, nullasalus, let me come back to that very shortly. Just for now I'd like to add that "you and Gregory" statements attempting to link me with 'lastyearon' are futile and wrong, but predictable. As I understand it, lastyearon is neither a theist nor therefore genuinely interested in Fuller's claims of the "deep theological roots" of ID or even of modern science generally. If lastyearon would engage directly with quotations from Steve Fuller's work on ID, which is the main topic of this thread, they would be welcome. Otherwise, he and his opponent are just seen as distractions to what this thread is about.Gregory_{July 14, 2012
July
07
Jul
14
14
2012
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PST}

lastyearon: First, if the ID people put out bad science, then it's bad science. But one determines that in the arena of science, not by looking up the church affiliations of ID proponents. Second, if ID could be shown to be the lousiest science in existence, it wouldn't prove a thing about the religious nature of ID. It would prove that ID is lousy science. I think you are confusing the religious nature of a theory with a religious motivation for believing that a theory is true. These are two quite different things. Dawkins has a strong religious motivation for believing that neo-Darwinism is true; that doesn't make neo-Darwinism an essentially religious theory. All that it means is that Dawkins is likely to be less critical of neo-Darwinism than he might otherwise be. Similarly, the ID people might be less critical of their own arguments than they would be if they were atheists. But that doesn't make ID a religious account of nature, any more than Dawkins's atheism makes neo-Darwinism a religious account of nature. You and Gregory could show me the religious nature of ID by pointing me to passages in the technical writings of ID proponents where the argument depends on a religious premise. If you can't do this, then you have to reduce your claim to the claim that ID people have religious motivations. That claim is true, but trivial.Timaeus_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PST}

Can you give me an example of an irreducibly complex biochemical system?
LYO, I can give you one. In fact I think I already have, but I could be wrong. In any case, if you want one, I can give it. No problem.Upright BiPed_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PST}

As for the rest, nullasalus has covered it. ID people try to answer all these questions in their writings. Whether they have answered them successfully is another matter, but it is not as if they haven’t addressed them.
Just for the sake of argument, Timaeus, what if they haven't answered them successfully? In fact, what if actual scientists working in the relevant fields have shown them to be profoundly wrong over and over, and yet they continue to make the same false claims? What if, upon closer inspection, all their arguments are nothing more than personal incredulity dressed up in scientific jargon? I'm not asking if you agree with all that. But just for the sake of argument, would that be another matter, or would that go straight to the heart of the matter over the religious nature of ID?lastyearon_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PST}

lastyearon: I've never argued that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and I think it's an argument that ID people should never use. I agree with scordova on that. It may be that certain forms of evolution, in particular the neo-Darwinian, require that information be accumulated in a way that violates some "law of information entropy" that is somewhat analogous to the second law of thermodynamics, but even if that is the case, the term "second law of thermodynamics" is misleading and shouldn't be used. Thermodynamics, as such, has nothing to do with it. It just makes ID look bad when ID proponents use the term, as if they don't know basic definitions one learns in high school physics -- especially given that the same misuse of terms occurs in the writings of the creationists from whom ID people are trying to distinguish themselves. As for the rest, nullasalus has covered it. ID people try to answer all these questions in their writings. Whether they have answered them successfully is another matter, but it is not as if they haven't addressed them. The problem with Gregory is that he is constantly intimating that ID people's religious views influence their particular scientific conclusions, but has never produced a single example of where this has happened. He never points to, say, page 248 of Signature in the Cell, and says, "Meyer argues X about the RNA world here because his thinking is slanted by his doctrine of creation." But possibly I am misunderstanding Gregory, as he doesn't always write that clearly. He may mean nothing more than: "Everyone's thought is influenced by religious presuppositions, so the religious beliefs of ID people, in a general way, shape how they look at nature." Well, if that's all he means, I grant it, but then it's such a vague, general statement that it has no cash value regarding particular points. To make it into usable currency in an argument, it has to be applied to something concrete. And Gregory has never made any concrete application. My sense is that the effect of religious belief on the procedure of the ID people is that it makes them open to design explanations in a way that Dawkins, Coyne, etc. are not, but does not dictate particular lines of argument. I've seen no theological principles or Biblical passages adduced by Behe in his books, for example. And there's no point in the argument of No Free Lunch by Dembski where Dembski supplies a missing logical link by appealing to Genesis or St. Augustine. That's why I just can't figure out what Gregory is talking about. But I don't suppose I ever will know what he means, as he no longer answers any of my questions. I asked a bunch above, specifically about Steve Fuller, and Gregory won't respond. That's his choice, but if he doesn't, then I think my argument -- that his view is quite different from Steve Fuller's -- is vindicated by the very fact that Gregory has declined the opportunity to oppose it.Timaeus_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PST}

Oh, and duress, not daress. Pardon that earlier typo. Also, most, not all, ID critics. Some, like Dawkins or Stenger, argue essentially that ID really is science.nullasalus_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PST}

lastyearon,
Agreed. As long as ID makes no testable predictions, it and its negative are not science.
It's not just about "testable predictions" - you can make plenty of predictions, even testable ones, in these cases. But yes, I think neither ID nor its inverse are science. Unfortunately, many ID critics - really, most of them - only criticize one of those two. As for your response to Timaeus...
Maybe you can tell me how to measure CSI, FSCI, or Specified Complexity. Can you give me an example of an irreducibly complex biochemical system?
Are you kidding? ID proponents always do this.
Can you tell me how much Junk DNA we should observe if DNA was intelligently designed.
The general ID rallying cry is that the junk DNA designation was way too fast and way too large, that it wouldn't have been so under a design perspective, and that we should expect far more usefulness in said 'junk DNA'. As for specific levels, if any ID proponents have mentioned that, I forget. ID critics should answer this too. Last I checked Larry Moran was making the case that standard evolutionists are all over the map on this issue, some thinking next to no junk will be used, others believing a large part will be used, according to some poll he held.
How about if a gene duplication is or is not an increase in information?
Meyer gets into this. You may not find his answer satisfactory (or maybe you will), but there's one ref.
Can you define for me what the limit of micro-evolution is?
Trying to find that out was the point of Behe's Edge of Evolution. This should actually be a question for ID critics as well.
Can you explain why evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
That's not a universal ID claim. See the previous discussion on this site with arguments from two ID proponents in opposition to each other.nullasalus_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PST}

Nallasalus,
I’m not an ID proponent, what with my view that ID isn’t science. Not unless, at least, “no-ID” is science. And most ID critics are willing to, if under daress, admit that no-ID is not.
Agreed. As long as ID makes no testable predictions, it and its negative are not science.lastyearon_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PST}

Timaeus, I agree with you that the motivations of the founders of ID wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference IF there was any scientific validity or substance to ID. Maybe you can tell me how to measure CSI, FSCI, or Specified Complexity. Can you give me an example of an irreducibly complex biochemical system? Can you tell me how much Junk DNA we should observe if DNA was intelligently designed. How about if a gene duplication is or is not an increase in information? Can you define for me what the limit of micro-evolution is? Can you explain why evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?lastyearon_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply