Bradley Monton
by machtIf you like Telic Thoughts (and I know you do), please check out Bradley Monton's blog. Monton is a philosopher at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He's written a book on ID and is trying to get it published. Here's a brief description:
The doctrine of intelligent design has been maligned by atheists, but even though I'm an atheist, I'm of the opinion that the arguments for intelligent design are stronger than most realize. The goal of this book is to try to get people to take intelligent design seriously. I maintain that it is legitimate to view intelligent design as science, that there are somewhat plausible arguments for the existence of a cosmic designer, and that intelligent design should be taught in public school science classes.
The book is written in such a way that it will have appeal to both non-academics and fellow professors. I anticipate that both proponents and opponents of intelligent design would be interested in reading it. I will be agreeing with a lot of what intelligent design proponents say — I'm trying to be intellectually honest and give the proponents credit wherever credit is due. By rejecting the fallacious arguments against intelligent design, I am helping everyone to understand the issues and arguments more clearly. In the long run, this is what will lend the most support to the cause of reason.
As far as I know, no one has published a book like this, or is even in the process of writing one. There is a fair amount of literature nowadays on atheism vs. theism, and the merits of intelligent design, but that literature has become like a war between two camps, and the point of my book is to transcend that.
I, for one, hope that he does find a publisher.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
An atheist ID advocate. Fascinating. I thought Fred Hoyle was the only one. I noticed at his blog that he will be discussing the argument that we live in a computer simulation. Makes me curious.
Comment by Bilbo — July 16, 2008 @ 11:27 am
July 16th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
A breath of fresh air. It's odd that favorable comments should come from one with his worldview but I'll take it. It adds credibility to what he writes. I'm glad he understands that there are fallacious arguments as well as misconceptions about ID. Reason is not promoted by this.
Comment by Bradford — July 16, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
July 16th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
From one of Monton's articles at his website:
In the ten years since I read Behe's book, it is amazing how few critcis that I've read can accurately paraphrase what Behe actually says. So the guy gets kudos in my book from the get-go.
Still digesting the gist of the article here:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.ed...
Comment by RogerRabbitt — July 16, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 1:48 am
[...] by bradleymonton under General My blog has received its first mention in another blog, at Telic Thoughts. Since my blog was new I decided not to promote it at all (other than linking to it from my web [...]
Pingback by Stellar evolution and the infancy of the universe « Bradley Monton’s Blog — July 17, 2008 @ 1:48 am
July 17th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Nice picture of the Colorado Rockies at his blog. I envy him.
Comment by Bilbo — July 17, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
An atheist who is not cracker-crazy / wafer-wacky? Cool!
Hi Bilbo,
All Raelians are both atheists and ID supporters — the same position that Dawkins (an atheist) embraced at the end of the Expelled movie.
Comment by William Brookfield — July 17, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Interesting, William. I hadn't realized that Raelians were atheists. If I remember correctly, Dawkins didn't exactly "embrace" that position. I think he said something like, "If it turned out that living cells were originally designed, then it would have been by aliens."
Comment by Bilbo — July 18, 2008 @ 10:20 am
July 19th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Hi Bilbo,
Yes perhaps "embrace" without any qualification is too strong. "Embraced it as a respectable scientific option as long as those aliens originally evolved by Darwinian means." might be better. It seems to me what is important to Dawkins is avoiding at all cost, any violation of his core Darwinian story/gospel/metaphysic.
Comment by William Brookfield — July 19, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Yes, Dawkins does seem to be an ideologue.
Comment by Bilbo — July 19, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
July 20th, 2008 at 4:49 am
Interesting to see an atheist recognize the strength of Design arguments. The classic design arguments (in the tradition of Aristotle-Cicero-Aquinas-etc) are very strong indeed: those which argue that all of nature is designed. Beauty in nature, both organic and inorganic, is a difficult metaphysical principle to deny. But usually the atheist meets this with denials of one form or another. The strength of Design arguments do not lie in their power to convince an atheist of something (that is usually hopeless) but in how they force the atheist to deny primary metaphysical realities like truth, beauty, intelligible order, and so on. I've even heard atheists deny their own existence rather than succumb to a Design-style argument. It is through these denials that the atheist world-view is seen to be reduced to absurdity. Hence the strength of Design arguments.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — July 20, 2008 @ 4:49 am
July 21st, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I was thinking more about Dawkins. And though I still think he's an ideologue, there is some merit to his reasoning. It would go like this:
1) It is much more probable that highly intelligent extraterrestrials exist than that God exists. (From his atheistic arguments)
2) It is probable that the first living cells were intelligently designed. (From Dawkins' willingness to accept this for the sake of argument)
3) Therefore it is much more probable that highly intelligent extraterrestrials designed the first living cells than that God designed them.
