Thinking Christian Comments
Original Post: Intelligent Design is Ruining Science Education!
Intelligent design. The first 'scientific' theory you have to be a Christian to accept.
Ron,
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the only people who accept ID are Christians? Surely not - there are plenty of non-Christian IDers out there, and plenty more that were not Christians when they first came to embrace ID, but then ended up as Christians in virtue of their conclusions on these matters.
Ron, there is some relationship between the ID theory and belief in Christianity, but I urge you to think clearly about the relationship, just as ID proponents have.
Come on, guys. You know and I know that if fundamentalist Christians one fine day decided to withdraw all support from ID, that it would be reduced to a trivia question in a week.
The fact that I posted these comments on this particular blog just proves my point. The person who owns this blog just happens to be "...strategic planner for the many and diverse ministries of Campus Crusade for Christ in the U.S." and titled his blog "Thinking Christian". What a coincidence.
If you doubt me, look around the web to see how many atheists are pushing ID out there. You will find--as I did--that nearly all sites pushing ID are run by evangelicals.
And all the above doesn't even touch on the Discovery Instritute's infamous Wedge document. In public, those pushing this so-called "science" have insisted, as Tom says, that "...ID's agenda is not tied to religion nearly as much as they think it is". But when you look at the Discovery Institute's infamous Wedge document--which was written as an internal document and not meant for public release--you see that the ID movement's two 'governing goals' are (1) "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and (2) "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God." I see a conflict between what Tom says and what the Wedge document says. And the people who wrote that document are the same folks who invented the ID movement.
Anyway, sorry about being so long-winded here. All those of us who oppose ID are trying to achieve is to ensure that biology--or any other subject--is taught in a manner in which the actual experts in the field would approve of. That's not trying to instill atheism. That's just calling for quality education.
Did you read the link I posted? I think I dealt with the Christian connection there.
If Christians withdrew all support from ID, would it die? Interesting question. The crux of it is the matter of philosophical materialism. Persons who believe a priori that nothing exists except for matter, energy, and their law- and chance-based interactions will never pursue ID.
Let's consider three groups of people: full-blown philosophical naturalists like Provine, Gould, Dawkins, etc.; thoroughgoing supernaturalists like many Christian scientists, and people who fall in between. (There's probably a continuum of belief there, but for simplicity I'll state it this way.)
To paraphrase your first comment:
Naturalistic (unguided) evolution: the first scientific theory you have to be a philosophical naturalist to accept.
Those on the naturalist end of the spectrum will never consider ID, and they are also not going to believe in the Christian God. So your point has validity on one level: if people who have some philosophical openness to something beyond naturalism withdraw support from ID, it will collapse.
This is why I recommended you take a thoughtful approach here. Are you suggesting that ID is a secret conspiracy to foist supernaturalism onto what is properly a naturalist enterprise and belief system? It's not. It's an open program challenging philosophical naturalism (or materialism). Are you suggesting that makes it somehow intellectually or scientifically inferior? Some scientists snort at the possibility that philosophical naturalism can be challenged. They don't understand the issues.
And finally, recall what Aaron Snell said: the facts (scientists like facts, right?) show that your initial statement was wrong.
So think it through!
An upward swing of 6% over 4 years isn't an explosion. Indeed I would guess that it's just inside the range of statistically significant.
A 50% increase over 4 years is remarkable. We can debate whether "explode" is too strong a term, but it's still remarkable, beyond any doubt.
A note on terminology:
Statistical significance has as much to do with the sample size and variances as it does with the percentage of change. The word "significant" in there is perhaps unfortunate, because it's too easily confused with the matter of whether is significant in the sense that it actually matters.
But back to what statistical significance is about. When a population's characteristics are measured by sampling a subset of that population, statisticians want to know whether they can confidently say the sample's results accurately reflect the entire population. There are mathematical tests that can determine this, with numbers representing confidence levels.
A result is statistically significant when it can be confidently (within prescribed confidence intervals) said that the result obtained within the sample is the same that would have been obtained by measuring the entire population.
Once a result has been found to be statistically significant in that sense, we are free to ask the follow-up question, does the result matter? Again, I think a 50% increase over four years is very significant in that other sense of the word.
Another name (an older name) for ID is 'deduction.' And an older name still, is 'Platonism.' What the ID folks are saying and doing is not really new.
What makes their effort interesting is its political aspect. That is, all the work ID folks put into legitimating their claims and assertions about the world.
What we should watch for is the political work of ID. It starts small, like in school board meetings, when a group of ID supporters take power and attempt to install their interpretation in a standardized form (e.g. putting ID stickers on all the biology books that say this is "just a theory and not a fact").
More than anything, ID is a religio-political movement that has latched onto and is using older (deductive or Platonic style) narratives that resonate to talk about the world.
Whether ID is true of false is the wrong way of looking at it. We should pay close attention to what they are doing--the tactics and strategies of those trying to establishe themselves as a legitimate voice that people actually listen to. It is there that they can be challenged.
Please delete the above. I somehow managed to post it by mistake. I'll post the full reply in a moment.
Edited By Siteowner: Done at your request
Jacob,whether it is true or false is exactly the right way of looking at it.
If ID is barking up the wrong tree, it will eventually go away. If it's on the right track (switching metaphors like trains here) it ought to prevail. If it's in doubt, it out to be pursued long enough to determine whether it's true or not.
It's interesting how these threads take on a life of their own.
The original post had a specific point, which was to suggest, by actual data, that fears that ID would lead to a decline in science knowledge are unfounded.
Now we're talking about whether ID is platonism, deduction, or Christian proselytizing.
Has anybody other than Franklin noticed that there was a point made here, based in hard data?
Tom,
The truthfulness of falsity of ID isn't necessarily a determinate as to whether it will persist as a way of thinking about the world. You may think that it "ought" to be a determinate, but in making that claim you implicitly ignore the role of politics and political struggle in establishing/challenging ID as a legitimate way of talking about the world.
Truth and Falsity are nice metaphysical topics to talk about, but in this world politics are more important--I believe. And that is a criticism that can be leveled at much of the discussion on this blog. Much goes into talking about Truth and so forth, but no one really gets at the political struggles that go into establishing truth as truth (or falsity as falsity) in a particular era.
In other words, it is a dominate assumption that people on this blog make that politics and truth are separate. Perhaps this assumption is worth rethinking.
Jacob:
Some of your assertions are just bending over backwards to be chased down.
First, on what basis are you calling ID “Platonism”? Would you please define and explain what Platonism is without scrambling for some information from Wikipedia or whatever? My sense is you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Second, you also term ID “deduction.” Please explain. Maybe you meant “inference”? And, apart from this, you’re confusing what ID is vs. the methodologies it may employ. That’s careless.
Third, are you seriously suggesting that any of the various neo-Darwinian theories (take your pick) are, without question, “fact”? If so, you yourself are undermining the very nature of the modern empirical sciences: their theories are always contingent upon old information and subject to revision on new information. By stopping the questioning of any scientific sacred cow you are trying to also stop intellectual inquiry. Now, who was it that you suggested was “imposing”?
Fourth, you assert: “Whether ID is true of false is the wrong way of looking at it. We should pay close attention to what they are doing—the tactics and strategies…” In the interests of full disclosure, I’m opposed to ID calling itself an MES… but I’m NOT opposed to ID highlighting the very serious shortfalls and problems the neo-Darwinian theories are facing—and we’re not just talking a “spread about the mean.” (More on this in the next paragraph.) Your assertion is far more egregious: while I may agree in certain isolated circumstances “tactics and strategies” of IDer’s may be questioned, that is not any kind of logical reason for questioning the validity of ID. (If that were true then—hands down—the sickening profanities and hate speech used by most atheists against people of faith (but especially Christians) should eliminate forever any consideration of atheism.) Worst, your considering it “wrong” to assess the truth or falsity of the ideas animating ID turns the world on its head and is nothing short of ludicrous. What if ID turns out, in fact, to be true? Then what? By your standards you will eliminate it from discussion regardless.
Digression I will be more than happy to entertain any of your (apparent) dogmatic views of neo-Darwinism. Here’s just a small sample: (1) from the scientific perspective Darwinian mechanisms come up essentially short as a universal meta-explanation of why and how life arose and evolved on earth, and (2) from the philosophical perspective illicitly impose the a priori interpretive matrix of metaphysical naturalism upon empirical scientific observations. In addition, ID points to a certain lack of fossil evidence on the one hand (which is true—I can provide references from Darwinists), and on the other hand the disparity between phylogeny (family tree) predictions per Darwinian theory vs. actual observed morphological changes. (Regarding the latter, phylogenetic data do not appear to suggest—in fact, are quite neutral to—a tree-structured pattern indicative of common ancestry, and may be a conceptualization imposed a priori by current theories. This, of course, puts into question the validity of evidence alleged to support macro-evolutionary processes. Finally, neo-Darwinian theory purports to predict or explain everything—from why we act altruistically to why some people are strongly religious to why peacocks have bright feathers (which, by the way, it cannot explain!). In fact, it does nothing of the kind: prediction (the sine qua non of the MESs) for it does so only after the fact is observed: it predicts that people will be selfish, and that they will be selfless. End Digression
Fifth, you conclude with a whimper the likes of which Pontius Pilate would be proud: Truth and Falsity are nice metaphysical topics to talk about, but in this world politics are more important—I believe. And that is a criticism that can be leveled at much of the discussion on this blog. Much goes into talking about Truth and so forth, but no one really gets at the political struggles that go into establishing truth as truth (or falsity as falsity) in a particular era. There you have it, folks: political might manufactures the truth, and truth is relative to the era and regime in power. You can’t beat the absurdity of such an assertion with a stick. If for no other reason (there are others, of course), then your own assertion carries no truth content beyond what any possible political support it may have in any given historical era. So, why should anyone listen to you now, when tomorrow you ideas will be “voted out”?
This blog is called the “Thinking Christian,” which means by definition it is expected people who comment here are seeking truth—strong disagreements over ideas discussed notwithstanding. If you are not interested in truth (per your own words), then I suggest you peddle your inchoate ideas elsewhere: you are clearly not interested in thinking but imposing. I’ve heard of all sorts of criticisms of ideas in my day, but to criticize a blog whose primary goal is to seek truth?!? That’s crazy!
Jacob, to echo a word from Holopupenko:
The point, as far as I'm concerned, is whether it's true or not.
There are politics that affect what kind of hearing it gets, and how the various sides of the controversy are treated. We can deal with that. But the politics are not the point. I'm only interested them as far as they help or hinder the quest for the answer.
Maybe that's what you meant, too; I'm not really sure.
Holopupenko,
Thank you. I've been waiting for you to sling your overblown and melodramatic rhetoric in my direction. What a great opportunity for a teaching moment.
The relationship between ID and Plato, and deduction for that matter, centers on their ontological presuppositions--namely, they presuppose a pre-given entity, Form, unmovable mover, law, etc. So, for instance, ID presupposes an intelligent designer; Plato presupposed human reality was merely a reflectio of universal ontological Forms (like the 'Good' or 'Evil'); and deduction, well, it begins from some presupposed law and attempts to deduce the behavior of some body. The link between them, as I see it, centers on their dependence on a priori conceptions (e.g. an intelligent designer, a Form, or the 'law of gravity') that are not reflexively discussed.
My point: be more reflixive about your thinking--that is, don't assume you know reality prior to analysis. Do not assume the world turns to you with a legible face, and that it only takes a keen method to discern its Reality.
Inference--you infer from something I wrote that I am some kind of neoDarwinian. You infer incorrectly. Deduction--you begin from (some)presupposition like all people are mortal, you know that I am a person, thus you deduce I am mortal. You would be correct in that instance.
No, I am not confusing deduction for inference. Perhaps you should take another look at how they are used in logic.
There you go again, making the unquestioned presupposition that truth exists out there somewhere. Then, you presuppose even further that it is up to us to go out there and find it, and fit our words/categories to it.
Here is what you fail to see: I don't make the same starting presuppositions. I don't presuppose that truth is out there somewhere or that it is up to us to find. I think we would benefit far more by looking very closely at how people (scietists, preachers, politicians, the man on the street, etc) make "truth"-claims and what they try to do with them, what policies they try to justify, what actions they justify, etc.
The validity of ID claims are not my target. I'm much more interested in how people that argue for ID make the world intelligible, how they try to dissiminate that intelligibility to other people, and how they deal with challenges that are leveled at the ID argument.
What I'm saying is that ID theory, like evolutionary theory, is a storyline that helps us organize our lives and resources in meaningful ways. Neither is going to capture the truth of the matter, yet both employ truth to justify their claims.
Now, will this turn the world up side down, as you suggest. No--that's basic hyperbole. But more than that, you saying that my thoughts would turn the world up side down is just another way of saying you don't understand what I am saying and that you do not find it intelligible. Thus, it may turn your world upside down, but that's only because it is a perspective that operates from a paradigmatically different perspective than you do. There are any number of researchers/professors who do similar types of studies. See, for instance, Bruno Latour who does "science studies", or Harold Garfinkle who does "ethnomethodology", or Michel Foucault who studies "systems of knowledge". There are also a number of philosophers and theologians--see for instance, Richard Rorty and John D. Caputo. No, the world will not be turned up side down.
Politics and truth are inseparably entangled--that is the basic view of the world that I begin with. I'm not saying that might necessarily establishes truth--though in some eras that has been the case. I am saying that Truth the way you want to talk about it is a metaphysical faith--it is not something tangible that you can show me or let me touch. Truth, the way I want to talk about it, is a resource in a larger struggle that I can see and point to. Truth is not the End, it is a means.
Finally, that is precisely why I say that this blog is primarily focused on abstract, metaphysical debate, rather than getting down to the nitty gritty of political struggel that goes into the establishment of truth in our era.
Did you read the link I posted? I think I dealt with the Christian connection there.
No, Tom, I really don't think you did. I made two points, neither of which were addressed in your link: (1) With very few exceptions, ID is supported solely by Christians, and as judge Jones said in the Kitzmiller trial, the scientific theory you have to believe in God in order to accept doesn't exist; and (2) apologists for ID consistently claim it's just about the science, while the movement's own internal documents reveal the real goal is to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God." That means that when ID apologists deny the religious nature of their movement they are being highly dishonest. You didn't address that at all.
To paraphrase your first comment:
Naturalistic (unguided) evolution: the first scientific theory you have to be a philosophical naturalist to accept.
I'm an atheist, but I don't really have a problem with ID supporters railing about philosophical naturalism--that's just bashing atheism. It's when you go after methodological naturalism that I have a problem, because that's central to scientific inquiry. After all, if you fall ill and go to the doctor, and his diagnosis is that some miracle must have occured, you wouldn't go to that doctor for long. Non-naturalistic explanations aren't explanations at all, and don't work for science any more than they do for medicine.
Are you suggesting that ID is a secret conspiracy to foist supernaturalism onto what is properly a naturalist enterprise and belief system? It's not. It's an open program challenging philosophical naturalism (or materialism).
ID is a marketing scheme funded by the deep pockets of the religious right, and marketing schemes like this are not that uncommon. Think of how much money big tobacco spent trying to convince the public that the science linking smoking to lung cancer is wrong. They saw science as a threat, too.
One area we agree on though, is that ID will stand or fall based on the quality of the science they can produce. HIV had the potential to be a species stopper, but when researchers began to understand the evolutionary behavior of the HIV virus, they began to use the drug cocktail approach, and now AIDS is a chronic condition, not the death sentence it once was. They've had nearly 20 years so far; what has the ID movement produced? What diseases have they cured? What problems in biology have they solved? What new avenues of research have opened up due to the 'insight' that the flagellum is supposedly irreducibly complex?
Finally, remember: All supporters of evolutionary theory are trying to do is to ensure biology is taught in a way most of the experts in the field would approve of. What is wrong with that?
How 'bout we start by answering two simple questions and then see where that takes ID:
1) Do we have any evidence that information can come to exist on it's own?
2) Do the building blocks of life, in particular the DNA, contain the information required to "build" a living being?
Answer Key: 1)=No, unless you want to count extremely speculative evidence otherwise known as "wishful thinking" 2)=Yes
Where does this take ID? I say it makes it very interesting and worthy of discussion. Answer the information question and you'll either bury ID or bring it to the forefront of science. Until then it isn't going away.
Ron, there is nothing wrong with supporters of evolutionary biology trying to ensure biology is taught in a way most of the experts in the field would approve of. If that was all they were doing, it would be fine. But it's not all they're doing. You know it, I'm sure, that some or many are taking strong action to discredit and hinder ID research.
That means that when ID apologists deny the religious nature of their movement they are being highly dishonest. You didn't address that at all.
I did address the connection between religion and ID. I didn't quote the wedge document like you apparently wanted me to because it's not the bible of the movement. (It's a great document to quote-mine from; but it seems to me that quote-mining is something the anti-ID folks are not in favor of.) I've encouraged a thoughtful look at this connection, and all I got back from you was a black-and-white, highly unnuanced view that demonstrated no awareness of having read what was written.
It's a bit disconcerting, to say the least, to write something as clearly as I did and to have someone come back and tell me I don't believe that, that I really meant something else. As I said in the title of that post, Intelligent Design is not a conspiracy. It's out there on the table for discussion.
Methodological naturalism is fine with me, if it doesn't include the assumption that every explanation must be naturalistic. That is to say, your version of methodological naturalism appears actually to be philosophical naturalism. Every scientific explanation must be naturalistic, but not every explanation must be scientific--not unless you assume there is nothing to explain, and nothing that explains, except what is just natural; and that is philosophical naturalism.
Ron, there is nothing wrong with supporters of evolutionary biology trying to ensure biology is taught in a way most of the experts in the field would approve of. If that was all they were doing, it would be fine. But it's not all they're doing. You know it, I'm sure, that some or many are taking strong action to discredit and hinder ID research.
Well, if you have no problem with ensuring biology is taught in a way most of the experts in the field would approve of, then why did you write your article? This is what the American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific society in the world, has to say about ID and quality of science education:
Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education...
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;
I can come up with similar quotes from Amer. Anthropological Assn, Amer. Assoc. of Physical Anthropologists, Amer. Geological Institute, Amer. Chemical Society, Amer. Soc. for Microbiology, the Nat. Academy of Science and many many other professional scientific societies. The experts in the field have spoken, and the fact is that every professional scientific society with an opinion on the subject endorses evolution and views ID as a religiously-motivated pseudoscience. And as far as interfering with "ID research" goes, I can only ask what research?
I asked you in my last post to name a single disease cured using principles exclusive to ID; or cite any problem in the sciences that has been solved using ID principles--remember? You haven't responded, and for good reason. They don't have anything to offer. There's no there there.
I did address the connection between religion and ID. I didn't quote the wedge document like you apparently wanted me to because it's not the bible of the movement.
Okay, maybe I just missed it. Show me where in your article you explained how it is possible for any scientific theory to require a belief in God in order to be accepted. As far as the wedge document goes, let me ask you on what do you base your claim that it's not the bible of the movement? It reads like a strategic document that outlines both near-term and more distant goals for the movement, nearly all the goals involve explicit religious motives, and as far as I know, the Disco Institute has never denied its authenticity.
Methodological naturalism is fine with me, if it doesn't include the assumption that every explanation must be naturalistic.
If every explanation isn't naturalistic, it isn't methodological naturalism. It's not atheism, Tom. Does your doctor invoke miracles when you get sick, rather than explaining you have an infectious disease? And--just so you know--if you support ID you have a problem with methological naturalism. Here's an example:
"Methodological naturalism proposes that scientists be provisional atheists in their work, no matter what contrary evidence they find"
Methodological naturalism makes two gigantic assumptions before any evidence is examined. The first assumption is that there is no existence beyond what is natural or "material.""
(From the Disco Institute's site)
In other words, according to ID, methodological naturalism is atheism.
But they're wrong; MN only requires that science restrict itself to the natural because miracles aren't explanations. MN does not claim that the natural is all there is, just all that can be actually observed. You can't put a ghost in a test tube.
So, to (finally) sum up: Is ID a threat to science education? You bet it is. Let the movement prove the rest of us wrong by supernaturally curing a disease; then we can talk about including it in biology classes.
BTW--I want you to know I've enjoyed our discussion quite a bit, and I think we should both take a certain measure of pride in the fact that we maintained civility throughout. (If I was less than civil at any point, then you have my sincerest apologies). As much fun as this topic is, it's not the discussion I really want to have with you. What I want to discuss sometime is the merits of Christianity itself.
Well, if you have no problem with ensuring biology is taught in a way most of the experts in the field would approve of, then why did you write your article?
I need to correct myself there. I do have one problem with the way biology is taught in many places. I do not favor teaching ID theory on the high school level, so to that extent I agree with the "experts," but evolution is taught incompletely, and that needs to be fixed. That is, biology instruction should acknowledge the intellectual/evidential challenges that evolutionary theory is still working on.
At this stage of ID research, that's all I would ask. I don't think the AAAS or NCSE should find that very threatening.
