Make a good story line, perhaps. Will artificial life deny that there was any designer?

Maybe they were invited to contribute but declined because they can think of a billion better things to do than argue endlessly with creationists.

Or maybe they weren't invited at all because they're an embarrassment to associate with. Computer scientists have a richly deserved reputation of being nerdy crackpots. (Take moi, e,g.!)

Or it could be because computer science is "Biblical Science." "And the Computer Scientist said, "˜Let us make machine in our own image and after are own likeness"¦'" LOL

"Science is perfectly capable of recognising intentional causes as long they can be repeatably tested."

Don't forget: You need to have experiences with the designer.

What ID attempts to do, is have science recognise the legitimacy of intentional causes. Scientists resist this for very unscientific reasons.

Bollocks. Science is perfectly capable of recognising intentional causes as long they can be repeatably tested.

…the computer scientists W. Daniel Hillis, Christopher G. Langton, Marvin Minsky, and Roger Schank….

Hey Rock!

Why do ya think the computer scientists are not represented in the current volume from this same editor?

Rock (on 08-16-2001 11:51 PM 08-16-2001 11:51 PM): IDers don't perform experiments? Au contraire! I've uncovered evidence that they are conducting bizarre (illegal?) human cloning experiments!
Check this out:
http://www.arn.org/authors.htm
Michael Behe and Mark Hartwig are obviously CLONES!

Lizard: Hey! check it out. So are DeWolf and Feucht! It's obvious they are the same person, just with hair combed differently and the addition of a pair of glasses!
PJ, of course, is one of a kind.

Rock: Obviously their strategy is to clone the Fellows of the Discovery Institute until the world is overrun with IDers!

JP: Actually, this might not be far from the truth. At least one branch of IDers are conducting human cloning experiments. I wonder if these IDers fall under the "big tent" as well:
http://www.rael.org/int/englis...

Dayton: And why are Campbell, Gonzalez, and Thaxton missing pictures? Because they all are really the same person? Looks very suspicious to me!
On the other hand, Nancy Pearcey is the only woman. Are women harder to clone? Maybe they are more intelligently designed?

Rock: Women are more intelligently designed. Just ask one.

Bertvan: absolutely!!

Bertvan: You don't see many women sitting around quibbling about the definitin of terms

julbon1: You don't see many men posting one minute apart, either.

Rock: Has anyone seen all of these people together at one time? I don't think so…

[Insert ominous background music here.]

"Moreover, the [the pseudo-intellectuals concentrated in the Liberal Arts wing of every major American university] imperils American global dominance in science and in so doing presents the gravest of threats to the American economy, which is driven by advances in science and in the technology derived therefrom."

Brockman, impresario to the stars, ain't so stupid as to insult his customers. He knows who signs the checks.

These very people: "Who are the third-culture intellectuals? ["The third culture consists of those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are."] The list includes the individuals featured in this book, whose work and ideas give meaning to the term: the physicists Paul Davies, J. Doyne Farmer, Murray Gell-Mann, Alan Guth, Roger Penrose, Martin Rees, and Lee Smolin; the evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins, Niles Eldredge, Stephen Jay Gould, Steve Jones, and George C. Williams; the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett; the biologists Brian Goodwin, Stuart Kauffman, Lynn Margulis, and Francisco J. Varela; the computer scientists W. Daniel Hillis, Christopher G. Langton, Marvin Minsky, and Roger Schank; the psychologists Nicholas Humphrey and Steven Pinker.""”From the Introduction of "The Third Culture" (John Brockman, Ed.)

All very interesting people, no doubt, as all people are"”very interesting. But notice something"¦ that "through their work and expository writing" these people are redefining "who and what we are"! No they're not! Mostly all they are doing is "redefining" who and what we think we are. Because that's mostly all the work they do"”write about who and what they think we are. Popularizing their opinions via the services of promoter, John Brockman, they may actually be able to do that, change our opinions about "who and what" we think we are.

Who are the people who are actually changing, materially, who you are, whether you think so or not?!

Here's my list of unpromoted "intellectuals" who have significantly, materially changed who and what you are and who and what you think you are: Tadahiro Sekimoto, Andrew Grove, Donald Pederson, Alfred Cho, Robert Noyce, Earle Vaughn, Harold Wheeler, Frederick Termin"¦

Obviously that's not Brockman's A-list of "intellectuals." Their not his clients. He's not their agent. Uh, ya can't be an "intellectual" if you are a "nobody." Ya can't actually change anyones life if no one's ever heard of ya! Can ya? (How many of these people have you ever heard of?)

Maybe it's possible to materially revolutionize your world, and have zero effect on who and what you think you are. It's a possibility… Think about it.

There is a greater threat to the advancement of American society on all fronts, scientific, technological, cultural, and political, lurking in the teachers' lounges of the high schools of America than one will find in all the fundamentalists' tent meetings that will occur over the summer. There is a greater threat to the intellectual and material advancement of America to be found in Hollywood-style promotion of pseudo-intellectualism than there is in the kind of anti-intellectualism one may find in the average third-grade Sunday school class.

Science has its origin in "anti-intellectualism." It has its origin in the rejection of the authority of those who styled themselves the intellectuals of the age (Indeed, of all ages!) "Intellectuals" often, not so surprisingly, fail to understand that. They ain't that "bright" are they? A little bit dull in some ways, but postively briliant in self-promotion. (Or, at least brilliant in their choice of promoter.)

Because they aren't really "intellectuals" at all. They are "authorities." Not on any basis of their intellectual merits or achievements (not to deny that they do have merits and acheivements), but on the basis of… slick promotion.

Probably none of men I listed aspired to being recognized as "intellectuals." They didn't need a promoter. There is a difference between those who aspire to change the world in a positive way and those who aspire to be recognized as "intellectuals" and in fact receive recognition based more on their aspirations than their actual accomplishments.

My mom calls "˜em "phonysonsabitches." (She's not referring to anyone in particular. And I think she picked up that unfortunate phrase from her own literary agent. I think she means that real people with real accomplishments don't feel the need for PR agents.)

IDers have a problem. It's obvious to me. You got the wrong agent! As I understand it, Brockamn ain't cheap. But he is for hire. Scrape together some cash and pretty soon you'll be the "intellectuals." (And non-threatening also.)

Tiles: "In short, technical inventions, like the first occurrences of scientific ideas, may be the product of all sorts of circumstance."

It does seem like Brockman has a narrow view of what drives the American economy which is the product of all sorts of circumstances. Maybe Brockman has it backwards.

"The scientific basis of its operation [the steam engine], however, was almost nonexistent even after all this time. In 1824, the principle of conservation of energy was still immature and controversial, and an exact formulation of the first law of thermodynamics was yet over a decade away. The mechanical equivalent of heat was still two decades away. The prevalent theory of heat was the caloric theory which supposed that heat was a sort of weightless, invisible fluid that flowed when out of equilibrium."

An intelligently designed system (the steam engine) precedes/leads to our understanding in science of thermodynamics"¦