Answering Questions about ID
by MikeGeneTelicThoughts member G arago has raised some interesting questions in the comments section, so let me take a stab at them.
1. Can those at Telic Thoughts distance themselves entirely from the IDM, while at the same time accepting that those in the IDM were the persons who formulated the concepts which TT-IDists are working with/assuming?
Yes. The way to demonstrate that such distancing cannot occur is to show that the validity or utility of the ID concepts are entirely dependent on the existence of the IDM. But that is silly. We know that we can contemplate and work with the concept of IC and how it interfaces with biology without the slightest concern about what some school board is up to. The arguments and exploration are not dependent on the existence of that school board.
2. Isn't distancing oneself from the IDM actually another tactic of distancing from creationism or creation science?
Not necessarily. The IDM is, by definition, a socio-political movement. One is thus distancing themselves from the socio-political agenda while trying to explore the concept of ID in an open-ended fashion.
3. How can the IDM have 'ties' with ID - they coined the term?
Coining terms is irrelevant if the concept the terms are designed to capture can exist without the IDM. And they can. For example, Behe coined the term "˜irreducible complexity' to describe the reality of molecular complexes. Many in the IDM view IC as something that renders Darwinian evolution impossible. I don't. But since I also don't think in black-and-white terms, I recognize the utility of the concept as it relates to a design inference. From my perspective, the IDM has only ties to ID in that it primarily draws from the concept for socio-political purposes. Thus, while the IDM may not be able to exist without ID, ID can exist without the IDM.
4. Has trying to be 'persuasive' taken away from the IDM's ability to 'do science' - since the social-political movement of ID in America has gotten ahead of its scientific contribution?
Yes. By embedding the concept of ID in a socio-political movement, this skews the presentation of the concept. Thus, most ID proponents don't approach this issue as investigators looking for clues, because mere clues do not serve the needs of a socio-political movement. Thus, the desire to be "˜persuasive' often means a weak line of evidence must be propped up with rhetoric.
5. How is 'not caring about the IDM at all' an honest or dishonest possibility?
It's an honest possibility. Since the IDM is a socio-political movement, I would have to care about it to the extent that I thought it has a realistic chance of succeeding. But it doesn't have a realistic chance of succeeding. If I cared about every possible outcome from every possible socio-political movement, I would be exhausted and insane.
6. How does ID, even if considered for the moment aside from the IDM, differ from the traditional 'argument from design'?
The traditional argument from design begins with the belief in design and God and tries to prove the existence of God using design. This is quite different from ID101. First, I approach ID from the vantage of a question, not a preconception. Second, because of this, I approach ID in an open-ended manner. Third, I am interested in an investigation, not a proof. Fourth, the dispute is about whether life is a design that stems from intelligence.
7. Why is theology given no place of priority, i.e. no seat at the table of discussion at Telic Thoughts, especially after macht acknowledges that 'ID is rooted in natural theology'?
I can only speak for myself here. I have no problem with theology, but I don't see how it helps the investigation. If theology wants a seat at the table, it need only provide some testable hypotheses that help resolve the issue of life's design.
April 28th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Mike,
How do you reconcile this statement with a previous admission that you began to accept evolution a la common descent once you asked the (theological) question: Why would God make monkeys? [or something to that effect]
Not every truth needs a testable hypothesis (see: "The Law of Noncontradiction"). Any rational person constructs a worldview based upon what makes the most logical sense. Philosophy (and thereby theology) is a powerful tool for analyzing our universe and more closely approximating truth; arbitrary demarcations between "science" and "philosophy" make little difference.
Comment by Qualiatative — April 28, 2006 @ 8:55 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Hi Qualiatative,
You ask, "How do you reconcile this statement with a previous admission that you began to accept evolution a la common descent once you asked the (theological) question: Why would God make monkeys? [or something to that effect]"
Good catch. And I must admit I would have to think this through. I can say that my transition from creationism to evolution involved many aspects of my thinking and that this little theological argument resonated against the backdrop of a better understanding of evolution.
I am not trying to suggest that theology is not true. I'm simply try to approach ID in a truly open-ended and investigative manner. I have ideas about how to assess whether something like the bacterial flagellum was designed (and I shall soon be making that more clear). But those ideas don't draw from theology (or at least, in any way that my conscious mind is aware of). And I just don't see how theology would help me determine whether the bacterial flagellum owes its design to intelligent agency.
Comment by MikeGene — April 28, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Mike,
I apologize if I over-stereotyped your point about theology but thanks for the clarification.
One last quibble:
The problem is that there isn't a scientific description of "intelligence". There is, however, a philosophic understanding of agency and causation. From these philosophic foundations, a testable hypothesis could be made in principle. But then again, my definition of science excludes sociology, anthropology, psychology etc.
Perhaps ID should be considered a "soft science"
Comment by Qualiatative — April 28, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
April 29th, 2006 at 2:57 am
I know this is slightly off topic, but here is a thought that I had when I read Casey Luskin discussing IC, and I was wondering what everybody at TT thought about it:
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2006 @ 2:57 am
April 29th, 2006 at 2:58 am
Sorry, the link didn't post properly.
Comment by hrun — April 29, 2006 @ 2:58 am
April 29th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
That may be the case if you're picking a random socio-political movement out of a hat, but in the case of ID and the IDM, I don't see how you could care about one and not the other. I buy that you don't think the IDM has a realistic chance of succeeding (and I would agree), but the IDM heavily affects the cultural/intellectual backdrop against which ID ideas are interpreted, whether it succeeds or not.
Because of the real connections between ID and the IDM, you can't just not care about it like it was an unrelated socio-political movement, if you're interested in discussing and investigating ID. You have to care about it to know how to separate your discourse from that of the IDM.
Comment by ragesoss — April 29, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
April 29th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Mike, it is sometimes neither clear that you are not exhausted nor insane. A recent post of macht claims that the arguments circling around ID, which I assume means claims made by those both 'inside' and 'outside' of the IDM, are becoming tiresome. In your version of ID, which you insist is not scientific and should not be taught in schools, where is the explanatory power? This idea of 'my version of ID is open-ended' is showing itself to be perhaps so "˜open-ended' that the wind blows through one window and out another. Where's the substance?
You say, "The IDM is, by definition, a socio-political movement" and "the IDM has only ties to ID in that it primarily draws from the concept for socio-political purposes." But why not recognize instead that the IDM is where 'ID' originated? Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Nelson, Meyer, Kenyon, et al. (how would I even know these peoples' names without ID?). Please don't sell the exact conceptualization of 'i+d' out to ancient Greeks or modern scientists, i.e. why not give credit where credit is due? All of the ID conceptualizers (cf. Pajaro Dunes, 1993) are theists - is this your problem with accepting an authentic foundation for contemporary ID?
Let's face it, ID (as "˜we' know it) cannot exist without the IDM "“ its resources, communication channels and cultural-social-religious outreach would be depleted. There would be nothing for Telic Thoughts to talk about (as a news resource), likewise there would have been no 'controversy' in the first place without the IDM promoting ID as a 'scientific revolution' and suitable replacement for (neo-)Darwinian evolution. What "˜telic thought' has TT's actually contributed other than suggesting (in the words of the IDM) the validity of 'i+d'?
Since Mike Gene personally accepts neo-Darwinian evolution (as does Krauze, macht, bipod, Steve Petermann, Deuce, and even Joy), the fuss over 'intelligent design' at TT's is clearly still a mystery. Many neo-evolutionists (apparently) claim teleological relevance in their theoretical descriptions/declarations/explanations. ID-Evolutionism, otoh, is completely ambiguous and self-contradictory. It's not even really about the 'Design Inference' in a Dembskian-theological sense, but about a 'Design-Hunch' in an M. Geneian-agnostic sense of the words.
Although I do identify with the thrust of ragesoss's post, Mike has, to give him credit for his candidness, nevertheless tried to distinguish himself from the IDM. IDM 101 invokes Behe, not Dembski. Likewise, Mike's answer to question number 4 above is appreciated, though he slants the answer to number 6. The question in the 'argument for/from design' is: does or does not God exist?
Mike's statement, "I have no problem with theology, but I don't see how it helps the investigation," suggests that giving lip-service to the impact of theology on this topic is enough to satisfy him. 'I have no problem with theology, but that's because it is unimportant' would be a similar response. Instead, the influence of theological relevance on the origination of the IDM and their concept of ID should be an important part of any 'investigation' that Mike Gene is considering as valid for ID. Banishing theology as insignificant and unimportant is no longer a legitimate option in the current post-modern age, when all voices demand an equal if not impartial hearing.
Hrun, though your topic is somewhat related, I'd prefer if we not let it take this thread on a tangent. Nothing was said about IC until you referenced it. Thanks for your understanding.
Qualiatative "“ Are agency and causation exclusive of anthropology, psychology and/or sociology? Would you be at least willing to call those disciplines "˜scholarly' if not "˜hard science,' according to the soft/hard dichotomy? Perhaps you are seeking an integrative approach to science, philosophy and theology? Just thoughts from the peanut gallery"¦
Gregory
Comment by g arago — April 29, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
April 30th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Ragesoss:
Good point. I have to care about it to the extent that it elicits an anti-IDM and how my own views can become caught in the crossfire between the two movements.
Comment by MikeGene — April 30, 2006 @ 8:54 am
April 30th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Yet our blog continues to grow. And there are now two universities that discuss intelligent design in the classroom.
For starters, there are these. Even Scientific American found it hard to ignore.
Yet what would you have qualify as "substance?" A proof that evolution was impossible? The detection of a miracle in the test tube? Seeing the designer in the act of designing?
What qualifies as substance at the beginning of an investigation is not the same as that which occurs at the end of an investigation.
The exact conceptualization is not relevant, given I am not promoting anyone else's exact conceptualization, now am I? What we do know it what one professor is teaching: "intelligent design has a long history. The idea originated well before Darwin's work in the 1850s." This is something I pointed out way back in 2000 (actually, it was something Barrow and Tipler pointed out). Now, if I used the concept of IC, I will of course credit it to Behe. If is used the concept of specified complexity, I will of course credit Dembski. But the whole notion of that I must credit Johnson et al. with the notion that life was designed is silly. That notion has been around for 2500 years and has expressed itself in a myriad of ways.
You seem to think that ID is purely a function of the IDM. What sustains me and my hunches, g arago, is not the IDM and is communication channels. What sustains me are the findings of science, the weakness of my skeptics' arguments, and the exceptionally interesting nature of this topic. Here's a juicy tidbit about Bruce Alberts:
So here is one of the leading molecular biologists speaking about his findings at a meeting where they are brainstorming ways to turn back ID. And "despite acknowledging that ID proponents had used his words to suggest such enzymes were analogous to human designed machinery," his science forces him to use such a concept. Despite it's the liability to his cause, he is unwilling to put this concept in the trash. And that alone is worth more than anything that comes out of the IDM's communication channels. Like I say in my 2000 essay: "Materialists have only one hope: to quickly find a way to teach and study life without ID concepts and language. Since this hope is likely in vain, ID will probably return as a serious player. Biologists can say that life is not designed, but as biologists, they treat life as if it were designed. And sooner or later, people pay more heed to what you do that what you say."
Anyway, if you insist on arguing that ID cannot exist without the IDM, perhaps you should make an effort to precisely define ID and the IDM.
Readers can decide for themselves if TT offers any contributions. If we don't, they will go away.
Well, neo-Darwinian evolution can co-exist with the design of life. In fact, neo-Darwinian evolution may be subservient to the design of life. Our position will indeed be mystery to those who have been conditioned to think ID = anti-evolutionism.
ID evolution is not self-contradictory.
Yes, any investigation must begin with a hunch.
There is no slant to the answer to number 6. You asked, "How does ID, even if considered for the moment aside from the IDM, differ from the traditional "˜argument from design'?" I provide clearly stated differences between ID and traditional argument from design.
ID does not directly address that issue. If you want to take that additional step, you would a) first have to establish that some aspect of nature was designed and b) demonstrate that the intelligence must have been divine.
You are spinning. I clearly spelled this out in a follow up reply:
You need to deal with this response by a) showing how my ideas are dependent on theology or b) showing how theology would help me determine whether the bacterial flagellum owes its design to intelligent agency.
Instead of dealing with my actual response, you invent a "similar response." Tell me, when Ken Miller studies his membranes, what helping role does his theology play?
Why?
Yes, in the post-modern age, we've had Science-As-Victim, Academia-As-Victim, and now we see Theology-As-Victim. I hardly realized that the World of Telic Thoughts was so big and powerful that it can turn whole fields of Human Activities into Victims.
Look, they all can talk as much as they want. What matters is whether they have anything to say that will help me assess whether some particular aspect of reality owes its existence to an intelligent cause.
Comment by MikeGene — April 30, 2006 @ 9:00 am
May 1st, 2006 at 5:39 am
Just a couple of issues to take with what's been said about the questions above: I would much prefer to sit down with Mike Gene and speak about these things with him and surely we would come to a respectful distance of agreement and disagreement. That said, with a couple of continents between us, it's not going to happen in the near future.
First, I think you're fragmenting the topic and putting your knowledge into containers which don't fit. You ask what role Ken Miller's theology plays in the laboratory. The answer is that Miller doesn't check his theology at the door. Theology is part of (within) the person and cannot be separated as easily as you seem to make it sound. There is an absence of holism in what you're suggesting. By assuming that science is its own self-contained sphere, impregnable from outside influences, in search of "˜objective' truths which are universal, absolute, eternal and applicable everywhere, the logic of the scientific enterprise is compromised and the personhood of the scientist is lost. This perspective leads an investigator or observer quickly down the path towards scientism.
Ironically, in the ID conversation, you'll find STC hanging out on the other side of the scientism field at the same destination "“ science has all the answers and even proves God's existence. Your ideas, Mike, are indeed dependent on your worldview; maybe you have not yet clearly articulated what they have to do you with your theology or atheology, but the connections are there. Since the topic is about origins and the "˜design' or "˜non-design' of life, it would be strange to consider how theology would have no impact.
That is your burden to prove, Mike, especially since the IDM's version of ID is loudly claiming the two can't co-oexist, and that ID is a scientific revolution that replaces the old paradigm of neo-Darwinian evolution. At the same time, Dembski, Behe, Meyer, even Nelson and Pearcey all accept evolutionary theory in a limited sense. So the contradictions don't end with Gene's or Krauze's views of what evolves and what doesn't. The IDM can't agree or be clear either; sometimes appearing as universal evolutionists, sometimes villifying a certain type of evolution and leaving others unaddressed.
On the question of who "˜owns the right' to what, I agree it is somewhat silly, yet not irrelevant. Insisting that "˜intelligent design,' what I call "˜i+d,' is more than 2500 years old (a nice round number) would be absurd. You alternate between saying "˜life was designed' and using the concept duo "˜i+d' when they are not the same thing. "˜I+d' is less than 20 years old; by this I mean theories promoted by the IDM that are meant to affect a "˜scientific revolution' that replaces neo-Darwinian evolution. Of course, there are others who now use the borrowed concepts "˜i+d' for their own ends, to participate in on-line debates, to reflect on their own views about life, the past and the future or just to argue with Darwinists of the old-school variety. This is to be expected, especially when a theory has not been clearly articulated, such that the scientific community it is trying to convince remains largely unconvinced.
But this doesn't negate the simple origin of "˜i+d' in the literature. I have nothing against professors raising the issue of life being designed or created or constructed or in-breathed or planned or whatever adjective suits the situational topic; this is a benefit of the IDM's active mission. However, confusing "˜argument from design' with "˜i+d' seems to be a chronic problem, likely intentionally promoted by ID advocates. Notably, ID-agnostics seem to add or subtract the term "˜intelligence' sometimes at will. And apparently only Raelians have offered a potential explanation for the source of "˜intelligence' behind the potential "˜designing' other than religious scientists and philosophers.
O.k. Mike, since you won't answer the repeated question about which fields of study you are formally or informally educated in, let me ask a simpler question. You say you are an agnostic "“ i.e. you can't prove (but neither can I) that a God or gods exist, you're just not sure and won't commit yourself one way or another (well, actually you didn't say the latter directly, but the former). Science can't answer all questions of origin, purpose, meaning and teleology; theists and agnostics likely agree on this. But are you a "˜naturalist'?
This question is asked because that's what Darwin claimed he was and the cause/movement of 'naturalism' was what he promoted. Also, you use the terminology "˜the nature of' and "˜its nature' quite regularly. In this thread, it was the "exceptionally interesting nature of this topic." Personally, I wouldn't choose to call a topic "˜natural' or "˜unnatural.' Certainly the idea of communication has both a physical and non-physical component. But the language of a naturalist is quite unique in regard to what he or she thinks is natural and what is not.
Thus, in your opinion, is the designer or Designer a purely natural source? Did the "˜design' that your hunches lead you to happen in the course of nature? Is it a natural conclusion or a theological conclusion, or a combination of the two, which constitutes your approach to ID? Answering these questions would help your viewers to distinguish Mike Gene-ID from IDM-ID.
Thanks,
Arago
Comment by g arago — May 1, 2006 @ 5:39 am
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Arago,
I am not ignoring your comments, I've just been busy and am exhausted. I'll try to get to them as soon as I can.
Comment by MikeGene — May 2, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Thanks for checking back in Mike! Please don't let my comments add to your burden. I am not impatient, and will await your response when it comes. Health is more important than e-discussions!
- G.A.
Comment by g arago — May 2, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:18 am
Mike,
The number is much higher:
Cornell
Knox College
University of Memphis (John Angus Campbell)
University of Alabama
Cal State Fullerton
University of Minnesota (Chris Macosko)
Akron (Dan Ely)
Iowa State University (Ingerbritzen)
Leheigh (Michael Behe)
University of Toronto
George Mason University
James Madison University
NVCC (Caroline Crocker)
various religiously affiliated institutions
Biola (Paul Nelson)
New St. Andrews (Gordon Wilson)
Loma Linda (Timothy Standish)
Bryan College (presumably Kurt Wise)
Liberty University (Tim Brophy)
Patrick Henry College
There are probably more…the above may not have course listings explicitly saying, "ID", but I know the professors and the content being taught. That's 18 reported universities. I would not be surprised to see more as Bruce Alberts and friends are encouraging discussion.
I expect the number of universities involved to continue rising.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2006 @ 12:18 am
May 3rd, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Oh, Kat, don't you get bored trying to obfuscate the issues? Go do something productive, like publishing a book on French philosophers or something.
Comment by Bilbo — May 3, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
May 5th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Hey Mike, I'm not impatient, but you seem willing to answer questions and even start other threads.
Are you still planning to respond to my questions?
G.
Comment by g arago — May 5, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
May 8th, 2006 at 3:46 am
Hey Mike, are you a 'naturalist'? Darwin was a naturalist, evolution is naturalistic; it shouldn't be too embarassing to join the category of such an eminent thinker and his legendary theory. Or do you disagree with (certain features of) naturalism and naturalistic evolutionism?
I'm curious to hear then, Mike's response to those who pit naturalism and theology as against one another. Most IDM-IDists who are theists would like to keep an open-ended approach too. But their open-ends include an Alpha and Omega that apparently require a Designer that is ultimately not purely naturalistic.
Arago
Comment by g arago — May 8, 2006 @ 3:46 am
May 8th, 2006 at 7:05 am
G arago:
Notice they are very short. A reply to your post would take a little more time, don't y'think?
Comment by MikeGene — May 8, 2006 @ 7:05 am
May 11th, 2006 at 5:23 am
O.k., point well taken. I can wait.
Until then,
G.A.
Comment by g arago — May 11, 2006 @ 5:23 am
May 17th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Hello G arago,
Whether or not intelligent design as part of biotic reality could very well impact someone's theology or metaphysics. It would depend on the way that person approached reality. For example, many people commonly conflate ID with religion and an intelligent designer with God. Thus, if that person believes a) God exists and b) God's existence must be empirically detected by science and c) ID is the only way to scientifically detect God's existence, well then, sure, if ID fails to produce, that person will probably stop believing in God. In fact, I have seen that happen. But as you know, the failure of ID does not translate as the non-existence of God. Heck, even from a mainstream-type of ID position, ID is about detecting design and the failure to detect design does not equate as the non-existence of design.
My point about theology was stated clearly above - I was not trying to suggest that theology is not true. I simply try to approach ID in a truly open-ended and investigative manner. I have ideas about how to assess whether something like the bacterial flagellum was designed (and I shall soon be making that more clear). But those ideas don't draw from theology (or at least, in any way that my conscious mind is aware of). And I just don't see how theology would help me determine whether the bacterial flagellum owes its design to intelligent agency. Is there something wrong with this?
Are there connections with my theology? Sure "“ it helps me to adopt the open-ended approach that I do.
I said that "neo-Darwinian evolution can co-exist with the design of life." You said that it is my burden to prove. Well, thanks to biotechnology, we know that human design of biological organisms does exist in a reality where things also exist because of neo-Darwinian evolution. Today, some scientists are even trying to design new life forms, and if they are good at it, I predict these new life forms will be able to evolve according to neo-Darwinian evolution. So is there some reason why the design of life cannot co-exist with Darwinian evolution? Are you saying, for example, that the neo-Darwinian evolution of bird flight would mean that it was impossible that anything else amid biotic reality could have been designed?
As for the distinction between ID and "the design of life," I don't evaluate the merits of an idea based upon who came up with the idea or why the came up with the idea. As I see it, ID is an idea that simply postulates than some aspect of life was designed by some form of intelligence. I can speak about intelligence simply because I have extensive experience with the acts of intelligence. As for the design of life, that is getting a little closer to a hypothesis about history "“ life itself was designed.
You claim that I claimed to be an agnostic. Where did I claim this? You ask if I am a "naturalist." Is that someone who believes that only Nature exists? You ask, "Thus, in your opinion, is the designer or Designer a purely natural source?" Both my theology/metaphysics and my investigation leave that an open option. Someday it might become clear to you. You ask, "Did the "˜design' that your hunches lead you to happen in the course of nature?" Yes, the clues for design have been uncovered by science as it studies nature. You ask, "Is it a natural conclusion or a theological conclusion, or a combination of the two, which constitutes your approach to ID?" It's the position of someone who recognizes his own limitations while having an intrinsic tolerance of ambiguity that allows me to express and follow-up a genuine curiosity. There is no other relevant "conclusion" that guides my approach (at least, that I can think of at the moment).
Done that. Been there.
Comment by MikeGene — May 17, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
May 17th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
About the relationship between the ID Movement and ID theory:
In some ways it can be thought of in the same way as late 19th Century/early 20th Century Darwinism: though not all evos are either conversant or comfortable with it, Darwinism's early progress in acceptability was tied, in part, into existing philosophical and sociological trends:
1) the 19th Century was the century when 'progressivism' really came into its own: the concept that, by some automatic principle(s), life in just about all its aspects———–political, economic, etc——–was getting better and better via a process not unlike biological random mutation and natural selection.
2) white Europeans/Americans in considerable numbers preferred to think of their own race as 'more advanced' and Darwinism was a way to vindicate this view 'scientifically'.
Naturally 1) and 2) had strong repercussions across the boards: eugenics,
social Darwinism, an excuse for further colonization of Third World countries etc.
Modern (late 20th Century/early 21st Century) evos don't feel either guilty about this or obligated to wall themselves off from it. They merely take what was useful and slough off the rest…….
Comment by len — May 17, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
May 18th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I wanted to thank MikeG for his recent post answering G arago. It helped me to understand my own thoughts and my position relative to IDM.
This is a cool blog, btw
consider yourself thanked.
Comment by samohth — May 18, 2006 @ 2:27 pm