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

Gregory, this will have to be a lighting round, since I, too, have little time.
I am glad you had the opportunity to clarify yourself re: NOMA. It appears, however, that many on UD would not agree with you based on previous responses to me here.
I don't think most ID proponents would support NOMA. I will provide a quick example to show you the difference. When Dembski says that ID theory can be conceived as the "Logos Theory of the Gospel," he is acknowledging the compatibility of religious truth with scientific truth, which means he is renouncing NOMA. That is not the same thing as saying that ID theory, which is limited by its methodology, can arrive at a biblical truth--or a philosophical truth---or any other kind of truth. To acknowledge the limits of a paradigm is not to support NOMA.
But who ever said unity was an important feature of the ‘tent’ strategy of Big-ID?!
You are confusing a metaphysical requirement for rational thought with a perceived membership requirement.
Are ‘hermeneutical methods’ not also ‘philosophical methods’ capable of ‘rigourous reasoning’?
All disciplines, properly practiced, require reason-based approaches, but that common element does not mean that they are using the same methodology. [“I think that theology, philosophy, and science could form a kind of synergistic relationship” – StephenB]
Good. Then please accept Stephen Meyer’s welcome of Steve Fuller’s position re: theodicy as displayed in the video in this thread. As in a previous thread, I’m well ahead of Big-ID in accepting this, as are many others because frankly it is rather obvious for non-partisan ideologues. We’ll see if Meyer has the courage to follow-up on his public pronouncements with actual proposals and papers. So far, apparently nothing has been continued (do tell if you’ve seen anything) from that discussion and Fuller is still way, way, way ahead of Meyer, who is playing catch-up.
You appear not to have grasped my point about the difference between inter-disciplinary dialogue, which is what Meyer is signing on to, and inter-disciplinary methodology, which Fuller sometimes hints at.
Again, please be reminded, StephenB, that I am one of 175 “future scholars and scientists” that the Discovery Institute has specially trained in its Summer Program to properly understand its mission. And I understand that mission and its emissaries rather well.
Not everyone who receives training benefits from that training, especially those who presume to train the trainer without having first been successfully trained.StephenB_{December 13, 2012
December
12
Dec
13
13
2012
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Gregory: A bit of practical advice. It has now been 14 days since StephenB's last reply to you. It has been 14 days since my last reply to you. It has been 14 days since Genomicus's last reply to you. On the internet, two weeks is like two centuries. People tend not to check back in after even one week, let alone two. I happened to check back in here, but there is no guarantee that StephenB or Genomicus will. I suggest that if you expect further responses from people here, that you not keep your interlocutors waiting for two weeks. If you do, in most cases, your replies will simply not be noticed. But while you are here: I know ID theory quite well, but I never had the chance to attend the Discovery summer school program. Perhaps, since you are claiming to have been well-trained in ID in that program, you could give the readers here a detailed description of what you did there. Some of them might wish to enroll in the program themselves, based on your description. For example: How many days long was it? How many hours per day? Who ran it? Who taught in it? Were participants expected to have read anything before arriving? Were they expected to read certain things while they were there? Did the program require background in the natural sciences, or was the program set up to compensate for those without such background? Were the participants evaluated for their performance in any way? How much did the program cost?Timaeus_{December 13, 2012
December
12
Dec
13
13
2012
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ #43 There is no time to respond. But just to acknowledge that I read your #43 with curiosity. I am glad you had the opportunity to clarify yourself re: NOMA. It appears, however, that many on UD would not agree with you based on previous responses to me here. But who ever said unity was an important feature of the 'tent' strategy of Big-ID?! Are 'hermeneutical methods' not also 'philosophical methods' capable of 'rigourous reasoning'? "I think that theology, philosophy, and science could form a kind of synergistic relationship" - StephenB Good. Then please accept Stephen Meyer's welcome of Steve Fuller's position re: theodicy as displayed in the video in this thread. As in a previous thread, I'm well ahead of Big-ID in accepting this, as are many others because frankly it is rather obvious for non-partisan ideologues. We'll see if Meyer has the courage to follow-up on his public pronouncements with actual proposals and papers. So far, apparently nothing has been continued (do tell if you've seen anything) from that discussion and Fuller is still way, way, way ahead of Meyer, who is playing catch-up. Again, please be reminded, StephenB, that I am one of 175 "future scholars and scientists" that the Discovery Institute has specially trained in its Summer Program to properly understand its mission. And I understand that mission and its emissaries rather well. Don't think I am dissenting from Big-ID for no reason. If you'd like to speak about this during the holiday season, be welcome to follow the links and send me an email. I'd be willing to call since I'm 'miles away' from you. Regards, Gr.Gregory_{December 11, 2012
December
12
Dec
11
11
2012
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

The what?Mung_{November 30, 2012
November
11
Nov
30
30
2012
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

I thought the part where the lady asks about "The Fall" was just hilarious. Did you notice the look on Fuller's face. That was priceless.Optimus_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

Gregory, I appreciate your response. Thank you. [I believe that the designer I detect through my empirically-based methods is none other than the God of Abraham. Further, I believe that we, His creatures, are made in His image.]
How are these two statements connected? Fuller elaborates on this in several of his works and presentations. In the past you have seemed to treat them as entirely unconnected, non-overlapping magisteria so to speak, StephenB.
They are connected in too many ways to count. For one thing, both teachings are Divinely revealed truths. For another, each helps explain the other from a philosophical perspective. I have never held any version of NOMA, so I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. Quite the contrary, I hold the opposite view. You may recall that I fuss a lot about the “unity of truth.” NOMA implies that truth is fragmented, meaning that theology could lead to one kind of truth whereas science could lead to another kind of truth. The important point to remember about my argument is this: With a multi-disciplinary approach, we will study or apprehend different aspects of the same truth. Example: A theological truth [“Let there be light"] understood from a scientific perspective [“Big Bang Theory"]. NOMA will not tolerate such a reasonable synthesis. It requires the believer to put his faith in one pocket and his reason in another, as if one had nothing to do with the other. NOMA is the enemy of the unity of truth. Taking it one step further, I think that theology, philosophy, and science could form a kind of synergistic relationship, with each reinforcing the other if---and this is big---if each remains relatively uncorrupted and true to its methods. Unfortunately, such is not the case. All three disciplines are in a terrible state of disrepair: Philosophy has been fatally compromised by Kantian skepticism, Theology is riddled with political correctness, and science has been….well, just read our FAQ. None of these disciplines is ready for a sacred marriage in pursuit of the truth because each has become an unmarriageable whore.
Why the change in your language/viewpoint now? Just a ruse? In the past I would have thought you preferred to separate the two statements entirely, rather than including them together. You seem not to want natural-physical scientists to align themselves with acknowledging imago Dei as Fuller does (and as Francis Collins does in Language of God)
I would never separate the Creator from the creatures that bear his imprint. In defining ID, I separated motives from methods. It is not at all the same thing. Getting back to the unity of truth, soundly expressed theology is always compatible with soundly applied science. Francis Collins does not successfully align his scientific views with his theological views, as I have demonstrated many times: He, like most TEs, militate against the clear meaning of Romans 1:20 (God’s handiwork is evident everywhere). What I would separate are the methodologies by which individual aspects of the truth are arrived at. Let's take one example. Through empirical methods, we can make inferences from particular instances to universal trends. Let’s say that I observe 500 people in a random sample, discover that the weight of 70% of participants fall between 110 and 220 pounds and that 15% weight less than 110 pounds and 15% weight more than 220 pounds. This produces what is known as a bell-shaped curve. Using this sample size, I conclude that what I have observed and measured is about 95% likely to represent the universal population. The take home point is that science proceeds from the particular to the universal, from the specific to the general. There are, however, other disciplines through which we can acquire legitimate knowledge, but their methods are different. Through hermeneutical methods and exegetical principles, we can learn the Biblically revealed truth that we are made in God’s image, just as we can learn about the Fall of man and how that image was compromised. Through philosophical methods and rigorous reasoning, we can prove the very existence of God. What is clear in each case, though, is that one discipline cannot appropriate the methods of another-- hermeneutical methods cannot suffice for scientific methods and scientific methods cannot suffice for philosophical methods --much less can three disciplines converge into one method. Is interdisciplinary dialogue possible? Yes indeed. Is inter-methodological union possible? Not a chance. Still, I think that science, using its own methods, can go long way toward proving the existence of God, and people like Robert Spitzer and Hugh Ross have made that case.
Why can it not be both? I would argue, along with many others, that it can be both. Your either/or could instead be a both/and. If the dialogue is science, philosophy and theology, the both/and option seems preferable, don’t you think?
Recall my carefully-worded distinction between a dialogue and a method. Interdisciplinary dialogue occurs when one discipline, using methods appropriate to its specialty, interacts with another discipline, using its own appropriate methods. With that background, they compare notes and learn from each other.
(Aside: not all ‘science’ begins with ‘observation’…and not all that glitters is gold. = )
All empirical science begins with observation. That is what empirical means.
You sound dangerously close to being an ‘empiricist’ in your view of ID as ‘empirically-based methods’, StephenB. The importance of theory, in addition to empirical data should be added. Empirically-based and science-based are after all not synonyms.
You have several themes going on in those two sentences. Let's address each one separately: [a]I am not an empiricist, nor am I a rationalist. I am a realist, that is, I recognize the legitimacy of both kinds of, and approaches to, knowledge. It is precisely that synthesis that facilitates the union of truth. [b] To say that ID is empirically-based is to state a fact. It has nothing to do with my epistemological orientation, which, as I say, is grounded in Thomistic realism. [c] A scientific theory is not something to be set apart from data. A theory is something scientists use to explain the data.
Please remind me, StephenB, are you a scientist? I had thought not, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
I am not a scientist. [What specifically does Fuller want us to do?]
1) Admit ID is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation first and foremost, and not empirical natural-science-only. Do this in public. Do it on UD. No time is better than now.
On the one hand, you say that ID is already a multi-disciplinary phenomenon. On the other hand, you support Steve Fuller’s hope that ID will someday become one. Sorry to say it, but this really is a blatant contradiction.
2) Read his [Fuller] works and listen to some of his many audio files, you’ll find more answers there! He is prescriptive, not just descriptive. He is futuristic, not just backwardly historical. He is the best public speaker for ID currently active.
Steve Fuller is an excellent public speaker and a very interesting man. However, he has not yet explained specifically how ID can merge three specialties into a single research project using empirical methods. Indeed, it appears that he has not yet considered the problem. If he is simply asking for dialogue, I am on record of supporting such an enterprise—but, as far as I can tell, he is asking for much more than that. Still, I am sympathetic to the idea that something drives man to do science. As Aristotle points out, all men naturally desire to know. Much of this desire is informed by a religious impulse. Modern philosophy militates against this impulse, but more importantly, thanks to the hyperskepticism of Immanuel Kant, it denies the correspondence between our rational minds and the rational universe, the very same world view that makes science possible. Steve Fuller is putting the cart before the horse. Science cannot rehabilitate a bad world view. Science has been corrupted by a bad world view. It is the bad world view itself that must be reformed.StephenB_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Genomicus: Well, it depends on how far you think fine-tuning arguments can extend. If you think they are limited to a few basic physics laws and constants, then you could separate out the physics/cosmology from the biological in the way that you suggest. But if it turns out that the fine-tuning extends all the way from the Big Bang to the human brain, with the whole universe a designed, seamless whole, then the designer of life is the same as the designer of the universe. This is the view of Michael Denton. So then design inferences in biology would push you back from "could've been intelligent aliens who planted seeds on earth" to "had to be an intelligent being capable of designing and executing the whole universe." So then you would be back to God. But that aside, the difficulty is that Eugenie Scott and the NCSE gang won't let you infer design from life even if you swear by your father's beard that you believe the designer was not God but an alien tourist. They are not concerned about your personal identification of the designer. They are trying to cut off the inference of any designer, because such a designer *might well be God*, and others (if not you) might draw that conclusion. They operate in fear of the worst-case (for them) scenario, and therefore they assume that "design inferences" will end up being "God inferences." So they will invoke NOMA, even though, as you say, they shouldn't. The problem is that this whole area is charged with religious politics, so that a perfectly reasonable conclusion -- "this must have been designed" -- is denounced as unscientific or religious or unconstitutional because it treads on somebody's toes. In this case, the ruling intelligentsia wish design *not* to be the truth about nature, so intellectual principles are shoved aside and political principles kick into high gear. It is too bad that we can't have an intellectual culture where reason, not wishing (e.g., the wish that God should, or should not, exist) has the final say. If we did, I think ID would persuade the overwhelming majority of the population.Timaeus_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Timaeus: That's a fair point. I am not at all very much involved with the argument that the cosmos was designed, so to me that's a whole other subject. Perhaps relaxing the NOMA in that area would be wise. But when it comes to biological origins, I think the NOMA is, on the whole, a good idea. It is indeed possible that a deity designed life; but if ID merely posits that intelligent design has been detected in the machinery of life, then it does not violate the NOMA, for it has not defined the designer.Genomicus_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Genomicus @ 38: No disagreement; but organizations like the NCSE, which are opposed to design detection in regard to biological systems, wouldn't accept your application to biological origins. They would say that if the intelligent designer is aliens, then yes, we could detect the intelligent design in the signal; but, since the only being capable of designing and creating a whole universe, with all its laws, is presumably God, a supernatural being, they would say that we have no experience of supernatural intelligences and therefore cannot legitimately infer design. The other point, of course, is that if we close the intellectual door to direct divine intervention in origins, then we might miss out on the truth -- if direct divine intervention was in fact what happened. That's why NOMA -- which de facto assigns origins to "science" and excludes theology from competence to discuss origins -- prejudices the case by the very division of knowledge it makes. NOMA works on the principle that "good fences make good neighbors" -- but it overlooks the fact that if one of the two neighbors, rather than an impartial third party, has the power to decide the boundaries of each neighbor's property, it is very likely that one neighbor will find himself with a very small patch of grass, while the other will end up with Ponderosa-scale acreage.Timaeus_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Another way to ask the question: Are the ‘intelligent causes in nature’ that Big-ID is looking (detecting) for ‘natural intelligent causes’ or not, i.e. are they detecting for non-natural or extra-natural intelligent causes? If ID is looking for non-natural or extra-natural intelligent causes, that is what leads Big-ID to become small-id, and where it must welcome the inclusion of theology/worldview and philosophy, instead of just natural sciences. That same question is suited for Genomicus. It seems to me that Genomicus is closed against non-natural or extra-natural intelligent agents, i.e. the ‘transcendent designer/Designer’ about which Dembski speaks. He/she does not appear to accept the relevance of transcendent intelligent agency in any aspect of life. But please, Genomicus, clear this up for me if I’m misinterpreting you (and would you help me out so I don’t have to write he/she?).
There is no reason for insisting that the designer(s) behind the nanotechnology in the cell were extra-natural or 'transcendent.' You appear to want ID to include theology as an integral component. But why? Do you think theology should be a part of germ theory, or volcanology for that matter? (You may use the pronoun "he" in reference to me)Genomicus_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Hi Timaeus, Regarding the NOMA, I think a distinction needs to be made between "supernatural designers" and non-supernatural intelligences. In formulating ID hypotheses, I take supernatural designers off the table. Non-supernatural intelligences are not excluded from the NOMA, if my understanding is correct. The NOMA is about science and religion, not necessarily about intelligent causes. For example, if SETI detected a radio signal that consisted of the first 100 prime numbers, and concluded that that signal had been intelligently designed, the NOMA would not be contradicted in any way. Thoughts?Genomicus_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Nevertheless, I do agree with Timaeus’ rejection of Genomicus’ support for NOMA, which tells much about why Genomicus is promoting natural scientism with ‘biological intelligent design,’ while offering no positive view of ‘designing’ or a ‘designer/Designer,’ which he/she has not yet said he actually believes in (other than astrobiology).
Elaborate on your statement that I'm "offering no positive view of 'designing' or a 'designer/Designer'." Thanks.
Genomicus says: “I see no reason why, in principle, intelligent design in nature could not be detected through the efforts of science. We would go about it like any other scientific discipline” As Fuller reminds people all the time, the first two questions in the field of science (and technology) studies are: which science? and whose science? It does not appear that Genomicus is versed on the many achievements in science studies, since he/she seems to conflate ‘natural sciences’ with ‘all sciences.’ That’s what the ideology of ‘naturalism’ is about.
You did not address my argument. I'll repeat it, with some modification: I see no reason why, in principle, intelligent design in nature could not be detected through the efforts of the natural sciences. We would go about it like any other natural science.
“The normal meaning of design is not about ‘designers we know.’ In normal usage, design means the execution of a plan, or a goal.” – Genomicus Really?! Care to back up that claim with some scientific survey work? Go out on the street and ask people what they think of when they hear the term ‘design.’ Simple question. No contextual framing. Just ask them. You’ll change your mind and realise that ‘design’ *is* actually linked in the vast majority of peoples’ minds with ‘designers we know.’
Don't take my word for it. Just take a look at a dictionary (there's no need to do a "survey" when you just have to look at a dictionary, ya know). Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) defines "design" thus:
design n 1a: a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group b: deliberate purposive planning .
Read the entry under 1b very, very carefully, and let it sink in.
Graphic design, clothing design, architectural design, etc.
I'm not even sure what you're point is with insisting that when most people see the word "design," they think about designers we know about.
I rather suspect you’ve let biologism ideologically cloud your judgment, Genomicus, from reading your view of ‘normal usage,’ which is to be expected because biologists don’t very often study/survey people as part of their work.
So because I follow a dictionary definition of "design," biologism has ideologically clouded my judgment?
Here is what Timaeus said in this thread: “Human beings derive their experience of design from human/social contexts, before thinking about applying the notion of design to biology.” That’s a significant concession, folks!
I'm must not be getting something here at all. It's obvious that we derive our experience of design from designers we know, because, ya know, it'd be pretty difficult to get our experience from designers we don't know about.
“By a new intelligent design, I mean an intelligent design hypothesis that is entirely focused on the detection of engineering in biological systems.” – Genomicus No, that’s old intelligent design (of the modern = late 20th century, early 21st variety, steered and controlled by the DI, home of the IDM). There’s nothing ‘new’ about that. It’s idealistic the way you frame it, but not new.
If it were to be realized, it would be new, though, wouldn't it?
Timaeus’ statement should thus be corrected to read: “Whether we know who a designer is or not, we can CLAIM designed from non-designed things,” even if we cannot PROVE ‘design/Design’ with natural scientific methods.
Science is not about proving things, Gregory. You should know that. Science is about seeking the best explanations for phenomena in nature: "By the slow and laborious methods of observation, hypothesis, deduction and experimental verification a scheme has been constructed which for the most part is consistent with itself, and bears the test of the comparison of one part with another. As a chart is drawn by the explorer of unknown seas to represent his discoveries in a conventional manner, so the scientific investigator constructs a mental model of the phenomena he observes and tests its consistency with itself and its concordance with the results of further experiment. The chart does not give a lifelike picture of the coast as does a painting, but it represents one aspect of it conventionally in a manner best adapted for the immediate purpose. So the conceptions of one branch of science -- mechanics let us say -- represent the phenomena of nature in the conventional aspect best suited for one particular line of inquiry. It does not follow necessarily that nature in reality resembles the particular mental chart which mechanical science enables us to construct. It does not even follow that there is any reality underlying phenomena and corresponding with any of our conceptions. The whole problem which mankind has to face undoubtedly includes an inquiry into the ultimate nature of reality. But that inquiry lies in the province of metaphysics and is not necessarily involved in the pursuit of natural science. Metaphysics uses the results of natural science, as of all other branches of learning, as evidence bearing on her own deeper and more difficult questions. But it does not follow that natural science must solve metaphysical problems before being of use to man and enlarging the sphere of his knowledge. We need not ask whether the reality is represented accurately by our conventional model before using that model to introduce order into what would otherwise be mental confusion and to enable us to make systematic and progressive use of natural resources." Having said that, you have yet to persuasively argue that it is impossible, in principle, to detect design in the absence of knowledge of the intelligent designer. Indeed, you assert it often enough, but I have yet to see any solid arguments in support of that position.Genomicus_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

"But sparrows are a dime a dozen." Is that your two cents? :)bornagain77_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

...you are worth more than many sparrows.
Sure. But sparrows are a dime a dozen.Mung_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

note: My two cents for what its worth, which many would probably say is overvalued: I view the state of evidence so far for ID, in its entirety, not just the classical information and molecular machines found in molecular life, to overwhelmingly point to Theism, and to even point to Christian Theism in particular (as surprising as that may sound to some), but for me the place where the tension lies is not in getting to a solid inference for Theism as correct from the starting observations, for me the tension lies in establishing not only that God is real but in establishing the fact that God is very much alive and cares for each of us. I think the problem is much like the problem that Nagel lamented on for consciousness: Nagel Asks, Is the World Really Knowable? - Joshua Youngkin - October 26, 2012 Excerpt: science even at its best could never offer a complete picture of the world. That is, science as science will necessarily lack the vocabulary to capture and express the myriad private worlds of subjective, conscious experience. To take Nagel's famous example, science could tell you everything you want to know about bats except what it is like to be a bat, to "see" via echolocation. Similarly, brain scientists could in principle learn every objective fact about your brain and how it works yet they wouldn't by virtue of this knowledge know what sugar tastes like to you. In the final chapter of the book, Nagel sums the matter up this way: "In attempting to understand consciousness as a biological phenomenon, it is too easy to forget how radical is the difference between the subjective and the objective, and to fall into the error of thinking about the mental in terms taken from our ideas of physical events and processes." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/nagel_asks_is_t065761.html i.e. Science even at its very best can never give us an 'experience of God'. That crucial 'experience', that differentiates people talking about God to a person talking with God takes an open mind and, in most instances, a broken heart,,, as the last 2 minutes in this following video make clear: SQuire Rushnell Good Morning America "GodWinks" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYJRddhzFG4 verse and music: Luke 12:7 Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. Casting Crowns - Already There http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s099Omqw1_Ebornagain77_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

*facepalm*Upright BiPed_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Thanks for this "another vantage point" in #31, StephenB. "I believe that the designer I detect through my empirically-based methods is none other than the God of Abraham. Further, I believe that we, His creatures, are made in His image." How are these two statements connected? Fuller elaborates on this in several of his works and presentations. In the past you have seemed to treat them as entirely unconnected, non-overlapping magisteria so to speak, StephenB. Why the change in your language/viewpoint now? Just a ruse? In the past I would have thought you preferred to separate the two statements entirely, rather than including them together. You seem not to want natural-physical scientists to align themselves with acknowledging imago Dei as Fuller does (and as Francis Collins does in Language of God). "The process is either science-based, which means that it begins with an observation, or it is faith-based, which means that it begins with a reference to our relationship with God. It cannot be both." Why can it not be both? I would argue, along with many others, that it can be both. Your either/or could instead be a both/and. If the dialogue is science, philosophy and theology, the both/and option seems preferable, don't you think? (Aside: not all 'science' begins with 'observation'...and not all that glitters is gold. = ) You sound dangerously close to being an 'empiricist' in your view of ID as 'empirically-based methods', StephenB. The importance of theory, in addition to empirical data should be added. Empirically-based and science-based are after all not synonyms. Please remind me, StephenB, are you a scientist? I had thought not, but please correct me if I'm wrong. "What exactly are we being asked to do?" 1) Admit ID is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation first and foremost, and not empirical natural-science-only. Do this in public. Do it on UD. No time is better than now. 2) Read his works and listen to some of his many audio files, you'll find more answers there! He is prescriptive, not just descriptive. He is futuristic, not just backwardly historical. He is the best public speaker for ID currently active. Thanks, Gr.Gregory_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Since no one will address my earlier questions, I will approach the subject from yet another vantage point. Perhaps it would help to highlight the problem in the context of those points on which we (Steve Fuller and I) agree. By all means, let all willing ID scientists align themselves the following statement of purpose: "First, I believe that the designer I detect through my empirically-based methods is none other than the God of Abraham. Further, I believe that we, His creatures, are made in His image. Further still, I stand ready to put my scientific discoveries to the service of other disciplines, which means that I will seek to inform them and allow myself to be informed by then. Most of all, I will be a “big-picture” thinker. With this approach I can enter into a dialogue with theologians, weigh in on the problem of evil, and contribute to a greater understanding of God’s grand design.” Great! All well and good! What does any of this have to do with the fact that ID is an empirically-based, research project that begins with an observation of data from which inferences are drawn? The word “begin,” after all, carries a specific meaning in the context of an empirically-based paradigm. The process is either science-based, which means that it begins with an observation, or it is faith-based, which means that it begins with a reference to our relationship with God. It cannot be both. Either we begin the methodological process with an observation and draw a scientific inference to design or we begin with an assumption about our relationship with God, in which case, we have assumed out conclusion and science has left the building. Motivations and projects are not methods and processes. This difference between a project and a process needs to be emphasized. On the one hand, I can conceive of ways that qualitative beliefs (Theology) could be merged with quantitative measurements (science) as part of an informal, interdisciplinary project. On the other hand, I don't understand how such a project could be transformed into, or substituted for, a scientific process. I emphasize this point because it seems that Dr. Fuller is asking us to transform processes, rather than simply calling for a dialogue between theology and science. Again, I support all the communicative aspects of Fuller’s appeal, including his call for public professions of faith, big-picture thinking, and overtures on behalf of interdisciplinary cooperation. Beyond that, my question persists. What exactly are we being asked to do? If this question cannot be answered in such a way that I can clearly understand and write it on the back of a business card, it is not a vision—it is an unarticulated daydream.StephenB_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

As I expected, Gregory, you avoided discussing (and apologizing for) your misrepresentation of me regarding Keith Ward, and you don't justify (with quotations from Genomicus) your accusations of "scientism" and "biologism" against Genomicus. I'm used to this kind of unscholarly behavior in your posts by now, so it's no longer shocking. I said nothing about "natural science only" -- that is your phrase, Gregory, which you keep shoving in the face of people here. All of us here at UD (as far as I know) agree that a full understanding of reality requires knowledge of much more than natural science. That does not mean every single question that a human being asks requires a discussion of every single aspect of reality. When your auto mechanic tells you that you need an oil change, do you chide him for speaking in terms of "natural science only" and ask him to justify his argument for the need of an oil change in terms of the belief that we are made in the image of God? I would guess that you don't. So why would you scoff at someone who argues that the DNA-protein system could not have arisen without design, on the grounds that he doesn't add: "And I know this because I believe that man is made in the image of God"? Why does he need to add that, if the auto mechanic doesn't? I grant that there may be a difference in the two cases, but you haven't shown it. Let's have some classic *expositio*, Gregory, instead of snappy one-liners and rhetorical questions. Walk us through it. Show us, step by step, without any scare quotes, boldface type, hyphenated terms, yammering about "big" and "small" ID, imputations of political motivations of ID people, etc., why a design inference in the case of, say, living cells, isn't just as valid for an agnostic or a Buddhist, who doesn't believe that man is made in the image of God, as for a Christian who does. Do it on your own steam, with your own reasoning, without any quotations or arguments from authority, including the authority of Fuller. Give us two or three paragraphs of classic argumentative prose. Since you claim I have been avoiding the subject of the thread -- which I haven't been (it isn't evasive to respond to Genomicus's points instead of to the main article, if I have something relevant to say about Genomicus's points) -- I will now refute that claim by commenting on Fuller's talk. I found Fuller's talk very engaging -- he seems to be clearer as an oral teacher than as a writer -- and he handles questions well. I agreed with a great deal of what he said, though not all of it. I have nothing against his raising the issues he raises, and I have nothing against his engaging the ID people from his different angle. If his discussion with Meyer opens up new directions for ID, I have no reason to object. I say, follow the arguments wherever they lead. I find, however, that whenever you speak in defense of Fuller, your own understanding of Fuller seems questionable. You seem to be determined to take some of his ideas out of context to humiliate and embarrass ID people, and not to be listening very closely to what he is saying. He is very clear in his assertion that ID is warranted *as a scientific project*. It is true that he places that scientific project in a theological framework more explicitly than most ID proponents do, but he does call it a *scientific* project -- something you have steadily denied. Your constant mocking and baiting remarks against everyone (here or anywhere else) who suggests that ID inferences are or might be scientific are on the record, and can't be erased or explained away. On that point at least, you are not in agreement with Fuller. So if you think you are in agreement with him, I would submit that you do not understand what he is saying.Timaeus_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Well, folks, I'm grateful that my appraisal of the Fuller/Meyer exchange back in July seems to have been accurate and complete enough to have prompted exactly the same debating points as seeing the real thing has on this thread. So I don't have anything much to add that I didn't say back in the summer. We are still awaiting a more considered joint response to what Meyer and Fuller said here, so perhaps there's not much further we can go till then. Meyer's own presentation, if I remember rightly, preceded Fuller's and so didn't interact with it. In fact, it was essentially a restatement of the arguments of "Signature in the Cell" for an audience of philosophers who had not, for the most part, read it. Which was fair enough. Just one thing occurs to me on the main thrust of this thread (ie the degree to which ID can be "science" or "science-philosophy-theology"), which is that in actuality all the major positions on evolution are the latter, and particularly mainstream biological science. This is science operating often unconsciously under specific philosophical convictions regarding both methodology and metaphysics, and frequently overspilling into theological pronouncements about lack of oversight, incompatibility with a good God and so on, as well as simply leaving God as creator out of the creative process. One can tell that by realising that there is very little more theology in theistic evolution than in many of the secular spokesmen for evolution - it just differs in flavour somewhat, and somewhat less in quality. At the same time many scientists, many TEs and (as has been seen here) many IDers say that theology really should have no place in science. My own feeling is that the truth would be best served not only by Fuller's imago dei admission within ID, but by scientists owning up to their non-scientific convictions as well. But it's a bit like nuclear disarmament, really - it's hard to negotiate equality when nobody even owns up to what they have at the moment.Jon Garvey_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Timaeus, Do you hear what I hear? You seem to presume to. That’s not very nice. And it seems your memory is failing if you can’t remember what you wrote here at UD. The thread I linked to included a report by Jon Garvey about what Stephen Meyer said to Steve Fuller in Cambridge about THEODICY. We now can all see/view this exchange, thanks to News posting the video in this thread. This thread is a direct continuation of that conversation. There you wrote: "Meyer’s reaction to Fuller is brand-new, and is nowhere near fully developed. Exactly what Meyer finds attractive in Fuller’s proposal is still not fully clear, and where Meyer may still disagree with many views of Fuller is still not clear. It is premature to speculate about what the Meyer-Fuller exchange betokens. Let’s wait and hear more from Meyer and Fuller in the coming months, and see what develops." source So now, in this thread titled: “In Cambridge, Professor Steve Fuller discusses why intelligent design is not more popular among scientists and others,” we are discussing it because we can all see/view what Jon did in July. That seems to make sense. But you, Timaeus are not (yet) discussing it. Why? “it is he who, by digging up old debates, is trying to bait me into further conversation about those old debates, instead of addressing the current subject.” – Timaeus Like I said, now we can actually have the conversation because we have evidence to discuss, i.e. what Meyer actually said to Fuller, not to mention the provocative and interesting presentation that Fuller delivered on “Why some people like the idea of design in nature – and others don’t.” Simply because Timaeus rejects the possibility that people could rationally reject ‘design in nature’ because they reject Big-ID, a notion he has brought up and accepted here, even if now he would run away from it, is a personal problem of Timaeus, not everyone else here. Timaeus is a Big-ID supporter, even if his views are self-admittedly marginal in the IDM. This thread should focus on Steve Fuller’s presentation and the Meyer-Fuller exchange, not on Timaeus-ID! Your ‘diversion’ is obvious, Timaeus, entering this thread in #22, taking a careless swipe at me (as usual), then addressing Genomicus’ support for NOMA. Not a WORD about Steve Fuller in Cambridge, the main topic (or in your words: “current subject”) of the thread. Call it another name if you want; I call it diversion. Again, this is what you wrote, but now do not acknowledge: “I could even agree with Fuller if his position were simply that all versions of design arguments imply a kinship between man and God.” This is exactly the point that Fuller made in his presentation and (by extension) which promoted Meyer to respond positively, saying: “empirical data…could adjudicate these different models of theodicy.” That’s what I’m interested to hear more about, from IDists and whether they agree with Meyer (and Fuller) or not? Provide some explanations or arguments please. Is theodicy not worth a healthy conversation, openly held at Uncommon Descent? Fuller thinks what Meyer said about it in connection with Big-ID is “going to send some people to the hills!” Frankly, I agree, and would be interested to hear from Jon Garvey, who was there and is not a Big-IDist. Ted Davis on Jon Garvey's blog predicts: "There will be a division of the house within ID, over the age of the earth as it relates to theodicy." source There Jon wrote: "I’ve come to a large degree of agreement with Fuller on the importance of imago dei to ID because of the arguments he’s given for it." ... "We intuit design by God as we do design by humans because we are made like him, as our reason is like his." Another way to ask the question: Are the 'intelligent causes in nature' that Big-ID is looking (detecting) for 'natural intelligent causes' or not, i.e. are they detecting for non-natural or extra-natural intelligent causes? If ID is looking for non-natural or extra-natural intelligent causes, that is what leads Big-ID to become small-id, and where it must welcome the inclusion of theology/worldview and philosophy, instead of just natural sciences. That same question is suited for Genomicus. It seems to me that Genomicus is closed against non-natural or extra-natural intelligent agents, i.e. the 'transcendent designer/Designer' about which Dembski speaks. He/she does not appear to accept the relevance of transcendent intelligent agency in any aspect of life. But please, Genomicus, clear this up for me if I'm misinterpreting you (and would you help me out so I don’t have to write he/she?). Ambiguity runs rampant because of what people like Timaeus write: “The DI is concerned with intelligent design in nature — in the phenomena studied by the natural sciences.” (same thread as linked above) Again the spectre of ‘natural-science-only’ – this is something that Fuller rejects and which Meyer seems to agree about in his response to Fuller’s presentation. Thanks, Gr. p.s. boldface type does not only mean shouting and I do not intend it as such; it is meant to highlight certain sentences or terms of particular significance. This makes it easier for people browsing quickly to focus on the main points. Internet communication differs from print in this case; people don’t normally use boldface type in academic journals. Perhaps Timaeus could try to understand this in the future and adjust his perception accordingly.Gregory_{November 29, 2012
November
11
Nov
29
29
2012
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

Genomicus: I see that Gregory has dragged my name into his reply to you. I don't have time to sort out all the tangled ways he is bringing up things I said in other contexts and employing them in an entirely new discussion. Nor do I understand why he is accusing me of trying to divert the thread, when it is he who, by digging up old debates, is trying to bait me into further conversation about those old debates, instead of addressing the current subject. I notice that he accuses you of "biologism." Not exactly an everyday word, but then, Gregory likes to use new or rare words, especially if they end in "ism." "Ism" words sound grander and more intellectual than plain, clear, English, and make the writer seem more impressive, I guess. Well, I looked up "biologism," and in my Oxford it says: "The interpretation of human life from a strictly biological point of view." I must be dense, because I don't perceive where you are guilty of this. Perhaps Gregory will explain. Perhaps he will also explain how you are guilty of "natural scientism" -- another term you don't hear on street corners -- because I don't see where you have said anything to warrant that accusation, either. It's funny, I thought that all you were arguing was that design was in principle detectable in nature. But I guess, through some hidden connections known only to the intellectual elite, "design detection" implies "biologism" and "scientism." Gregory says some odd things. Apparently, I don't openly address Keith Ward for "personal political reasons." But as I don't even know who Keith Ward is -- or didn't, until Gregory announced it just now -- I don't see how I could be avoiding addressing him. I've heard of Keith Miller, but not Keith Ward -- unless Gregory dragged up his name to me in an earlier conversation and I've since forgotten it. Then Gregory reproduces, in boldface type (as if he thinks I am deaf, so that he needs to shout), a statement of Keith Ward which he apparently regards as profound, but which in effect is a platitude: intelligent design as a scientific enterprise is different from intelligent design as a Christian faith affirmation. Gosh, I never could have figured that one out! Thank God for brilliant scholars like Keith Ward! The world certainly needs Ph.D.s to point out the obvious. Gregory also asks whether Meyer is "flushing out" Fuller's ideas. I would think that if so, Meyer must think that Fuller's ideas are a load of cr*p. But possibly Gregory meant to use a different word. Finally, Gregory attributes to me this quotation: “Human beings derive their experience of design from human/social contexts, before thinking about applying the notion of design to biology.” I don't recall saying those words, but I agree with them. How, though, would those words count against anything you have said, Genomicus? To say that we first learn to infer design where the agent is human does not in any way count against the possibility of inferring design where the agent is not human. This "objection" appears to me to be without force. Well, Genomicus, I leave you to puzzle out what Gregory means by all these remarks. I say again, though, that I support your basic position.Timaeus_{November 28, 2012
November
11
Nov
28
28
2012
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Here are the links that didn't come through in #24: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/steve-fuller-in-id-philosophy-news/ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/steve-fuller-in-id-philosophy-news/#comment-428249 p.s. TM, thanks for your message. No, I don't mind it. I reject YEC for obvious reasons, but I'm not going to call you stupid or hopeless. You're not hiding it, but many others are. If we could do a survey of how many IDists are hiding it, my guess is you might be surprised. The ID youth I met in Seattle were predominantly (95%) non-YECs. Yet, as with you, they were mainly interested in ID for theological reasons, even though they (mostly) also studied natural sciences. That is, of course, except for the section on ID in the Social Sciences and Humanities. "I don’t think Fuller is onto anything especially novel here." I suggest you read his chapter "What has atheism ever done for science?" in Science: The Art of Living. It may not be novel, but he's saying it in a fresh and insightful way. And his message gets out, much further and respectably (if not w/out controversy) than anyone in the IDM. I don't suppose you'll find a problem with Fuller 'up-playing' the uniqueness of the Abrahamic religions for 'doing science', rather than 'down-playing' them, will you? His "The New Sociological Imagination" is an amazing book on this topic, you can find my review of it here, in case it may interest you.Gregory_{November 28, 2012
November
11
Nov
28
28
2012
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

(cont’d) I’d like to return to something jstanley01 wrote, which is relevant to the Fuller-Meyer exchange, which is one feature I find quite interesting from the posted video: “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.” Yes, that is what Fuller means too. But Big-ID people, for what are generally called ‘scientistic’ reasons, continue to want to keep that view separate from their theory. Iow, they want no reflexivity, but only positivism or empiricism (natural scientific verification via statistics and ‘specificationism’) for ID, where the ‘designer/Designers’ dogmatically simply cannot be discussed. This is what distinguishes Big-ID from neo-id, the latter which looks at actual testable ‘designing processes’ and active 'designers' (small-d) and not just the ontological metaphysics of belief in a transcendent Designer. Fuller shows clearly and poignantly how refusing to speak about the designer/Designer is far from the best strategy for ID and tells how ID leaders can/should come clean with the reflexivity that ID theorising inescapably involves in its appeal to ‘design’ as analogy with human-made artefacts, e.g. mousetraps, Easter Island, Rushmore, etc. This ‘higher power’ argument was what Meyer was responding to in Cambridge. His words there really are quite astonishing! “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” – Fuller Indeed, it seems that everyone understands this crystal clear by now, except for a few die-hards in the IDM who would deny it unto death for ideological purposes. Openly is the key here, instead of closed, secret, hidden or concealed. It just doesn’t seem to be worth fighting the reality that Big-ID is best understood as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse and not as a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. Connecting this message with a previous recent thread, Keith Ward is another example of a religious person, in this case a Christian, who accepts limited biological evolution (we needn’t call him a TE), yet who Timaeus doesn’t openly address for personal political reasons (cf. propaganda). Ward wrote an interesting review of one of Steve Fuller’s books here: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=402929 When Ward says “The evolution of human life, and its intelligent design by God, are not in conflict,” obviously he means small-id and not Big-ID. Again, this distinction is very important to the theme of Fuller’s presentation: “Why some people like the idea of design in nature – and others don't.” That a few marginal IDists at UD outspokenly reject Fuller’s ‘Why’ explanation does not seem to take away from its cogency for others. Likewise, Ward carefully distinguishes what Timaeus and a select few others seem unwilling to admit: “it is important to distinguish the American ‘intelligent design’ school from the general Christian belief that the universe, and the evolutionary process as a whole, are indeed designed by a supreme intelligence.” This is yet another affirmation by a Christian scholar that small-id and Big-ID are fundamentally different, something that Timaeus also has partially expressed here at UD. Unfortunately, sometimes (not surprisingly) he conveniently forgets this as he weaves a rhetorical web for any perceived opponents to Timaeusian-ID, which at the end of the day actually differs significantly from IDM leaders’ views of Big-ID. But who really cares, right, if one is trying to become a voice for a Movement? As I said above, Fuller is a significant authority who defines ID, mostly in the positive and with the encouragement of academic freedom for ID. He knew he was speaking in front of a Big-ID(or at least small-id)-friendly audience. This should be clearly understood and accepted at UD. I will even add again that I think he is more articulate (tamer than intelligent) and cogent than anyone currently in the IDM. Meyer takes his work and ideas about ID seriously; perhaps so should you. Don’t forget, Meyer also openly and unabashedly commended Fuller in his response in the video and expressed interest to follow-up with Fuller, since they hadn’t had the chance to speak directly in intervening weeks. And least anyone here forgets; Fuller is also a graduate of History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University, just as is Meyer. Fuller did a master degree and went on to his PhD in the same topic at UPitt. The main difference is that Fuller’s area of focus was not ‘origins of life,’ as was Meyer’s. Indeed, I look forward to when Meyer’s presentation at Cambridge is posted in order to compare them, given what I said about them as speakers above.Gregory_{November 28, 2012
November
11
Nov
28
28
2012
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Well, I guess this thread is bound for diversion, as Timaeus has entered the fray. The thread is meant to discuss Steve Fuller’s thoughts about ‘design/Design,’ not for Timaeus to insert a tired old trope that studies of (detecting) ‘design/Design’ have nothing necessarily to do with ‘designers/Designers.' Nevertheless, I do agree with Timaeus’ rejection of Genomicus’ support for NOMA, which tells much about why Genomicus is promoting natural scientism with 'biological intelligent design,' while offering no positive view of 'designing' or a 'designer/Designer,' which he/she has not yet said he actually believes in (other than astrobiology). Genomicus says: “I see no reason why, in principle, intelligent design in nature could not be detected through the efforts of science. We would go about it like any other scientific discipline” As Fuller reminds people all the time, the first two questions in the field of science (and technology) studies are: which science? and whose science? It does not appear that Genomicus is versed on the many achievements in science studies, since he/she seems to conflate 'natural sciences' with 'all sciences.' That's what the ideology of 'naturalism' is about. “The normal meaning of design is not about 'designers we know.' In normal usage, design means the execution of a plan, or a goal.” – Genomicus Really?! Care to back up that claim with some scientific survey work? Go out on the street and ask people what they think of when they hear the term ‘design.’ Simple question. No contextual framing. Just ask them. You’ll change your mind and realise that ‘design’ *is* actually linked in the vast majority of peoples’ minds with ‘designers we know.’ Graphic design, clothing design, architectural design, etc. I rather suspect you’ve let biologism ideologically cloud your judgment, Genomicus, from reading your view of ‘normal usage,’ which is to be expected because biologists don’t very often study/survey people as part of their work. That’s just the reality of the div. of labour in the academy; most biologists do not study/survey human beings. So why should we take their word for any value on what constitutes 'normal usage'? Here is what Timaeus said in this thread: “Human beings derive their experience of design from human/social contexts, before thinking about applying the notion of design to biology.” That's a significant concession, folks! “There’s no need to get involved in semantic debates when it’s all very simple.” – Genomicus The 'it's just a semantic debate' trope is the very same curtain the great OZ of Big-ID wrt claims of natural-science-only/natural scientificity hides behind. Sorry to tell you that I’ve seen behind this curtain and so has Fuller. This doesn't work for those of us who've seen the IDM on the inside. “By a new intelligent design, I mean an intelligent design hypothesis that is entirely focused on the detection of engineering in biological systems.” – Genomicus No, that’s old intelligent design (of the modern = late 20th century, early 21st variety, steered and controlled by the DI, home of the IDM). There’s nothing ‘new’ about that. It’s idealistic the way you frame it, but not new. Another way to say it is that ‘intelligent causes/Intelligent Causes’ may be thought to supervene on natural sciences, but they are not part of the generally agreed toolkit of natural sciences, agreed to by people of various religions or none. Timaeus’ statement should thus be corrected to read: “Whether we know who a designer is or not, we can CLAIM designed from non-designed things,” even if we cannot PROVE ‘design/Design’ with natural scientific methods. Claim away, Timaeus, with a backward religious historian’s view and nothing forward-looking that comes anywhere near to the scholarship of Fuller’s work on ‘intelligent design.’ The most productive viewpoint offered here is Fuller’s in “Why some people like the idea of design in nature – and others don't,” at the “Design in Nature?” event at Cambridge. Let us respectfully concentrate on that. Others (@1, 3, 4 & 12) have also applauded the presentation by Fuller on ID. A few months ago on UD, Timaeus wrote in regard to Fuller: “I could even agree with Fuller if his position were simply that all versions of design arguments imply a kinship between man and God.” Since he didn’t answer again, shall we ask again what ‘even’ means? It doesn’t sound from this that Timaeus is actually against admitting religious beliefs are involved in ‘design arguments ‘. But to hear Stephen Meyer admit this publically in response to this presentation by Fuller that we can now see/hear on video, does give at least me pause to re-evaluate the particular arguments of those who insist on the ‘natural-science-alone’ or ‘natural scientificity’ feature of Big-ID. I’d like to remind folks here of thread title posted by Jon Garvey, who attended this event: Jon’s headline: “Fuller calls for ID to embrace theology – Steve Meyer agrees.” What I see in the video confirms what Jon saw in Cambridge. Who would wish to differ here? Does anyone think or have evidence that Meyer is actually flushing this out in his work, since it would seem to compromise the ‘scientific neutrality’ myth that lies at the heart of Big-ID? I'd like to hear how Meyer plans to study that "empirical data…could adjudicate these different models of theodicy" as part of ID. (cont’d)Gregory_{November 28, 2012
November
11
Nov
28
28
2012
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

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...He’s not saying theology has nothing to do with ID; he thinks they are connected.
I'm not hiding it either. I'm a YEC. I don't think it's fair to accuse ID of hiding that. The Jews and Christians among us don't hide it. We just think empirical science is an objective basis for common ground with people who don't accept an Abrahamic God, and we don't exclude them from the ability to do science well. My problem is that I've known too many Asians doing science just fine without much connection to an Abrahamic religion. In other words, my reticence is driven by empirical evidence. I know empirically that a commitment to the Abrahamic God is not a prerequisite to do science and to do it pretty freaking well. Reason is a universal human trait, and the physical world is a universally accessible sandbox. I could possibly accept the idea that maybe Abrahamic religion drives scientific innovation by motivating the search for unified theories. Because we believe in a single Creator, we believe that nature must be a unified whole. Because we believe in the imago dei, we believe we can understand that unification. And the existence of actual unified theories is evidence for the Abrahamic type of God. But, I mean, ID theorists and creationists have been arguing that for decades. It's one of the things that attracted me to ID. I don't think Fuller is onto anything especially novel here. It's possible that yin and yang, moral relativism and naturalism contain no motivating impulse towards unified theories. But I think they are able to understand and work within such paradigms without any self contradictions.
“most of us are interested in the topic for theological reasons.” – TM Thank you for directly admitting that.
Well, I'm a YEC so I already have a synthesis of science and theology. For me theology is queen of the sciences. The Bible is a closed, infallible divine revelation. Science is an open, fallible human pursuit. Therefore YECs are okay with science being a trial and error process that is occasionally in error with respect to the infallible standard. Does that count towards your purpose? lol. You may not like it, but I think it's an effective synthesis. It's one of the things that kept me a YEC past childhood.tragic mishap_{November 28, 2012
November
11
Nov
28
28
2012
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Good points, Genomicus. As you say, the distinction between "designers we know" and "designers we don't know" -- a distinction beloved of the TEs, among others -- is irrelevant. Whether we know who a designer is or not, we can tell designed from non-designed things. ID is based on that premise. Similarly, no ID proponent has tried to prove, using design detection methods, that human beings are created in the image of God. In raising that idea, Gregory appears to be arguing against a non-existent hypothesis. Your response is thus appropriate. On your final paragraph, I agree with you that we can distinguish scientific from theological questions, but I don't think Gould's NOMA principle is the best way of formulating that distinctiveness. The problem with Gould's NOMA principle is that the boundaries are set up in such a way as to guarantee certain results from the outset. For example, physical origins of the universe, "how" questions, are by NOMA advocates assigned entirely to "science," and all that theology has left to talk about is "why" God created the universe. But of course, traditional theological claims about origins involve an active role for God even on the "how" side, not just on the "why" side. Thus, if it happens to be the case that purely natural causes, unaided by intelligence, are unable to account for the origin of some things, science will botch the job if it tries to explain them, because science can only adduce unintelligent natural causes. So any division that says: "physical origins belong to exclusively to science" will prejudice the outcome. The very question on the table is whether unguided physical causes can explain certain outcomes, and therefore the NOMA division is not neutral, but tilts the playing field. In response to this, you could argue that the NOMA division would be neutral if science were broadened to include intelligent causation; I would agree. But the people who formulated NOMA and who use it in argument (Gould, the atheists, and the TEs) don't accept any role for intelligent causes in natural science. So given the "establishment" definition of science, NOMA prejudices the outcomes.Timaeus_{November 28, 2012
November
11
Nov
28
28
2012
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

References Yokoo, H., Oshima, T., 1979. Is bacteriophage ?X174 DNA a message from an extraterrestrial intelligence? Icarus, 38(1): 148-153.Genomicus_{November 27, 2012
November
11
Nov
27
27
2012
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Gregory: You define "Big-ID" as:
Big-ID...refers to Discovery Institute as heart of a Movement as well as the view that ‘design/Design’ can be (and even has been!) proven by natural scientific methods, which is promoted by the intelligent design/Intelligent Design movement (or community). Here one has to use both not-capitalized and capitalized forms of id/ID because the IDM or Big-ID community uses both variants whenever they believe it suits them.
And "small id" is defined as:
...the term ‘small-id’ refers to the idea that “God-did-it,” but that we don’t know exactly how and ‘science-alone’ cannot prove it one way or another. This is accepted by a vast majority of TEers and ECers. Indeed, it is the basic Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Baha’i view of the Creation of the Universe.
You can decide which school of thought I fall into; I can only describe my position. I am in no way associated with the Discovery Institute, and I strongly disagree with much of the overall movement. Nevertheless, I do think that intelligent design in nature can be potentially demonstrated by scientific methods. Many examples of this could be cited. The whole SETI endeavor is focused on detecting intelligent design in the cosmos, even though we would have no knowledge of the designers. It has been hypothesized in the scientific literature that certain viral protein sequences were engineered by an advanced society (see, e.g, Yokoo and Oshima, 1979). If I understand your position correctly, it seems as if you argue that non-human intelligent design in nature cannot, in principle, be detected through science. For example, you state:
'Human extension’ offers an alternative to ‘evolution’ and ‘creationism’ in human-social science (HSS). It overcomes the ideology of ’evolutionism’ by rejecting the use of ‘evolutionary theory’ in HSS paradigms. It confronts the ideology of ‘naturalistic intelligent design,’ the notion that ‘design’ that is supposedly ‘intelligent’ can be ‘scientifically’ detected or discovered ‘in nature.'
However, I see no reason why, in principle, intelligent design in nature could not be detected through the efforts of science. We would go about it like any other scientific discipline: after making certain observations, the hypothesis of design would be entertained, and it would then be tested. If the tests are what we would predict from the hypothesis, then the best explanation for the data is that the hypothesis is correct.
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'm pretty sure I'm not taking "design" out of its proper context, and you might want to elaborate on why you think I'm getting involved with a category error. The normal meaning of design is not about "designers we know." In normal usage, design means the execution of a plan, or a goal. And that's where my interest in biological intelligent design comes in: when we look to biological systems, can we find the signatures of a planned, engineered origin? There's no need to get involved in semantic debates when it's all very simple.
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.
The thesis that "it has precious little to do with reality" is dependent on whether or not it is an extra-scientific question. See my discussion above on hypothesis testing for my answer to that.
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.
No, we cannot test the existence of deity through science. But since, in my view, intelligent design should be a scientific endeavor, there's really no good reason to bring the whole "human beings are created in the image of god" concept to the ID table.
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.
That phrase came to my mind independently. By a new intelligent design, I mean an intelligent design hypothesis that is entirely focused on the detection of engineering in biological systems, and not focused on (a) putting ID into the education curriculum, (b) disproving evolution, (c) advancing religious apologetics. Such a new intelligent design would be like any other scientific field of study. Indeed, if one looks at the early ID literature, one will find that the main thrust of their ideas are in the realm of biology. For the most part,intelligent design originated as an attempt to detect design in biology; as far as I can tell, you're just trying to change the definition and focus of intelligent design.
“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.
I wouldn't say that I want to leave theologians completely excluded from the conversation - they are free to discuss ID all they want, just like they're welcome to discuss the germ theory all day long. But theology should not become a part of biological intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis. I am in agreement with the NOMA view; religion and science occupy different domains and there's no reason why we should attempt to overlap theology with intelligent design.Genomicus_{November 27, 2012
November
11
Nov
27
27
2012
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

hilarious, chuckle chuckleUpright BiPed_{November 27, 2012
November
11
Nov
27
27
2012
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply