You wrote: "ID, complains Purdom, doesn't identify the designer"

With this, I agree.

You said:

"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." "“ Krauze

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.

"I don't do tricks." - Mike Gene

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?

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.

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.'

First things first. If people can't pass ID101, what makes you think they would interpret ID201 as anything other than idle chat?

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.

I don't do tricks.

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?

Multi-tasking is something I'm pretty good at. But there is no magic bullet which will change all the bunk.

Yes, but those theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists I mentioned above, certainly do not.

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:

IDers have an effective divide & conquer strategy. OTOH when speaking to school boards, scientific organizations &c they like to play the "Nobody here but us scientists and philosophers" game. But OTOH when talking to sympathetic constituencies they make no secret of their religious agenda "“ as with Johnson's polemics against "naturalism." & without those constituencies that are sympathetic to ID on religious grounds it would make no progress toward getting into school curricula &c.

He makes a powerful theological argument. But does he know how to think about ID?

G. arago:

That is why I referred to them (i.e. not as merely a hollow appeal to authority). I don't expect "˜the critic' of ID critics to examine every counter-ID or anti-ID claim fairly and equally. But I do recommend intellectual integrity in not avoiding those sound criticisms that ID leaders themselves have not yet handled with due care or competence.

If you know of a sound criticism of one of my views, just let me know and I'll handle it.

You've missed my point about a "˜great breakthrough,' but that's expected since it was delivered in code. I've read many of your writings and am thankful for your "˜hunch.' Let me only note that many people who have not even heard of the ID Movement, modern ID theories or Lehigh University, also share your feelings about purpose and plan in the universe and of meaning in our human lives.

Feelings of purpose and plan in the universe have nothing to do with my hunch.

Teleology is an authentic concept that has not been given its due in certain academic/scientific spheres. This also leads me to think that there is not one ID but many ID's, in the sense that "˜theory' is merely a faint reflection of what goes deeper and beyond mere theory in a person's life. If you can elaborate on what legitimate "˜telic thoughts' (might) mean for the average person on the street and not just the specialized scientists speaking in the legacy of Darwinist or neo-evolutionary arguments, you might have something (even beyond what Dembski or Behe have yet proposed) to show for your efforts.

You want to squeeze metaphysics out of a flagellum?? My metaphysics are much, much deeper than this.

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".

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.

"critiques from a sociological or religous context" - bipod

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.

"The present danger does not really lie in the loss of universality on the part of the scientist, but rather in his pretense and claim of totality"¦What we have to deplore therefore is not so much the fact that scientists are specialising, but rather the fact that specialists are generalising." "“ Viktor Frankl

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:

"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." "“ Krauze

"Yes, exactly. Don't know if this is what you wanted to discuss. But this is exactly when ID was lost." - Arago

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.

"many ID critics will not make this distinction and thus favor propaganda over a rational debate." - Mike Gene

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

Yes, but those theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists I mentioned above, certainly do not. That is why I referred to them (i.e. not as merely a hollow appeal to authority). I don't expect 'the critic' of ID critics to examine every counter-ID or anti-ID claim fairly and equally. But I do recommend intellectual integrity in not avoiding those sound criticisms that ID leaders themselves have not yet handled with due care or competence.

You've missed my point about a 'great breakthrough,' but that's expected since it was delivered in code. I've read many of your writings and am thankful for your 'hunch.' Let me only note that many people who have not even heard of the ID Movement, modern ID theories or Lehigh University, also share your feelings about purpose and plan in the universe and of meaning in our human lives.

Teleology is an authentic concept that has not been given its due in certain academic/scientific spheres. This also leads me to think that there is not one ID but many ID's, in the sense that 'theory' is merely a faint reflection of what goes deeper and beyond mere theory in a person's life. If you can elaborate on what legitimate 'telic thoughts' (might) mean for the average person on the street and not just the specialized scientists speaking in the legacy of Darwinist or neo-evolutionary arguments, you might have something (even beyond what Dembski or Behe have yet proposed) to show for your efforts.

"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)

Please call off the telic thoughts hound dogs,

Arago

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Framing. Condescention.

I am not as politically invested in the ID controversy as this blog is to be bothered with nitpicking against such armchair fools.

Non Sequitur

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).

Appeal to Authority

As Johnson, Dembski and Behe reject these persons, all credible established scientists, philosophers or theologians, as "˜woefully even perniciously confused,'

Non Sequitur. Where's your citation?

The folks above have shown how ID is lost.

Argument ad Nauseam

And I have appealed to Behe, Dembski and Nelson personally about where it is lost, without satisfactory reply.

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."

Some (in the IDM) are deluded enough to think their "˜science' is an actual legitimate alternative to Darwinian evolution now.

Argument ad Nauseam

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.

Framing.

At least G. Gilder has recently said ID is without content. (!)

Quote Mining. See here

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.

Argument ad Nauseam

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.

Non Sequitur

Human-made vs. non-human-made. Any takers?!

Framing

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).

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.

"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." - Mike Gene

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!