Video: What are the Limits of Darwinism? A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 22, 2013

News}

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

Comments

Gregory
“Design technology” = a figment of StephenB’s imagination. Like the ‘Design Detective’s’ ‘Cause Detector’. Glover’s video is priceless on this topic!
The video that Gregory alludes to @64 presents the stupidest strawman argument against ID that I have ever heard. That he would characterize such a simple-minded offering as a refutation indicates that his level of understanding of design detection is so primitive as to be scandalous. I encourage everyone to check out the video. It's only two minutes long. I suspect that the luminaries at the Discovery Institute, after gauging his analytical abilities, wanted to put as much distance between themselves and Gregory as possible. What they probably said was something like this: "I don't care where you go or what you do, but please do not represent us." Or, perhaps they just withdrew and hoped that Gregory would choose to be an adversary rather than a friend. Perhaps Gregory can confirm the point.StephenB_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Gregory: My position on ID and social science is nothing sinister, secretive, inconsistent, or difficult. 1. My view is that ID theory, as articulated by Dembski, Behe, Meyer, etc. has nothing directly to do with the social sciences. It is about detecting design in nature. 2. I never heard of any DI summer program in the social sciences and humanities until you mentioned it, a while back. I knew that the DI ran summer courses, but I presumed that they introduced people to concepts such as irreducible complexity, DNA-protein linkage, probablistic resources, etc. I was surprised to hear that they had ever ventured into humanities and the social sciences. 3. I do not know what your "beef" is about the contents of summer program you went through, because you will not describe the program. 4. *If* the program advertised that it was teaching social sciences and humanities, and that was why you enrolled, and then all it taught was natural sciences, I think you should have asked for your money back. But again, I don't know how the program was advertised. If you still have the brochure, maybe you could put an image of it up on your website, so we can see it. 5. I am not in favor of extending ID into the social sciences and humanities. At least, not until someone can show me how that could be done. 6. The fact that ID limits itself to studying design in nature is not "dehumanizing" any more than the fact that geologists limit themselves to studying rocks rather than the history of music or linguistics. I presume that you would not argue that geology, astronomy, chemistry, etc. automatically "dehumanize" their practitioners. 7. In fact, it could be argued that by making room for teleology in nature, ID is "rehumanizing" the study of nature, by allowing it to be seen once again as purposive, rather than a blind rush of laws and accidents. 8. But you apparently don't *want* nature "rehumanized" in that manner, because, as you have said above, looking for design in nature is a "category error." So apparently you are *happy* with modern natural science's self-restriction to non-purposive causation. So I'm puzzled: Do you *want* modern natural science to continue studying nature in a way that has nothing to do with purpose, telos, design, etc.? Do you *want* the study of purpose, telos, design, etc. to be restricted to social sciences and humanities? Or do you count it as a flaw in modern natural science that it can't deal with purpose, telos, design, etc.? These are genuine theoretical questions, Gregory. I'm not trying to trap you. What do you think natural science should do? Should it exclude teleological explanations, and focus only on efficient-cause explanations? And does it have the mandate to speak about origins? Or do origins belong to philosophy or theology? Your critique of modern natural science is unclear to me. 9. As for one of your criticisms of the misapplication of natural science -- the invasion of the social sciences and humanities by the concept of "evolution" - I've always been onside with you on that. But what puzzles me, again, is that the Discovery people have frequently pointed out the damage that the concept of "evolution" has done in *human* matters -- its contribution to eugenics, genocide, and other things. So I would think you would be praising the DI for drawing the public's attention to the illegitimate invasion of social/political life by the "evolution" concept. But you give them no credit at all for this. It as if you are so angry with Discovery, that you won't give them credit even when they do something right.Timaeus_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Kantian: Thanks for your suggestion of 56 above. I *would* have interpreted Gregory's statement as you have interpreted it, based on previous statements of Gregory. However, recently he has at least on two occasions criticized ID people for not listening to *Feser* about univocal predication. And I believe that, on at least one of those occasions, I brought up the conflict between Feser and Fuller, and asked Gregory to clarify where he stood. He did not reply. So I thought I would bring it up again now, while term "univocal predication" is on the table. Note that Gregory, in his reply to you at 61 above, affirms that Feser has "debunked" Torley. I would need the link to Feser in order to determine whether that debunking involved Feser's view on univocal predication. In any case, I welcome your comment, Kantian, and I now ask Gregory for a clear statement of his own view on univocal predication. Gregory, do you think that Fuller is right about univocal predication? And by that I mean, not merely that Fuller is right to assert that ID depends on univocal predication, but that Fuller is right to assert that univocal predication is a legitimate way for Christians to think about God? And the follow-up question: if Fuller is right on this, then Feser must be wrong, so do you reject Feser's critique of univocal predication?Timaeus_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

StephenB, that one was your weakest. Hopefully there won't be another. "Design technology helps us to differentiate between an act of murder and an accidental death." "Design technology" = a figment of StephenB's imagination. Like the 'Design Detective's' 'Cause Detector'. Glover's video is priceless on this topic! "What do you mean it's not science?" -> "A detective who doesn't solve crimes."Gregory_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

:) StephenB,, speaking of forensic science, have you seen either of these videos yet: Jim Warner Wallace (Author of Cold Case Christianity) - God's Crime Scene - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9zEqyi1c7Q Forensic Pathologist Dr. Janis Amatuzio discusses her book "Forever Ours" on Portland's AM Northwest. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtnywJHLrLY =============== Not on topic, but I thought this video was interesting as well: Joni – Life After Death – Dr. Jim Garlow - video https://www.daystar.com/ondemand/joni-life-after-death-dr-jim-garlow-j906/#.USuPwFd17-9bornagain77_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Forensic Scientist: We have concluded that the dead man lying in the street was the victim of foul play. Gregory: How do you know that? FS: He had twenty-seven stab wounds in his back. Design technology helps us to differentiate between an act of murder and an accidental death. It is not likely that the victim inadvertently backed into the knife twenty seven times. G: Who did it? FS: At this stage of the investigation, we don't know. G: Your design technology is useless and dehumanizing. Obviously, you have no interest in identifying the murderer. Otherwise, you would not question the connection between the murderer's motive and his crime. FS: I don't think you understand the methodology. We don't round up suspects, take fingerprints, or check for means, motive, and opportunity until we know that a murder has been committed. The methodology for selecting the murderer from a number of possible suspects is implemented at a later date and under different circumstances--as is the task of identifying motives. Yes, the results of the murder investigation will provide input for a courtroom trial, but it doesn't follow that the methods for identifying criminal behavior will be synonymous with the methods for punishing the criminal or protecting his rights. The study of forensic science is related to administration of jurisprudential justice, but the protocol for each will be different. G: Your "science only" methodology is a farce. You can't separate the murderer from his passions any more than you can separate forensic science from courtroom politics or the bio-rhythmic patterns of the presiding judge. FS: You are mixing enough apples, oranges, and bananas to make a fruit salad. There is a place for analyzing problems from a big picture perspective, but only after each small piece of the puzzle is understood. One cannot do science without isolating variables. Do you know what it means to isolate a variable? G: Even your own mother doesn't believe you. FS: Interestingly, we also have a method for separating rational people from irrational people. G: Are you trying to tell me something? FS: You don't want to know.StephenB_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

“But it wasn’t clear to me that Gregory is hostile towards univocal predication — his point, I thought, was that design theory has a problem insofar as it both presupposes univocal predication (in order to generate any testable claims about the nature of the designer) and denies that it makes any such presupposition (in order to pass muster as a “natural science”). “ – Kantian Naturalist Yes, that’s pretty much right on. Feser, Gingerich, Davis, Barr and others, along with me focus on the IDM’s repeatedly stated requirement that ID theory passes muster as a ‘natural science.’ Without that, there isn’t much novelty beyond the traditional theological ‘design argument.’ And that ID theorists don’t speak openly about univocal predication is a tell-tale sign of duplicity or lack of openness that Fuller is certainly not too shy to expose. That’s what happened in the Meyer-Fuller exchange in the U.K. and Meyer (the top PoS person in the IDM) realised ID’s shortcomings, even errors, as currently articulated. Feser has entirely debunked the Big-IDist approach of vjtorley, over at his blog. And not much more is required than what’s already been said. “Gregory’s basic point, I take it — based on my own knowledge of Fuller — is that “the intelligent design movement” should be an all-encompassing world-view rather than a domain-restricted scientific theory. Or have I been misinterpreting him?” – Kantian Naturalist Well, I’d say the IDM is ‘worldview-invested.’ The DI collectively prays in an evangelical Christian way before meals. That is proof in itself. (Not that I’ve got anything against praying, but that it is a sociological fact.) IDists here and elsewhere try as hard as they can to appear neutral, objective, religiously uncommitted, read: respectable as either creationists or neo-creationists. But their game has been repeatedly shown for what it is. And the number of creationists here at UD who try to appear as non-creationists is astonishing. There was a joke told about how the IDM tries harder than anyone else to disguise its religiosity, even harder than atheists. When you meet IDists in person, it is really not hard to tell that their natural scientificity is disguised as apologetics. “Sort of like preaching to the choir.” – Mung That's right. Exactly like preaching to the choir! Why do you think ID theory is spread in Protestant churches and through evangelical communication channels? They preach to that choir regularly.Gregory_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Timaeus’ “why ID is not ‘dehumanizing’” is hilarious. Here we have an actual man (but he doesn’t want you to really know that – he’s just a detached, un-embodied, any-man, ‘rational’ voice!) who is himself dehumanised by his on-line sock-puppetry, claiming that Big-ID theory is not dehumanising, even while he does not defend the objectivistic natural scientificity of Big-ID theory. Now that’s funny! ;) "That is not 'dehumanizing' — it is simply recognizing where the boundary between the human and the non-human is." – Timaeus So then is ‘ID theory’ qua theory properly about human-made and societal things or not: Yes or No Timaeus? Political theorist John G. West knows the answer clearly. The DI’s Humanities and Social Sciences summer program shut-down because it realised this ‘boundary.’ Religious studies graduate Timaeus, however, seems to cordon this off (it could be, but it isn’t, but it could be, but it isn’t) as a topic for eternal flip-flopping. Just give us a clear answer, will you? Timaeus writes "ID is purely concerned with natural sciences, not social sciences or the humanities." But we don't really know if he believes this because of his constant flip-flopping. Does he believe this or not? If he does believe it, then ID theory is not at all concerned with human-made things, with artefacts, with societies and communities. How long will it take Timaeus to admit this publically? "If he is not calling for the expulsion of natural science from the university on the grounds that it is ‘dehumanizing,’ what exactly is his complaint?" – Timaeus Concept theft. Big-ID theorists stole the concept 'design' (false transferability) from theology, applied and social sciences, and have been trying to validate it in natural sciences, like biology. Give it back to theology/worldview, give it back to human-social sciences, give it back to applied sciences that don't pretend knowledge about origins of life, origins of biological information or human origins. That would repay justice. The natural scientism of the IDM signals ID theory’s downfall. "ID is purely concerned with natural sciences, not social sciences or the humanities." - Timaeus The intellectual trade of the decade: give us back ‘design’ and you can have ‘evolution’ back. We neither want it nor need it in humanities and social sciences. And this will end your claims to misanthropic designism. Simply saying that IDists have never tried to over-extend ‘evolution’ into humanities and social sciences is not enough, especially when Dembski is an evolutionist when it comes to technological evolution and when Johnson is an evolutionist when it comes to movements. Behe’s “all humane studies” comment speaks volumes here regarding the presumptuousness of IDism, just like the Wedge Document did. "ID is purely concerned with natural sciences, not social sciences or the humanities." - Timaeus Then you can do with American 'neo-creationism' whatever you choose; almost half the population believes in a few thousand year-old ‘young’ Earth, but ID theory doesn’t care. Are you not also a ‘creator’ and do you not have any ‘creativity’ worth identifying? The USA is so messed up and frankly ‘under-developed’ (tough to swallow, folks) in its popular understanding and philosophy of science anyway. Creationism in the USA has become an industry of its own, mainly for Protestant Christians. And IDM-ID has cleverly capitalised on this industry. This is largely why UD even exists, why there is a forum for us to press ‘Post Comment’.Gregory_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist:
Gregory’s basic point, I take it — based on my own knowledge of Fuller — is that “the intelligent design movement” should be an all-encompassing world-view rather than a domain-restricted scientific theory. Or have I been misinterpreting him?
A world-view that can only "see" the "design" in nature through "the eyes of faith." Sort of like preaching to the choir. But Gregory is just wrong, as is evident from the entire history of "the design argument." Even Dawkins is compelled to admit that living organisms have the appearance of design. Design is evident, even to those without faith. How can that be? T @49 - spot on.Mung_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.- Wm Dembski, "No Free Lunch", page 112 (ending paragraph started on pg 111)
And AGAIN: In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. THAT is how it is done in archaeology and forensic science.Joe_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Does Gregory really think that ID prevents people from trying to figure out who/ what the designer is? Does Gregory really think that ID prevents people from trying to answer quations about the design- how, why, where, when and how? If so then Gregory is more clueless than I thought...Joe_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

A slightly more charitable reading, perhaps, of one important point Timaeus raises in (49): if one wants to accept central tenets of two quite different thinkers -- in Gregory's case, Fuller and Feser -- then one is obliged to give an account of how the ideas one has drawn from each are compatible with one another. The point about univocal predication is an important place to really dig in here. But it wasn't clear to me that Gregory is hostile towards univocal predication -- his point, I thought, was that design theory has a problem insofar as it both presupposes univocal predication (in order to generate any testable claims about the nature of the designer) and denies that it makes any such presupposition (in order to pass muster as a "natural science"). Gregory's basic point, I take it -- based on my own knowledge of Fuller -- is that "the intelligent design movement" should be an all-encompassing world-view rather than a domain-restricted scientific theory. Or have I been misinterpreting him?Kantian Naturalist_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Great, Gregory links to someone who is as clueless as himself and thinks that helps. SweetJoe_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
UD shelters ‘clueless dolts!’
Yes, UD shelters you, Gregory. Nice call...Joe_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

UD shelters 'clueless dolts!' Everyone, clap your hands: "tat is what ID is all about." That's a Cheddar Bob defense of ID theory!Gregory_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
A ‘detective’ would get fired on the first day of the job if he or she were asked about the who, when, where, how and why and simply announced: that’s not part of the ‘real’ ‘design inference’!
LoL! FIRST someone has to determine there was a crime. Then they would study that design and all relevant evidence to try to answer those questions. And guess what? tat is what ID is about. Many crimes are unsolved, Gregory. Does that mean they weren't actually crimes because we don't know who, where, when, how and why?Joe_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

“Detectives are NOT scientists and do NOT conduct science.” Gregory:
Oh, that’s hilarious!
Facts are hilarious to you? Strange. Does Gregory think that detectives are scientists complete with PhDs?
That’s like saying ‘design detection’ is not ‘science.’
No, it isn't. Not even close. As I said, Gregory is just a clueless dolt.Joe_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

I explained in 40 above why ID is not "dehumanizing." Gregory has not responded to a single word of my argument there. Does his silence imply consent?Timaeus_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Gregory wrote: "Unfortunately, Behe makes a category error when he extends the term ‘design’ from human-made things to the biosphere" This is a dogmatic statement. How does Gregory know that it is a category error? It is not a category if living things fall under the category of "designed things." And how can Gregory say, in advance of the arguments, that living things aren't properly regarded as designed things? Gregory would be better advised to meet Behe's actual biological arguments than to try to end-run around them by labelling them as based on category errors. But speaking of "category errors," Gregory makes a colossal one in his post 46 above. He quotes the Bible: Acts 17:29 (NIV): “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone — an image made by human design and skill.” And he uses this passage as evidence that ID people have misapplied the idea of design. But in fact, in the passage quoted, the contrast is between designed images and *God*, whereas ID's parallel is between designed artifacts and *natural objects* (not God). So Gregory has mixed up the created and the uncreated! The Biblical teaching is in fact that Israel must not liken either artificial or natural objects to *God*. The Bible says nothing at all against likening artificial to natural objects. Gregory then writes: "This highlights one of ID theory’s greatest problems: univocal predication. But they won’t openly admit this because they want to maintain the deception that their theory has *anything* to do with theology. According to IDist theory, the Creator of ‘nature’ is supposed to ‘speak’ the same language (DNA) as the ‘created.’ We are supposed to ‘infer or detect design’ because we are designed." The last sentence is not a claim of ID theory. ID theory says that human beings can recognize design, not because they are *designed* but because they are *designers*, and have therefore learned to recognize signs of design. As for the first sentence, regarding univocal predication, that reminds me of the fact that Gregory has dodged the past several mentions I've made of his major difference with Steve Fuller. Fuller thinks that Christian teaching warrants univocal predication, and argues that ID is therefore on sound ground in inferring design in nature; and Gregory repeatedly claims to be a follower of Fuller's understanding of ID, and tells ID people they should follow Fuller as well; but then, lately, he has endorsed the views of Feser, against ID, which makes no sense, because Feser takes the position opposite Fuller's, which is that univocal predication is abominable Christian theology and that ID, being based on it, is based on a false picture of God. Gregory has thus endorsed two mutually exclusive theological positions, which does not put him in a very good spot. But I don't expect he will either explain the contradiction, or act logically and come down clearly on either Feser's or Fuller's side. Rather, he will cherry-pick statements from Feser and from Fuller, as needed, in order to find something that he can use against ID. Theological coherence? -- humbug! One of these days, Gregory may shock us all by actually going through Behe's or Dembski's or Meyer's technical arguments for design, and giving them a critique in their own terms. But I'm not holding my breath.Timaeus_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

"Detectives are NOT scientists and do NOT conduct science." Oh, that's hilarious! It's like 'Cheddar Bob' in Eminem's "8 Mile" film. Shot oneself in the foot. That's like saying 'design detection' is not 'science.' Except, Cheddar Bob doesn't accuse people of being 'clueless' or 'retards' so frequently as UD's 'Joe' does, thinking it is classy 'intelligentreasoning.'Gregory_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
All ID theory aims to discover is Yes or No – that there is design/Design.
That is false. ID is about the detection and STUDY of design in nature.
A ‘detective’ would get fired on the first day of the job if he or she were asked about the who, when, where, how and why and simply announced:
Detectives are NOT scientists and do NOT conduct science. It is the FORENSIC SCIENTISTS who tell the detectives if a crime has been committed. IOW Gregory, your strawman proves that you are clueless- as if I needed more evidence for that.Joe_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

How far does fine-tuning extend? “Fine tuning extends at least to the category of classes.” – Michael Behe (55:15) Is this a religiously based fine-tuning proposal, a secular fine-tuning, a quasi-objectivistic natural scientific fine-tuning proposal or a combination of these? It is rather easy for natural scientists to overlook the ‘anthropos’ in the ‘anthropic principle’ and to just focus on the notion of ‘fine tuning,’ which Behe in the video equates with ‘design.’ What Michael Behe has been trying to do, and which seems worthy of praise for the perhaps crazy courage of the attempt (notice the necessary Disclaimer – ‘most people disagree with me, even my mother’ – at the beginning?), even if it has not succeeded, is to propose an ‘anthropic principle’ of biology/biochemistry. Unfortunately, Behe makes a category error when he extends the term ‘design’ from human-made things to the biosphere and it is partially understandable why he would choose to do so because he is a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics, like other Abrahamic believers, accept ‘design arguments’ as natural theological apologetics. But to strip out the theology and to just call it a natural science of ‘design’ is an over-extension of the term. This is why Behe uses humour to try to diffuse the seriousness of his misspeaking, his over-reaching of ‘design.’ An interesting discussion took place recently on BioLogos (page 2 of comments). The exchange between Rev. Roger Sawtelle, an ecological anti-Darwinist, and ‘Eddie,’ a non-IDM IDist (who previously claimed there: “I’ve studied the subject much longer than all but two or three of world’s leading TEs”), is instructive on this point. Roger Sawtelle wrote: “God is the Source of the universe, but the universe is not an extension of God or of God’s will as your [Eddie’s] point of view would have it.” ‘Eddie’ replied: “An elephant’s trunk is an extension of its body. The natural world is not an extension of God’s body. Orthodox Christian theology has always understood this difference.” Roger then stated: “An elephant’s trunk is part of its body, not an extension. If an elephant grips a stick with its trunk, and uses it to knock down a fruit out of a tree, the stick would be an extension of its body.” To which Eddie responded: “Let’s not quarrel over the meaning of the word ‘extension’...nature is separate from God...God’s divinity does not ‘extend’ outside himself like a trunk or an antenna.” In this case, in light of what Marshall McLuhan has shown us in ‘understanding media:’ the extensions of man, Roger is correct and Eddie-the-IDist is wrong. At least, this can be confirmed in so far as ‘extension’ is part of the (English translated) Biblical text:
“For this is what the LORD says: “I will extend peace to her like a river, and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream”…” – Isaiah 66:12

“The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of your enemies!” – Psalm 110:2
Mary’s song reads:
“His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.” – Luke 1:50
The same is true with the Qur’an:
“His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).” – Al Baqara
On the other hand, however, the term ‘design’ is rarely used in English language scriptures, though the term ‘designate’ is several times used. This is one of the few examples of ‘design’ in the IDM sense:
Isaiah 14:24 (NRSV): “The LORD of hosts has sworn: As I have designed, so shall it be; and as I have planned, so shall it come to pass.”
Notably, in other translations, the term ‘designed’ is absent and ‘planned’ or ‘purposed’ is used instead. Thus, to say “nature is separate from God” does little justice to the view that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...” and that this was planned or purposed. And yet the meaningful distinction now shown, which is being rejected by some folks here at UD between small-id and Big-ID, while others continue to write ‘Intelligent Design’ with capital letters, is also supported by scripture:
Acts 17:29 (NIV): “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone — an image made by human design and skill.”
This highlights one of ID theory’s greatest problems: univocal predication. But they won't openly admit this because they want to maintain the deception that their theory has *anything* to do with theology. According to IDist theory, the Creator of ‘nature’ is supposed to ‘speak’ the same language (DNA) as the ‘created.’ We are supposed to ‘infer or detect design’ because we are designed. But that presupposition is hush-hush, kept out of publically duplicitous attempts by the IDM to make all religions equal wrt ‘design arguments’. That attempt is now exposed for what it is. In another recent thread/video, Dembski noted that Kant objected to over-extending ‘THE’ design argument. (08:40) It seems, however, that Dembski is under-extending it by disallowing in principle *any* conversation of ‘designer(s)/Designer(s)’ as a condition of trying to appear natural scientistic. Dembski is dehumanising the term ‘design’ by attempting to ‘separate/divorce’ it from human designers. That is what chracteristically defines ID theory and establishes its limits from turning into universal designism. The question here for ID theory is simply this: what do the origins of life or ‘biological information’ extend from/to? ID theory so far offers no answer other than some mysterious ‘intelligence/Intelligence,’ without naming embodied or disembodied, transcendental or immanent names. It is much easier to speak directly when you know who the small-d designer is. What does this blog message that you are now reading extend from? My name is Gregory, nice to meet you.Gregory_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

This is a good presentation, but when will someone prominent point out that as far as can be seen, evolution isn't happening, and has never happened? Just a stark statement like that. It's a pleasant feeling to get complacent in the relatively new shifting of the goalposts back to something more in line with reality. Bacteria changes via natural selection only show a narrow range of mutation possible. If it can't get out of this range due some laws in the genome which restrict upward evolution, then it's not evolution in any sense. Not only that but the opposite of evolution is inferred. It wouldn't need to be claimed that tampering from intelligence was perforce needed at every step on the tree of life, simply because not enough is known yet. But it could be stated that this idea should be taken seriously because it's the only option left on the table, according to what is currently known. Please re-read this paragraph. A prominent person at one of these university lectures here doesn't need to espouse this idea, they simply need to point it out, it's the only one left on the table based on what's known up till now. Present it along the line of "further research will bring more clarity". "Accepting the Tree of life" is ambiguous and pandering, and simply not straight forward thinking. Either way, don't worry about it Behe, probably shouldn't come from you. You're a great guy, I won't hold it against you.qwerty_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

Thaxton agrees with Behe's mom!Mung_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

I would like it recorded for posterity that once again I offered Gregory a detailed, articulate post (39-40), written politely, making a number of arguments and asking a number of questions, and that once again he has ignored most of the contents of my posts and offered biting answers with a strongly personal flavor. It appears that Gregory is unable to hold an intellectual or academic conversation without this trademark combination of evasiveness and belligerence. I don't think it is unreasonable to extrapolate Gregory's behavior here, which has been more or less constant, back to his time in the Discovery summer program. And if that was his attitude during the program, it is not at all surprising that (as he himself has reported here at various times) he came into conflict with the teachers and administrators there. I therefore think it's pretty clear that his account of the Discovery summer program comes from a less-than-objective perspective.Timaeus_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Gregory: The above exchange highlights that the logic of induction and linked inference to best explanation on well warranted sign are key points to underscore. And that which establishes to reasonable warrant, that tweredun, is just as legitimate as -- and prior to -- an onward investigation that may seek whodunit, why. Unless there are grounds to conclude burglary, or arson, or murder, it is not safe to go hunting for a culprit. For fairly obvious reasons. KFkairosfocus_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

"leave out questions which ID cannot [will not] answer" - Timaeus A ‘detective’ would get fired on the first day of the job if he or she were asked about the who, when, where, how and why and simply announced: that's not part of the 'real' 'design inference'! All ID theory aims to discover is Yes or No - that there is design/Design. That is far too weak in explanatory power to be taken seriously as a legitimate ‘science.’ Go back home, Timaeus, lie down on your couch and stop interfering with professionals. You make scholars look bad with your apathy and propaganda.Gregory_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

(Part 2 of 2, continuing from #37 above): Gregory seems to feel that ID's self-limitation -- to the detection of design in nature -- is intrinsically "dehumanizing." He writes: "they want their chosen ‘natural scientific paradigm’ to be just a logical conclusion of ‘following the evidence where it leads’ and ‘making an inference to the best explanation’ as if they are non-human robots operating in a character vacuum." As I read this, I am puzzled. I knew many a grad student in physics and biology in my day, and their understanding of what they were doing as scientists was much like the above. They did not see themselves as responsible to uncover new truths in the social sciences or humanities, and they thought that their methods were appropriate for what they were trying to study, i.e., nature. They saw themselves as trying to explain atoms, radiation, cells, nucleotides, etc. Yet they were not "dehumanized" people. They sang in choirs and they enjoyed hiking and camping and listening to jazz and watching foreign films, and they talked about politics and education and all the other things that human beings talk about. The fact that their professional questions concerned non-human nature did not make them "dehumanized"; it meant only that they were observing boundaries between different kinds of investigations. And the boundaries they set were reasonable. It would be downright silly to say that a certain particle travels at 3/4 the speed of light for political reasons. It would be idiotic to suggest that haemoglobin is structured the way it is for sociological reasons. To be a good scientist -- to understand why nature behaves in the way it does -- you have to cease anthopomorphizing individual natural entities, cease imputing human motivations to them. That is not "dehumanizing" -- it is simply recognizing where the boundary between the human and the non-human is. Similarly, ID people recognize that often we can determine that something is designed, but lack information regarding the history of that object, or the identity or motivations of the builders, the designers, etc. So they concentrate on what ID theory can determine -- whether or not something is designed -- and leave out questions which ID cannot answer. This does not mean that ID people cannot ask "human" questions related to their ID work. It does not mean they cannot ask: "If there was a designer, who was it?" It does not mean that they cannot look at malaria and ask: "Did the designer of malaria have evil intentions?" It does not mean that they are forbidden an emotional response to what they have studied. It does not mean that they are forbidden a religious response to what they have studied, or an ethical response, or an artistic response. It does not "dehumanize" ID proponents. It merely prevents ID proponents from employing religious, ethical, or artistic notions *in their arguments for design*. And this is no different from the division every scientist on the planet makes. A medical scientist can determine the cause of some disease, without bringing his religious or political beliefs into the analysis; but after he has done so, he can have a religious response: "Why would God allow such suffering?" Or he can have a political response: "We must institute a social program to combat this disease, and tax the rich to pay for it." Nothing in his science "dehumanizes" him. Why then, does Behe's argument for design above -- upon which Gregory has still not commented -- "dehumanize" Behe? Is not reasoning about nature something wonderful that only *humans* can do? And does Behe's modest, affable, humorous, self-deprecating manner, as he speaks and answers questions, indicate that he is a very "human" sort of scientist, rather than a stuck-up academic prig, like so many of his critics? If Gregory wants to say: "Well, ID is purely concerned with natural sciences, not social sciences or the humanities, and therefore is dehumanizing" -- well, then, all of chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, etc. is "dehumanizing," and I don't see Gregory making that charge. But if ID is no more "dehumanizing" with its methods than organic chemistry or cosmology are, then what is Gregory's beef? If he is not calling for the expulsion of natural science from the university on the grounds that it is "dehumanizing," what exactly is his complaint? Nobody is more dedicated to human studies than I am. After winning a science scholarship and spending some time in natural science, I decided to study the human things rather than the natural things. I therefore certainly am aware of the benefits of the social sciences and humanities. But this does not prevent me from greatly admiring good natural scientists and what they teach us. And the fact that ID does not teach me how society ought to be organized, or how wealth ought to be distributed, or how literature ought to be read, or what religion is true, or how one can be a good parent, does not for me mean that ID is "dehumanizing." It merely means that ID works within its inherent limitations, as all intellectual projects must. I would not want ID to become a surrogate religion or ideology. I would not want it telling me whether I should be Christian or Hindu, whether I should vote Republican or Democrat or Conservative or Liberal or Labor, whether I should support public schools or private schools. I'm glad that it limits itself to the detection of design in nature. It's for that very reason that I was able to join in and support ID, whereas I could never join in and support Creation Science. I was always repelled by Gish and Morris, but I was instantly drawn to Behe and Denton, because they deliberately avoided arguing based on religious premises. You could be an ID supporter and believe anything you wanted about the Bible, from the view that it was the flawless word of God to the view that it was a pile of ancient superstition. You could be an ID supporter and a rabid capitalist, or an ID supporter and a socialist. The only requirement was an intellectual openness to the possibility of detecting design in nature. And there is nothing intrinsically "dehumanizing" about intellectual openness. The question is, does Gregory have such openness? Is he open to the possibility that design in nature could be demonstrated? Or has he made up his mind, in advance of all possible evidence, that such a demonstration could never exist?Timaeus_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Timaeus, you couldn't tackle your own shadow! ;)Gregory_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

An interesting reply from Gregory to ecs@ in #36. One good feature of the reply is that it never talks about "Big-ID" versus "small-id" -- this will be a welcome relief to everyone here. This avoidance of quarrelling over nomenclature allows Gregory to make (for a change) a point over substance. As far as I can tell, Gregory thinks that ID is "dehumanizing" for two reasons: (1) Reasons connected with his bad (to him) experiences at the ID summer program in Seattle; (2) Reasons connected with ID's self-limitation of theoretical coverage. Let's take these one at at time. Gregory's objections to his experiences at Discovery would be more interesting, more useful, and more credible if he would provide us with an overview of the program he went through. We are getting only a very small part of the story. It is like trying to reconstruct the plot and dialogue of a 1925 silent movie from a dozen production stills. It would also help if we had the names of half a dozen people who attended the program with him, so that we could compare their own experiences to see how they matched. Gregory tells us that summer program for ID in the social sciences and humanities "collapsed." He does not tell us what that means. Does he mean that they used to have such a program (though it was not the one he was in), and then abandoned it? Or that they planned to start such a program, but it never got off the ground? Or does he mean that *he* was in such a program, and it "collapsed" -- broke down -- while he was going through it? We aren't told. Gregory makes a judgment about the shortcomings of ID, and then connects that judgment with a conversation he had with Charles Thaxton. He says "Charles Thaxton, founder-inventor of ‘modern ID’ well knows this, as he told me over lunch in Seattle." Well, it would be nice if, instead of a remark allegedly said over lunch by Charles Thaxton, we had something published by Charles Thaxton. In any case, what is the "this" that Thaxton "knows"? Is Gregory saying that Thaxton endorsed the entire analysis and argument that Gregory presents in the paragraph containing Thaxton's name? Or did Thaxton agree with only *part* of what Gregory was saying? And if so, what part? Did Thaxton offer any qualifications? I find it hard to imagine Thaxton saying: "Yeah, you're right, Gregory, methodologically, the whole ID venture really sucks." I would imagine that, in addition to indicating possible shortcomings of the ID approach, Thaxton said a few *good* things about it as well. But Gregory is silent about anything positive that Thaxton might have said. And presumably Thaxton would not have come to Seattle that summer to teach in a program for which he had no respect. So Gregory's invocation of Thaxton's name to damn the Discovery program is somewhat suspect. It appears to be a one-sided report which omits things that could be important. Gregory also makes a negative comment about the role of John West. (This is at least the third time West has been mentioned negatively by Gregory; West seems to be central to Gregory's critique of Discovery.) Gregory says, "I was there and looked directly into John G. West’s eyes while he was happily and willingly wedging his students." Well, that hardly sounds like a dispassionate analysis. Would West have described himself as "wedging" his students? Would West have seen himself as propagandizing them? Or would he have seen himself as giving them tools to counteract the widespread cultural propaganda they were already exposed to, e.g., materialism, secular humanism, neo-Darwinism, reductionism, scientism? Gregory does not even try to represent West as West might have seen himself; and this shows that Gregory is not interested in giving us a detached portrayal of the Discovery summer program. Gregory tells us: " There is really nothing behind a ‘positive’ case for ID theory in those fields. He knows this, I told it directly to his face and he realised why the program had to go." Gregory thus implies that West had not understood the uselessness of ID in the social sciences/humanities until Gregory told him, and he implies that the summer program in that area was scrapped because of what Gregory had taught West. I wonder if West would give the same account of the facts as Gregory does here. It also somewhat stretches credibility to imagine that West, with his Ph.D. in government (which subject, as part of political science, is part of the social sciences), would miss some hugely obvious point about social sciences and would need to have heard it for the first time from a then-grad-student without a Ph.D. in the social sciences. Are we to envision that West and his colleagues dreamed up an ID program for social sciences and humanities, were all ready to run it, and then Gregory happened along, gave them the benefit of his wisdom, and then West and his colleagues said: "Oh, what idiots we have all been! Fortunately Gregory came along, and now we know not to attempt that program!"? I would need much more context before I would accept Gregory's account of what happened here. Because Gregory's account of his experience at Discovery is so sparse, it is hard to tell what happened to him there. But one gets the strong impression that he came into verbal conflict with a number of people there (West, Gordon, and others), and made no friends there. This makes it hard to tell how much of his criticism is fair, and how much of it "striking back" at Discovery for whatever grievances Gregory accumulated during his time there. Because I was not there, and because Gregory has not provided both sides, I cannot be sure that the Discovery programs (in Gregory's year and before and after) were "dehumanizing." All I can tell from Gregory's account is that Discovery did not, in his observation, apply ID in any useful way to the social sciences or humanities. So I will drop that topic and move on to the second point, i.e., that ID is dehumanizing because of its self-limitation to design detection in nature. I'll tackle this in a separate post. (to be continued ...)Timaeus_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply