When ID was lost
by KrauzeIf you've been following the rhetoric from many ID critics, you could be excused for thinking that ID was part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, designed by creationists to have Christianity taught in science class. Unfortunately, reality is much too messy to fit into sound-bite labelled boxes, as illustrated by YEC Dr. Georgia Purdom, speaking at the 2005 Creation Mega Conference about the problems with ID.
Purdom's lecture, "The Intelligent Design Movement; How Intelligent is it?", is 53 minutes long and can be downloaded as MP3 here. You can also go to The Panda's Thumb, where Jason Rosenhouse has an okay summary of her points (look for "Wednesday, July 20. Morning").
If we take at face value the claim of the critics that ID was designed by creationists to have Christianity taught in schools, Purdom's talk offers a sobering picture: After having designed ID, thinking it would offer them an easy backdoor to the classroom, creationists discover that they've lost control over their creation, which has taken on a life of its own. By divorcing design from the identity of the designer, creationists have allowed agnostics like myself and others with no interest in advancing Christian apologetics to take the idea and run with it.
ID, complains Purdom, doesn't identify the designer, and thus cannot be used to convince people that sin exists and that they need salvation. And even if ID managed to get into the classroom, it'll be impossible to pull a fast one and identify the designer as God, as all the rhetoric about ID not speaking to the designer's identity will be recognized as a major fraud by the public.
It only gets worse as, according to Purdom, ID isn't just useless in converting people to Christianity but is an actual liability. Nature is full of nasty things, from tigers munching on the heads of zebras (if they lived on the same continent, anyway) to the diseases our immune systems spend so much energy fighting. Creationists can invoke their interpretation of the Bible and its mention of sin, shifting the blame to humans, but ID proponents are stuck, having to attribute those nasty things to a designer who, although maybe not having created them, at least allowed them to evolve. Rosenhouse is in enthusiastic agreement:
"Yes, YES a thousand times YES!! That's exactly right. I've made precisely that point many times at my blog. Once you have God intervening in the world to tinker with his design to bring good things, like blood clotting cascades and immune systems, into being, then he is also responsible for all the bad things. It's inescapable. The YEC's can get around this point by blaming human sin. They're perfectly happy to cite scripture in defense of their views. But the ID folks are running around pretending to be scientists. The second they talk about natural history being influenced by human sin is the day they blow their cover."
Apart from the irony of Rosenhouse, Defender of Science, using theology to argue his case, this shatters the image invoked by Michael Ruse in his Nightline discussion with William Dembski, of creationist forces waiting to break through the door the moment ID has gotten a foot in it. Creationists won't be able to go through ID anymore than scientific racists are able to go through neo-Darwinism to claim that black people are transitional between white people and apes.
July 30th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
LOL. So Rosenhouse sounds just like a creationist!
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2005 @ 1:36 pm
July 30th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
In Creationism's Trojan Horse, Forrest & Gross spend a lot of time tracking arguments used by ID advocates, arguing that because many of them have previously appeared in creationist materials, ID is an off-shoot of creationism.
Given this similarity between arguments used by ID critics and creationists, does that mean that ID criticism is creationism in disguise, or is it the other way around? Are there any Experts on this topic who can enlighten me?
Comment by Krauze — July 30, 2005 @ 2:28 pm
July 30th, 2005 at 11:24 pm
Although I don't claim to be an Expert, but I do have a comment on this in Creationism's Trojan Horse from Darwinists. The truth is Darwinists are scare to death when ID wants to put Darwinism under the microscope of empirical science.
As to Rosenhouse's vacuous rant, he is so blinded by his own prejudice to realize the implication of his own complaint about God. If it is inescapable that God is responsible for the good and bad things then in the vacuum of God there is no definition of good and bad. I elaborated here and here.
Comment by teleologist — July 30, 2005 @ 11:24 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 7:46 am
Krauze,
I am an ID critic, or at least I am critical of ID, and don't appreciate being thrown into a bag of 'the ID critics.' Unless and until there is respectful willingness on behalf of ID theorists (there are many proponents but only a few theorists, and even fewer ID scientists) to confront and defend legitimate criticisms (dembski can just delete you from his blog if he doesn't honour your questions), I will continue to criticize as time and place allows. It seems that you wish to participate in a diversity of views about 'intelligent design' and the association that provides, without recognizing the diversity of critics to whatever theory it is that you hold. This is plainly unfair.
This may be the case when someone is inspecting work that you have recently completed, even if you know you've worked hard. By the pace of their 'bench research' it seems ID theorists are more fearful than those who accept evolution and continue publishing papers and books at a steady rate. One might suggest Paul Nelson is 'scared' to publish his book 'On Common Descent,' or rather his publishers are 'scared' since they haven't done it yet. However, this appeal to 'fear' really doesn't move us forward productively, in my opinion. ID theory/science hasn't fared well under the microscope, or through the EF, or, I mean considering the mathematical probability of eliminating chance, or IC as unevolvable, or whatever one wants to think the core theory of 'intelligent design' consists of either. Being a teleological thinker doesn't change the reality of biological science today.
Whether or not they 'allow' it, the fact is, you are running with it. Are you not? You are using ID to support your world-view, an agnostic world-view, which holds we just don't know whether there is/was a God, or Son and Holy Spirit. Isn't this true by definition? You are using ID as an agnostic apologetic, unless you feel no reason or no situations when you need or want to 'defend your faith.' Well, this could be true also.
Well, I wouldn't say it's useless, and even if it was it would be beyond anyone's place to say so. Conversion is beyond scientific, rational analysis or argumentation, whether it is for or against a particular ideological movement. ID theories may be a liability for some Christians who promote good science and who don't accept ID and/or the leaders who are pushing it. There is some excellent discussion on the ASA list about origins, biology, cosmology and other scientific issues of the current day. They even discuss theories of 'intelligent design' there sometimes too. Though one would need to bring ears and eyes willing to consider the opinions of Christian scientists as valid in order to gain something there. Most on the list are not YEC's so Dr. G. Purdom's views are still among the minority punching holes in another minority, which is IDists in our contemporary scientific world.
Arago
p.s. no, Rosenhouse doesn't sound at all like a creationist
Comment by g arago — July 31, 2005 @ 7:46 am
July 31st, 2005 at 9:45 am
Hi Arago,
"I am an ID critic, or at least I am critical of ID, and don't appreciate being thrown into a bag of 'the ID critics.'"
Sorry. I try to avoid generalizations, but sometimes I slip up. I've updated the entry to read "many ID critics".
"Most on the list are not YEC's so Dr. G. Purdom's views are still among the minority punching holes in another minority, which is IDists in our contemporary scientific world."
Indeed. Yet according to the most popular theory among ID critics, those two minorities are supposed to be identical in content, with one acting as cover for the other.
With regards to the rest of your comment, let me just point out that I'm not the topic here.
Comment by Krauze — July 31, 2005 @ 9:45 am
July 31st, 2005 at 9:50 am
Krauze:
This would further indicate the authors are behaving as conspiracy theorists. This type of approach would only work if a) the argument was invented by creationists and b) the argument was totally bogus.
I have long argued that reality is inherently ambiguous and that it is possible for two reasonable people to look at the same thing and see something quite different. On the ARN forum, this has led several critics (over the years) to portray my position as a creationist position. After all, Rosenhouse describes Purdom as follows: "She realized that the evolution/creation battle was all about our presuppositions - do you look at the world through the Bible or through man's theories. Everything in the Bible dovetails nicely into one consistent account."
While "the Bible" vs. "man's theories" is the way Purdom perceives it, she remains correct in noting this debate does draw from "our presuppositions." Otherwise, how do we explain the fact that Miller and Dawkins derive different metaphysical conclusions from Darwinism? More importantly, how do we explain the various different views of the physical world held by scientists? Why does James Shapiro see evolution differently than Dawkins? Why does Lynn Margulis see evolution differently than Dawkins? Why does William Provine think there is no "theory of evolution?" Etc.
The Forrest and Gross approach would have us ignore such questions because to consider them would make us "sound like a creationist" and thus become a factoid that is fitted into a conspiracy theory.
Or, if we stick to close to the topic, when Rosenhouse exclaims, "Yes, YES a thousand times YES!! That's exactly right. I've made precisely that point many times at my blog," he is admitting he sounds just like a creationist on this point. And there is more. Consider the following arguments:
Anyone who has followed this debate will recognize these as common ID critic arguments. So I must have got these from the NCSE, right? Nope, they all come from a mainstream creationist page.
So ID critics do sound like creationists on many points. Do we follow the conspiratorial logic of Forrest&Gross? Or is there another explanation for this uncanny similarity?
Comment by MikeGene — July 31, 2005 @ 9:50 am
July 31st, 2005 at 10:30 am
Hi Mike,
Now that we've donned our connection-hunter gear, how about your own discovery that some arguments for evolution are suspiciously similar to arguments for atheism? A mind that was wedded to forcing ideas and people into tidy boxes would take this as evidence for the creationist claim that evolution is just disguised atheism.
Comment by Krauze — July 31, 2005 @ 10:30 am
July 31st, 2005 at 10:48 am
g arago,
This is not relevant to the discussion and feel free to ignore, but I'm just curious why you feel compelled to spend so much time and energy criticizing ID? Since you say you are a theistic evolutionist (whatever you mean by that) apparently you are not opposed to a divine activity of some sort. And since you say you are a sociologist does this mean you see some very powerful problem for society if people think there is a teleology in biology and that belief can be affirmed scientifically some how? This is not an attempt to set up some argument from motives. That would be spin. I think it is, however, interesting why people do what they do in the ID controversy. I came clean here.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 31, 2005 @ 10:48 am
July 31st, 2005 at 4:10 pm
g arago, you've missed the point. First and foremost Darwinian evolution is about origins. I don't mean abiogenesis, I mean what Darwin himself means "Origin of Species". Darwinian evolutionists have yet to provided a scintilla of direct evidence for their hypothesis. Your criticism of me stating the facts is actually what stifles any meaning dialog of this debate. Darwinian evolutionists is fearful in the sense that they do not want to engage ID in a meaningful discussion of any empirical evidence or problems of the actual origin of species. They fall into the same monotonous rhetoric as you just did about how ID does not have any publish research. The truth to the matter is just as I've stated, the research thus far from Darwinian evolutionists are prove of nothing more than microevolution or variation of a species and not about origins. I've documented this in my own blog.
Second, as to the criticism of the lack of ID published works. This has also been debated extensively. The point is that when published works that come out by ID theorists, it invariably gets written off as religious, ignorant or as nonsense. i.e. Meyer's paper in the Smithsonian, Behe's paper in Protein Science, and Wells's paper in Rivista di Biologia. There is also a problem with funding. What university, government agency or even corporation would be willing to spark a firestorm of controversy (even if they are inclined to ID) and provide funding of a research program under the mantle of ID? I have said this before many of the Darwinian evolution research could be reclassified under the name of ID using ID terminology and hypothesis, because they don't deal with origins but rather variations. i.e. The research of antibiotic resistance bacteria can fall into the umbrella of ID. The result of the research would be the same except the verbiage of the paper would attribute the findings to ID.
No doubt the Darwinian evolutionists would cry foul and that if only ID would have any credibility it would still get published. This unfortunately is not true because we see the venomous attack by Darwinian evolutionists who oppose even the mere suggestion of criticizing Darwinian evolution in schools. You can't have it both ways. Telling the ID theorist to speak and putting a muzzle on them at the same time; that is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Comment by teleologist — July 31, 2005 @ 4:10 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 5:30 pm
Okay guys, if you want to discuss the merits of ID or lack thereof, please go here. Let's try to keep this thread focused on the points raised in the original post.
