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

lastyearon,
I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here, but you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think you’re going to get an knowledgeable ID proponent like nullasalus to agree that Intelligent Design is inspired by religion.
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.
You and Fuller (and I) understand that the modern ID movement wouldn’t exist without the religious motivations of its founders.
Neither would an extremely large chunk of science throughout history. Yet somehow, we're able to separate Newton's theological opinions from his theories, just as we're able to separate Darwin's theological opinions from his theories. Aren't we? ID as outlined by Behe, Dembski and company is silent on theological questions. "So you'd admit that the designer could be an alien, then?" would normally be the 'gotcha'. Unfortunately, since Dembski at least, and Behe no doubt, explicitly say "Yes" to this, the gotcha doesn't work.nullasalus_{July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

lastyearon: You and Gregory and Fuller are hardly possessed of some deep insight for knowing that the contemporary group of ID people started out with Christian motivations. I'm sure that nullasalus would grant that freely, as would I. But that's a trivial observation, merely sociological. It has nothing to do with the validity of the arguments made by ID proponents. And this is the big difference between sociologists and psychologists, on the one hand, and philosophers and scientists, on the other. Sociologists and psychologists think they have explained why people hold the views that they do when they are able to impute a motive; philosophers and scientists assume that people hold the views that they do based on those people's stated reasons. The one approach is condescending and distrustful; the other is egalitarian and respectful. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference what the motivations of the ID people are, if the goal is to assess the strength of their arguments. Of course, if one's goal is to politically undermine ID without caring in the slightest whether what it argues is true or false, then an end-run around the arguments by means of motive-mongering is the way to go. The only way of truly assessing the strength of the ID position is to carefully read and assess the arguments the ID people have made in their theoretical books and articles. Whatever personal religious beliefs various ID people may have, those beliefs neither add nor subtract anything from the arguments. The fact that ID is Christian-friendly doesn't make it any more likely to be true; but neither does it make it any more likely to be false. If people would focus on the arguments rather than on the motivations, the public discussion could be much more constructive. But of course, when you are a neo-Darwinian, holding onto a dying theory -- and here I'm playing the "motive card" to show you what it feels like to be on the receiving end -- it's in your interest to distract the public's attention from the lousiness of your arguments by trying to convince the public that ID people are planning a theocratic takeover of the nation. Oh, you don't like me playing the motive card? You think I should not talk about the Darwinians' hypothetical ulterior motives, and stick only to their scientific arguments? Fine; then you and Gregory do the same in the case of ID. Read the books and counter the arguments. Or read the books and concede that ID people have a point or two. But stop the motive-mongering.Timaeus_{July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Gregory, I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here, but you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think you’re going to get an knowledgeable ID proponent like nullasalus to agree that Intelligent Design is inspired by religion. You and Fuller (and I) understand that the modern ID movement wouldn’t exist without the religious motivations of its founders. However neither would it exist without the legal necessity to deny that fact.lastyearon_{July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

This conversation is getting too long, after too much time. So I'll get to the heart of it.
If all ‘intelligent design theory’ is (‘supposed to be’) meant to do is to study ‘empirical data of nature,’ then it will get no further than the naturalistic theories it opposes (i.e. one side of its mission).
Who says ID proponents want to 'get further' than that, with ID? They want design and intelligence to be considered viable possibilities for scientific inference. They think they're justified, on scientific grounds, in making these inferences. They aren't looking for scientific demonstrations of God's existence in what they argue.
But there is a possibility for something more meaningful and personally significant than that (i.e. the other side of its mission). And that is what, after a decade of work on evolution, creation and intelligent design, I am now proposing a KEY for. Are you ready to consider that option, nullasalus and others at UD?
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?nullasalus_{July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

(cont'd) “you don’t seem able to accept that ID is not some kind of hyper-calvinist doctrine, or even a theological doctrine at all.” – nullasalus I accept that ID is “not some kind of hyper-calvinist doctrine” and likewise that it is not a theological doctrine. I won’t write that in CAPITAL letters to emphasise this for you; it is nevertheless what I believe. But ID is not (and cannot be!) *completely independent* from any and all theology (including Calvinism, Wesleyan, Reformed, etc.). That’s a subtle difference, nullasalus that I trust you can appreciate. A sociology of science rule/law of scientific practise: We all bring our presuppositions and pre-commitments to the table when we ‘do science’; the founders of ID were/are no different. “as if that somehow requires that ID therefore be a theistic, even Christian, view.” / “You, on the other hand, want ID to be reformed…to be a theistic project.” – nullasalus I have stated my views on this multiple times; it’s about time you understood them. ID is *not* a particularly Christian view. Nevertheless, without the existent (and personally demonstrable) theology of ID leaders, ID theory would not have been founded in the first place. Please say otherwise if you believe otherwise, nullasalus, or grant a point in this conversation that is significant. Those who ‘founded’ ID theory as such, *all* personally believed human beings were/are created in imago Dei. Yes or no? Thus, ID is really not ‘supposed to be’ a ‘science-only’ theory (Dembski confirms this repeatedly, or see Flannery above). It is the obvious ‘implicationism’ of ID that is responsible for why it is controversial. That’s just the reality of the situation, not Fuller’s or my imposition of it. In your view, nullasalus, is IDM-ID ‘supposed to be’ a ‘science-only’ theory or not? Please do not hold back on an answer to this simply stated question unless you’re really not sure of your own understanding of IDM-ID. To me, the answer is a clear ‘No.’ “You want to turn ID into a Christian theory.” – nullasalus Again, ‘No,’ that is not true at all. Please read more carefully what I’ve already written above and stop repeating yourself. Neither Fuller nor I want to ‘turn ID into a Christian theory.’ Is this now clear? “ID is not a project of proving the truth of Christianity.” – nullasalus Yes, I agree with you about this, nullasalus. Let me also state as clearly as possible that ‘evolutionary theory’ is likewise not (necessarily) an ‘atheistic theory.’ There are many religious folks who accept limited meanings of biological and/or natural evolution, up to the point where it is elevated into a worldview. That is when people become held in the grip of evolutionistic ideology (e.g. Kenneth Miller). Surely we can come together in opposing that situation, nullasalus, rather than arguing endlessly about how ‘scientifically revolutionary’ ID actually is or could become? Will you please cut me some slack and concede some of the legitimate knowledge that Fuller and I bring to the table on this topic? What this approach shows is what difference it makes to/for ID if/when people start to ‘think reflexively,’ instead of objectivistically (cf. naturalistically or positivistically). The power of positive, empirical science is not the main focus of discussion here. Instead, what is at issue is (natural and social) science that is done by people for the betterment of humanity and not just for its own sake. This one of the main points of ID linked with ‘trans-humanism’ that Fuller makes, nullasalus, and which you expressed interest about at the top. As the great media and culture theorist Marshall McLuhan warned us: ‘we’ve got to think things out before we put them out.’ When it comes to the designing power of human beings (e.g. technology and science), we’re facing some pretty serious challenges in the world today. I’d be highly suspicious if you didn’t agree (e.g. bioprospecting, neo-eugenics). The ‘designs’ that we make therefore must be ‘intelligent’ so that they don’t lead us into collective disasters. I see this as part of ID-proper, as does Fuller, which is not true of many in the IDM. We are looking forwards while they are stuck with Darwin and Darwinism looking backwards. “Until you can appreciate not only that ID, certainly ID as proposed by Behe, Dembski, etc, is compatible with atheism (and certainly non-Christianity), and until you can appreciate why that is considered a feature rather than a bug by those same proponents, I suggest you have a problem on your hands.” – nullasalus Well then we’ll simply have to agree to disagree on the atheism part, nullasalus. You are not an atheist from what I understand. I accept your ‘certainly non-Christianity’ claim because it is obvious that a believer in any of the Abrahamic faiths (including Baha’is) could accept ID as it is currently formulated. People who hold a ‘karmic worldview,’ however, are more likely to accept Darwinism, as Fuller explains. I must stress the point that one cannot believe in ‘transcendental’ design and also be an atheist, that is, unless one is using a secularised definition of ‘transcendental’ or positing the real (though scientifically unproven) existence of aliens as the ‘designers’ of life on Earth. “you come awfully close to denying that they perceive ID the way they do. I’m not a big fan of that kind of psychoanalysis, and you can’t really expect me to just accept it.” – nullasalus No, I do not come close to that at all. They perceive and conceive of ID the way they do (want to); I am not arguing about that and would be foolish to do so. This thread is about Fuller’s views of ID, which only KF endeavoured to highlight or even to mention directly by quoting his words (although KF’s comments went on a tangent from Fuller’s). What I am suggesting is that reading Fuller would be especially helpful for IDM-ID people to better understand the history and philosophy of ‘intelligent design’ as they currently perceive/conceive it. Again, as News said of Fuller, he is “one of the very few who grasp the key issues.” That was the point of me sending you a link to a brief summary of his works on ID, for posting on UD. “ID has been defined by Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Wells and the DI.” – nullasalus O.k. we are agreed. I would also add Charles Thaxton, who personally told me (and several others during a 2008 lunch conversation) that he was in fact the first to come up with the phrase ‘intelligent design.’ Paul Nelson is actively involved in working with those you highlight as well as being responsible ‘on common descent,’ from which influenced this blog’s name. Also, of course, Phillip Johnson was instrumental in facilitating the emergence of the IDM. I’d agree with you, though, if you are suggesting (as Dembski does) that IDM-ID has a ‘main focus in biology,’ that Johnson thus does not provide the best definition(s) of ID. Nevertheless, I’d add these 3 figures to the 4 you name as ‘definers of IDM-ID’ above. “Now, I fully appreciate that someone can go off with their own ID or ID inspired project.” – nullasalus O.k. that’s fine. I’m glad you added this and can appreciate that possibility too. “In other words, it seems like your interest is far less ‘getting people to consider your idea’ and far more establishing yourself and/or Fuller as the de facto ID authority.” – nullasalus No. At least I can speak for myself by saying I am not interested in becoming a de facto ID authority. And I’m pretty sure Steve Fuller is not interested in adopting such a position either. Neither of us is engaging in an ID-takeover. We are both looking beyond what IDM-ID currently sees as possible and relevant, in part due to their over-focus on natural and applied sciences and consequent deficiency in humanitarian and social thought. This is what gives us a strength they do not possess. Now let me go back to the quotation nullasalus gave from Dembski, as a supposed challenge to the ID-theology connection, because there is more involved than just theology here: “ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien, a computational simulator (a la THE MATRIX), a Platonic demiurge, a Stoic seminal reason, an impersonal telic process, …, or the infinite personal transcendent creator God of Christianity? The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide.” - Dembski If all ‘intelligent design theory’ is (‘supposed to be’) meant to do is to study ‘empirical data of nature,’ then it will get no further than the naturalistic theories it opposes (i.e. one side of its mission). But there is a possibility for something more meaningful and personally significant than that (i.e. the other side of its mission). And that is what, after a decade of work on evolution, creation and intelligent design, I am now proposing a KEY for. Are you ready to consider that option, nullasalus and others at UD? Gregory p.s. I caught the Peter Venkman reference, nice touch! ;)Gregory_{July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Gregory,
You personally may not offer your respect to scientists, but the IDM does in the form of ID leaders seeking respectability from their scholar-peers. To suggest that ID leaders don’t seek academic respectability would undermine the IDM’s project of (eventually) wanting to produce good science.
I question this. I think ID leaders want to do, and be seen as doing, good science. I do not think they "seek academic respectability" in the appropriate sense. They're under no delusions that their arguments are going to convince many current academics. What I'd say is more accurate is that ID proponents have the hope of eventually replacing those academics, in the vein of the Max Planck quote: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. And, it should go without saying, even as far as that goes I question the degree to which ID leaders are concerned with "the social sciences", which I think is your aim here. 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.
Even if ID faithful are waiting decades for the generation of neo-Darwinists to die out before ID emerges ‘revolutionarily victorious,’ the result nonetheless is aimed at convincing scientists and academics, whose views will then ‘trickle-down’ to the general public.
Again, I doubt this. ID's strategy seems to be to convince the general public, many of whom may one day be the future scientists and academics. "Academia" is largely seen not as fertile ground, but hostile territory.
We live in a ‘knowledge society’ and universities are (still) the central home(s) of knowledge production and diffusion. That is why IDers seek validity there.
Not really. Certainly not the centers of the diffusion - those things pass through a horde of media filters, and the old media is dying. The university system, I'd argue, is also more and more becoming obsolete. It's still there, of course. It still plays a central role. But more and more, I expect it to be pared down - especially when it comes to topics and disciplines that don't require major financial investment, as the hard sciences tend to. Hooray for the internet.
ID is what they (ID leaders/founders) say it is; it would be denying the truth for me to contend otherwise. But what they say ID is imo is not enough to win gold on the highest academic/scholarly stage they seek.
Because, what... the one thing academia love is explicitly mixing religion with science? That's what's been missing from the ID movement all this time? Who in the world have you been talking to to get this idea?
If you wish to deny this or IDT’s links to theology in your personal version of what ‘ID is supposed to be,’ nullasalus, that’s of course your prerogative and I would welcome you proving both Fuller and myself to be wrong or incomprehensive. Yet, there are many IDers themselves who say just the same things.
It's not my "personal vision", it's the vision actually offered of ID. As for "many IDers" who agree with you and Fuller, alright - name them. Because I'll tell you this: Fuller explicitly embraces philosophical nominalism. That, on the spot, axes any ID proponent who also considers themselves to be Thomists, Scotists, Aristotileans, or any general adherent of scholastic ideas. Do you know how many people that rules out on this site alone?
The belief that human beings were/are created in imago Dei is a core presupposition of (modern) ‘intelligent design’. Without this presupposition, the ‘founders’ would not have come up with ID theory.
You can keep saying this, and I'll just keep pointing out how little it means, and how inaccurate it is. And I'll point out, once again, that Fuller's understanding of this involves a commitment to philosophical nominalism that many ID proponents regard as philosophical poison. But here, let's play your game for a moment. So 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?nullasalus_{July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Bravo, nullasalus – well said! It seems now we might be making some progress. This is a long post, after some time to reflect on what has been said, in response both to legitimate points you’ve made and to unfair and inaccurate perceptions expressed about me in this thread. First, though, nullasalus, we obviously do have a different approach toward and opinion of academics and academia (meaning university life as scholarship), in that I continue to pay my respects to them and it. You personally may not offer your respect to scientists, but the IDM does in the form of ID leaders seeking respectability from their scholar-peers. To suggest that ID leaders don’t seek academic respectability would undermine the IDM’s project of (eventually) wanting to produce good science. Even if ID faithful are waiting decades for the generation of neo-Darwinists to die out before ID emerges ‘revolutionarily victorious,’ the result nonetheless is aimed at convincing scientists and academics, whose views will then ‘trickle-down’ to the general public. You might argue that instead a ‘trickle-up’ effect is needed, and there may be some legitimacy in such an approach (cf. Fuller’s notion of Prot-Science), but alas, that’s not generally-speaking how ‘new knowledge’ is produced. We live in a ‘knowledge society’ and universities are (still) the central home(s) of knowledge production and diffusion. That is why IDers seek validity there. “speaking about ‘how people construct and interpret ID’ entails speaking about ‘what ID is’ to begin with.” – nullasalus Yes, of course it does. I was and still am referring to how ID was constructed in the first place and what it is/means, according to ID founders. You’ve addressed this finally (thankfully!), to which I’ll return below. “I’ve studied them, and I’ve determined ID is actually something else.” – nullasalus (speaking as actor for my voice) Not a fair assessment. ID is what they (ID leaders/founders) say it is; it would be denying the truth for me to contend otherwise. But what they say ID is imo is not enough to win gold on the highest academic/scholarly stage they seek. You may argue with this, nullasalus. But *they* (who are ID proponents, i.e. not you) think ID is a ‘revolutionary science,’ as do some (perhaps many?) here at UD. With them, I respectfully disagree and am willing to patiently show them why as well as to offer a new way forward. I am suggesting that Fuller’s view of ID is more significant and personally meaningful than IDM-ID (though his also includes many features of IDM-ID). And also I agree with his broad ‘history’ of ID, including ID’s inevitable and easily provable (cf. ‘verifiable’) links to philosophy and theology. ‘Science-only’ ID is