Cleaning Up The Mess
by MikeGeneOver at The Questionable Authority, Mike Dunford issues the following blanket statement:
The Intelligent Design folks, on the other hand, loudly declare that they are indifferent to religion every chance that they get. They have no choice. Their mission is to destroy good science education for every child in the public schools of America, and they can't do that if they are obviously driven by religious motives.
Since I'm often on the receiving end of such sloppy stereotypes, and I can only speak for myself, I thought I'd better clean up the mess and set the record straight.
According to Dunford's logic, the reason I won't fess up to being "driven by religious motives" is because it would undercut my mission to destroy good science education. There is one problem with this argument – I have no mission to destroy good science education. Neither do I have a mission to insert ID into the public school classrooms. Neither do I have a mission to "teach the controversy" or point out "problems" with evolution in the public school classrooms. On the contrary, I publicly opposed teaching ID in the classrooms years before any Dover decision. Duh. And besides, have we forgotten that we live in the post-wedge world, where a federal judge has powerfully ruled that ID cannot be taught in the schools? Since ID is dead as a "wedge," what sense does it make to keep "hiding" those religious motivations?
Thus, according to the Logic of Dunford, even though I have always opposed teaching ID in the schools, and even though a federal judge has ruled that you cannot teach ID in the schools, I supposedly won't fess up about my super-secret religious motivations because I am on a mission to destroy science by getting ID taught in the schools. After all, I'm just an IDiot.
Yet as you can see, the effulgent conclusion of "they have no choice" does not apply to me. Oh, oh. Now what shall the critics do? How shall they prop up their quest to portray me as someone who is dishonest? I have explained the clear logic of the concept of ID, where a design inference does not mandate a religious assumption or conclusion, but that point does not fit into their rhetorical template and is thus ignored. So what can they do? According to the critical thinking skills of the critics, my unwillingness to fess up about my religious motives MUST be a function of my dishonesty. Remember folks, most ID critics are enslaved to a stereotype where ALL proponents of ID MUST be either stupid, deluded, or dishonest. Stereotypes to the rescue!
[At this point, because most critics think in simplistic terms, I better point out that I am not defending/describing the ID movement or its leaders. I am defending myself against the stereotypes and rhetoric of the critics. I know it's silly that I have to point this out, but I'm dealing with critics, y'know.]
Yet there is always one part that is missing from the critic's rhetorical finger-pointing: details. I have learned from experience that critics love to make ambiguous, self-righteous accusations. But if I am supposed to have these religious motivations for proposing ID, why don't the critics spell out my religious motivations? What are they? They think they know that I have them, but for some odd reason, they are awfully reluctant to spell them out. So please dear critics, tell me what it is that motivates me. Let me help:
MikeGene's religious motivations for proposing ID are……..
August 7th, 2007 at 10:37 am
I had the same reaction, more or less, when I read Dunford's post"”it was an exercise in gross stereotyping. I too count myself among those who are ID-friendly and yet completely dedicated to the ideal of a complete and rigorous scientific curriculum in the public schools.
You may be right that we live in a "post-wedge world," but (1) I think there are quite a few who haven't gotten the memo and (2) even if true, it is a world struggling under the weight of considerable baggage. The intersection between Christianity and science was, not long ago, a pristine and largely non-controversial landscape (nobody cared if we saw God in the data, in fact they (atheists) enjoyed the discussions.) Now, however, the tactics and incompetent leadership of the ID movement has bequeathed to the rest of us something more resembling a Bosnian mine field.
Comment by David Heddle — August 7, 2007 @ 10:37 am
August 7th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Dunford and his ilk live in a fantasy world where IDists are defined any way you wish to define them. Imagination is the only limit to demonization. The same mentality that brought forth the great right wing conspiracy mongering of the 90s provides fertile ground for believing IDists constitute a threat to science education.
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2007 @ 10:57 am
August 7th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I have wondered about the percentages of different types of IDists. I suspect that 90% are of the conservative Christian culture war variety, especially when you consider their number of followers. Demski-Behe can always get a hearing in a church, that's where the numbers are. They may or may not understand we are in a post-wedge world, but they will continue the culture war because that's what this was and will always be about for them. They are religionists at heart, not scientists. So, I can understand the unfair stereotyping. Especially, when you add in the fact that ID opponents don't appear to want to be especially fair or discriminating regarding the smaller percentage of IDists who do not fit the description mentioned above. So, yes, the critics are biased and distorted. They are mirror-images of their counterparts on the other end of the spectrum.
Then, there's Heddle, who in my understanding occupies the most unique position of all. A conservative-Calvinist (correct me if I'm wrong) who must be experienced as an enemy in the camp by many of his fellow ID religionists. Heddle, keep it up. Interesting, he's a physicist. What's up with these physicists? Are they the only scientists who can be trusted with science and metaphysics in this debate?
Comment by bj — August 7, 2007 @ 11:20 am
August 7th, 2007 at 11:52 am
As you can tell from my moniker, I haven't gotten the memo about the death of the wedge. I believe the wedge is mostly a reaction to a long existing entrenchment and dominance of secular liberalism in academia and if the wedge is loosely defined as a return to the intersection of faith and science being a non-controversial landscape then long live the wedge. There is a real opposition to conservative and religious thought and beliefs that many of us would like to see change and I hope that Dover is not the final word. ID has always been around and it is not going away but it is going to be resisted no matter how competent your leadership or how you package it. Ask Mike Gene
Comment by WedgeHead — August 7, 2007 @ 11:52 am
August 7th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Hi David,
That would not matter as a Judge's decision placed us in the post-wedge world. ID itself was the wedge, as it was supposed to be the concept that would wedge itself into the public school curriculum for socio-political objectives (the theocracy that is always supposed to be on the horizon. That ain't going to happen and thus you'll notice the critics seem a little lost without the hard edge of a plausible threatiness. Ergo, post-wedge world.
But anyway, it looks to me like the movement people did get the memo, as ID has been dropped in their most recent attempts to influence the public school curriculum. Now it seems to be about finding "problems" with evolution.
From where I sit, that has always been there. When I first became interested in ID and argued about it, no one knew of any Wedge and the socio-political dimension was barely detectable. Yet most of the baggage was still there (we're talking about a design argument among many people who are increasingly coming out as Dawkins followers; consider Myers as the prototype). When the ID movement began making a move on the schools, and the Wedge became known, this merely served to turn up the volume, as it functioned to validate the baggage. All that that socio-political activity not only drowned out the concept, but enabled critics to easily dismiss the concept, as it was never strong enough to support the agenda.
There is no doubt the movement itself has poisoned the water. When we hear about "most scientists rejecting ID as complete nonsense," we need to remember that most scientists were introduced to ID through the newspaper stories about the school rooms or President Bush's pandering that received much attention. Those who dug a little deeper because of this were guided by the NCSE types, who clearly were fighting politics with politics. So yes, a Bosnian mine field now exists.
But what the heck, my life has long been a Bosnian mine field, so I guess I'm pretty well adapted to it. In fact, there are some enjoyable aspects of the mine field. For example, while I try to rely on critical thinking as I explore such concepts in an open-minded and open-ended fashion, I find that most of those who oppose me come from a position of stereotypes, emotion, and closed-mindedness. That's pretty handy when you are dealing with a Herd. Besides, scientists pride themselves on their critical thinking skills. Is it too much to ask them to practice what they preach, or is it permissible to abandon critical thinking when it comes to the concept of ID?
Comment by MikeGene — August 7, 2007 @ 11:55 am
August 7th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Hi bj,
Sure, but that doesn't excuse it. People like Dunford pride themselves on their critical thinking skills. But if you rely on stereotyping, you have abandoned critical thinking.
Comment by MikeGene — August 7, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Hi WedgeHead,
It is controversial because many have become convinced that science excludes, not only possible inferences to a creator, but any inference that, as one anti-theist put it, "allows a divine foot in the door." This means that David Heddle's hope that negative consequences of an ID movement could have been averted were doomed at the outset. It is just not kosher to invoke teleology or intelligence as part of a causal explanation. There is that problem of the foot in the door that must be taken care of at all costs. If it can't be done based on arguments from data then conjure up some threatiness instead.
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Hi Mike, regarding ID critics stereotyping:
Yes, your right, especially when you make critical thinking a hallmark of your particular approach to life.
I am one who believes that prior metaphysics and the needs of human nature are the baseline predominant experience of humanity. Most of our supposed critical thinking serves those biases and needs. Which is another way of saying I don't trust my own and anybody elses critical thinking all that much. I would ask, '"how does your supposed critical thinking serve your own human need." So, when Dunford does this, it doesn't surprise me so much. Same with when Dembski does it. Or for that matter anyone. As I have said before, we are, at heart, all metaphysicists living within the needs of human nature. It's clear the scientistic Dunfords and their kind don't understand this. I think the religionists do. But, then you have to watch for the "God is on my side" crowd.
Having said all that, we do all try to think as best we can. I am grateful to anyone who can help me in that process. We agnostics can use all the help we can get.
Comment by bj — August 7, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Bradford,
If you mean that any movement that tried to get ID-as-science in the science classroom would have, to say the least, ruffled feathers, then I agree. Indeed, it was exactly this ploy, an attempt to get ID in the classroom, an ill-conceived culture-war blitzkrieg whose motivation came from somewhere other than scripture (which teaches no such tactic) that was the movement's biggest disaster. Now it is true that the adverse fallout from the effort was magnified by the especially inept management by people like Dembski, but you are correct that any effort along those lines would have created antagonism.
If, however, you mean that simply popularizing design themes as apologetic arguments would have inevitably met organized resistance, then I disagree. From personal experience, I participated in many friendly design-like discussions in science class, and enjoyed contemplating (at the time, as an unbeliever) comments from science professors about, for example, how "lucky we are" that the law of gravitation is an inverse square law. This was in both private and public secular universities. When I taught at the university level, I used to hold an optional class on things like fine-tuning"”and it never raised an eyebrow (and was well-attended.)
That was then, this is now.
I'll be going back to a university position in January. Even though I will have tenure, I will not behave as I did before. You can blame the secular materialist world for being intolerant. I blame the ID leaders for poisoning the well. If they were offensive for the sake of the gospel, that'd be fantastic. But clearly they had other motivations.
Comment by David Heddle — August 7, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Most of the "criticism" I've seen is crankery and quackery.
What criticism, Mike Gene, do you find most salient, most telling, what criticism have you received that you've taken to heart, that made you wonder"¦? In what way have your critics contributed to your understanding? How have they changed some of your opinions?
When do you agree with your critics?
Comment by Rock — August 7, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
O boy, let me play! The answer is "fighting atheism".
Comment by Aagcobb — August 7, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
HAHAHA!!! Pretty funny.
David Heddle:
Is it just the leadership of the ID movement to blame for the current state of affairs? You can't just blame Dembski. Even when Berlinski was criticizing the strict materialist views his critics were quick to assume motives on his part. Numerous times Berlinski would have to vindicate himself in print by claiming, "I'm an agnostic Jew!".
You can't waive off the actions of a Dunford by saying it's reactionary to a supposedly intolerant Dembski…. because maybe a Dembski acted the way he did because of a seemingly intolerant E.O. Wilson or Dawkins.
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Hi Rock,
Those are good questions, but I'm sorry to say precious little. For a criticism to make me wonder, to contribute to my understanding, or to change my opinions, it would have to be an informed criticism and raise something I had not considered before. To do this, at a minimum, the critic would have to make an effort to familiarize himself with my views and make an effort to understand those views. The vast majority of critics fail in this regard, such that the vast majority of criticism that comes my way stems from uninformed stereotypes and lashes out at my supposed sins.
Luckily, I do not come to the table as a True Believer with an Agenda, as I happen to be the most significant critic of my own views. This explains why I certainly do not consider my views to be science, why I don't go around demanding that others think as I do, and have long admitted there is a very good chance that a crank such as myself is fundamentally wrong. The thing that keeps me going is that I've yet to determine that anyone else truly knows anything of significance about this topic.
Comment by MikeGene — August 7, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Hi All,
This thread is going a lot better than I would have thought from the opening post.
In another thread Mike pointed out I was "rather unique" in distinguishing my opinion of the ID Movement from science, including the science behind ID.
I suggest the discourse of this thread shows that I may not be that unique.
For example, besides being more tactful, David Heddle's comments have a lot in common with mine. He even shares my opinion of Dembski.
There are people, like me, who recognize that the Many World quantum interpretation and an Unidentified Intelligent Designer interpretation are both metaphysical and treat them both similarly.
Mike, I don't know why you seem to have a preference for an Unidentified Intelligent Designer any more than I understand why some physicists have a preference for the Many World interpretation. Granted, the Unidentified Intelligent Designer interpretation has more proponents among the general populous (in the Billions), but you know of my fears/concerns about succumbing to Group Think.
Admittedly, I am probably more concerned than you of the dangers I see in the boldness that is occurring in the name of religion. The "Under God" pledge, the "in God we Trust" motto, unchallengeable "Faith-based initiatives" and the recent Slidel Case are all examples of things feel are signs of trouble.
Unfortunately, the ID Movement is tied up in it. The movement's actions and pronouncements make it clear…
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
Dr. Wells said this well after the Dover trial (Sept, 2006) and though I may not be a Darwinist, attitudes like this make me afraid, very afraid.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 7, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Let me get this straight. Are you saying, "MikeGene's religious motivations for proposing ID are fighting atheism!"?
If so, then yes, by all means, let's play.
Comment by MikeGene — August 7, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
So am I the only here who doesn't know what "effulgent" means?
Comment by Bilbo — August 7, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Hi TP,
Was there something wrong with the opening post?
That's why I said "rather unique" and not "unique." Yes, during my experience of arguing with 100s of ID critics, I have run across five or six that are able to make the distinction between the ID movement and the concept of ID. Most can't.
Actually, the Unidentified Intelligent Designer could be unidentified intelligent designers. I've written about these issues many times, so I don't know why you don't know.
Yes, it is not surprising that religious people would be more attracted to an attempt to detect the products of intelligent design than Richard Dawkins' views of evolution (especially since it is becoming clear there is a lot of hate in that particular Trojan Horse). But the Billions are about as relevant to my views on ID as Richard Dawkins' bigotry is relevant to your views on atheism. I, of course, can make such distinctions and don't attempt to define you in the light of Dawkins. Most critically thinking critics can't make such distinctions and rely on the Billions as their Guiding Light.
We've been through this before. Shall we again remind people how bold religion has been in America's recent past?
So you have been terrified by Wells' chest-thumping. Such is threatiness. But let me gently suggest you are being paranoid. Better yet, it's like you have a phobia. Why would I say that? Have you ever known a true phobic? I'm not talking about someone with a fear of this or that, but a genuine phobia. If so, what is a defining feature of their phobia? It's called an addiction to confirmation bias. Phobics obsess on their fear and are constantly looking for reasons to remain afraid (the confirmation bias). A calm, scientific approach does not work with them, because they are only interested in things that support their phobia. Let me suggest your laundry list of concerns listed above qualify as confirmation bias.
Comment by MikeGene — August 7, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
David Heddle:
Your account of what was previously possible is not disputed. Neither is the change in climate precipitated by the arising of ID. I think you and I disagree as to the ultimate cause of the change. The immediate cause was the public school fiasco. My own view is that public schools will teach the reigning scientific paradigms of an era and that any attempt to displace one with another that has not attained consensus status is doomed to failure. If that is true it demands a restraint, fostered by wisdom, on the part of IDists.
My encounters with ID critics however, has convinced me that when ID amasses a certain level of support (my critical mass theory) it arouses opposition that is grounded in metaphysical values that are mirror opposites of the metaphysical views of most (but not all) IDists. IOW, ID bashing was inevitable even if Dover never took place. Linking science to a causal scenario that, in the words of a TT member, "is not strictly atheistic" is intolerable.
You had access to things about which I was not privy. I recall the initial coverage of Professor Johnson when he wrote his books years before Dover. It was relatively benign stuff by a mainstream media that was bemused because they thought he was a Sancho Panza. Anti-ID intolerance was conceived out of a fear that ID, if unopposed, would threaten some core values that critics live by.
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
This is hard to justify. Michael Egnor, Michael Behe, Denyse O'Leary, Francis Beckwith can hardly be viewed as having any sort of conspiriacy to teach their religious views in public school. I'm sorry to even have to comment on their religious affilliations as that is their business, but in their defense, conisdering their background, it would be hard to associate them with a movement to teach their religious views in public schools.
Their denomination has never been known to be advocating that whatsoever. Dunford is projecting protestant fundamentalism onto roman catholics.
It's almost comical, and shows his willingness project his imagination onto people.
Dr. Michael Egnor took exception:
Dunford, Darwinism, and the Paranoid Style
If Dunford thinks the Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Agnostics in the ID movement can even hypothetically conspire to inject their religious views into public school, he's totally out to lunch.
Not only has Dunford made a mess with people like Mike Gene, he's made a mess with the Behe's, Egnor's, O'Leary's, and other Catholics within the realm of ID.
He's projecting the actions of the Dover creationists onto the ID proponents in the Discovery Institute, projecting protestant fundamentalism onto catholics. Ludicrous!
PS
Despite this, mike remains one of my favorite critics…don't mean to totally trash the guy
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 7, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
The treatment of evolution I had in high school biology wouldn't be allowed under a strict reading of the Kitzmiller decision, which ruled that intelligent design couldn't be taught in science class.
When I took high school biology, we spent a whole quarter on evolution. The very first day, the teacher talked about theories of origins. She mentioned, without enumeration, religious stories of origins. A student asked something like, "You mean like Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden?" And the teacher noted that there were various religious stories, again without elaboration.
She went on to explain that most scientists didn't believe these stories, and that what we'd learn in class was the theory of Charles Darwin. She didn't say that these other stories were wrong, only that it wasn't what most scientists believed and that it wasn't what we'd be studying in class.
As with almost all my HS science classes, we had some historical context, which meant that in order to understand Darwin, we had to understand that before embarking on the Beagle, he was what we would today call a creationist. We discussed Bishop Paley and the argument from design, which would also be a no-no post Kitzmiller.
The judge seemed to think that this sort of thing could be taught in a "history of science" class, but not in a "science" class. Does he understand that these are not always treated as distinct courses? If we are prohibited from teaching ID in science class because it's obsolete science, why is nobody complaining about learning theories that the sun revolves the earth, that metals when heated give off "phlogiston," or that maggots arise spontaneously from decaying meat? I learned all these theories in HS science class, and I imagine they are still being taught.
The orthodox stance, that of the NAS and NCSE, is that ID is not science because it's non-falsifiable using the scientific method. Logically, if a proposition is non-falsifiable, it might be true. Why can't they teach at least that much? I mean, without marching down the hallway to a "history of science" class. Under Kitzmiller, you can't even teach that much, or it so it seems by my reading.
Comment by rachelrachel — August 7, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
rachelrachel:
Adding relevant historic background information as a setup to discussion of evolution is smart teaching. To have to segment that or relegate it to a history class is an object lesson on the foolishness of judicial micromanagement of our educational system.
The answer is that science must be defined so as to forbid any idea that allows for "a divine foot in the door."
Not much thought was put into that position. Anti-IDism is a magnet for those with an arrogant bent.
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Hi Mike,
I wrote "This thread is going a lot better than I would have thought from the opening post."
You responded…
"Wrong" isn't the right word. "More of the same" comes closer. Just more pots calling kettles black.
The Discovery Institute complains about Mike Dunford, Telic Thoughts complains about Mike Dunford. Just another skirmish in the ID/Darwin wars where you try to demonize the enemy.
Nothing necessarily "wrong", just nothing new.
However, this time the comments were unusually thoughtful. We probably have David Heddle to thank for that.
Whether one designer or multiple designers, it is still metaphysics. You have complained about others not embracing NOMA. I don't understand why you appear to mix the metaphysical with front loading science.
I wrote…."Admittedly, I am probably more concerned than you of the dangers I see in the boldness that is occurring in the name of religion. The "Under God" pledge, the "in God we Trust" motto, unchallengeable "Faith-based initiatives" and the recent Slidel Case are all examples of things feel are signs of trouble."
Yes, please do.
You seem terrified by Dawkin's chest-thumping. He isn't even in this country.
Pot meet kettle.
And your list of actions by naughty critics isn't?
I don't have to go looking. My information makes headlines.
The Supreme Court of the United States hands the President a free pass to promote religion in violation of the first amendment (as long as it is done via an "executive order").
My noticing it is "confirmation bias".
————————————-
A non-american sells a "t-shirt that looks like a uniform".
Your noticing it means there is "…a serious angle on it all" as
"…an example where the end justifies the means, such that if one has to mimic religiosity to have influence, Dawkins and his followers are willing to go down that slippery slope."
————————————-
A Judge in the town of Slidell hangs a painting of Jesus holding an open bible above the words "obey these laws" in a government building (court house). Legal scholars agree that it is a clear violation of the first amendment under long established legal precedent even so there is a likelihood the current Supreme Court will allow it.
My noticing it is "confirmation bias".
————————————-
A relatively minor blogger suggests the ID MOVEMENT (he used that term multiple times) is about religion and backs his opinion up with quotes from ID Movement Leaders.
Your noticing it means his logic applies to you, personally.
————————————-
This somehow adds up to me being the one with the phobia.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 12:40 am
August 8th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Hi TP,
You should have taken the time to actually read the blog entry. I wrote:
and
Pointing out that someone else's stereotypes don't apply to me is not "demonizing," TP. Demonizing is accusing a religious parent of being a child abuser. Do you see the difference?
Indeed. And what did David say? "I had the same reaction, more or less, when I read Dunford's post"”it was an exercise in gross stereotyping."
Was that an observation rooted in metaphysics?
Yes, that's how it appears to you.
Okay, for starters, how about a few questions. Did the public schools ever allow prayer in the class room? Was abortion ever illegal? Did censors ever keep any mention of sex off the TV?
You are the one who said, "Dr. Wells said this well after the Dover trial (Sept, 2006) and though I may not be a Darwinist, attitudes like this make me afraid, very afraid." In contrast, I'm not frightened by Dawkins' attitudes. He is a clown who stirs up some traffic and debate around here. He's also fairly representative of many ID critics who actually think it's all about "the evidence."
My experience with critics teaches me that most rely on stereotypes. It is thus necessary to periodically set the record straight at the place I hang out. Why do you have a problem with that?
Headlines are designed to sell and phobics buy it up.
Sure. Why don't you notice that it was a lot easier to promote religion when you were a young boy?
Indeed. It ties directly into the question of whether or not human beings have been hard-wired by evolution to be religious. If Dawkins and his followers, of all people, are so quickly willing to walk the quasi-religious road, it speaks to humanity's inherent religious nature. You might notice this is something I have brought up around here.
Sure. Why not notice that if this happened 50 years ago, it probably would not be controversial?
Er, no, what I demonstrated is that his logic would fail to apply to me personally. Like I said, I need to periodically clean up the mess, as most critics are prone to being influenced by such stereotypes and then apply them to me. I'm not running over to Dunford's blog to chew him out, now am I? I'm also a relatively minor blogger informing my readers that such memes don't apply to me.
That's how it looks to me. Look, I'm not trying to be offensive here, as you are clearly very passionate about the socio-political stuff. I'm just pointing out that these stereotypes don't apply to me and defending myself against the slimy attempt to imply I am dishonest because I don't confess my supposed super-secret religious motives. In fact, I asked the critics to spell out these religious motives of mine, yet despite their expertise at mind-reading, they predictably failed to deliver. It's not the first time.
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2007 @ 1:32 am
August 8th, 2007 at 7:28 am
A short discussion of the history of scientific ideas and how they relate to the process of scientific discovery, and then answering questions from class are *not* unconstitutional. Having a mandatory statement purposefully and deceptively conflating science and creationism under the guise of "Intelligent Design" (as found in Kitzmiller) *is* unconstitutional.
It depends on the exact statement of "Intelligent Design". But such claims have either been found to be false, unfalsifiable or fill-in-the-blanks concerning Gaps in human scientific knowledge.
A few, such as MikeGene, speculate, but carefully avoid making specific claims. Speculation is an important component of developing scientific ideas. But as Francis Crick pointed out, The lesson is clear: speculation is fun, but even correct hypotheses without experimental follow-up are unlikely to have much effect on the development of biology.
Sure. But it still wouldn't be science.
You might try talking to your comparative religion, philosophy, or history teachers. If you have personal faith-based or spiritual questions, you could talk to your parents or family pastor.
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2007 @ 7:28 am
August 8th, 2007 at 8:21 am
There are many valid statements that are not scientific,
… such as those often found in philosophy or the arts.
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2007 @ 8:21 am
August 8th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Hi Zachriel,
You wrote: There are many valid statements that are not scientific
I think this is an excellent point. Whether or not my views qualify as science is not all that relevant to their validity. And this ties in nicely to the Crick quote you just supplied:
Yes, it is possible that correct hypotheses may not become part of science. To derive experimental follow-up, one requires sufficient genius to conceive the experiments and sufficient instrumentation to deliver the relevant information. And even apart from these considerations, it may be that there will never be sufficient information in the present and future to determine what happened billions of years ago.
So was life designed and was it designed to front-load evolution? Who knows? Even if this is a correct hypothesis, maybe science will never be able to determine this. The main complaint about my hypothesis is that it cannot be distinguished from conventional, non-telic views, which is another way of saying there is nothing scientifically invalid about it.
But I dare say that Crick is thinking in one dimension here. While a correct hypothesis may be beyond experimental follow-up in a direct sense, perhaps it is possible for such correct hypotheses to generate a nest of subsidiary hypotheses than can be followed-up.
Thus, it's not about culture wars, its not about religious apologetics, its not about determining the Truth, its about "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."
After all, one can fill their belly with something other than the high-hanging fruit.
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2007 @ 8:50 am
August 8th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Hi Mike,
For your information, I have been posting on Salvador's blog recently and have managed to be a little too provocative for his tastes (this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone). He politely let me know that by outlining how his policy is different from Telic Thoughts. Here is my response…
Don't worry, this is just a side note…
I will get around to responding to your latest entry in the provocative manner it deserves later.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 8:51 am
August 8th, 2007 at 9:38 am
I daresay this statement implies an intent towards scientific validity:
Looking for "clues" indicates a search for empirical support. The validity of your ideas would then depend on the ability to garner scientific evidence in order "to proceed beyond suspicion".
The examples I provided, such as 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty', are outside the bounds of science.
True. However, the scientific evidence strongly supports the Theory of Evolution, and there are significant indications that life originated spontaneously on the primordial Earth.
That's a very significant objection. We can always suppose Intelligent Design in Gaps of human knowledge. If your "hypothesis" doesn't lead to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions"”at least in principle"”then it is scientifically vacuous.
I am certain that Crick knows about indirect evidence: Nearly all scientific evidence is indirect. Eppur si muove. When Crick speculated about panspermia, he was proposing something that might have left empirical evidence that could be uncovered either in a study of extant genomes, or perhaps in space. He has since distanced himself from the idea saying, Nowadays we would have a more open mind about the nature of the first replicating system… We did not seriously consider the possibility that there was a midwife, a replicating pre-RNA world…
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2007 @ 9:38 am
August 8th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Get over yourself.
Sal has been willing to engage people in discussion for years. I've seen him being polite to others who have bashed his character, admit when he is wrong, and admit when he doesn't 'know' the answers.
Comment by Doug — August 8, 2007 @ 10:02 am
August 8th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Hi MikeGene,
Yes, as I understood your post, we are playing the game "complete the sentence." However, it doesn't look like anyone else is playing.
I'm glad you'll play with me! 
Comment by Aagcobb — August 8, 2007 @ 10:50 am
August 8th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Hi Doug,
You wrote…
Excuse me if I didn't make myself clear. I like Salvador. I have even said kind things about him on Pandas Thumb (you can imagine the reaction that induced).
The reason it shouldn't be a surprise that I was too provocative for Salvador's tastes is because I am provocative, not because Salvador is overly intolerant.
It is old news that you consider me arrogant. I suspect you don't like me very much, but that's ok. I happen to have a generally favorable opinion of you.
During the great Smokey/Bradford debates you were earnestly trying to keep up. You even asked a few probing questions. You were so impressed with how Bradford handled himself you recommended his promotion to TT moderation status. That was admirable. While I found it noteworthy that you didn't show much, if any, appreciation of Smokey's contribution, it was understandable considering your obvious alliances.
It is also admirable that I frustrate you so. I look forward to your comments. I wish you would offer more of them. Even if is to point out my failings.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 11:24 am
August 8th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Hi Doug,
After I hit the send button I notice I wrote "It is also admirable that I frustrate you so." which isn't quite what I wanted to say. Unfortunately, for some reason I couldn't edit it.
I meant to say…
"It is also admirable that I irritate you so, it means you think for yourself."
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 11:33 am
August 8th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
This is nice, but it wasn't my intention to show that you didn't like him or wouldn't say nice things about him.
I believe that I understood it as such.
Not too old. I just started thinking it a few months ago.
There's quite a few people who I believe to be arrogant that I still like. There are alot of things about you that I do like. As much as I think that I know about you, I can honestly say that I don't dislike you.
Trying my best.
While I can't completely disagree with this, much of my strong opinion towards Smokey wasn't so much his views but his attitude and some of his tactics and his inability to understand the relevance of IP addresses.
Thanks.
Comment by Doug — August 8, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Out of deference to Mike, can we take discussion about me and my blogs and discussion forum to another place like Buncakes?
PS
I like you too Doug and ThoughtProvoker.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 8, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Aagcobb:
Nice try, but wrong. However, since this is the type of explanation that appeals to superficial thinking and minds held captive by stereotypes, let's pause to consider.
Now, there are various points about ID that I have pounded on for years:
1. ID does not lead us to a conclusion about God's existence.
2. ID is not science.
3. My convictions about ID are rooted in little more than a suspicion.
4. There is a very good chance that ID is wrong (design is not detectable).
Now think it through, Aagcobb. Do these four points look like powerful tools to "fight atheism?" I'm sure atheists everywhere are quivering before these four foundational positions:
Says Mr. Atheist, "Did you hear that some anonymous blogger "MikeGene" has suspicions about ID that are neither science nor lead to a conclusion that God exists?" Says Mrs. Atheist, "I suppose we better start looking for a church!"
Try again.
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Hi MikeGene,
I don't think you put much emphasis on points 3 and 4. I, for one, get the impression that you believe that the evidence for design rises to a significantly higher level than suspicion; after all you've written a whole book about the clues which support ID! I'm interested in knowing if you would put on a number on what you think is the likelihood that design is not detectable.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 8, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Hi Sal,
..and don't forget ID Pleasurians such as myself. I recently introduced myself at Richard Dawkin's site. The thread is so short that I am thinking of hiring myself out as a thread-ender.
In response to Dunford claims I would say that "science" is a natural extension and refinement of the human capacity to observe and predict. It is a natural outgrowth of what a human being is. To attack science or science education therefore is to attack humanity — to render humanity blind. Without eyes, a child cannot see oncoming traffic and avoid collision. Without science (physics in this case) humanity cannot "see" incoming asteroids and avoid collision. For my part, I would no more attack science and science education than poke out the eyes of a child. Incoming asteroids are hardly the only dangers facing humanity at this time. In order for humanity to succeed and thrive in the face of the challenges of living in the natural world, science and science education must be as robust as possible.
"Robust" however does not mean "dogmatic." If the materialist core-hypothesis (paradigm) is ones dogma/gospel then, as a materialist, you will think only materialist science is real science. On the other hand, if the theistic core-hypothesis is ones dogma/gospel then, as a theist you will think that only theistic science is real science.
When I came upon ID (in 2002) I was an anti-religious ID supporter. I have since learned to be more tolerant of the religious and I am now merely non-religious. I do not fit (and have never fit) the Dunford-ian model/stereotype.
Comment by William Brookfield — August 8, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
TP:
TP, I think it's high time all the "Culture Warriors" got used to the idea that the MOVEMENT of religious believers in support of their religious beliefs isn't going away just because some don't like what they believe. I am perfectly willing to let the NAM [New Atheist MOVEMENT] wear whatever t-shirts they want and join all the clubs they want to support their anti-religious beliefs, too. The right to believe is a rather big chunk of the liberty we Americans cherish in our way of life. Complaining about it is a waste of time.
Sure, you'll have evangelical religionists who try to convert people if they get a chance. You'll also have evangelical atheists who try to convert people when they get a chance. Neither should get that chance in public school science classes. And for all the well publicized complaining of Warriors on both 'sides' about the other, it's just noise to most people. It's the corruption of science that concerns me.
Deal is, it has been judged unconstitutional to teach either Creationism or ID in public schools. Thus what the majority choose to believe about origins isn't a real concern, and religion isn't corrupting science or science education. They are not "The Problem" anymore.
Neither 'side' will ever accomplish the eradication of beliefs they don't like. Seems to me that accepting this reality would go a long way toward promoting a mellower, happier life. No matter what you believe.
Comment by Joy — August 8, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Hi Zachriel,
I guess it all depends on how people personally define "scientific." I go through each day basing personal decisions on empirical support, but I hardly consider that scientific. Neither would I consider a detective to be a scientist doing science. And just because a prosecutor may incorporate the findings of forensic science does not mean the prosecutor is trying someone as a scientist doing science.
So yes, there are indeed findings in science that lead me to suspect life was intelligently designed. I can't help seeing what I see. And yes, I am quite curious as to whether such findings are truly clues. That's one thing that makes me human. But suspicions and acted-upon curiosity are not sufficient to be science. But that they are not science does not mean they are invalid.
So what? Scientifically vacuous is not the same as invalid. But it would seem to me that we need more than "in principle." If we're dealing only with "in principle," that's another way of saying without experiment and without results. In other words, scientifically vacuous.
I agree. That's why I used to word "˜here.'
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
I guess it's a matter of perspective. But suffice it to say that if I were to start arguing for theism by using ID, not only would points 1 and 2 be enough to knock me on my ass, but someone would quickly find points 3 and 4. The reason I can make points 1-4 is precisely because I do not think of ID in political or apologetic terms.
Then you should have listened to my interview or read the DM blog. The clues constitute 3 chapters and only serve to arouse suspicion. The whole book is not "about the clues," but about a different way of looking at things and looking for ways to move beyond the level of suspicion.
It depends on the day and what we mean by detectable. If by detectable we mean acknowledgement by a decently-sized group of objective inquirers, today I would guess there is a 70-80% chance that design is not detectable. But it's just a wild-assed guess.
Of course, until I reach the level of certainty, and declare that number to be 100%, the critics will continue to be angry with me.
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
William Brookfield,
Your beliefs are your own, and obviously you are welcome to them. I would suggest, however, that there is a possibility, far in excess of the "universal probability bound," that Bill Dembski is cynically using you as a "useful idiot." I mean that in the from-his-perspective sense, no insult intended. So desperate, you see, is the IDM in its effort to support the tenuous claim that ID is not religiously motivated. I suspect you may even realize that if any atheists with traditional scientific credentials (in contrast to your more, er, colorful background) embraced ID they, rather than you (your site, that is) would be getting links from UD. If the IDM ever triumphs, I would not, if I were you, expect an invitation to the Victory Ball.
Comment by David Heddle — August 8, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Hi MikeGene,
I'm not angry, Mike. You just suprise me sometimes. I wouldn't have guessed you would estimate the likelihood of detecting design so low.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 8, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Mike Gene protests too much. He continually emphasizes that what he's doing, whatever it is that he is doing, is "not science." We all have different conceptions of science (and I know far more about Mike Gene's conception of what it is to be doing "not science"), but I don't see it! I don't see you, Mike Gene, doing something differently from what I have observed scientists doing. And done myself!
