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

"Baal-Bingo"? lol you are hilarious. I hope you have more material. :D This should become the spaghetti monster for atheists. LOL. Anyway I would agree with Gregory that the "founder" of ID were those present at the meeting at Pajaro Dunes. As for Fuller being on the "front-lines," well, if being on the front-lines means you live in Britain and stand up for ID in academia there, then ok. But intellectually? Not so much. No offense to Mr. Fuller.tragic mishap_{July 1, 2012
July
07
Jul
1
01
2012
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Is not the reluctance on the part of IDers to allow association of ID with theology, due to the totalitarian imposition and draconian enforcement of the greatest mystery of them all: Unintelligent Design, as the uniquely true paradigm of science. Science is the comprehensive, the ultimate, source of all knowledge and certainty.... You want to play cards or dice with us, you use our cards, our dice. Since we are always surrounded by intelligently-designed artefacts, the vast body of mankind - not least, historically, all the greatest paradigm-changers of science without exception - have never even doubted that the natural words was intelligently-designed, should we not therefore accord to the advocates of Unintelligent Design the awestruck reverence due to demi-gods. The ultimate paradigm-changers bar none. Here are men and women, who, in the teeth of inexhaustible evidence to the contrary adhere nothing less than heroically, to their religious conviction; faith of a truly epic order. It rather puts the faith of the centurion who asked Jesus to cure his servant, in the shade, doesn't it? 'The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” "When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith."' Nor will the great God, Baal-Bingo, find such faith in him in any other previous or future generation in mankind's long and, heretofore, faithless history, to compare with it.Axel_{July 1, 2012
July
07
Jul
1
01
2012
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

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” 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?
For one thing, because ID isn't supposed to be some exclusively American, or even Western, phenomenon. Why should it be? It's a little like asking why anyone would ever bother translating ID materials into Chinese. For another, because ID isn't supposed to be a religious idea, and as most commonly legitimately presented, it is not. Finally, though far from the last reason - because it's not necessary to do so. A Christian or a Jew or yes, even atheist, can talk about their theological speculations about ID openly. They'll just mention that, as they're speaking, they're no longer talking about ID, but a religious viewpoint.
Why not openly involve religion/theology in the ‘cultural renaissance’ that ID leaders’ are seeking by displaying ID as inevitably a triadic – science, philosophy and religion – conversation, instead of just counting on the ‘implications’ of ‘design=mind’ extended from the anthropic to the cosmic scale?
They do. They just don't need to make ID into something else in order to do that.nullasalus_{July 1, 2012
July
07
Jul
1
01
2012
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