easily falsified. If you wish to deny this or IDT's links to theology in your personal version of what ‘ID is supposed to be,’ nullasalus, that’s of course your prerogative and I would welcome you proving both Fuller and myself to be wrong or incomprehensive. Yet, there are many IDers themselves who say just the same things. A case in point from a recent thread: “ID is the claim that science needs religion just as religion needs science. Until science can enlarge itself sufficiently to admit the theological implications instantiated within it, it will be incomplete and impoverished by a priori assumptions that as we have seen are not in themselves scientific.” – Michael Flannery (https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/thomas-cudworth-on-the-wesleyan-maneuver-a-view-from-the-pew/). “you’ve been talking about reshaping and reconstituting ID itself, insisting your/Fuller’s version is better.” – nullasalus ID imo doesn’t need to be ‘reshaped and reconstituted,’ at least, not from within. But the contours and limitations of the theory can be more clearly shown, one limit of which you spoke about yourself above wrt religion, so that it doesn’t turn into an ‘ID worldview,’ as some on this list take it to be. For all the rejection of ‘theistic evolutionism’ (ideology + science + religion) at UD, there should likewise be precautions taken not to allow ID to become an ideology too. Am I ‘designing’ or ‘planning’ an end to the IDM? No. Am I seeking a coup of the DI? No. This should satisfy your defensive curiosity, nullasalus and other UD faithful. Have I envisioned an ‘alternative world of ID’ than what is currently on offer in the IDM? Yes. Are there legitimate ‘design theorists’ that have not (yet) been showcased or even acknowledged by the IDM who nevertheless exist and who have made great contributions to 'design' thinking? Yes. Is my view different from Mike Gene-ID, Timaeus-ID or nullasalus-ID? Surely it is. We would each of us have to put our definitions of ID and non-ID on the table for comparison. I am ready to do this. I don’t think either Mike or Timaeus is ready to do the same. Yet I am aware that all 4 of us agree to a ‘not-science-only’ meaning of ID. What I have in mind instead (but not about IDM-ID) actually is considered ‘scientific’ in a different way than you 3 because I consider social sciences as ‘scientific,’ while it appears you do not. One of you is a biologist, the other is an historian of ideas, and the third is a ‘jack of all trades’ (who has apparently studied music semi-professionally as well). My being a social scientist offers a potentially innovative way of critique that proceeds directly and securely at your defenses of IDM-ID because I’m interested in people and their ideas, commitments, presuppositions and motivations. nullasalus wrote: “The ‘core ID belief’ you’re quoting ain’t a core ID belief. It’s Fuller’s view of what ID should be. Even in your own quote, that’s Fuller talking about what idea ID should adopt, not what idea comprises it currently – and frankly, I wouldn’t count on it becoming a ‘core ID belief’ anytime soon either.” The belief that human beings were/are created in imago Dei is a core presupposition of (modern) ‘intelligent design’. Without this presupposition, the ‘founders’ would not have come up with ID theory. In my view, Fuller has got this part exactly right and we both believe it is a non-negotiable difference between Darwinism and ID. In the language used by IDM-ID leaders, this means that the universe is rational, understandable and orderly, that we can study it and discover truths about it … (now in Fuller’s terms) *because* we were (personally) created by the same Creator of the universe. This is the ‘nature of nature’ argument based on spiritual truth that is shared by most (if not all) IDM-ID leaders, which is what Fuller makes more explicit than they do. You don’t have to believe this, nullasalus, but Fuller is not merely pulling this claim out of thin air. It's what the founders of ID theory themselves believe. (cont'd)Gregory_{July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Null: See? Three shots of BS, off the cuff. I could do it all day. So please, think twice before you keep at me with this.
I love you Null. I'm your biggest fan. :)mike1962_{July 5, 2012
July
07
Jul
5
05
2012
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Gregory,
There was no condescension intended in my suggestion
Alright, no problem then.
They have been developed and tested through much independent thought, in on-line forums, as well as in peer-review processes and at high-level academic discourse. You do respect this, nullasalus, do you not?
Sorry, Gregory. I respect you, sure, the same way I respect StephenB and the rest. Independent thought? Everyone, myself included, thinks that describes their thoughts. Online forums? C'mon, read what you just said. Academics? You know my feelings on them - they aren't ones of respect. Peer-review processes? In what, sociology journals? No, that all means nothing to me. I need the goods here and now in conversation, not a Peter Venkman paraphrase of 'Back off, man. I'm a sociologist.'
I’m afraid we’ll make little progress here, nullasalus, if you are intent to speak about ‘what ID is’ whereas I’m more concerned to speak about ‘how people construct and interpret ID.’
Go ahead and do that. But speaking about 'how people construct and interpret ID' entails speaking about 'what ID is' to begin with. I really hope you don't tell me something like, "Yes, I know what Behe, and Dembski, and all the rest say, I know what the DI says, I know the consistent line. But! I'm a sociologist. I've studied them, and I've determined ID is actually something else."
Can you possibly come to respect a broader approach to ID as legitimate too?
Approach ID however you like. But you've been talking about reshaping and reconstituting ID itself, insisting your/Fuller's version is better. And when I ask you to at least state why ID proponents see and describe ID the way they do, you come awfully close to denying that they perceive ID the way they do. I'm not a big fan of that kind of psychoanalysis, and you can't really expect me to just accept it. If you say, "I do expect you to accept it, Nullasalus, because I'm a sociologist.", it won't budge me. And you'll also have to explain why I should accept the judgments of a thousand and one sociologists making their own crazy judgments. I mean, you have to admit that sociology isn't exactly a field rife with ID advocates, or even ID friendly people.
God bless you too! What then determines ‘what ID is,’ according to you, nullasalus? You spoke boldly about ‘what ID is supposed to be.’ I pressed you on this meaning, but several questions about it remain above. Who defines ID personally for you? Iow, ‘whose ID’ and ‘which ID’ are you claiming to speak for or about? Like I’ve said here at UD in the past, I’ve spent countless hours studying evolution, creation and ID, corresponding with ID leaders and others involved in the wider discourse; far more than wily ‘Timaeus’ has. Your pretensions to knowing ‘what ID is supposed to be’ do not phase or deter me in the least, if you will not back them up.
I already backed it up, with quotes. You wrote Dembski's words off as a ruse, and made it clear that you'd do the same with any quotes from Behe, Meyer, or anyone else's who I would provide. I mean, I'm not exactly a new guy around here. I've been around for years. I've corresponded, if briefly, with Behe and Dembski. I've had conversations with philosophers. I've interacted with scientists, and called a whole bunch of them names besides! Arguing on the internet and all. And frankly, I know Timaeus isn't exactly new to this either - I can't be sure you've put in more effort than he has. ID has been defined by Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Wells and the DI. Now, I fully appreciate that someone can go off with their own ID or ID inspired project - Mike Gene comes to mind, brilliant guy that he is. If you told me simply that you had a Mike Gene view of ID that you were going your own regarding, I'd be fine with it. Instead you're coming across as not being content with your own project, but instead think that the Discovery Institute should put you and/or Fuller in charge, change everything they do, change all their arguments and ideas to conform with your view. In other words, it seems like your interest is far less "getting people to consider your idea" and far more establishing yourself and/or Fuller as the de facto ID authority. If that's not your aim, alright. But that's the impression I'm seeing.
You know that I am proposing something beyond what ‘ID’ currently expresses. Fuller in my view is on the cutting-edge re: ID, which is why many rank-and-file IDers don’t (yet) understand him. They’ve yet to catch-up to the new knowledge which his approach provides.
Fuller, nice and smart guy that he is, has shared his ideas re: ID on this site in the past. It didn't go over well. And frankly, I don't see where Fuller's approach provides any 'new knowledge', unless you're counting things like 'embracing nominalism' as new knowledge.
In any case, I already answered it above. There’s 50+ years of work in the human-social sciences and philosophy for you to tread through to realise why my answer is valid to those in-the-know.
Okay, Gregory. Serious question: those "in the know". Exactly how many are there? Would counting them exceed the fingers on an average hand? More than that, so you're making a vague reference to the fact that some people agree with you. Alright - and many people agree with me. My statements here are "valid to those in-the-know". Apparently, 50+ work in the social sciences wasn't necessary.
Are you suggesting ID theory, either ‘what it is’ or ‘what it is supposed to be,’ just fell out of the sky like manna one fine day, that no one was/is personally involved in constructing it, that it is just a ‘neutral theory,’ a kind of ‘pure science’?
No, I didn't say that at all. But your response is boiled down to "ID is entirely theistic and mandates theism, possibly Christianity specifically, because the guy(s) who defined it believed in the Imago Dei". That's just silly.
Is the ‘collective’ view of ID leaders the authoritative one regarding ID, nullasalus? Iow, is ‘what ID is supposed to be’ decided by committee? Or do you allow that the ‘construction of ID theory’ is on-going, that new people are still contributing to it and possibly adapting it today?
I'm sure they are - there's Mike Gene again. But there's still a view of ID that the DI, Behe, Dembski, etc adhere to, and the version I'm stating is the version they recognize. Yours, isn't. Why not just say "Well, I think Behe, Dembski, etc's idea is flawed. Here's my idea."? Why play the game of "Ahh, but you see, I'm a sociologist. So I know that ID is actually something entirely different from what they say."? Go forth, adapt the idea, brainstorm it, come up with new ideas. But please don't tell me that ID as it's been proposed and described requires belief in the Imago Dei, and all arguments and claims to the contrary is just some kind of front. It's wrong, and further, it's pretty obnoxious. "Those in the know" may agree with you, granted. "Those in the know" can get bent.
You’ve made no attempt to refute these claims, nullasalus, but instead have altered my intended meaning in your re-interpretation along the way.
No, I've pointed out how inane the claim is, and how telling me "Prove to me that ID would have come to be if its founders did not believe in the Imago Dei" is just so much bullcrap. Well gee, Gregory, let me go get my multiverse-travelling starship and pop into universe 89140-a where Phil Johnson is a wiccan, and see what happens. Oops, wait, that machine doesn't exist.
I am left to wonder: what is so repulsive about the claim that ‘religion actually influences natural sciences’ that so bothers you? Are you suggesting that religion is so impotent and ineffectual that it carries NO influence on natural science or that just in the case of ID it has no cause-effect power on ‘doing science’?
Alright, time for me to say something. When you crack out these carefully worded, loaded questions - 'religion is impotent and ineffectual if it has no influence on natural science' - I'm willing to bet you think you're boxing me in a corner or putting pressure on me. Really, you're just pissing me off. I know how to play cute little language games like this too. Here's a few examples: Is your faith in God so paltry, Gregory, that it must be welded to science in order for you to sustain it? Is your view of religion so myopic that, unless it is intimately entrenched with a scientism-inspired view of natural sciences, it has no value? Is your disappointment with sociology so grand - do you so regret your recent academic past - that you must construct a fantasy world that makes sociology more important than it already is, by imagining the appropriateness of its use in areas that do not require it? See? Three shots of BS, off the cuff. I could do it all day. So please, think twice before you keep at me with this. To answer the actual question that's buried under those flourishes - my metaphysics, philosophy, and theology relate to science just fine, thank you. But I know the difference between the four things, and I know how to distill a question or a point of view such that I can have a conversation with someone who does not share my metaphysics, philosophy and theology. Which, by the way, is part of the point of ID being formulated the way it is. The question of whether there are scientifically detectable signs of intelligence in nature is, believe it or not, interesting and important in and of itself. Now, there are apologetic uses and outcomes if such things can be detected scientifically, and if the search turns up positive - the interest does not end with the science. But from that point on, we're off into a land beyond ID - which is great and fine. You, on the other hand, want ID to be reformed - again, having your own idea is apparently not at all satisfactory to you, but the DI and Behe and Dembski and company must all radically change their views - to be a theistic project. And as StephenB pointed out, there's already a project like that: Hugh Ross' outfit. And that's just the most prominent one, since I'm sure there's more.nullasalus_{July 5, 2012
July
07
Jul
5
05
2012
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Cantor: Gregory has been steeped (brainwashed?) in the sociological tradition of Social Constructivism and can think only through that lens. According to that paradigm, we don’t “apprehend” knowledge, we “create” it through social interaction It’s all about context. Group A creates one kind of knowledge through interaction in one natural setting and Group B creates yet another kind of knowledge in another natural setting. Under those circumstances, of course, there would be no rational standard to test the legitimacy of any of those different varieties of contextual knowledge because reason itself, along with its rules, is also perceived to have been socially constructed. Thus, Gregory cannot focus on what ID theory IS; he can only obsess over the cultural factors that he thinks caused it to be. He has not, it seems, been trained in logic and cannot, therefore, recognize the rational gap between what he is saying and what is being discussed, or answer any questions that would require a reasoned response.StephenB_{July 5, 2012
July
07
Jul
5
05
2012
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

"cantor needs to recant on his/her whitewash of Fuller" "ID ‘enemy of your enemy’ (like cantor) fanatics" Bizarre. You write the strangest things.cantor_{July 4, 2012
July
07
Jul
4
04
2012
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

Let me send an apology, then, for my part in the misunderstanding, nullasalus. There was no condescension intended in my suggestion that the topic is a challenge to many people (and indeed, that it reminds of the Matrix red vs. blue pill dilemma). I had thought, as someone of a similar generation, you could appreciate the metaphor. As it stands, I’ve witnessed a reverse-perspective blind-spot many times when the topic of evolution, creation and ID is raised. You mentioned the following about yourself: “My view[s] are complicated, and very often pragmatic and reactionary.” I’m assuming you meant your views of ID. My views of ID otoh are fairly simple (as theorised, when/if understood by readers/listeners), ideational and progressive (not-reactionary). They have been developed and tested through much independent thought, in on-line forums, as well as in peer-review processes and at high-level academic discourse. You do respect this, nullasalus, do you not? I’m afraid we’ll make little progress here, nullasalus, if you are intent to speak about ‘what ID is’ whereas I’m more concerned to speak about ‘how people construct and interpret ID.’ There is currently a standoff between ontology and epistemology that perhaps you recognise. Shall we let it rest at that for now? This standoff involves philosophy of science and knowledge, which requires background work that is different from coin-flipping experiments and statistical inferences. Can you possibly come to respect a broader approach to ID as legitimate too? “Some ID proponents have ideas about things that have nothing to do with ID. God bless them, they’re welcome to that. Their ID-extraneous views don’t determine what ID is.” – nullasalus God bless you too! What then determines ‘what ID is,’ according to you, nullasalus? You spoke boldly about ‘what ID is supposed to be.’ I pressed you on this meaning, but several questions about it remain above. Who defines ID personally for you? Iow, ‘whose ID’ and ‘which ID’ are you claiming to speak for or about? Like I’ve said here at UD in the past, I’ve spent countless hours studying evolution, creation and ID, corresponding with ID leaders and others involved in the wider discourse; far more than wily ‘Timaeus’ has. Your pretensions to knowing ‘what ID is supposed to be’ do not phase or deter me in the least, if you will not back them up. For you to say “Gregory doesn’t understand ID” is thus rather fictive wishful-thinking. It may be that UD-ID is hard to understand because the people who post here hold a variety of views, not a single perspective (ID = worldview, science, good at asking questions, not-science, not-religion, ideology, not-philosophy, etc.). As long as you are not supporting peoples’ views of ID that have ‘nothing to do with ID’ then we’re on the same page, nullasalus, but I need to understand more clearly ‘what ID is’ and ‘what ID is supposed to be’ and if those are the same thing in your view. You know that I am proposing something beyond what ‘ID’ currently expresses. Fuller in my view is on the cutting-edge re: ID, which is why many rank-and-file IDers don’t (yet) understand him. They’ve yet to catch-up to the new knowledge which his approach provides. cantor needs to recant on his/her whitewash of Fuller. “Why are you seemingly incapable of realizing that the guy who believes God is omniscient (and therefore designs everything) is not reaching that conclusion based on ID?” This is unnecessary because it is so blatantly obvious. In any case, I already answered it above. There’s 50+ years of work in the human-social sciences and philosophy for you to tread through to realise why my answer is valid to those in-the-know. Are you suggesting ID theory, either ‘what it is’ or ‘what it is supposed to be,’ just fell out of the sky like manna one fine day, that no one was/is personally involved in constructing it, that it is just a ‘neutral theory,’ a kind of ‘pure science’? If so, that myth was busted by 20th century history, philosophy and sociology of science and should not be pretended to here. If not, then why not just come out and agree with me? Both Fuller and I are ahead of the front-wave of IDM-ID because we consciously and purposefully take into account (social) epistemology in addition to mere (naturalistic) ontology. To the present day IDM leaders do take Fuller seriously, even if ID ‘enemy of your enemy’ (like cantor) fanatics at UD do not. Fuller has defended ID in enough public places (Dover, Nova, Expelled, etc.) to solidify himself justly as a person to be taken seriously. Is the ‘collective’ view of ID leaders the authoritative one regarding ID, nullasalus? Iow, is ‘what ID is supposed to be’ decided by committee? Or do you allow that the ‘construction of ID theory’ is on-going, that new people are still contributing to it and possibly adapting it today? This brings us back to the claim made earlier in this thread that Fuller is a ‘front-line contributor’ with his work on the (social) epistemology of ID. Nobody here has given me any sound reason to believe that he is not. What I’ve said is: “one cannot promote a positive ID theory without belief in intelligible transcendence” and that “without the belief (by those who coined it) that mankind was made in imago Dei there would be no theory of ID.” You’ve made no attempt to refute these claims, nullasalus, but instead have altered my intended meaning in your re-interpretation along the way. I am left to wonder: what is so repulsive about the claim that ‘religion actually influences natural sciences’ that so bothers you? Are you suggesting that religion is so impotent and ineffectual that it carries NO influence on natural science or that just in the case of ID it has no cause-effect power on ‘doing science’?Gregory_{July 4, 2012
July
07
Jul
4
04
2012
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

----Gregory: “Pulling out quote after quote (several of which I’ve also read) from ID leaders who say “the designer need not be God” yet who also (in their ‘heart of hearts’) believe that the designer *is* God is not an effective or imo non-ruseful strategy. It completely ignores that personal ‘presuppositions’ influence theoreticians, e.g. in this case, those who coined the phrase ‘intelligent design.’ I don’t accept such pseudo-neutrality as if people are not (fallible) people, but rather (deterministic) robots." A person’s apriori religious belief is not the same thing as a “presupposition” in science or in logic. A religious belief may well provide the psychological motivation for doing science (or philosophy) in the first place, but it cannot also represent the first step of the scientific reasoning process. If it were so, then there could be no such thing as an inference to the best explanation (or any inference at all) because the presupposition would have already provided the explanation. To avoid this kind of tautological reasoning, the philosopher or the scientist must begin by observing nature (Aquinas in philosophy) or (ID in science). Hence, from a philosophical perspective, certain patterns in nature reveal regularity, which indicates order, which points to an orderer. Or, from a scientific perspective, certain features in nature reveal patterns, which indicate design, which points to a designer. In each case, the only way to avoid smuggling the assumption (presupposition) into the conclusion is to leave out presuppositions and assumptions altogether (except for reason’s rules). In other words, the process begins with empirical observations. What you are proposing is illogical because it asks ID, in the name of science, to draw inferences from data after the fact of observation, and, in the name of religion, to draw inferences from assumptions made before the fact. --“(#I’m willing to take seriously all critics to this argument who promote ID, only if they will say up-front that they believe in ID, but not in imago Dei, otherwise their criticism is invalid.)” ID proponents are always happy to answer your questions. The problem is that you will not answer their questions. As an example, here are two more questions that you can ignore: [a] How do you maintain the integrity of a scientific inference from data if you clutter the process by integrating it with a statement of religious belief? [b] Since you think that all ID paradigms are influenced by religious presuppositions, tell me which religious presuppositions are inherent in the concept of "irreducible complexity" and explain the connection?StephenB_{July 3, 2012
July
07
Jul
3
03
2012
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Gregory,
Please understand, nullasalus, I know that this is difficult. It is a tough pill to swallow, like the red pill vs. the blue pill in The Matrix. Think reflexively!
If you want to condescend to me like this when I'm trying my damndest to be civil, do so. Eventually, I'm going to get tired of it and ditch my civility.
Yet some advocates of ID would claim ‘everything is designed,’ or ‘there is nothing that is not intelligently designed,’ including Auschwitz. I am looking for a new way forward from such a unrealistic-universalistic position, and it seems that you are also.
No, I'm really not, because those views are not part of ID anyway. Why are you seemingly incapable of realizing that the guy who believes God is omniscient (and therefore designs everything) is not reaching that conclusion based on ID? Why can't you accept that such a view is not part of ID? Yes, yes, I know. "Some ID proponents would claim..." Some ID proponents have ideas about things that have nothing to do with ID. God bless them, they're welcome to that. Their ID-extraneous views don't determine what ID is.
Let us eventualy explore what my project is, shall we nullasalus, before you conclude what you think is necessary for it to be advanced?
How about we clear up what really seems to be a terrible misunderstanding on your part first? Because so far, you don't seem able to accept that ID is not some kind of hyper-calvinist doctrine, or even a theological doctrine at all. It may be wrong, it may be wrongheaded, but at least show evidence that you know what you're critiquing.
I’ve not said ‘ID is a Christian theory’ but rather that without the belief (by those who coined it) that mankind was made in imago Dei there would be no theory of ID. All that you would need to do to prove this suggestion wrong is to show that those/the man that coined ‘intelligent design’ (as it is ‘supposed to be’) didn’t/don’t believe humankind was made in imago Dei.
You want to turn ID into a Christian theory. You've been implying all this time that the big problem with ID is that it's not explicitly religious, and you do not seem to understand why in the world its' proponents disagree, or why they would. That is a problem for someone who wants to convince everyone that ID is on some kind of wrong path that you and/or Fuller have the solution for. If someone tells me they have a dynamite critique of ID, and the first thing I hear out of them is something like "ID is the theory that evolution is impossible, and that God had to work miracles to make plants and animals", they're dead in the water then and there. They've displayed that they don't even understand what they're about to let loose a salvo at. What's more, demanding that I produce some evidence that belief in the Imago Dei was not, even in some indirect way, instrumental in the founding of ID is pretty ludicrous. Hey, show me that Darwin wouldn't have come up with evolution if he didn't have some bare theistic/deistic belief. Oh, you can't do that because asking what-if questions of that type are impossible to adequately answer? I guess Darwinism was a theistic evolutionary theory then. See how ludicrous that is?
Have I addressed your single point directly, nullasalus, whether or not you agree with my assessment/interpretation?
No, you haven't. You don't seem to understand where ID begins and ends, and you continually point out "Well, Dembski/Behe believes in God" as if that somehow requires that ID therefore be a theistic, even Christian, view.
ID is *not* compatible with atheism because the core ID belief (and what follows from it, i.e. intelligibility of universe) that human beings are created in imago Dei is not consistent with atheism.
The "core ID belief" you're quoting ain't a core ID belief. It's Fuller's view of what ID should be. Even in your own quote, that's Fuller talking about what idea ID should adopt, not what idea comprises it currently - and frankly, I wouldn't count on it becoming a "core ID belief" anytime soon either.
It is much further ahead (reflexively) on the pathway than what IDM-ID has yet reached, nullasalus. Wouldn’t you agree?
Considering that Fuller's view of 'mastering nature' is, as near as I can tell, deeply related to his explicit nominalism, and I personally (and I bet a few regulars on this forum) reject nominalism, no, I'm not really onboard with Fuller's quote. I find his project interesting, but please don't mistake 'interesting' with 'I agree' or even 'I'm on the road to agreeing'. I find mormonism, hinduism, Islam, and the raelians interesting too. Until you can appreciate not only that ID, certainly ID as proposed by Behe, Dembski, etc, is compatible with atheism (and certainly non-Christianity), and until you can appreciate why that is considered a feature rather than a bug by those same proponents, I suggest you have a problem on your hands. If you were telling me, "I agree that's what ID proponents say and believe. I believe that's what ID is right now, and I think X, Y and Z are the reasons they think this is proper. But here's why I think they're wrong", we'd be moving on. When you're instead saying "Sure, they say that, but I think it's a ruse. ID doesn't actually say that. In spite of everything ID's main proponents say, in spite of the very limited scope ID is said to have by those proponents and founders, I say it has a different scope.", you're getting nowhere.nullasalus_{July 3, 2012
July
07
Jul
3
03
2012
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Will you be responding to the articulate questions asked of you in a previous post by Timaeus?cantor_{July 3, 2012
July
07
Jul
3
03
2012
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

"what I [am] stating with regards to ID’s intellectual limitations. ID is not a project of proving the truth of Christianity" - nullasalus Yes, of course it is not. I am well aware of that. "Behe’s belief in God is not based wholly on ID" Yes, of course it is not. I am well aware of that. Pulling out quote after quote (several of which I've also read) from ID leaders who say "the designer need not be God" yet who also (in their 'heart of hearts') believe that the designer *is* God is not an effective or imo non-ruseful strategy. It completely ignores that personal 'presuppositions' influence theoreticians, e.g. in this case, those who coined the phrase 'intelligent design.' I don't accept such pseudo-neutrality as if people are not (fallible) people, but rather (deterministic) robots. Please understand, nullasalus, I know that this is difficult. It is a tough pill to swallow, like the red pill vs. the blue pill in The Matrix. Think reflexively! You say, nullasalus, "I am claiming what the limit of ID is," i.e. that it does not prove 'Christianity.' Yet some advocates of ID would claim 'everything is designed,' or 'there is nothing that is not intelligently designed,' including Auschwitz. I am looking for a new way forward from such a unrealistic-universalistic position, and it seems that you are also. Let us eventualy explore what my project is, shall we nullasalus, before you conclude what you think is necessary for it to be advanced? Fuller's work moves forward with ideas that both challenge IDM-ID and also involve new themes such as trans-humanism, a new sociological imagination, media and culture, science and technology, transformations in higher education, etc. I'm interested to hear your thoughts about them as well, since we're obviously on the same page in concluding that ID is 'not scientific' and 'not religious.' I've not said 'ID is a Christian theory' but rather that without the belief (by those who coined it) that mankind was made in imago Dei there would be no theory of ID. All that you would need to do to prove this suggestion wrong is to show that those/the man that coined 'intelligent design' (as it is 'supposed to be') didn't/don't believe humankind was made in imago Dei. Do you have any evidence or suggestion of this, nullasalus? Would you wish to prove it if you did? Have I addressed your single point directly, nullasalus, whether or not you agree with my assessment/interpretation? While ID may not (overtly) "begin from religious premises" it most certainly does not (even covertly) begin from "atheistic premises." ID is *not* compatible with atheism because the core ID belief (and what follows from it, i.e. intelligibility of universe) that human beings are created in imago Dei is not consistent with atheism. "ID needs to adopt a consistently progressive stance towards the pursuit of science, as befits creatures designed in imago dei to master nature." - S. Fuller (2008) (cf. 'needs to' with 'supposed to be') This quotation not only speaks truth regarding the founders of ID theory, but also offers a 'reverse perspective' on what accepting ID means for humankind's relationship with nature and technology, in light of the creativity within/gifted to us. It is much further ahead (reflexively) on the pathway than what IDM-ID has yet reached, nullasalus. Wouldn't you agree?Gregory_{July 3, 2012
July
07
Jul
3
03
2012
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Gregory, That's an awful lot of text, but I don't want to get into it until you focus on a single point. Here it is. ID, certainly ID as stated, is compatible with atheism. This is not something I'm divining or pulling out of a hat - I have everyone from Dembski to Behe admitting that nothing in ID requires identifying design as God, much less the God of Christianity. It does not matter a whit that Dembski is Christian or Behe is Catholic, and believe the designer - on grounds separate from ID - to be the God of the Bible. Ken Miller calls himself a Catholic, and defends neo-darwinism. Neo-darwinism does not become a Catholic theory as a result. I have a quote from Dembski that couldn't be clearer. Your response is that's a ruse. I can pull quote after quote from undisputed ID leaders and major proponents pointing out that the designer need not be God, much less supernatural. You can keep saying "It's all a ruse! A smokescreen!", but at that point there's just nothing to talk about anymore, because you won't have seriously engaged the ID idea being offered. Really, this objection you are lodging is wildly misplaced, every bit as much as if (say) someone answered the Kalam Cosmological Argument with "That doesn't prove the God of the Bible! And don't say it's not supposed to, because William Lane Craig is clearly a Christian!" To say that is to do worse than misunderstand the argument and its scope - it is to ignore it entirely. So let me drive this point home. Second, yes, because of imago Dei and its roots in the Abrahamic traditions, it is uninteresting (at best) or heterodox (at worst) to claim that the intelligence is not God’s. Surely, nullasalus, you are not claiming that. I am claiming what the limit of ID is, just as Aquinas would say his Five Ways prove/demonstrate the existence of God, but would not say that said Five Ways proved or demonstrated the truth of Christianity specifically. The issue is the limitation of a method and argument. I will stress this strongly, Gregory. What I am saying will be backed by Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Axe, Wells, and more in the major ID leadership. I will further bet - gentlemen, please step forward and correct me if I am wrong - that kairosfocus, StephenB, and many other admins on this very site will agree with what I stating with regards to ID's intellectual limitations. ID is not a project of proving the truth of Christianity, just as Aquinas' Five Ways is not meant to prove the truth of Catholicism. You can argue that this is a poor idea. You can argue the emphasis is wrong. You can argue the project is unsuccessful. But, Gregory, if you argue that the limitation of ID is something (particularly around here) ID proponents are oblivious to, or do not themselves subscribe to, you're spinning your wheels. I will say one more time: to object 'but Behe believes the designer is God!' is to miss the point entirely. Behe will himself tell you that the best ID can do is infer intelligence, period. Behe's belief in God is not based wholly on ID, nor is frankly anyone else's here that I am aware of. (Lots of Five Ways and Cosmological argument fans on this site.) Until you grapple with this - and grappling entails accepting that this is, as a matter of fact, what ID proponents are maintaining - you're going to fail to see the problems ID proponents have with your suggestion on how to revise the ID movement. And seeing that is necessary for you to advance your project.nullasalus_{July 3, 2012
July
07
Jul
3
03
2012
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

“most people who support ID don’t consider themselves agnostics about the designer” Yes, nullasalus, this is precisely the point I was making and which Steve Fuller shows in his works, demonstrated in the quotes gathered here. I'm encouraged that we are on the same page about it! The ‘conundrum’ you present from Dembski, I consider to be a ruse; obviously he personally accepts the explanation already quoted above, or taken from your quote, that the ‘designer/Designer’ is the “personal transcendent creator God of Christianity.” Not acknowledging this as part of Dembskian or Meyerian or Behean or Wellsian or Nelsonian or O'Learyean or nullasalusian-ID is in my view disingenuous; it simply *must* be part of your or their understanding and interpretation of 'intelligent design' that this is the 'designer/Designer' you or they have in mind. Without this, the explanatory power of the theory plummets, as Fuller has carefully explained. The primary reason why ‘intelligent design’ could make any sense at all is only because human beings are made in imago Dei. If that were not true, or at least, if people did not believe that it is true#, there would be and could be no ‘intelligent design’ theory. Check the profiles of the ‘founders’ of ID if you think the belief in imago Dei does not pre-define the movement’s reality. (#I'm willing to take seriously all critics to this argument who promote ID, only if they will say up-front that they believe in ID, but not in imago Dei, otherwise their criticism is invalid.) Of course, one can be an atheist, agnostic or theist of whatever variety and still reject or challenge neo-Darwinism. But one cannot promote a positive ID theory without belief in intelligible transcendence. There was reportedly one agnostic at Pajaro Dunes (D. Raup), but his personal position could not have offered among the movements new leaders a positive contribution to defining 'design' by 'intelligence' if he didn't know or believe if that intelligible transcendence was real. This is indeed a major point of impact and influence that Fuller’s work delivers to readers and listeners, though it is not limited to him. The reason ‘science’ makes sense, i.e. that it recognizes order, system, pattern, plan, is because human beings are created by the Logos, in the image of the Logos, which allows us to read/understand the Logos. IDM-ID makes no claim on this terrifically significant point because it (unnecessarily) disallows the ‘religious’ explanation that we are made in imago Dei into its (because it is a) ‘science-only’ theory. Another way to say it: IDM-ID is coming at the topic backwards while Fuller comes at it directly, face first, acknowledging his and our humanity and our reflexive beliefs about the source of intelligence *before* (as priority, not necessarily temporally) considering the science. A similar way to say it, in this case, IDM-ID is stating that first we should look at effects and reverse-engineer them to causes while Fuller is saying we recognize ‘intelligently designed’ patterns be-cause we were created with/in a pattern ourselves. Do you recognise the difference in these two approaches to ID, nullasalus? “finding out that intelligen[ce] of some kind plays or played a fundamental role in the nature we now know is uninteresting if it’s not automatically known to be God” First, it’s not that we know (kataphatically) that the intelligence is God’s, but that people believe it is and that religious tradition(s) support(s) this. Second, yes, because of imago Dei and its roots in the Abrahamic traditions, it is uninteresting (at best) or heterodox (at worst) to claim that the intelligence is not God’s. Surely, nullasalus, you are not claiming that. Any good Catholic will tell you, nullasalus, that God created the heavens and the earth with ‘intelligence’ and that human beings were specially planned/made/built/woven/constructed, even if natural history and the natural sciences that study it reveals that this plan took place via (limited or constrained) natural evolutionary processes. Do you have reasons to suggest then that all Catholics therefore must accept IDM-ID? Catholics can accept limited biological evolution, including a large part of Darwin's contribution to natural sciences, but not universal evolutionism as ideology, this is the key. Do you not agree? Wrt the ‘ugly’ metaphor, you missed the meaning which was simply to express contradiction; ugly-beauty queens/kings don’t win/exist and neither can/does ID-atheism (though please note the qualifier for this which I wrote above). Attempts by IDers to allow (even to create space) for ID-atheism are in my view ridiculous. Religiouly agnostic-IDers, well that’s another story, but notice please that an agnostic science isn’t worth much (i.e. it claims not to have knowledge), while IDers who are agnostic about the identity of the designer/Designer are in the vast minority, as you said yourself above. Only by requiring personal beliefs to be checked at the door of the ‘natural science lab’ does IDM-ID’s rule of no-talk-of-designer(s)/Designer(s) or 'designing-processes' make sense. “people themselves in the ID community would be in the best positions regarding that.” This is perhaps because you don’t properly estimate or understand sociology. The one who studies people professionally best understands what those people as a community or movement think, believe, do, etc. not the individual persons themselves. People of course know what they personally think, believe and do themselves better than anyone else. They know (unprofessionally) what others in their community think, believe and do also. But not until and unless they or someone else looks at their/a community ‘as an outsider’ or ‘through the passenger window’ or in some systematic or structured or ‘scientific’ way, can certain ‘unexpected’ or ‘counter-intuitive’ conclusions be drawn that are often not seen (clearly) within the community itself and which do in fact reveal insights into a community’s beliefs, thoughts, views and actions. Many valuable contributions to human knowledge have been made through the years by pulling out one’s macro-scope and looking at people as Fuller is doing, which includes comparative-historical, empirical, and theoretical approaches. Because of this, sociologists of science who follow scientists around, observing and recording what they do, or theorizing about the thoughts, beliefs and actions of scientists and proto-scientists, often make scientists themselves uncomfortable. Who wants people observing them and perhaps discovering they are doing things differently than they think or imagine or that their methods are coloured by metaphysical or worldview biases? Or that ideology is actually heavily involved in what they do even though they claim to be entirely ‘neutral,’ ‘detached’ or ‘objective’? If the IDM/DI would allow surveys to be conducted of its major contributors, for example, we could learn a lot more about the inner workings of the movement which many people at UD have tacitly subscribed to. Psychologists of science also have a role to play in this discourse and may be even more discomforting (and important) for scientists to face. Nevertheless, it is not my task here to elaborate on why those who study scientists or movements themselves have something important to offer. That Fuller and I are interested in these topics and are applying them to the IDM (and to Darwinists) is in large part why some people have a difficult time confronting our informed views about ID and those who promote it. “I think ID asks entirely valid questions…ID’s questions and investigations are both A) not science, B) not religious, and C) able to reach compelling, valid conclusions.” That’s fine, nullasalus. I wonder then how you would classify those ‘compelling, valid conclusions,’ if you don’t count them as ‘scientific’ or ‘religious’? E.g. as ‘everyday life understanding,’ as ‘pre-theoretical’ or non-theoretical knowledge? Timaeus counts ID as ‘not science’ and ‘not religious’ also, but notice how he has no effective response nor will to correction when IDers bluntly claim that ID is ‘science-only’ (as they unarguably do), nor any public works of his own to back up his position, though he could easily produce them under his real name, given how scholar-like he writes about IDM-ID here at UD and elsewhere? Fuller is at least courageous enough to publically face the flack that comes from writing about Darwinism and ID, based out of a major university in the U.K., while travelling around the world reaching out to people on related themes (such as science, philosophy, religion discourse and trans-humanism). What do you think it would take, nullasalus, for people at UD or in the IDM to take Fuller's work on ID more seriously? Right now it looks basically like 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' type of treatment. Personally, I view Fuller's contribution on this topic as much more valuable and far-sighted than that.Gregory_{July 3, 2012
July
07
Jul
3
03
2012
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Gregory: I agree with you that the world needs more three-way discourse between science, philosophy, and theology. I also agree with you that Fuller offers an interesting way of doing this, one that should be considered carefully by ID people before being rejected outright. However, you make the discussion more difficult than it need be, by saying things that are not true about ID. No one in the ID camp is discouraging discussions of a three-way kind. Indeed, ID people themselves often offer comments that are theological and/or philosophical. Bill Dembski writes technical ID books such as No Free Lunch in which theological discussion would be out of place, and therefore is excluded, but he also writes theological books such as The End of Christianity in which theology is the central focus, and he writes other popular works in which intelligent design is described as a bridge between science and theology. Similarly, Michael Denton, in Nature's Destiny, describes the results of his scientific analysis of molecules-to-man evolution as constituting a revived natural theology. Meyer, Richards and many others have said that while ID does not begin from religious premises (i.e., does not assume the existence of a divine designer in making its arguments for design), it has religious implications (i.e., once the scientific investigation is done, we find that it does indeed look as if there was a divine designer). And you will find references to philosophers and philosophical notions scattered throughout ID writings, whether it be in the references of Denton or Sternberg to Platonic forms, or in Dembski's discussions of the relationship of omnipotence to evil in the world, etc. And certainly on this website, Vincent Torley has carried out many able philosophical and theological discussions, and nullasalus (who is a sort of cross between ID and TE) has constantly reminded us of the illegitimate philosophical/metaphysical judgments which neo-Darwinian biologists continually make. So an interactive science, philosophy, and theology discussion is hardly foreign to the intellectual life of ID people. What ID people have done is to separate scientific arguments proper from theological and philosophical ones. For example, Dawkins says that random mutations plus natural selection can create new body plans; ID proponents doubt that this is the case. And their arguments are not based on Thomas Aquinas or Calvin or the Bible, but on research into proteins and genomics and so on. And that's entirely appropriate, where the argument is over exactly what nature can and can't do on its own steam. Your notion that because ID proponents separate scientific questions from other questions, they support NOMA, is indefensible. NOMA says that the "magisteria" of science and theology don't overlap, so there is no possible conflict between the two. That is in fact the typical TE/EC position. ID people don't subscribe to NOMA. They don't affirm that there is any built-in guarantee of non-conflict between theology and science. In fact, they know full well that there are some questions -- for example, the question "Where do we come from?" or the question "Do we have free will?" -- where science and theology bear on the same subject and might conceivably draw opposed conclusions. You see the difference in approach between NOMA-supporters and ID people on BioLogos. On BioLogos they will say that according to science, things happen randomly, and that's absolutely true, and according to theology, everything is under God's providence, and that's absolutely true. So things are both planned and non-planned, guided and not-guided. And when pressed to explain the contradiction, the BioLogos folks essentially resort to NOMA (without using the term): questions of guidance or planning concern purpose or meaning, and therefore don't belong to science; questions of random mutations and natural selection concern efficient causes, and therefore do belong to science. Scientists can't answer how neo-Darwinian causality fits in with divine guidance or planning, and theologians aren't competent to discuss natural mechanisms, so the two truths sit side-by-side, unintegrated, with NOMA as the justification. Here on UD, however, you see a consistent rejection of that approach, with columnists and commenters alike assaulting the BioLogos folks for ducking the difficult science-theology interface questions which you say you want to see better explored. In other words ID people are more intellectually integrative than TE/EC people -- or at least, TE/EC people of the type hitherto represented on BioLogos. BioLogos's idea of science/theology "dialogue" is "good fences make good neighbors": the scientists will tell us what really happened in the past (and the theologians will shut up and not contradict them); and the theologians, when they have the podium, will refrain from asserting anything at all about what happened in the past, but will tell us instead the meaning of evolution for our personal faith life, showing how wise and wonderful God is for creating us all by a randomness that might just as well have left us all as snails (and the scientists, if Christian, will nod in pious agreement, before heading back to their lab to do science in the same way that Dawkins and Coyne do). In TE/EC -- at least of the BioLogos type -- there is no integrating dialogue between science and theology, there are only terms of peace between science and theology, terms that compartmentalize the human mind and soul, with faith and reason locked away from each other. And in TE/EC (at least of the BioLogos type) there is no integration of either science or theology with philosophy, because philosophy is never dealt with and barely ever mentioned. You'll find more discussions of the philosophical arguments of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Philo, etc. on UD and on Discovery (see Jay Richards's dialogue with the Thomists) than you will ever find on BioLogos. Now let me ask you some questions, Gregory: Dawkins says that biological systems look designed, but aren't. And he says that is something which science can show. He does not acknowledge the authority of theology or philosophy in biological matters. So how would you proceed to show him that biological systems not only *look* designed, but *are* designed? You can't quote him the Bible or rational arguments from someone like Plato. Your only option is to show he is wrong on his own turf, i.e., in the field of biology. Is that not the case? And if that is the case, then how can you fault ID people for concentrating on design detection in biology? If atheists and agnostics were Christian, one would not have to rely on science alone to convince them that nature is designed. Even if they were open to genuine philosophy (as opposed to what passes for philosophy in most modern Western universities), one could show them the folly of neo-Darwinism. But when all they acknowledge is a very narrow form of Cartesian/Baconian reasoning, one is limited in the kinds of responses one can offer. So you get people like Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Sternberg, Axe, Gauger, etc. limiting themselves, for the purposes of argument, to the language and conceptual framework that the atheist and agnostic biologists accept. What is wrong with that? What else *could* they do? Do you want Behe to stand up and say: "I don't need any of these biochemical arguments, because I'm Catholic and my Church teaches me that I am not the product of mere chance"? If he said that, he would immediately be labelled a "creationist" -- and this time with some justification. Is that what you want Behe to do, renounce all the arguments in his books as beside the point, and appeal to revelation against science? Finally, Gregory, one more question for you: why do you like Fuller so much? He seems to be asking for something very different from what you have commonly supported. In fact, in some ways he is asking for the opposite of what you recommend. You have constantly said that "evolution" as scientists define it (i.e., as run by neo-Darwinian and other stochastic mechanisms) is fine in biology, and that the only problem is that an unwarranted philosophy of "evolutionism" has crept into the human and social sciences. In other words, you have accepted that the biologists (even Dawkins and Ayala, insofar as they stick to biology and refrain from theologizing) are essentially right about the origin of species, including man. And what the biologists say is that there is no need to infer design: evolution can achieve the results of design, without any designer, because of the immense creative powers of random mutations and natural selection. (If you don't accept the biologists' teaching on this, you have done a very good job of concealing your disapproval.) Fuller says something quite different. Rather than giving the biologists complete autonomy on questions of origins, by limiting the notion of "design" to the human world, he says that we *should* impute concepts we know from the human/social realm into the realm of organic life. He says that we *should* back-read human conceptions of design into God, and regard nature as designed, and use Franciscan theology as our justification. He wants to put what you call "designism" into the study of nature. He thinks that regarding nature as designed will produce *better* scientific results than regarding it as the capricious result of randomness and natural selection. He wants to bring down the border you want to erect between the realm of human creativity and the realm of divine creativity. He denies what you have plainly said here and elsewhere, i.e., that concepts of design have no place in the realm of non-human nature. So why do you like him so much? And why do you criticize ID people so harshly for putting design concepts in the "wrong" place, i.e., in the natural realm, while giving Fuller a free pass to do the same?Timaeus_{July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

Gregory,
Please read more carefully, nullasalus. I didn’t say “ID is a religious idea.”
You said:
My question to nullasalus then is: why don’t more ID proponents embrace the holistic, integrative approach that Fuller is advocating, and call ID “an openly religious viewpoint with scientific aspirations”
Yeah, that offering is ID as a religious idea. What I said was entirely fair, and my replies were on point.
I had thought you would support such a position, nullasalus.
It's a little more complicated than that. I think ID asks entirely valid questions. I think, given a proper understanding of science, philosophy and otherwise, ID's questions and investigations are both A) not science, B) not religious, and C) able to reach compelling, valid conclusions. I do not think ID, either as ID proponents view it, or as I view it, is rightly called "a religious idea". Not without descending into a real complicated and tiring question about what is and isn't 'religious'.
However, are you suggesting, as a non-ID proponent, that ID has not (yet) reached the standards of ‘(biological) science,’ but that it is eventually ‘supposed to be’ the next best biological science, a post-Darwinian miracle of some kind? Or is there something else that you imagine ID is ‘supposed to be,’ rather than ‘what it actually is’ today (by whoever’s relative definition)? Really, I’d be pleased and curious to hear a declaration of your position about ‘what ID is supposed to be.’ I am ready to show you mine.
My view are complicated, and very often pragmatic and reactionary. The short version is, if no-ID is science, then it's impossible to responsibly exclude ID as science. (In other words, if we can point and, while entirely within the realm of science, say 'This natural thing is not, in any way, the product of design', that presupposes our ability to say 'This natural thing, in some way, is the product of design'.) On the flipside, if no-ID is excluded as science, ID to me seems rightly excluded as science too. The problem comes when people want to have their cake and eat it too. I think consistency is the best solution to that, since the result is forcing unprincipled people to eat digested cake.
However, only if an atheist thinks aliens (E.T.) were the actual historical ‘designers’ in question (since history is still involved) of (biological) life origins on Earth (i.e. rather than a divine agent) is separation allowed between ID theory and theism.
And ET, or the possibility of ET, are entirely possible within the ID spectrum - so sayeth Dembski himself. So sayeth Behe, I believe. You say this is 'ugly', but so what?
Shouldn’t Fuller be in one of the best positions to know what people in the ID community believe and how their ‘religion’ is connected to or disconnected from their ‘science’ if he is their sociologist?
I... would think that the people themselves in the ID community would be in the best positions regarding that. I think anyone who has read and comprehended the ID proponents' own books and writings are in good positions to do that. I have never seen Fuller announce himself as "ID's sociologist", or as someone particularly and especially capable of saying what Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc think. Don't you think that would be presumptuous?
What ‘ID is supposed to be’ would lose much credibility in my view if ID-atheism is kept open as a legitimate possibility. But if ID-atheism is refused, then the link between ID and theism is directly established, unless one is saying that ID is agnostic about the ‘designer/Designer’ rather than simply that the ‘designer/Designer’ is not part of (scientific) ID theory. Like the quotation by Dembski I cited above, it doesn’t seem like most people who support or advocate ID personally would call themselves ‘agnostics’ about the ‘designer/Designer.’ How do you address this conundrum, nullasalus?
Loses credibility? Why? With who? By what standard? And, most people who support ID don't consider themselves agnostics about the designer, no. Because they supplement ID with additional resources, and make connections outside of ID. You're going to have to address the following conundrum, in the form of a quote: ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien, a computional simulator (a la THE MATRIX), a Platonic demiurge, a Stoic seminal reason, an impersonal telic process, …, or the infinite personal transcendent creator God of Christianity? The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide. That'd be one Bill Dembski.
Another question: the issue of Fuller noting the connection between ID and ‘trans-humanism,’ which you raised in the Introduction. Why have you not yet expanded on this, nullasalus? It would bolster Fuller’s particular approach to ID, involving insights not present in the IDM. Perhaps people at UD would be interested to hear about what you consider to be a ‘sorely neglected’ area of discussion by IDM-IDers.
I'll get to it. I'm pretty busy lately. Besides, I'd like to read what Fuller has to say on this front first.
Indeed, if the ‘intelligence’ in ID is not ‘transcendental,’ as Fuller openly acknowledges and suggests the IDM should also endeavour to state, then this discourse is largely an exercise in diversion tactics, rather than one of enlightenment or possible ‘cultural renaissance.’
I disagree on all claims stated. That's like saying that finding out that intelligent of some kind plays or played a fundamental role in the nature we now know is uninteresting if it's not automatically known to be God. I find that sort of thinking alien (ha ha) to me.
Finally, nullsalus, if you don’t think ‘intelligent design’ should be promoted as a ‘science, philosophy, religion’ discourse, but instead only wish to defend the academic freedom of others to advocate ID as ‘science-only,’ even if you do not believe it qualifies as such yourself, at least will you not say why you take this position?
I believe that's been explained above. Probably not to your satisfaction - ask what you like.nullasalus_{July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

A very brief comment on Allanius-Gregory exchange (as much to do offline at present). The transcendental-mundane division of design looks like becoming invreasingly blurred if J Shapiro's approach has legs. It's an extension of the beaver-dam example - what if it emerges that organisms themselves have wondrous powers of managing their own evolution? Gregory rightly focuses on human design as part of the issue, rather than as a counter-example to design in nature, but we need to account for stuff aoart from the human, but below the divine, too. That relates, maybe, to the Thomistic view of secondary causes having their natures separately from God the primary cause, who gave them, which seems to be partly what Fuller and Feser are discussing. One needs somehow, then, if those "secondary natures" are more able in the field of design than has hitherto been acknowledged, to think more deeply about the relationship between God the ultimate designer and the design produced by secondary means in nature, lest one is left only with a more bloated naturalistic explanation of evolution.Jon Garvey_{July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

Please read more carefully, nullasalus. I didn't say "ID is a religious idea." However, those who made/invented/founded ID and the IDM are religious; there's an important difference. The actual flesh and blood people who theorise 'intelligent design' and their ‘presuppositions’ are significant here and can be studied, which is the point behind my 'situated (personal) knowledge' comment, a point which you seem unwilling to encounter or acknowledge. Demonstrated by Steve Fuller's work (which only kairosfocus has briefly commented on, with vjtorley planning a new thread on Fuller-Feser-McGinn), I suggested that the proper home field for ID is ‘science, philosophy and religion’ as a triadic conversation. I had thought you would support such a position, nullasalus. IDM people otoh do not usually or openly support this approach. If you think they do and have evidence of this, please provide references because what I see is the ‘science-only’ approach predominating. There are nowadays 'science and religion' programs at major universities around the world. I'd like to see philosophy added. In such a case, these interdisciplinary programs would surely benefit from Fuller's insightful contributions on this topic much more than if ID were considered as a much narrower 'science-only' issue. Fuller is asking people to think macroscopically when most are content to play with their microscopes on the topic of ‘intelligent design.’ In this broader context would you agree that 'science-only' is not what ID is 'supposed to be,' nullasalus? There are of course others here at UD who are ‘ID-is-science-only’ exclusivists who think ID is ‘just science.’ You have said in the past that you disagree with that approach, but your response to me in #23 doesn’t engage this directly. However, are you suggesting, as a non-ID proponent, that ID has not (yet) reached the standards of '(biological) science,' but that it is eventually ‘supposed to be’ the next best biological science, a post-Darwinian miracle of some kind? Or is there something else that you imagine ID is 'supposed to be,' rather than ‘what it actually is’ today (by whoever’s relative definition)? Really, I’d be pleased and curious to hear a declaration of your position about ‘what ID is supposed to be.’ I am ready to show you mine. The unanswered question of who are considered the ‘founders’ of ID indicates there may be some dispute here at UD about who (single or multiple) founded the science/ideology/philosophy/religious viewpoint that now is called ‘intelligent design.’ Call ID what you prefer, nullasalus, it won’t bother me. But notice please that I leave the door open to various definitions (having asked ID leaders personally) while at the same time taking care to intentionally confront scientism-minded (aka ‘science-only’) ID proponents when they are being scientifically over-zealous. If ID is a ‘science-only’ enterprise, then the ideology of scientism, surely you will admit, nullasalus, has unfortunately been placed on display center stage in the current ID discourse. As for atheists having 'theological speculations' regarding ID, of course, that is possible as an exercise of objective frivolity or subjective self-doubt. However, only if an atheist thinks aliens (E.T.) were the actual historical 'designers' in question (since history is still involved) of (biological) life origins on Earth (i.e. rather than a divine agent) is separation allowed between ID theory and theism. To me, the combination called ‘ID-atheism’ makes as much sense as an ugly beauty-queen/king. In most cases, a direct link between a person’s religious-theism and their perceived commitment to ID is quite easily established, if the IDM-member is forthcoming. Fuller’s work simply speaks more clearly about this than most (if not all) others. This view is likely supported by News, who calls him “sociologist of the ID community,” and "one of the very few who grasp the key issues." Shouldn’t Fuller be in one of the best positions to know what people in the ID community believe and how their ‘religion’ is connected to or disconnected from their ‘science’ if he is their sociologist? (Let me add however, that Fuller holds a PhD in history and philosophy of science, the same field as Stephen C. Meyer, so it is not ‘just sociology’ that interests Fuller in ID and the IDM.) What ‘ID is supposed to be’ would lose much credibility in my view if ID-atheism is kept open as a legitimate possibility. But if ID-atheism is refused, then the link between ID and theism is directly established, unless one is saying that ID is agnostic about the ‘designer/Designer’ rather than simply that the ‘designer/Designer’ is not part of (scientific) ID theory. Like the quotation by Dembski I cited above, it doesn’t seem like most people who support or advocate ID personally would call themselves ‘agnostics’ about the ‘designer/Designer.’ How do you address this conundrum, nullasalus? Another question: the issue of Fuller noting the connection between ID and ‘trans-humanism,’ which you raised in the Introduction. Why have you not yet expanded on this, nullasalus? It would bolster Fuller’s particular approach to ID, involving insights not present in the IDM. Perhaps people at UD would be interested to hear about what you consider to be a ‘sorely neglected’ area of discussion by IDM-IDers. Indeed, if the ‘intelligence’ in ID is not ‘transcendental,’ as Fuller openly acknowledges and suggests the IDM should also endeavour to state, then this discourse is largely an exercise in diversion tactics, rather than one of enlightenment or possible ‘cultural renaissance.’ Finally, nullsalus, if you don’t think ‘intelligent design’ should be promoted as a ‘science, philosophy, religion’ discourse, but instead only wish to defend the academic freedom of others to advocate ID as ‘science-only,’ even if you do not believe it qualifies as such yourself, at least will you not say why you take this position? My apology if you’ve already stated this at UD or Telic Thoughts or elsewhere, while I just haven’t read it. I’d appreciate if you could send links or educate me as to your curious position on this complicated theme. Fuller champions academic freedom and so do I; but academic freedom is not the only thing required for a ‘conceptual/perceptual revolution’ to take place.Gregory_{July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

allanius makes a good point. Newton wasn’t NOMA. But the IDM wants to be in so far as it sticks to a ‘science-only’ strategy. Of course, we know this is not actually the case: “Intelligent design’s dual role as a constructive scientific project and as a means for cultural renaissance.” (Dembski 2004) It’s the ‘what kind of cultural renaissance could it be if you’re letting it be driven/steered/guided by applied-natural ID science’ question that is not clearly addressed. Like neo-cybernetics on steroids! Wrt identifying ID as delightfully subversive, I’ll agree with the subversive part. I’m not sure what could be going through a person’s mind or heart to think that their ‘intellectual culture’ (whatever they mean by that) is ‘designer-less’ when there are designers everywhere in any ‘intellectual culture’ in the world. The main issue here is ‘transcendental’ vs. ‘mundane’ designers, as one of the IDM leaders names it, whereas if we accept human beings as created imago Dei the ‘mundane’ becomes a much more ‘transcendental’ project. As far as ‘emperors with no clothes,’ yes, it would be great if an amateur would come along, like the young boy in the story, and show us what is naked about the evolutionistic ideology that has been woven into western culture and linguistics. I suspect that person would have to be a non-biologist, a non-naturalist; maybe a philologist could properly fill the role...Gregory_{July 1, 2012
July
07
Jul
1
01
2012
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT}

If Newton was NOMA, then let's do no less. Newton lived in a time when you didn't need to spell things out, a la Thomism, because it was assumed that the heavens declare the glory of God, In a humorous twist of affairs, by a set of curious chances, ID doesn't have to spell things out because it is now assumed by the cultural elite that the heavens do NOT declare the glory of God. ID is delightfully subversive when it points out the very things most people see and believe, the things that are becoming increasingly self-evident, due to molecular biology. It doesn't have to say anything at all about the designer. To work its magic, all it has to do is plant the seed that our designerless intellectual culture is an emperor with no clothes, The fools says there is no God. ID has done more than enough, NOMA or not, if it makes this old wisdom plain.allanius_{July 1, 2012
July
07
Jul
1
01
2012
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

"Unusual to find a poster celebrating his birth via his username, tragic mishap." :( You leave my mother alone!tragic mishap_{July 1, 2012
July
07
Jul
1
01
2012
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

--nullasalus: "Gregory. Do you understand why ID proponents believe ID does not directly comment on theological matters? And I don’t mean, guess their motivations. Could you explain plainly what their rationale would be if they were asked this question?" --Gregory: ....."this is largely because they are thinking competitively about ‘science, philosophy and religion’ but rather competitively, as if ‘science and religion’ or ‘science and philosophy’ or ‘religion and philosophy’ are opposed to one another. Thus, they are NOMA or NOMA-like advocates, where science, philosophy and theology are ‘non-overlapping magisteria.’ So, get rid of the ‘theological identity’ and just ‘compete’ in the ‘other’ world of ‘science-alone’. But that’s just my educated guesswork, not an answer to nullasalus’ question." The reason that ID paradigms cannot comment on theology is because they do not have the power to extract religious ideas from empirical data. A scientific methodology cannot be designed to answer every question some critic might dream up in his post-modernist imagination. On the contrary, the function of a scientific paradigm is to address the one problem its originator hopes to solve. The nature of the problem (or question) shapes the texture of the methodology. At the same time, ID proponents recognize the compatibility between science and theology, provided that each specialty operates legitimately within its own sphere. Acknowledging the "unity of truth," ID thinkers, as a rule, reject the notion of "Non-overlapping Magisteria," which implies one truth for religion and another for science. This dubious strategy of dividing truth is reserved for Christian Darwinists who routinely deny Biblical teachings in the name of Darwinian science. Though they would vehemently deny it, the conflict between religion and science is very real for them: In opposition to the clear Biblical references which teach the detectability of design, Christian Darwinists hold that biological design is undetectable. Darwin said it, they believe it, that settles it. --Gregory: "Why don’t more ID proponents embrace the holistic, integrative approach that Fuller is advocating, and call ID “an openly religious viewpoint with scientific aspirations” or a “natural-scientific theory with a theological identity” and promote that in a country that is still one of the ‘most religious’ in the G20?" One important reason that more ID proponents do not embrace this holistic, integrative approach is because they are busy doing something else.StephenB_{July 1, 2012
July
07
Jul
1
01
2012
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

We are entitled to infer on the sign-signified relationship.
Of course we are. But this only influences those interested in the effective combination of material observation and universal experience. Interestingly, that doesn't include the vast majority of materialists.Upright BiPed_{July 1, 2012
July
07
Jul
1
01
2012
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Gregory: Pardon, but I must insist, per 1 above: the pivotal issue is epistemological-logical, not a phil-theology debate. Namely, what does the empirical evidence warrant. One more time. We have a case where factors of mechanical necessity, chance circumstances and intelligence are commonly encountered in our world and have characteristic signs. E.g. necessity yields natural regularities -- that is how we spot that lawlike necessities are at work. Chance typically leads to stochastically distributed contingencies. Intelligence leads to choice-based, purposeful contingencies that often leave signs such as functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information. Indeed, intelligence is the only empirically observed, analytically -- needle in haystack or monkeys at keyboards -- warranted, known adequate cause of FSCO/I. We are entitled to infer on the sign-signified relationship. It's that simple, just as we are entitled to infer arson or burglary on reliable signs. Even, when we were not there to see how exactly twerdun, or whodunit. We were not there to see and record the remote past of origins. That is a challenge to all accounts of origins. But, we are entitled to infer on empirically tested, reliable signs. And as for the "life forms replicate" red herring, from the days of Paley's often overlooked thought exercise, it has been well known that such a facility would credibly be yet another manifestation of FSCO/I, so the origin of self replication in living systems that also have separate functions like metabolism, points to the same signified. And when we see the elaboration of major body plans at 10 mn bits or better apiece, that too points the same way. The problem is not the sign, or what it reliably signifies. It is the grip of an a priori materialism that has censored scientific reasoning from drawing the otherwise reasonable conclusion. So, at this stage, I no longer take the demands for proof that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design, or for separate proof of a "supernatural" designer at the origin of life on earth or of major body plans seriously. These objections are put up and insisted on in the teeth of duties of care: design implies intelligent action, not necessarily supernatural intelligent action. As has been pointed out for decades and as has been routinely swarmed down by those wanting to make talking points instead of dealing with issues on their merits. Similarly, it is abundantly and easily evident that when sufficiently many well matched, properly arranged and attached parts are needed to do a job, we have isolated islands of function in the space of possible configurations to deal with. Ever tried to make a car work with the wrong part or the wrongly arranged part? These things are evident, or should be evident. So, the question is not "goddidit" or not, but whether it is reasonable and empirically warranted to see signs of intelligence and to infer on such to intelligent cause. Pretences that chance and necessity can do the designs actually don't pass the basic common sense test. Much less, the sort of analysis of blind samples or searches of config spaces that have led to the concept that the gap between what blind search can reasonably do and what is being achieved can be used to estimate the intelligently injected active info. And yes, evidence that points to the intelligent origin of the world of life -- and this seems to leave too many shuddering -- leaves God on the table as a possible creator. Similarly, evidence from the fine tuning of the cosmos also invites such an inference as to the identity of the intelligence involved. That builds on the evidence from sign, it does not detract from it. So, the pivotal question is: are there empirically credible signs of intelligence at work. Plainly, yes. Next, does the world of life show such signs? The observed cosmos? Yes, and yes. The reasonable person will go with those signs, regardless of the fulminations and maledictions of the evo mat ideologues. KFkairosfocus_{July 1, 2012
July
07
Jul
1
01
2012
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

I know. Don't tell me. You're a school-boy!Axel_{July 1, 2012
July
07
Jul
1
01
2012
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Mmm. Unusual to find a poster celebrating his birth via his username, tragic mishap. Good job, the geneticist, Watson wasn't about, or you might not have been here. "This should become the spaghetti monster for atheists. LOL." Gosh, that's puerile stuff for this board. Did you think it was Richie Dawkins' site? Care to name one of the great paradigm-changers of physics who were not convinced of ID - an individual, not a team? Thought not. Next question?Axel_{July 1, 2012
July
07
Jul
1
01
2012
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply