ID as ‘Science of God’ (aka Theology)

_{Steve Fuller

August 6, 2012

Cosmology, Culture, Darwinism, Ethics, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science, worldview}

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

A piece of mine has been just published in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC’s) excellent Religion and Ethics website.

It provides a larger context for my own theologically positive approach to ID, which I realize is not everyone’s cup of tea.

However, like Gregory Sandstrom, I welcome johnnyb’s intervention, which raises the issue of which companies an ID supporter would invest in (or not). I personally find the choices a bit on the Rorschach side of plausibility — i.e. it tells us more about the beliefs of the proposer. So Eric Holloway is happy to regard ‘gamers’ as ‘human’ in a way that has not been contaminated by the AI ideology of Kurzweil et al., so he doesn’t see their ‘gamer’ status as already inching in the direction of the Singularity. Whatever…

I don’t believe that such neat distinctions can be maintained under close scrutiny. Perhaps Kurzweil has slippery sloped us to a place where we don’t want to be, but attempts to draw a sharp distinction between ‘human’ and ‘artificial’ beg too many questions without further elaboration. There are people — I think of Susan Greenfield, the Oxford chair in neuropharmacology — who believe that gaming is re-wiring people’s brains so as to de-humanize them. I think she’s bonkers, and have said so publicly, but her attitude is emblematic of people who believe that you’ve left humanity even once you become a gamer. So where to draw the line? I don’t think there is a principled line to draw here. Anyone who believes otherwise is bound to kill the ID project with a moralism that comes from somewhere other than ID.

If we’re honest, the anti-ID people are right about one thing: Most ID supporters are really no more than anti-Darwinists in disguise, and would like to banish Darwin simply to allow their own moral and cosmological beliefs free rein. To be sure, these beliefs cover quite a wide spectrum but so far there is little appetite to discuss positive visions of ID, for reasons that range from the perceived privacy of religious belief to the fear of public opprobrium from a wider secular culture. My own view is that what makes ID potentially very exciting is that it puts discussion of God’s nature back in the center of science.

Comments

Dr. Fuller, thank you for taking the time to respond. I fully agree with your statement, “evidence is never something that speaks for itself.” For my part, evidence must be interpreted reasonably, which brings us back to the metaphysical principles that define the standards for reasonableness--i.e. reason’s rules. Accordingly, ID aims at appealing to reasonable people and only reasonable people will respond favorably to reasoned arguments. It is to them, more than the Darwinists and TEs who are often impervious to reason, that I direct my comments. So I often spend time at this site reminding everyone, both friends and adversaries, that rational discourse begins with rational standards. The trick, I think, is to communicate with those who still have open minds. Typically, Darwinists (and TEs), many of whom reject these standards (often never having heard of them) simply cannot be reached. Both groups tend to violate the principle of “unity of truth” [manifested by their support for NOMA and Methodological Naturalism]. NOMA implies an irrational universe in which a scientific truth could be at war with a metaphysical/theological truth. Methodological Naturalism implies human minds incapable of handling the truth. Only irrational people who fear reasonably interpreted evidence would propose such things. The problem, then, as you point out, is not just the evidence but the problem about how people think or-- more to the point-- how they don’t think. On the other hand, these foundational principles are not that difficult to apprehend. Another principle, a corollary of the law of causation, would be that an effect cannot surpass the cause. Yet another rule would be the correspondence theory of truth. Darwinists and TEs carry on as if these foundational principles for sound thinking were either unimportant or not true. They want to avoid objective standards and establish arbitrary rules in order to avoid reason’s scrutiny. We need to make these points, from time to time as an exercise in remedial education. Reason’s rules apply to methodology as well. Empirically-based methodologies like ID, for example, begin with observation. So if someone like our friend Gregory claims that ID begins with a religious assumption, or when he uses phrases like IDM-ID, which are obviously conceived to conflate motives with methods, it doesn’t resonate so well with us. This tactic appears calculated to reframe our reasoned arguments into unreasonable and easily-refuted strawmen. At that infamous Dover trial, Judge John Jones, mistakenly and maliciously, used the power of the state to say essentially the same thing, ruling that ID is “an interesting theological argument.” So we tend to bristle a bit when that kind of nonsense gets recycled in the name of constructive criticism. I am intrigued by your suggestion that we should institutionalize a parallel scientific establishment. The question in my mind would be if we have the kind of leader that would be inclined to mobilize a group effort toward that kind of a common goal. Still, the ID of coalition building appeals to me.StephenB_{August 8, 2012
August
08
Aug
8
08
2012
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

Dr. Fuller: Thanks for your further reply in 82. "institutionalize a parallel scientific establishment" Well, to some extent ID is doing this, with the BioLogic Institute, with its research and its peer-reviewed journal, BioComplexity. But that move has nothing to do with the main point we have been discussing, i.e., the theological difference between *assuming* a creator-God and hence design (your approach) and trying to *infer* a designer from the facts of nature (the mainstream ID approach). "links to funding sources, most probably private" Right again! And ID has been making use of such sources, because it can't get public funding. But of course the restriction to private sources puts ID at a huge disadvantage. Neo-Darwinism, through its use of the public university system existing in virtually all countries, can extract money from the taxpayers' pockets to fund endless studies that "confirm" it; ID has no such gun at the head of funding sources. Because of this, ID can manage only one or two research institutes around the world, perhaps two in the USA or one in the USA and one in Britain. And these will be constantly attacked by the secular scientific establishment as "religiously-driven institutions"; places like the NCSE will try to track down the funding sources, will try to prove that YECs are the main donors, etc. The science, however good, will be set aside on the ground that the motivation is religious. So I'm not disagreeing with your proposals, but ID is in an unenviable position. And if it explicitly adopts theism as its working assumption, which you are recommending, that would scare away the few private secular funding sources it has now, and would allow its foes to ratchet up the "ID is religion not science" rhetoric.Timaeus_{August 8, 2012
August
08
Aug
8
08
2012
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Timaeus @80, good points all. I support the same kind of open-mindedness that you are proposing. It matters not to me whether the reasoned arguments are coming from a faith-based perspective or an empirically-based perspective, from a theologian or a social scientist. What matters to me is a respect for truth and the resolution to honor it insofar as we can know it. No doubt science and humankind would be far better off if everyone assumed that God exists and that we are all made in his image. As you point out, though, we must be prepared to argue both ways, from cause to effect and from effect to cause. We can't take people from where they are if we can't first go where they are.StephenB_{August 8, 2012
August
08
Aug
8
08
2012
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Steve, But the Aristotelian idea that things have natures is precisely the sort of metaphysical baggage that the history of modern science has gradually done away with. Again, their reply is that no, this has not been done - not with evolution, not with the biological sciences, and not even with physics. Maybe you disagree, and it may well be the case that the Thomists are wrong. But the arguments Feser and company have given on this front are ones I find compelling, and their depiction of science is hard to deny. In fact, I should think this is one area where you'd agree with the Thomist - that we have to view science in light of our philosophy and metaphysics. But as that intuition fades, then – as you point out vis-à-vis Feser – the only thing Thomists will have to say is that scientists always already presuppose the metaphysics of natures even when they don’t know about it or even outright deny it. Small beer, I say. Well, then it's beer you're drinking as deeply as Feser and the Thomists are. Really, look at your own argument: you want to put science 'back onto the track it was on prior to Darwin', and where you apparently think it deserves to remain. But right now, it's not on that track. Does science itself run counter to an understanding you have, or that is demanded by your metaphysics and theology? Not at all - it's not "science", it's the confused view of people interpreting science. But the Thomists help themselves to the same exact line. The only real difference is - putting aside your nominalism - the Thomists treat science as something we need to rely on our metaphysical views in order to interpret. You want to make that interpretation "science" itself. Kind of a rival science. And hey, I admire that. Hell, with some caveats (I think this should happen alongside ID, not in replacement of it) I support it. But really, you're closer to the Thomists and company on science than you seem to be admitting here.nullasalus_{August 8, 2012
August
08
Aug
8
08
2012
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

To StephenB and Timaeus: I’m a little surprised that so much heavy weather is being made about the scientific method. ‘Evidence’ (a term that is analysed to death in the philosophy of science, which is the field in which I was formally trained) is never something that speaks for itself. When Paley found the watch on the heath and inferred a watchmaker, he wasn’t doing science yet. He only started to do science when he theorized why he made that inference and then tried to generalise it to non-trivial cases (i.e. non-watches). That’s science, and it’s more-or-less captured by the hypothetico-deductive method. Talking to dogmatic naturalists/Darwinists/atheists about the so-called evidence for design is fruitless because they can always explain it (perhaps ‘away’) in their own theoretical terms. Ultimately the debate with ID has nothing to do with evidence but with theoretical differences that can only be resolved if you could get both sides to agree on a test case that bears equally on both sides – i.e. one can’t be right unless the other is wrong. That’s what Bacon and Popper called a ‘crucial experiment’. If you can’t get that, then you either have to pursue your own theoretical research programme or wait until the other guy can’t pursue his anymore and then is forced to search around for an alternative. So if ID wants to advance its fortunes as a science, the strategy is quite simple (in conception!): institutionalise a parallel scientific establishment and try to dislodge the dominant one. This means creating scientific journals, networks, degree programmes and links to funding sources, most probably private. Meanwhile you also campaign for the disestablishment of public science funding bodies insofar as they display bigotry towards ID. And the relevant intellectual activity must occur on two fronts, not just the laboratory but also the archive – ID needs to be written back into the history of science for both academic and popular consumption. And this latter task also involves deconstructing recent scientific work, showing that research that Darwinists claim as their own (perhaps because they personally hold Darwinist beliefs) may be explained just as well, if not better, by ID means. Once scientific journal articles wander from discussing data generated from their own research into ‘larger implications’ (typically in the introduction and conclusion), they often veer onto speculative ground that can be easily challenged and should be. To Nullasullus: Thomists are indeed ‘naturalists’ – but in the sense that Aristotle was, not Epicurus. Thomists believe that nature has its own form and that things have their own natures. (Epicurean naturalists aren’t committed to such a front-loaded view of nature, hence their affinity with the indeterminacy of modern scientific materialism.) But the Aristotelian idea that things have natures is precisely the sort of metaphysical baggage that the history of modern science has gradually done away with. The only scientific race in which Thomists still have a horse is so-called ‘human nature’, which is relevant to a whole host of issues relating to the politics and science of biomedicine. Many people who otherwise would quite happily junk talk of ‘natures’ (as in the ‘nature of trees’) as merely figurative still take seriously the idea that there is some metaphysically fixed sense of ‘human’ that might be called ‘human nature’. But as that intuition fades, then – as you point out vis-à-vis Feser – the only thing Thomists will have to say is that scientists always already presuppose the metaphysics of natures even when they don’t know about it or even outright deny it. Small beer, I say.Steve Fuller_{August 8, 2012
August
08
Aug
8
08
2012
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Steve, You don't have to convince me that academics start to get loopy when they're on the campus too long. Hell, you'd probably have to convince me of otherwise.
These cautionary tales from the history of ambitious theological inquiries is perhaps why people find Thomas Aquinas so attractive – basically as a sophisticated NOMA strategy that segregates each mode of thought into its own mode of being, so that neither naturalism nor spiritualism (or intellectualism) are given free rein.
This doesn't seem accurate. In fact, I'd argue that the Thomists do something extremely similar to what you're advocating. For them, Thomism/Aristotileanism is the lens through which all other data is viewed, including scientific. Granted, Thomism isn't axiomatic, but reasoned to - but the Thomists I've read would probably laugh at the suggestion that they think naturalism should "be given free reign", as if naturalism is okay over here in this area (the scientific area), but beyond that area it's not. They leave no place for it. Granted, what they may do is say that metaphysics is distinct from science - and it is. But the result is a NOMA that would have been alien to Gould.
It perhaps also explains why, despite its enormous influence, Thomism has played a relatively small (positive) role in the advancement of science. Its natural role is as a curator rather than a progressor of thought.
The thomists I've read would dispute this. Feser himself argues along the lines that science, whether or not scientists are consciously aware of it, relies on largely Thomist/Aristotilean concepts. In The Last Superstition, one of the most interesting points raised by Feser is that some supposed 'naturalist' explanation of (say) the mind are either incoherent or, if interpreted in a coherent fashion, are just rewarmed Aristotileanism anyway. Granted, you'd probably disagree with some/all of this, but they do dispute it.
By the way, all of this history is very important for ID to recover for itself because at the moment ID often seems to relish the caricature its receives from Darwinists who treat it as an upstart movement invented by the Discovery Institute that will somehow coalesce into a new science over time. On contrary, ID has been with us throughout the entire history of science, and is arguably its dominant metaphysical strand. As I said earlier, in many respects, ID is simply resuming the history of science, had the person of Darwin not existed.
I'm skeptical of locating the problem with Darwin, but I agree with what I take you to be saying here otherwise.nullasalus_{August 8, 2012
August
08
Aug
8
08
2012
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

StephenB (79): Well argued. I have no problem with Dr. Fuller's position if he is saying that *one* legitimate ID approach, for a Christian, is to start from the assumption of design by God and do science on that basis (reason from cause to effect). Where I have a problem with his position is that he seems to be arguing -- and I'm not sure that he is, because I don't find him explicit on this point -- that ID should *stop* reasoning from effect to cause, i.e., should stop trying to prove to atheists etc. that things are designed. Sometimes I hear him as saying: "Just forget about convincing the atheists; assume God, assume design, and get on with the science." I think that *both* approaches remain valid. As you point out, Aquinas's Five Ways don't assume the existence of what they are trying to prove. And Paley's arguments -- the best ones, I mean, since he also made some weak ones -- don't assume the watchmaker exists, but rather argue from the existence of the watch that the watchmaker exists. I think ID people must continue to argue in this way, as long as "science" is being used to argue the opposite, i.e., that there is no design, that it can all be explained by chance. That doesn't stop *some* ID proponents from simply ignoring the atheists, and assuming design based on revelation, and doing their science accordingly. In the setting of, say, a conservative Christian college, a scientist can do exactly that. But a scientist can't do that at Harvard or Stanford. He first has to convince his hardboiled atheist/agnostic colleagues that design is a reasonable inference from the facts of nature, without any appeal to revelation. So it seems to me that Dr. Fuller's approach, while historically warranted (Newton, Boyle, etc.) and workable in Christian institutions, is only half of the strategy needed. ID is trying to address not only Christians but also agnostics and atheists. Paul Nelson teaches at Biola, so he could, if he wished, employ Dr. Fuller's strategy, and base a biological research program entirely on creationist assumptions. (I'm not saying he has done that, but he could.) The same is true for ID supporters teaching at Bob Jones, Liberty, Oral Roberts, etc. But Mike Behe teaches at a secular university in Pennsylvania. He can't employ that strategy; he would be blocked by his colleagues. But more important than any of these political considerations is the very basic intellectual consideration that if something is true, one should be able to convince anyone of it, even an atheist or agnostic, provided the atheist or agnostic is not dogmatic and does not have a chip on his shoulder (as the New Atheists do). Thus, we see atheists and agnostics of various types who are either convinced by ID arguments, or at least open to them, because they are reasonable (Berlinski, Flew (before ID won him over he was an atheist), James Barham, Monton, Nagel, Dave Scot, etc.). It seems to me that Dr. Fuller's approach would mean giving up trying to reach these people, because they are not Christians or theists and therefore don't share Abrahamic assumptions. But I think that would be a huge mistake. I'm not interested in being part of any ID movement that is sustained only by enclaves of Bible-quoting scientists teaching exclusively in conservative Protestant colleges. I'm interested in ID only if it has a wider intellectual appeal, because only then can it be part of a general cultural renaissance, as opposed to a view that survives only because it is protected in conservative Christian ghettos. If ID is true, it doesn't need such protection. It should be able to stand on its own two feet in the general culture, with wide-based support not only from fundamentalist Protestants but from educated Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Deists, agnostics, liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, men, women, the old, the young, Americans, Europeans, Asians, etc. When ID argues from effect to cause, suspending for the sake of argument the assumption of the existence of God, it allows itself to be heard in the general intellectual culture, which is deeply skeptical about the existence of God. It must continue to do that, even if it also sometimes takes the approach recommended by Dr. Fuller.Timaeus_{August 8, 2012
August
08
Aug
8
08
2012
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Dr Fuller: “Doesn’t William Lane Craig conclude from the assumptions you listed that the existence of the Abrahamic deity is the best explanation for their JOINT truth? In other words, God is the meta-assumption that grounds exactly those assumptions which are necessary for science. Now you might have some other candidate meta-assumption for that role, in which case a debate is possible. But in any case, God is at least as much metaphysics as psychology in the justification of science.” Dr. Fuller, Yes, I think it is reasonable that WLC would “conclude” that the Abrahamic deity is the best explanation for their joint truth (those ten presuppositions of science). Of course, if he is drawing a conclusion based on those assumptions, then the conclusion cannot also be those same assumptions. We both seem to agree that God’s handiwork is evident in nature, and also that God’s existence can be demonstrated through rational arguments, as was the case with St. Thomas. Still, though the Angelic Doctor believed in God, he did not presuppose God’s existence when he was in the formal process of making his case. That would be assuming his conclusion. On the contrary, he begins with the observation of regularity or order in nature and then reasons back to God—Regularity>>Order>>Orderer. If he had begun by presupposing the orderer, then he would have proven nothing. Similarly, he does not reason FROM a first cause, he reason’s TO a first cause. The Bible uses the same argument. “The invisible things are made evident by the things that are seen (Romans 1). These passages constitute a philosophical argument rather than a theological argument: St. Paul’s purpose is to provide a rational foundation [the "natural theology" of God speaking in nature] for the leap of faith into the Christian religion [the "dogmatic theology" of God speaking in Scripture], insuring that the latter is grounded in the former and is, therefore, reasonable. In other words, we can, unaided by faith, infer the existence of God from nature prior to our leap of faith into the Christian religion, which is another way of saying that the Christian religion, though it transcends reason, is also compatible with and grounded in reason and, therefore, can be rationally defended. That means that we can confidently allow our faith to illuminate our reason because it has first been made legitimate by having passed the test of reason. Put another way, the leap to the Christian faith is reasonable because the evidence for God’s existence requires no leap. This is why we don’t want to totally separate faith from reason. No other religion submits itself to, much less passes this same test of reason, which means that all other religious leaps are irrational. Because faith and reason are compatible, the latter can provide independent verification for the former. Yes, I “believe” that God is good and rational, but my reasoned investigation of His natural world, especially the evidence for rational design and purpose, strengthens what I believe precisely because my acquisition of that knowledge was arrived at through a process that is distinct from the act of believing. I believe that God designed the universe (cause to effect) and I can detect his handiwork (reasoning from effect to cause). With ID science, I think the same dynamic is in play. Sure, as a Christian I believe (and know beyond a reasonable doubt) that a DNA molecule was designed. It should be obvious to any rational person. At the same time, I cannot persuasively argue for design on that basis because Darwinists and Theistic Evolutionists, who typically have no respect for reasoned philosophical arguments, will say, ‘it isn’t obvious to me.” To that we can responds, ‘let’s find out what nature has to say for herself.” That is where ID’s empirical arguments come in. Of course many who reject St. Thomas’ reasoned philosophical arguments will also reject iD’s reasoned scientific arguments because they would simply prefer not to believe them. But, we do what we can do.StephenB_{August 8, 2012
August
08
Aug
8
08
2012
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

--Gregory: "Perhaps that deserves your commentary also? It’s not as simple as the ‘facts are facts’ (empiricist) approach you have chosen to take." The inference to the best explanation is empirically based. Alternative causes are proposed for the observed effects and one is chosen as the best candidate. We observe patterns in nature and then we explain them. That is what it means to be empirically based. --"The simple answer to your question is: one doesn’t (need to). As I wrote there already, ‘artefacts’ are by definition (i.e. presupposed to be) ‘designed’ so you don’t need to apply a ‘design inference’ to them according to what you currently call ‘the ID methodology’. Not really. We observe artifacts that we know to be designed and we notice that they contain certain features. We find those same features when we observe organisms and conclude, therefore, that design is best explanation. That is not a presupposition of design as the cause of this or that organism, it is the presupposition that design exists as a possible cause. There is a big difference between those two meanings of "presupposition." To presuppose something in a formal sense is to assume it as the beginning of a line of argumentation. ID doesn't do that. It doesn't assume that a DNA molecule is designed; it draws that inference from evidence.StephenB_{August 8, 2012
August
08
Aug
8
08
2012
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

To StephenB #51: Doesn't William Lane Craig conclude from the assumptions you listed that the existence of the Abrahamic deity is the best explanation for their JOINT truth? In other words, God is the meta-assumption that grounds exactly those assumptions which are necessary for science. Now you might have some other candidate meta-assumption for that role, in which case a debate is possible. But in any case, God is at least as much metaphysics as psychology in the justification of science. To Nullasullus #67: What I said in #40 is what I meant. However, I don't think that the theology that results from what I'm saying will necessarily be palatable to ordinary believers. Generally speaking, when theology moves away from pastoral concerns and in a more ‘academic’ or ‘scientific’ direction, it ends up in strange places from a strictly religious standpoint. Paley’s natural theology ends up in Malthus, the historico-critical school of German academic theology gave us Feuerbach and Marx, etc. For his part, the great liberal theologian Harnack (mentioned in the ABC piece) was so keen on purging historically unnecessary features of Christianity that he ended up junking the Jewish heritage as pagan, which unwittingly later gave momentum to Nazism’s so-called ‘Positive Christianity’. These cautionary tales from the history of ambitious theological inquiries is perhaps why people find Thomas Aquinas so attractive – basically as a sophisticated NOMA strategy that segregates each mode of thought into its own mode of being, so that neither naturalism nor spiritualism (or intellectualism) are given free rein. I find this the least satisfactory of all the theologies because it seems so obviously constructed to keep the peace between potentially conflicting parties. It perhaps also explains why, despite its enormous influence, Thomism has played a relatively small (positive) role in the advancement of science. Its natural role is as a curator rather than a progressor of thought. By the way, all of this history is very important for ID to recover for itself because at the moment ID often seems to relish the caricature its receives from Darwinists who treat it as an upstart movement invented by the Discovery Institute that will somehow coalesce into a new science over time. On contrary, ID has been with us throughout the entire history of science, and is arguably its dominant metaphysical strand. As I said earlier, in many respects, ID is simply resuming the history of science, had the person of Darwin not existed.Steve Fuller_{August 8, 2012
August
08
Aug
8
08
2012
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Gregory- to determine whether or not an object/ structure/ event is an artifact is where the design inference is applied. After you determined it is an artifact is when you start the other questions- who, what, when, where, how and whyJoe_{August 8, 2012
August
08
Aug
8
08
2012
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

It is others as well, StephenB, who view a 'theologically positive approach to ID.' “I look at ID as a view that has been expanded out of theology, not into it.” - John W Kelly Perhaps that deserves your commentary also? It's not as simple as the 'facts are facts' (empiricist) approach you have chosen to take. "How does one draw an inference to design if one also presupposes design?" - StephenB Which design? Whose design? To answer this, I'll need to go back to questions remaining open on the Human Extension thread. (Time is short and the Olympics are on!) The simple answer to your question is: one doesn't (need to). As I wrote there already, 'artefacts' are by definition (i.e. presupposed to be) 'designed' so you don't need to apply a 'design inference' to them according to what you currently call 'the ID methodology'.Gregory_{August 8, 2012
August
08
Aug
8
08
2012
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

--Gregory: “It’s not about ‘allowing theology in,’ but rather about finding ways to express the theology that is already in ID.” There is no theology in ID. It is an empirically based methodology. To repeat the misrepresentation often is, I realize, a tactic calculated to transform reality into something more congenial with your wishes, but alas, facts are facts. Meanwhile, my question for SF, GS (and now Johnnyb, I suppose) persists: How does one draw an inference to design if one also presupposes design?StephenB_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

Thanks for your attempt to mediate, nullasalus. I posted #72 before reading your #70. In regard to Steve's response to you #40, I appreciated it too. If he decides to respond to your #67 or #70, I'll be as curious as you to hear his thoughts. Thought I was adding to the conversation (didn't you like the Kropotkin quote?). I'm not trying to put words in Steve's mouth and do support his "theologically positive approach to ID" and the notion of "positive visions of ID," which may differ from the IDM's current approach. I have not been impressed with Eric Holloway's attempts to move ID into economics, capitalism, technology and other 'non-traditional' IDM-ID fields. As Steve said at the start: Whatever...Gregory_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT}

Honestly, Timaeus! You wrote: "young ID proponents" who "will be seeking tenure in [their] various fields" and "young ID theorists" (#55). I don't see "young scholars" as a big stretch, worth rubbing my nose in it. Can you give it a break and get in the spirit of mutuality? For goodness sake, I was at the DI's summer program, for ID in the Humanities and Social Sciences. They warned us at the opening banquet (togther with students in the ID in the Natural Sciences section) to do exactly what you're still doing; to write under pseudonyms, keep anonymous, etc. Do you not allow me the right to disagree with you?! Now, in case you are sincere about engaging in friendly dialogue, my questions to you remain: I’m curious, Timaeus, do you not have academic tenure yourself? If not, then is this what keeps you from speaking publically about ID in the way that Steve courageously does and has done (e.g. Dover trial, journal & book publications, radio & multi-media, etc.)? If you do, then where can we read or see your pro-ID public works, since you are requesting courage from academics? Fear-mongering and complaining about how things simply *can't* be done (because the system is against us!), isn't going to solve any real problems here.Gregory_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

Know know = don't know. I'm tired and eating dinner, that's my excuse.nullasalus_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

nullasalus, please be more charitable than Mr. ad hom Timaeus. You know, you guys would have a far more profitable conversation if this kind of sniping would stop. Honest to God, Timaeus is smart, you're smart. I know know what crap's gone on between you two in the past, but does the pettiness have to come out in each and every interaction? If you want to call it ‘kicking up in the air,’ that’s fine. I’d call what I wrote offering you an alternative viewpoint that could potentially contribute constructively to the conversation. Not even Kuyper would submit to “everything under the authority of theology – including science itself.” Then we'll see if Fuller agrees or disagrees. I asked him pretty plainly, he seemed to give me a direct answer that lined up with what I'm saying. I recall that once upon a time theology was regarded as the queen of the sciences. It seems like Fuller wants to return to those days. Maybe the man goes further than Kuyper dares, eh?nullasalus_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

nullasalus, please be more charitable than Mr. ad hom Timaeus. I didn't say your summary was 'incorrect.' I said 'too bold,' which only slightly differs from 'a bit boldly.' Then I went on to explain why I thought so. If you want to call it 'kicking up in the air,' that's fine. I'd call what I wrote offering you an alternative viewpoint that could potentially contribute constructively to the conversation. Not even Kuyper would submit to "everything under the authority of theology - including science itself."Gregory_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

“To the extent that God’s actions can be understood as “mind actions”, one could use the science of ID to understand God.” … “It takes extra-scientific reasoning to link ID to God – it is not included in the science.” … “Intelligent Design isn’t a science of God, but rather a science of mind.” – johnnyb Which mind? Whose mind? You can have no ‘science of mind’ without answering these questions. ‘Mind in general’ does not satisfy. “ID is the study of mental causation.” – johnnyb Which mental causation? Whose mental causation? I thought this was a good insight by John W Kelly: “I look at ID as a view that has been expanded out of theology, not into it.” Would not more ID people be willing to follow this line of thinking? Later, StephenB complained to sociologist critics: “Expand your science to include theology.” This would be unnecessary if John W Kelly’s advice were taken. It’s not about ‘allowing theology in,’ but rather about finding ways to express the theology that is already in ID. And I agree with Jon in #49 and his concise challenge to StephenB’s false dichotomy: “We scientists are objective: you believers are subjective.” As a social scientist, I’ve suggested here many times adding the term ‘reflexivity’ to the mix for assistance and mediation between these (objective/subjective) poles. This is part of the motivation for intertwining sciences with philosophy and theology (or worldview) because all of us have presuppositions we bring to the table, even when we try to do ‘objective’ science. “I hope they could at least agree on where it came from…even the ID-opponents *know* where it came from.” – John W Kelly Yeah, well let’s be honest with ourselves, right! “Otherwise, it will no longer be ID science.” – StephenB Otherwise the meaning of IDM-ID will change to no longer be a ‘science-only’ proposition; it will become seen properly as a topic addressed in science, philosophy and theology discourse. (Aside: if you contact me privately, I’ll share an idea about this with you.) “This problem remains if ID wants to call itself a ‘science of mind’: Clearly human minds (the clearest examples of minds that we have) didn’t cause life, the universe, etc. to come into being.” – Steve Fuller Yes, so if the main focus is OoL and origins of biological information (OoBI), then ID makes a leaping analogy from human intelligence to non-human intelligence. This is perhaps also why Mike Gene makes ‘Analogy’ one of his four criteria for what he calls ‘the design matrix,’ in his non-IDM-ID approach to ID. Take note, however, it is because he says “(natural) science can never truly detect design, even if it exists.” If I understand him, Mike’s approach to ID is more of a combination of natural and social sciences (‘because of us’), along with philosophy and (more recently) theology (‘because of us’) than is the current meaning of IDM-ID. “I always have trouble considering the cause of the universe as part of ID.” – johnnyb Well, that’s what Charles Thaxton had in mind when he coined the term ‘intelligent design’ and what Stephen C. Meyer’s main area of research is, so I guess you’ll have to take it up with them. That would be a place where you currently differ from IDM-ID. “There’s two levels of ID here – design in biology specifically, and design more generally. I think that ID *does* presuppose a reality of design.” – johnnyb Yes, of course it does. And I agree that it is helpful to distinguish specific design from general design. As I wrote in the Human Extension thread; it doesn’t seem IDM-ID is currently interested in a ‘general design’ approach because it avoids so much of the ‘design theory’ literature that it deems irrelevant to ‘design in biology’ or ‘design in nature.’ General design is not only limited to ‘nature-only’ and “positive visions of ID” are possible in humanitarian spheres. “ID needs theology to provide an account of the sort of intelligent causal agent that could produce the sort of ‘real design’ we observe in nature.” … “ID’s best bet is to become its own distinct scientific paradigm, and that may even mean inventing a new discipline that straddles the divinity school and the science lab.” – Steve Fuller Will we hear some positive suggestions from ID people about this? Or just more anti-Darwinism and anti-Darwinian evolution protesting? What would creating such a ‘new discipline’ potentially look like? “However, with life, there are many *aspects* of life at least which clearly could be caused by humans, and in fact are being caused by humans right now. We can witness the kind of deliberation and the kind of effects that humans have.” – johnnyb Yes, exactly. Welcome to an ‘alternative way to look at ID!’Gregory_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

Yes, as with Dr. Fuller, I also think that’s too bold. Fuller didn't say I was too bold. He said "You put it a bit boldly, but yes." If Fuller thought my summary was incorrect, he didn't seem to say as much. Steve, can you clarify? I thought we were clear on this, but Gregory seems to be indicating otherwise. To be honest, what I took your answer to be impressed the hell out of me, but now that's being kicked up in the air again - I assume Gregory knows what he's talking about, since you two cooperate on this subject? (Or so the impression is.nullasalus_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

Gregory's reading (64) is, as usual, fast and sloppy, rather than slow and careful. Above, he says that I tell young *scholars* to avoid the word "design" in their publications, and mentions himself as a young scholar who discusses design all the time. But I was speaking specifically of young *natural scientists*. A young natural scientist -- certainly in the life sciences -- who comes out and says that there is empirical evidence that all or any part of nature is designed has effectively terminated his scientific career, at least, in the secular academy. He will have to seek employment in private industry, in a Christian college, or in a privately-funded think tank. And Gregory has never uttered one word of protest against this situation. Nor have most of the people at BioLogos, who think it is good and right that design language be rigorously excluded from biological science. Of course, Gregory does not have to worry about this, because he will never be seeking employment in the natural sciences. But he would do well to remember the famous bit by Bonhoeffer: "When they came for the Jews, I did nothing to help, because I was not a Jew ... (repeat with variations) ... and then finally they came for me, and there was no one left to help me." Some day, it may be that some dogma in current sociology, one that Gregory's intellect and conscience will not allow him to subscribe to, will prevent Gregory from obtaining tenure. And, thanks to scientific hiring practices that he condones, there won't be any ID people in the natural science faculty to stand up against the sociology department to defend his academic freedom. Then maybe he will remember how scornful he was toward ID complaints against the tyrannical monopoly of neo-Darwinism and anti-teleology in biology, and will regret that he uttered not a peep of protest against the permanent academic unemployment of some very fine Christian scientists.Timaeus_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

nullasalus asked interesting questions and got a provocative response from Fuller. “instead of everything being under the authority of science, everything is instead under the authority of theology – including science itself”? – nullasalus Yes, as with Dr. Fuller, I also think that’s too bold. One might consider instead of NOMA (if that is what troubles you), the notion of ‘sovereignty of the spheres’ (‘souvereiniteit in eigen kring’) by Dutch philosopher (and former President) Abraham Kuyper, demonstrated in Herman Dooyeweerd’s ‘modal aspects.’ The ‘spheres’ (e.g. science, philosophy and theology) are engaged in dialogue and necessarily overlap in various places. But they also contain ‘sovereignty’ in their own realms of discourse, meaning, system, structure, core, organising principles, etc. Thus, the tendency of natural sciences to ‘talk down’ to philosophy, social sciences or theology is overcome in such an approach and balance among the spheres is enabled. In Steve's work, this is expressed in "The Biological Challenge to the Social Sciences" (which of course, many natural science-oriented IDM-IDers aren't interested to discuss). Dr. Fuller’s response to nullasalus acknowledged Darwin’s (naturalist) debt to Malthus (theologian). It is when ‘natural selection’ turns into ‘social selection’ or ‘ethical selection’ that problems with theology arise. Here is a quote that puts a cap on the theological objection Fuller mentions wrt WWI: “When the present war began, involving nearly all Europe in a terrible struggle, and this struggle assumed ... a never yet known character of wholesale destruction of life among the non-combatants and pillage of the means of subsistence of the civil population, 'struggle for existence' became the favorite explanation with those who tried to find an excuse for these horrors.” – P. Kropotkin (1914)Gregory_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

“I wish more tenured academics sympathetic to ID would speak out.” … “tenured academics need more courage” … “very few ID people have tenured positions.” – Timaeus To Steve Fuller: “I’m three years older than you are, and I’ve been around universities three years longer than you have. I know academic politics extremely well.” – Timaeus (in a fit of subjectivity!) I'm curious, Timaeus, do you not have academic tenure yourself? If not, then is this what keeps you from speaking publically about ID in the way that Steve courageously does and has done (e.g. Dover trial, journal & book publications, radio & multi-media, etc.)? If you do, then where can we read or see your pro-ID public works, since you are requesting courage from academics? Timaeus gives his advice to young scholars: “avoiding employing the word ‘design’ in any published papers or conference talks.” As a young scholar, I don’t see the need for this. Many people use the word ‘design’ regularly in published papers and conference talks. ‘Design’ is a common term used in various contexts without controversy or danger of being denied tenure (as the number of tenured positions left to be gained dwindles). Likewise, so is ‘intelligence;’ just not when associated with ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ or the IDM. Leave out the IDM and ‘design’ looks quite different. But, of course we wouldn’t have IDM-ID without the DI and the IDM. So, we’re stuck in a conundrum! “A subset of researchers, biosemioticians, are allowed to speak of them, but only if the[y] disavow any connection to intelligent design – which they have done.” – Upright BiPed Exactly, and not just biosemioticians, but anyone who understands Movements realises the importance of labelling people and taking a label upon themselves. The IDM is a social, political, cultural, educational, legal (and sometimes religious) movement, based in Seattle, Washington. It is not just a scientific movement, though science is a crucial element of it. Any scientist, say, in the natural sciences, who would take on the label ‘IDer,’ must realise that they are also thereby accepting association with the goals of the IDM, many of which are extra-scientific. Textual scholars and historians of religion are in a somewhat different boat. Yet those who think they can avoid the politics by joining the IDM to ‘just do science’ are in a state of self-delusion. “I don’t see much evidence of creating an intellectual revolution simply by keeping track of the other guy’s (in this case, Darwin’s) anomalies. Until ID has a proper theory of intelligence on the table (elements of which are around, largely through Dembski’s work), there really isn’t an alternative for people to get worked up about.” – Steve Fuller Well said! And this is why a “general theory of intelligent causation” is so badly needed. The question is if DI Fellows are prepared or able to produce it. Paul Nelson admitted something similar to this as a criticism of IDM-ID a couple of years ago. Otherwise a non-IDM-based theory may serve as an alternative. One of the biggest problems as I see it here with Timaeus’ line of reasoning is his insistence on “standing in the secular life sciences community” and on ID properly belonging ‘necessarily in natural sciences’ (i.e. to the exclusion of theology). This reminded me of something Steve said not long ago here at UD: “There may be a sense in which the theological debate is a bit of a ‘dog whistle’ issue in the ID community – only certain people hear it.”Gregory_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

Dr. Fuller: Thanks for engaging. I agree with you that tenured academics need more courage. I have found them spineless in most cases, very much looking around the room to see where the herd is going before declaring themselves. (And I'm not referring just to the ID issue -- I'm talking about everything.) I wish more tenured academics sympathetic to ID would speak out. However, I'm more concerned about the non-tenured academics. Most ID supporters, outside of the famous dozen or so, are younger folks, just now doing Ph.D.s in the life sciences, engineering, computer science, etc., or have just finished their Ph.D.s recently and do not yet have tenure; in some cases do not have even their first tenure-track job. Some of them have given themselves the kiss of death by being loud about ID while they were graduate students, even blogging under their own names. We know from the Crocker case that once one is let go due to ID sympathies, negative letters and unrecorded personal phone calls can follow one around, preventing one from getting scientific employment elsewhere. For those untenured ID people who have already made themselves public targets, this cannot be helped; but for those whose ID sympathies are not yet known, the safest way of disguising their sympathies is to write about living systems in terms of engineering systems lingo and information theory and so on, not mentioning God, and even, as far as possible, avoiding employing the word "design" in any published papers or conference talks. I think that your strategy of "let's talk directly about God as designer," while fine for tenured professors teaching history of science or history of ideas or religion and science, is an invitation to career suicide for any young would-be natural scientists. You point out that only a minority of science graduates are hired in academia. I assume that by this you mean that most Ph.D.s get jobs with private corporations, think tanks, NASA, and various government organizations. Let's say that's true. That still doesn't make Ph.D.s immune from reprisal. The case of Coppedge at the Jet Propulsion Lab shows that it isn't safe to talk favorably about ID even in a non-academic setting. The scientist who is freest to talk about ID, actually, would be the private entrepreneur-scientist, who runs a consulting business or manufactures something that the world needs, such as pharmaceutical products. Such a scientist can thumb his nose at what the official consensus of biologists is, because he draws his paycheck from his clients, not from academia or government. We need more ID scientists with such immunity. You suggest creating special ID-based science programs. A great idea, but, as the fable says, which mouse will bell the cat? No Ivy League or major private US university would touch that idea with a ten-foot pole; nor would any state university, since ID is linked (wrongly) with Biblical Creationism and hence potentially illegal to teach in state institutions. A conservative Protestant place, like Biola in L.A., might do it; but as everyone identifies Biola as a fundamentalist Christian school, that would just solidify the impression created by Dover that ID is religion and not science at all. The first question asked would be why ID science programs exist only at fundamentalist colleges, if ID is such good science. As for the Catholics, as long as they listen to people like Feser and Beckwith, they would never institute such a program at any of the universities or colleges that they control. Faced with this problem -- the lack of any place where they can find institutional support or even institutional tolerance -- most ID people seem to have adopted the strategy advocated by Behe: until you have tenure, keep you mouth shut and your head down. Don't even talk about "design," let alone God, until you have a permanent position. Can you blame them? If, back when you were looking for your first job, you had really wanted to publish a devastating critique of, say, Kuhn, but realized (due to your analysis of where the institutional power lay in the academic field of the sociology/philosophy of science) that your future employment as a sociologist/philosopher of science depended on never bad-mouthing Kuhn, would you draw public attention to any major disagreements you might have with Kuhn, in your dissertation, in a job interview, in published articles, etc.? Wouldn't you instead reason thus?: "If I speak against Kuhn when I am powerless, I will be driving a cab, not teaching university, and therefore will have no influence upon my field of study. If I wait until I have tenure, I will be able to speak against Kuhn with impunity. So I will wait, and in the meantime put forward arguments more acceptable to the current consensus in the field. I can do more good as a fifth columnist within academia than as an unemployed martyr who can't get anything published." You could say: OK, but why don't the ID people *with* tenure speak out more loudly? Answer: some of them do. Behe has taken abuse from the scientific community for speaking out, sometimes vile abuse. Minnich risked the wrath of the scientific community by appearing at Dover. But the fact is that very few ID people have tenured positions. Evolutionary biology, as a specialized sub-discipline of biology, is completely dominated by self-described atheists/agnostics (exceptions like Conway Morris are a drop in the bucket), and the whole academic culture of biology and biochemistry is overwhelmingly materialist-mechanist, as the biologists are still struggling with their 19th-century physics envy (even as the physicists, ironically, move away from materialism and mechanism). So the most likely place where one will find ID scientists speaking out is in the engineering and information science departments, where tenure, etc. is not awarded on the basis of obsequiousness to neo-Darwinism. If biologists are ever moved toward accepting design, it will be because they are forced to do so when their field is modified by ideas pouring in from engineering, computer science, physics, physical chemistry, etc., which blow away the "randomness" paradigm entirely. A biologist trained by Mayr, Ayala, etc. will never abandon the paradigm of his own free will. Finally, I agree with you that ID is more attractive if is more than just a reaction to the shortcomings of Darwinism. The problem is that given the current narrow understanding of "science," and given the immense institutional power that this current understanding holds -- control over graduating with a Ph.D., being hired, getting tenure, getting grants, etc. -- it is hard to see what other ground the ID people, up to this point, could have fought on. I'm not belittling your efforts in your field to show the unsoundness of the current conception of "science" -- and I salute your assault on the NCSE and its "methodological naturalism." I agree with you that atheism and skepticism contributed very little to science in comparison with theism. Surely your efforts are part of the long-term solution, as are the criticisms of Nagel, Monton, Flew, etc. But *in the meantime* I don't see what the non-tenured, and even most of the tenured, ID people can do other than what they are doing now, i.e., focus their attack upon the scientific weaknesses of randomness as an explanation for anything important in biological systems, and speak about design, when they do, in technical rather than religious or metaphysical language. It's a slow-acting strategy, I know; but there is evidence that it is working. First Margulis said the ID people were right (not about ID, but about Darwinism); then, some of the Altenberg people; and now, Shapiro. It looks as if the Darwinists are going to lose their war, as the molecular biologists, physicists, engineers and computer scientists move in and take significant areas of biology out of the hands of the population geneticists (who are the neo-Darwinian die-hards). All this is to say that I think you should keep publishing on the Christian origins of modern science and on the usefulness of the design paradigm in real historical science; I'm questioning only your political/social advice to ID proponents. I think you need to contextualize your advice more, to take into account the institutional realities that ID people face, particularly in the USA.Timaeus_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

John Kelley: "I would submit an abstract if I knew where to" Send me an email and jonathan@newmedio.com and I'll try to remember to send you a personal invitation to the next conference I'm involved with.johnnyb_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

--John Kelly; "I would submit an abstract if I knew where to…" No need to go to all that trouble. "Irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" are the two most recognizable ID methodologies. I am stating as fact that neither process relies on, or begins with, a theological assumption and that both begin with the observation of data. Since you disagree, I am asking you to provide some evidence in support of your counter argument.StephenB_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Steve Fuller,
Unless you have a general theory of intelligent causation, you won’t be able to tell the difference between ‘real’ and ‘apparent’ design.
Having a “general theory” of intelligent causation is hardly an issue for an intelligent agent, and the difference in 'real' and 'apparent' design is made evident by the material in question. You simply have to ask the right questions, and sometimes the right questions take time to surface.
Dawkins solves the problem easily: Unintelligent nature produces merely apparent design, intelligent humans (occasionally) produce real design.
Dawkins doesn't even address the problem, much less solve it. To “solve” the problem, Dawkins et al would have to observe the material evidence and point to a material distinction between apparent design and.real design. He cannot do that, and neither can anyone else. What Dawkins assumes in his 'solution' is the presence of recorded information within the genome. He assumes it by way of implying that genetic information is only analogous to the product of intelligence. But the existence of genetic information has material consequences with distinctive charateristics, and those exact same charateristics are found as the product of intelligence. He (they) cannot point to a distiction between the two because that distinction does not exist.
ID’s refusal to deal with causal questions squarely limits its explanatory potential as a science.
This comment is inconsistent with the reality that materialists simply assume the very thing that powers their wagon, while ID is forcing them to observe its limitations and qualities.
This is why ID needs theology to provide an account of the sort of intelligent causal agent that could produce the sort of ‘real design’ we observe in nature.
Really? ID can demonstate at a purely material level that the recorded information in the genome is not merely analogous to other “forms” of recorded information, but instead exhibits the exact same material consequences. Those material consequences demonstrate an irreducibly complex core which neccesarily includes two arrangements of matter which must be coordinated yet do not interact. Moreover, ID can demonstrate that it is specifically the arbitrary relationship operating within the system which determines biofunction. Finally, ID can pose the logical questions that demonstate that the system could not function in any other way. What part of these observations require theology?Upright BiPed_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

There is no problem with linking theological arguments with scientific evidence in order to make sense of the big picture. Rationality demands it. If Dr. Fuller was proposing such a link, and nothing more, I would offer no resistance. Indeed, that’s precisely what Dembski did when he compared ID to the Logos theory of the Gospel. That’s what ID cosmologists did when they associated Big Bang cosmology with God’s command, “Let there be light.” Truth is unified, which means that scientific truth will confirm Scriptural truth, and vice versa. So, yes, by all means, let interdisciplinary dialogue illuminate our understanding of the big picture. I think, though, that what Dr. Fuller is proposing is much more radical, and much less intellectually defensible than what I just described. If I understand him correctly, he is proposing that ID inject theological assumptions into its scientific methodology, which would certainly mark the end of the ID project and destroy any attempt to draw inferences about design in nature. Indeed, Aquinas' philosophical arguments for the existence of God, which also begin with observations about nature and which DO NOT PRESUPPOSE GOD'S EXISTENCE OR DESIGNS, would also go out the window for the same reason. Aquinas (and ID) reason TO design not FROM design. Yes, new knowledge improves our overall perspective, as Johnnyb has indicated, but it cannot be made a part of the process by which we draw inferences from data any more than it can be made a part of the process by which we deduce a rational conclusion from a premise. The acquisition of new knowledge and our capacity to interpret evidence reasonably does not influence the immutable rules of right reason, the immutable rules of right reason define the standards by which we acquire new knowledge and interpret evidence reasonably. If you begin your analysis with the presupposition of design, then any inference to design is redundant, meaningless, and tautological. What function do facts and data serve if the presupposition has already defined the conclusion? (The only valid assumptions in this process are reason’s rules). Take away the legitimacy of the design inference from data and ID science (indeed all science) is done for. What would happen to Big Bang theory or the argument for the "anthropic principle" if cosmologists and physicists assumed, apriori, that God created the universe. It would kill both theories overnight. Critics would object, rightly, that scientists were leading the evidence in the direction of their religious beliefs. Anthony Flew would have recognized the farce and would not have been persuaded in the evidence for design. It is one thing to encourage interaction between theology and science, recognizing the point of intersection at which each displays something in common with the other. It is quite another thing to blur the distinction between the two to the point where neither can play is proper role.StephenB_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Johnnyb: I don’t find scientists in as morally a fallen state as you do. In fact, a bigger problem is conformity to a wide range of institutional norms, both within and outside of science (e.g. private and public funding agencies), which create a herd mentality. If scientists were a bit more ‘presumptuous’, this might not be such a problem because then they’d disagree more openly with each other, and alternative trajectories for science would be more clearly exposed. So I don’t think presumptuousness as such is the real problem. Timaeus (whoever you are!): True, my tenured status factored significantly in testifying at Dover and then sticking with ID. I knew there would be long-term criticism even if ID won Dover. (In fact, most of my colleagues who knew what I was doing warned against it.) But I believe that academic tenure as such isn’t worth much if you don’t take such risky positions when the opportunity arises and you have something useful to say. So as tenure begins to disappear from universities, I only half-regret it. Too many academics don’t make good use of it. As for the vulnerable academics you mention, well, it depends what matters for them in the end. People may indeed need to make personal sacrifices but then the ID community needs to learn from and take maximum advantage of their fates – yes, very much like the martyrs in the history of Christianity. The movie Expelled did a great job on this point, but more such high-profile forms of publicity are needed so that at the very least people are made aware of the current injustices that exist in the institution of science. Reform won’t happen without publicity of events that draw attention to the need for reform. On the other hand, I don’t see much evidence of creating an intellectual revolution simply by keeping track of the other guy’s (in this case, Darwin’s) anomalies. Until ID has a proper theory of intelligence on the table (elements of which are around, largely through Dembski’s work), there really isn’t an alternative for people to get worked up about. Even the important philosophers who have supported ID to date – Nagel and Fodor – are more in it for the anti-Darwinism. They are generally sceptical of science’s ability to address the Big Questions. ID needs more positively based support. Strange as it may sound, the most practical way out would be to create ID science degree programmes, the curricula of which would be multi-disciplinary, perhaps with as much grounding information science and technology as in conventional biology. These programmes would need to be accredited by the usual authorities, which presumably would have in the usual way, through demonstrating proper textbooks and teaching methods. Maybe the US is too bigoted for this to realistically happen? I hope not. (Perhaps it could happen at a confident religious institution.) There is probably less to prevent this institutionally happening in the UK, except that the available personnel might not be so strong. And then you see how these ID-trained people are hired (in any case, only minority of science graduates are hired in academia).Steve Fuller_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

“They have already been merged”—John Kelly Show me how or where theological assumptions have already been merged with ID’s empirically-based paradigms of “Irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity.”
I would submit an abstract if I knew where to... ID Conference Suggestions?John W Kelly_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply