Creationism and Propaganda
by MikeGeneThe logic of intelligent design tells us that it is not the same as creationism. Many proponents of intelligent design are not creationists. And more and more creationists are distancing themselves from intelligent design. Nevertheless, most critics of ID insist on equating intelligent design with creationism. While I am sure there are many critics who are sincere (although misinformed) when equating intelligent design with creationism, nevertheless, the accusation has many of the hallmarks of propaganda.
Wikipedia has a nice summary on propaganda, defining it as "a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information."
The author also writes, "Historically, the most common use of the term propaganda is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments, political groups, and other often covert interests."
Now, given its political nature, I'm sure many will point out that the Intelligent Design Movement has a propagandistic dimension (to say the least). And I would not dispute that argument. More interesting, however, is that many of those who are battling the ID movement are just as political. In fact, many critics were introduced to ID by the socio-political movement ("The Wedge"). Thus, this initial perception shapes all subsequent perceptions, leading them to view all ID arguments, concepts, and proponents through the prism of political consideration. What's more, the vast majority of critics consider ID to be nonsense at best and a "sham" at worst. With those perceptions of ID, it is rather safe to conclude that most critics are invested in the idea of defeating ID. And that's where propaganda comes in handy.
The author of the Wikipedia article lists "techniques of propaganda generation" and many of them converge on the common attempt to equate ID with creationism. Let's briefly consider them:
1. Stereotyping or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable.
Clearly, the effort to turn an "intelligent design proponent" into an "intelligent design creatioinist" is a textbook example of labeling and stereotyping. And it is certainly clear that in many segments of society, especially academia, creationists are feared, hated, loathed, or deemed undesirable.
2. Transfer: Also known as association, this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it.
Many critics of ID work very hard at associating ID, and its proponents, with creationism. Any and all similarities are amplified (and even invented), while any and all dissimilarities are downplayed or ignored. In fact, often times the dissimilarities are spun as lies and tactics, as the critic attempts to keep the process of transfer as robust as possible.
3. Intentional vagueness: Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application.
Intentional vagueness often goes hand-in-hand with the stereotyping and transfer, as the critic rarely defines "˜creationism' when labeling an ID proponent as a creationist. When pressed, the critics will often come up with various ad hoc definitions that illustrate they are painting targets around arrows.
4. Obtain disapproval: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience.
By equating ID with creationism, the critics are at the very least trying to say that ID is popular among the fundamentalists and "religious right." This is key part of the strategy. We often see this tactic at work, for example, when the critic tries to label an argument as a "creationist argument."
5. Argumentum ad nauseam: Uses tireless repetition. An idea once repeated enough times, is taken as the truth.
The creationist label is tirelessly repeated, even to the point where critics insist that it is permanently linked to ID as "ID Creationism."
6. Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling fear in the general population.
The creationist label is an appeal to fear. Many segments of society fear the "religious right" and often express great anxiety about some coming theocracy. By linking ID to creationism, the critic taps into this fear and thus successfully appeals to the target audience's emotions. It is no coincidence that ID is often portrayed as a "threat," even to the point where Ken Miller warns his fellow scientists that "everything is at stake."
It should thus be clear why so many critics insist on equating ID with creationism. In one word, they successfully find a vehicle for propagandistic techniques such as Stereotyping or Labeling, Transfer, Intentional Vagueness, Obtain Disapproval, Argumentum ad nauseam, and the Appeal to Fear. It's a powerful buzzword if you are in a political battle to shape public perception.
February 5th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Since no one from the Panda's Thumb axis has yet responded, I'll do it for them:
"Wedge document, Pandas and People, Kansas, blah blah blah. . ."
Comment by MatthewCromer — February 5, 2006 @ 9:48 am
February 5th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Mike Gene,
"Now, given its political nature, I'm sure many will point out that the Intelligent Design Movement has a propagandistic dimension (to say the least). And I would not dispute that argument."
I would. The "political" side of the "Intelligent Design Movement" is not the sum total of the "Intelligent Design Movement". Some subset of the IDM does have a "propagandistic dimension" (perhaps), but that doesn't mean the IDM itself, as a "movement", carries that "dimension" with it wherever it goes or in whatever it "says". (Just to clarify something that might have been unclear.)
Lastly, I find the "repetition" tactic quite telling – over and over, I hear Evolutionists proclaiming that "Creationism is not science" and "YEC has been falsified soundly, and long ago", yet neither is true. But, both have been repeated so long and so religiously, they are almost universally accepted as given. Much like the mantra, "Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!". To be deceived by one's own propaganda is not something to be proud of.
Comment by Douglas — February 5, 2006 @ 10:35 am
February 5th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Please don't forget, Douglas, that you're dealing with a universal ideological evolutionist in Mike Gene, who refuses to say anything about evolution which might not be true, true, true. He is not an anti-creationist, but rather someone who just claims to 'not know' if anything spiritual was involved in the 'creation' of the universe. Expression of hunch is what you'll likely find in reply to your defensive post.
On the topic of this thread, first, though I am an ID-critic (nevertheless, not liking this label), I do not equate 'intelligent design theories' with 'creationism.' Second, I was not introduced to ID by the 'social-political movement'. And I only heard about the 'Wedge' after investigating the claims of original IDists and actually twice visiting the DI. Third, I don't consider ID to be 'nonsense at best and a sham at worst.' In fact, I try to give it open and critical consideration, from a scholastic viewpoint. It is indeed quite cleverly formulated (repatriated in connection with information theory and specificationalism), as D. Lamoureux has noted in his writings about IDism.
Unfortunately, ID theory-as-science hasn't measured up, neither in my field of study nor in those fields which the IDM claims it is erecting a 'scientific revolution'. It is more philosophy pf science than actual science. And those neo-IDists (e.g. TT's) who do not represent the leadership of the IDM are apparently engaged in their own propaganda battle against the IDM, by trying to make their own idependent form of i+d theory.
'Covert interests' – yes, this is apparently a very good definition of many IDists who believe that God is the Creator and Designer of all things, including, incidentally, biological aspects of existence, and yet who won't talk about it while pretending to be 'scientific'. YEC's are often more honest in admitting that the Creator is the Creator, instead of trying to smuggle in theology veiled through the back door. Mike Gene may persist that ID has nothing whatsoever to do with theology, but he is really kidding only himself and other agnostics who wish to approach it and spin it that way.
ID is a theologically-loaded perspective/theory. This certainly has an effect on why people use the term ID-creationism, though it may not apply specifically to Mike Gene-ID. Thankfully, I'm not engaged in a political battle to shape public perception; I'm more interested in actually doing science – let the chips fall where they may.
Comment by g arago — February 5, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
February 5th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
g. arago,
"Mike Gene may persist that ID has nothing whatsoever to do with theology, but he is really kidding only himself and other agnostics who wish to approach it and spin it that way."
Not at all. Are you seriously saying that you cannot see the distinction between detecting Design, and religious implications?
"ID is a theologically-loaded perspective/theory."
By the same token, so is Evolution. But not even I, unreasonable and ignorant Creationist that I am, would claim that Evolutionary Theory directly implies any "religion" (although it does directly contradict some religions). Intelligent Design, if true (of course, it is), would, in the same way, contradict the religion that says that all of life is the result of random processes having no "telic" direction. But that doesn't mean ID implies any particular theology, any more than Evolution implies atheism (or does Evolution in fact imply atheism?).
"This certainly has an effect on why people use the term ID-creationism, though it may not apply specifically to Mike Gene-ID. Thankfully, I'm not engaged in a political battle to shape public perception; I'm more interested in actually doing science – let the chips fall where they may."
I applaud your approach to chips, but don't particularly admire, actually, your opinion that Intelligent Design is "theologically-loaded". For myself, I view ID as a theoretical, probably scientific, area which has a direct implication on the theory that there is a Mind (or minds) behind the creation and development of life. I further view this result as a means to open people's (especially impressionable young students, who tend to view the pronouncements of scientists as "gospel") hearts and minds to the possibility that the God of the Bible is real. I believe that there is further, specific, ID evidence which points to the Designer being the God of the Bible. Can you see the logical distinctions involved in these series of steps and beliefs, particularly the ones which show that ID is not equivalent to Creationism?
Comment by Douglas — February 5, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
February 5th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Douglas, thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, I don't understand why you would capitalize 'Design' and then claim that it has no religious implications. Please explain. Detection and detectives is another topic altogether.
The DI flagship 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' video shows biologists openly admitting that ID has 'religious implications'. Most ID-theists, however, just wave away such suggestions for legal-promotional purposes and pretend to be objective scientists – 'no one here but us scientists and philosophers,' a favourite ID mantra. I do agree with you, however, that there are issues that run much deeper than Mike Gene's non-religious (irreligious) posturing might indicate. I suppose it turns out that yes, you do too.
As you can see above, I already admitted that ID is not equivalent to creationism. And I would accept that evolution is a theologically-loaded perspective, at least when it is used in non-natural scientific disciplines where world-views are much more influential than in the practices of 'pure scientists'. Humanitarian evolution poses a much more realistic test case (and social threat) than scientific evolution in regard to theology.
The point you make about ID not implying any particular religion or theology is well-stated. This is a very important issue, and why YEC's, almost exclusively American literalist Christians, are sometimes strongly against ID theories. ID is outwardly agnostic about exactly who the designer IS, yet the 'covert interests' of Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Nelson, Pearcey, Wells, Witt, Richards, Gonzales, etc. and most other ID leaders is to non-subtly defend Christianity from secularization, naturalism and materialism, which they see as philosophically and scientifically damaging to American culture. This is just rehashing what is already obvious from several years of IDM publications. Saying "˜it doesn't have to be like that' does a disservice to ID's founders, who admittedly have tried hard to distance themselves from YEC and "˜creationism' in general.
Where TT's carves its unique niche is in promoting agnostic 'design' theory, mainly by avoiding the 'intelligence' qualifier and by running away from most discussions related to the growing science and religion dialogues that are changing the 'nature of' scientific and theological reflection in the 21st century. MG's barking at ID-critics who label him, Krauze, bipod and others as 'creationists' is more or less simply fallout from the earlier creation vs. evolution dichotomy. People who label them "˜creationists' are obviously either deluded or purposefully propaganda-oriented, as Mike rightly indicates.
As for the chips Douglas, I'm glad you are willing to applaud my non-political participation (if that's what you meant). It is a very different position than Mike's and others at TT's, though certainly I am pleased to support and applaud their telic curiosities. Nothing much they've said is additional to what those 10 persons named above have already contributed.
You wrote:
Again, why choose to capitalize 'Mind'? We may be on the same page here after all (or three Minds, is this what you might mean?), but it is a stretch to say 'probably scientific' about ID as if it would be applied investigatively. It seems that what you are searching for may be out there, if not expressed precisely by 'ID' then somewhere else that is both non-evolutionary and neo-ID after all.
Greetings,
G. Arago
Comment by g arago — February 5, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
February 5th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
First, creationists invented the term, and many still wear it proudly. How could it be the pejorative, propaganda term claimed if those who proudly wear it comprise nearly half the people, and they regard it as a badge of honor?
Second, none of the actions MG complains about occur in the science journals. Why don't IDists take their data there, where propaganda influence is greatly reduced, or totally reduced? If IDists are concerned about propaganda, a political ploy, they should get the discussion out of the political arena. To the extent ID has any scientific component in it, it's immune to labels and propaganda. If, as MG seems to complain, labeling is effective, that's a commentary on how little science is in the stuff.
The legal issue is whether there is demonstrated science. If there is, the religious component is irrelevant. That Christian Scientists disbelieve germ theory, and that germ theory could be religiously loaded when taught in public schools, is countered by the mound of science behind germ theory.
Same with evolution.
Not so with ID.
Comment by edarrell — February 5, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
February 5th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
edarrell,
"Why don't IDists take their data there, where propaganda influence is greatly reduced, or totally reduced?"
I have two words in answer: "Richard Steinberg". (That is, if I am remembering the name correctly – I don't have time right now to go and research who it was who was persecuted for allowing a review article seemingly ID-friendly to be published in some obscure biological journal [I think it was from somewhere in Washington state].)
Comment by Douglas — February 5, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
February 5th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
G arago:
To some, I'm the Closet Creationist. To others, I'm the Universal Ideological Evolutionist. I must be doing something right.
It is true that I do not know what happened with the creation of the universe. And I am suspicious of everyone who does know.
That I spoke of many critics could, by definition, allow for exceptions.
So, did God design the toaster? Did God design the nuclear warhead? If humans ever do create new life forms, must we attribute such design to God?
Certain ID proponents might want to use ID to smuggle in theology, but the logic of ID does not mandate this.
I have the ability to tease apart the concept of ID from the ID movement. I also have the ability to focus on ID without consideration of theology. If someone lacks this ability, they will succumb to the type of thinking that g arago is entrapped in.
Only if you want it to be.
Getting back to the topic, those who use the term ID-creationism are peddling propaganda.
Comment by MikeGene — February 5, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
February 5th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
The logic of ID might not mandate theology, but it does mandate something:
When I use a piece of technology, I know that it was designed, because technology always is designed. Technologies always are the result of intelligent design. Based on this experience, when I encounter a living organism, its complexity should convince me that it too was designed"”and by an intelligence even greater than a merely human one.
This much is orthodox Intelligent Design (ID) doctrine. ID theorists call this line of thinking the design inference.
But whenever I meet anyone who has designed something, the person's intelligence always operates through a physical brain. Based on this experience, when I see evidence of a superhuman intelligence, I should conclude that it operates through a superhuman brain. So, where's God's brain?
Or look at the ID concept of "specified complexity," which is another way of saying that the chemistry of biology is so precise that an intelligent designer must have laid it out in advance. And let's remember that it's not the Intelligent Manufacturing argument, nor the Intelligent Marketing argument, nor even the Intelligent Improvisation argument. It's the Intelligent Design argument. The word "design" necessarily implies an intent on the part of the responsible party. I call this the intentional inference.
If a device is designed to function in a particular way, then we can infer that the designer intends it to be used in that way. If, for example, nature's designer designs enzymes that bind to specific receptor sites on certain biological cells and in doing so catalyze certain chemical reactions, then we can infer that the designer intends that the enzymes be used in that way. We are not likely to conclude that it is a happy coincidence that the design came about by sheer chance to perfectly fit the receptor site on that particular kind of cell and catalyze that specific chemical reaction, but that the designer doesn't want the catalysis to happen. That would be silly.
So, what are we to make of the fact that various plants, and even certain lowly fungi, contain molecules that coincidentally fit neatly into certain receptors on certain brain cells so as to produce feelings of pleasure? The chemical "fit" of the molecules and the brain receptors is complex and highly specified. Clearly, the intelligent designer must intend that these substances be used for their pleasurable effects. The specificity of the chemical fit precludes any possibility of it being merely an unintended coincidence.
See what happens when you take ID seriously? One can only wonder why ID theorists don't explore the implications of their own theory. Maybe their theology is incompatible with where it leads.
Comment by kenjopp — February 5, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
February 6th, 2006 at 5:26 am
kenjopp,
"Or look at the ID concept of 'specified complexity,' which is another way of saying that the chemistry of biology is so precise that an intelligent designer must have laid it out in advance."
Ummm, "specified complexity" doesn't only address chemistry in biology, nor, in fact, does it only address biology.
"So, what are we to make of the fact that various plants, and even certain lowly fungi, contain molecules that coincidentally fit neatly into certain receptors on certain brain cells so as to produce feelings of pleasure? The chemical 'fit' of the molecules and the brain receptors is complex and highly specified. Clearly, the intelligent designer must intend that these substances be used for their pleasurable effects. The specificity of the chemical fit precludes any possibility of it being merely an unintended coincidence."
I can't speak for IDists from other "camps", but for YECs, this would merely be the result of one of three possibilities: either God did intend those to "fit" the brain in order to produce pleasure, but mankind, being in sin, cannot now handle those drugs (kind of like, "Kids, stay away from Mom and Dad's wine"); or, in cursing the Earth because of Adam and Eve's sin, those "natural drugs" were designed by God as part of the curse, much like a psychological poison (not because God is mean, but perhaps as another "test" of people's willingness to obey [who knows?]); or, in the Earth having been cursed, and Adam and Eve obeying Satan rather than God, Satan was given some authority to "design" some things in the Earth, and concocted the "natural drugs".
Comment by Douglas — February 6, 2006 @ 5:26 am
February 6th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
MikeGene, while there may be some agnostic IDists, the fact is they are a tail being wagged by a creationist dog. When the overwhelming majority of the people involved with IDism are creationists, you can't dimiss criticisms of IDism as creationism as mere propoganda. You point out that the admitted YECs are critical of the DI, but thats like suggesting that because Pepsi has a rivalry with Coca-Cola, one of them isn't selling cola. The YECists and the DI are fighting for market share within the same audience: christian fundamentalist creationists in the United States. The fact is that IDism has extremely strong links to creationism; if you want to distance yourself from that, come up with an ID theory thats something more than old relabled creationist arguments against evolution.
Comment by Aagcobb — February 6, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
February 6th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Well, 'specificationalism' (e.g. eliminating chance) and 'irreducible complexity' are indeed two relatively 'new' concepts on this broad topic. One might argue that ID could survive solely as a theory of pattern recognition, aside from the debate on origins of consciousness and human life. But then again, such a reduced field of study would be something entirely different than Johnson's, Dembski's and Behe's ('all humane studies,' 'renewal of science and culture') views of ID, as they originally conceptualized them. After all, no one owns a trademark on the concept of 'ID' if not those three.
Mike Gene seems unwilling to recognize or support the 'revolution' chant; perhaps he considers it propaganda-like also. He seemingly wants to say there really is something to ID, but that (whatever it is) it's not scientific, not a theory and is not fit to be taught in (American) schools. Hard to figure.
This might even sound a bit waffly to some, but the pattern recognition-ID talk still stands as legitimate scientific speculation. Maybe there could be a new school of (telically oriented) 'pattern recognition' instead of ID, since the ID Movement is obviously not what TT's is interested in, given it's theologically relevant agenda. Gene himself recently said he was not interested in the IDM, so that could be a safe-bet regarding TT's allegiances.
Yes, these are questions that you personally (my friend MG) will have to assess, using the concept of 'design' if that is the linguistic concept/percept you choose to assess them.
Yes, and you also have the ability to fragment yourself in the self-ing. Such is the world of free thought. ID theory, however, is not theologically irrelevant, as you suggest. Mike Gene's personal version of ID might be theologically nul (cf. avoidance). But most who honestly grapple with ID cannot and do not separate theology from the apparent scientific theory of ID. That's the charm, isn't it Bill, Phil and Michael?
Douglas and Salvador on this list demonstrate that aptly.
Arago
p.s. repeat: ID is not equivalent to 'creationism'
Comment by g arago — February 6, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
February 6th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Does Dembski resort to "Doublethink"?
Here are 3 (three) quotations from Dembski's works:
First stage: Disguised Theology?
[1] "If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." (William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.)
[2] "The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (William Dembski, Signs of Intelligence. A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design, article on Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4. July/August, 1999)
Second Stage: A Revolution in Dembski's Theology?
[3] "The supernatural agent presupposed by scientific creationism is usually understood as the transcendent, personal God of the well-known monotheistic religions, specifically Christianity. This God is said to create the world out of nothing (i.e., without the use of pre-existing materials). Moreover, the sequence of events by which this God creates is said to parallel the biblical record. By contrast, intelligent design nowhere attempts to identify the intelligent cause responsible for the design in nature, nor does it prescribe in advance the sequence of events by which this intelligent cause had to act." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 2004.)
Either Dembski, between 1999 and 2004, between [1] and [2] on one side, and [3] on the other, has drastically reconsidered his Theological interpretation of Intelligent Design, or something does not add up.
A person I know is very sceptical about the answer that Dembski himself gives to the question:
"Is intelligent design a cleverly disguised form of scientific creationism?"(William Dembski, The Design Revolution, op. cit., Chapter 3)
He gives the following comment about the 1999 vs. 2004, [1] and [2] vs. [3] inconsistency:
« The problem with Dembski and many others in the ID movement is that they will say one thing to a secular audience that posits ID in a scientific context while saying something that is very sectarian to a fundamentalist audience.»
I wonder what explanation would William A. Dembski give, if confronted with the issue?
Comment by Servetus — February 6, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
February 6th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Douglas,
It's Richard Sternberg.
And as was established in open court, with fair cross examination under the federal rules of evidence, Sternberg is fine, and so is his career. He got a different office. He lost no privileges. His boss stood up for him. And the Discovery Institute is flying him to creationism meetings all over the world to convince them to come to ID.
So again I ask: Why not take it to the journals? You seem to forget that it was an article by Meyers that was published, and Sternberg was just the out-of-line editor. The article is still there in the archives. The article was published.
So what was your point? Your example shows that even third-rate stuff from IDists makes it into journals. My question is, where is the first-rate stuff?
Comment by edarrell — February 6, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
February 6th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Aagcobb,
"MikeGene, while there may be some agnostic IDists, the fact is they are a tail being wagged by a creationist dog."
No need to call me names.
Comment by Douglas — February 6, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
February 6th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Aagcobb:
I haven't dismissed the accusation as "mere propaganda." Over the last few months, I have shown the error in equating ID with creationism (see The Creationist Fabrication and ID102). Here, I build on this analysis, taking a look at the use of the term from a different angle. Now, I didn't say it was "mere propaganda." I did two things. First, I argued that most critics of ID are politically motivated and it is the political realm where propaganda is commonly found. Thus, we have reason to expect propaganda among the critics. Second, I showed several ways in which the use of the term converges with characteristic features of propaganda. Thus, we have good reason to think the term is being used in a propagandistic manner.
Given that ID and creationism are teleological views of the world, and that the argument from design has been around longer than creationism, it's fair to say that creationism is a subset of ID. We can know this because it is difficult to be a creationist without accepting design, but it is not difficult to accept design while denying creationism.
Anyway, as for "something more than old relabled creationist arguments against evolution," I've been working on that with 63 essays (thus far).
Comment by MikeGene — February 6, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
February 6th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
G arago:
I'm not sure what's so hard to figure about this. For me, ID is a perspective "“ a way of looking at the data. A key piece of the puzzle is nicely laid out by Nobel laureate Francois Jacob: "To produce a valuable observation, one has first to have an idea of what to observe, a preconception of what is possible. Scientific advances often come from uncovering a hitherto unseen aspect of things as a result, not so much of using new instruments, but rather of looking at objects from a different angle. This look is necessarily guided by a certain idea of what this so-called reality might be. It always involves a certain conception about the unknown, that is, about what lies beyond that which one has logical or experimental reasons to believe."
This "certain conception" is slowly being fleshed out here. Ponder, for example, my hypothesis of Front-Loaded Evolution.
Yes, pattern recognition.
No, those are questions for those who adopt the designer-centric position.
Perhaps it's a gift. As this ability allows me to approach ID in an open-ended fashion.
I'm sure that many seek to couple their theology to ID views and anti-ID views. But I honestly do grapple with ID without consideration for theology. It's not that hard. You just immerse yourself in the data, the hypotheses, and the ideas about testing. Think of a theistic evolutionist who studies the natural world with methodological naturalism. The same strategy is available to those interested in ID. Perhaps I shall call it methodological teleology.
Comment by MikeGene — February 6, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
February 7th, 2006 at 6:04 am
Mike Gene,
my Comment by Servetus "” February 6, 2006 @ 4:31 pm, is still, as it appears, in a "Your comment is awaiting moderation" status. In the meantime, Mike Gene has posted replies to Aagcobb and to G arago.
Any reason for the specially prolonged exam I'm getting?
Looking forward to your reply.
Comment by Servetus — February 7, 2006 @ 6:04 am
February 7th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Well, Mike, isn't the 'argument from design' commonly considered an apologetic tool? Isn't it theologically relevant or relative? You wouldn't quote such an 'argument' if it weren't for theologians.
But IDists are predominantly against theistic evolutionists. Phillip Johnson reserves some of his most vicious outbursts against theistic evolutionists, who at other times he admits he just doesn't understand. Studying the world using methodological naturalism doesn't seem to be the issue; it's philosophical or theological naturalism that ruffles the IDM's feathers. Whether or not you care about that does change the facts.
Seems just a step or a breath from methodological theology, doesn't it?
- MG
Yes, please do share what your methodology of ID consists in. If necessary, you could cut and paste from IDThink to here. This would likely be a helpful thread on its own.
Comment by g arago — February 7, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
February 7th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Apparently, the difference between religion and ID is one of those things that you either see or don't see. I, for one, can see it with ease, while folks such as g arago are as blind as bats about it.
Comment by Dane Parker — February 7, 2006 @ 7:37 pm
February 7th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
NOTE: The following was posted, preliminarily displayed (awaiting Moderation) and twice cancelled at William Dembski's Blog "Uncommon Descent" (www.uncommondescent.com), as a comment to a summary of Michael J. Behe article "Behe Responds to Judge Jones", originally appeared on the Discovery Institute/CSC website (www.discovery.org/csc).
Behe Responds to Judge Jones
I think there are no problems with the two main claims of Intelligent Design, and namely:
a. Objective, a priori criteria can be stated for Specified/Irreducible Complexity
b. Instances can be provided of Structures/Functions which show Specified/Irreducible Complexity
The read problem, in Behe's words as well as in Dembski's, is the claim that Intelligent Design is an alternative to the Standard Methodological Naturalism as a model for science.
I think this claim is improper for at least two reasons:
i. Unlike Naturalism, ID cannot, in principle be falsified. Besides, ID lack one of the essential requirements of Experimental Science, and namely lacks predictive character.
ii. Unlike naturalism, it admits "Intelligent Agents" (ultimately, "The Supernatural") as explanation for natural phenomena. This does not make for good science. Richard Dickerson summed up the issue admirably in his "Rule No. 1": "Science must invoke only natural causes, and explain by reference only to natural law".
I would like to conclude this comment, stating my own, personal view of how to deal with "Intelligent Agents", "The Supernatural", "Inner Entities", and any kind of "Ghosts":
«Gentlemen who deal in Natural Sciences shouldn't get involved with "Intelligent Agents" and/or "Inner Entities" of any description. If they suspect their presence, they are supposed to call on Philosophers and Theologians to deal with them»
Comment by Servetus — February 7, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
February 7th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Mike,
I think you're in a better position to be objective than I regarding the propaganda issue of the critics. We certainly have different views, but I can't hardly ever recall a that you complained intensely that I or my fellow creationists misrepresented your position or ideas.
It seems however the critics of ID are almost pathologically reliable in their ability to twist or misrepresent your words or position on various issues.
They do the same to me, but I'm a real creationist, you're….well you're something special
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 7, 2006 @ 9:15 pm
February 7th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
MikeGene says By equating ID with creationism, the critics are at the very least trying to say that ID is popular among the fundamentalists and "religious right."
Mike, are you trying to claim that IDism isn't popular among fundamentalists and the "religious right" Can something be labeled as propoganda if its true?
Comment by Aagcobb — February 7, 2006 @ 11:38 pm
February 8th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Thanks for the poddy insult about my vision, Dane. Luckily, I have ears as well! Bats otoh don't seem to have a problem with navigation given their echo-location.
Perhaps Dane is like Britain's Butterbur in this conversation. It wouldn't take three quotations from Johnson, Dembski and/or Behe to realize that the 'differences' between ID and religion are not as clear-cut as Dane supposes. Perhaps in Dane's own personal theory of ID the distinction is obvious. In that case, why not write it down so that scientists and philosophers, let alone theologians, will be convinced and follow her. The door appears wide open.
Please be aware, Dane, of how many theists you are rejecting with such a compartmentalized appeal. Please also note that I wrote (if you actually read the thread) twice here already that "ID is not equivalent to "˜creationism'," to which you made no comment. It seems you are unaware of the subtleties in the argument and reluctant to address what Mike Gene misses with his 'Mike Gene-ID is not IDM-ID' logic fairy. That is, unless you think Mike's reason is infallible and his theory genuine revolutionary.
My argument in this thread: ID is not theologically irrelevant.
Mike Gene's argument: ID is theologically irrelevant; it can be purely non-theological (although apparently not purely scientific).
There is confusion still, however. Why would Salvador, a person who is admittedly an ID-theist, take sides with an ID-agnostic against someone promoting neo-evolutionary, neo-ID theism? The reason is, it seems, that he would rather cater to his Big Tent counter-part in Mike Gene, than acknowledge a critic of ID, who is nonetheless supportive of the spirit of the ID Movement. His science-first, faith-second approach will sooner or later come to a moment of crisis on the basis of what's real (philosophically), what's scientific and what's theological about ID theories, whether regarding his own theory of ID or some agreed upon specific definition, probably by W. Dembski. Perhaps he will accept non-ID or neo-ID counsel at that time.
So let me ask: Salvador, do you think ID theory is theologically irrelevant? Watch and wait for silence, visitors to TT's. There are, after all, some questions that IDists probably can but just really don't want to answer.
Arago
P.s. Btw, M. Gene. It appears to be natural for people to believe that they are more than just "˜natural' beings. Most people feel they have non-natural dimensions that cannot be reduced to a scientifically-deterministic ID-evolutionism. Maybe you are on the road to (personally) discovering that origins of life are more than just "˜natural,' that they also have an image of "˜intelligence.' If so, it would then be a greater challenge to argue that the "˜intelligence' (big I) of the universe is theologically irrelevant. It seems then that a larger part of the discussion should be focussed on "˜what is theology?' than the typical reversion to asking "˜what is science?' They are different ways of knowing about similar things; can you not accept that?
Comment by g arago — February 8, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
February 8th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Absolutely not,
"ID the bridge between science and theology" — William Dembski
You were saying, Arago?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 8, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
February 8th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Thank you Salvador. 'Absolutely not' is a great answer and one that I happen to agree with. Let me add that I think it's unfortunate you've chosen to follow Bill's one-sided bridge and 'revolution' (propaganda) chants. But that's another story which perhaps we'll discuss another time. You have shown courage, comrade.
Now for Mike Gene's turn (the real silent partner is addressed).
Mike, do you think ID is theologically irrelevant? If so, then why? And how?
Creationism is theologically relevant. Probably no one would argue with that. ID(ism) is, however, not equivalent to creationism – only propagandist ID critics think it is (even though admittedly there do exist creationist-IDists and/or ID-creationists too). Does this mean ID(ism) is theologically irrelevant?
Comment by g arago — February 8, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
February 8th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
G arago:
Sure. But keep in mind the science of evolution emerged from the soil of metaphysics and pseudoscience. Today, the science of abiogenesis is largely indebted to metaphysics. If you can cut evolution and abiogenesis away from their metaphysical roots, I fail to see why the same cannot occur with intelligent design.
I do not attack the theistic evolutionists. But that is neither here nor there. The point I am making is that a theist can adopt "˜methodological naturalism' and study nature as if God did not exist. Just because the theist happens to be a theist doesn't cause us to suspect something is fishy with his/her analysis of the world. ID proponents can easily follow in such footsteps. Even if an ID theist, for example, thinks the intelligence is God, the ID theist can still approach the issue of ID and its relationship to the living world as if the intelligence was not God. This because there is nothing in the approach of ID that mandates the intelligence be supernatural or divine.
Just as theistic evolution is a skip or a breath from methodological naturalism. In fact, one could say that theistic evolution is methodological theology, as the theology of many TE's prescribes MN.
In due time I will lay out my approach/method. For now, we can simply use conventional expressions of ID as explained in this essay from 2003.
Say, for example, that someone infers that the bacterial flagellum was designed because it was irreducibly complex and demonstrated complex specified information. Why would belief that the design was God be necessary for such an inference? Why would someone be forced to conclude the existence of God (of the Bible?) as a consequence of making such a design inference?
I think theology is irrelevant for making a design inference. Is ID itself "theologically irrelevant?" That's a different question. For a theist, it would be hard to point to anything that would be "theologically irrelevant." Ken Miller, for example, explains the theological relevance of random mutations and Darwinian evolution in his book. In the same spirit, someone like Salvador might explain the theological relevance of ID.
Comment by MikeGene — February 8, 2006 @ 11:48 pm
February 9th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Mike Gene:
While you lay out in detail your approach/method, we may perhaps ask you a broad question.
In his Darwin's Black Box, Michael J. Behe heavily criticizes (op. cit, Chapter no. 11, section "The Rule", pages 238-243) "methodological naturalism", which he sees epitomized by Richard Dickerson's Rule No. 1
Rule No. 1 «Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.» (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 44, 137-138 "“ 1992)
Behe, in his book, gives various reasons for rejecting Dickerson's Rule No. 1, and the limitations it imposes on what can legitimately be called "Science of Nature". But the "bottom line" is this:
Servetus' thought is that proper modern science started, say around 1580, with Galileo Galilei, who started experimenting with the motion of heavy objects. Before him, the so called Philosophers of Nature, resorted to all kinds of imaginary entities (unobservable, anyway), to explain phenomena, like "vital energy", "phlogiston" (a sort of "heat substance"), "miasmas" (mysterious evil entities which would spread and cause diseases), etc. Since Galileo, the (tacit) stipulation became essentially the one summed up by Dickerson's Rule No.1.
So my question to you, Mike Gene, is:
Will you side with Dickerson, or with Behe, concerning "methodological naturalism"?
Comment by Servetus — February 9, 2006 @ 11:57 am
February 9th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Would that include neologisms that merely repackage teleology with other names, such as "teleonomy", "genetic program", "codes for", "programs for", "preprogrammed instinct" etc.?
Comment by MatthewCromer — February 9, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
February 9th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
MatthewCromer:
"Teleonomy" is a word used extensively by Jacques Monod, and is supposed to have no teleological connotation, but rather to denote the capacity that, within limits, organisms show to achieve "homeostatic equilibrium".
As for the other expressions you mention, I think they are all associated with the idea that the cell, and in particular its nucleus, can be seen, in a proper sense (and not by mere analogy) as Information Processing Machines. And, remaining neutral on the interpretation, I do not see how you can eliminate this way of looking at the information in the cell.
Comment by Servetus — February 9, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
February 11th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Aagcobb:
Sure. Propaganda does not mean a claim is necessarily false. For example, it is also true that opposition to ID is popular among the anti-religious bigots.
The point is that the use of the term 'creationist' (as a descriptor of ID) is common among those with political interests/motivations and also shows the characteristic signs of propaganda.
Comment by MikeGene — February 11, 2006 @ 10:14 am
February 11th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Note to Telic Thought members (and readers, and perhaps critics):
On Tuesday, February 7, 2006, my house was broken into, and ransacked (not terribly so, but thoroughly). Fortunately, only one thing was stolen (so far as I can tell at the moment). Unfortunately, it was my laptop computer. Yesterday (Friday, February 10, 2006 [late in the day]), I purchased a new laptop computer (pretty much the same version, only with a slight difference in styling, and a bit faster). Other than to gain sympathy, I share this information only to make others aware that someone might at some point pretend to be me, by using my old laptop, and somehow discovering various of my other usernames (at other sites) and passwords. I have today (Saturday, February 11, 2006) changed my password here at "Telic Thoughts", so I expect this won't be a problem for me here (but I thought maybe between Tuesday and Friday, someone might have attempted to login here as me).
So, this is just to make it known what happened, and what might (though rather unlikely, in my opinion) happen. The policeman who heard what happened, and surveyed the scene, said it looked to him like the thieves (he said he thought there was more than one, probably a dynamic duo) were in the midst of going through some things in my computer room, heard something that frightened them (the policeman thought it was my returning home [I back into my garage, and they could have exited through a kitchen window without my having seen them] which scared them), and they made a quick exit (apparently through the kitchen window, as it was wide open when I came home). (Around two weeks ago, I accidentally left my overhead garage door open during the day, and someone at that time stole my mountain bike from my garage, and apparently used my restroom, since they left in the garage, as their "calling card", two paper towels which were, um, seemingly used as toilet paper [at the time, I figured it was just some kids being pranksters and adventurous thieves, rather than some "serious" burglars, since nothing in the house was disturbed]. It seems the thieves had the foresight to unlock at least the sliding glass door in my sunroom [a room I rarely, rarely use, and a door I practically never use] and to then wait for a couple of weeks before taking advantage of the seed they sowed.)
I doubt the thieves themselves could figure out how to get access to my computer and accounts (it was set up so that one had to enter a password in order to use the computer), but they might sell or trade it to someone who could. So, better to be cautious than caught off-guard (something I wish I'd thought of right after my mountain bike was stolen – I didn't think to check all the locks on my doors and windows.)
Sorry to interrupt, and if there's a better place for this post, by all means, please move it. Thanks.
Douglas J. Bender
Comment by Douglas — February 11, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
February 11th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Yes, I shall keep this in mind. Thanks for your clarifications and engaging the topic, Mike. I don't know how much further we can go on this issue, especially since I am an ID-critic who does not equate ID with creationism. Nevertheless, your comments have been quite helpful.
Let me add only that I don't see how a 'theist' can really study nature, as you write, "as if God does not exist." Even if they are attempting 'scientific objectivity' (or MN), they still personally believe in, know or trust that God does exist. That is a definition of being a theist. The idea of re-packaging one's feelings and beliefs and placing them outside the door seems as unsatisfactory/fragmentory in a Church, Temple or Mosque as it does for faithful scientists in the laboratory.
Your comment is provocative, though I'm not sure it would be accurate to say that 'theological evolution' is quite the same as 'methodological theology.' This apparently mixes up 'naturalism' with 'theism' and 'evolution' with 'method'. I would encourage you to write to some theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists and ask them how they 'do science' at the same time that they have faith in God (the designer). It might do some good to engage Ken Miller or Denis Lamoureux about their views instead of harping on them about ID politics.
Actually, I wrote a message to KM not too long ago and he responded quite helpfully and pleasantly. Maybe such dialogue would also help you to lay out your approach/method and aid you in, as you write elsewhere, 'the spirit of the game.'
Cheers,
Gregory
p.s. sorry to hear about your loss, Douglas and glad it wasn't worse. To look on the bright side, maybe it will help you to re-order and perhaps re-imagine (like Edison) some things that would've otherwise been delayed…
Comment by g arago — February 11, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
February 12th, 2006 at 7:12 am
"[i]p.s. sorry to hear about your loss, Douglas and glad it wasn't worse.[i]"
Thank you. I was very attached to my old laptop, and still mourn it's loss.
"[i]To look on the bright side, maybe it will help you to re-order and perhaps re-imagine (like Edison) some things that would've otherwise been delayed"¦[/i]"
I'm not sure what you mean, really, but I still have hours and hours (and probably yet more hours) to go before I can even come close to having an equivalent "Favorites" list – it takes time to search for various topics, wade through the results, and pick one or two worth storing in my "Favorites" list. More likely, it will be days and days. But at least I had backed-up my really important files this past July, on CD, so I didn't lose anything that can't be replaced (although I did lose a few articles/websites I had saved on computer since then).
Comment by Douglas — February 12, 2006 @ 7:12 am