The rationales of people who reject calling ID a “natural-scientific theory with a theological identity” are multiple. Imo they want ID to be ‘natural-science-only,’ and ‘not-religion,’ ‘not-natural-theology’ or ‘not-philosophy.’ This is largely because they are not thinking cooperatively 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. Personally, I do not separate ‘what ID claims’ from the actual people who are claiming it, nor do I think it makes sense or is helpful to do so. Yet, at the same time, I understand why others do try to separate the two. This therefore is my answer to "if they were asked this question": they would say ‘ID is a [natural] scientific theory’ that has “a demonstrable secular purpose” and that “its motivation, even if religious, is legally irrelevant” (Dembski 2004: 56). Iow, they would claim the focus of ID is biology, information, origins of life, pattern recognition, specifications, ‘eliminating’ chance, etc. and *not* about theology as an objective (impersonal) field of study. Since this thread is about Fuller’s approach to ID theory which differs from that answer, let me point to his words: “I actually believe that the deep theological roots of intelligent design theory provide a robust basis for perpetuating the radical spirit of inquiry that marks both philosophy and science at their best – not at their worst.” (2011) Why does he speak of “the deep theological roots of ID theory” and why are some people trying so hard to separate ID from theology? Why do people seem to believe ‘intertwining’ theology, philosophy and science would be an ‘at their worst’ scenario, rather than an ‘at their best’ scenario? Some people have told me that ID has *nothing* to do with theology. Yet, if they are not trying to separate them, then in a nutshell, what is the ‘unifying’ or ‘integrating’ strategy of the IDM with respect to the relationship between science, philosophy and religion? Again, there are multiple strategies possible for the IDM, but none of which I believe can claim to have succeeded. “That idea of ‘science as a vocation’, as Max Weber called it with a nod to Luther, is essentially religious. The original model was monasticism, but it was updated in the nineteenth century when the word ‘scientist’ was coined to describe someone with credentials in scientific subjects who was thereby authorized to provide deep, rational, unifying explanations of naturally and artificially produced phenomena.” (2010: 55) So we see in Fuller’s writing a rationale for unifying the discussion which IDM-ID has thus far refused. Why? “It was only once atomism and Epicureanism were embedded in a universalist cosmology subject to intelligent design that they contributed to the organised resistance against nature that has been characteristic of modern science. This cosmology derived from the biblical religions, in which the deity, in whose image humans are uniquely created, is presented as engaging in an ongoing but ultimately successful struggle against nature to realise his intentions.” (2008: 182) What this means is a dialogue between science, philosophy and religion is possible rather than impossible. ID cosmology is ‘derived from the biblical religions,’ most specifically, from Christianity which the ‘founders’ of ID almost exclusively belong to. Whether Fuller is an ‘agnostic’ or a ‘theist,’ he nevertheless speaks directly to the dialogue he sees as necessary between science, philosophy and religion involving ID. He sees cooperation between these major spheres as a wider focus and as an explanation of background context for IDT. “ID needs to adopt a consistently progressive stance towards the pursuit of science, as befits creatures designed in imago dei to master nature…ID theorists have yet to take the full measure of the literal force of our biblical entitlement, which requires embracing, however tentatively, science’s Faustian dimension.” … “On the religious side, ID needs to reassert the specificity of the Abrahamic God as the implied intelligent designer. Without this specificity (which still allows for considerable theological dispute), the concept of an intelligent designer becomes devoid of content, adding to the suspicion that ID is no more than ‘not-evolution’. In this spirit, ID’s critics have proffered a ‘flying spaghetti monster’ and an ‘orbiting teapot’ as alternatives to a more biblically inspired deity. In response, ID defenders should openly confront the relatively recent anti-religious judicial reading of the US Constitution’s separation of Church and state, which now excludes even religiously motivated views from public science education: the issue should not be whether ID is primarily science or religion, but whether it passes scientific muster as an openly religious viewpoint with scientific aspirations – a matter to be decided by actual educational practice.” (2008: 226 & 231) Fuller’s interest in ID is thus about much more than ‘the origins of biological information.’ It is also about ways we understand ourselves and our (human) neighbours today. This opens up questions such as the various meanings of science and education, as well as ‘trans-humanism,’ which nullasalus expressed interest in at the top of the thread. From about 4 days ago on UD, William Dembski linked to his own words: “Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? From a naturalistic perspective, such a source remains a mystery. But from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God.” Since ‘naturalism’ is one of the targets of IDers and since Dembski is a ‘theist,’ the conclusion is obvious, and shows how religion/theology does have a place at the table. There seems to be no legitimate point in (reflexively) excluding it any longer. “Do you understand why ID proponents believe ID does not directly comment on theological matters?” - nullasalus ID proponents can and do comment on theological matters, when they deem it is appropriate. To separate their faith from their science might appear to offer one kind of solution, but it also brings with it other kinds of problems. 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” 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? Why not openly involve religion/theology in the ‘cultural renaissance’ that ID leaders’ are seeking by displaying ID as inevitably a triadic – science, philosophy and religion – conversation, instead of just counting on the ‘implications’ of ‘design=mind’ extended from the anthropic to the cosmic scale?Gregory_{July 1, 2012
July
07
Jul
1
01
2012
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

Could you explain plainly what their rationale would be if they were asked this question?
Good question. Perhaps an answer is forthcoming. In my limited experience with Gregory, he doesn't't seem particularly interested in material issues, so it would be interesting to see if he can articulate the rationale in a way that is appropriately tied to those material issues.Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

It isn’t easy to conceive and develop a new scientific paradigm. To pull it off, one must be profoundly analytical and profoundly creative. Some possess the analytical capacity but lack the creative component; others possess the creative component but lack the analytical ability. Most of all, the inventor of a groundbreaking idea must be individualistic. It takes a bit of genius to pull it off. William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Hugh Ross are all like that. They are, in their own way, leaders and individual thinkers. Each man tries to solve a specific problem; each makes a specific contribution; each man blazes a unique trail. It appears that Dr. Fuller thinks that Dembski and Behe, who prefer to limit their study to nature's patterns, should be more like Hugh Ross, who seeks to link nature's patterns to the Biblical God. But we already have a Hugh Ross.StephenB_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

"Fuller is one of the founders of ID theory..." Love that "ID theory"! You couldn't make it up. A matter of the most banal, everyday observation is a "theory"..! Sure it's not wild conjecture? Yet the wildest materialist conjectures, well.. unambiguously gratuitous fantasies, in fact... abiogensis, multiverse, etc, not accessible at all to observation or reproducible, are apparently comprehensively and universally-received "givens"!!!! i...ndi....sPUTable! Science with a capital S! Come back, Adam. All is forgiven. He seems a far more credible candidate for the title of 'founder' of ID... THEORY', in my admittedly not so humble opinion in this matter.Axel_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Gregory,
Btw, a ‘natural-scientific theory with a theological identity’ doesn’t sound so appalling to these ears. That is clearly what ‘intelligent design’ already means to many people.
The problem is, the people it already means that to tend to be either ignorant of ID's claims, or flat-out "harsh critics trying to paint ID in a bad light". A natural-scientific theory with a theological identity - the problem is, I think many ID proponents, even the ones who believe the Designer is God (an identification that all of the usual 'front-line ID contributors' say is not part of ID), would balk at that. Let me ask you this, 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?nullasalus_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

I stand by the belief that Fuller ... is “making a front-line contribution to defining the theory’s identity”. If you believe he is not, then please address this To say that Fuller "is making a front-line contribution to defining ID's identity" is like saying that Gary Zukav and Fritjof Capra "made a front-line contribution to define Quantum Mechanics' identity".cantor_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

"He is not 'making a front-line contribution to defining the [ID] theory’s identity'. / If he wants a theory with a theological 'identity', he can call it something else and be the 'founder' of that." - cantor Those are two different things. If it will help, I'm willing to retract the statement I made in the introduction: Steve Fuller is *not* one of the 'founders' of ID theory. He was not present at Pajaro Dunes, 1993. However, I stand by the belief that Fuller expressed himself, that he is “making a front-line contribution to defining the theory’s identity”. If you believe he is not, then please address this and his works on ID as seen (partially) in the link provided above. Btw, a 'natural-scientific theory with a theological identity' doesn't sound so appalling to these ears. That is clearly what 'intelligent design' already means to many people.Gregory_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

"If he wants a theory with a theological “identity”, he can call it something else and be the “founder” of that."
I'm obliged to agree.Chance Ratcliff_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Hi everyone, I very much enjoyed reading Professor Steve Fuller's recent article, Defending Theism as if Science Mattered: Against Both McGinn and Feser, as well as Professor Feser's response. I'll be putting up a related post in the next few days.vjtorley_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

What do you folks make then of Fuller’s statement: “I am making a front-line contribution to defining the theory’s identity”? This: He is not "making a front-line contribution to defining the theory’s identity". If he wants a theory with a theological "identity", he can call it something else and be the "founder" of that.cantor_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Notice please, cantor, that I didn’t say ‘quantum mechanics’ but rather ‘uncertainty principle’. Yes I noticed that, but you seem to have missed the point. The analogy is weak. The topic was "founders of ID" not "founders of one specific principle of ID".cantor_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

What do you folks make then of Fuller's statement: "I am making a front-line contribution to defining the theory’s identity”? (2011) Notice please, cantor, that I didn't say 'quantum mechanics' but rather 'uncertainty principle'. Then again, Fuller traces 'intelligent design' back to Newton, rather than to Paley (or Thaxton). “Whereas Newton, fuelled by confidence in the biblical account of humans as creatures in imago dei, concluded that his theory had mapped the divine plan, Darwin, starting out with similar confidence, was ultimately persuaded by the evidence that humans lacked any natural privilege, not least because there was no plan beyond the actual unfolding of natural history. Both worked on their grand projects for twenty years, the result of which reinforced the faith of one scientist and removed the faith of the other.” (2010: 105) Fuller works directly with 'the data from human nature' (though 'data' here is an incomprehensive term). His work thus deals with 'anthropic principles' in a way much more specific, detailed and direct than cosmologists, physicists or biologists. So, unless News is suggesting that ID has nothing to do with 'human nature,' I see no reason why his contributions cannot or should not influence or even (re-)define the meaning(s) people ascribe to ID theory. It is much more than "the conflict between Darwinism and ID" that is at issue here. Perhaps that is also what interests nullasalus regarding the 'sorely neglected' relationship between trans-humanism and ID. Why is a connection between these ideas often 'neglected' within the IDM? Fuller's Humanity 2.0 (2011) might be worth checking out by more people in the intelligent design community.Gregory_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

StephenB (& Gregory): 1 above gives a case in point. KFkairosfocus_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

--"Why does Fuller who has written and spoken prolifically about ID not count as a ‘founder of ID theory’? Simply because he didn’t attend the 1993 Pajaro Dunes gathering? Is that the necessary landmark to qualify one as an ‘ID founder’?" News is correct. Fuller is not one of the “founders” of ID theory. He supports ID thinkers in the sense that he thinks they have a right to say what they say-- and he does a good job analyzing the cultural and sociological issues involved-- but he does not support ID paradigms in their present form. On the contrary, he argues that ID ought to be something other than what it is, presumably a more expansive, theologically-driven enterprise that does NOT begin with an analysis of data or limit its scope by drawing modest conclusions based solely on empirical observations and measurements. One can hardly be the founder of an idea with which he profoundly disagrees.StephenB_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

For Gregory at 6: Steve Fuller doesn't work directly with the data from nature, so far as we know, so it isn't clear how he could be one of the founders of ID theory. That said, it is a good thing that a serious sociologist is looking at the conflict between Darwinism and ID.News_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Your choice of Heisenberg's name to make your point was a very poor one. There was no single founder of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg was one of the founders of quantum mechanics, along with Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Born, Pauli, Dirac, and others. So your same "who were the founders" question could be asked in that context. Quantum mechanics. Pretty good company I would say.cantor_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

"Steve Fuller, while someone ID sympathizers respect, is most certainly not “one of the founders of ID theory.” - News Who then does 'News' consider to be 'the founders of ID theory'? Specific names are welcome and requested here. Are M. Behe, W. Dembski and S.C. Meyer the *only* 'founders of ID theory' or are Phillip Johnson and Charles Thaxton included also, perhaps along with a select few others (e.g. P. Nelson and J. Wells)? Is Nancy Pearcey a 'founder of ID theory' or not? Iow, how many 'founders of ID theory' does News suggest there are, what constitutes News' short-list, since News is saying that Fuller is not a founder? Isn't one of the main issues here that *there is no single founder of ID,* like A. Einstein was for physical relativity or W. Heisenberg was for the 'uncertainty principle' or I. Newton was for gravity or N. Copernicus (then Rheticus) was for heliocentric cosmology? Even Brandon Carter's more recent coinage of 'anthropic principle' has been eclipsed or challenged by a variety of competing claims to the 'real' anthropic principle nowadays. Is the pseudonymous internet blogger 'Mike Gene' possible to credit as a 'founder of ID theory' or is he a derivative hanger-on or something else? Why does Fuller who has written and spoken prolifically about ID not count as a 'founder of ID theory'? Simply because he didn't attend the 1993 Pajaro Dunes gathering? Is that the necessary landmark to qualify one as an 'ID founder'?Gregory_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

By the way, we strongly recommend Fuller's book Dissent over Descent, from which we have provided brief excerpts in the last couple of years. Will do a post later, linking to same.News_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Steve Fuller, while someone ID sympathizers respect, is not "one of the founders of ID theory." He is a sociologist who has studied the controversies and controversialists around it. This is a very valuable service, if done for purposes other than politicking (paging Barbara Forrest here), but is not the same as being an ID theorist like, say Michael Behe, Bill Dembski, or Steve Meyer. News_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

Edward Feser has taken the trouble to respond to me, and I to him. You may find the exchange interesting (just one round from me): http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/reply-to-steve-fuller.htmlSteve Fuller_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

It should go without saying, I don't endorse what Gregory (or Fuller, for that matter) is saying necessarily. But I figured it'd be room for discussion around here. Gregory, OTOH, can speak for himself.nullasalus_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

Null/Gregory: I find this an interesting exercise. Let me clip a few thought-sparker cites from Fuller:
“The failure of intelligent design theory to specify the intelligent designer constitutes both a rhetorical and an epistemological disadvantage…The epistemological disadvantage is subtler, namely, that intelligent design theory is unnecessarily forced to adopt an instrumentalist philosophy of science, whereby its theory is treated merely as a device for explaining particular phenomena (i.e. as products of intelligent design) without allowing inferences to the best explanation (i.e. the properties of the implied designer).” (171) “I believe [it] is necessary [to] return to theology as the source of theoretical guidance on the nature of the intelligent designer (Fuller 2008a).” (171) “In short, by studiously avoiding the appeal to theological arguments as part of their scientific explanations, intelligent design theorists only inhibit their own ability to meet the opposition of Neo-Darwinian apologists like Sober. Admittedly, making such appeals would mean not only re-opening old theological debates but also making them part of secular academic debate. A test of our collective intellectual maturity will lie in our ability to tolerate such a newly charged situation. But as it stands, intelligent design theory does itself no intellectual favours by keeping the identity of the intelligent designer as vague as Neo-Darwinians keep the identity of evolution, even if that practice appears justified as politically expedient.” (173) . . . . “…[M]y own interest in promoting intelligent design in schools, which is much more positive than Johnson’s original worries about naturalism turning into an established religion. I actually believe that the deep theological roots of intelligent design theory provide a robust basis for perpetuating the radical spirit of inquiry that marks both philosophy and science at their best – not at their worst, as their collective response to intelligent design has put on public display (Fuller 2009b). As a true social constructivist (Fuller 2000b: Preface), I see myself as one of the constructors of intelligent design theory. I am not simply remarking from the sidelines about what others have done or are doing, as a historian or a journalist might. Rather I am making a front-line contribution to defining the theory’s identity.” (177) “In terms of pedagogical implications, my support of intelligent design goes beyond merely requiring that students learn the history and philosophy of science alongside their normal studies. It involves reengineering the science curriculum so that its history and philosophy falls within its normal remit.” (180)
In my initial response, I first think that there is merit in raising the issues of phil of sci and what I guess could be called philosophy of nature, i.e. discourse on the relevant aspects of metaphysics etc. Also, relevant history of science and of ideas is key context. A familiarity with at least the sort of ideas on the nature and limitations of scientific knowledge that Newton discussed in his General Scholium and in Opticks, Query 31, will be a useful first nexus for all of this. That said, I would look on the strengths and limitations of knowledge deriving from inductive inquiry (including abduction) and the inherent open-endedness of science as a consequence, as a powerful way to clear the air. There has been a miasma of scientism underwritten by implicit or explicit materialism and a grossly extrapolated and exaggerated view of the capacity of mechanisms of chance variation and differential reproductive success to innovate body plan level structures that has clouded clarity of thought and that has also created a highly polarised, ideology-driven atmosphere on scientific reconstruction of origins. That is the sort of reason why some resort to hate sites, personal attacks, smears, outright slander and libel etc. Not to mention censorship, outing tactics, career busting and mafioso-style implied gangsterish threats against family members. All they succeed in doing when they act like that is to expose their want of basic broughtupcy, and to highlight the utter moral bankruptcy of evolutionary materialism, due to its want of a worldview foundation IS adequate to ground OUGHT. Those who act like this, and those who harbour them or indulge in enabling passivity be not correcting them, or -- worse -- imagine that such misbehaviour is legitimate free comment, show just how bankrupt their thinking has become. From Plato in The Laws, Bk X, this issue of nihilistic factions driven by evolutionary materialist ideology has been a significant concern for the well-being of society. It is in that context that the sort of links from history of ideas to history issues raised by Weikart et al, become highly relevant. But, as can be seen here, we are looking at phil context of scientific knowledge, and at broad, philosophically and historically informed questions of science in society. Worldviews and cultural agendas and issues. By contrast, as we narrow focus to the logic of inductive warrant that makes certain ideas warranted as empirically reliable and useful so far, we can see that -- again from Newton et al on -- there is reasonable warrant for caution and what can be called, chastened or humbled realism that embraces some degree of instrumentalism in understanding scientific knowledge; especially on origins science matters where in reconstructing a remote and unobservable past we must rely on factual adequacy relating to traces of the past we can observe today and tested signs of adequate dynamics to produce explanations on a best current basis. Where, instrumentalism can be set in relevant context with a clip from the Stanford Enc of Phil, article on Scientific Progress:
The instrumentalists follow Duhem in thinking that theories are merely conceptual tools for classifying, systematizing and predicting observational statements, so that the genuine content of science is not to be found on the level of theories (Duhem 1954). Scientific realists, by contrast, regard theories as attempts to describe reality even beyond the realm of observable things and regularities, so that theories can be regarded as statements having a truth value. Excluding naive realists, most scientists are fallibilists in Peirce's sense: scientific theories are hypothetical and always corrigible in principle. They may happen to be true, but we cannot know this for certain in any particular case. But even when theories are false, they can be cognitively valuable if they are closer to the truth than their rivals (Popper 1963). Theories should be testable by observational evidence, and success in empirical tests gives inductive confirmation (Hintikka 1968; Niiniluoto and Tuomela 1973; Kuipers 2000) or non-inductive corroboration to the theory (Popper 1959). It might seem natural to expect that the main rival accounts of scientific progress would be based upon the positions of instrumentalism and realism. But this is only partly true. To be sure, naive realists as a rule hold the accumulation-of-truths view of progress, and many philosophers combine the realist view of theories with the axiological thesis that truth is an important goal of scientific inquiry. A non-cumulative version of the realist view of progress can be formulated by using the notion of truthlikeness. But there are also philosophers who accept the possibility of a realist treatment of theories, but still deny that truth is a relevant value of science which could have a function in the characterization of scientific progress. Bas van Fraassen's (1980) constructive empiricism takes the desideratum of science to be empirical adequacy: what a theory says about the observable should be true. The acceptance of a theory involves only the claim that it is empirically adequate, not its truth on the theoretical level. Van Fraassen has not developed an account of scientific progress in terms of his constructive empiricism, but presumably such an account would be close to empiricist notions of reduction and Laudan's account of problem-solving ability (see Section 3.2). An instrumentalist who denies that theories have truth values usually defines scientific progress by referring to other virtues theories may have, such as their increasing empirical success. In 1908 Duhem expressed this idea by a simile: scientific progress is like a mounting tide, where waves rise and withdraw, but under this to-and-fro motion there is a slow and constant progress. However, he gave a realist twist to his view by assuming that theories classify experimental laws, and progress means that the proposed classifications approach a “natural classification” (Duhem 1954). Evolutionary epistemology is open to instrumentalist (Toulmin) and realist (Popper) interpretations. A biological approach to human knowledge naturally gives emphasis to the pragmatist view that theories function as instruments of survival. Darwinist evolution in biology is not goal-directed with a fixed forward-looking goal; rather, species adapt themselves to an ever changing environment. In applying this account to the problem of knowledge-seeking, the fitness of a theory can be taken to mean that the theory is accepted by members of the scientific community. But a realist can reinterpret the evolutionary model by taking fitness to mean the truth or truthlikeness of a theory . . .
There is a lot of room for debates in there, but it should be clear that scientific knowledge is inescapably provisional and that inductive reasoning is only capable of a weak form warrant. Inductive knowledge claims are not certain beyond correction. And, it is fair comment to note that different scientific claims come with differing degrees of corroboration and differing degrees of openness to empirical testing. So, as we are less and less open to testing, and as the degree of warrant decreases, we would be well advised to hold claims with a lesser degree of certitude. In particular, the notion of a general authority of Science that gives an imprimatur of practical certainty to dominant theories is -- for good reason -- highly suspect. In that context, I would hold that the design inference explanatory filter (addressed per aspect of a phenomenon or object etc) -- and/or its equivalent in mathematically structured models of complex specified information -- is a legitimate approach to inferring cause on a best explanation basis, in contexts where we do not have direct access to observe the causal process in action. It is interesting in this context to see the objections often made, that there is no independent access to the inferred designer so the inference can be dismissed and denigrated. This of course is ideologically loaded and begs the question that the reason why we are inferring is that we need to see what inferred cause is best adequate, given that we did not and often cannot observe the actual causal process at work. In short,t he objection is self-serving and selectively hyperskeptical. But to infer cause by design as process or mechanism, is manifestly not to infer the identity or personal characteristics of the designer. One may infer arson as cause of a fire without knowing the culprit. Of course, that inferred deed may suggest a moral characteristic, but that is a question of motives. My broader point is that design as process is separable as a matter if inductive investigation, from the identity or characteristics of the candidate designers in question. All that a design inference requires is a sufficiently open mind that is willing to accept the possibility of design -- not ruling it out a priori -- and a willingness to accept that various causal processes tend to leave characteristic signs that can be tested and warranted as reliable signs of design. With a growing toolbox of relevant techniques and signs in hand, one has a perfect epistemic right to infer the causal process on the observed sign. One may then wish to debate characteristics of candidate designers, but that is a further exercise. Where prof Fuller is quite right to be concerned, is the point that what is happening is that an institutionally dominant ideological school -- we can term it a priori evolutionary materialist scientism -- is trying to censor the reasonable process of inference in the interests of their school. So, ironically, they have made the penumbra of issues and concerns above highly relevant to a fair evaluation of scientific practice, science education, and to science, society and good citizenship concerns. In particular as we see science professors championing atheism in the name of science -- never mind the sophomoric bluster typically involved -- and as we see them embracing, using, enabling and harbouring nihilistic, amoral, might/manipulation makes 'right' tactics and as we see them championing the ill-considered distortion of foundational societal and cultural institutions, they are the best argument as to why evolutionary materialistic scientism and secular humanism are intellectually and morally bankrupt and a positive danger to the well-being of our civilisation. So, we do have to set science in the context of ideas and issues, and in the wider context of impact on society. But, I still think that the inference to design as cause is properly distinct from that wider connexion. Sufficiently so, that we may undertake a technical inquiry as to how well warranted the design inference is. The answer to that is actually blatant: very well warranted indeed, especially as we focus on functionally specific complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I], the relevant form of CSI. Especially where the info is in the form of digitally coded algorithmic or linguistic symbol strings. That is why many thoughtful people hold and will continue to hold for the foreseeable future, that C-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life that pivots on DNA is designed. The supportive, fine tuned physics of the observed cosmos that supports that also warrants a design inference. So does the information-centric nature of body plans and key features of life forms, like the bird lung or wing and the human vocal apparatus and language ability. We are not going away, and we are not perverse or perverted to hold such views. The resort to slander-laced smears, cruel mockery, outing tactics and threats against careers or family simply underscore the moral bankruptcy and ill-will of objectors who resort to such, or passively enable or harbour such. We are here, we are qualified to address scientific and linked phil, history of ideas and societal issues. We have good reason to call for reform in science, in the academy, in education, in the media, and in society. We are not going away, and we will stoutly defend our reputations, careers, families and civilisation against such ideologically motivated bully-boy tactics. And, at length, we will prevail. KFkairosfocus_{June 30, 2012
June
06
Jun
30
30
2012
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply