Obviously, our first choice would be to find debaters who actually believe in intelligent design to represent us. One key question is this: How many of these debates take place and how many pro-ID luminaries do we have to fill the bill? Who does the inviting and do they search for the best ID representatives available?
In one sense, I suppose Berlinski helps us in the same way that TE’s help the Darwinists. In effect, both play against the stereotype of the partisan by claiming objectivity based on irony. On the one hand, Collins can say, “What!—me a Darwinist ideologue?--- why, I’ll have you know that I am a Christian. On the other hand, Berlinski can say, “What!---me an Christian ideologue?---- why, I’ll have you know that I am an agnostic. At the same time, this approach is little more that an appeal for a fair hearing; it has no real substance.
Granted, posing as one who is above the fray can carry some weight, but it shouldn’t be the whole show in any given debate. Someone, namely the debate partner, must also be present to tell the ID story in a compelling way. Just as TEs always team up with a Darwinst, Berlinski should always team up with a strong ID representative. One cannot effectively attack error without also standing up for the truth and vice versa. In keeping with that same principle, truth does not sell itself; it needs strong evidence and powerful rhetoric. Attacking your opponents’ arguments is only half the battle; the other half is making your own.StephenB
October 5, 2008
October
10
Oct
5
05
2008
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
We tend to fall into two types—those impressed with what we do know and those few folks more impressed with the much larger domain of what we do not know. Yes, I know, the seeker is of the first type—he has to believe that we do know and that we can and should know even more than we do. But we need the devil’s advocates too—to keep us honest and to keep us humble by reminding us of how vast our ignorance really is.
Most of the great physicists—somewhere in their writings at least—will say that beauty is the best guide to the truth, and as Sheldon Glashow writes in The Charm of Physics (Touchstone Books, 1991), no one ever discovered any profound truth unless he somehow knew deep in his bones that things are good. Most physicists, at least today, do not share this conviction and thus devote their lives to the ramifications of the theories of the greats.
This suggests that—though evil exists and bad stuff happens—overall things are beautiful and that in the end good prevails.
We need David Berlinski. He is the true skeptic---not like the pseudo-skeptics who loudly advertise their skepticism yet are really true believers and ardent advocates for the materialist cause.Rude
October 5, 2008
October
10
Oct
5
05
2008
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Is David Berlinski on our side? We will have to wait and see. He is an occasional gadfly to the intellectual elites rather than a proponent of ID. Some of us look at a debunking of the current conventional wisdom as proof of ID but it is not necessarily so.
I found his book unnecessarily convoluted and more like it was written to the literary class as opposed to the common person. In other words look how clever I can write without having to convince anyone of anything.
I think Behe's rhetorical approach is much better and easier to understand and his admission is stronger for our case which is namely we do not know what caused OOL or macro evolution. He admits it is a mystery and till shown otherwise ID is a potential inference for these two phenomenon and one that makes sense based on human experience.
We assume here that Darwinian processes are bogus but they are not, they are only bogus or seemed to be ruled out in certain areas of life based on current evidence. We also have no positive inference to ID for OOL or macro evolution, only negative inferences to Darwinian processes or to other naturalistic mechanisms as the cause for these phenomena. If some naturalistic phenomenon was shown to produce FCSI, this site would shut down immediately as ID would lose its best argument. Until then we believe we have the better hand.
Behe uses the findings of complexity in his arguments and the inability of natural processes to lead to this organized complexity. Berlinski tend to use obtuse philosophical arguments against a sole naturalistic explanation as proven. There is a difference. We will see what he does in the debate and what he will say to those who strongly object to ID. In his book presentation he was more in sync with Jason Rosenhouse that he was with ID which is what lead me to my conclusions about him.jerry
October 5, 2008
October
10
Oct
5
05
2008
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
jerry, which Steve Fuller fiasco are you talking about? He debated Denis Alexander at a book festival here in Britain a couple of weeks ago and was fine. In any case, he's not hidden his own distinctive take on ID -- and Casey Luskin even reassured him in a recent CSC podcast that the Discovery Institute doesn't hold a copyright on 'ID'!salvatore
October 5, 2008
October
10
Oct
5
05
2008
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
Barry A, it would be a stretch for me to state David Berlinski’s value to ID any more clearly than you have. But at the same time, I understand Jerry’s comment. I am familiar with the book tour presentations that Mr. Berlinski made, and how some in the ID movement would have wanted more.
I know for a fact that there was a great deal of consternation and acrimony with regard to the publication and distribution of The Devil’s Delusion, and just being human, I can easily imagine that this was weighing on Mr. Berlinski’s mind every time he stepped up to the microphone. The handing of that book is truly a story unto its own.
In any case, David Berlinski lays the intellectual groundwork for ID to prosper. To that end, he is a significant benefit to the design argument, and I for one, am extremely happy that his voice in on our side.Upright BiPed
October 5, 2008
October
10
Oct
5
05
2008
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
In re my [5], I do not mean in any way to downplay the importance of Berlinski's role. It really is an either-or proposition. Either life was designed or it was not. To the extent that the "it was not designed" position is proven to be untenable -- Berlinski's forte -- ID's hand improves vastly.BarryA
October 4, 2008
October
10
Oct
4
04
2008
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
I just this moment finished reading Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion." It is an interesting book and I can understand jerry's comments. Nevertheless, I think jerry misunderstands Berlinski's value to ID. It does NOT lie in defending ID. It lies in laying bare the pretensions, inanities and sometimes outright incoherence of those who argue against ID -- by a person who cannot reasonably be charged with religious bias.BarryA
October 4, 2008
October
10
Oct
4
04
2008
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
"What is it that makes you consider that David Berlinski might be ineffective?"
Because he doesn't believe in ID and in a presentation for his book earlier in the year, he was a mess discussing ID.jerry
October 4, 2008
October
10
Oct
4
04
2008
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
By the way Jerry,
What is it that makes you consider that David Berlinski might be ineffective?Upright BiPed
October 4, 2008
October
10
Oct
4
04
2008
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
...methinks Berlinski will do just fine.
I plan to be in the audience.Upright BiPed
October 4, 2008
October
10
Oct
4
04
2008
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Are we going to have another Steve Fuller fiasco. Berliniski who does not believe in Intelligent Design, is defending it just as Fuller who does not believe in it, made a mess when he tried to defend it a few weeks ago.
It will be interesting to see just what they say and to see if either really understands ID.jerry