Comment by Bilbo — July 21, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
The sad thing is, it doesn't matter how many non-Christians support ID one way or another, proponents of neo-Darwinism will still say creationists = ID supporters. Charles at littlegreenfootballs does it, and as I go to his site often, it's starting to annoy me.
Comment by SeanSean — July 22, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
littlegreenfootballs? You've got me curious, Sean…Sean.
Comment by Bilbo — July 23, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
What can I say, I'm a curious guy? A quick recap on the blog if you don't visit it:
It would seem Expelled set the the blogger off. He didn't like it. After a few weeks, he stopped mentioning it, and went back to anything related to jihad, people in the West caving in the Muslims, looking around for fake pictures, and commenting on a lot of politics. Now he's started off with a vengeance against ID, or as he calls it, creationism (it would seem like Berlinski and Bradley Monton are closet creationists by Charles' standards). I guess the worst posts were less than a dozen posts trying to tie in Muslims and ID, a little guilt by association. Funny how I recall he didn't like Expelled linking Hitler and Darwin, but oh well. He's even thrown a few punches at the Discovery Institute (there was an article linking Muslims and DI as I recall, and evolutionnews.org responded). That's all I can say. It's fun that two of my blogs I read are now hostile towards each other. Must be what having kids is like.
Comment by SeanSean — July 24, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
From an interview posted at Monton's website:
http://www.galilean-library.or...
He is apparently unfamiliar with the MN teacher who got bounced for introducing ID concepts and some of Behe's writings. He lost his court case, and appropriately so, IMHO. For K-12, the local school board really should be where the buck stops. I disagree with the decision they made, but I think that is where the decision belongs.
That's why there has to be some involvement in the policy at least at the local school board level. Because if they aren't really interested in seeing the issue explored, it's highly unlikely they will support a teacher who could bring the wrath of the ACLU and the Federal judiciary down upon them.
I think Bradley needs to think that thru a little harder.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 2, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Another philosopher missing the point.
There's nothing philosophically wrong with the questions ID raises. There are deep scientific problems with ignoring evidence contradictory, or as in the case of Behe, missing the evidence in the literature search. And there is a moral issue about denying things well established as if no no one had ever noted them before, and fuzzing the act, as Wells does.
As an exercise in philosophical structuring, there is nothing wrong with wondering about things that are not. Philosophically a scientist can ask any fool question the scientist chooses.
Philosophically, there is no good reason that the Federal Aviation Administration in Denver shouldn't regulate pig farms in Colorado as a safety measure for Denver International and other commercial and military airports in the state. After all, if pigs could fly, they would offer no end of threats to commercial aviation, both from collisions with the animals themselves, and from their general fouling of the skies with material that could completely blind a pilot by covering the windscreen. Don't even think about sausage after a piglet's gone through a GE jet turbine engine.
So far, evidence is lacking that pigs do fly, or that pigs can fly, or that pigs ever will fly. Lacking that evidence, the FAA's regulatory case is weak. Some would say the case is silly.
And that's where ID is today. Philosophically there's nothing wrong with asking the questions. Morally, pragmatically, and philosophically, there are serious issues with ignoring the answers and insisting on a different reading.
The philosophical argument rests on there being evidence which simply does not exist, evidence beyond "but, doesn't it seem like a good idea?"
Comment by edarrell — August 8, 2008 @ 11:47 am
August 8th, 2008 at 11:50 am
And now, after looking at his book outline on his blog, I think he's pedagogically naive and off the rails.
There's no research that indicates teaching the wrong stuff in science improves science knowledge or critical thinking. There's no research that shows teaching the wrong stuff works in any topic.
Comment by edarrell — August 8, 2008 @ 11:50 am