Gonzalez' tenure denial in a larger framework
by BilboAt the risk of beating a dead horse, I wanted to take one more look at the Gonzalez case. Most of us ID proponents believe that Guillermo Gonzalez' tenure denial was largely based on his belief in ID. That may not be the real reason. It may be a lack of bringing in research grants. It may be other factors that we don't know about. But it appears to us that ID was at least one of the reasons, if not the main reason.
However, I find myself asking the question, What if the ID movement hadn't been so aggressive in trying to push ID upon the public? For example, what if Behe in Darwin's Black Box, instead of claiming that ID was proven, had merely suggested it as a possible hypothesis worth investigating? What if the ID movement didn't try to change Kansas education standards on evolution? What if at the Dover trial, Behe had said that since ID was still in the hypothesis stage, and largely rejected by the scientific community, that perhaps it would be prudent not to try to teach it in public schools? What if DI devoted most of its funding to research, instead of to propaganda and non-related political issues?
In other words, what if the ID movement hadn't tried to use "power from above" (as a friend of mine refers to these things) to influence the public? What if it had only relied on "power from below" What if it had taken a humbler position about ID? A humbler position about Darwinism? Where would ID be today? Would the outcome of Gonzalez' tenure decision have been different? I think so. True, there would still be large resistance to the idea of ID. But it would not have been seen as so threatening — politically and academically. The scientific community could see people such as Gonzalez as good scientists, who just happen to have a quirky view called ID.
If I'm right about all this, then there is a lesson to be learned. If we want attitudes in academia and the scientific community to change about ID, then we need to get off our high horse, admit the uncertainty surrounding ID, and quit seeing our critics as essentially evil or part of the "dark side." And the sooner we start, the better.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Humility is rarely (if ever) a bad idea. Great sentiments, my friend.
Comment by thechristiancynic — May 23, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I said this once, I'll say it again.: Dover was not a good turning point for ID. It's not exactly a nail in the coffin, but it's definitely an unhealthy palpitation of sorts. For ID to survive it must not become another political movement. Darwinism survived inspite of its negative social implications (eugenics, social Darwinism, etc…) because for some reason it seemed to answer questions that people were asking, and did not force those answers on anyone. Once Darwinism was able to stake a claim on the territory of scientific reason, then it became a dogmatic ideology.
If IDists don't learn from the mistakes of the Dawrinist establishment, then ID too, will become another dry dogmatic ideology. It's well on its way. There is some wisdom in keeping one's religious/philosophical beliefs from influencing one's interpretation of scientific data. On the other hand, there is a way of doing science, and holding to one's religious/philosophical beliefs without offending the religio-scientific sensibilities of colleagues. I agree with the post. I'm not sure all IDists have done this.
I read Pearcey's TOTAL TRUTH, and while she has some insights into what we are headed into in materialistic Western societies, I think the battle cry is being sounded a bit too loudly. IDists need to take a breather, and allow truth to sink in (if they really believe that it is truth). To go on the defensive, I think is the wrong move. Humility is a daily exercise. The person who thinks she/he has reached humility is the farthest away from it. So in a movement - particularly a scientific one, those who don the captains' hats must be prepared to go down with the ship. I think that Gonzalez is aware of this.
Gonzalez's denial of tenure can be seen in another light as a victory for ID. It is with this loss, perhaps that IDists can reevaluate their motives and their strategies. If the reason(s) for Gonzalez' tenure denial turn(s) out to be largely due to his ID views, then depending on their reaction to such a reality, IDists have an opportunity to increase the public's understanding of ID. But if IDists cry victim in this case, I think it will have a negative effect. I don't think Gonzalez is prepared to make this into a case of worldview discrimination. I would be very surprised if he does.
Comment by Randy — May 23, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Bilbo says:
Let me cast my vote in the negative. I've never been a dogmatic IDer. I am an agnostic/athiest. Never quoted the Bible. It doesn't seem to make any difference to the Darwinists that I generally encounter.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — May 23, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Amen, Bilbo.
I've known about ID for more than a decade, and I've been interested in it all along as an intellectual curiosity, yet I never felt threatened by it or stirred to action until IDers started messing with education in Kansas, Dover, and Ohio.
Dover, especially, woke me up, caused me to join the ACLU and Americans United, and got me participating on ID-related blogs.
Many other critics have expressed sentiments similar to mine.
The DI should have waited until it had a scientific leg to stand on before venturing into politics. Of course, many of us think they would have been waiting a very long time…
Comment by keiths — May 23, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Hi Bilbo,
Courageous. Good Job
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 23, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Certainly not the most thought provoking analysis of the OP.
Comment by Mung — May 23, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 5:32 am
keiths says:
Sure. And if the Democrats stopped fielding candidates, and didn't attempt to defeat the Republican policies, the dialogues between the two parties might be significantly less rancorous. But I'm not sure that we can then conclude that since the Democrats don't drop out, they are responsible for the rancour. It takes two to tango.
There was a lot of "messing with education" by the Darwinian establishment. It is perfectly reasonable for those with a differing position to challenge them.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — May 24, 2007 @ 5:32 am
May 24th, 2007 at 5:53 am
Roger,
The difference, of course, is that Darwinian evolution made it into the curriculum the old-fashioned way: by proving its worth and gaining the acceptance of virtually the entire scientific community.
ID proponents attempted an end run around this process by pushing ID prematurely into public school science curricula, all while gaining the acceptance of only a tiny fraction of the scientists.
There's no comparison.
Comment by keiths — May 24, 2007 @ 5:53 am
May 24th, 2007 at 6:50 am
keiths says:
If you said "a difference", I could agree with you. But the "The" seems to be begging the question. There are useful and accepted scientific ideas that don't make it into most public school K-12 curriculums. There are ideas that make it into science classes that don't come close to being science in any meaningful way. And there are many courses that by their nature aren't a result of scientific consensus. Yet the schools have to decide what to teach and what not to. They can accept the recommendations of some group, or accept it with modifications, or reject it outright.
The "old-fashioned way" is for local school officials to decide what they want to teach. Sometimes that will be acceptable to you, and you will see it as "correct". And sometimes you won't, and will see it as "wrong". But those are subjective judgements based on your POV. Others have differeing POV's.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — May 24, 2007 @ 6:50 am
May 24th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Hi Mung,
You wrote…
I'm not on the job 24/7 and I am human. When I am in my "just being a nice guy" mode I sign my comments…
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 24, 2007 @ 7:57 am
May 24th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Bilbo raises interesting questions I have thought about for some time now. It's hard to tell. There is no doubt that the political activity from the ID movement has inflamed the critics and justifiably given them plenty of ammunition. Furthermore, most in the scientific community were introduced to ID through the political activity of the ID movement and thus view the whole topic through a political prism. But Roger also has a point in that I have adopted the very stance that Bilbo suggests from the beginning, yet I can report, from years of experience, that it doesn't matter to most critics - their stereotypes were not created by the ID movement.
What comes to my mind is the sci-fi movie, "The Butterfly Effect." In that movie, a guy is able to go back into time to revisit traumatic experiences from his childhood and try to change his past. It seems so simple, but every time he changes one variable, other unintended consequences occur that make his new present even worse than before. If you could go back in time and make the changes Bilbo suggests, what would the present really look like?
Here are some things to consider.
1. I first became interested in ID as a result of Behe's book because of the controversy it stirred on the internet (it was the controversy that caused me to look in on the debate). I think this is true for many of us here. Thus, if Behe's book had not stirred any controversy, there is a very good chance we would not know each other. From my own end, there would not be an idthink.net and I would not be here at TT. In fact, there would probably be no TT.
2. In the late 1990s, the National Association of Biology Teachers was adopting a policy to teach evolution from a distinct, non-teleological metaphysical perspective. They abandoned this effort because Eugenie Scott intervened and she intervened because she feared such a policy would strengthen the emerging ID movement. Without the ID movement, would children today be in the process of being taught evolution with a metaphysical spin? Might this have triggered a very different court room drama?
3. Do not forget there are different types of ID critics. With or without the ID movement, we would still have the New Atheist movement, which was spawned as a reaction to 911. Thus, the type C critics would still be here (consider the way PZ Myers lashes out at Ken Miller/Francis Collins). In fact, without the restraining hand of the type A critics making alliances with the type D critics, the type C critics would likely be even more vocal and extreme in their agenda. But the type A critics exist because of the ID movement. Without the movement, many type As would simply be doing something else or showing their true colors as type C critics. On the other hand, without all the political trouble-making, type D critics (who are teleologists) might have been more sympathetic to ID. Thus oddly enough, without the ID movement, things may actually be more polarized than they are today.
Comment by MikeGene — May 24, 2007 @ 9:07 am
May 24th, 2007 at 9:45 am
No, they do not need to "take a breather" - they need to climb down from their pulpits and get on with the hard-work of the basic science research needed to back up their radical claims.
If the IDers would quit their metaphysical sophistry and get on with some basic research then things might change (assuming there is any truth at all to the ID position).
Comment by salimfadhley — May 24, 2007 @ 9:45 am
May 24th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Hi Bilbo,
Not gonna happen. For Phillip Johnson and other good folks at the DI, IDism is, and always has been, a political tool to use in the struggle against the "dark side". Thats not going to change.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 24, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
With respect to the progress of the ID movement, a general rule of thumb regarding the critics of ID is to do the thing that ticks them off the most as that is an indicator of their vulnerability.
In contrast, doing things they find agreeable is an indication the movement is going down a path the critics would prefer.
The prevailing strategy is not to persuade the critics who are in power today but to wait for them to be replaced by the next generation who will be more pro-ID. The next generation will be more pro-ID if the public relations battle is won today.
It is a myth that the anti-teleologists have any substantial theoretical or empirical evidence that mindless forces created the features of life and the universe. After billions of dollars of wasted money, the critics have little to show for their efforts. Stanley Miller went to his grave a failure in his grand quest. Several more will follow until someday people realize OOL is an emperor with no clothes.
The way biology will be successfully studied is not through the blinders of Darwinism but through the lens of Design. Mindless Evolutionary biology will (with the happy exception of operational population genetics), become largely irrelevant. And what was recently written of biology in the world's most prestigious scientific journal? Lo and behold, a design friendly approach: Look at biological systems through an engineer's eyes. This approach to the study of biology has teleology written all over it!
Bill Dembski aritculated the prevailing strategy of the ID movement in dealing with the critics:
And if we think about it, looking at the Post-Dover situation, which side of the debate is acting like the victors? Well, neither side. But one side does seem to be losing its composure with it's fuming, ranting and frothing at the mouth authoritarian elistist posturing.
Appeasement and and being hidden from the public eye is what the critics want. What they don't want is to be in a position to defend their claims before the public.
I'd suggest if a critic of ID says:
It's probably not what the ID movement should do.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 24, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Hi Salvador,
Amen, Salvador
Comments like yours are testiment that the "ID Movement" and its Wedge document policies haven't changed one bit.
Provoking
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 24, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Another problem is pinning down precisely what many of the leading ID proponents mean by ID:
Michael Behe accepts the idea of common descent, but believes that certain structures in nature could not have arisen via an unguided process. With the exception of his famous examples (e.g. Bacterial flagellum*), Behe can only say that many more structures may also be irreducably complex, but freely admits that other structures (e.g, the vertibrate eye) have evolved.
Dembski points out the the idea that the entire human genome is very unlikely to have come about in a single random incident, (sort of like throwing a few billion four-sided dice and coming up with the exact human genome). He says that the genome could only have formed by an intelligent process, but leaves his definition of what kind of inteligence that might be so wide-open that it could include anything from space-aliens to the perfectly mundane and well-understood process of darwinian evolution.
I'm sure this lack of clarity is intentional; If Behe were to denounce young-earth creationism, he would quickly errode support from one of the groups who have previously enthusiastically backed the DI & Fellows. YEC groups often make use of DI research to validate their theological claims, but the DI has never once criticized YECists for mis-representing their research.
Of course, if the DI fellows actually published original research that purported to back their core claims then they know that research would come under intense scrutiny; Given that the DI's agenda seems to be more political and social than scientific, this would not serve their greater goals.
[ * Note, I do not personally believe that Bacterial Flagellum or any structure in nature has ever been shown to be irreducably complex, nor do I think that Behe's method for demonstrating IC is sufficiently rigorous. ]
Comment by salimfadhley — May 24, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
For those without a Nature subscription, here's what Sal is linking to (a high entropy letter it seems to me):
Comment by Raevmo — May 24, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I've never met an atheist IDer. If I were to give you free-license to speculate on what the nature of the "intelligent designer" might be, what or who (if not God) is this design agent?
Comment by salimfadhley — May 24, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Yes, keep it up Salvador - we are left in no dobut as to the mindset of the ID movement. I especially liked your extensive quote from Bill Dembski showing that he is a biblical literalist, at least in so far as the historical accuracy of the Old Testament.
What better way to show your theologial neutrality than to compare your own research to the the struggle of the aincient israelites. Perhaps Bill also expects that his faith-based approach to science will be rewarded with a public-relations miracle?
Comment by salimfadhley — May 24, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Hi Salimfadhley,
You wrote…
Am I an "IDer" For that matter, am I an "atheist"
I call myself an atheist and I suspect many here would agree with me.
I have an ID Proposal that speculates about an Intelligent Designer but more people call me an "ID Critic" than an "IDer".
I am a big critic of the ID Movement but not of the kind of ID Science MikeGene and Joy appear to be interested in.
I don't know if that helps or confuses the issue, but I offer it since you asked.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 24, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Sal:
What is "operational population genetics" Anyway, an engineering approach has been around in biology for a long time. The late John Maynard Smith, eminent evolutionary biologist, was an airplane engineer by training. He, with a great deal of help from George Price and Bill Hamilton, introduced game theory as a tool to study adaptation in biology. Game theory is a branch of optimization theory, going back a long time but von Neumann, Morgenstern and Nash put it on a solid mathematical foundation. Nash, Selten (the mentor of my mentor, sorry couldn't resist mentioning) and some Hungarian dude who's name I forget got the Nobel for their efforts in this field. The ironic thing is, game theory has been more succesful in biology than in economics (where it was mainly developed), because the assumption of rationality doesn't work that well in economics. In biology on the other hand, natural selection is the "invisible hand" that makes the application of optimization tools more appropriate. Repeated application of a mindless force can give biological traits the appearance of design.
BTW: that stuff in Nature was just a letter to the editor. No research.
Comment by Raevmo — May 24, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Hi Salvador,
I am. Very much so. I am looking at the mechanics, the intricate gears and levers, the patterns forming out of quasi-random chaos. I am looking at how things WORK, not metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 24, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
The term "operational" is a qualifier I added to distinguish the kind of population genetics used by researchers today in their work in the study of evolution of living organisms today. The word operational usually means something that is technologically applied in the field. For example, this kind of operational research is used in disease control, agriculture, livestock management, etc. This aspect of population genetics I consider very scientific and verifiable.
This is in contrast to population genetic models that try to make esitmates of evolution in the distant past. I find this aspect of population genetics a very suspect.
If there is a better phrase to help distinguish the two notions of population genetics, I would be delighted to use the proper terminology.
[by the way, on another thread you wrote a beautiful post on natural selection. Unfortunately, my appreciative response to you was held up in moderation (most likely I said a word the computerized spam buffer didn't like).]
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 24, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
What is more offensive to ID critics:
The lack of scientific rigor behind the ID movement
or
The association with the name Jesus?
You know, Einstein and Hawking were free to write about the "mind of God" or the "apparent intelligence" that underlies cosmology and the physical universe. Hoyle could muse about a "superintellect" that must have monkeyed around with physics. As we speak, physicists are searching for "the God particle" behind the Higgs field.
Why is the rancor amped up when there is a connection to Christianity?
Comment by chunkdz — May 24, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Sal's quotation of Dembski deserves special attention:
Does this remind anybody of Dembski's personality? Of Dave Scot's? Sorry, but nobody in the ID movement is further from this description than William Dembski himself. He's the most thin-skinned member of the ID movement there is. Which is why — I think — he allows Dave Scot to "moderate" his blog and delete anything that might remotely offend Dembski.
Now normally I wouldn't dwell on somebody else's personality flaws, since I have plenty of my own. But there's a point to this. As Salim noticed, Dembski compares the ID movement to the Israelites, as they entered the promised land and did God-ordained battle with the heathen. Though this doesn't prove Dembsi is a literalist, Salim. It could just be a literary comparison, such as comparing oneself to Hamlet. But Dembski very much does see himself and the ID movement as a God-ordained entity, carrying out battle against the Evilutionists. And this view of himself doesn't allow him to keep his sense of humor and be a "free spirit." For he has serious work to do: Conquering the scientific world for God.
And I fear that it is this very self-conception that will keep Dembski and the ID movement from ever being able to carry on constructive dialogue with the scientific community. His best hope is that Bush declares himself the first Emperor of America, and establishes a law that ID must be taught in schools. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen.
Now to Mike Gene's comments. I think Behe's book, even with my wishful modifications, would have created quite a stir on the internet. However, I think it would have been a much more constructive stir. You wouldn't have had to continually distance yourself from the ID movement. People would have realized that you were just trying to carry out one of the research hypotheses that Behe had suggested in his book. There would have been debate, but I think less hostile, or at least less misunderstandings.
But you're right. It's hard to know what "would" have happened. Aslan always instructed the Pevensy children that they could never know what "would" have happened about anything. Only what has happened. I think we see what has happened. Even tenured professors who are ID friendly are afraid to come out of the closet. And I think much of the blame for that can be laid at the feet of the ID movement, which continues its crusade for "truth."
Comment by Bilbo — May 24, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Chuck:
Is it really? Or is it in your imagination? If more people on this blog would bring up Muhammed, I'm sure he would be treated at least as harshly. Personally, I think Jesus was an OK guy (if he existed), but Muhammed (more likely to have existed IMO) was an intolerant and despicable tyrrant.
Comment by Raevmo — May 24, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Though I deeply respect your expertise in the field of biology, I have to confess nothing in my studies in school or experience professionally or in my study of the evolution debate has given me reason to ascent to this. I respect your position, but it is not mine.
For the record, I did not grow up in a fundamenatlist home. When I was young, I thought the idea of evolved life forms on other planets was pretty cool. The thought that I could some day visit these life forms (as in Star Trek) seemed to be pretty cool.
I just no longer think life can evolve mindlessly.
As far as the acrimony being exchanged by the two sides, religion may have a part, but I think deep down the two sides just don't get along and vendettas of sorts and personality clashes are being played out.
As for me personally, I don't think I can say in good conscience, that I never had an axe to grind with people bent on trashing me or my comrades. The Caroline Crocker ordeal left a pretty bad taste in my mouth.
The Gonzalez affair is bringing back memories. Things like Caroline Crocker ordeal had nothing to do with Dover or Kansas! After rejecting the Darwinism she believed in for all her life, she criticized evolutionary theory and that's all it took.
I'm of the opinion the main reason we're hearing about Gonzalez is the Discovery Institute coming to his defense. Otherwise, he would have been yet another ID proponent quietly put away. It's a mistake to think this sort of thing has not been going on for decades. I think it's a mistake to think the Dover and Kansas issue have a significant bearing on Gonzalez. Certain people just turn purple with anger at the thought that some people believe in ID.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 24, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
You are on target chunkdz. There are advantages though to a position that operates under the pretense that science is the only concern. It enables critics to donn a false mantel of objectivity. It also has a legal advantage in that critics can contend the religious concerns lie with their opponents while they ignore their own motivations. The attribution of religious motivations to the opponent and purely scientific ones to oneself has clear advantages accorded by the Dover decision.
Comment by Bradford — May 24, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Sal:
Why is that suspect? I mean in addition to the greater uncertainty that comes naturally with extrapolating further in the past. How do you explain the remarkable (but obviously not perfect) agreement between morphological phylogenetic trees and those based on genetics?
[Thanks for your kind words about my post on another thread]
Comment by Raevmo — May 24, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
A doubt based on personal incredulity.
Comment by Bradford — May 24, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Hi Chunkdz,
You asked…
I don't know if I qualify and an "ID Critic" but I am definitely critical of the "ID Movement". What is offensive to me is the reduced sense of ethics of many of the leaders of the ID Movement. In my opinion, these leaders use their impressive talents putting "a bit of pepper on the gloves" rather than help searching for and explaining the gems of true scientific argument hiding in the mountain of rocks generated to feed the PR machine and fill the "Big Tent".
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 24, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Hi Raevmo
What I meant was that it's apparently OK to speak about the designer in veiled impersonal terms, as Einstein, Hawking and Hoyle did. As soon as there is a personal connection to the designer however, the gloves come off - even if (as in Gonzalez' case) the research itself is deliberately non-personal.
In answer to your question, I don't think it's my imagination. A quick glance at the writings of Myers, and Dawkins with regards to Ken Miller makes it clear.
Comment by chunkdz — May 24, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Bratford:
No, a doubt based on the inperfect historical record. Can you be really really sure without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus existed? Let's face it, the Christian religion has borrowed a lot of stuff from earlier religions, including virgin birth and resurrection. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but it does provide food for doubt. If you can't admit that, then you're fooling yourself (or maybe you had a personal revelation, but that's hard to check for me). No disrespect intended. My girlfriend (soon wife) is a Christian (orthodox) and despite our periodic heated discussions, we get along just fine.
Comment by Raevmo — May 24, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Raevmo, the historic data documenting the existence of Jesus is very strong. If it is to be labeled insufficient then you might as well doubt the existence of every major figure of ancient history. When you allege a borrowing theme you are moving the goalposts from existence to evidence for other concepts asociated with Christ. But to argue that because you find the ressurection impossible to believe that you then do not believe in the existence of Christ is irrational
Comment by Bradford — May 24, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Hi Bradford,
Raevmo wrote "I think Jesus was an OK guy (if he existed)"
You responded with…
and later said…
For what it is worth, I think there is sufficient empirical evidence that a minor rabbi named Yeshua Ben Yosef existed and a guy named Shaul (now known by his Hellenized name "Paul") decided to spread the teaching of this rabbi to gentiles instead of limiting his preaching to just the Jewish faithful. The decision ended up making Yeshua's teachings very well known.
Provoking
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 24, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
But I don't see the purpose of arguing over the historicity of Jesus' existence; it's really quite irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Comment by thechristiancynic — May 24, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Bradford:
You say it is very strong. But as far as I know there are no contemporary documents testifying to his remarkable achievements. It's all hearsay. I do realize that this is true for quite a few important historical figures. But for figures like Julius Ceasar there's a lot more independent evidence. On balance, I tend to agree with TP. There probably was an influential wannabe-messias not unlike Jesus (there were many at the time it seems), and Paul was his very succesful PR manager (after he died).
Comment by Raevmo — May 24, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
I think Eienstein and Hawking's reputation as scientists entitled them both to speak poetically about their work from time to time. If William Dembski contributed even 1% to his field as those two great theoretical physicists did, i could forgive his zany outbursts.
So would you consider that the bible story of Jesus is a historically accurate text, or perhaps something closer to a folk-legend loosely based on some actual historical events.
Comment by salimfadhley — May 24, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Mr Cynic:
You're right of course, but "your side" (Chuck) started it…
Comment by Raevmo — May 24, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Bilbo wrote…
I like this Bilbo guy.
Regards,
TP
P.S. But, Biblo, we really should refrain from focusing on the politics and get back to science.
I'm being serious here.
Really, let's talk science.
Do I sound convincing yet?
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 24, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
It might be informative to see the sort of thing which Gonzalez has paid so heavy a price for promoting through the Discovery Institute and Illustra Media.
By any measure, I harldly think he deserved to be target of public humiliation efforts by Hector Avalos who got 120 facutly to sign an anti-ID statement, or Gonzalez being besiged by hundreds of hostile signatures and banners when he went on lecture circuit to other schools. Let the readers see for theselves the nature of his supposed "wicked" efforts against science:
10 minute clip of Privileged Planet
If the critics will go after people who participate in promoting ideas like Privileged Planet, that's pretty scary.:shock: I mean, was anything in that video so objectionable as to ruin someone's reputation and career?
For that matter, should the Discovery Institute be accused of all sorts of moral depravity for promoting that video?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 24, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
"Mr Cynic" - now that's the kind of respect I deserve!
I don't like this "sides" stuff; certainly no one confers with me before they espouse beliefs for "my side." So let it be known that I stand here right on my little island in the middle of the stream, watching the tide come in.
Comment by thechristiancynic — May 24, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Here's what Dembski said long before the GG fiasco (copied from Pharyngula):
Comment by Raevmo — May 24, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
No, they do not need to "take a breather" - they need to climb down from their pulpits and get on with the hard-work of the basic science research needed to back up their radical claims.
If the IDers would quit their metaphysical sophistry and get on with some basic research then things might change (assuming there is any truth at all to the ID position).
When I say "take a breather," I mean from being involved in the political power struggle over getting ID into public schools. Incidentally, I think that it is important to distinguish between ID as science, and the ID movement. The ID movement involves a variety of different and sometimes clashing interests. You say that IDists need to "climb down from their pulpits." I don't think that it is ID scientists that are doing this. It is those in the larger ID movement.
If I can use an analogy, Al Gore is not a scientist. He, however, is involved in the global warming movement, and is highly political. I have seen how scientists who study global warming are much less the alarmists that Al Gore is. In the same veign, there are people doing science (such as Gonzalez), who have things to say about what science can and cannot tell us about the nature of our universe (for Gonzalez) or about complex biological systems (for Behe) or about probability theory as it relates to evolution (for Dembski), who may or may not be involved with certain factions within the larger "movement." It is not these scientists/mathematicians who necessarily desire to see ID taught in public schools. They would agree with you, that much more research needs to be done with ID before it can earn that privilege.
Comment by Randy — May 24, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
excuse me, I meant to show this as a quote: Salimfadhley replied to my earlier post: "No, they do not need to "take a breather" - they need to climb down from their pulpits and get on with the hard-work of the basic science research needed to back up their radical claims.
If the IDers would quit their metaphysical sophistry and get on with some basic research then things might change (assuming there is any truth at all to the ID position)."
When I say "take a breather," ………………………………………
Comment by Randy — May 24, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Hi Salvador,
You wrote…
I watched the 10 minutes and learned nothing new except that the first 10 minutes of Privileged Planet set up several strawmen and distorted some facts to the point of deception.
It was definiately a story told from a western, christian point of view. However, the movie Priviledged Planet did remind me of Carl Sagan and some of the things he had to say. As a quid pro quo, I request that you watch these 10 minutes. It might help explain what I consider "pretty scary".
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 24, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Good gravy Thought Provoker! What video were you watching?
1. The first few minutes was the voyager spacecraft
2. Then meniton of geocenctricm form Ptolemy (2:55)
3. Then copernicus (3:33)
4. Then the notion of "the copernican principle" (4:43)
5. Then Sagan preaching our insignificance (5:52), talking about our "delusion of privilege"
6. Then Hubble's discovery, and Jastrow saying that led to a stronger belief in the Copernican principle (6:20)
7. Then Seth Shostak on SETI (9:10)
I could hardly find anything that was :
I would be curious if you think being the chief author of such a video is grounds for denying him promotion at a secular university?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 24, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I watched it. Sagan put a anti-Christian spin on Hypatia's death. Hypatia was actually the mentor to another Christian bishop (name Synesius) who thought Cyril was a murderous man with a band of followers who did not fear God (they were hypocrites in other words). Thus, one could hardly claim Hypatia's murder was done in the name of Jesus.
Sagan did not mention Bishop Synesius nor the Chrisitan historian Socrates Scholasticus' negative view of Cyril. Bishop Synesius was Hypatia's student. What Sagan insinuated would be like someone suggesting the columbine Darwinists murderers are representative of people like Francis Collins. I think even less of Sagan the more I learn of him. What Sagan did was sleazy. Actually, on second thought, maybe I can like him.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 24, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 5:12 am
salimfadhley Says:
I don't think that is very difficult at all. Take Behe or Dembski, and we can go to their book[s] and let them define it for us.
That's an unfair characterization of Behe, IMHO. He doesn't say "could not have arisen via an unguided process". He says that Darwinian principles don't appear to explain some of what we see.
There is no lack of clarity. It is just that some issues aren't at the core of what is ID, so IDers differ on those issues. Behe is not unclear about that fact that he isn't a YEC.
Let's put your comment back into the context of this thread. You find fault with Behe because he doesn't "denounce" people who have a different POV. That's my Exhibit A in why Bilbo's conjecture in the opening post is misguided and naive. To you there is something suspicious about folks who want to raise the dialogue above the demonization of differences.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — May 25, 2007 @ 5:12 am
May 25th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Well said. In the same camp are those who criticize evolution skeptics who agree to leave God out of their arguments (i.e. IDists), only to be charged with deceit and subterfuge for concealing their Theism!
Comment by russ — May 25, 2007 @ 8:21 am
May 25th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Perhaps "denounce" is too strong a word, perhaps "correction" would be more appropriate. For example, astronomers often speak out against the absurd misunderstandings of their science that often pop up in the mainstream press, for example the claims made by astrologers or pulp sci-fi shows.
I'd love to see a critique of YEC from a ID perspective, particularly one written by a fellow of the DI. If the DI were to get in the habit of correcting the more outrageous claims made by independent ID activists then they might find a great deal more support.
Many ID sceptics regard the fact that ID refuses to identify the designer, his methods or the age of his creation as a warning sign. I wonder why IDers consider these questions to be so unimportant? It seems only natural that if you assert that something was artificially designed (rather than evolved naturally), then one might seek the identity of this designer.
There are plenty more questions unanswered: For example, if you believe in front-loading, I guess that means you also believe in some kind of directed evolution. On the other hand if you reject directed evolution then you might accept some kind of baraminist "created kinds" view. I'm not sure which camp the ID standard is most firmly planted.
Of course, I'm sure SalC would take issue with this, so may I leave you with a headline from one of his posts on Uncommon Descent:
"As the design revolution continues, Darwinism slips into irrelevance"
Brilliant, just brilliant. That reminds me of when proponents of cold-fusion declared the concept of the power-station and the entire energy distribution infrastructure utterly irrelevant. At best naively premature, at worst WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
PS. I looked on the web for a good definition of "Front Loading" - surprisingly most of the references to this concept in origins debate are on this web-site. If this is a concept that is generally accepted in ID, perhaps it is time that somebody who understands the concept makes a page about it on Wikipedia.
Comment by salimfadhley — May 25, 2007 @ 9:40 am
May 25th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Any chance you could point me to the relevant sections of Behe's book where he states his reasons for rejecting YEC?
Given that so many lay-people (myself and Judge-Jones included) get confused between the claims of ID and YEC, one might expect that proponents of ID would be keen to clarify the good reasons for the differences between these positions?
Can somebody confirm if Behe was recently hired as a consultant by a publisher of YEC textbooks? I understand that he published a favourable review of these texts. If the story I half-remember was correct then it would imply that Behe has no strong objections to YECism.
Comment by salimfadhley — May 25, 2007 @ 9:54 am
May 25th, 2007 at 10:11 am
IDists who are not young earthers do voice their views about the age issue. However they are no more obligated to campaign against YECs than are mainstream types obligated to do the same with regard to the erroneous or irrelevant proclamations of noted EAs.
No one is opposed to seeking. Only the erroneous concept that the absence of identity signifies an absence of evidence for intelligent design.
Comment by Bradford — May 25, 2007 @ 10:11 am
May 25th, 2007 at 10:27 am
First a little background about me. I got involved with "ID" a little over 20 years ago when I was working as a campus minister at a large secular university. Of course this was long before the term Intelligent Design was coined, or before people like Johnson, Dembski or Behe had appeared on the scene. After reading a number of books primarily Michael Dentons, Evolution a Theory in Crisis, The Mystery of Life's Origin, by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen and God and the Astonomers, by Robert Jastrow, I developed a couple of lectures that I first gave on my own campus and then at a large regional student conference in Chicago, Ill. At the time I didn't think of ID as a nascent science but as a set of interesting problems, questions and issues (some philosophical, some theological) that arise along the boundaries of what is considered to be natural science. I think some of these problems demonstrate that science is at its most basic level quite limited. My basic view has changed little since then.
I agree with critics who complain that the "ID is science" people are putting the cart before the horse, though I would never be as uncharitable in my comments as some of them have been. Will ID ever develop into science? I don't think so, but neither can I ever say never,
I think the problem can be traced back to Phillip Johnson, who was pushing the envelope when he suggested that empirical science need to shift it's foundation from metaphysical naturalism to theistic realism. Of course, he never explained how one is to supposed to convince atheistic or agnostic secular scientists to abandon, or trade in their materialistic world view for a fancy new theistic one. Cleary, this was something of a pipe dream on his part.
I will also agree that Johnson, Dembski and others have been overly contentious at times with their rhetoric. Harsh rhetoric understandably invites harsh responses. However, I don't think the hatred, hostility or bigotry, that some self appointed defenders of science resort to, is ever an understandable or justifiable response. Furthermore, neither is it justifiable to create an atmosphere of intolerance or deny a scholar his right to academic freedom because you disagree with his "crazy" ideas. Ideas are never dangerous in and of themselves. The suppression of ideas is.
Neither is it justifiable to lump moderates like myself in with Johnson, Dembski or the Discovery Institute. That ID is science, or can even become science has never been our point of view. Why should we be blamed for the excesses of a few?
I have a suggestion for some of the more militant critic that show up on Telic Thoughts. Let's try to find some common ground and some room for compromise. Prejudice and intolerance is never good for discussion and debate. It's certainly not good in free open democratic society. I don't know about you but that is what I am primarily concerned about.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — May 25, 2007 @ 10:27 am
May 25th, 2007 at 10:45 am
C'mon. This is unworthy of one with any anlaytical abilities. YECs claim the earth is young. Ranges fall within the 6,000 to 10,000 year range. Non-YECs adhere to standard estimates of age. However IDists believe including intelligent causality within the causal mix of options is reasonable. That includes YECs and non-YECs. That wasn't so hard.
Comment by Bradford — May 25, 2007 @ 10:45 am
May 25th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Bradford,
Of course it is hard from the standpoint of cosmological ID. The fine tuning in the nuclear chemistry that permits stars to evolve, explode, and seed space with the heavy elements that they cooked up in their furnaces makes no sense if no stars have ever actually completed their life cycle and exploded. The fine tuning of the universe's expansion rate makes no sense if the stars were created in situ. As far as cosmological ID goes, there is no "big tent."
Comment by David Heddle — May 25, 2007 @ 11:21 am
May 25th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Salim
How is this not a rationalization via an argument from authority? It doesn't really address the core of my argument.
Comment by chunkdz — May 25, 2007 @ 11:39 am
May 25th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Bilbo,
Your comments are a useful, accurate, and needed corrective among ID proponents. Keep it up. If you understand the ultimate and only concern of the cultural ID movement, then their actions are entirely understandable. Then, you have to look at the unique psychology of it's principal advocates. Then, do the same for their antagonists. It makes for a tangled mess if you don't get the essentials correct. The ID cultural movement has little if nothing to do with doing science. Similarly, the EA movement also has little to do with doing science. Science is a pawn in the game. A playing field. As Joy says, it's all dueling metaphysics.
Yet, there are some, a few, who want to look at what the method of science can reveal about ultimate reality. They are open to the possibility of teleology. This blog is a great place to learn.
Comment by bj — May 25, 2007 @ 11:41 am
May 25th, 2007 at 11:46 am
I don't take issue with this. However I do believe the complaints of anti-IDists lack sincerity in that IDists who are not YECs do vent their views on age issues and that if there were no YECs within the ID camp critics would seek other targets.
Comment by Bradford — May 25, 2007 @ 11:46 am
May 25th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I admire Philip Johnson for the record. Johnson doesn't comment on the YEC issue because he knows it is divisive and beside the point. People who depend on the Old Testament for understanding their faith have to rethink their theology based on the findings of science and the amount of trust they give to those findings. Many will tell you that God is outside of time and time is irrelevant to the fact of creation. One Rabbi/physicist I recall reading explained time in terms of relativity. Our frame of reference became the same as God's when s/he imbued us with souls/conciousness/godness (choose your term) and made us distinct and special, as is surely the case, however long it took and by whatever method used. Personally I am not YEC but would't want to alienate YECs from ID. In the same foxhole against the EAs and all. Besides, I'm curious as to why someone obviously intelligent such as Mr. Cordova would consider YEC a tenable position. Hows that web site coming, BTW?
Comment by WedgeHead — May 25, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Hi Salvador,
You asked…
The simple answer is "no".
Then you stated…
Did you learn anything new in the first 10 minutes of The Privileged Planet? I suggest the first ten minutes was used to set up the framing/spin for the following 48 minutes of the movie (which I have now watched).
Yes he did, just as you are now attempting to put a pro-Christian spin on Hypatia's death.
The Privileged Planet did not mention a lot of things too. Like Copernicus' connection to the Pantheon and its connection to Aristarchus (3rd Century BC Scolar). Their is plenty of evidence that ancient scholars realized the earth and other planets revolved around the Sun. A heliocentric view may have been well known, studied and documented. Unfortunately, documents were intentionally destroyed, libraries burned and people stripped naked and flayed because the views like these were condemned as paganist sun worshipping.
The film clip I linked was ten minutes out of many hours of the Cosmos series. Even with that, the discussion of Hypatia was just a short piece in the last part of this poorly edited clip lasting only a few minutes. Sagan provoked thinking. It is up to us to think for ourselves and look for the missing information.
Why was Cyril declared a saint by the Catholic church?
It is my understanding there was a great schism around 400 AD. Christians like Nestorius, Synesius and Socrates of Constantinople wanted to keep physics separate from metaphysics (NOMA) including for the MAN named Jesus. Christians like Cyril wanted to conflate the two (OMA) expecially for the GOD worshipped as Jesus. Any bets on which side won?
I intentionally sought a Cathlic based source for the following quotes…
The principal fame of St. Cyril rests upon his defence of Catholic doctrine against Nestorius. That heretic was undoubtedly confused and uncertain. He wished, against Apollinarius, to teach that Christ was a perfect man, and he took the denial of a human personality in Our Lord to imply an Apollinarian incompleteness in His Human Nature. The union of the human and the Divine natures was therefore to Nestorius an unspeakably close junction, but not a union in one hypostasis. link
In 409 Synesius was elected Metropolitan of Ptolemais. The bishop-elect unbosomed himself in a letter [Ep. cv] to Euoptius. The duties of a bishop were uncongenial to him, fond as he was of his amusements as well as of religious study"¦. Still, "if it is God's will, I will submit". But there was a worse obstacle, "Philosophy is opposed to the opinions of the vulgar. I certainly shall not admit that the soul is posterior to the body "¦ that the world and all its parts shall perish together. The resurrection "¦ I consider something sacred and ineffable and am far from sharing the ideas of the multitude". He could keep silence but not "pretend to hold opinions which he did not hold". link
Provoking Thought
P.S. In case the subtlety of the why this is on-topic is missed. I believe Bilbo is correct in pointing out how using the "power from above" to rally the masses to create Truth isn't as appropriate as relying on the "power from below" to build the case scientifically.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 25, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Salim wrote:
Though I'm in no way associated with the DI, I did try to provoke a debate an/or discussion with several YEC participants of this site about their position. Unfortunately, there were no takers. They probably think that maintaining appearance of no conflict helps to maintain the 'big tent'. personally I feel the opposite: in a true big tent there is a diversity of views. I think an objective fair minded debate would be a constructive and even a good thing.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — May 25, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
My view is that the critics of ID would be just about as mean, nasty, and resolved to inflict harm on ID proponents and Christians as they are today. We are only more aware of it because of the ID movement.
Prior to the ID movement getting to the forefront (say 1999), it was apparent the opponents of design were just as nasty and belligerant and unethical as they are today. Do you think they got that way over night? Do you think Dawkins, Dennett, and Singer are merely responding to the threat of ID in public schools?
Let's recall something what one professor said at ISU 24 years ago:
John Patterson
Patterson has passed the torch to Avalos, and they did sign and promote the recent witch hunt document at ISU. It's futile to hope they'll change their mind out the goodness of their heart.
Their hostility toward ID is a deeply held value with "moral" force. It is the core of their soul. Having no Dover, Kansas, or Behe would do little to change their attitudes. The fact that Patterson had these feelings prior to the modern ID movement is evidence to that effect.
The way to deal with it is to raise awareness that permitting such prejudices to take place is bad for business. Thankfully some university presidents realize this, and hopefully more. See one example of the success of the ID movement when the CEO of Intel and 12 university presidents politely told John Rennie to buzz off: Cowardice, Creationism and Science Education
John Rennie was put in his place because the masses were energized against his attempts at totalitarianism.
Just my humble opinion.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 25, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Sal wrote:
Yes, Sal, you're right that there are close-minded scientists and academics who would conduct "witch-hunts" agains ID proponents, regardless of how humble and non-threatening the ID movement tried to be. I agree with that completely. However, I do not think their efforts would be nearly as effective had the ID movement taken a more modest position. The EAs unreasonable prejudice would have been easire to spot, since there would have been no history of the ID movement trying to seize political control.
But is it? Or has ID earned such a bad reputation, that keeping Gonzalez would be even worse for business? I hope not. And I hope the Gonzalez case will shame the academic world into rejecting its close-minded behavior. But if it doesn't, I won't just blame the EAs. Certainly they must bear their share of the responsibility. But so must the ID movement.
Comment by Bilbo — May 25, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Thank you for your thoughts on this. One of the major problems is that even if there were a better way to do business, there is no way to get the parties involved to comply with the policy.
We have places like Utah, Dover, Kansas, New Mexico, Alabama, Tenesee that have political forces that are autonomous. They do what they want, even if the Discovery Institute will advise them otherwise.
What happened in Kansas 1999 (not Kansas 2005), and Dover 2006 was not on the initiative of the Discovery Institute nor the architects of the Wedge. Yet the actions of some who were not part of the ID leadership caused great harm to the ID movement…..Dembski was so furious at the creationists involved in Dover, he supposedly sued them for $20,000!
(Heck, I'd have sued those rogue creationists too if I had the chance).
Contrary to popular belief, the ID movement has almost no organized money or resources. It only has courage and determination.
Most of the DI have day jobs to support themselves including Dembski, Gonzalez, Behe, Berlinski, Richards, Pearcy, Johnson, Bradley, Thaxton, Wiekart, Beckwith, etc, etc. This fact is confirmed by simple math.
An 800k annual budget isn't much to fund a movement of this scale. 800k is just a little more than what Paris Hilton gets to attend just for gracing a single party with her presence. For a cultural and scientific movement, 800k is a drop in the bucket. The real heart of the movement is rooted in what people think is true, not the activities of the Discovery Institute, the ID Network, or the IDEA Center.
Most of the political power and descion making is actually out of the hands of the original architects of the Wedge and the ID movement. They started a fire that's running out of control and now has a life of it's own. This is so obvious, even the NCSE reported on it See: Creationism going global.
Of note, it's hard to argue the power of the movement is from political parties, especialliy if the movement is crossing national boarders with such force and speed. It seems the movement is being powered at the grass roots level, not from political power wielded through government legislation, but simple interest in the topic (like that expressed here at telic thoughts).
Finally, what is the cultural reform desired? The freedom for people who do science to believe in God. Issues relating to the value of human life (versus animal rights — recall Wesley Smith is the forgotten DI CSC fellow who is involved in this).
It seems hardly the intention of the Wedge were to force values onto people, but rather to persuade them. The Wedgies are a libertarian bunch (the DI's other think tanks like Tech&Democracy seems awfully libertarian, and I found the DI's CSC think tank to be populated with like minded libertarian minds). If people choose to be Darwinists, that's their freedom….
I saw no counterpart in the Wedge to Dawkins ideas such as lableling Darwinism child abuse and to make it illegal to bring up kids atheists. I think the critics are showing enormous hypocrisy.
In sum, whatever the wise course of action is, it may be a moot point since the movement is so decentralized now.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 25, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Hi Salvador,
You wrote…
Of course you do, it helps the rationalization process.
Just like Dr. Wells says…
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
Provoking
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 25, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Salvador wrote:
TP responded:
As does steering clear of mirrors.
Good one, TP.
Comment by keiths — May 25, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
salimfadhley Says:
I don't know who the designer is or might be. I'm fascinated by the design inference, but I don't think the state of the art is anywhere near naming names or methods, even if we assume those were accessible to science. I don't think we know one way or the other at this time. Indeed, we don't really know the nature of intelligence, and what the minimum characteristics of an intelligent agent are.
It isn't a matter of "refusing" to identify the designer. They don't know. It isn't a question of "unimportant", it is a question of ability. People are free to speculate. Many IDers do as well, but they acknowledge that it is speculation, and that ID itself ISN'T designer centric but design centric. You are free to seek the identity of the designer if that's your cup of tea. I&