We could do so much if we used science and technology to solve human problems instead of make them worse. It's nobody's fault but our own that we haven't done this and don't plan to do it. God in the J-C-I tradition is the Sovereign of History, and history will take care of itself regardless of what we design to do. When we're gone others will take our place, and they'll have the same choices. Isn't it time we MADE those choices? On purpose as if we had a purpose and believed in it?

Science and its applications could offer us a way to get around, under, over and through ideological differences of opinion. Instead, it offers itself up as yet another means to division and stratification, serves the inequality of resource distribution purposefully, like an idiot slave to sycophant masters. We can do better than that, if we want to. Deal is, we don't want to do better. That is nobody's fault but our own, those of us who have the means and pretend blindness to need. Ideological corruption of the worst kind.

Were things to [miraculously] change overnight - where we make the choices and implement them - politics would have to take a back seat and sociology could be a guiding light instead of just a market quantifier. Science would be the visionary quest, technology the tool, and love the purposeful goal. Sociology could quantify the needs and direct the resources.

Religion - religion's God/gods and spiritual philosophies - should be left to individuals and their personal psychologies to choose for themselves. Without coming attached to the ridiculous deadly pride that insists everyone believe the same things. No human collective endeavor like science or its offshoots need make religious claims or belittle them. It's none of their business. Yet while they're sticking their nose into individual people's belief systems, they're ignoring their own potential. That has to change before anything else can change.

That might all be Spin. But it's easier to see what's wrong than to laud what's right. I'll probably not live long enough to see things change more than the little I've contributed. And even that's at risk today, when global warming and the great Oil Wars proceed at a pace to outstrip the good ol' Opium Wars in global significance. There never was a good reason for it, save the redistribution of resources and wealth into the hands of a few at the cost of many. We already have the technology to change that situation overnight. That we don't is shameful.

I'm old and in the way. You're a young dreamer with potential. Don't stop dreaming, and don't be afraid. The worst anyone can do is kill you, and you'll die anyway in the end. You've got a life in time to invest, so why not invest it? Impatience has its purpose. BE impatient! That's inspiring. Hard work and patience is less inspiring, but accomplishes a lot. We can each of us make a difference if we try. I hope you get to a point when you are old and in the way, living on some mountain somewhere, when you can remember all the influences, the adventures, the hard work and the dreams, the joys and the sorrows, and say to yourself "it's okay." And be as eager as I am to turn the task over to a new generation, no matter how impatient they seem from this distance.

I was impatient once too, and that's why I got involved. It's why you want to get involved. This is how God rules history, even though it's us humans who make history.

The spin-of-spins? All in all, a pretty darned good design.

Greg - You're probably already off to the lovely lowlands, but at some point you will find this reply. You asked of me…

Though I can't speak for the biology of evolution, the sociology of evolution is certainly past its prime time, waiting for an alternative theory to topple it decisively. And I don't mind becoming a fool to show people that. It would be God's wisdom displayed in such a revelation, not my own human frailty. Political bantering and spinning spin, upon spin, won't change this possibility when it arrives.
Can you imagine it? Tell the truth.
(And don't spin.)

Oh, I've imagined it all my life. The "devil's in the details," as always. As a sociologist, you are trained to view the 'big picture' and see that everything pertinent to collective human endeavors - including science - is always subject to the whims of collective beliefs in any generation during which sociologists are looking at the 'big picture'.

The details and their devil are subjective to individuals, which sociology likes to blend out of its 'big picture' precisely because they're so problematic. It's a mistake to treat individual psychology as a mere statistic. Realistically, there's little real hope for us. And that's where God comes into the picture…

I'll qualify that with the admission that whenever God comes into the picture the whole world starts spinning like a top. No way around it that I've ever seen. Sure, you can go with any of a dozen or so primary conceptions of God/gods and/or spiritual philosophy, but they're all mutually exclusive to a certain extent. You can channel 5,000 years dead guys from Mu who claim they have all the answers, but if he's all that bright what's he still doing hanging around here? There's nothing "new" about New Age. The real answer has already been presented, boiled down to its ultimate most primal edict that if simply believed deeply and universally would remake this world overnight…

"Love One Another." It's never going to get easier (or more difficult) than that. Religion is about how to live, not how to die. So I found my big-T Truth and attempted to live it. MY choice, as your choice belongs entirely to you. Don't try to weave such personal choices into collectives, or factor them out by numbers.

