Even supposing ID is not science, it does not automatically mean it is religion, philosophy, or metaphysics

_{Salvador Cordova

June 27, 2013

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion}

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

I found a comment by CLADIVS (Claudius) in Good and bad reasons for rejecting ID that is worth highlighting.

But without a testable explanation, ID remains in the realm of metaphysics, philosophy or religion, not science.

I responded:

ID may not be science, but that does not mean automatically it is religion.

If I have a coin in a box and shake it, look at it at 11:27 AM on 6/26/13 and determine it is heads. You have no way of scientifically verifying the claim via a process of repeated experiments 10 years from now. You’ll just have to take my word for it.

The fact that a true claim about the history of the physical universe is not accessible to science does not make the claim automatically a religious claim. It might be true in the physical sense.

Notions of good and evil etc. are definitely in the realm of philosophy, claims about physical universe are not necessarily religious just because they are inaccessible to science.

If by science one demands that the mechanism is repeatable and observable, then ID is not science, but such a definition is a two-edged sword. By such a definition of science, there are a lot of scientific theories based mostly on inference that would be rejected as science. Some examples are given in: What qualifies as science in the wonderful world of Disney.

By such a strict definition of science in terms of experiments and observables, evolutionary biology is not science either:

Ernst Mayr (as quoted by McHugh):

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science…[where] Laws and experiments are inappropriate…
….
Instead one constructs a … narrative

Ernst Mayr

I’m ambivalent to the arguments whether ID is science or not since it depends one’s definition of science. The question at hand is its reasonableness versus the alternatives. But supposing for the sake of argument it is not science, it does not automatically make it a religious, metaphysical, or philosophical idea.

I’ve suggested, on scientific grounds alone, an Intelligent Designer may be inferred to exist. See: Quantum Enigma of Consciousness and the Identity of the Designer.

And strictly speaking, ID-sympathetic theories might be verifiable one day, and hence they could qualify as science in the strict sense. If after you die and find yourself facing Almighty God on judgment day, then by the standards of science, ID is verifiable because then you would have been brought back to life and are facing the Intelligent Designer himself. Of course, if ID is false and there is no Intelligent Designer of the universe and life, you have few worries that you’ll ever face Almighty God.

But, imho, there is the chance everyone reading these discussions might see the Intelligent Designer one day, and hence these discussions have merit independent of whether one views ID as science or not. As an aside, the father of the concept of expectation values, Blaise Pascal, had something to say on the rationality of wagering on the existence of the Intelligent Designer based on your presumed distribution of the possibility of his existence…See: Pascal’s Wager. For me, I’m not wagering Darwin, Dawkins nor Dennett are right. That’s a bad bet in my book….

In sum, even supposing ID is not science, it does not automatically mean it is philosophy, religion, or metaphysics since it is making a claim about physical events rather than esoteric claims about what is good and evil.

Comments

Gregory Sorry about the name thing- no offense intended. Yes- I am aware that many theists are naturalists. I believe naturalism or natural science is too limiting in scope, and therefore imposes prejudicial qualifications on science (knowledge and understanding). Regarding the relationship between ID and creation, I had it backwards. IOW, in theory, creation would be a product of ID, not the other way around. My previous comment was not meant to change the subject, but rather pointing out one distinction between naturalism and what I called non-naturalism. I used the term non-naturalism because I feel the term super-naturalism is inaccurate (but admittedly, non-naturalism is inaccurate as well). What is a credible source? What or who do you regard as a credible truth, and why?littlejohn_{June 30, 2013
June
06
Jun
30
30
2013
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Salvador #81, Well, 'Charles Darwin' is a proper name, just like 'Salvador T. Cordova' is. It's a typical rule of grammar to capitalise them. Scientific theories, however, are usually not capitalised. That's one reason the capitalised vs. non-capitalised distinction regarding 'Intelligent Design Theory' and 'intelligent design' is so important. But you haven't really answered the question of capitalisation with much substance. What does 'more priority' mean to you? #3 in this thread explains my position on this, as I have done several times already on UD and blogged about elsewhere. The position of DI Fellows, i.e. IDM leaders is on the 'strict scientificity' of Uppercase 'Intelligent Design Theory.' This is what makes it problematic for most Abrahamic believers who have carefully studied it and ultimately rejected it, while maintaining their religious faith.Gregory_{June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Gregory wrote to littlejohn: "p.s. I’d appreciate it if you call me by the listed name, as I do with you. Thanks." So, out of consistency, Gregory should be writing "Timaeus" instead of "timaeus," respecting my own listed name.Timaeus_{June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

"Intelligent Design" claims more priority than "intelligent design", also if we capitalize Charles Darwin, why not Intelligent Design. In the conceptual ranking of things maybe it ought to be: INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs. charles darwin But that's hard on the eyes.scordova_{June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

littlejohn, Are you aware that there are many 'theists' in what you call 'the naturalist camp'? I have asked how it is possible to be a natural scientist who is not a 'naturalist,' but no clear statements from either 'camp(s)' has been offered. If you have a clear statement from a credible source, please link or quote it here. Repeat - you wrote: “creation (of which ID is a subset).” What do you mean by this? I didn't use the term 'natural' or 'naturalism.' Why are you changing the topic? How do you envision that 'ID a subset of creation'? p.s. I'd appreciate it if you call me by the listed name, as I do with you. Thanks.Gregory_{June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

"I like Intelligent Design vs. intelligent design." Thanks for answering directly, Salvador. And what do you mean by that? What's your rationale for capitalising Intelligent Design or not capitalising intelligent design?Gregory_{June 29, 2013
June
06
Jun
29
29
2013
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

#64 Greg, I mean, it is the non-naturalist camp that is exploiting the evidences confirming ID everywhere in nature. The naturalist camp seriously needs it to go away, and that is why the naturalists are fighting so hard. The evidence is real and damaging.littlejohn_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

More fact-free and evasive comments from Gregory (from 61 and other places above): 1. He says that I have been "overmatched" by the arguments of Feser. Funny, I don't recall ever debating Feser. How can Feser have "overmatched" me if we have never been in a match in the first place? (In any case, I have never denied that Feser is a thoughtful critic of ID, and I have read many of his blog posts and debates with Vincent Torley. But admitting that Feser is thoughtful doesn't compel me to admit that Feser is right in everything he says. Nor am I automatically "overmatched" merely for disagreeing with Feser.) 2. He continues to deny that anyone on UD has responded to the thought of Bejan. Yet I have in fact responded to articles written by Bejan -- articles recommended by Gregory himself -- at: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-argument-for-intelligent-design/ I did so in post 338. Gregory posted later at that same location, and must have seen my comments there, as he always watches like a hawk for anything I say (ready to pounce on it), yet he did not respond to my comments. So there he is, complaining that no one will engage with him on Bejan, but when someone does engage, he ducks out. So who is the coward here, myself, or Gregory? 3. Gregory pretends to respond to my question about Fuller, while in fact providing no response to it at all. He blathers on about Fuller in general terms, while deliberately avoiding the main issue. The fact is that *at the very center of Fuller's thought on ID* is the belief in a "Franciscan" God for whom "univocal predication" is appropriate. Fuller says that ID should *embrace* such a conception of God as the basis of its program. But Feser says that this conception of God is both un-Christian and false, and that, to the extent ID bases itself on this conception, ID will go disastrously wrong. So Gregory has been asked over and over again: is Fuller *right* or *wrong* on this point? No more evasions, no more circumlocutions, no more academic BS. Just: is Fuller right or wrong? Does Gregory have the academic courage to answer the question?Timaeus_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Gregory is now in the business of inventing "facts" out of thin air: "He has spent more money on IDist books than probably almost anyone alive" Since I have never provided anyone, in public or in private, with my spending receipts, there is of course no way Gregory could know this, even if it were true. But of course it is not true. The majority of pro-ID books that have been published, I do not own, and have not even read. I have, however, made a point of reading the theoretically most important ID works -- and that is something that Gregory, by his own admission, has not done, and has no intention of doing.Timaeus_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Gregory wrote: "Neither of these subjects normally requires population genetics as a required course. In terms of the science, therefore, I’d take Elizabeth Liddle’s word over timaeus’ pretty much any day of the week." The question was not how Elizabeth was qualified to evaluate *me* on population genetics. The question was how Elizabeth was qualified to evaluate *John Sanford* on population genetics. She has given her answer, and that ends the discussion. Gregory's attempt to resurrect the completed discussion in order to slip in yet another personal shot at me is transparent. But of course, if we want to bring in comparisons which no one was making, we could compare Gregory's education in the natural sciences with mine. That might be relevant to understanding why he avoids reading the technical writings of ID proponents, and refuses to debate those writings. It also might be relevant to the question of his competence to assess the value of ID as a project.Timaeus_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

see you do not plan to answer my questions in #3 or those that follow.
I'm not a grammarian nor good speller, etc. I like Intelligent Design vs. intelligent design. Dembski uses caps that convention, Luskin does not.scordova_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Sal:
From your link, I decided to google. So this is you with your companions?
Yes :) That was a fun project. So was this: Glorious and Powerful God, Orlando Gibbons.Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Your stripes sure haven't changed, Salvador! :P "Darwinian evolution can’t art with such a level of virtuosity!" And it wasn't supposed to. But neither does a 'theory' that claims to have to do with OoL, OoBI and human origins offer anything of value regarding 'virtuosity.' You are surely right to imply your broad view of 'creationism' for such a task. But then again, creationism usually deals with similar themes to IDism, i.e. OoL and human origins, and also age of earth. What is needed instead is a theory or approach to human virtuosity. Iow, an 'anthropic principle' that is not about the cosmos, but about humanity, including characteristics such as creativity, harmony, innovation, etc. But you won't now and likely never will find such things in the IDM or in 'creation science.' So, yes Amen, there is a Creator, which is what you mean by 'Intelligent Designer.' Most Abrahamic believers around the world will likely not be seduced by an American neo-creationist theory into bothering with using that concept-duo. But hey, it is sometimes entertaining to see IDist-Creationists trying to spread their language to others using conservative evangelical Christian channels in the USA. I see you do not plan to answer my questions in #3 or those that follow. Too bad, since it seems you've already made progress in other areas re: the real challenges to creationism based on evidences.Gregory_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

From your link, I decided to google. So this is you with your companions? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD9zvJlBzOY Wonderful! Wonderful!scordova_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Sal
Such as in Dawkins Blindwatchmaker and many other evolutionary writings and computer simulations (like Avida and Weasel).
I haven't seen Dawkins do it, though he is very confusing with his use of the word "random". AVIDA does not confuse the two meanings (how could it?). And WEASEL is not really worth discussing.
I’m sorry we have to disagree so much. I think I’d much rather talk about music and art…
I prefer doing music and art to talking about it :) Well, talking is good too.
Did you play a musical instrument?
Viol
Do you have favorite composers?
Dowland, Purcell, William Lawes, Bach, Gibbons, Mozart, Schubert, Britten, Arvo Pärt, Monteverdi, Marais, Rameau, CPE Bach, Stravinsky, Tallis, Couperin, Chopin.
Myself, I was a music student before I was forced by economic considerations to go into other disciplines.
Hey!
I especially like Rachmaninoff. His 2nd Concerto is a perfect concerto. I play one of his works, the 18th Variation from his Rhapsody on a theme of Paganinni, but not the 2nd Concerto. It’s simply in an another realm of virtuosity. Sorry for the off topic, but I just had to ask given you studied music. :-)
Cool! So you are a pianist? I have Gil's recordings. Though the romantic period is not my favorite, he could persuade me! And in any case, I love Chopin. And I spent this afternoon tuning my son's drumkit :) We should do this more often! Cheers LizzieElizabeth B Liddle_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

I’ve attended it performed in concert in the Bolshoi Zal in St. Petersburg, where he also performed.
Ah yes, Bolshoi! Here is Valentina Lisitsa performing the first movement of the Rachmaninoff 2nd with orchestra: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBS-W4sUZ0o Here is her performing without orchestra: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufb2TrR3UAo Both are amazing! Darwinian evolution can't art with such a level of virtuosity! Only God could make a Rachmaninoff or a Valentina! There is an Intelligent Designer! Amen!scordova_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Is this S.T. Cordova's way of a take-back? "I’m encouraging everyone to make this an open thread from this comment forward." Is he encouraging people to forget his "Even supposing ID is not science, it does not automatically mean it is religion, philosophy, or metaphysics" claim? I guess it is at least worthwhile that Salvador has admitted "The lack of progress of ID as a scientific theory." This isn't something that most people don't know already. But for an IDist-(still)Creationist to admit it is helpful as a sign of honesty. As Mike Gene finally concluded: “science can never truly detect Design, even if it exists.” ... “the ability to detect Design entails a subjective judgment call, while science must be anchored in objective measurement.” p.s. Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto is lovely! I've attended it performed in concert in the Bolshoi Zal in St. Petersburg, where he also performed. Music and art are two realms where Uppercase 'ID-talk' is nonsensical, not because 'design' doesn't happen, of course it does. But because there are so many other verbs to describe the creative process of imaginative production than to repeatedly reduce conversations to a single 'D' term.Gregory_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Only if the two meanings are conflated is there any problem, and then, only in communication.
Such as in Dawkins Blindwatchmaker and many other evolutionary writings and computer simulations (like Avida and Weasel). I'm sorry we have to disagree so much. I think I'd much rather talk about music and art... Did you play a musical instrument? Do you have favorite composers? Myself, I was a music student before I was forced by economic considerations to go into other disciplines. I especially like Rachmaninoff. His 2nd Concerto is a perfect concerto. I play one of his works, the 18th Variation from his Rhapsody on a theme of Paganinni, but not the 2nd Concerto. It's simply in an another realm of virtuosity. Sorry for the off topic, but I just had to ask given you studied music. :-) To that end, I'm encouraging everyone to make this an open thread from this comment forward. Speak your mind on anything you want, just keep it family friendly and civil.scordova_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

"The one part of ID that can make scientific progress is it’s criticism of OOL and evolutionary theories." OoL is amongst the most speculative 'sciences' in the Academy. Wouldn't you agree, Sal? Btw, you haven't yet addressed #3. But I've learned that when tough questions about IDism are asked and philosophical themes raised, maestro Cordova usually disappears (into finance?). As for "criticism of evolutionary theories," don't forget (as even people as educated and profound as 'Joe' here at UD constantly remind us) that IDT is not necessarily an 'anti-evolutionary theory,' except for when it is 'anti-evolutionary', right? ;) Just the Darwinian variety, please! :PGregory_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Research on certain topics is taboo for whatever reason. That’s a vague and very unsatisfactory response. You made a point of blaming an uncongenial intellectual atmosphere for ID’s lack of progress in the sciences.
I'm not complaining about ID lack of progress in the sciences. As I've said elsewhere, I'm ambivalent to "ID is science" cause. However I'm not ambivalent to scientists personally (not professionally) accepting ID. That is a subtle, but important distinction. I'm not ambivalent to "evolutionary theory is science". The bulk of evolutionary theory should not qualify as science. Even in Coyne's own words:
In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics
The lack of progress of ID as a scientific theory is that it is not amenable to direct observation of the Intelligent Designer. One can see the reaction mechanism of Hydrogen and Oxygen forming water in the lab, not so with ID. And that is problematic, and I listed that as one of the good reasons to reject ID (either as science specifically or as a truth claim in general). It probably bears repeating: I'm ambivalent to "ID is science" cause. However I'm not ambivalent to scientists personally (not professionally) accepting ID or at least seeing the failures of evolutionary ideas. That is a subtle, but important distinction. The one part of ID that can make scientific progress is it's criticism of OOL and evolutionary theories. That part of is valid science whether we call it "critical analysis" or ID. The problem is too many mortgages are paid by the perpetuation of evolutionary theory. Even if true, its major claims seem rather irrelevant from an operational standpoint, but not from a philosophical or religious standpoint.scordova_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

littlejohn, I missed your #37, in which you wrote: "creation (of which ID is a subset)." What do you mean by this? Some people have all but given up talking about 'creation' only to shift their vocabulary to talk about 'design,' as if people are too blind to recognise this shift and call it out for what it is.Gregory_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

The OP seems to have been abandoned to follow Clavdivs #13 “Now what?” question. That seems to be what several IDists here at UD want. Or does anyone still wish to address the “Even supposing ID is not science, it does not automatically mean it is religion, philosophy, or metaphysics” topic? Let us be clear: ‘Intelligent Design’ is a ‘theory.’ It was invented by Charles Thaxton based on an engineering analogy and applied to origins of life studies. Removing the term ‘theory’ itself is problematic; it serves as a method of ‘reification’ as if the conclusion is already proven. It makes it sound like Uppercase ‘Intelligent Design’ is a natural scientific fact, rather than a quasi-scientific theory. As far as “many of the internet articles” I’ve reference being ‘loudmouthed,’ timaeus is sure one to talk about that (what a laugh)! And he is sure one to talk about people knowing little about IDT when all he is really doing is acting like a walking billboard for DI Fellows’ books (I’ll eventually address that in the other thread). He has spent more money on IDist books than probably almost anyone alive and therefore expects everyone else to swallow the ideology that he has swallowed by reading those particular books instead of others, in the name of a ‘theory’ that surprisingly he doesn’t even properly defend regarding IDTs ‘strict scientificity.’ He is just like some Marxists who read all of Marx’s works and everything written by Marxists and neo-Marxists, but who can’t understand why intelligent, thoughtful, people don’t become ‘converted’ to Marxism, why they maintain legitimate philosophical criticisms and therefore won’t dedicate their entire life to Marxism or IDism as he does.
“I have never rejected intelligent, thoughtful, philosophical criticisms of ID.”
You’ve been corrected, offered remedies and shown yourself as overmatched by people outside of UD when it comes to their “intelligent, thoughtful, philosophical criticisms of ID[T],” including by Edward Feser. So whether or not you “have never rejected” those criticisms doesn’t really say much, does it? That’s why I’ve challenged you to a public debate, timaeus, with your name and reputation up front instead of hidden, like an unnecessary Expelled Syndrome victim, behind an on-line pseudonym. I really don’t believe your pseudo-IDist arguments are that strong, timaeus, and just claiming that “people haven’t read as many IDist books as timaeus has” does not prove that they don’t understand quite well some of IDT’s major flaws. The significant non-materialist-theists that reject IDism have mainly stopped bothering with guys like timaeus because there’s no real point to be won with someone like that, especially when he puts words in your mouth repeatedly and claims both ideological innocence and absolute clarity in his writing. When I do specify positions by IDists that I disagree with, iow, quote directly and dealing with arguments published by over-reaching IDists, timaeus disappears. This is obvious in the distinction between ‘(the) design argument(s)’ and ‘IDT’ that Dembski makes. But since timaeus’ single-adherent version of IDT is not what Dembski’s IDT says, he will not address it. This explains why he is not an ID leader and is simply a regurgitator of DI fellows’ ideas. One would think that if DI leaders were actually serious about studying ‘design in nature’ from a scholarly perspective, they’d be all over Adrian Bejan right now, trying to show how his meaning of ‘design in nature’ differs from theirs. Why not? But they’ve been silent pushing their ideology (mainly, but not entirely) to Protestant Americans through evangelical channels for several years and don’t seem interested in scholarship that might either dwarf or dislocate theirs. At least I’ve published a thread about Bejan’s work in contrast with IDT on my blog, which is more than can be said of the tiny army of IDists that post here at UD, where not a single thread about Bejan’s “Design in Nature” book has been published (nor at EVo News and Views or elsewhere on IDist sites, as far as I can tell) already a year and a half after its publication! That’s just a sad, but telling fact of the IDM’s priorities. As for Steve Fuller, the thing is that IDT is one of many topics that he is interested in and working on; this American-concocted ‘theory’ does not determine Fuller’s career nor dictate his reputation as a scholar many on other topics. The claim that I have “virtually demanded that we accept Fuller as the new prophet of ID” is a sign of desperation from timaeus, yet another untruth that he has tried to pin upon me ungraciously. Imo, Fuller overmatches Meyer and Dembski on the science, philosophy, theology/worldview connection of both intelligent design and IDT, the latter which shows how backwards (literally, using the term ‘historical science’) Meyer and Dembski are because they are stuck defending IDT as ‘strictly scientific,’ when Fuller knows better, is looking to the present and future, to actually designing, constructing and shaping ourselves and our world, and he isn’t afraid to say so. Yet, of course it is ease to imagine Meyer and Dembski as courageous Galileo-types (as Woodward does), just because they are taking a principled stand against naturalism, materialism and secularism, even while they insist on the ‘strict scientificity’ of IDism, which is not the best way to overturn ‘scientism,’ another linked ideology of our age. timaeus then goes into all-out rhetoric mode spinning how IDT makes ‘philosophical conclusions’ that he claims are based on science, but won’t go the step further to admit the very simple proposition that I and others have put forward: IDT is properly so-called a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation. And that’s what this thread is supposed to be about. Perhaps S.T. Cordova will return to it, but probably he won’t. Eric Anderson’s message in #12 provided enough of a warning.Gregory_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
Sal, in evolutionary theory, fitness is not regarded as reproductive success; it is defined as reproductive success. Right, an after-the-fact assessment. And that isn't very useful.
Joe_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

Sanford has not made a mistake any worse than most of the Darwinian industry that regards fitness as equal to reproductive success. Such a viewpoint leads to a bizarre view of the reality in many cases such as survival of the sickest.
Sal, in evolutionary theory, fitness is not regarded as reproductive success; it is defined as reproductive success. That doesn't mean that a Darwinian could consider a sick person "fit" in any other sense than in that very narrow operational sense (and even then, it would be unlikely - a person with sickle-cell anaemia is not "fit" in either sense). An athlete with a vasectomy is highly fit in the normal English sense, but unfit in the Darwinian sense. Only if the two meanings are conflated is there any problem, and then, only in communication.Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

I’m 61 years old now! If I started another PhD now, I’d be past retiring age before I even got a post doc! – E.L. Don’t let that put you off. I was 62 yesterday and started my PhD last September. – M.F. Good luck! But I only got mine 6 years ago, and it’ll take me another 20 to recover! – E.L.
Happy belated b-day Mark, and congratulations on your courageous PhD push! Well, I finished my PhD when I was in my 30s and am still in my 30s. It may be that I’ll need to do another in my 50s or 60s, the way knowledge societies go. But I’ve recovered from the 1st one already, and now on a 2nd post-doc. In case you weren’t here at the time Elizabeth, timaeus is 56 or 57 yrs-old, which is the conclusion to make from his report here at UD that he is 3 yrs older than Steve Fuller, who was born in 1959. So you have seniority on timaeus, and obviously a much gentler touch. The message of #43, though it seems kind, is about as hypocritical a statement, especially the last two paragraphs, as one could imagine reading. It involves rare ‘reflexivity’ about timaeus himself as much as it does a potentially helpful suggestion to Elizabeth.
“publishing peer-reviewed articles in the field. You seem intelligent enough to handle the work.”
The younger timaeus could perhaps more easily re-educate himself and make himself relevant again, to potentially, eventually ‘publish peer-reviewed articles’ about IDT. But there most likely won’t be a PhD program in ‘Intelligent Design Creationism’ in his lifetime, at least not anywhere other than at a small private, most likely evangelical Christian college in the USA. Perhaps if that happens, timaeus might want to re-skill himself there? timaeus' education, by his own account here at UD is in: 1) Biblical studies 2) Western religious thought Neither of these subjects normally requires population genetics as a required course. In terms of the science, therefore, I’d take Elizabeth Liddle’s word over timaeus’ pretty much any day of the week.
“the people who really matter, who will shape the direction that serious evolutionary theory takes”
As for me, I don’t consider ‘the people who really matter’ (i.e. at the heart of science, philosophy and theology/worldview conversations such as IDT should be aiming to encourage) as ‘evolutionary theorists.’ Not in the electronic-information epoch. Not after the biotech turn. Standard evolutionary theory, even in the biological sciences, and certainly in cosmology and geology, is well past its heyday, though that doesn't mean various new applications are not still being made. That evolutionism grew way out of proportion to its intended sphere of application is a testament to certain global-social forces of ideology in the 20th century. But in the 21st century, it would seem Elizabeth’s interests might be enhanced more by (hypothetically) another PhD in philosophy of mind, cognitive studies (more broadly conceived than neurophysiology), neurolinguistics or even neuroanthropology. Otherwise, of course, perhaps she might be interested in returning for an MDiv, in case echoes of her childhood/youth religiosity might reappear and find interesting connections with the work of John Eccles, among other neuroscientists who embrace their ‘evolutionary’ religiosity. Then again, one can do a lot of reading on one’s own and not put oneself through the harrowing process of defending a PhD thesis and still know quite a bit about a subject, even if holding the PhD sure helps in making scientific/scholarly publications in credible journals.Gregory_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

Dr. Liddle, Kuartus, As I thought on it, some of the points your raised regarding Sanford's (and ReMine's) work are very significant. I think I urgently need to convey to them to drop the reproductive fitness measure. It allows survival of the sickest and sick genomes to be viewed as not actually deteriorating. I hope it is clear, when I feel a criticism is not a sham criticism, when our side has made a mistake, I'm willing to try to offer remedies. There are of course areas where we can never agree. But back to the point of reproductive fitness measures, here is a case of genome deterioration in microbes where like blind cavefish, fitness improves even though there is deterioration: http://ijsb.sgmjournals.org/content/54/6/1937.full Sanford has not made a mistake any worse than most of the Darwinian industry that regards fitness as equal to reproductive success. Such a viewpoint leads to a bizarre view of the reality in many cases such as survival of the sickest.scordova_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Don’t let that put you off. I was 62 yesterday and started my PhD last September.
Good luck! But I only got mine 6 years ago, and it'll take me another 20 to recover!Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: I will first note to you that you have been flat out caught in denial of what you did, here. (That is, you have willfully misrepresented the truth on what OM et al did, and are now continuing with that misrepresentation. In addition, you are harbouring irresponsible and destructive commentary, indeed slander, on your blog.) That pattern, sustained for months now in the teeth of correction, should be reckoned with by anyone wishing to evaluate your credibility on any topic of significance.
I have been "caught out" in nothing, KF. What you call "denial" is disagreement. You need to understand that when people disagree with you they are not "denying" anything other than that they consider your view correct. You are no more or less fallible than I am. I do not think you were slandered, merely offended. Alan similarly was not "slandered" by you, although I have no doubt he was offended. And if refusing to censor comments that offend people I am "enabling" offensive comments, then I am doing no more than any blog does that allows comments. Exactly the same is true of this one, where many highly offensive comments are made, including comments by you about "evo-mat" adherents.
I will secondly note that I am not impressed by the notion that simply by citing your agreement with fashionable opinion in materialism dominated circles, serious and long standing widespread principled concerns on homosexual behaviour and its implications for individuals, families and society, thus also the current agenda to homosexualise the culture can be dismissed by the crude propaganda tactic of bracketing it with Nazism.
I am not expecting you to be impressed, KF. However, my view is not based on "fashion" but on, firstly biological evidence, second on societal evidence, and thirdly from the acquaintance of many good and dear friends who are gay or transgender, and who pose no threat to anyone. Indeed some have provided caring and loving homes for children who would otherwise have none.
(E.g. I suggest that you need to ask yourself what Ms Gessen implied here about consequences of homosexualisation for marriage [I could cite a lot more, but let's start there], and what the longstanding strategy of ruthless manipulation outlined here portends for our civilisation. Not to mention, the suppressed issues and facts here — if you do not have serious and well considered answers to these you have no basis for the dismissiveness above, and it is further patent that invidious comparison with Nazism when there is abundant reason to see that there is a much wider concern is an expression of bigotry and slander intended to facilitate scapegoating and targetting, as I have long since noted. You show every sign of dancing wrong but strong in the teeth of correction. In answer, I say: those who ring celebratory bells today may well find themselves wringing hands not so long from today.)
Instead of repeating that others continue in error in the "teeth of correction" by you, KF, consider the possibility that you yourself are in error. None of us has a hotline to wisdom, neither I or you.
The bottomline is plain, you are indulging enabling behaviour and see nothing wrong with it.
Indeed. I enable people to express their views. I see nothing wrong with that.
I draw your attention here, as the first step of expose given your refusal to heed correction and moral suasion to acknowledge or do the right thing.
I always try to do what I discern as the right thing, Kairosfocus. You would refuse, I am sure, to comply with a request you considered wrong. I consider your request wrong. And so, on moral grounds, I will not comply.
You have destroyed your credibility. Good day madam. KF
Good day, KF, and I mean that most sincerely.Elizabeth B Liddle_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Lizzie
heh. Timaeus, I’m 61 years old now! If I started another PhD now, I’d be past retiring age before I even got a post doc!
Don't let that put you off. I was 62 yesterday and started my PhD last September.Mark Frank_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

You have destroyed your credibility.
You might like to think about whose credibility is likely to be questioned after reading the above exchange. Also I'm not sure but your inflammatory and offensive references to gay people must come close to infringing anti-discriminatory legislation. I just can't grasp why someone with your background would see no parallel between your attitude to gay people and racism.Alan Fox_{June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply