Changing Your Name
by JoyA few years ago I worked as tech support for an internet provider. After being there for a year and a half's worth of steady paychecks, I was suddenly informed by HR that they could no longer write my checks out to the name on my bank account because my SS card had a different name first.
I argued that the middle name on that SS card is the name on my bank account as well as the name on my birth certificate and I can use any of the names I've got if I so choose. They told me I'd have to take time off work - unpaid - to go sit at the SS office all day to get the names switched around to suit their new policy, supposedly imposed by Homeland Security. Being not very tolerant of pointless corporate/governmental stupidity, I told 'em to shove their silly policy on which of my legal names I can choose to have on my paycheck - they didn't pay me enough for that sort of garbage.
What does name-changing have to do with these debates? Well, we've seen quite a few critics recently who want to know why it is that TTers who aren't part of the DI and aren't 'Creo-bots' would still call what they're talking about "Intelligent Design." And their questions have been repeatedly answered by pointing out that it wouldn't do us any good to change the name of the approach to biology and evolution, because these very same critics - as well as hoards of others - would still claim we're part of the DI, support "The Wedge" and *are* Creo-bots. What would be the point?
So it was with some sense of a fitting answer to my own questions that I read installment #3 of the "Celebrate Darwin" series in Olivia Judson's NYT blog 'The Wild Side'. It's entitled Let's Get Rid of Darwinism, and argues as many TTers have argued for years that it's time to put Charles Darwin and his original thesis on the shelf of scientific history. Then to change the name of the modern evolutionary uber-theoretic to something other than Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism or any sort of 'ism' with Charlie's name on it. They could call it… say… "evolution" instead.
From the blog:
In short, Darwin did more in one lifetime than most of us could hope to accomplish in two. But his giantism has had an odd and problematic consequence. It's a tendency for everyone to refer back to him. "Why Darwin was wrong about X"; "Was Darwin wrong about Y?"; "What Darwin didn't know about Z" - these are common headlines in newspapers and magazines, in both the biological and the general literature. Then there are the words: Darwinism (sometimes used with the prefix 'neo'), Darwinist (ditto), Darwinian.
Why is this a problem? Because it's all grossly misleading. It suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn't changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the "Origin."
So… the critics here who have repeatedly asserted that we should call our 'version' of ID something other than ID may have sensed this change might be in the works for Darwinism and its derivatives. Is anybody here fooled into thinking the nature of the dueling metaphysics would change if both camps changed their names?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Hi Joy,
It looks like I have some very rare free time to comment this weekend. You can also credit Roger Rabbitt's influence. I enjoy tangling with him
At any rate, thank you for the thread…
In the past, I have suggested that Mike Gene and Telic Thoughts would do better with a more stand-off position concerning the ID Movement. I have also pointed out how the term "intelligence" is a poor fit for what most people in TT seem to be advocating.
An ability to learn and/or adapt does not automatically imply consciousness or even purpose. The threads involving AIguy went a long way towards pointing out that there are computer programs that are intellegent designers. Here is a link to a free software package that designs circuit boards by trial and error (i.e. it LEARNS).
While I can understand the advantages of belonging to a pack, I am too much the individualist. Your challenge of giving up the Darwinist label is easy. That label doesn't fit me any more than "materialist" does.
I don't consider myself in the same group as people like Keiths and other swamp dwellers. Do you really want to be associated with "be afraid, very afraid" Wells and other Discovery Institute fellows?
I can offer a hypothesis that is consistant with ID SCIENCE without anyone getting confused about me supporting, or being part of, the religious/political Movement created by people I disagree with.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 18, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 2:26 am
The difference is that although the Modern Synthesis updates and replaces just about all the details of Darwinism the core ideas of Darwinism still largely apply: descent with modification, selection, common origin. Because the core idea still fits I don't mind being called a Darwinist even though the term lacks technical accuracy and isn't really very meaningful. Of course I would have no problem with adopting a new term if another term gained common understanding. How about "Mesa" for Modern Evolutionary Synthesis Advocate, I like that term too.
On the other hand, the core idea of ID is "God did it," which many TT'ers claim doesn't apply at all to their work. The argument for distancing the TT movement from ID is more about finding a term whose core idea is not in serious conflict with your claims.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 19, 2008 @ 2:26 am
July 19th, 2008 at 7:36 am
It's mostly the evolution-deniers who use the term Darwinism, presumably because (1) they are authoritarians who need to worship a Big Daddy and project this need on others, and (2) it sounds a bit like the equally hated godless Marxism.
How many scientific journals carry the word Darwin or Darwinist or Darwinian in their title? Among the journals listed on ISI Web of Science, not a one.
Comment by Raevmo — July 19, 2008 @ 7:36 am
July 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am
I prefer to call them "chance worshipers".
Comment by computerist — July 19, 2008 @ 9:07 am
July 19th, 2008 at 9:21 am
computerist:
Or authoritirians insisting on group think.
Comment by Bradford — July 19, 2008 @ 9:21 am
July 19th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Just curious, if the core ideas still apply, how is Darwinist not a very meaningful term?
Comment by computerist — July 19, 2008 @ 9:24 am
July 19th, 2008 at 9:46 am
The term 'Darwinism' is more politically and philosophically polarized. Darwinian Evolution and Darwinism are two different things. The former is a so-called science which involves core processes of modern evolutionary theory, the latter is a metaphysical attachment to that science which takes those core processes and amplifies them to a degree indistinguishable from a religious belief system.
Comment by computerist — July 19, 2008 @ 9:46 am
July 19th, 2008 at 9:50 am
It's beyond that. It's a dumb phrase introduced by an IDiot critic for the purpose of setting up a strawman and avoiding substantive discussions. ID critics were thrilled when the wedge document became news. It gave them an excuse to talk about movements instead of DNA. Bogeymen rather than front loading and generally favored style over substantive critiques. IOW it enabled critics to stay within their comfort zones.
Comment by Bradford — July 19, 2008 @ 9:50 am
July 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am
TP:
When is the last time a TTer used Wells as an authoritative source or even wrote favorably of him? I don't recall him being mentioned in support of a point or argument. As far as associations go, that is beyond our control. People often make linkages to discredit others.
Comment by Bradford — July 19, 2008 @ 10:00 am
July 19th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I'm going to play around with that program this week when I have the time and I'll get back to you if I find there were no design specifications involved. By the looks of what I read, I wouldn't hold my collective breath.
Comment by computerist — July 19, 2008 @ 10:24 am
July 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am
TP:
Good luck with it. Everybody's got their favored hypotheses, not very many of them look like the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis. I figure there are a lot of mechanisms involved, and that no single one of them is responsible for evolution (all of them are). This is examination of the causal end of things, which NDS insists must be 'random' and evidence increasingly suggests it's not entirely or predominantly so.
But you already know that talking Movements around here will get you nowhere. Why keep harping on something that doesn't apply?
Comment by Joy — July 19, 2008 @ 11:26 am
July 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Hi Computerist,
If you are serious, please get the latest version, version 3.
It takes an electronic schematic and performs a layout of components and copper traces through trial and error.
This program is nothing special (its free), but I offer that when humans do the same function as this program there is no question that the effort is design.
It matters little whether the engineer doing the task understands the schematic's purpose or is conscious of why it is being made. It is design in that the information is created in the form of drawings that can be used to create something tangible. It is an intelligent process because the engineer learns from his/her/its mistakes and uses the knowledge to create something that does work.
The point is that "intelligent" was a brilliant choice for the purpose of a political/religious movement (vague enough to pass legal muster, yet recognizable by the faithful). However, the term doesn't describe want most people in TT are proposing.
This is an old argument at Telic Thoughts. The sub-title in the header says "Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design."
Note that it doesn't say the blog's purpose is to promote intelligent design. In fact, the About Us reads…
I get the impression that some people here would like Telic Thoughts to be more like Uncommon Descent in its complete and unquestioning support of the ID Movement. I do not. However, I have provided support in the form of a working hypothesis that is consistent with ID SCIENCE.
If you click on my name it will take you to a modest blog that might help you understanding my position. Try reading The Magic of Intelligent Design and Why they call me a Quantum Quack (The Third Choice) as positive proposals.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 19, 2008 @ 11:35 am
July 19th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Todd B.:
Same to you, Todd. Did you find any assertions that "God did it" in The Design Matrix? Please don't distract this thread into your pet sideshow. I'm not shy of holing distractions.
TT is not a 'movement' and isn't aiming to be a 'movement'. That's a darned strange idea to lob here. Sure, we could call it "Telic Design," but how is that definitionally different from "Intelligent Design?" Besides, critics would, as I mentioned, consider it ID anyway. So it would be pointless. The core idea is that variation, adaption and thus evolution is not random on the causal end. Moreover, selection doesn't always factor into the equation during the development of adaptations in a population.
Yet you lob your stereotype and expect us to absorb it as if your prejudice must rule our minds and understandings. I'm not fond of wannabe mind-tyrants.
Comment by Joy — July 19, 2008 @ 11:44 am
July 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
At the risk of validating Godwin's Law would you seriously consider arguments for something called "Eugenics" even if the proponents disavowed Hitler and other infamous people or programs that embraced it.
I notice that you carefully didn't offer that you disagreed with Wells, only implied it. Allow me to give you the opportunaty to comment on this stated position of a major Discovery Institute fellow…
"The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.
This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.
If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid."
link
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 19, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
TP, to answer you first point if I believed in eugenics it would not matter that infamous people also supported it. What would matter to me is whether or not the concept made sense.
One of the difficulties with the word Darwinism is its ambiguity. It means different things to different people and its meanings can be contradictory. Darwinism does entail materialism to some but clearly there are evolutionists who are not materialists. In addition is the origin of life encompassed by Darwinism? We know where Darwin stood on the matter although he did not spend a great deal of time on it. Evolution is a theory about which experiments can be conducted- the classic indicator of scientific endeavors. Experiments are conducted in the name of abiogenesis but it is my view that abiogenesis is protoscience- not rising to the level of a legitimate theory. Much more so than evolution, abiogenesis is a creation story. I believe it to be implausible without a telic component. It is also clear that materialists have cherry picked data as a battering ram against religion.
I would not have written what Wells did and would instead present my own version which has parallel complaints but also differs significantly from Wells.
Comment by Bradford — July 19, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
My dear Joy,
You wrote…
I was tempted to link to one of your more candid comments where you admonished me for expressing shocked by what I see with my backstage pass. But hopefully that won't be necessary.
We all aware of the dueling metaphysics and the power of popular support. "Movements" is what this is all about. And the current challenge is to decide what movement the blog Telic Thoughts is going to take now that Mike Gene is leaving.
As a friend, I implore you to show tolerance with your new found influence.
This thread practically compels a discussion about whether or not Telic Thoughts should be associating itself with a movement created and supported by the Discovery Institute and Dr. Dembski.
It is no surprise that there is a sudden increase in old ARN participants showing up at this time. Some people would be interested in encouraging Telic Thoughts to be more in line with other Pro-ID blogs now the that the rebellious Mike Gene is no longer on the scene.
Mike has had to walk a fine line. I have reason to believe Mike would have offered me a TT moderator position had I but asked. I didn't ask because I knew that wouldn't have been good for the future of Telic Thoughts.
But now, I think it might be a good time to give you a tough choice. If you make me a TT moderator there would be no question of TT becoming just another Uncommon Descent even if I never post a single thread. If you don't, you will have made a conscious choice.
Note, I have given you plenty of outs. This request is arrogant and rude. You also have the good old black ball tactic that you need a consensus to make a new moderator (like Bradford got?).
The ball is in your court.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 19, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
TP:
LOL!!! Oh, my. I'm pretty much wondering at this point if there needs to be a Telic Thoughts at all, and there's some support for that position. But either way, it's not up to me. Why, I lobbied hard to ban Raevmo at least six months ago, you see how far that got. Hell, I can't even edit my own posts or comments anymore!
Which, btw, is all the 'moderation' any of us allows ourselves. We're "contributors" rather than "moderators," I don't even check the queue (I suppose someone must).
And while I do enjoy your persona of iconoclast, you can't claim your take on the issues is any less political than mine. And my politics are definitely not popular around here. Mike asked me nicely to contribute a few years ago, and I'm almost sure there were objections he had to overcome before that overture. It might be time to move on, or maybe I just need a break. I'll let you know when I figure it out.
Besides, how many quantum hacks do they need? Mostly a non-issue, not as exciting as front-loading and now that Mike's gone, I don't expect EAM will get any more popular. Evolutionary sub-theories (even design sub-theories) are a dime a dozen. This thread (and the Altenberg thread) talk about what's actually happening out in science-land - change is now at hand. It can't be too ill-timed that change is in the offing here too.
Your request is here, I'll keep it in mind.
Comment by Joy — July 19, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
Thank you for your consideration.
I hope you will decide to continue with TT. I also wouldn't worry about us duplicating each other. While we agree on a lot, I think our approaches and styles are different enough to keep things very interesting at TT.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 19, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:
In his 7-8-08 blog reviewing Ken Millers new book, Bradley Monton, an atheist philosophy professor at the University of Colorado(Boulder) makes this observation about the “God did it” canard: (the one that TT critics continue to use over and over again ad nauseum.)
Monton seems to be a person who isn’t afraid in having some fair-minded discussion and debate about the topic of Intelligent Design. You have got to wonder what motivates the critics who continue with the tired old “God did it” canard. What are they afraid of?
How would changing the way we label ourselves change the thinking and attitudes of our critics? I think the suggestion we are the ones who need to make cosmetic changes is just another old tired canard.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 19, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Hi John,
You wrote…
The simple answer to a suggestion that an ID proponent's motivation is religious based is "so what?". The source of our motivation doesn't stop us from offering hypotheses and defending them. Our motivations don't make our arguments any more or less valid.
I have an explanation/hypothesis of why the term "Random Mutation" might not make sense. I suggest there is no such thing as randomness, everything is interconnected at the quantum level.
I have often used the phrase “God Did It” as a possibility to get it out of the way by bringing it out in the open. It doesn't matter if God or purposeless nature is behind the quantum effects; we can still debate the merits and challenges of these explanations. Likewise, it shouldn’t matter whether or not I distrust organized religions.
However, it's easier to throw stones at other people’s explanations than it is to defend your own.
It is even easier still to throw stones at stone throwers.
So, let's all put down our stones and present and defend our hypotheses.
Let's do Science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 19, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
July 20th, 2008 at 7:01 am
This is quite funny and true.
The truth is that the chance worshipers adapt the same way to science as Christians do in terms with Biblical scripture. Chance worshiping scripture is much easier understood, rolling dice over x period of time at y frequency and expecting working results, how convenient
Comment by computerist — July 20, 2008 @ 7:01 am
July 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
TP says:
Doesn't bother me a bit. The statement is largely a bit of trash talking. I've read analogous and worse stuff from ID critics.
But I understand it plays into your obsessions.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — July 20, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
July 20th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Hi RogerRabbitt,
Thank you for responding. I enjoy our exchanges.
As you are aware I make a distinction between the ID Movement and ID Science. While Mike Gene indicated this made me a "rather unique" critic in the positive sense, I wouldn't be surprised that you don't agree.
I am a critic of the ID Movement while providing support of ID Science.
It is easy to simply assert the existence of statements as opposed to providing quotes and links as I have. However, this is more than just quotemining "gotcha" statements. Dr. Wells isn't just another ID proponent. The quotes I provide go to show the overall goal of the movement promoted by the Discovery Institute clearly outlined in its Wedge Document…
"* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God." link
This is consistent with Dr. Well's "be afraid, very afraid" statement which I quoted and linked to earlier in this thread. Dr. Wells is a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.
Dr. Dembski is also a Senior Fellow. Here is a quote he posted on his web site on 16 June 2006…
"The problem is not that evolution implies God does't exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility."
Once again, this is consistant with the stated goal of replacing "…materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding".
Computerist's reaction is the honest and ethical one. It amounts to saying "so what?". He (she?) and I disagree and this subject, but it is an honest disagreement.
BTW, here is the link to what Dembski's statement was modified to after the implications of the original started being discussed in the blog sphere.
Dembski added a parenthetical that indicated that "…space aliens who seed the Earth, time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature are ID alternatives…" even if they are "…way down the totem pole for most people."
Whether it is way down on the totem pole or not of the ID Movement, these alternatives are what I see as ID SCIENCE. There is scientific evidence that life on Earth was a result of contamination from space. There is also scientific evidence that quantum mechanics can provide for telic organizing principles in nature.
ID Science is supposed to be about following the evidence wherever it leads, right?
ID Science isn't supposed to be limited to investigating only things that support the goal's of the Discovery Institute and its Senior Fellows, right?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 20, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
July 20th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
TP says:
Not really. I know you claim a lot of distinctions, but you don't really articulate any objective criteria for such distinctions. Kind of like the ethics you couldn't well define beyond what you like and what you don't.
Case in point being your take on Behe's new book.
I'm not sure what you think reeks of "ID movement" and what would be science. You go on to say:
There are numerous critics offering numerous criticisms, and this did address a subset of those. It surely didn't address all, and maybe not yours, but Behe chose those he thought worthy, and that he had good arguments and/or evidence for. Behe has the arguments he has based on the evidence he sees. Not sure that he wouldn't like clearer evidence and more positive arguments. But he only has what he has.
Now, since he is a Darwinian skeptic, like creationists are, it is surely technically true that he is using a "standard creationist tactic". Much as Bush critics are using a "standard Al Queda tactic" when they criticize Bush. And the same could be said of Clinton critics. But most folks see that labeling as deliberately provocative and disingenuous. It's either beyond the pale to question Darwinism or MET or whatever you want to call it, or it is not. And if it is out of bounds, can it still be science?
So though his books might inevitably bring some comfort to some creationists, I think Behe thinks that where the evidence leads. If he is just making stuff up, that is pretty easily demonstrated. But I don't see that criticsim. I see stuff like the things that you write, that has no substance and is largely ad hom, and criticism that he isn't pushing your idea or Mike Gene's. It's like criticizing the latest Batman movie because it isn't a nature documentary, because you like those. You can write your own book, just like Mike did.
And what makes you think Behe is "limiting" himself out of some concern for the "Movement". I see no evidence of that. A more rational view of Behe's relationship to the "movement" is that they have overlapping interests.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — July 20, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
July 20th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
That post might be a little off topic for this thread, so feel free to send it down the rabbit hole.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — July 20, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
July 20th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Hi RogerRabbitt,
Thank you for saving me the trouble of pointing out that my personal opinion of Behe's book isn't relevant to this discussion.
I am trying to keep the discussion revolving around the question Joy posed in the opening post. That is…
She might have meant it to be rhetorical, but I believe there is a point to separating the SCIENCE of ID from the movement and goals sought by the Discovery Institute and its fellows.
This plays directly into which direction Telic Thoughts will be taking now that Mike Gene is no longer at the helm.
This is more than an association with a label, it is about accepting an overriding goal.
Is Telic Thoughts going to continue to pursue a balanced treatment of the science of looking for purposeful design in life and nature, or is it going to become just another gathering point for culture warriors trying to replace "…materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" through the use of tailored scientific arguments?
The following is something I submitted to Uncommon Descent earlier today. It hasn't made it out of UD purgatory yet even though multiple comments have including two from Atticus Finch. I won't be surprised if it never surfaces. It is in response to a comment made by Paul Giem that was promoted to thread status by BarryA…
It would be a shame if Telic Thoughts became the type of blog where comments like this are discouraged.
P.S. to Joy. That is the point of having TT distance itself from the Discovery Institute's version of ID.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 20, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 5:13 pm
TP:
Actually, I agree with Roger that your criticisms are far too obviously political - your own participation as Culture Warrior - to offer any clear distinction one way or the other. Science does what science does, and will eventually follow the evidence even if the die-hards don't like it. The ID supporters who are scientists write about their take on the issues just like you do on internet forums like this.
The DI can have whatever goals it wants, and is free to work toward them all it likes. I don't mind, and you shouldn't either. All partisans on all sides have the very same freedom of speech, there's no need to upend the Constitution to make you happy. Meanwhile, science marches on. The die-hards don't weigh any more on PZ's end of the spectrum than they do on DI's end. Telic Thoughts exists to facilitate some independent thought, not to parrot anybody's talking points.
We need no overriding goal, TP. Far as I've been able to determine, no one here is aiming to start (or finish) a revolution. Some version of telic design will be incorporated into evolutionary biology if some version of telic design is operative in evolution. No one can invent it from scratch and make science believe it's science, and no one can stop science from embracing it if it's evident (and I believe it is). The way individuals choose to think about it is their own business. I for one dislike wannabe mind-tyrants enough not to try and be one myself.
I don't know. Maybe if there were fewer comments from culture warriors pushing their personal agendas, we'd all know the answer. But since neither you nor I is a paid-to-play researcher in evolutionary biology, what we have to say is going to be thought and opinion, not biological science. You'll have this on internet forums not restricted to a small group of research scientists, I see no reason to change it.
You can compliment Penrose on his theories all you like, TP. No one here has ever tried to stop you. He's written four-plus books about the subject anyone can purchase and read for themselves, just like books published by Dembski and Behe and Wells and such. Again, the science is the science, people are free to draw whatever inferences from it that tickles their fancy.
I still don't see the point. TT need not distance itself from DI because TT *is not* the DI and is not affiliated with the DI. The linkage is an inference you've drawn all on your own, and it obviously bothers you a lot. What you think doesn't bother me, because I don't care what inferences you draw in your culture war against all things DI. It impacts me not a bit, and is almost as boring as your harping on Penrose's completely non-empirically demonstrable Theory of Everything. String theories aren't a big subject here either, you'll notice. There's no point, though I'm sure there's some Yahoo groups out there talking endlessly about them. Ho, hum.
Roger Penrose has not demonstrated scientifically that consciousness exists at all, much less is responsible for all things that exist in our corner of space-time. That it sounds good and might account for the obvious teleology in life and evolution is of mere passing interest. It is not going to end the culture war that never ends, and if you were to look at it realistically, you'd know that.
Simply repeating "there's no such thing as randomness" is a little like ruby slippers and "there's no place like home." It's not going to impress metaphysical materialists who depend upon random causation to support their religious views, and it's nothing new to metaphysical spiritualists who already believe everything has a cause. The dueling metaphysics goes on unabated, always will.
Comment by Joy — July 21, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Hi Joy,
It sounds like you have made your choice. I can't say that I am overly surprised, but I had to at least try. I owed you that much.
FWIW, here is my prediction…
With Mike Gene gone, the scientific discussions on Telic Thoughts will become faint echoes of "Gene Gems" that Bradford and others will try to prop up. However, everyone is aware that none of the contributors (definitely not Bradford) will offer tangible hypotheses much less defend them. Mike's Front Loading and Design Matrix proposals were something tangible. It is what made Telic Thoughts unique, that and a tolerance for dissenting opinions.
How many open Rabbit threads do you think are going to occur now that Mike Gene is gone?
How many times have Mike and I had heated discussions in one thread only to have Mike promote one of my comments in another thread to a Guest Post?
Open, honest conflict isn't a bad thing. It is a form of communication. Different views have been brought out and information has been exchanged, thanks to Mike's openness.
Because of Mike's willingness to share the TT microphone, people have learned more than the latest Culture War gossip. For example, I think we (you included) managed to provide some useful scientific information about Quantum Mechanics and how it might play a role in life.
The ID Movement can, and probably will, prevail because things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. The religious movement has been eating away at the foundations, setting up their network and gathering followers. The Movement's leaders are patient, like you. But they aren't waiting for the science. Science isn't what is going to get them into power. It is politics. The political pendulum is swinging and its amplitude is growing. If you don't think we can end up with a president worse than GW Bush when the pendulum swings their way again, you are fooling yourself.
Are you really sure you really want to encourage division "unabated"?
Let me close by restating the TT About Us…
We are a group of individuals, coming from diverse backgrounds and not speaking for any organization, who have found common ground around teleological concepts, including intelligent design. We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 21, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
TP:
Mike's ideas have been favorably mentioned many times by me and other TTers since his last post. His ideas have been mentioned less favorably by some critics. Noone including me can duplicate Mike's unique style and considerable substance. But I don't see his critics flocking to support front loading either.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 am
TP:
Tangible hypotheses are already existent, and incoming studies occasionally lend strength to those hypotheses. Much cutting edge work on configuration design, MT biophysics and state-switchers is proprietary these days, we don't read about it in the daily science press. We do get the weekly dose of "challenges dogma" or "outside Neodarwinian predictions" or like-minded codewords.
There are likely to be many more telic mechanisms of evolution than there are Neodarwinian mechanisms (which consist of RM-NS). Many mechanisms contributing to the process that are recognized as *not* random are already present in modern evolutionary biology, better understandings and tools will return more. Front-loading looks like a fine hypothesis for the 'surprising' incoming evidence that evolvability may be a quality of all cellular life forms on earth. Irreducible complexity is actually incorporated (with careful wording) in the functional definition of the ever-popular critic's cop-out concept, emergence. Epigenetics - the idea that there's a whole other level of inherited trait-shaping chemical coding on top of the inadequate number of genes in our DNA - is also enjoying great interest and research funding these days, lending support for the EAM hypothesis. Then there's chromatin biophysics, histone coding, etc., etc., etc.
The culture warriors joined the army to defend their metaphysics, not to defend science. Creationists were never any serious threat to science, even less as the power of modern science grows. It's only when science no longer serves the public's interests that it's threatened, and when that happens it's threatening itself. The public doesn't have to support it, and won't if they don't get what they want/need out of it. Sure, funding across the board is going to suffer as economic recession throws millions out on the streets and tens of millions out of work. They've much, much more important things to think about than whether evangelical atheists and evangelical Christians still hate each other.
You can dissent all you like. There's no guarantee it'll fly, since this isn't the Swamp. Nor is it PZ's Happy Hate-Fest. Or even the amen choir at UD. But unless you're seriously off-topic or fouling the nest or playing games, it'll usually stand.
I'm not that fond of rabbits. But I am fond of poodles, Maine coon cats and nubian goats. Open threads aren't that hard to post. Nor are guest posts.
Oh, alarmist twaddle! After nearly 8 years of Neocons this country can't go any farther into the pockets of the religious right without courting revolution. No, the public isn't getting what it wants/needs or even hopes for from science anymore. And it's not just the grand weekly promises that this researcher or that is on the verge of curing cancer (or ALS or Alzheimer's or whatever). The people no longer have basic health care - you know, the kind where you can get your broken bones set and your cuts stitched and your infection cured with antibiotics. Even if you've got insurance they won't pay, there are a dozen RICO suits out there right now charging them with racketeering. The Bushies have skewed the funding so badly it's a wonder anything gets done. Our current ranking in life expectancy - #47 - makes the point blindingly clear.
Even the religious right is turning. We all really do understand that we NEED science if we want to live in a modern world with nice stuff and a chance to reach retirement age. But we need food, clothing, shelter and transportation more.
Comment by Joy — July 22, 2008 @ 12:38 am
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:11 am
P.S. I haven't read Behe's books or Dembski's or Wells' or any actual ID books, The Design Matrix was my first. Thus I'm no expert on this 'movement' you love to hate. But I did read all three of Penrose's 1990s books on consciousness and Orch-OR. And Erwin Schrodinger's What Is Life?
It was published in 1944, a classic of the twentieth century. See, the physics of biology has been an aspect of life known to be definitive for a long time. The concept of order from order is an insight that echoes across the field and sub-fields of biophysics to this day. Manifestation is mostly habit. The habit is, in the case of life, telic in nature and in a systems sense. Illya Prigogine's Order Out of Chaos is also a must. I don't know if either of these scientists are atheist or religious, but see, when you're doing actual science, it doesn't matter.
It is entirely evident to me that life designs itself with some sense of purpose. It strives mightily to adapt, survive and reproduce even though it's essentially a 100% fatal condition of matter. Always has been evident. I don't need anyone's approval to know that for myself, and I don't need the atheist corner of biology's bad boyz club to confirm it for me. I'd just like science to do what it does best - follow the evidence, produce useful knowledge. Insisting on random causation for who and what we are is never going to cure what ails us. Some understanding of what goes right with us could tell us a lot about how to handle what goes wrong. Biology with purpose. It won't hurt science a bit.
Comment by Joy — July 22, 2008 @ 1:11 am