It's best IMO to leave God/gods, devils, demigods, imps, spirits and 5,000 years dead guys who won't stay dead out of the scientific equation altogether, by design. Sociologically, science can then serve as the "universal SuperGlue" if it can ever get away from the tendency to declare itself absolute and try to usurp the necessary place in human psyche of God/gods/spiritual philosophy. The quest for knowledge and means to control can inspire people of all sorts of different belief systems to wonder at the world and enjoy the adventure together. Provisional as it always will be. It can help to functionally relativize the differences in people, and that's a good thing in a small world.

Science just needs to sandblast the edifice to remove all the accumulated rust and barnacles. Apply several coats of humble primer, then let humanity paint the hull with whatever vibrant colors they care to add to the design. Create a "Rainbow Warrior" worthy of the [nonprofit] title and immune from the French SS bomb squad. One with enough staterooms for everybody, and with enough sumptuous delights on the banquet tables every day to feed them all!

That's a lot of hard work. Most 'first world' citizens are loathe to work that hard, but the 'third world' does it all day and all night all the time, for just barely enough to survive. We should stop discounting them as somehow inferior and see what we can do to share the load. And don't be thinking the 'third world' doesn't exist right in the midst of 'first world' wealth and sloth. It's all around us all, all the time. We've just donned blinders so we don't have to see it.

"Meaning is subjective always, and cannot be presented in scientific terms. Purpose IS teleology. It exists in life/nature because human beings exist in life/nature, also despite what the ideologically committed nay-sayers say. The scientific question is whether it is ubiquitous to life/nature. That is the question ID presents and attempts to answer." - Joy

This may be the case in 'natural science,' but in social science, meaning is not entirely subjective and neither is purpose. Purpose is an important component or variable in studying 'the nature of' human life and societies. I agree, this is despite what ideological nay-sayers might contend, and which is why, as MG notes, I once or twice made several critics of ID at ARN uncomfortable. These are concepts (i.e. meaning and purpose) that natural science doesn't often deal in and often finds it hard to accept.

Here is a short quip about how sociology involves meaning and purpose:

"Sociology (in the sense in which this highly ambiguous word is used here) is a science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects. In 'action' is included all human behaviour when and in so far as the active individual attaches a subjective meaning to it. Action in this sense may be either overt or purely inward or subjective; it may consist of positive intervention in a situation, or of deliberately refraining from such intervention, of passively acquiescing in the situation. Action is social in so far as, by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual (or individuals), it takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course." - Max Weber (from "Economy and Society")

This does mean that evolution and intelligent design and creation are 'really about' human social action and likewise it does not put 'social science' in the same position of solving or answering questions about the 'origin(s) of human life and existence'. However, it suggests sociology has value of its own and should not be disregarded because 'natural science,' especially biologists, claim the throne of some superficial hierarchy of the disciplines. Pretensions to speaking for more than just physical things is what biologists, socio-biologists, evolutionary psychologists have done for many years. This should be included in the 'Darwin-Defending' orthodoxy that Joy openly acknowledges in her posts and which Mike Gene finds himself defending ID against, for example in such a person as RBH.

You are surely correct, Joy, to say that I'm impatient with the pace. I too have human weaknesses, one of which is to expect more from a situation than what is really the case. The Wedge hinted that by this time the IDM and ID theories would have moved into social sciences and humanities, which of course, hasn't happened. Behe writes of 'all humane studies,' revealing how he and others in the IDM speak about more than they've bargained for.

My own project moves forward, step by step, moment by moment, with discovery, revision and articulation, one at a time and wholistically, though I have chosen one path that would avoid it becoming too complex and drawn out. Youll likely see a version of what I've been working on in the next two or three months. That'll give the IDM time to consider D. Lamoureux's new contribution to the discourse (if they bother with it, in comparison to O'Leary's nickel book), a book which he has worked on for several years and which doesn't include debating Johnson, since biologically speaking there is not much of a challenge there. Denis is not politically invested in the American ID movement, but he does a wonderful job explaining how to get 'beyond' creation vs. evolution and to an inspired view of our place in God's universe. I doubt, even if Mike Gene uploads 103 articles, that his vision of biology or chemistry or whatever sequestered natural science he knows best, will yet provide us with that.

It is one thing to speak about Mt. Rushmore and to identify the 'origins' of that art, scultpture, carving, etc. It is another thing to make claims to 'design' in biology and other natural (read: non-human-made) things. MG and the IDM want to do the latter and claim 'Yes, it is.' Otherwise, the meaning of Mt. Rushmore is lessened to those who don't know the faces reproduced (almost iconically) there and the significance to a nation. However, that is also a social observation, which might be unwelcome to objective analysts, while still it is an objective reality, even to those not caught in academic acquiescence to evolutionary theory in their disciplines.

"Neodarwinism gets the lie crown these days, but it doesn't cover the fact that the emperor has no clothes." - Joy

Yes, and those who argue that 'everything evolves' are equally deluded about the limitations of that theory, created/invented/constructed or designed by a nineteenth century Englishman and those who've followed him. He may not be rolling over in his grave, but being buried in the nave of Westminister Abbey with tourists walking on top of him on a daily basis, I wonder which is worse.

Though I can't speak for the biology of evolution, the sociology of evolution is certainly past its prime time, waiting for an alternative theory to topple it decisively. And I don't mind becoming a fool to show people that. It would be God's wisdom displayed in such a revelation, not my own human frailty. Political bantering and spinning spin, upon spin, won't change this possibility when it arrives.

Can you imagine it? Tell the truth.

(And don't spin.)

I've merely spoken of "˜origins, meaning, purpose and teleology.' But I'm not a physicist or biologist, programmer or engineer like some of you here either. As long as we can respect each other's differences.

Origins is a legitimate scientific question at this point in time, though it tends to come with 150-year old baggage that is more pretense than answer. Science has already moved well beyond neodarwinism, despite what the ideologically committed nay-sayers say. Meaning is subjective always, and cannot be presented in scientific terms. Purpose IS teleology. It exists in life/nature because human beings exist in life/nature, also despite what the ideologically committed nay-sayers say. The scientific question is whether it is ubiquitous to life/nature. That is the question ID presents and attempts to answer.

I can most certainly understand why a sociologist would be interested in ID and the debate with neodarwinism. Here is an idea - so long intuited by humans that no one can definitively trace its origin in ancient history - that doesn't currently qualify as a scientific theoretic but is so popular among humanity's teeming billions that it just won't go away. A genuine socio-historical phenomenon that deserves attention whenever it appears anew to make waves in history.

Worse, it is abundantly clear that the ideologically committed nay-sayers - many of them notable scientists - are actually afraid of the idea. Which only tends to cause people to suspect their desperately-defended alternative theoretic isn't nearly as authoritative as they'd like it to be. Sociologically speaking, that is.

I just sometimes get the feeling that you're impatient with the pace. You want to know more than is currently available to be known, and aren't yet ready to admit that what's missing might be what you've got to add for yourself (and it might take YOU awhile!). No one here can supply it for you.

There appears to be an escape from or absence of authority somewhere in your chain of reasoning. I've actually spoken in support of people thinking "˜telic thoughts,' so your charge of expectation-begging is apparently misguided. I am not blaming the victim either.

Oh, you can bet your booty that there's an absence of authority in my chain of reasoning! I came by it quite honestly, thanks, when I turned my back on science and marched resolutely off into the sunset. Completely on purpose and kicking dirt in disgust.

Victimization is often a state of mind, and that can perpetuate a physically undesirable situation. There's quite a bit that one can do about changing that. Some people can integrate an astounding number of baldfaced lies into their operative worldview even knowing that they're lies. Others have more of a problem with it, and will tend to agonize endlessly about how to rectify living a lie with believing a truth. A few will just get fed up and turn their backs on the lies, striking off for "parts unknown" to see if there are any truths worth salvaging.

After more than two decades I had reason to go back to see what science had learned while I was gone. It hadn't learned much of anything at all, but at least in physics there was more "we don't know" and a little less baldfaced lie. Neodarwinism gets the lie crown these days, but it doesn't cover the fact that the emperor has no clothes. So while I still maintain an irrational trust in science as a long-term collective endeavor, I know better than to accept any premature pronouncements of absolute knowledge. Gives me a bad attitude.

But that's okay. History will take care of itself. You get to live it, so dig in!

"If any man among you seems wise in the ways of this world, let him become a fool, that he may be truly wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. He will entrap the wise men in the web of their own craftiness."
I Cor. 3:18-19

Yes, "˜the first life forms to appear' on Earth may have been "˜designed,' or created, or breathed into, or emerged, or constructed or brought into existence"¦(by __). But forgive me, I don't see or hear how that hypothesis is "˜solid' (read also: substantial).

I never said the hypothesis is solid. I said it's a longshot that I am betting on. I said it may be solid. So why did you claim, "I don't see or hear how that hypothesis is "˜solid'?" You need to explain yourself, as I consider this a deceptive troll-like tactic.

It is also true that Mike Gene doesn't think ID is a "˜REVOlution.' So shouldn't that be spelled out clearly in his version of "˜teleological design' so that Dembski's shadow doesn't haunt his views?

I thought you read my web page? I would think anyone who took the time to understand the arguments would realize no "revolution" is being proposed. So what's the problem?

Why haven't I clearly spelled out my views are not a revolution? Well, let's just say that after arguing with 100s of critics, you are the only one with this idiosyncratic concern. In fact, so idiosyncratic is your concern, you even have an idiosyncratic way of spelling things "“ instead of revolution, it's REVOlution. What's that about?

Look, I've made it crystal clear to you that I do not consider ID a REVOlution. Since you are the only one with a bee in his bonnet about this, why do you think I am supposed to do something more than I have?

Perhaps critics would go easier (now the poltical dimension) if they knew just what they were criticizing (scientifically, philosophically or theologically) about Mike's theory/project.

All you have to do is read the arguments. But you seem more interested in psychologizing me, knowing my background, and pondering the meaning of what I have not said. I'm starting to wonder if you are dime-a-dozen after all. That's usually how it turns out.

Exactly, such an appeal doesn't have to be called mere spin. But it does show that MG depends on Dembski for fundamental bases of his views of ID. Without W. Dembski, P. Johnson and M. Behe there is no ID in Mike Gene's mind/heart/hunch-mainfested in a concise theory. Note I did not say there would be no "˜telic thoughts'.

Yes, my views about ID are derived from the question Dembski asks. As you acknowledge, it is common knowledge that Mt. Rushmore exists because of intelligent causation. Thus, the question is simple. Since there are things that exist because of intelligent design, is there something about them that signals their origin? Asking or pondering the question is not something that is dependent on a socio-political movement or a religious conviction. I find the question inherently intriguing.

Now you proceed to ask more questions: what is the difference between human-made and non-human-made things when it comes to (your theory of) intelligent design?; But why do you call it "˜ID' and not something else perhaps more suitable to the context? What distinguishes this version of ID=human-made from a biological explanation of ID=non-human-made? Is art, which Mt. Rushmore obviously represents, likewise applicable in (your) ID theory?

Those are questions for ID201. While I am eager to sink my teeth into them, we must first master ID101; there will be plenty of time for a more nuanced and sophisticated consideration.

I noted, "I used Mt. Rushmore to make a simple and undeniable point "“ there are things that exist in our reality because of ID" and you declared that this is "not acceptable." It's not acceptable to you, G. arago. Are you saying that you cannot proceed because the term "˜intelligent design' is completely incomprehensible to you? Are you concerned that if you accept the design of Mt. Rushmore (as Richard Dawkins does), it will lead you into a trap?

"What may be solid is the hypothesis that the first life forms to appear on this Earth were the products of design." - Mike Gene

Yes, 'the first life forms to appear' on Earth may have been 'designed,' or created, or breathed into, or emerged, or constructed or brought into existence…(by ______). But forgive me, I don't see or hear how that hypothesis is 'solid' (read also: substantial). And I certainly don't think 'concluding design' should become a 'disciplined science' or dominate the debate about origins as in a gap theory or be considered an equivalent or replacement to 'evolution' in biological science (even speaking as a non-biological scientist). My hunch is, that neither does Mike Gene think this.

It is also true that Mike Gene doesn't think ID is a 'REVOlution.' So shouldn't that be spelled out clearly in his version of 'teleological design' so that Dembski's shadow doesn't haunt his views?

Perhaps critics would go easier (now the poltical dimension) if they knew just what they were criticizing (scientifically, philosophically or theologically) about Mike's theory/project. And then we would be less affected by undesirable spin.

ID 101 says nothing about 'ID' not being a revolution.

I added the bracketed disclaimer following my first paragraph because I also understood that you were echoing criticisms of others rather than offering your own personal views/demands for answers. I guess I should have made it more prominent that the "YOU" was figurative in answer to your figuratives.

Then you should move beyond evolutionary thinking, such that it is merely "˜in process' and actually finish the job someday. Then you can print it (or send it out on-line) and see what people think. Otherwise you could get stuck in an unfinished product for many, many years and it could simply "˜evolve' virtually forever.

But I suffer this awful side effect of living on the mountain… I honestly don't care a whole lot what other people think about me (so long as they stay out of my way). As I said, I've already done my scientific world-changing. That cost me a lot. There are people who know what it changed and why, but the public doesn't know about it BECAUSE of what changed. That's all that was ever required. And I'm shy enough not to need public approval.

Whatever I can put together of what I've gathered through the years will be recorded, and someday it just might be released. By someone. Public approval - or even public knowledge - isn't the point. I've no 'souls' to save or beliefs to convert. Life's too short. Whenever my family/friends ask when I'll "write the book" I tell 'em I am still living it. There may not be an 'ending' by my hand, and that's okay too. The pieces-parts are enough.

"A Work In Progress" might be a good title, come to think of it, though it's filed under "A Gross of Noses." As opposed to the only other formal presentation (now a quarter of a century old), entitled "Tales from the Heart of the Beast." The most notorious unpublished book of the twentieth century.

Are you saying your spiritual beliefs are unimportant and a non-issue? Publish it, and I'll consider if you can fully separate your "˜fully-formed and defensible ID theory' from your beliefs. If you can't explain why your beliefs are important to your science, then surely I can't help you. Surely your beliefs are important to your professional occuption, or am I just clowning with you?

Greg, my metaphysics are part of who I am. As your metaphysics are a part of you. Only dysfunctional and immature people would claim not so. It is difficult-to-impossible to neatly separate a part of yourself from another part of yourself - what you do with your time in time. In fact, some people would tell you that the metaphysical part (which grows and learns as the physical part does) is the more 'important' part.

But the metaphysics need not be an issue in the validity of scientific theory unless one MAKES it an issue. If the theory is valid, metaphysics aren't 'important' at all. If it's invalid, metaphysics won't save it. As for clowning, we ran away with a circus after my brother was killed - very much on purpose. Left a single Tarot card tacked to the calendar in the kitchen to say all that we were allowed to say about the science: The Fool, the unnumbered Major Arcana… the 'Zero' card.

That's my entire life aligning with my metaphysics - a genuine Position Paper on "what this means." I know how to interpret naturalistic theory and I know how to separate empirical evidence from interpretations too. A requirement of the practice of 'real' science, but not a requirement of life in time. In clowning, so long as the nose is on you can never 'break character' because you never know who's watching. That's a "becoming" of a creative conceptualization. Consciousness determining reality. With style!

The pieces-parts already in the family archives are clearly separated by circumstance and approach. Part of it is highly technical, part of it is multidisciplinary-theoretic, part of it is intensely personal, some of it is astounding, and most of it is Commedia del'Arte in the streets and alleys of the American landscape. An adventure story, not a scientific or mystical treatise (though both of those are included as pieces-parts). Adventures always hold tempting challenges, frightening dangers, costly struggles, and tragic loss. They also hold the most inspiring love stories along with fun enough reasons to go on. Someone else gets to write the final chapter.

I don't consider myself an "ID Theorist" whose job is to somehow formalize the idea of intelligent design so that it can triumph in science as well as sociopolitics. I have enough trust in the underlying honesty of science itself to someday overcome the generational turf-guarding and metaphysical corruptions evolutionary biology is currently saddled with. It has already begun and makes significant progress every day. They may never call it "Intelligent Design," but it will be practically indistinguishable (minus the religious baggage). "What this means" is up to the individual. And THAT is "Spin."

Meanwhile, the ideological warfare between atheists and theists will go on forever. Amen.

You flung like mud accusations of logical and philosophical fallacy. They were not 'specific labels.' It was calling into question my communicative competency by my disputing my ability to make a statement. This is something very different than taking a position by attaching an appropriate label to describe a category or feature of one's belief, science or a theory one holds.

If the 'telic thoughts' crew wants to take a label upon themselves, I think it would be to their benefit. And it would certainly help to distinguish them from the IDM and their theories of ID, with which it is obvious not all at telic thoughts wholly agree.

"ID begins exactly as William Dembski said it begins…" - Mike Gene

Is this not an appeal to authority?

Exactly, such an appeal doesn't have to be called mere spin. But it does show that MG depends on Dembski for fundamental bases of his views of ID. Without W. Dembski, P. Johnson and M. Behe there is no ID in Mike Gene's mind/heart/hunch-mainfested in a concise theory. Note I did not say there would be no 'telic thoughts'.

"If human beings did not exist, for example, Mount Rushmore would not exist. Thus, Mount Rushmore's existence is dependent on intelligent causation." - Mike Gene

Common knowledge. Therefore, let me throw out the same challenge I have given to Behe, Dembski and Nelson: what is the difference between human-made and non-human-made things when it comes to (your theory of) intelligent design?

None of those three has answered yet. S. Meyer assumes 'intelligent selection' in his 'first peer-reviewed ID paper' without the integrity of defining what that loaded term actually might mean. Without such a definitional base, his reference is a mere hollow analogy to suit his general argument. Biologists are unconvinced.

Note: the following is not an acceptable answer.

"I used Mt. Rushmore to make a simple and undeniable point "“ there are things that exist in our reality because of ID." - MG

Simple and undeniable in your version of ID. But why do you call it 'ID' and not something else perhaps more suitable to the context? What distinguishes this version of ID=human-made from a biological explanation of ID=non-human-made? Is art, which Mt. Rushmore obviously represents, likewise applicable in (your) ID theory?

Ohh…and Mike, why didn't you reply to Aster's detailed posts on that page - ID 101 . Were they irrelevant, in your opinion, to ID 101, or beyond what ID 1o1 is (currently) capable of dealing with or focussed upon?