Dawkins on the DI Payroll?
by MikeGeneAn important finding in Judge Jones decision against Intelligent Design was that it "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation."
Richard Dawkins, the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, has seriously undercut this position. Dawkins writes:
You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science.
Whoa! Read those words again. The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. It is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. And all this time we have been told that ID is not science because it permits a divine cause.
Dawkins further props up this position:
Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence, what should be our best estimate of the probability that God exists, given the evidence now available?
Let's make this clear so no one misses it. The Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University is arguing that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis. Yet the notion that Life may have been designed is not a proper scientific hypothesis because it merely permits the God hypothesis??
One wonders if the DI is gathering up the arguments of scientists like Dawkins and Victor Stenger (author of God: the Failed Hypothesis "“ How science shows that God does not exist) to undercut the Dover decision. The Wedge has always been able to count on such Atheist Scientists.
Dawkins also adds:
Scientists, and intellectuals generally, are now waking up to the threat from the American Taliban. The God Delusion is my goodwill contribution from across the Atlantic to that awakening.
Might Dawkins be contributing to the "American Taliban?" After all, it is people like Dawkins who have a vested interest in keeping The Threat alive. Look, if the Wedge is resurrected, I don't want to hear critics whining about Telic Thoughts members when it is Richard Dawkins and his ilk that are chipping away at the Dover Decision.
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:23 pm
So Dawkins, in these passages, treats the "design inference" as a scientific hypothesis - big deal.
Does he say that it's a hypothesis which has been buttressed by peer-reviewed data?; does he argue that it's a good hypothesis in any way?; Does he even argue that it's testable - that data which might demonstrate the prebiotic engineering of life is even conceivably accessible to science???
C'mon, Mike… you're smart enough to not need to cherry-pick quotes.
Comment by Daniel — September 23, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Hi Daniel,
I'm sorry, but I don't think your points are relevant to this issue I raise. Again, an important finding in Judge Jones decision against Intelligent Design was that it "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation." Dawkins does not agree. Members of the ID movement can thus use Dawkins position to strip away this justification for the Dover decision. Given the prominence of someone like Dawkins, it becomes clear there is no true consensus about such "ground rules."
This, in turn, also would rule all considerations of "religious motivation" out of bounds, as Dawkins makes it clear that a religious view (which may come with motivations) can be scientific.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Where does Dawkins suggest that ID invokes natural (as opposed to supernatural) causation?
Or, where does Dawkins suggest that this hypothesis is testable in practice?
Dawkins does no such thing. He treats the design inference as IDers ask, as a scientific inference, subjects it to criticism that is mild by peer-review standards, and finds it greatly wanting in terms of supporting evidence. The reasonable conclusion from that would be that ID activists' continued support of the design inference is driven by ideology, not by scientific inquiry.
One such as yourself can of course continue to search for supporting evidence however (I strongly support such activities, but know of no biologists in the lab seeking to do this experimentally), but that doesn't change the fact that at this point ID is an empty hypothesis.
Comment by Daniel — September 23, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Whether ID is an "empty hypothesis" is a consideration that can follow whether ID must be rejected because it is in principle a religious hypothesis. The Judge rejects ID because it "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation." The Scientist says supernatural causation can indeed be part of science, meaning there is no such ground rule.
Thus, if we accept Dawkins views, the Judge's decision is based on a fundamental flaw. This issue must be resolved before getting to any "empty hypothesis" claims.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Prebiotic engineering of life must safeguard any self-replicating biological entity from genomic decay occasioned by environmental factors and copying errors. It has. Stochastic events leading to information storage systems would require the existence of genomic safeguards at the outset. Since natural selection is invoked to explain why outcomes are retained, NS would have to favor retention of error detection and repair safeguards concurrently or prior to an event producing a biologically favorable sequence of nucleic acids. A prior event puts the cart before the horse and lacks selective value. A concurrent event amounts to a miraculous claim. Survival possibilities of a self-replicating cell (or precursor cell) without a means of error detection and repair is testable.
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Dawkins lays a Burmese Tiger Trap, and Mike Gene goes out to rent a Burmese Tiger costume, and falls in . . . shades of Bugs Bunny!
Of course Dawkins argues it's a good hypothesis. Then he falsifies it.
That's the danger of arguing that we should be able to "prove" God the same way we calculate the age of a rock with radio isotopes. Once we advance and accept that the process is valid, we are stuck with the results. Dawkins argues that it's a valid hypothesis with zero support and much to refute it. Therefore, he hopes the reader concludes, the "God exists" hypothesis is falsified.
Do you agree with Dawkins' conclusions, Mike? Then by all means, jump on his initial claim as some sort of breakthrough. But as for me and my house, we will take Jesus' advice that such tests are not to be sought nor made, and if made, the results not to be trusted.
(Do ID advocates fail to read scripture as most creationists fail to? This is kids' Sunday school stuff, I thought.)
Comment by edarrell — September 23, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:05 pm
MikeGene,
edarrell "gets" it - when will you?
Comment by Daniel — September 23, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:19 pm
How did Dawkins falsify the God hypothesis? What was his probabity estimate based on?
Dawkins: Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence, what should be our best estimate of the probability that God exists, given the evidence now available?
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Cite the reference showing Jesus's related advice.
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Whether or not Dawkins falsifies anything is everyone's personal judgment call and not the issue. We are focused on the "rules of science."
What matters is that for a scientist like Dawkins to believe he has falsified it, the hypothesis must fall within the realm of science. Dawkins believes it is does and states it explicitly. Yet Judge Jones decision is premised on the belief that the supernatural cannot be part of science.
Thus, either Dawkins does not understand how science works or Judge Jones does not understand how science works. Which is it?
Of course not. The issue is how Dawkins is helping out the ID movement. Thanks to him, we know that some prestigious scientists believe the "God hypothesis" is indeed part of science. He's entitled to his own opinions about the hypothesis (as science is constantly changing its mind), but what matters is what he says about science itself. He then leaves us with the irrational position of Judge Jones, where the notion that Life may have been designed is not a proper scientific hypothesis because it merely permits the God hypothesis which is part of science. LOL
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Daniel,
I get Ed's point. It's irrelevant to the point I am making.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Hi Mike,
As much as I hate to admit it, even though this thead is arguing about other people's arguments, this is an interesting topic. Here is my take on the subject…
1. Kitzmiller v. Dover was probably the first serious legal challenge to the established legal precedent that appeals to the supernatural are not scientific. Previously, all the religious defendants simply denied any such appeal. Believe it or not, Judge Jones is a non-activist judge and, therefore, followed previous precedent.
2. I agree with Dawkin's that it makes for a clearer debate to allow Intelligent Design proponents to make their arguments their way. Does that mean you all will admit that God is the designer now? (I still like the Telic Organising Principles of Nature but, apparently, very few others agree with me).
3. Any honest assessment of Kitzmiller v. Dover shows it was a lost cause. The Lemon test (where effect and motives are key) was bad enough, but when it became obvious Judge Jones was going to apply the Endorsement test (would an average person see it as a government endorsement?), it was a very big nail in the coffin. Believe it or not, Judge Jones is a non-activist judge and, therefore, followed a clear precident established for his federal district.
4. Could an activist judge now find enough wiggle room to now rule ID as non-religious? I still say it would take a very activist judge. Just because an activity has a non-religous purpose and motive, doesn't mean it will pass constitutional muster. For example, say a government-funded, non-religious organisation decides to start a learn-to-read program. They find out that they can get a thousand copies of a best selling book for free! The purpose and motives are clearly educational, but using government funds to distribute Bibles is still clearly unconstitutional.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Hi TP,
You ask, "Could an activist judge now find enough wiggle room to now rule ID as non-religious?" But that misses the whole point.
Thanks to Dawkins, it no longer matters if ID is religious or non-religious. The God Hypothesis itself is "a proper scientific hypothesis!" As the expert says, "the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis."
Thus, either Dawkins does not understand how science works or Judge Jones does not understand how science works.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:31 pm
MIKE!
So glad to hear from you. Like you, I've been tied up with other things these days, but I'm so glad to see you posting.
Regarding your title, I thought at first you were referring to the fact I uncovered last year that Richard Dawkins and the Discovery Institute do get a large source of funding from the same source, namely, Charles Simonyi.
I met DI director Susan Hutchinson last year at Discovery Institute Day in DC and she said it was not a well known fact that Simonyi's money finances both Dawkins and the DI.
So yes, in a sense Dawkins is on the same payroll as the DI. Authors from both organizations make dough from this public fight much like the WWF. I'm cool with that. It keeps the interest going.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 23, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
MikeGene wrote…
…and…
I didn't want to be this blunt, however…
Judge Jones did understand the evidence presented to him. Dawkins is now changing available evidence.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Just to clarify, WWF is World-Wide Wrestling Federation which stages fake wrestling contests to make money.
Susan Hutchinson is a Director of the Discovery Institute. She manages the Charles Simonyi Fund. Dawkins is a Charles Simonyi professor for the public understanding.
So yes it could be argued literally and figuratively Dawkins is on the DI payroll.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 23, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Hi TP,
That's fine. But that's not the question.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Hi Salvador,
Your point is interesting. Consider someone like Eugenie Scott. Would anyone around here have heard of her without the DI?
There are lots of people who have a vested interest in keeping The Manufactured Threat alive. After all, simply consider how most ID critics snooze in the face of real world threats to science such as animal rights extremism.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:51 pm
MikeGene ponted out…
Judge Jones understood how Science used to work.
Dawkins implies a proposal on how Science should work and, if accepted, is how science will work from now on.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:54 pm
To Mike,
And while we are answering questions…
Does this mean we all get to talk openly about God as the Intelligent Designer now?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Jones was an activist. Jones could have adhered to long standing legal precedent and decided the case on narrow grounds, i.e. based on the evidence before him. Had he done so the determination that the Dover board did not act for a legitimate secular purpose alone would have been sufficient to decide the case. The question of whether intelligent design was scientific became superfluous due to the existence of grounds for a narrow finding. Judicial restraint, if exercised, would have kept Jones from going there. But it also would have denied him the opportunity for fame based on a historic ruling. In a classic display of hubris Jones stated "the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area." Take that superior courts.
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Hi TP,
LOL. Okay, we set up the rules to exclude supernatural explanations and enforce it with billions of dollars and a global network of gatekeepers who enforce the rule. Once the final product is in, which must, according to rules, keep out the supernatural, we (wink, wink) open the doors and suddenly have a change of heart about the rules. How funny.
Anyway, what matters here is that when a prominent scientist like Dawkins changes the rule, he chips away at the Dover decision. That's my point and it still stands untouched.
In fact, as you imply, Judge Jones' decision is already in the process of becoming dated thanks to Dawkins. Mind you, this is not something that pleases me. Not at all. I'm just making sure people realize who has the lion's share of blame when the Wedge II comes around. As many know, Dawkins has always been good for the ID movement.
If someone believes that God is in fact the Designer, the door was opened when he entered the Post-Wedge World. If I believed in my heart that God was indeed the Designer, I would have said so long ago, especially given the fact that I am an anonymous, small-time player who has no part in the poltical drama. I refuse to identify the designer because I understand the logic of ID, something I have explained many times over (not to mention that such a route seems like a dry hole to me).
This is off topic, so you'll have to check out some of my other writings on this subject.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Mike,
I never quite looked at things the way you did as far as keeping the Wedge alive. The World-Wide Wrestling federation would not keep making money if the bad guys were defeated into oblivion. Barb Forrest, Dawkins and other need to keep the Wedge alive.
The rank and file in the IDM may want ID in public schools, but it really is not a priority issue in the ID think tanks. For example, how much at UD or DI has really focused on public school issues? 20%? And that mostly because of the nonsense in Dover which the ID intelligencia did not approve of in the first place.
A question is whether this move by Dawkins is a pre-meditated decision to help keep the Wedge alive. I do not know. But if that's your thesis, well, wow!!!! Cool beans!
However, they are starting to sound like the boy crying wolf too often, so I don't know how long this cottage industry of fear mongering can last given the real world worries that are out there.
Barb Forrest and Eugenie Scott are in business today thanks to ID. The ID movement has a vested interest in seeing PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins in the forefront. The IDM doesn't even hide that fact! Go PZ go!
Dembski says he's starting sense ambivalence. I'm starting to see it on the campuses. People just don't give it that much emotion capital anymore. They are more captivated by the issues that worry most people: safety, health, prosperity, happiness, comfort, the National Football League, etc….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 23, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Bradford wrote…
I suggest there is a difference between a judge that is flamboyant and full of "hubris" and an activist judge. Unless, of course, you are defining activist judge as simply those you don't like. Have you read any of Judge Scalia's opinions lately?
I am defining activist judges as those who bend court rules and professional ethics to modify judicial outcomes. You seem to imply it is an ethics lapse when a judge speaks of being confident that no other court has the volume of evidence he had, and therefore, wouldn't be in a better position to rule on the subject. Bragging? Maybe. But the test of activism isn't excess confidence.
Many accusation have been made that Judge Jones should have made a narrower ruling. The plaintiffs made a strong presentation that the federal district court of appeals clearly outlined that a judge should rule on the Endorsement Test prior to applying the Lemon test. And that both should be applied. The defense's response was barely better than simply asking the judge to ignore the plaintiffs arguments and cited precedents. Any non-activist judge would have have been forced to make the bulk of the rulings Judge Jones made. A judge could have lead the ruling with "I wish I could rule otherwise, but precedent and evidence force me to conclude….", but the essence of the ruling was a given.
Much has been made of the Judge's decision to rule on whether ID was science or not. The defense specifically asked that ID be ruled as science. Both parties asked the judge to rule on the issue. While DI agued like they were party to the suit, they weren't. Others wanted to be party to the suit, but they weren't. At its basic level, Dover was a simple civil lawsuit. Two parties asked the judge to rule on something. How can it be activism for the judge to do so?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Dawkins' article has disappeared from the web site
Comment by Anteater — September 23, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:14 pm
.
Activism does not have to contravene ethics. It entails going above and beyond what is necessary to render a decision. It is a means to promote judicial legislation.
Why when the religious intent matter was plain and sufficient to resolve the case?
Where is a specific reference to back this?
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Anteater is right. They DID take it down. Let's hope it is temporary.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Mike wrote…
Ok, non-person to non-person…
I really don't want to try to argue the identity of the designer. In fact, I am honestly hoping Dawkin's action will go a long way towards removing that stigma.
If it doesn't matter whether or not the designer is God, then maybe, just maybe, someone will explain why Telic Processes isn't a more modest scientific proposal that conforms fully with the "logic of ID".
But that is really off topic for this thread.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:59 pm
I wrote…
I am defining activist judges as those who bend court rules and professional ethics to modify judicial outcomes.
Bradford wrote…
I suggest Judge Jone's "traipse" comment didn't modify the interpretation of any law, did not make precedent and, therefore, did not "promote judicial legislation"
I wrote…
Any non-activist judge would have have been forced to make the bulk of the rulings Judge Jones made.
Talk to the District Court of Appeals that mandated its judges apply both the Endorsement Test and Lemon Test in cases like these.
I wrote
Much has been made of the Judge's decision to rule on whether ID was science or not. The defense specifically asked that ID be ruled as science.
Finding #631, "ID is Science"
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/k...
This is from the DEFENDANTS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW where the defense identified what they wanted the judge to rule on and how they wanted him to rule.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Hi Salvador,
I don't think Dawkins made any pre-meditated decision to help keep the Wedge alive. He is a True Believer who wants very badly for everyone to convert to Atheism and sees Science as the salvation road to this Utopia. It's his flailing zealotry that helps the Wedge.
When I spoke of Dawkins vested interest, I'm thinking of his need to play up "the threat" (the scientist actually used to words, "American Taliban"), the way politicians try to convince voters of the dangers their opponents represent. The more scary he can make religion, the more he figures that he can push other heavy-weights in the scientific community to his Cause. And besides, such Fear also makes him a huge chunk of money.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Okay, they took down the essay and in its place, they left up the Aug 1 essay.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:35 pm
It was not the comment that legislated but rather the decision to deliberately rule on the scope of science when the facts before the court already were enough to decide the case.
Talk to the District Court of Appeals that mandated its judges apply both the Endorsement Test and Lemon Test in cases like these.
Nothing in the ruling prevents judges from ruling on narrower grounds. It only prescribes parameters when these tests must be invoked.
It is the plaintiffs who initially introduce grounds for their actions including the allegation related to the science claim. Defendents would of course dispute the plaintiff allegation but this does not indicate a desire to present the matter for a ruling but rather an intent to seek a specific outcome on a motion previously introduced by the plaintiifs.
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Dawkin's has his own extra-scientific agenda and uses selective data as his wedge.
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:40 pm
To Bradford,
We are getting way off topic and arguing in circles. I will close with a simple suggestion that you look at that link you asked for and see what the Defendents were and were not asking the judge to rule on.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:54 pm
One more point. The issue of the religious motives of board members involved the Lemon test, specifically the primary motives of the defendents as they related to a secular purpose and defendent motives concerning advancing religion. Again, Jones had enough before him to rule without advancing into the area of the scope of science. Jones also strayed unnecessarily beyond the scope of his own expertise. His legal expertise on the Lemon test is not disputed. His qualifications on science and its philosophical scope are problematic.
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:07 pm
I've made this point elsewhere, too. Jones stated a few times that whether ID is science or not is "essential" whether there was an Establishment Clause violation or not. Unfortunately, he never goes on to explain why it is essential.
In any case, Mike Gene is exactly right in this post. Dawkins clearly said that he thinks the "God Hypothesis" is a scientific one. He didn't just say that its a really weak explanation that we can put forth and show to be wrong (as ed darrel is suggesting).
I should also point out that Jones all but ridiculed (others did ridicule) people like Behe and Fuller for suggesting that ID wants to change the "ground rules" of science. In the comments above, from Thought Provoker, we learn that this is Dawkins goal too:
Crazy bastards.
Comment by macht — September 23, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:00 pm
macht wrote…
Of course we are crazy. You have to be crazy and irrational to think you truly can know anything using only "Naturalism". Just ask DonaldM and Plantinga.
I am glad you and Mike Gene liked my observation (got a LOL out of Mike).
I don't know what Dawkin's motives are, but I honestly think it would make for cleaner, clearer scientific discussions with barriers removed.
Unfortunately, I also think MikeGene may be being insightful when he (or she?) says…
This could be political dynamite. Think about it. Voodoo, Wicca, astrology, creationism and ID are all now science. Are we going to teach this in the public school? Everyone gets equal access to public funding? (can't discriminate based on religion)
While scientists may be able to handle far-out hypotheses, the general public will be confused. This includes those in power.
ID proponents at Dover formally asked the courts to open up the definition of science. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Salvador,
"WWF "“ World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly the "World Wildlife Fund", which is still used by WWF-US and WWF-Canada) is a global environment conservation, research, environmental advocacy and restoration organization."
"World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) is a publicly traded, privately controlled integrated media (focusing in television, internet, and live events), sports, and entertainment company…"
They both used to be known as 'WWF', until the wrestling-based one was forced by the animal-based one to change.
Comment by Sleena — September 23, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Hi Mike…
Again, I thank you for providing Dawkins essay. With the dawn of a new day, I read it from start to finish and immediately started re-reviewing it. Then I reread our threads.
If it wasn't obvious from yesterday's comments, I will state it clearly this morning. I agree almost entirely with what Dawkin's wrote in his essay. I am not sure I agree it was a wise idea that he wrote it, but I can't find much to fault in his logic or evidence.
Mike, you implied a need of having trustworthy people around when you are doing critical analysis.
I offer that people who honestly agree with you are the last people you should trust. Science isn't a popularity contest. Neither is critical thinking. It is way too easy to fall in the trap of believing things you want to believe.
You have pointed out that Dawkins is helping the ID movement politically. I will point out that Dawkins is helping out the ID movement scientifically.
I will agree that the cure may be worse than the disease if "Wedge II" causes everyone to get distracted. That is why I am interested in turning this into a positive where we all don't feel the need to hide inner thoughts.
ID critic - "ID is God"
ID proponent - "Yea, so what… here is my hypothesis…"
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2006 @ 11:19 am
September 25th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Errata:
I was advised a few minutes ago by sources at the Discovery Institute that while Susan Hutchinson is part of the DI's board, the DI does not receive money from the Charles Simonyi fund.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 25, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
[...] Whoa! Well, sort of. Dawkins essay was quickly withdrawn after Mike Gene posed the question, Dawkins on the DI Payroll? [...]
Pingback by [quote mine] Richard Dawkins : ” the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis” | Uncommon Descent — September 26, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Mike,
sorry for arriving a little late into this discussion. You say in your piece above:
On the subject of causes, if we assume for a second that a 'creative deity' uses a 'divine cause' to create a natural creature that is itself capable of causation (such as a human being), would anything caused by the creature be a natural cause or a divine cause? If the creative deity used a natural mechanism (started by a divine cause) to achieve it's ends, would that natural mechanism be testable by science?
I guess the main question is - would a 'creative deity' be confined solely to 'divine causes'? If so, why?
Comment by Odd Digit — September 27, 2006 @ 12:47 pm