In Cambridge, Professor Steve Fuller discusses why intelligent design is not more popular among scientists and others

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 23, 2012

News}

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

Comments

As someone who is interested in communication, I try to make things as simple as possible without oversimplifying. Sometimes, though, it seems that even with the use of nouns, verbs, metaphors, and anecdotes, the point remains unabsorbed. So, I will try again. When I ask the question, “Who is going to bell the cat,” the pronoun ‘who’ refers to a person and ‘bell’ refers to the intellectual initiative that is being asked for. Let’s take the *bell* first. At the most primitive level, we will briefly consider only three out of hundreds of elements necessary to achieve the integration of concepts that Dr. Fuller is asking for. [A] How does one study the micro marvels of cosmology and the macro marvels biology in one single method? Will it involve the use of something like a “microtelescope?” [B] How does one coordinate the qualitative methods of theology and philosophy with the quantitative methods of science and mathematics? Does he conceive of some king of triangulation method? [C] What is to become of the ID paradigms currently in use? Are the methods used to detect the presence of design to be converted into methods for studying the mechanism of design? Notice, by the way, that I, who have no idea in the world how such a marriage could be achieved, have begun to define the problem and provide three substantive ideas (microtelescope, triangulation, paradigmatic abandonment) while Dr. Fuller and Gregory, who carry on as if they do know how such a marriage could be achieved, have provided no substantive ideas at all. Shouldn’t the people who insist on a new “what” also offer something in the way of a “how?” At present, all I am getting from Dr. Fuller and Gregory is this: “Just do it.” Well, forgive me, but I must ask again: “Do specifically what?” Now let’s consider the “who.” A scientific paradigm (or to pay tribute to Dr. Fuller) a theological/scientific paradigm, does not just fall out of the sky. Typically, a paradigm serves the purpose of unifying a number of elements that appeared not to be related until some genius apprehended and described that relationship. What, for example, is the relationship between function and information? William Dembski has a few ideas about that. Or again, what is the relationship between an organism’s unity and the process by which it came to be? Michael Behe has a few ideas on that one. If these problems had not been considered, no such thing as “specified complexity” or “irreducible complexisty” would have ever found their way into public discourse. Somebody has to work out the details. Anyone can say, “Hey, guess what, somebody ought to make Intelligent Design a science. They may catch hell for trying it, but they ought to do it.” Speaking of the *who* and the task of developing this ever-elusive *theological/scientific paradigm, one man has already achieved a measure of success. His name is Hugh Ross, and, yes, he is a genius. Like Steve Fuller and Gregory, he is dissatisfied with ID’s phenomenological approach. Because he is a trailblazer, his paradigm is both original and well defined. He has integrated astrophysics with Biblical Theology, and, in this observers opinion, strives to coordinate each with the other without doing violence to either. Perhaps his approach would appeal to Steve and Greg since it is right up their alley. All the pieces are there: God is Creator (get that Steve), man is made in his image (get that Gregory), and all the pieces are being measured (science looms large). Surely, this accomplishment can, at the very least, start the conversation about how ID can become all that Steve and Greg want it to be. Surely, if Steve and Greg are going to set ID’s future destination, and surely if someone has already trailblazed the very same territory they want ID to enter, they would have studied his approach thoroughly so that they can add or delete those elements that are congenial with their vision. So, I will devote my last paragraph to recount everything that Dr. Fuller and Gregory have written by way of analysis of Ross’ synthesis. ........................................................... ........................................................... ........................................................... Well, that didn’t take too long. Could it be that Steve and Greg might be just a little, how can I put this delicately, premature in their analysis?StephenB_{November 27, 2012
November
11
Nov
27
27
2012
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

The ‘fuss’ is about what Stephen Meyer said in response to Steve Fuller’s presentation at Cambridge, specifically wrt ‘theodicy.’ Fuller is not saying “ID can do a better job of thinking big.” He is simply thinking bigger than what anyone in the IDM is doing. He is offering a pathway forward beyond the narrow vision of pseudo-naturalistic Big-ID, i.e. Big-ID that is a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. By invoking the imago Dei and theodicy, natural theology, etc. Fuller’s vision of ID is actually far more realistic than Big-ID’s. It acknowledges that human beings are reflexive creatures and thus appeals to the average person on the street instead of mainly the evangelical protestant who used to be (or may even still be) a youth earth creationist. “Let’s inspire every young person with the age-old motivation of thinking God’s thoughts after him. Meanwhile, all that is left is for someone to do the requisite heavy lifting th[at] Fuller dreams about. It’s those little details that no one wants to be bothered with.” – StephenB Here’s a key message that StephenB seems to be missing: The ‘requisite heavy lifting’ is *not* in ‘natural-science-only.’ Big-ID is (or claims to be) a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. The ‘little details’ (data collection in natural-physical sciences) must be interwoven with the ‘big picture’ (philosophy and theology/worldview of science). Will StephenB step back from insisting on Big-ID as a ‘natural-science-only’ theory and work together with Fuller to interweave a science, philosophy, theology/worldview meaning of ID? This is usually where StephenB avoids the conversation. Meyer’s response to Fuller shows that Meyer (at least unconsciously) recognises the limitations of Big-ID as a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. He knows that most people aren’t buying it as pseudo-naturalism and that ID theory has not succeeded in showing ‘positive’ natural scientific proof of ‘design in nature.’ But Meyer is not as far down the road as Fuller in acknowledging the consequences of ID as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation that also figures in the future of humanity and how we get there. Meyer is stuck looking in the past with his ‘historical science;’ Fuller’s (more than just ontology) view is about making meaningful history. “I think that it should be part of the ID movement, it is at least in principle possible that empirical data…could adjudicate these different models of theodicy.” – Meyer How do you interpret Meyer’s words here, folks? So far, little interpretation has been offered (thanks to jstanley01 for the attempt in #09). If empirical data could adjudicate different models of theodicy, then couldn’t different models of theodicy likewise adjudicate empirical data? Doesn’t Meyer’s ‘confession’ show how one-sided a ‘natural-science-only’ view of ID actually is? TM’s concern with distinguishing ‘theoretical’ from ‘empirical’ is noteworthy. Again, however, wrt ‘theodicy’ there is something extra-empirical involved from the start; i.e. the meaning of the first four letters in the term. If that is supposed to have ‘absolutely nothing’ to do with ‘intelligent design,’ then apparently it is news to Meyer. “I would argue as Fuller does that in a macro sense scientific laws, the cohesiveness and intelligibility of nature don’t make any sense without a Creator, but that belief is not required to understand an inverse square law and test it against physical reality.” – TM Yes, it’s a fair argument. But Fuller is not hiding behind the assumption that the ‘Designer’ is not the Abrahamic God – he openly acknowledges this as part of ID theory as theory. This shows that Fuller is open to exploring ID as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation, not just as a natural-science-only theory. Again, this is the main sticking point that for whatever reasons (most likely, Church/State separation and school board court cases in USA education) seems so hard for leading IDists to understand and concede as reality. That is why 'following the evidence' of Meyer's comment where it leads is so provocative. He's not saying theology has nothing to do with ID; he thinks they are connected. “Obviously we are all theologians to some extent and are interested in the great philosophical questions.” – TM It looks as if our friend Genomicus is saying otherwise. He or She just wants to do biological science and leave the theologians and philosophers COMPLETELY excluded from the conversation. If not, then how can they be included, more integrally than Gould’s NOMA principle? Here is where Fuller’s comments on Catholic thinkers’ (Thomist) rejection of Big-ID are helpful and insightful. “most of us are interested in the topic for theological reasons.” – TM Thank you for directly admitting that. It is enough to show that the divisive ‘natural-science-only’ view of ID that some people at UD hold is a fantasy. Maybe it sounds strange to a few of you, but my interest in small-id and Big-ID is as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation. Would more people at UD be interested in that conversation, if it meant giving up the Big-ID illusion that ID is a ‘natural-science-only’ topic? So far, courage of this conviction has not been forthcoming, which stops people from entering the arena of the future that Fuller is speaking to, instead of just clapping and cheering about the hypothetical 'scientific' past.Gregory_{November 27, 2012
November
11
Nov
27
27
2012
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

@ #13 Genomicus, Regarding Big-ID and small-id, you can see my position here: Big-ID and small-id. The quote you reference is half-right (as usual for Timaeus), but doesn’t acknowledge the criticism of many detractors from ID theory, who correctly identify the explicit desire for natural scientificity among IDM leaders. If ID theory is not ‘natural-science-only’ they feel like they are in a can’t-win conversation. This unrelenting desire for natural scientificity (and consequently the rejection that ID is *properly* not just a natural science-only topic, but is also inevitably intertwined with philosophy and theology/worldview) is part of the definition of Big-ID. If you belong to the small-id school of thought, then we are on the same page. But the small-id school also has two meanings, 1) every Abrahamic religious believer accepts the reality of small-id – the world was Created by a Creator and we are the Creator’s creatures, and 2) the proper domain for the language of ‘intelligent design’ is in regard to artefacts made by the designers that we know, i.e. human beings. What seems confusing in your position, Genomicus, and I write this down to your profession (or just personal interest) in biology, is that you insist on what you call ‘biological intelligent design.’ Here you are combining Big-ID and small-id by attempting to take ‘design’ out of its proper context and involving it into a category error. You probably don’t agree that biological ID is a category error, likewise with other IDists, but that doesn’t change the fact that biological ID distorts the normal meaning of design from ‘designers who we know’ to ‘designers we don’t know.’ I tried to get Eric Anderson to see this here, but he wavered between 'narrow' ("very limited inquiry") and 'broad' ("all intelligent agents") for what he means by Big-ID. Fuller goes beyond this dichotomy by explaining that what is hidden (purposely kept quiet, or see more below) in Big-ID logic is that we can only claim to see ‘design in nature’ because/if we are created in the image and likeness of God, just as is the rest of Nature. Take away this background assumption and Big-ID collapses, at least on the ‘natural science-only’ side, to say nothing of the political-institutional component. Big-ID IDists at UD have been reluctant to admit this. “I would say that intelligent design – that is, biological intelligent design as a potential scientific hypothesis, has precious little to do with theology.” – Genomicus The problem is not that it has nothing to do with theology, but that it has precious little to do with reality. It aims to put the legitimating stamp of ‘natural science’ on an extra-scientific question. Yet the reflexivity of the ‘design inference’ is entirely kept out of Big-ID logic. Why? “Is that really an important conversation, though? To the religious, it probably is, but not all of us are religious.” – Genomicus Everybody believes in something, Genomicus. Switch ‘worldview’ for ‘theology’ then in your case. So yes, it is really an important conversation, it defines the way you and I and everyone else reading this lives and perceives the world (including nature, society, culture, politics, etc.) and whatever may be beyond or transcending it. Aren’t you playing to the anti-miracle or anti-spirituality vein of things, as with Big-ID’s new atheist and anti-theistic opponents, Genomicus? Asking for “some good evidence that human beings really are created in the image and likeness of a deity” is similarly distortive language; it is scientistic-sounding, as if we could ‘test’ an extra-scientific topic on scientific grounds. That is, unless you allow for non-scientific ‘evidence’ or ‘testimony,’ which would then serve to throw the ‘natural-science-only’ Big-ID/biological ID argument out the window. The notion of ‘biology only’ is just as incomprehensive in looking for ‘evidence’ of a human soul or human spirit as ‘intelligent design’ as ‘natural-science-only’ is for studying origins of life. Neither can achieve what they are trying to do due because of their insistence on making category errors. Regarding a ‘new intelligent design’ – did you get this from reading my blog or excerpts from my book, where I have used the term ‘neo-id’? Otherwise, please share what 'new intelligent design' you are referring to.Gregory_{November 27, 2012
November
11
Nov
27
27
2012
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

I forgot to mention that I was disappointed that human free will never made an entrance into the discussion as probably the cleanest theodicy available. There were other places where it could have made an entrance as well, such as when someone asked what intelligence was.tragic mishap_{November 26, 2012
November
11
Nov
26
26
2012
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

What is all the fuss about? Dr. Fuller says that ID can do a better job of thinking big. Presumably, some genius should come along with a new paradigm that integrates the scientific method with a unifying macro-analysis of converging scientific explanations that reach all the way to God. Well, great. By all means. Let's inspire every young person with the age-old motivation of thinking God's thoughts after him. Meanwhile, all that is left is for someone to do the requisite heavy lifting the Fuller dreams about. It's those little details that no one wants to be bothered with. It reminds me of the children's story concerning a group of house mice who couldn't get through a day without having to worry about a predatory cat. Finally, one of the mice had a bright idea: "Hey, all we need to do is tie a bell around the cat's neck. Each time he comes near, we will hear the bell ring, anticipate the danger in time, and escape with no difficulty." The mice cheered at the brilliance of this plan and grew confident at the prospect of a higher quality of life--until one of them asked the critical question. "Who is going to bell the cat?" Everyone turned to the originator of the idea, but he felt that he had already done his part and suggested that someone else should apply the idea. There were no takers. Immediately, a dark cloud dominated the atmosphere and everyone ran away sad. The point should be evident. It's a great idea Dr. Fuller. Who is going to bell the cat.StephenB_{November 26, 2012
November
11
Nov
26
26
2012
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Hi Gregory, I'll respond to your points by quoting you and then offering my thoughts.
Genomicus, thanks for your frank appraisal in #8 of ‘the current ID movement’ and why you do not wish to be part of it (even though you nevertheless endorse your own version of [Big-]ID). I suspect there are quite a few others like you, however, most do not choose to publically (e.g. on a blog like yours) speak the borrowed language of ID, while trying to distance them-self from the political Movement. Mike Gene comes to mind, though he seems to have distanced himself from the supposed ‘scientificity’ of Big-ID altogether. To Mike Gene, ‘Design’ is not a natural scientific conclusion, while otoh you appear open to defending such a view.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Big-ID" and "small-D," although this probably sums it up: "“By ‘small id’ I meant any argument that infers design (not necessarily God, just design, though of course God could be the designer) from the facts of nature, whether it was written 2500 years ago or today. By ‘big ID’ I meant the formal organization of people sympathetic with such arguments into bodies such as the Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent and more generally with prominent people such as Behe, Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Nelson. All ‘big ID’ people accept ‘small id’ arguments, but not all ‘small id’ sympathizers want anything to do with ‘big ID’ institutional activities." If anything, I'd say that I belong to the "small id" school of thought. Having said that, IMHO design is not a natural conclusion. It is too early to conclude anything; more data needs to come in before we can definitely conclude design. But various clues in the biotic world lend weight to the design inference, and make it reasonable to develop a design hypothesis in biology.
Actually, I’d say that’s one of its relative strengths, i.e. ambiguity in the meaning of ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design.’ This enables IDists to speak one way about ‘ID’ on Sunday and another way on Monday-Saturday; one way in a religious context and another way in a natural scientific one.
I wouldn't call that a strength, though. It's a weakness because its ambiguity means that it cannot be rigorously tested as biological hypothesis.
It is likely that IDists at UD will not address this statement about ID and theodicy by one of the leaders of the IDM, if not its most articulate and active public proponent.
And that's where a problem with the ID movement comes in. I would say that intelligent design - that is, biological intelligent design as a potential scientific hypothesis, has precious little to do with theology. It is the ID movement that wishes to incorporate theology into ID.
As much as I agree with your concerns about ambiguity in definitions of ID, Genomicus, I don’t agree with your conclusions (a) or (b) in #8. In fact, this is what Fuller is speaking most directly against. You seem (if thegenome’stale is an indication) to be advocating ‘biologism,’ while Fuller is steadfastly protecting humanity against it. He is instead suggesting that the IDM should openly embrace the theological dimension of the conversation, rather than tucking tail and running from it (cf. TE from the other side of the coin).
But that assumes that intelligent design has a theological dimension more pronounced than, say, the theory of relativity. Of course, it all depends how you define ID. If we take ID to be a hypothesis about the origin of certain biological features, then gods and deities have practically nothing to do with it. Naturally, every scientific hypothesis has its philosophical implications; but there is no real reason why intelligent design should have theological implications any more than gravity does.
As it turns out, talk of biology is a mere distraction to the more important conversation of ‘ID’ which involves human beings who are created in the image and likeness of God.
Is that really an important conversation, though? To the religious, it probably is, but not all of us are religious. In other words, if "talk of biology is a mere distraction to the more important conversation of ‘ID’ which involves human beings who are created in the image and likeness of God," is really more important, then we better have some good evidence that human beings really are created in the image and likeness of a deity. In summary, if there were to be a "new intelligent design," its focus should be on biology, and biology only (unless someone wants to propose an altogether separate teleological concept for cosmology). At its core, then, would be the search for signatures of engineering within life, and this of course would have interesting applications for astrobiology and quite a few other biological disciplines. Thoughts?Genomicus_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

This is an excellent talk and discussion. I can see now that Dr. Fuller is far more at home in face to face conversation and speaking than in writing. I had some difficulties understanding him here before. There is no question that the questions he is raising are interesting ones. There is no question that theology motivates science. I have seen this my entire life and realized it was a live issue while reading Kuhn. However there is a defining line between empirical science, that is raw observation, and how we explain it, that is theoretical "science." It's important not to lose the distinction, because empirical science is valuable precisely because it provides a common ground that virtually everyone short of brain-in-a-vat skeptics, Buddhists and Christian Scientists can occupy. It literally does not matter what you think about God or design or theodicy in order to understand Newton's three laws. Most scientific concepts can be discussed without reference to theological topics. I would argue as Fuller does that in a macro sense scientific laws, the cohesiveness and intelligibility of nature don't make any sense without a Creator, but that belief is not required to understand an inverse square law and test it against physical reality. This is the modern definition of science. It is not the renaissance definition, but it is the modern one and it's what people mean when they use the word. The ID people that Meyer represents believe that design can be established in exactly that way without reference to theological musings. They (we) believe it can be a methodology that inhabits the same common ground that all science, such as Newton's laws, inhabit. Dembski's and Marks' law of conservation of information would not have been pursued if they thought it was some sort of theological notion. Believing that theologians might be interested in various scientific findings for purposes of theodicy doesn't exactly cut against that point of view. Theologians can be interested in science for all sorts of reasons, and historically they have been. I think Fuller and Gregory overestimate the impact of Meyer's comment. I think in the end there's a misunderstanding about the difference between people and ideas. Obviously we are all theologians to some extent and are interested in the great philosophical questions. The issue ID people are after is not theological, despite the always obvious fact that most of us are interested in the topic for theological reasons.tragic mishap_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Genomicus, thanks for your frank appraisal in #8 of 'the current ID movement' and why you do not wish to be part of it (even though you nevertheless endorse your own version of [Big-]ID). I suspect there are quite a few others like you, however, most do not choose to publically (e.g. on a blog like yours) speak the borrowed language of ID, while trying to distance them-self from the political Movement. Mike Gene comes to mind, though he seems to have distanced himself from the supposed 'scientificity' of Big-ID altogether. To Mike Gene, ‘Design’ is not a natural scientific conclusion, while otoh you appear open to defending such a view. "IMHO one of the problems with the current ID movement is how it defines intelligent design." Actually, I'd say that's one of its relative strengths, i.e. ambiguity in the meaning of 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design.' This enables IDists to speak one way about 'ID' on Sunday and another way on Monday-Saturday; one way in a religious context and another way in a natural scientific one. "Separation of Church and State" is after all one of the primary identifiers of what 'United States of America' means, through 226 years, and this serves to reveal much of the background logic behind the very-American IDM (i.e. Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Thaxton, Johnson, Meyer, Pajaro Dunes, Chapman, Gilder, ARN, DI, ISCID, IDnet, IDEA, etc.). Indeed, there are quite obviously ulterior educational aspirations for ID that belie the regular 'science-only' claims. "So what exactly is intelligent design? Is it a biological concept or is it more related to cosmology? Does it have nothing to do with theology or is it intimately associated with theology?" Good questions! Unfortunately, I don't think you'll receive clear answers to them here at UD, which represents the spectrum of views of ID. One person says one thing, while another says something different and even contradictory. And then many IDM-ID proponents wonder aloud why their chosen 'concept-duo' is not more widely accepted by natural scientists or even by most lay religious folks due to its ambiguity. Some people here think ID is related not only to biology or to cosmology, but also to engineering and anthropology, even economics and linguistics! In my decade-long experience, most IDists are not careful or clear enough in their inter-disciplinarity to distinguish whether ID 'belongs' in theology or not. For some proponents, ID is a GUT, or ‘the Bridge’ between science and theology! This is why I've repeated here time and again that: "The primary meaning of Big-ID is as a science, philosophy, theology conversation…period." It shouldn’t be such a hard pill to swallow. Yet notice, Genomicus, how easily this statement is avoided, not faced, left unconfronted? It is painfully true that for scientistic reasons – i.e. depending for its legitimacy on natural scientificity – many IDists simply don't want Big-ID to hold meaning in any other sphere than natural sciences. This is where their position is exposed as absurd and unnecessary. New language is needed, which is what I've been promoting for several months here. Eric Anderson seemed open to this, but was inverted on his priority to recognise how ‘universal design,’ and ‘design theory’ as understood by MOST PEOPLE is the ‘real design theory’ and that Big-ID is attempting to contort the language onto the much narrower topic of OoL, OoBI and human origins; onto a reductionistic view of ‘design’ that actually denies agency its proper due. Is the 'financial cliff' an example of 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design'? Is eugenics an example of 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design'? For the religiously musical, is 'sin' an example of 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design'? What are the limits of 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design'? The only answer to this from the current strain of ID, which you are openly questioning, Genomicus, is silence. Fuller, otoh, is speaking openly and widely about ID and theodicy and has reaped fruit at Cambridge in the now public, shocking and controversial (potentially game-changing!) statement that Meyer made supporting him. Repeat: “I think that it should be part of the ID movement, it is at least in principle possible that empirical data…could adjudicate these different models of theodicy.” – Steve Meyer It is likely that IDists at UD will not address this statement about ID and theodicy by one of the leaders of the IDM, if not its most articulate and active public proponent. As much as I agree with your concerns about ambiguity in definitions of ID, Genomicus, I don't agree with your conclusions (a) or (b) in #8. In fact, this is what Fuller is speaking most directly against. You seem (if thegenome’stale is an indication) to be advocating ‘biologism,’ while Fuller is steadfastly protecting humanity against it. He is instead suggesting that the IDM should openly embrace the theological dimension of the conversation, rather than tucking tail and running from it (cf. TE from the other side of the coin). The invocation of imago Dei and theodicy is enough either to invoke some IDists to escape to or to come down from the hills! Fuller is not speaking of ID as *only* a biological concept, please understand this. Nature is 'divine technology' according to Fuller's definition of ID. Yet he goes much farther than any one of the IDM's leaders by looking carefully at the ethical and futuristic implications of ID as an ideology that takes teleology seriously. He says 'thinking God's thoughts after God' means “Bio-technology as a completion of God’s plans.” He is considering the way Humanity 2.0 is being engineered in our lifetime! If you take that seriously, then you will see why he used the term 'scary' in the Cambridge presentation. Otherwise, hearing that word probably made little sense to listeners. “at the end there’s this overall design in which it all makes sense…the strongest, but also scariest level at which intelligent design should be pitched and that’s where the problem of theodicy becomes very important because then you have to justify evil in a way you don’t if you’re just looking at design at much more restricted levels.” – Fuller As it turns out, talk of biology is a mere distraction to the more important conversation of 'ID' which involves human beings who are created in the image and likeness of God. Here we have the ‘karmic’ vs. ‘anthropic’ distinction – the “coming world-historic struggle in science and religion” – from Fuller’s 2006 book NSI. The most important conversation involving 'ID' (Big vs. small) is therefore actually to be had in politics, in economics, in anthropology and sociology..and in artificial intelligence and cognitive studies. Lower-level disciplines such as biology, geology, chemistry and cosmology are less significant than the potential for elevation that results from human beings realising their/our [pseudo-]divine characteristics…and acting upon them to change the world. As I see you are perhaps a genomicist, Genomicus, perhaps this will be a difficult conclusion for you to accept or acknowledge. The ‘higher’ fields of complexity involve human relations, not mere materiality or physicality. It is more than just our biology that is at stake in this conversation; it is how we understand and interact with each other as people globally – even if not as A. Comte imagined with his 'religion of humanity' – that is most important here. I hope something of that was conveyed in Fuller’s talk at Cambridge about ‘small-id/Big-ID’.Gregory_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

You beat me to it, bornagain. Although in a rather more erudite conspectus. I was simply going to say, that, given the 'event horizon' evidenced on the Shroud, which no-one appears to have seen fit to dispute, and all the claims of divine omnipotence of Judaeo-Christianity, recapitulated in its occurrence, it's QED for the truth of Christianity.Axel_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Gregory @6:
Re: #3, yet another example among so many that cannot be counted of how a Big-ID ‘proponent’ (not sure if jstanley01 is a ‘proponent’ of Big-ID, though it appears so) simply does not address direct statements or questions when it seems inconvenient to do so. In this case, #3?s “The way I see it...” offers no clear answer to what kind of discourse, i.e. whether ‘natural science only’ or ‘more than just natural science’ Big-ID aims to be.
As far as science goes, I am definitely a layman -- an interested onlooker -- for whom fancying myself as a "proponent" of anything would mean little to anyone of scientific standing for good reason. Maybe I'm thinking along the lines of my post @3, not to avoid inconvenience, but because I don't understand the issues that Dr. Fuller and Dr. Meyers raise on the video in the same light that Gregory does -- and perhaps the way they do -- as yet. I am open, however, to a discussion that leads to my better education.
jstanley01 doesn’t seem to recognise why Fuller said: “boy oh boy is that going to send some people to the hills!”
I thought he meant it in the same fashion as the effect the Big Bang theory had, when evidence for it from background radiation appeared. Which had a lot of people "heading for the hills," in no small measure because of its consistency with Genesis. Among whom there were scientists that, because of their non-scientific theological pre-commitments, had been glad to see that book buried and gone by way of the facts of science. I could be jumping to a conclusion, though. No doubt about it.
“The primary meaning of Big-ID is as a science, philosophy, theology conversation...period.” As a try at interpretation, jstanley01 seems to say...Big-ID is not ‘theology’ b/c it doesn’t deal with heresy?
Thinking in terms of "Big ID" immediately makes me think in terms of "Big Darwinism." Which, I think it is safe to say, views itself as a scientific enterprise that has theological and philosophical implications. As ID undermines Darwinism's scientific foundations on scientific grounds, how "Big ID" ought to view itself differently is the point that I'm not getting I guess. The philosophical and theological implications of a design inference that turns out to be required by the facts uncovered by a science that does not discount intelligent agency to zero are vast to be sure. Just as the implications of materialism were and are vast. Which is why orthodox science is fighting ID tooth and claw. But leaving aside questions of heresy, it seems to me that even discussions of theodicy, which ID may bear upon in general terms, only exist in the first instance because of a theological pre-commitment to a good God. If the same scientific evidence is consistent with a theological pre-commitment that the universe is the product of an Urge and Demiuge, I don't see how ID can settle the choice, no matter how many well-spent "conversations" on the subject its discoveries may foment. My thinking may be colored by my pre-commitment, however, to the idea that Christianity represents a revelation from God to man concerning His character, power, and deliverance. Not deductions that can be unequivocally adduced from any set of scientifically-derived facts, no matter how consisitent Christianity may be with them. IOW, "My sheep hear my voice," not the voice of any other, including science of any stripe.jstanley01_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

But since Stephen C. Meyer (Whitworth College) is saying theodicy “should be part of the ID movement,” doesn’t that imply theology *IS* of interest, at least to the current Director of the Centre for Science and Culture and co-founder of the DI? Are UD people asking us to carefully distinguish Theistic Intelligent Design (TID) from Naturalistic Intelligent Design (NID)? Or are they denying that qualifiers carry any important meaning at all (e.g. ‘theistic naturalism’ vs. ‘atheistic naturalism’) on this topic?
IMHO one of the problems with the current ID movement is how it defines intelligent design. Intelligent design is argued to be a biological theory that replaces Darwinian theory; at the same time, it is stated that intelligent design is a theory about the cosmos as a whole. And we have William Dembski saying things like "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." So what exactly is intelligent design? Is it a biological concept or is it more related to cosmology? Does it have nothing to do with theology or is it intimately associated with theology? This is one of the major reasons why I have not attempted to become part of the ID movement and have instead focused on being an "independent" ID proponent. The ID movement has a problem: it has various definitions of intelligent design (implied or otherwise), and some of those definitions suggest that the ID movement is to a large extent interested in theology, not in science. If the ID movement truly wishes to advance itself to a significant degree, then it must (a) divorce itself from any theology at all (that means that we shouldn't see so many UD posts on theism/atheism), (b) define ID as solely a biological concept, not a cosmological one. This will pave the way for testing ID in a rigorous manner.Genomicus_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

At 17: 34 minute mark: Dr. Steve Fuller: "So you think of physics in search of a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything", Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however mulrifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropiate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.",,, You see, there is sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,," As to that 'ultimate teleology': The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462 Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. While I agree with a criticism, from a Christian, that was leveled against the preceding General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Shroud of Turin video,,, the criticism that God needed no help from the universe in the resurrection event of Christ, I am, none-the-less, very happy to see that what is considered the number one problem of Physicists and Mathematicians in physics today, of a unification into a 'theory of everything' for what is in essence the finite materialistic world of General Relativity and the infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics, does in fact seem to find a very credible and successful resolution for 'unification' within the resurrection event of Jesus Christ Himself. It seems almost overwhelmingly apparent to me from the 'scientific evidence' we now have that Christ literally ripped a hole in the finite entropic space-time of this universe to reunite infinite God with finite man. That modern science would even offer such a almost tangible glimpse into the mechanics of what happened in the tomb of Christ should be a source of great wonder and comfort for the Christian heart. John 14:19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. A shortened form of the overall pattern of evidence is here: Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US As a footnote; Godel, who proved you cannot have a purely mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring completeness to that 'Theory of Everything', also had this to say: The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians Music and verse: "In Christ Alone" / scenes from "The Passion of the Christ" - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDPKdylIxVM 1 Corinthians 15:55 "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"bornagain77_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

“It’s one thing to believe that the universe is designed; it’s another thing to turn it into a scientific research program.” - Steve Fuller This was said right at the beginning, before I started the transcription shown above. Re: #3, yet another example among so many that cannot be counted of how a Big-ID 'proponent' (not sure if jstanley01 is a 'proponent' of Big-ID, though it appears so) simply does not address direct statements or questions when it seems inconvenient to do so. In this case, #3's "The way I see it..." offers no clear answer to what kind of discourse, i.e. whether 'natural science only' or 'more than just natural science' Big-ID aims to be. jstanley01 doesn't seem to recognise why Fuller said: “boy oh boy is that going to send some people to the hills!” Do other people who watched/listened to Meyer's reaction to Fuller's presentation understand why Fuller said this? "The primary meaning of Big-ID is as a science, philosophy, theology conversation…period." As a try at interpretation, jstanley01 seems to say...Big-ID is not 'theology' b/c it doesn't deal with heresy? But since Stephen C. Meyer (Whitworth College) is saying theodicy "should be part of the ID movement," doesn't that imply theology *IS* of interest, at least to the current Director of the Centre for Science and Culture and co-founder of the DI? Are UD people asking us to carefully distinguish Theistic Intelligent Design (TID) from Naturalistic Intelligent Design (NID)? Or are they denying that qualifiers carry any important meaning at all (e.g. 'theistic naturalism' vs. 'atheistic naturalism') on this topic?Gregory_{November 25, 2012
November
11
Nov
25
25
2012
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

Only one mention of Kant though.Mung_{November 24, 2012
November
11
Nov
24
24
2012
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

Finally had the chance to view this. Very good discussion including some interesting points on the history and philosophy of science.Mung_{November 24, 2012
November
11
Nov
24
24
2012
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

A very thought-provoking presentation, thanks News for posting it. Gregory @2:
2) I don’t understand how someone could listen to this presentation and still think that the ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ hypothesis is *only* about ‘natural science.’ Isn’t that a completely unintelligent position to hold? The primary meaning of Big-ID is as a science, philosophy, theology conversation...period.
The way I see it, ID has arisen because the materialists' Blind Watchmaker approach to the natural sciences, which in its basic premise discounts intelligent agency to zero, has failed so miserably at explaining the observed phenomena of the natural world. But establishing the fact of a watch that requires a maker -- although elements of the watch may represent grounds for some broad inferences about its maker (like "good at working with very small screws") -- in and of itself resolves few specifics about him or her. Like gender for instance. Or whether he or she drives a Ford or a Chevy, or likes Raisin Bran or Captain Crunch. Or whether the "he" or the "she" is actually a "them," as pagan cultures believed. ID may imply in broad terms that certain tenants of preexisting theologies, about the nature of man and theodicy for instance (as discussed in the video), and indeed God's existence, are consistent with impartially observed phenomena in the natural world. Like the Big Bang theory is consistent with Genesis's "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." But will ID in and of itself ever be able to speak authoritatively that, indeed, Newton's Arianism, as opposed to orthodox Trinitarianism, was heretical? I doubt it.jstanley01_{November 24, 2012
November
11
Nov
24
24
2012
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

Well worth watching, agreed. A couple of comments, with thanks to News for posting this (but where is Meyer’s presentation from the same event? [Perhaps she agrees that Fuller is a much more engaging speaker than Meyer, with which I would wholeheartedly agree from having heard them both in person]): 1) Steve Fuller is the most intelligent and cogent thinker in the intelligent design movement today [though whether he is 'in' the IDM is a separate question]. After such a presentation as this, that should really be beyond doubt, even for the anti-humanists at UD; 2) I don’t understand how someone could listen to this presentation and still think that the ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ hypothesis is *only* about ‘natural science.’ Isn’t that a completely unintelligent position to hold? The primary meaning of Big-ID is as a science, philosophy, theology conversation…period. 3) Let the man speak for himself: “Theology is one of the ways to motivate the doing of science.” “The science does matter to me in the sense of reinforcing a theological perspective.” “there has to be a very tight connection between human intelligence and that other kind of intelligence” “the ultimate level is where the design hypothesis continues to have bite in terms of motivating science” “my interest in the design hypothesis is at the macro-level and I do think that if we don’t have that macro-sense of an overall design, it will be quite easy to reduce all the smaller levels of design to naturalistic processes.” “something could have been designed in the whole in terms of the larger unity yet not appear very designed in particular parts.” “If you have this very rational theology where God’s hand is everywhere in the world and everything happens for a reason…at the end you have to end up justifying very horrible things as part of the divine hand.” “If you bring in the concept of God in the Abrahamic sense…intellectually you are forced down this route” “This is one reason why this design argument – religious people have been reluctant to embrace it.” “I don’t think you can be a theistic evolutionist in the sense I’ve described if you think very hard about the issue because if ID refers to divine agency then you have to think about what that means for God to be acting in the world” “There is a point at which one has to think about what the theological implications are of taking on board the ID hypothesis in a robust way in which it becomes part of a general research program.” “The world’s intelligibility is something that enables science to succeed in the long term.” “The idea that the world is intelligible makes sense.” “Nature is in some sense mind-like…Nature has been designed in such a way that it’s tractable to our minds.” “The Abrahamic religions have a certain advantage…created in the image and likeness of God.” “The relationship between theology and science…the kind of science that Steve Meyer’s defending...and there’s hovering in the background; he doesn’t say it explicitly, but I’ll say it explicitly, is that there’s some notion of divine agency…It has a very particular theological provenance.” “if you’re going to have this tight integration of science and theology you have to square it with the theology” “If intelligent design just stays at the level of pattern recognition…design detection…that’s not a science, that’s like the first step of a science, that’s the data gathering part of the science…I do think it’s important that the idea of intelligence get put on the table and that there be a clear definition of it.” “Then there’s the nature of the agent that’s instantiating this intelligence.” “intelligent design does kind of require, if we’re going to take this intelligence argument further into the question of divine agency, that there be univocal predication, iow, intelligence in God and intelligence in us is using intelligence in the same way, but there’s a difference of degree” [I take responsibility for all errors in transcription – Gr.] 4) Do lay ID advocates at UD recognize/acknowledge the power and resonance of the following statement by Stephen C. Meyer in response to Steve Fuller’s presentation and, if so, how will they react to it?: “I think that it should be part of the ID movement, it is at least in principle possible that empirical data…could adjudicate these different models of theodicy.” – Steve Meyer “boy oh boy is that going to send some people to the hills!” – Steve Fuller Imo, yes, it will and does so because it contradicts some crucial features of what (capitalised/upper case) ‘Intelligent Design’ means as Big-ID leaders have envisioned it thus far. This is a theory we are discussing, after all, not some capital-T Truth that cannot possibly be contradicted or improved upon. Big-ID as a conditional theory is not and cannot any longer be seen as simply a ‘natural science-only’ matter, contrary to what a considerable segment of the ‘Big-ID tent’ would like people to believe. If you disagree, please check back with 2) to offer an alternative answer that will enlighten us if you so have one.Gregory_{November 24, 2012
November
11
Nov
24
24
2012
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

Well worth watching. Thanks for posting.tgpeeler_{November 23, 2012
November
11
Nov
23
23
2012
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply