Return of the Stream
by MikeGeneKrauze offers a very nice blog about the other opponents of ID. The critics and the creationists share a vested interest "“ keeping ID as closely tied to biblical teaching as possible. The creationists insist on this because, for them, ID should be part of their ministry. The critics insist on this because, for them, ID needs to be viewed as part of the creationists'ministry. Yet as I pointed out over six years ago, the ID people (creationist or not) tapped into a broad stream of thought that extends 2500 years! Over the last century or so, that stream has been diverted under the ground - largely hidden was confused for dry hole. But the ID people broke ground to release it for whatever reason (it doesn't matter), enabled by the fact that scientists before them had spent a few decades softening that ground. Right now, it bubbles and spurts through the surface, where the critics are running about trying to patch things up as they go. Yet the major thrust of the stream still lies and moves underground, continuing to push upward. In time, the stream will break out and pour out full force onto the surface. Just watch. The creationists are beginning to worry that they can't control this ancient river and thus are increasingly joining the critics in criticizing ID (look for more of this in the post-wedge world). And critics might unconsciously share this fear. Either that, or they have seriously miscalculated and underestimated.
Science has front-loaded the resurrection of the Stream.
May 26th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
[...] MikeGene at Telic Thoughts chimes in with a post supporting Krauze's earlier post about ID critics and creationists agreeing that ID is basically "creationism lite." (Apparently he thinks that there's something intellectually disreputable about being associated with people who believe that God created life on earth. ) Here's what he has to say: The critics and the creationists share a vested interest "“ keeping ID as closely tied to biblical teaching as possible. The creationists insist on this because, for them, ID should be part of their ministry. The critics insist on this because, for them, ID needs to be viewed as part of the creationists'ministry. Yet as I pointed out over six years ago, the ID people (creationist or not) tapped into a broad stream of thought that extends 2500 years! [emph. his] [...]
Pingback by Heaven is not the sky » Blog Archive » Coming up a little short — May 26, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
I know of something else that runs underground.
Dammit, Mike! Now I've caught it as well.
Comment by Krauze — May 26, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Hi Mike,
Thats an interesting take. My take on AIG's criticism of IDism is that AIG is Coke and the DI is Pepsi, and they are fighting for market share. Now that its pretty clear that the courts aren't going to allow public schools to purchase Of Pandas and People for use as a biology textbook, the demographic for ID/creationist educational material is pretty much limited to home schoolers, christian academies and evangelicals with an interest in the subject. It behooves AIG to emphasize its strength relative to the competition, which is that they don't pussy foot around questions about how old the earth is, common descent, and who designed what; right down the line the scientific data points inexorably to the literal truth of Genesis. While settle for creationism lite, designed for a different market altogether, when you can get the real thing?
Comment by Aagcobb — May 26, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"It behooves AIG to emphasize its strength relative to the competition, which is that they don't pussy foot around questions about how old the earth is, common descent, and who designed what;"
What is a strength with regards to some demographics is a weakness with regards to others. As I said in my post, there wouldn't be a "Krauze" if creationism was the only available expression of teleology. And I don't see many in the homeschooling demographic eager to embrace something like front-loading.
Comment by Krauze — May 26, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Hi Krauze,
Exactly, and thats why AIG needs to get its message out. The vast majority of teleologists in the US are YECs; if AIG can convince the home schoolers that ID isn't "cool" or "cutting edge" but actually heretical, they should be able to increase market share at the expense of the DI.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 26, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Yes, then intelligent design will be left alone to those with no interest in religious apologetics and political reform. Welcome to the post-wedge world.
Comment by Krauze — May 26, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but this is hardly a new development. Creationists have always made these complaints against ID. Hugh Ross, for example, has been saying this for a long time. It has nothing to do with the Dover case. I think what I wrote here, about the two different intellectual origins of creationism and ID, is still relevant, too.
Comment by macht — May 26, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
I have a geyser at the bottom of my driveway. It spouts 120 feet in the air from the center of park by the old mill stream, situated in a fountain-pool shaped as pentagram with circles on the points, poured of clamshell concrete in the 1880s.
It's intelligently designed, fed by great clay pipes from a small spring-fed lake halfway up the mountain to the Continental Divide. It's lovely place to soak our feet and feel the spray on a hot summer day, and the iceburg it builds in winter sometimes goes all the way across the road.
…I wonder if it will still be spouting two and a half millennia from now, and if so whether some group of future scientists would marvel at how nature could manage to make it look as if the underground stream were somehow encased in pipes. Then laugh to themselves at the very idea that some intelligent being would waste time designing a way for water to spout more than a hundred feet in the air for no apparent reason…
Comment by Joy — May 26, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Hi Krauze,
Don't count on the DI not to fight back, Krauze. With no real hope of cracking open the public school textbook market, they may start finding new "evidence" which aligns them more closely with YEC beliefs, while retaining the ID moniker to emphasize how "scientific" they are.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 26, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Your demographic argument is interesting, as there should be no reason to fight over turf if ID = creationism. Pepsi, after all, is not Coke (ask any Coke drinker). Perhaps this is yet another area where the critics think like creationists. I assume both viewed ID as a Trojan horse for creationism. The creationists are beginning to wake up and realize this is not true, thus suddenly they find themselves faced with a growing intellectual position that does not equate design with God and the Bible and does not entail the denial of evolution. Compared to what Dawkins and Co. have to offer, ID is more friendly to them, but it is a far cry from where they want to go. I pointed out the significance of this years ago, thus none of this is catching me off guard. The critics, in contrast, are still sleeping, trapped in the ID = creationism meme because of its political/rhetorical utility. What a glorious miscalculation! Not only does this mean they have trained themselves to misunderstand the essence of the debate, they flush away their credibility among the growing number of non-creationists who begin to sip from the bubbling water.
So what will we have in the post-wedge world? A skeptical community that doesn't quite understand what it is dealing with, thus unable to land any serious patching to the emerging Stream. And a religious community that increasingly pulls back from the Stream, undercutting the reason for the skeptic's alarm cries. Have fun making the ID = creationism argument when the creationists are your allies.
Remember, I was the first one to envision the significance of the post-wedge world. And I welcomed it with open arms.
Comment by MikeGene — May 26, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 1:53 am
Hi MikeGene,
You claim to have predicted this realignment of alliance in the post-wedge world. I would like to make a prediction as well.
Someday in the far flung future, when design inference is universally practiced and accepted, and research produces mounds of data that reveal more and more of the nature of design and the designer, when the mechanism of design is revealed and we can perhaps even tinker with it…
…AIG will still be sending out literature critical of ID for not identifying the designer as the biblical God…
…and the panda's thumb will still be saying "that doesn't mean goddidit - it could still be a flying spaghetti monster"
Face it. This debate is merely a genial exchange of arguments about the unknown - UNTIL you mention God. It is around that one name that the acrimony revolves.
While I agree that ID in principle is not creationism, we must ask ourselves if ID will ever be satisfied with merely detecting and quantifying design inference. I think it would be disingenuous to say that design detection would not lead to the ultimate pursuit of finding the designer of life.
And so, even as the stream gushes forth, many will never drink it for fear that it's source might be something 'distasteful' to them.
Comment by chunkdz — May 27, 2006 @ 1:53 am
May 27th, 2006 at 7:11 am
MikeGene says:
Ah yes, premature triumphalism. We'll add that one to the "Dover will be evolution's/Darwin's/materialism's Waterloo" quotes from Dembski, who appears to have been quite unaware that Darwin was British.
The essence of the ID debate is simple:
20 years and counting (plus at least a couple of days since I last posted this) and that's still all you've got.
Now I'm going to carry on quaking in my boots due to my glorious miscalculations. Or maybe not. Where did I put that TV remote…?
Comment by Odd Digit — May 27, 2006 @ 7:11 am
May 27th, 2006 at 8:41 am
OD:
No, it's not premature triumphalism. It's the recognition that many critics tightly embrace the meme that ID = creationism. I happen to know that in my case, this is not true. I also know it is not true for someone like Krauze and a growing number of people. So what does this mean? First, it means the critics do not truly understand our position. And if you don't truly understand a position, you'll have a hard time coming up with potent criticisms. Second, it means that the critic who relies on the meme loses a huge chunk of credibility in the eyes of people such as myself, further undercutting their ability to come up with potent criticisms.
Most human arguments boil down to it "looks like" this or that. The whole idea of understanding is to come up with ways to mentally envision what we cannot observe directly.
I'm a little self-centered here. I've been taking ID seriously for about eight years now and during this time, I have become modestly encouraged rather than discouraged. And as I mentioned above, I view this whole thing in the context of a 2500 year debate.
I agree you should not be quaking in your boots. After all, it's 20 years and counting"¦and still no sign of The Theocracy.
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2006 @ 8:41 am
May 27th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Hi chunkdz,
Sure. But the question is, and always has been, whether someone can develop an open-ended methodology that would allow one to investigate and detect the identity of the designer.
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2006 @ 8:57 am
May 27th, 2006 at 9:20 am
*sigh*
Case in point:
Intelligent Thought: Science Versus Intelligent Design
Comment by Mung — May 27, 2006 @ 9:20 am
May 27th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Hi Mung,
You've definitely piqued my interest in this book, Intelligent Thought: Science Versus Intelligent Design Consider how it is being sold:
Sixteen of the world's leading scientists drop what they are doing to criticize ID? Could you think of any better way to foster interest in ID? If the sixteen leading scientists landed a series of knock-out punches, that would be one thing. But if the sixteen leading scientists build on the ID =creationism meme, then it will become increasingly clear to many that sixteen of the world's leading scientists don't even understand what it is they are criticizing.
This, in my opinion, is another serious miscalculation on the part of the critics. Since the Dover decision, they have a very powerful tool to police the nation's school boards. In other words, ID isn't going to be taught in the schools and any "teach the controversy" approach is in for some very tough sledding. At that point, you would think they would put a stake through ID's heart. How? By shunning and ignoring it. But when sixteen of the world's leading scientists drop everything to engage the topic of ID, the guy on the street thinks this is indeed a "controversy." Every time the critics write books against ID and popular "pro-science" blogs focus on ID, they do their part in helping keep ID alive. Consider this blog as a tiny little example. We don't have to go to anti-ID or "pro-science" blogs and beg for attention. They come to us.
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2006 @ 9:49 am
May 27th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Hello Mike,
the reason why scientists are concerned is because ID as peddled by the DI is quite clearly creationism, well demonstrated by the Pandas rewrites and the wedge document. Most scientists have no objection to creationism being taught in the appropriate forum, they do however object to it being taught as 'science' in science class when it so clearly isn't science.
Now I would say that a good 90 odd percent of all ID adherents are creationists of one stripe or another, which is why you see ID featured so prominently alongside Christian apologetics on many sites.
The DI brand of ID had its day in court and lost rather badly. Not only was it ruled not be science, it was also ruled to be religious in nature. If you seriously do not want to be tarred with the ID = creationism brush I think you need to do a couple of things. Firstly you probably want to pick another name. ID post Dover is now being associated with creationism by just about everyone.
Secondly, you do actually need to find a candidate for the designer (and one that is not the Christian God). You can say that you're looking for methods to detect the identity of a designer but until you actually find one a great many people will just assume that you're simply following the DI tactic of 'not talking about who the designer is' because of the separation of church/state rules etc. Given the DI's record in this field (lying their asses off most of the time, as clearly shown by the wedge) you will be tarred with the same brush.
You could probably do with better design detection methods as well, because neither Behe's IC nor any of Dembski's nonsense is up to it.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 27, 2006 @ 11:07 am
May 27th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Hi Odd Digit,
"Firstly you probably want to pick another name. ID post Dover is now being associated with creationism by just about everyone."
So, he should make the same arguments he's always made, but with a new label? Isn't that… the Trojan Horse strategy?
"Secondly, you do actually need to find a candidate for the designer (and one that is not the Christian God)."
Sure, if he wants to convince those adhering to designer-centrism. If he doesn't have that desire, however, he'll have other options available to him.
"You could probably do with better design detection methods as well, because neither Behe's IC nor any of Dembski's nonsense is up to it."
Really? So you've attempted to use IC and SC to infer design, but've come up short?
Comment by Krauze — May 27, 2006 @ 11:17 am
May 27th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Hey Krauze,
Well, the Trojan Horse strategy is about relabeling something that is the same thing to something different. If Mike - and you - sincerely believe that your version of ID is different to the DI version then that wouldn't be relabeling the same thing, would it?
Designer-centrism? You actually came up with a 'concept' for the most obvious question that anyone would ask when encountering something that looks designed - i.e. who designed it? The question is so obvious, that I think it's much more obvious in most cases than the supposed design itself. The two are logically intertwined - the existence of a design is dependent on a designer. You can't pretend that the designer is not central to concept of design. If you try to, we're not going to take you seriously.
Neither of those is actually sufficient on their own to make a design inference. They might lead you to suspect design, but a logical inference requires the logical precursor to design (without which design cannot exist, let alone be inferred) - the fabled designer. A suspicion of design might lead you to go looking for a designer. When you've found one you then have all the logical preconditions in place for a design inference.
And IC works as a negative argument (unevolvable) which - even if true (and it's not) - does not 'prove' design anyway (the false dichotomy that what is not evolution must be design).
Demski's nonsense is based on all the same logical fallacies as Behe's IC. There's lots of pretty math, but when the original premise is so flawed it's all a bit of a waste of time. His EF also gives false positives. And false negatives. And omits the scientifically crucial "we don't know" and "unknown mechanism" options.
And they both 'work' on complex stuff only.
And somehow I was able to spot design long before Behe and Dembski came along and 'showed us how to do it'. I wonder how I managed that?
Comment by Odd Digit — May 27, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
I read Dawkins' essay last night. I assumed it would contain the best case for "the fact, power, and beauty of the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection." I came away disappointed. In fact, I came away quite befuddled. Perhaps someone else can read it and explan his argument to me. I came away with the argument that an explanation which does not explain itself is not a legitimate explanation.
Comment by Mung — May 27, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Well, this does seem to be the reasoning. 90 odd percent of ID adherents are creationists of one stripe or another. Therefore, the best way to refute ID arguments is to refute creationist arguments.
I guess one problem is that the audience of the book isn't supposed to be creationists. People who read this book and think they are being equipped to deal with ID arguments are going to be disappointed. They'll be left with the standard, but ID is just creationism. But perhaps that's the message the book wants to make. Of course, the best way to make that case is to indeed ignore actual ID arguments.
Comment by Mung — May 27, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Hi Odd Digit,
"If Mike - and you - sincerely believe that your version of ID is different to the DI version then that wouldn't be relabeling the same thing, would it?"
What I believe is irrelevant, as you're asking me to get a makeover to appease critics. If I were to follow your advice, I would be relying on the ability of critics to see my makeover as an act of appeasement, not an attempt at duplicity. Considering that even arguments relying on common descent get labelled as "creationist", let me just say that I lack the sufficient amount of faith.
"Designer-centrism? You actually came up with a 'concept' for the most obvious question that anyone would ask when encountering something that looks designed - i.e. who designed it?"
You're projecting your own outlook onto everyone else. Besides, just because a question is obvious doesn't mean that answering it is tractable, or even fruitful. For example, I think an obvious question to ask about the Big Bang is what caused it. But that doesn't mean that astro-physicists should drop everything and get to work on answering my question.
In fact, doing a quick google on "what caused the big bang" gave me this:
"You can't pretend that the designer is not central to concept of design. If you try to, we're not going to take you seriously."
Please speak for yourself, instead of on behalf of some unnamed "we".
"Neither of those is actually sufficient on their own to make a design inference."
Agreed. But you were calling them "nonsense", meaning they aren't useful at all.
"And IC works as a negative argument (unevolvable) which - even if true (and it's not) - does not 'prove' design anyway (the false dichotomy that what is not evolution must be design)."
IC does not need to prove evolution impossible to be useful. See here.
"His EF also gives false positives. And false negatives. And omits the scientifically crucial "we don't know" and "unknown mechanism" options."
IOW, it makes mistakes, just like every other method of inquiry. And it requires revisions, just like every other tool when it was first proposed.
"And somehow I was able to spot design long before Behe and Dembski came along and 'showed us how to do it'. I wonder how I managed that?"
You had experiences with the designers?
Comment by Krauze — May 27, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Hi Mung,
Check out this post with Pim quoting Intelligent Thought, being "pleasantly surprised" that people like Dennett and Dawkins aren't all down with intelligent design.
Comment by Krauze — May 27, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Hi Odd Digit,
You have offered some advice and I believe you are being sincere. So let me offer some sincere replies.
I'm satisfied with the ID moniker because it does capture the essence of my views. In fact, this will become more clear with time. More importantly, perhaps, is that the Dover decision means ID cannot be taught in the schools. Recall how people like Eugenie Scott view the world:
A name change will be perceived as an attempt to evolve "creationism" into something new for the purpose of having it taught in the schools. By sticking with the ID moniker, I'm making it clear that I am not trying to come up with something that someone else can use to teach school children.
Yes, it is unfortunate that "ID post Dover is now being associated with creationism by just about everyone." But this a double-edged sword (as explained above). Labels do travel faster than arguments, yes, but argument ultimately have more influence.
I've never seen a convincing argument about why the focus must be on the designer. As I have said before, if someone wants to come up with an open-ended method for identifying the design, the more power to them. If someone wants to build a hypothesis that derives its direction and sustenance from an identification, let them go for it. I'd be happy to consider such methods and hypotheses. In the meantime, experience has been teaching that a design-centric approach holds promise.
Yes, coming up with "better design detection methods" is the key. In fact, this by itself has the power to take care of the other problems you mention. Of course, coming up with such methods without having independent knowledge about the designer(s), and doing so in an ambiguous reality that is coupled to politically-charged rhetoric, makes this the most challenging problem I can think of. Maybe that is what makes it so attractive.
The bottom line is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to construct an investigation such that its primary objective is to prevent people from relying on their stereotypes and clichés. One of the things I learned a long time ago is that I cannot truly control how people see and what other think and say. All I can do is flesh out my perspective, toy around with developing methods, apply those methods, and make a case. Also, if others say things about me or my approach that are not true, I can correct this by telling my side. But that's all I can really do. From there, the chips fall where they fall.
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
May 27th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Sounds terribly pragmatic. There must be reasons why science cannot be so pragmatic. Methodological reasons, perhaps?
Great stuff MG.
Could anything be more musguided than this?
Judge Jones:
"we find that while ID [intelligent design] arguments may be true, a proposition upon which the Court takes no position…"
Krauze,
I wish I had access to my copies of Gould's Structure and Oyama's Ontogeny, but at the moment I do not :(.
Perhaps I can convince you to take a look at this latest offering from the "critics" at the same time. It would be great to have a forum in which to examine and reflect upon each essay in turn. If not you, perhaps someone else here will take it up.
Dawkins writes:
Dawkins fails to specify what that "adequate and satisfactory explanation" is. Is Dawkins saying a 50/50 proposition suffices as an "adequate and satisfactory explanation?"
Comment by Mung — May 27, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
May 28th, 2006 at 4:25 am
Hey Krauze,
That link is attempting to prove evolution impossible. A lot of the arguments and conclusions in there are also wrong. I'd be happy to talk about it, maybe on another thread if you like?
I'm not projecting. It is the obvious and logicial question.
Your example of the big bang conflates two topics that are very different. There is lots of other evidence out there that suggests a big bang occured, and plenty more evidence to be investigated in the universe at large, which is why it more fruitful for scientists in that area to concentrate on the evidence they have.
The only 'evidence' of design of something like a bacterial flagellum on the other hand is a vague analogy to something designed by humans. The analogy is very weak. If you don't have any other evidence (and I've certainly never seen any) then you do actually need to find a designer in order to infer design.
Actually I called Dembski's stuff nonsense. And no, I don't think the EF or CSI are useful at all.
Absolutely. Find the designers of the bacterial flagellum. See how the designers go about implementing their designs. Then come back and talk to me about design inferences.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 28, 2006 @ 4:25 am
May 28th, 2006 at 4:43 am
Mike,
By sticking with the ID moniker, you're making it clear that you are sticking with something that has already been attempted to be taught to school children as science. And lost, in court.
On a wider point, looking at the link of yours that Krauze posted earlier, I think you have another problem. The problem is that you say that your version of ID is 'not the same' as the DI version, and that you don't subscribe to the wedge document. Unfortunately all the arguments you are using for ID are the same arguments that have come from the 'wedge inspired' DI fellows Behe and Dembski, who are not interested in doing science. They are interested only in overthrowing what they falsely see as a materialist conspiracy, which they falsely blame for being responsible for most of the worlds ills.
The DI people have not been fighting a scientific battle, because they have produced no science. They are fighting a PR battle, and were doing quite well until Dover. A very strong PR weapon on the side of science is the Dover ruling that (DI style) ID is nothing more than creationism rebranded.
If you are using only the DI's ID arguments then what is there to distinguish you from the DI? Only your insistence that you don't subscribe to the wedge document? Based on the DI's track record, and the fact that you're using the DI's arguments, there won't be many people that believe you (I do, FWIW, but I think you need to do some PR!).
With the lack of any evidence of design other than the 'appearance of design' (based on a weak analogy to human design) I can't see anywhere else to focus.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 28, 2006 @ 4:43 am
May 28th, 2006 at 5:06 am
Mung,
I said:
To which you replied:
It depends what you think the Dover case was all about. It was all about establishing that ID is not, if fact, science and therefore shouldn't be taught in science class. Which is where ID lost, rather badly. If you want to play 'quote the Judge' then have a look at this:
ID as religion:
The ID 'disclaimer':
ID is not science:
Irreducible complexity (multiple quotes):
And finally:
Now, I call that 'losing rather badly'. In fact, not only did ID lose rather badly in it's attempts to be seen as science, the Judge also rather comprehensively dismanted IC as well, in line with what most of the scientists already knew pre-Dover.
If you want to use IC arguments for ID you need to demonstrate why the all the scientists - and the Judge - are wrong about IC.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 28, 2006 @ 5:06 am
May 28th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Hi Odd Digit,
"That link is attempting to prove evolution impossible."
What makes you think so? The many places where Mike says that IC doesn't prove evolution impossible?
"A lot of the arguments and conclusions in there are also wrong. I'd be happy to talk about it, maybe on another thread if you like?"
Sure, I'll start an open thread later.
"Your example of the big bang conflates two topics that are very different. There is lots of other evidence out there that suggests a big bang occured, and plenty more evidence to be investigated in the universe at large, which is why it more fruitful for scientists in that area to concentrate on the evidence they have."
That is irrelevant to the point under discussion. All that matters is that intelligent design doesn't have to answer the "obvious questions" of outsiders to be useful, but can confine itself to "developing explanations for observations" of biotic reality.
"The only 'evidence' of design of something like a bacterial flagellum on the other hand is a vague analogy to something designed by humans. The analogy is very weak."
Here at Telic Thoughts we've always acknowledged that reality is ambiguous and that the case for design is quite weak. On the other hand, the case for the ateleological origin of life is also quite weak, and many claims of homology (such as between bacteria and eukaryotes) also boil down to "they look related".
"If you don't have any other evidence (and I've certainly never seen any) then you do actually need to find a designer in order to infer design."
Maybe to convince you. But don't extrapolate your own demands unto everyone else. I, for example, didn't need to discover the designer to find intelligent design useful. The only question that matters to me is whether intelligent design can be used as a guide to develop insights about biotic reality. If it can, then I will continue to use it, whether or not you approve.
"By sticking with the ID moniker, you're making it clear that you are sticking with something that has already been attempted to be taught to school children as science. And lost, in court."
Indeed. So conspiracy theories about Mike's ideas being forced into schools can be brushed off the table as unrealistic. Instead of worrying about how all of this advances the Coming Theocracy, we can get down to discussing the substance of those ideas.
"Unfortunately all the arguments you are using for ID are the same arguments that have come from the 'wedge inspired' DI fellows Behe and Dembski, who are not interested in doing science. They are interested only in overthrowing what they falsely see as a materialist conspiracy, which they falsely blame for being responsible for most of the worlds ills."
So? As Jeffrey Koperski pointed out:
"If you are using only the DI's ID arguments then what is there to distinguish you from the DI? Only your insistence that you don't subscribe to the wedge document? Based on the DI's track record, and the fact that you're using the DI's arguments, there won't be many people that believe you (I do, FWIW, but I think you need to do some PR!)."
In other words, your advice to Mike is to develop a new label for the arguments he's been using for years, while spending the time he could have spent investigating intelligent design doing PR work. Isn't that the strategy that got the DI into trouble?
Comment by Krauze — May 28, 2006 @ 8:17 am
May 28th, 2006 at 9:12 am
Krauze,
So what have you found it useful for? What insights has it generated for you? I'm genuinely interested.
On the Ad Hominem thing - you would be quite correct if I was actually questioning Behe's and Dembski's conclusions in that sentence. If you look at what I said what I was not questioning was their conclusions (I don't need Ad Hominems for that) but rather their motivations for doing the work in the first place. If you want to use the work of the DI then you must be prepared to be associated with the motivations of the DI, especially given the PR war that's going on. If you don't share those then fine, but lots of people will assume that you do unless you make it extremely clear that you don't (that's the PR stuff I was suggesting that you do).
Two points - if you don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the DI then yes, I think you need to do some PR. Secondly, most of the stuff I've seen on here don't involve 'investigating' anything, rather it's just rehashes of long since discredited DI arguments. Oh, and a bit of 'front loading' which is really just common descent. So I don't see much difference with what you're doing and what the DI is doing.
If this kind of thing pisses you off:
then do something about it. Come up with some novel arguments. Fix all the gaping holes in IC or come up with something that actually works.
No, the many places where it discusses possible evolutionary pathways and concludes (falsely) that they are too improbable.
Comment by Odd Digit — May 28, 2006 @ 9:12 am
May 28th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Hi Odd Digit,
Yes, I understand that there is a powerful PR machine than would work to label and demonize me. But like I said, "one of the things I learned a long time ago is that I cannot truly control how people see and what other think and say. All I can do is flesh out my perspective, toy around with developing methods, apply those methods, and make a case. Also, if others say things about me or my approach that are not true, I can correct this by telling my side. But that's all I can really do. From there, the chips fall where they fall."
I spent a lot of time arguing on ARN with critics who tried to paint me as a politically motivated, dishonest, closet creationist. If the anti-ID PR machine wants to label me in a way that serves their own agenda, I will of course defend myself from such attacks.
Comment by MikeGene — May 28, 2006 @ 9:56 am
May 28th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Odd Digit:
I need do no such thing. Do you know what a legal finding is?
Play quote the judge all you like. It doesn't change the legal finding of the Court.
Comment by Mung — May 28, 2006 @ 11:42 am
May 29th, 2006 at 2:42 am
Mung,
you're right. It doesn't change the legal finding of the court:
Comment by Odd Digit — May 29, 2006 @ 2:42 am
May 29th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Something we agree upon.
Of course, this finding goes hand-in-hand with the Court taking no position on the proposition that ID arguments may be true.
Of course, the Court takes no position on whether the ID argument concerning Irreducible Complexity is actually true or not.
The Court takes no position on what?
What point was conceded by Minnich?
1. Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution.
2. Irreducible complexity is not proof of design.
Or was the Judge caught up in the thinking that an argument against evolution is an argument for design, and that an argument for design is an argument against evolution?
Comment by Mung — May 29, 2006 @ 8:13 pm