I (uninformed critic that I am) hate to disabuse you, but what you are doing is science.
I would defy you, or anyone else, to not do science!
Ya can't do it! I dare ya!
You're just as wrong about "science" as all your "critics."
Comment by Rock — August 8, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your tolerance of the off-topic interruptions. Now where were we, ah yes, Chest Thumping…
And you "set the record straight" by reinforcing your presumptions that ID critics apply Dunford's logic to you specifically while taunting them to try to read your mind?
Whether or not it makes me narcissistic, this caused a big grin on my face.
Mike, I don't think you are dumb. I pity any ID critic who makes that false assumption about you.
LOL
You demonize by suggesting they are demonizing! Shield bashing to a fine art.
Impressive.
Like I said, the same old, same old. Both sides do it.
Did you notice that I happened to be commenting on Dunford's thread. I will admit that I sound more like an ID Critic than an ID proponent, but you know how much I like talking about the Dover case. However, I did introduce the concept of quantum mechanics and how Many Worlds interpretation is just as metaphysical as "God Did It". My last post there was clearly off topic since I presented a summarized version of the Third Choice.
I said "Whether one designer or multiple designers, it is still metaphysics."
Yes.
In answer to a request to discuss ""¦how bold religion has been in America's recent past" you wrote"¦
I'm glad Dawkins' attitudes aren't an important issue for you. Telic Thoughts is in the unique position of having the reputation of one of the better Intelligent Design blogs, even by ID critics. The front-loading hypothesis is recognized as an ID hypothesis that has merit.
I am concerned about things you apparently are not. Your science is constructive, IMO. The attention you give Dawkins is destructive, IMO. If your Dawkins posts aren't attacks in the Cultural War, what are they for? Pure entertainment? A marketing tactic for TT?
Because "setting the record straight" wouldn't include taunting ID critics to read your mind.
I would have no problem with you taunting critics by asking them to explain scientific observations. In fact, I would help you do that.
I did notice.
There is a difference between suggesting religion is front-loaded and using connotative phrases like "end justifies the means" and taunting ID critics to read your mind.
BTW, wouldn't you agree the Dawkin's meme hypothesis is also a possible explanation for the existence of religion?
Are you suggesting this is how you go about comparing and contrasting serious scientific proposals?
I wrote"¦"A Judge in the town of Slidell hangs a painting of Jesus holding an open bible above the words "obey these laws" in a government building (court house). Legal scholars agree that it is a clear violation of the first amendment under long established legal precedent even so there is a likelihood the current Supreme Court will allow it."
Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
In 1947, there would have been no question that it was unconstitutional to use taxpayer money to hang a picture of Jesus on a court house wall over the words ""¦obey these laws".
Could it have happened anyway?
Possibly, but it would have been through ignorance or in full knowledge it was in violation of the law with hopes it wouldn't be challenged.
Today, it is done proudly with a sense of righteousness in hopes the question will reach the Supreme Court.
I think there is a significant difference between the two situations.
IMO, going over to Dunford's blog would be better. It would show that you were trying to rectify the situation instead of exploiting it. Taunting ID critics isn't "informing" readers. It might be entertaining them, but it isn't informing them.
I suspect you are too.
I may not be able to read your mind, but I can see how your actions don't match your claims and I have reason to believe you aren't stupid.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
David Heddle:
Why is motivation an issue only for IDists? If an ID critic's motives are questioned the response is usually to point to the irrelevancy of the motive issue and then to present an argument based on how real biological systems function. IDists need to adopt the same tactical response.
Comment by Bradford — August 8, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
TP, is there a better description of the false accusation of child abuse than demonization? Is a truthful response demonization?
Comment by Bradford — August 8, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Hi Joy,
Once again I find it difficult to disagree with what you have said. In the recent past I might have challenged…
…but that scientists-might-cause-an-instant-end-to-the-universe thing you brought up bothers me somewhat.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
It often is.
A bit of truth enhances the effectiveness of propaganda weaponry.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
TP:
Well… I don't think they have the POWER to do what they're betting they can't do. It's the probabilities they're having a bit of an issue with.
My father once told me – because I'd asked – that the 'rationale' behind the whole MAD thing was that nobody would sacrifice their own people to defeat their designated enemy-people. God wouldn't let them do it, in fact.
Which struck me at the time as being terminally foolish. As well as terminally hubristic. "God" will save you from your own stupidity? You'd DARE God to save you from your own stupidity? That's utterly absurd!
Still, they believed in it 100%. I kid you not. That was the OSS generation. Templars all…
But I've got this Regis Neptunis hanging on the wall right in front of me. Complete with a little note from Dad to his Mom, in 1936 when he was only 18. USS Indianapolis. Really. Google that one if you don't recall your "Jaws" dialogue. It's hard to battle sharks with ceremonial sabers.
We ARE such fools!
Comment by Joy — August 8, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
I am well aware of the significance of the USS Indianapolis.
A small admission; I consider the biggest piece of evidence against atheism to be the fact that we are still here despite our willful stupidity in trying to kill each other.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Hi TP,
Sure. But it's not a presumption; it's experience. As for the taunting, why not? It's only a taunt to someone who already thinks they can read my mind by assigning vague motives to me. Here's what I wrote:
Notice the word "if." If a critic doesn't think I have religious motives, the taunt does not apply. If the critic somehow "knows this" (wink, wink), the taunt applies.
Nah, pointing out that someone relies on stereotypes is not demonizing. Suggesting that someone abuses their children is demonizing. I'd be demonizing the critics if I argued they were abusing their children. But such extremism is not in my nature.
If true, I think most people will be too busy talking about the next Paris Hilton to notice.
Could be. You could always check out the Dawkins Free Zone.
Famous scientists who peddle bigotry and hate in the name of science to spark a new socio-political movement earn my scorn.
There is that, too. I'm a multi-taking, multi-functional type of guy. Rarely is there One Answer that explains anything about me.
Critics who don't assign motives to me would not be taunted.
Sure. But why doesn't "end justifies the means" apply?
Sure. Why not? The point that is interesting is that even if true, Dawkins and Followers are evolving toward a quasi-religious state. Can they at some point pull back or will the inertia carry them further? I think that is an interesting question. I'm quite serious when I note that studying Dawkins movement would make for a good sociological project.
But I do have a real problem with addiction. Thus, I have long made it my own personal policy to refrain from joining in on other blogs and forums.
That's a matter of opinion.
I used to be, but I'm fairly numb/cynical about most stuff now.
What actions are those? Scorn toward a famous scientist who peddles bigotry in the name of science?
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Hi Mike,
I am tired of Chest Thumping.
Besides, I liked your Sarah Coakley link. Had you already noticed the part I was obviously going to pick up on?
It's hard to keep up to provocative passion against someone so darn accommodating. Thanks.
I have to give you points for this one…
That was a good comeback.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Just call me….Thumper.
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 10:45 am
"MikeGene's religious motivations for proposing ID are"¦"¦.."
The same motives we have every night, Pinky – to try to take over the world!
Comment by johnnyb — August 9, 2007 @ 10:45 am
August 9th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Hi Aagcobb,
I didn't say that you were angry, Aagcobb.
Thank you for confirming that you don't pay much attention to what I write (although that doesn't stop you from having criticisms). This is understandable, as why bother paying attention to what I write when you can rely on the crutch of your stereotypes? The question I ponder is whether you find your crutch necessary or simply convenient. I suspect its the former.
Speaking of the crutch, after I easily debunked your "fighting atheism" perception, I asked you to try again. I take it you have thrown in the towel. So much for playing.
But I'll bet those stereotypes still dictate to you quietly. 
So let's change the topic. Once again walking that extra mile for the crutch-dependent crowd, I have given you a number. Why not return the favor? I'm interested in knowing if you would put on a number on what you think is the likelihood that design is not detectable.
Comment by MikeGene — August 9, 2007 @ 10:58 am
August 9th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Excuse me for not noticing this earlier…
I am having problems understanding your opinion. Do you think Mike tries to make too strong of a case for ID or too weak of a case? I like it when Mike presents his scientific evidence. Often I wish he was more forceful. As it is (ignoring the first item) MY convictions towards a design hypothesis are significantly more apparent than Mike's.
Likewise my thoughts about the chances that the idea of a teleological universe is correct (#4).
It is #1 that I believe MikeGene has trouble with. While maybe not "God", he seems biased towards presuming the existence of a being or beings that have an ability to learn or adapt (i.e. "Intelligent").
However, he has dropped hints that I might be convincing him to re-evaluate that position and he has been more than fair in allowing me to present hypotheses that don't make that presumption.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 9, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Hi MikeGene,
I will work on the assumption you mean "design by an intelligent nonhuman agent". IMO, whether design is detectable or not depends on whether an intelligent agent actually designed life (as opposed to life arising as a result of natural chemical processes, and then diversifying as a result of mechanisms identified by mainstream evolutionary theory). I don't think life was designed, so I would place the likelihood of design being detected at close to zero. OTOH, if I'm wrong and life was designed by an intelligent nonhuman agent, I would expect that there would be an extremely high likelihood of detecting design, close to 100%, because I would expect a designer to insert some sort of message into the genome, even if its only some sort of copyright or signature*. In your case, I don't know if you have estimated the likelihood of detecting design as being so low because you have doubts as to whether life was designed, or because you doubt design of an organism can be easily detected, or some combination of both.
*And if we are talking about someone who designed with the intent that the organisms would diversify as a result of evolution, then I would expect the message would be placed in a highly conserved portion of dna to ensure its survival.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 9, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Hi TP,
I haven't seen anybody make a strong case for ID, so I doubt Mike can. My point is only that I don't think Mike really gets across just how fringe a notion ID is. In regards to your ideas, I have to admit that I lack the math to really study quantum effects and only know what I read in publications designed for laymen. If I get the guist of what you are proposing, its that intelligent agents (us, or beings like us, I assume) can effect the past to make the universe conducive to our own existence. From what little I know about entangled particles, that seems to me to take a huge leap from where science currently is, so IMO it doesn't seem any more likely than any of the other fringe ID ideas I have ever heard.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 9, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Hi MikeGene,
I'll take another turn, then.
The answer is "that he would really like to detect design to confirm we are here for a purpose".
Comment by Aagcobb — August 9, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Aagcobb, as long as you are musing about motives, what is the motive for those who would exclude the possibity a priori of life being generated through an intelligent and purposeful process?
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Hi Bradford,
I'm sure its because they know there really is a God, but they want to deny his existence so they can continue to engage in degenerate sexual activity. I hear Dawkins throws wicked parties!
Comment by Aagcobb — August 9, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Aagcobb:
I was looking for an answer not grounded in stereotypical preconceptions. Judge: Objection sustained. So let me rephrase the question. What selective advantage would an evolutionary process produce that led some to deny teleology out of emotional necessity?
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
I'll deal with your other stuff later, but since this one is on-topic, I moved it up.
This one is barely any better than the first. Consider the following:
1. My focus has been on whether or not life was designed and how this might have influenced evolution. As I have long argued, front-loading may entail nothing more than the general goal of enhancing the chances for multi-cellular life, which doesn't entail the appearance of MikeGene. Nowhere do I argue that MikeGene was front-loaded to exist. Thus, ID fails to confirm any sense of purpose I may have.
2. My ID hypotheses are also consistent with directed panspermy and I am not sure what sense of purpose I would get out of that.
3. I just told you that I think there is only a 20-30% chance I may be on to something regarding ID. A sense of purpose is important for mental health and I am not foolish enough to tie my sense of purpose to a concept that is "most probably not going to result in actual detection of design."
4. Most importantly, my sense of purpose does not derive from anything related to science. For example, I know I am here for a purpose and it is mostly my family that allows me to know this. The idea that I would get a sense of purpose from some abstract words or experimental results rather than my own daughters is simply ridiculous to me.
Summary: The "fight atheism" perspective was easily debunked because there is nothing about my views that would effectively fight atheism. The "confirm my sense of purpose" perspective is now debunked because a) I don't need my sense of purpose confirmed and b) there is nothing about my views that would confirm any sense of purpose.
Try again.
Comment by MikeGene — August 9, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
OK, last try. the answer is: "MikeGene is really Phillip Johnson advancing the cause of the Wedge by creating the appearance that all IDists don't support the Wedge."
Comment by Aagcobb — August 9, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
LOL! WedgeCentrism to the rescue!! We'll overlook that you abandoned the religious motives for the political motives and simply note instead you've switched from stereotypes to conspiracy theories.
Comment by MikeGene — August 9, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Sure, but we need balance here. First, I haven't seen anybody make a strong case for abiogenesis. Second, I haven't seen anyone make a strong case against the notion of front-loading. Third, I haven't seen anyone make a strong case that the truth of ID would entail an ability to make a strong case.
Sheesh! This and this wasn't good enough. Just what does Aagcobb expect me to do? Wear a rabbit suit in public?
Comment by MikeGene — August 9, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Something, maybe, about Mike Gene's ideas about science (rather than his critics ideas about science (Cough! Clueless.)
Since science is supposedly a human invention, a human design, maybe someone knows something about its designers, like their identities and methods, etc.
Your critics may think that federal judges say what science is/not. (Anti-scientists–Pro-lawyers.)
Why should I care what some political hack thinks about something he knows nothing about.
I want to know what Mikle Gene thinks.
Comment by Rock — August 9, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
You wrote…
Thank you for responding. While I am not overly surprised by your thoughts, I am disappointed that I haven't managed to convey my thoughts better than that.
What you are describing clearly presumes a powerful being with "human-like" intelligence creating life.
If there is one thing I have been trying to stress is that I see no scientific reason for making that presumption. The group think pressure to do so is enormous and there are some philosophical reasoning for it but for an independent thinking NOMA believer, like me, these aren't reasons for including the presumption in a scientific hypothesis (I tried forcing in into an early version of an ID hypothesis, but it didn't work).
Scientific hypotheses are for the purpose of providing mechanistic explanations for unexplained scientific observations (i.e. anomalies). Quantum mechanics present some very significant and repeatable anomalies. These anomalies appear to defy logic and have remained unexplained for decades.
"God transcends logic" is a phrase of last resort I have heard used to defend religious faith. It has the immediate effect of stopping any debate. Once this philosophical Truth is alleged it becomes part of the set of possible Truths and no amount of logic can refute it. It is the ultimate weapon. Science must adhere to logic, philosophy doesn't necessarily have to.
[wonders to himself how many people will disagree with that last sentence, and how loud they are going to be when they do so]
If, within the limit of scientific exploration, God can't transcend logic, than neither can quantum mechanics. There must be a scientific explanation for its apparent illogic. There is only so long that scientists can continue to suggest that an explanation will be found "some day". I suggest scientific patience is quickly running out since inventors are already using applied quantum mechanics and there are two main mechanistic explanations. However, most scientists don't like the implications of either answer.
The Many World quantum interpretation is a subtle way of transcending logic while sounding logical when doing so. Logic is transcended in our world by declaring there are an infinite number of worlds constantly being created but we will never be able to detect them.
Penrose's modification of the Copenhagen quantum interpretation (Objective Reduction) declares that there is only one World, ours, and that it is a huge wavefunction in both space and time. To understand the term "wavefunction", please look at this Mandelbrot Set. This chaotic looking design is a result of a simple one-dimensional equation (it appears two dimensional because the single parameter is a complex number). Now imagine something similar in four dimensions with four complex numbers (three for lengths, one for time). In the Mandelbrot Set, there appears to be "objects". Some of these objects look like trees and rivers.
While Penrose's OR model provides enough to make people uncomfortable on its own, people instinctively have the urge to reject the Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated OR model of consciousness (Orch OR) out of hand, even though it is a logical extension of basic OR model and has support via peer-reviewed papers and experiments. The nervousness comes from hypothesizing that consciousness is directly tied to quantum effects, therefore consciousness is directly tied to the single, universal wavefunction that interconnects everything in both space and time.
Believe me, I am not exactly thrilled with this either. But sometimes we have to stick to our guns, even when they are pointed at us. If we say it is ok for quantum mechanics to transcend logic than we have to let God do it too. If we use metaphysical constructs (e.g. Many World interpretation) to fill in the gaps in our knowledge then we can't complain about "God in the gaps". While appealing to the blissfulness of ignorance is tempting, it is also like those who purposely stay ignorant in order to believe what they want to believe.
Something to think about.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 9, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Either close to 0% or close to 100% is effectively black-and-white thinking. I think this explains why you have such a hard time understanding what I write, as I think in subtle shades of grey.
But let's consider the figures: "I don't think life was designed, so I would place the likelihood of design being detected at close to zero." Which is fine, except that I think you are ethically obligated to admit you are closed minded about design. But let's consider the other extreme:
I don't see any good reason to assign it such an extraordinarily high value. It would seem to me that you would need to factor at least three independent variables: a) the likelihood that a designer would bury some type of copyright or signature in the artifact itself; b) the plausibility that such an implanted message would survive billions of years of evolutionary noise and c) the likelihood that the such an alien message could/would be recognized by human researchers in 2007. I'm not sure why you assign near certainty to all of these variables.
As far as a) goes, we have plenty of experience with designed things that are not marked with the equivalent of copyrights or signatures. As just one among many common examples:
Furthermore, we attach copyrights and signatures as appendages because we fear other minds will steal our property. I have no reason to think life's designer(s) would share a similar fear, although I suppose some reason could be imagined. So I would assign something like a 20% likelihood.
As far as b) goes, linking the message to strongly conserved sequence means that the message is constrained by the physico-chemical properties of the amino acids in tandem needed to carry out an essential biotic function that must resist evolution for billions of years. Such constraints could very well severely limit any meaningful, communicative message. I'll generously guess the likelihood of encoding such a message in amino acid sequence as roughly 30%.
As far as c) goes, this would depend i) on human ability to detect communication from a non-human species. Thus far, SETI has been a complete failure and our success at understanding the communication of other intelligent animals on this planet seems rather primitive. Also, ii.) detection of such message would, IMO, depend on establishing a sufficient community of molecular biologists and cryptographers who are actively looking for such a message and, as far as I know, there is none. Nevertheless, I'll be generous and give this a 20% likelihood.
But if I consider all these factors together, I see only about a 1% chance of detecting design through messages in the genome. That effectively makes me closed-minded about finding such type of evidence for ID.
Nevertheless, you have shown that ID is both testable in principle and not dependent on religious motivations, thus if someone wants to actually look for such evidence, they should go for it.
It's a combination. As for whether or not life was designed, I'd say it's no better than 50-50. But even if it was designed (as I envision), I'd still say its detectability is no better than 50-50 (and here I am being optimistic, as I also mentioned it depends on the day). So that's about 25%, or 20-30%.
Comment by MikeGene — August 10, 2007 @ 1:12 am
August 10th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Hi TP,
The bias is a function of pragmatism, as I not only have gobs and gobs of experience interacting with beings that have an ability to learn or adapt (we call them "˜humans'), but also with the things they produce. Since no one has ever come close to demonstrating that humans are the only beings who exist (or have ever existed) with these human-like abilities to design, one then wonders whether this experience can be used to explore the biotic word. This brings me to ID101.
Of course, just because it is a presumption that is built on experience doesn't mean it is not a presumption. Thus yes, I am quite open to other alternatives. But the key here again is pragmatism. I have to find it useful.
Comment by MikeGene — August 10, 2007 @ 1:18 am
August 10th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Hi Rock,
What does MikeGene think? I think the term "science" can be defined in many ways and has been so thoroughly politicized from both sides that it's more trouble that its worth. I think that science does not have a patent on the "˜scientific method,' and that's all that is important. It is human thought itself that naturally hypothesizes and tests. I thus reserve the term "science" in a narrowly-defined manner. The critics are right about one thing. When I read the scientific literature (which is fairly regular), the explicitly stated or defined concept/hypothesis of ID is no where to be found.
Comment by MikeGene — August 10, 2007 @ 1:30 am
August 10th, 2007 at 8:24 am
The Bobby Pin Image, though lacking a signature, provides considerable information about the designer. The JPEG/JFIF format was devised by an organism on the planet Earth in their years of the mid-1990's. It is characterized by image data of the type common to light-focusing organisms with primitive bandwidth digital communications systems. What is really fascinating is that they think with their meat. The image appears to depict some sort of primitive fastening device, perhaps for holding back meat excretions that form on the organism's head.
There is strong evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. But it doesn't follow thereby that someone would be unwilling to consider contrary evidence if discovered.
Only if you narrowly define success. The mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universe.
Quite so"”showing the difficulty of detecting and interpreting alien communications. SETI does not attempt to interpret alien communications, but the detection of artifice.
Intelligent Design comes in many flavors. I understand you want to use the moniker, but without the baggage.
That's why we use the Scientific Method. Human experience might suggest that the Earth is stationary, that a stone is not mostly empty space, that the stately movement of planets preside over the rise and fall of kings. The process of forming and testing hypotheses helps us distinguish between what we intuit and what we can scientifically support.
Birds (nests), mammals (beavers) and insects (ants) all design in their fashion. And many organisms may be capable of abstract communication (bees or whales).
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2007 @ 8:24 am
August 10th, 2007 at 8:43 am
That is correct. The Scientific Method is a systematic process of objective inquiry and confirmation; more particularly, hypothetico-deduction.
That is correct. The legal system may utilize science, but is not itself science and has many methods distinct from science.
Your use of the word "valid" is somewhat misplaced with regards to curiosity"”which requires no justification. There is nothing wrong with speculation. Nor would I want to pigeon-hole your views.
You also called it a "hypothesis". A hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to test its empirical consequences. This is somewhat distinct from imagination. Or even suspicion. If you aren't proposing it in order for it to be tested, then it's not really a hypothesis. I don't want to argue semantics, but you can see why you might be misunderstood in this context.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2007 @ 8:43 am
August 10th, 2007 at 8:47 am
That is incorrect. Not being able to physically examine the designer is not the same as not being able to infer characteristics of the designer and the methodology used to execute the design. It is ID that has generally abandoned the obvious implications of design, a causal connection between the artifact, the artists and the art.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2007 @ 8:47 am
August 10th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Hi MikeGene,
In response, here is my thinking:
a) true on many simple things like paperclips we don't always bother to include any message, but virtually every complex thing we build includes a variety of messages and identifiers for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is pride in accomplishment, a signature which effectively says "I made this!" If someone went to the bother of carefully crafting a bug with a tool set to enable it to diversify into the glorious variety of life we see today, I would think he/she/it would want to take credit for it.
b) Early 21st century human scientists are already placing messages in genomes. I would expect that the intelligent agent who designed the first eukaryote would have a level of sophistication sufficient to overcome many of the obstacles you identify.
c) I didn't mean to imply the message would be detected in the next four months, only that if a message existed, we would likely detect it eventually.
I could very well be wrong, of course. But since we are the only species we know of capable of even attempting to design organisms, I'm basing my assumptions on how humans behave in regards to our ambitious engineering projects. Its hard for me to imagine anyone with the vision and ambition to undertake a project designed to unfold over billions of years doing so anonymously.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 10, 2007 @ 10:22 am
August 10th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
MikeGene Says: The critics are right about one thing. When I read the scientific literature (which is fairly regular), the explicitly stated or defined concept/hypothesis of ID is no where to be found.
I don't mean to be obtuse (more likely just plain dense) but what might that be?"”"the explicitly stated or defined concept/hypothesis of ID"?
Comment by Rock — August 10, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Hi David Heddle,
Thankyou for your comment. As an ID Pleasurian/humanist I am pleased and very grateful that Dembski has put the work into ID that he has.
ISCID (Dembski's society) has been very good for my education. To his credit, neither Dembski (nor anyone else in the movement) has ever required that I drop my humanist background in favour of Christianity or religion of any kind.
I see no real problem here. We are "using" each other.
Compared to the "God(s)" who set up the living universe I am sure that we are all first degree "idiots." Hopefully we are at least "useful" ones.
The important thing is not for ID to triumph, but for humanity to triumph.
We both agree here. "Gross stereotyping" is antagonistic and is not helpful in assuring the success of the human race.
Comment by William Brookfield — August 10, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
William Brookfield,
Cool response. I admit, I like your style.
Comment by David Heddle — August 10, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Hi Bradford,
Got me, what do you think?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 10, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
My immediate reaction was an urge to question how much of the pragmatism and usefulness is due to the ready-made group think and supporting movement. However, saying something would be rude, crude and socially unacceptable(that and I don't want you to change your mind about guest hosting my other post). Therefore, I will entertain the mind set you are suggesting.
Engaging open mindedness mode in 5… 4… 3…
A long time ago, Larry Niven wrote a science fiction story, World of Ptavs. Mr. Niven was adept at investigating intriguing questions through his stories. This story is particularly relevant since not only does it deal with the concept of human-like intelligence being responsible for the origin of life on Earth, it provided an explanation for the paradoxical nature of life's design, why there is no "signature" buried in the design and why SETI hasn't found any evidence of alien intelligence.
[ponders leaving this as a cliff hanger... "nah, I'll be nice"]
Once upon a time there was an intelligent alien race called "Thrints". The Thrints' mental abilities were such that they could control other conscious beings. This came in handy since Thrints were also voracious carnivores. They could just will food to come to them.
There was another advanced alien race called "Tnuctipun". Unfortunatly for the Tnuctipun, they happened upon the Thints during their space explorations. Tnuctipun had stasis fields, spaceships, genetic biologics and all manner of advanced knowledge. However, the Tnuctipun mind was especially susceptible to being controlled by the Thrints. The Thrints were an arrogant race. They judged worth based on what made them special, their mental abilities. Everything else was food which they referred to as ptavs.
When they arrived, the Thrints were able to restrain themselves long enough to be convinced the Tnuctipun had a potential beyond being entrées. The Thrints ordered the Tnuctipun to design and setup sources of food on other planets throughout the galaxy. The only living thing a Thrint feared was another Thrint. Therefore, these food planets were purposely set up to have large interstellar distances between them. Since there is no such thing as faster-than-light travel this provided effective protection allowing a Thrint and his family to live and eat in peace. Earth is one of these food planets, a "World of Ptavs".
So what happened?
Earth's owner, Kzanol, had a mishap on his way to his new home. Without Kzanol's maintenance (a single Thrint with an amplifier helmet can easily control and entire planet of ptavs) Earth's development was mostly unorganized and "wild". Think of a long-abandoned garden.
——————————————————
While I have deviated slightly from Niven's story line that isn't important (I would be impressed if someone could point out my deviations). In Niven's story Kzanol crash landed on Earth billions of years ago protected by his stasis field (where time stands still). The "intelligent" ptavs on Earth release Kzanol from stasis which sets up the plot-line of where Kzanol tries to get to his amplifier helmet (dropped off on Uranus) before the telepathic hero trying to save Earth. There is also the twist that Kzanol is the last living Thrint because the Thrints were wiped out (along with the Tnuctipun) after the Tnuctipun were ordered to design and create large brained cows called Bandersnatch with immunity to mind control so the Thrint could hunt them for sport. For all their mental powers, it turned out the Thrint weren't very bright.
But back to the allegedly non-fictional discussion concerning the concepts of Intelligent Design. While Niven's story would probably be considered designer centric, it potentially illustrates unwarranted presumptions. What possible reason do we have for presuming a single designer intended for life on Earth to evolve as it has?
Mike, you allow for the possibility of multiple designers but why do you allow for the possibility of a single designer? We can play the anything-is-possible game of probabilities, but hopefully we can get beyond that. If someone like Aagcobb said he estimates the probability of a single designer intentionally creating life on Earth to be "at close to zero" would you find that reasonable or "effectively black-and-white thinking"? My response to Aagcobb would be to ask about the probabilities that Earth was accidentally seeded by a meteorite in an attempt to explore his gray areas.
IMO. a suggestion that a single, unidentified intelligent being intentionally created life on Earth is more likely than an errant meteorite approaches wistful fiction considering we have evidence for the latter and practically none for the former(note: God is an identified designer).
If there are intelligent aliens running around, why wouldn't it be likely Earth's seeding was accidental? An interstellar passenger liner just happened to purge it's biological waste tank in this general vicinity billions of years ago. You know the chuck a material we found in Antarctica we THOUGHT was a meteorite? Well"¦.
Some people might not find the idea of life on Earth being the result of contamination an intriguing idea, but I do regardless of whether it happened via a meteorite or some other"¦ err um"¦ material.
The point of this long-winded comment is an attempt to illuminate the general bias I have noticed in the presumption that human-like mental abilities are considered indispensable to the point of not only ascribing the them to designer(s) but also presuming it is a goal of the design.
It's the kind of the presumption a Thrint would make.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 10, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Zachriel wrote:
How do we know if something is an artifact? Is a birdnest an artifact?
How would we know that a wholly robotic spacecraft not of human making was an artifact? Suppose we later found the galaxy to be teeming with robotic spacecraft of many varieties, but with no other sign of intelligent life as we know it. What would it be about the robotic interstellar spacecraft that would license an ID inference, if anything?
Reversing perspectives, if humans died out but not before creating self-replicating spacecraft-manufacturing robots, how would future aliens know that those robots and spacecraft had had intelligent designers?
Comment by stunney — August 10, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Hi TP,
I think its reasonable to ask IDists to provide a specific hypothesis to consider rather than a wild variety of speculations spun of the top of the head. MikeGene's hypothesis, as I understand it, is that the eukaryotic cell was designed with the intent that it evolve into multicellular organisms, so that is the hypothesis I'm responding to. I'm not particularly adverse to the possibility that early single celled life originated elsewhere, and arrived on earth via meteorite, since we know that bacteria can survive frozen for millions of years, though I thinks its much more likely that terrestrial life originated here and not elsewhere. That, however, is not an ID hypothesis, since there is no particular reason to think that a bacteria arriving accidentally in a meteorite was designed. I am also very skeptical of interstellar travel, given the vast distances and light speed limitation.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 10, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Hi TP,
Liked the synopsis.
Of course it approaches fiction (although the adjective wistful does not apply). The acknowledgement of no independent evidence for unidentified intelligent beings intentionally created life on Earth is the starting place for my inquiries.
Indeed! In fact, somewhere in the 1000s of postings I have made over the years, I think I raised this very issue.
I agree it's intriguing. So too is the notion that this is all an experiment.
I ascribe human-like mental abilities to the designer(s) because I have experience with human-like mental abilities. However, you err if you think that I envision human-like mental abilities as an indispensable goal of the design. That position is embedded in Aagcobb's attempt to falsify ID, not my approach.
Comment by MikeGene — August 11, 2007 @ 9:52 am
August 11th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
I'm glad. What did you think of Niven's Thrints?
BTW, I am beginning to suspect "Thought Provoker" is just the anonymous alter-ego pseudonym for the "MikeGene" anonymous pseudonym. All too often they are posting within minutes of each other. Maybe there is only a single intelligence driving both but it is severely schizophrenic.
Niven creates fictional accounts that are constitant both with the story and with what is known about space. Niven's fictional cosmological history is even called Known Space.
To me, a detailed, consistent model is what is what separates "intriguing" fiction from "wistful" fiction.
Providing more details, like calling it a Science Fair project, makes it more intriguing and provocative, IMO.
Science fiction provides all sorts of interesting concepts of mental abilities that aren't very human-like. For example, Deep Space Nine had entities living in the worm hole which had a hard time understanding the totally alien concept of "time".
Mike, like it or not, you define yourself by who you label as your critics.
(disclaimer: this equally applies to both sides and, by comparison, does not apply to the MikeGene pseudonym which is why I brought it up because I knew it would be provocative and would cause MikeGene to think about it)
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 11, 2007 @ 10:40 am
August 11th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Hi Aagcobb,
IMO, this rationale doesn't justify your level of certainty here and I incorporate it into my estimate. Now we would need to better nail down what "complex things" are. I, for example, might build a tree house for my children or a dog house for my dog. I would consider these complex things. But I would not feel a need to embed some "I made this!" message in the tree house or dog house. I can think of all kinds of complex things that don't include within them messages and identifiers. Furthermore, as I mentioned, these "I made this!" messages and identifiers are a function of our psychology and sociology. Such things are almost always appendages and not part of the functional essence of the design.
But again, I think this fails as a justification for your near certainty. The obstacle seems to be a serious one to me. We have to assume that the designers where a) motivated to overcome this obstacle and b) could indeed overcome it. Keep in mind that the motivation is also a function of (to borrow from TP) have an indispensable design objection be the evolution of mental capabilities that could detect messages in the chemistry of life's building blocks.
I can't guess the likelihood of something by extrapolating into the future when there is no current trending to lead me. As of today, all I see is that human beings are not very skilled at understanding communication from other life forms. In fact, I think we are not very skilled at understanding the communication from other human beings. But none of these really matters all that much, as there is no community of experts out there actively scanning for messages in life's building blocks. I fail to see how you can be so certain about this.
Black and white thinking does not convey this sense.
LOL. You cannot even imagine someone writing about ID without having religious or political motivations. I'm not sure you should so deeply trust your ability to imagine.
Comment by MikeGene — August 11, 2007 @ 11:14 am
August 11th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Hi TP,
I'd have to read the book.
So I'm in hell.
To me, wistful is melancholic.
I like Movie.
Everyone is my critic.
Comment by MikeGene — August 11, 2007 @ 11:26 am
August 11th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
Am I that difficult to live with?
Many I should buy my wife (our wife?) some flowers.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 11, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Hi MikeGene,
It has occurred to me that this doesn't bode well for IDism. If we are incapable of identifying a message left in the genome by an intelligent designer, how could we ever distinguish a designed biological structure from a naturally occurring one?
Actually I can; given the number of habitats available, one can reasonably expect memes to proliferate into an extravagant variety of species. However, a non-religiously motivated MikeGene wasn't an option in this thread's game, nor are such IDists particularly relevant. The Don McLeroy's of the world are the driving force behind IDism; as you yourself have pointed out, any legitimate attempt to detect design is likely to be futile.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 11, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Aagcobb:
Of course it was an option. You could have said, MikeGene's religious motivations for proposing ID are non-existent. You could have said, MikeGene's religious motivations for proposing ID are irrelevant. You could have said, MikeGene's religious motivations for proposing ID are not important. You could have signaled those opinions by not playing. Yet during the game, you were blind to these options. Instead, you chose two options that were not only easily discredited, but you showed us all how you are enslaved to your simple-minded stereotypes. What's more, I note that you failed to admit you were wrong, suggesting to me that you still cling to your stereotypes.
I'll give you credit for playing, Aagcobb, as none of your fellow critics were willing to put their devotion to stereotype to the test. But nevertheless, you lost and it wasn't even close.
I have little doubt that the Don McLeroy's of the world give your life meaning. But from where I sit, you are fundamentally no different than the The Don McLeroy's of the world; you are simply their mirror image. That means you have more in common with The Don McLeroy's of the world than I do.
Context is needed. While your black-and-thinking leads you to believe that ID is almost certainly false, I take a more open-minded and nuanced position that demonstrates a greater tolerance for ambiguity. Yes, as I explained, I estimate a 20-30% chance of design being successfully detected. Of course, if I was a baseball player, those would likely be my odds of successfully hitting the ball. Would the likelihood of futility keep me from trying?
Of course, I also believe that in a legitimate attempt to detect design, it is indeed likely that we will generate new knowledge about the biotic world. Of course, your linear thinking will probably misinterpret this.
Comment by MikeGene — August 12, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Thank you David Heddle. I am glad you liked my response.
All the best -WB
Comment by William Brookfield — August 13, 2007 @ 5:54 pm