Comment by Krauze — July 31, 2005 @ 5:30 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 6:20 pm
Hi Folks,
Let me try to address these interesting posts in order, and then in a few days I'll need to break from the list for a short time. (Sorry, let me try that again.)
I would submit that instead of "˜sounding like' a creationist, that instead Rosenhouse (and other ID critics) on certain points (of contention about ID theories) agree(s) with creationists. The difference may sometimes be subtle. Not sounding like, but agreeing with.
For example, I could easily tell that the "˜following arguments' Mike Gene posted, came from a "˜creationists' web page and not from some place like Panda's Thumb. This was not only because I had read that particular article already. But rather because "˜creationists' start with their Bible and interpret science from there. Non-theistic anti-IDists don't usually reason this way.
Therefore, critics of ID don't sound like creationists when they are not speaking about concordist science (i.e. making their science suit their religious belliefs, faith or Holy Text).
Well, it might speak to the title of the thread: it provides evidence of convergent views about when, where and why ID theories have failed to convince people, (biological) scientists, philosophers and theologians, religious people and irreligious people included. ID might have been lost before it was ever found on these charges.
Comment by g arago — July 31, 2005 @ 6:20 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Please show me where I said I am what you said I am (and whatever I mean by that). If I wasn't, then why would I say I am?
(Yes, that's a reference to [evolutionist] Eminem, for those culturally attuned to MM out there.) :-,
Comment by g arago — July 31, 2005 @ 6:28 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 6:37 pm
Yes, exactly. Don't know if this is what you wanted to discuss. But this is exactly when ID was lost.
Comment by g arago — July 31, 2005 @ 6:37 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 6:53 pm
g arago,
Sorry. My mistake it was Aegeri who claimed to be a theistic evolutionist. However, would you like to answer the question I asked about why you are putting so much effort into your criticism of ID? As a sociologist this could be an interesting issue for you.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 31, 2005 @ 6:53 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 7:39 pm
Well, I don't mind answering, but it's not really on topic for this thread. If a moderator wants to move it, then that's fine. And thankfully I put more effort into other things than into criticizing ID.
Why? Well, one reason is that I work (part-time) at an insitute for philosophy, art and religion (ironically, there are more scientists than artists or theologians employed here) which means these issues come up in the context of contemporary 'science and religion' discourse. There are already enough invested critics of ID, even professional biologists, that they don't need my help. ID theories won't win what they're claiming, that's important enough to realize for now.
As a sociologist, while you are not, perhaps it could be interesting for you also? Or does sociology have nothing worthwhile to say about evolution or when (the) ID(M) was lost?
Comment by g arago — July 31, 2005 @ 7:39 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 8:50 pm
g arago,
Thanks. Not that it matters what I think, but sounds like a good reason to participate in the debate.
Since I tend towards a social constructivist view in the philosophy of science, I think sociology is absolutely important for understanding issues in the debate.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 31, 2005 @ 8:50 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 9:11 pm
G. arago:
Sounds good to me. The question is whether the critics of ID would be willing to make the same distinction if ID proponents happened to agree with creationists on certain points.
Nevertheless, the core arguments are the same.
Yet all the complaints completely sidestep ID101.
Comment by MikeGene — July 31, 2005 @ 9:11 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 9:21 pm
Krauze:
LOL. Indeed. We could even borrow the conspiratorial mindset and notice that both PZ Myers and Berkshire are atheists from Minnesota. In fact,
they even converse with each other.
Comment by MikeGene — July 31, 2005 @ 9:21 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 4:54 am
Hi Arago,
"If a moderator wants to move it, then that's fine."
The current software doesn't allow me to move comments anywhere else but to the Memory Hole. If you and Steve want to continue your discussion, can't you do so in the thread I directed you to earlier?
Comment by Krauze — August 1, 2005 @ 4:54 am
August 1st, 2005 at 5:04 am
Thanks Steve, for supporting my work as a sociologist. I too think sociologists have something important to say about evolution (and other concepts) as it (they) impact(s) society, both individuals and groups. Glad to hear your words!
Again, there is no 'the critics of ID.' Please respect the need to not absolutize or universally package your challengers. Otherwise you will commit the same mistakes you accuse others of making and surely you don't want to do that.
Yes, like Mike I doubt that many ID critics would be willing to make the same distinction about 'agreeing with' rather than 'sounding like' creationists. Perhaps I just worry less about those people and go about doing my daily business, living as I must in the meantime. I am not as politically invested in the ID controversy as this blog is to be bothered with nitpicking against such armchair fools. When the 'great breakthrough' finally comes, the chaff will be blown away and their critiques deemed broadly and specifically inconsequential. Why feed into it?
There is a slew of ID critics, for example, A. Peacocke, D. Lamoureux, H. van Till, G. Murphy, K. Miller, G. Morton and other theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists, who aren't usually confronted when criticizing those who critique ID. All of these people have presented legitimate and elaborate reasons for rejecting ID (that peculiarly American theory) as being not-the-revolution Dembski claims it is. Even J. Wolf's "What Kind of Revolution is the Design Revolution" puts ID theories into their humble place (which is why Dembski didn't put more than an abstract on ISCID).
As Johnson, Dembski and Behe reject these persons, all credible established scientists, philosophers or theologians, as 'woefully even perniciously confused,' they further isolate themselves from the respectability they ask for as intellectual, resonant Christian thinkers. If convincing evangelicals first is the goal, and not all open-minded religious or non-religious persons irrespective of biological fluency, then they have displayed inabilities in communication at the same time that they have gained successes in ideological, pseudo-scientific conversions.
The folks above have shown how ID is lost. And I have appealed to Behe, Dembski and Nelson personally about where it is lost, without satisfactory reply. ID leaders still ignore inconvenient criticism and won't ask for help, likely because they realize it would fundamentally compromise the project they have thus far set forth. Instead they are content (for now) to continue with the 'cultural renewal' dimension and the social-politics of the Movement and probably figure the science will catch up later.
Some (in the IDM) are deluded enough to think their 'science' is an actual legitimate alternative to Darwinian evolution now. Hah! Well, let's let the biologists, including the theistic ones, discuss that with scientific expertise instead of letting a lawyer or a mathematical philosopher or a rhetorician define the terms of the discussion. At least G. Gilder has recently said ID is without content. (!)
There will be no ID 201 or 301, as in ID being a disciplined science, if it can't get beyond the original hurdles that IDists have balked at and not yet come to terms with.
Human-made vs. non-human-made. Any takers?!
Arago
p.s. imho, that's a hum-dinger, self-admission for Krauze to deal with above, and also a wonderful example of how convoluted this complex discussion has become!
Comment by g arago — August 1, 2005 @ 5:04 am
August 1st, 2005 at 7:04 am
G Arago can't get his facts straight and I'm beginning to wonder whether he's trolling here at telicthoughts. He's making assumptions that fit his tidy little caricatures of IDists that are just wrong, and he seems to be here to spout out his pet sociological analysis of IDists, which is plainly naive by any standard. Plus, why should we believe anything he says when he can't get his facts straight…
But I just did a little fact checking and came upon this:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ub...
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Wo...
(Looks like more than an abstract to me)
There is also ample evidence that Dembski and Behe, at least, have not simply focused on evangelicals. Look at Stuart Kauffman. He respects these guys on an intellectual level while disagreeing with them. My bet is that Dembski and Behe have and will engage people who work with a certain shared set of foundational assumptions. But when people start their critiques from a sociological or religous context, why the hell should they feel compelled to engage? They make their arguments within a certain framework and if people need to modify the framework to perform their critiques, then the critiques are impotent.
Anyway, it seems the facts don't confirm to G Arago's preconceptions…the way he'd like the world to be. When the facts don't back up your armchair sociology, the world tells us your bluffing.
Comment by bipod — August 1, 2005 @ 7:04 am
August 1st, 2005 at 8:55 am
g arago,
Framing. Condescention.
Non Sequitur
Appeal to Authority
Non Sequitur. Where's your citation?
Argument ad Nauseam
Perhaps it is because your appeals are vacuous or uninteresting. Dembski made it very clear when his blog started up that it was not a place for debate (he does that everywhere he goes) and he added another criterion for getting a comment published "Don't bore me."
Argument ad Nauseam
Framing.
Quote Mining. See here
Argument ad Nauseam
Non Sequitur
Framing
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 1, 2005 @ 8:55 am
August 1st, 2005 at 9:02 am
G. arago:
I see. So many ID critics will not make this distinction and thus favor propaganda over a rational debate. Your solution? Say nothing and wait for a "big breakthrough" which will blow the chaff away. Sorry, but when people posture as objective analysts concerned only about "the evidence," I think it is worth my time to make sure others notice those same people are unwilling to make such a distinction. Otherwise, it feeds into the public fantasy that the critic is responding to me as an objective analyst concerned only about "the evidence."
Like it or not, many critics of ID rely on the politics of personal destruction as they seek to discredit the messenger for fear of the Wedge. That's why they don't make the distinction. To ignore it is to feed into it "“ it is like enabling a person who has an addiction.
As for big breakthroughs, the biggest one would come from scientists agreeing to stop cashing checks from the teleological account.
Otherwise, you should familiarize yourself with my writings.
Let me make it clear that I am not out to convince some target audience. I'm pretty self-focused. I see things that make me suspect ID. It's a real hunch. But as with all hunches, it could be on to something or could be a delusion. In talking about ID over the years, I have crossed paths with hundreds of critics (many (most?) of them scientists). During this time, they have said nothing to make me think my suspicions are delusionary in nature. On the contrary, the common reliance on rhetoric and stereotypes, and the inability to think about ID, makes me think there is something to my hunch. I don't pay attention to the fact that critics remain unconvinced. I pay attention to whether their arguments damage my position, whether they even understand my position, whether they know how to think about ID, whether they are open-minded, and most of all, I pay attention to their answers to my questions. The vast majority of critics do not impress me. Thus, neither does their opinion of ID.
Comment by MikeGene — August 1, 2005 @ 9:02 am
August 1st, 2005 at 10:46 am
As for Jakob Wolf, his argument is that ID isn't science because it doesn't follow the methodology of other scientific fields, a point that Mike and myself have also made numerous times. This is, BTW, a pretty good tip-off that neither of us are particularly "politically invested in the ID controversy".
Comment by Krauze — August 1, 2005 @ 10:46 am
August 1st, 2005 at 5:29 pm
bipod,
Yours are funny accusations, though good for you for doing the research on-line. Last I checked at ISCID (is 'brainstorms' still functioning?), Wolf's paper was not published. Now it is; so we can all see that the 'revolution' Dembski asserts is not the same for everyone. Dembski has overreached. Thanks for catching this up. I guess not allowing debate on this controversial paper shows enough that ISCID does not seriously consider even friendly astute criticisms. Wolf has helped to define the boundaries and limits of ID theories in a more satisfactory way than IDists have themselves.
'[I]mplications for all humane studies' - Michael Behe
Otoh, bipod, the 'suspected troll' label-fling is kinda uneccesary and unappreciated. As both Mike Gene and Joy know that is one thing I am not. I've posted several times here in the last few days since I'll be going away soon (to a city almost five times older than the nation in which most posters here live!) and felt it worthwhile to post here several times before departure. Perhaps my assumption that confidence in ID does not equate with actual science went too far in thinking people here were/are actually concerned with where/when ID is lost, but rather simply how to defend it at all costs to their intellectual integrity.
Wow, am I supposed to feel slighted or honoured to be put in such a category with religion?! Many sociologists would scoff at such a combinatorial reference. But I have instead chosen a less traveled road (or it was chosen for me) which has wound me up in ID-land (for better or worse); it's own circus for the sociological observer and his or her perceptive imagination.
Please don't join Salvador's ranks by insisting I am 'useless' and have nothing to contribute to the conversation without empirical, 'hard science' proofs. It would merely display the folly of another situated scientist who claims to know more about the world than he or she is able to support with their limited resources.
Steve,
Please, friend, I thought we were getting along rather well, aside from the circumstances of our obviously important disagreements. I am not trying to start a new religion, but rather appealing to the historical record to note how things are the way they are. There is no need to label me so desperately, and repeatedly, merely since I have called into question the ID Movement and it's theories! It is not meant as a personal attack against your beliefs; or is that the way you perceive it?
The novice philosophical language you apply is uneccesary, as if such fallacious labels were expected to carry greater weight than the legitimate arguments they pretend to confront. Otherwise, why not keep this in the 'spin' thread and actually address the criticisms I have made here about 'When ID was/is lost?'
Does no one out there want to address the thread's title: 'When ID was lost?' Notice that Krauze hasn't chimed back in to the melody, except to divert from his rebellious statement:
Or was the thread title and its meaning (a mystery?) just another diversion intent on discussing politics instead of the actual content (or lackthereof) of ID theories and their critics? I have shown willingness to respect the legitimacy of G. Purdom's criticisms while it seems no one else here has yet shown the same respect.
Mike Gene,
Thanks for your encouragement (if this is what you meant). I certainly am not counseling you to do or to say nothing. "Say what you want" sings Portuguese-Canadian Nelly Furtado ("When you feel powerless"). So why should I not support your right to protect yourself and professional colleagues?
Perhaps you really do have something important to contribute to the general discourse, Mike, in fact, even more than just idle chat, but actual experimentation, testing or printable articles which would help to show people 'the way' or 'a way.' Others, I can accept as pure armchair observers with a grain of salt. But perhaps you have the ability to be an actual participant or even a performer in the show that becomes us on this channel. Certain you live in a nation that builds legalistic stages.
Yes, this is clearly true. But why argue exhaustively against those and try to convince the doubters when instead you could be in your laboratory (chemical, botanical, anthropological, social, psychological, etc.) doing experiments or making observations that could change all of the bunk? I value your energy in this conversation, even if I don't accept some of the premises on which you operate your theoretical and critical apparatus.
"many critics of ID rely on the politics of personal destruction" - Mike Gene
"The modern man is in general, even with the best will, unable to give religious ideas a significance for culture and national character which they deserve. But it is, of course, not my aim to substitute for a one-sided materialistic an equally one-sided spiritualistic causal interpretation of culture and of history. Each is equally possible, but each, if it does not serve as the preparation, but as the conclusion of an investigation, accomplishes equally little in the interest of historical truth." - Max Weber ("Science as a Vocation," 1919)
Comment by g arago — August 1, 2005 @ 5:29 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Hi Arago,
The reason why you're getting such mixed reactions might be that it's sometimes difficult to understand the point of some of the things you're writing. Take this thread as an example: In response to me pointing out that creationists lost control of ID by decoupling design from the identity of the designer, you reply: "Yes, exactly. Don't know if this is what you wanted to discuss. But this is exactly when ID was lost."
What am I supposed to reply to this? If you agree with me, what do you want us to discuss?
Later, you add: "I have shown willingness to respect the legitimacy of G. Purdom's criticisms while it seems no one else here has yet shown the same respect." Which of Purdom's criticisms did you express as being legitimate? In my post, I echoed her criticism that ID is useless for leading people to Christ, to which you replied: "Well, I wouldn't say it's useless, and even if it was it would be beyond anyone's place to say so. Conversion is beyond scientific, rational analysis or argumentation, whether it is for or against a particular ideological movement." And later, you said that "Dr. G. Purdom's views are still among the minority punching holes in another minority".
Comment by Krauze — August 1, 2005 @ 7:18 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 9:49 pm
G. arago:
First things first. If people can't pass ID101, what makes you think they would interpret ID201 as anything other than idle chat?
I don't do tricks.
Multi-tasking is something I'm pretty good at. But there is no magic bullet which will change all the bunk.
Really? Ken Miller describes ID proponents as the "enemies of science" and is willing to spread lies about Behe in his book. As for George Murphy, he came across (to me) as another dime-a-dozen critic leaning on his stereotypes:
He makes a powerful theological argument. But does he know how to think about ID?
G. arago:
If you know of a sound criticism of one of my views, just let me know and I'll handle it.
Feelings of purpose and plan in the universe have nothing to do with my hunch.
You want to squeeze metaphysics out of a flagellum?? My metaphysics are much, much deeper than this.
Comment by MikeGene — August 1, 2005 @ 9:49 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 10:20 pm
g arago - is it really so funny to expect that, in the rare instances in which you actually take the time to back up your generalizations with concrete examples, they be accurate examples? This is rational discourse 101. If the statements don't match the facts, then the generalizations made from the statements are empty.
That's all I'm saying here. You've got a pet hypothesis and you're parading it around here as if it were rock solid. If any sane person looks at the things you've been writing, they should quickly pick up on the largely empty claims that you're making regarding the sociology of intelligent design.
Comment by bipod — August 1, 2005 @ 10:20 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 6:43 pm
With what that Purdom says do I agree?
You wrote: "ID, complains Purdom, doesn't identify the designer"
With this, I agree.
You said:
Certainly, I agreed with you. Yes, this is one of the clearest, most revealing statements I've yet seen in this entire discourse or in regard to the paradigm of ID. The future of ID theories are obviously uncertain in such a situation.
So the question for Krauze then is: why do you continue to defend ID (or design theory) when you acknowledge that it has been 'lost?' This seems to suggest that you are borrowing terms from the original inventors of 'intelligent design' and revising them for your own purposes, perhaps to justify your worldview. Otherwise, you could help by explaining why you titled the thread 'when ID was lost' if you really didn't believe it 'was lost'.
If you do believe what you said, then did creationists or other theists lose it to agnostics, theistic evolutionists to atheistic evolutionists, the easily labellable to the unlabellable and socially anarchistic, or something else?
You misrepresent the fine line I have walked with Purdom's criticism of ID. Her criticism of ID is certainly valid in some senses. Just as Lamoureux, Peacocke, Miller, van Till and others openly debunk ID theories from claims to being a revolution, or 'the bridge between science and theology.' If you are not defending those forms of ID presented by Dembski, Behe, Nelson, Meyer and Wells, then obviously i am not really speaking to you and need not.
But you must admit you're tricky. :->
And I don't happen to think your metaphysics are/is that deep Mike. Sorry, but you're trained as a ____ist, ____ist, ____eer, or something else related to natural science. I doubt if you've invested much personal time in studying the metaphyics of 'Intelligence' or otherwise, that your post-modern psychology obscures a deeper connection with ancient views of life and the spirit, in addition to material causality.
bipod,
sorry, I can't engage in your tantrums. A 'sociology of intelligent design'? Isn't that the funniest thing I've heard in days! Well on the cutting edge of the wedge one must be to see such smihotvorni (ridiculous) empty claims.
Any sane person? What rock are you standing solid on?
Comment by g arago — August 2, 2005 @ 6:43 pm