Your challenge that ID has not produced any fruitful research is interesting. First of all, it has stimulated a lot of discussion on complexity. Second, there are a large number of scientists working on ID research who are afraid of being Sternberged so they are not publishing openly yet. Third, it's not at all clear that macroevolutionary theory is leading to any useful science either. I would challenge you to name a single disease cured by macroevolutionary principles. (Microevolutionary theory is not in controversy here; ID sees it and accepts it same as everyone else.) A theory of origins, after all, is really about what happened a long time ago, not what is useful this month or even this decade.
How do I know the Wedge document is not the ID bible? Because in practical terms, I don't see it driving the agenda. Nobody mentions it anymore except for quoteminers like yourself.
Your quote from DI on MN is out of context. Provisional atheism is not atheism. Further on that:
MN only requires that science restrict itself to the natural because miracles aren't explanations.
Here's a good illustration of what I wrote last time. The way you use "explanations" here shows that you do not consider anything an explanation unless it is a scientific explanation. MN assumes that any scientific explanation must be naturally based, but only philosophical naturalism says that there are no other categories of explanations.
Suppose a miracle happens. Then it is the explanation for what follows. MN says, we can't study that with our tools; we can't put a ghost in our test tubes. PN laughs and says there are no miracles, because there just can't be. (The fact of credibly reported miracles just doesn't seem to matter.) But MN in itself leaves open the door to the possibility that a miracle may happen; it does not rule it out a priori.
As to ID being a threat to science education, just look at the chart I referenced in the post, and how awful things got in the U.S. after Darwin on Trial and Darwin's Black Box. Science literacy increased by over 50% in the next four years.
Ron,
Your comment of 01.20.07 - 5:54 pm is well said.
Steve,
1) Do we have any evidence that information can come to exist on it's own?Yes. Genetic algorithms. GA's create and test new structures that are solutions to the problem at hand. A GA iteratively merges good designs (and random variations), to create even better designs.
The algorithm designer doesn't need to enter information about the problem ahead of time. The GA can generate information without knowing about the input stream or the parameters of the problem. In that regard it is similar to intelligent, human problem solving.
Tom,
ID isn't just a threat to science education. ID is an attempt to subvert public trust in science as an enterprise because it argues that the scientific community is engaged in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth. It argues to the layperson that the scientists must be in said conspiracy citing to the layperson the fact that science reaches counter-intuitive conclusions, and that the tiny handful of pro-ID scientists have been shunned. But if ID had a case, it could make it in the scientific community. It can't. The pro-ID scientists are shunned because they are unable to defend their views to the rest of the community.
ID uses the kind of technique used by Exxon-Mobil to discredit research on global warming. They throw up red herrings, and cherry-pick data to make themselves appear like honest skeptics (they're not). They are selling the idea that science isn't a reliable way of obtaining knowledge. They want to turn science into he-said, she-said.
Jacob:
Your last response, in fact, only strengthens the point that you really don’t know what you’re talking about: not only do you have a muddled dictionary-level misunderstanding of Platonism, but your misunderstanding of what ID is is worse that I thought. It’s a double-whammy, in fact: you apply your personal (and quite limited) understanding of Platonism to your personal (straw man) understanding of ID. Further, that you can’t deal with philosophical terms and concepts (as evidenced by your incompetence in that field) and simply hand-wave away those issues explains your deep discomfort in understanding what truth is. Incorrectly bandying about fancy-sounding terms undermines your position. Finally, you impute things to me that I did not say.
Example one: Supposedly, as you claim, IDer’s and I (I am not an IDer) believe in “truth” as a Platonic Form somewhere out there. Flat out wrong—and it nicely exposes your ignorance. Truth is the correspondence of the mind to the concrete existent in reality. I’m not going to waste my time to explain why Platonism does not work—primarily because you first need to overcome your own dogmatic views on these matters. Yet, if you had made a one-half hour effort to read Plato (instead of the comments of those whose views you share your misunderstandings—loaded dice, anyone?) you would have seen he presupposes nothing with respect to the Forms. You would have failed a Freshman 101 philosophy course if you had tried to impose your misunderstandings in a classroom that demands intellectual accountability and discipline. (By the way, your qualifying the point with “the way I see it” is a non-starter: no one should care about your personal opinions because that is not what truth is all about.)
Back to the immediate point: you very carelessly make the unsubstantiated leap from an “inference to a designer” to that designer being a Platonic Form. What rubbish! And here is a howler: the “unmoved mover” is something Aristotle argued for—not Plato. Simple, basic, Freshman level history can’t even be kept straight. Finally, trying to decry the approach to logical reasoning called deduction because, again, you don’t understand its relationship to reality is really a joke—but even more so since you yourself, in the very arguments you pose in the comments, are deductive! For heavens sake, look back at your comments: they are (broadly speaking) in the form of a deductive argument… with some dialectic and rhetoric sprinkled in for good measure! Do we then term that hypocrisy or simple ignorance on your part? The volume of the hypocrisy, in fact, is ear-shattering: you, as an atheist, decry a priori Forms when you your self a priori hold a deep contempt of ID and Christianity. Your hatred so blinds you to the possibility of truth being found in ways youwill not admit to, that you end up decrying the very concept of truth… and yet, we have to believe what you assert is—you got it—true. Incredible: this self-stultification coming from someone who wishes to enlighten us with his “teaching moments.”
This is so typical of the general approach atheists take: metaphysics addresses questions they can’t see with their scientistic mindset, so they just hand-wave it away as “meaningless.” ID threatens the sacred cow of a scientific theory they incorrectly label as “fact,” so they mislable it as “creationism.” Philosophy addresses issues of truth, but that makes them uncomfortable, so they reduce truth to a social construct based on the efficacy of the strongest. It is axiomatic that Christianity (and faith and general) cannot be admitted to so it is also relegated to “meaninglessness.” Is this not a point at which you should apply your own rule against yourself, namely: “be reflexive.” (Hint: dull, dirty, and cracked mirrors don’t reflect well…)
Example two: Here’s a characterization (which you make directly) of ID that betrays both ignorance and a deep-anxiety: no matter how many times and no matter how many ways IDers state directly that there is no presupposition of a designer, atheists impose this nonetheless. It happens so often, and I can’t believe atheists don’t understand these important distinctions, that one should not be faulted for wondering if, indeed, deceit may be playing a role.
Example three: You state, “The validity of ID claims are not my target. I’m much more interested in how people that argue for ID” With that, you missed completely Tom’s point. And, whether you want to or not, it’s the truth that matters at the end of the day, not your politization of truth or reducing it to “might makes right.” Then, here’s a beauty: “ID theory, like evolutionary theory, is a storyline that helps us organize our lives and resources in meaningful ways. Neither is going to capture the truth of the matter, yet both employ truth to justify their claims. First, aren’t you trying to state (actually, impose) that your statement is true? If so, by your own words, you’re “capturing” the truth. Isn’t that hypocrisy? Second, the postmodern view of reality comes through loud and clear: truth doesn’t matter, there are no meta-narratives, the strong make and impose reality upon others. You conclude with a bang by bandying about researchers that share your views (as if that settled the case) neglecting (no doubt intentionally) to inform the studio audience that most of these guys are anti-realist to their core.
Example four Here’s some assertions that top them all: “Politics and truth are inseparably entangled—that is the basic view of the world that I begin with. I’m not saying that might necessarily establishes truth—though in some eras that has been the case. I am saying that Truth the way you want to talk about it is a metaphysical faith—it is not something tangible that you can show me or let me touch. Truth, the way I want to talk about it, is a resource in a larger struggle that I can see and point to. Truth is not the End, it is a means.” Where does a rational thinker begin with such garbage? First, why should anyone offer a second look to your “basic view of the world” if it’s not true and if truth doesn’t matter—per your own criteria? Second, “truth is a metaphysical faith”??? Utter, utter nonsense buoyed by ignorance of the subject matter. What have you been reading? Third, direct sensory “tangibility” is what truth is? Must be DL’s lingering positivism has infected your thinking. Fourth, “truth is not the end, it is a means”??? Then why do, among other things, science if you’re not seeking the truth of things? Why are we to believe your statements are true? Fifth, “politics and truth are inseparably entangled”? Maybe in your disordered, anti-realist understanding of reality…
My sense is you have a mountain of erasers to clap (in order to gain some small level of intellectual humility) before being admitted into any classroom.
Holopupenko,
The sad truth is that classrooms not only admit this kind of thing, but encourage it. Foucault didn't become famous by never gaining academic acceptance. He among others argued that truth is not the point, but "the narrative" is instead. It doesn't stand up, because no one has successfully argued anything whatever without reference to truth, but it gets a hearing anyway. You knew that, I'm sure.
doctor(logic):
ID is an attempt to subvert public trust in science as an enterprise because it argues that the scientific community is engaged in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth.
That's the first time I've heard that stated quite that way. Would that public trust in science were not being subverted by scientists themselves, through fraud, false findings reported as fact, and philosophically-based attacks on religious beliefs (scroll to the Appendix in that link).
But this is a crazy accusation you make, anyway. Since when has it been a threat to science that a group of researchers pursue a different line of explanation? It's a threat to evolutionary theory, sure--that's quite intentional. But a threat to science? Evolutionary theory is not all that there is to science, last time I checked.
And oh, yes, it's also a threat to philosophical naturalism--which is also not essential to science, though some scientists have tried to say it is.
Hi Tom--
Before I continue, allow me to direct your attention to an excellent resource--it's a podcast entitled Evolution 101. It's essentially an intro to evolution course that is broken down into a number of (approx) 10 minute lectures that are written to the layman. It's free, the gent who's behind this podcast is a PhD professor of evolutionary biology at U. Texas (if I recall) and he's pretty accessible by e-mail. Give it a try. What you will hear in those podcasts is basically the way I'd want biology taught (and is taught at UT, it seems).
OK, down to cases:
evolution is taught incompletely, and that needs to be fixed. That is, biology instruction should acknowledge the intellectual/evidential challenges that evolutionary theory is still working on.
Ah yes, "teach the controversy." It all seems so reasonable, so well, American. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so let me ask where you're going with this objection. "Atheist teachers and biologists are brainwashing kids into believing that evolution is a fact, when the truth is that there's this big raging scientific controversy that shows evolution is a Theory In Crisis(TM)." Did I forget anything?
Problem is--It just ain't so. Since we both seem to agree on the importance of expert opinion as a base for science curricula in the public schools, here's what they have to say on the subject:
"The "controversy" is manufactured. Evolutionary biology draws strength from a supporting scientific literature extending across 150 years...Creationists offer no science."
[http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134]
--(Sorry, I don't know how to insert live links)
Marketing, marketing, marketing.
Your challenge that ID has not produced any fruitful research is interesting. First of all, it has stimulated a lot of discussion on complexity.
Okay--What have they done with it?
How valid is it? Has it been peer-reviewed by the current professional journals in the specialties involved?
Second, there are a large number of scientists working on ID research who are afraid of being Sternberged so they are not publishing openly yet
"The dog ate my homework", eh? Sorry, Tom--no sale. In fact, no sale even if the persecution stories were true. The nice folks that fund Discovery can easily fund private research facilities where professional Creation Scientists can pray up a few miracles to show the world at some future press conference--and shield them for life, if neccesary. The fact still remains:
18 yrs + $$$$$ + new ID theory + "fourth law of thermodynamics"= ZIP. I say again, sir: ZIP.
Third, it's not at all clear that macroevolutionary theory is leading to any useful science either. I would challenge you to name a single disease cured by macroevolutionary principles.
That's an highly inaccurate construct. Most biologists view both macro and micro-evo as the same process, just at a different scale--species and up. So your question really is invalid. There's no doubt that from a practical standpoint most of the research is on the other end-micro, while macro is mostly historical, to be sure. But it's still the theory that essentially proves common ancestry (primarily) by natural selection, and as such should be central in bio curricula.
How do I know the Wedge document is not the ID bible? Because in practical terms, I don't see it driving the agenda.
No kidding. I'll just cite a few scraps from the document:
Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication
Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)
Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making
Book Publicity, Opinion-Maker Conferences, Apologetics Seminars, Teacher Training Program, Publicity Materials" and...on and on.
You haven't seen any of that, eh? All straight out of the Wedge.
The way you use "explanations" here shows that you do not consider anything an explanation unless it is a scientific explanation.
An explanation has to actually explain something. You have to understand more about X than you did prior to the explanation.
This post is getting pretty long--what a surprise. I think a good way to sum up our discussion is to say we've established that biology should be taught in a way consistent with concensus expert opinion, and of our two views, mine is consistent with this, while your views on this subject run directly counter. Agreed?
Yes. Genetic algorithms. GA's create and test new structures that are solutions to the problem at hand. A GA iteratively merges good designs (and random variations), to create even better designs.
The algorithm designer doesn't need to enter information about the problem ahead of time. The GA can generate information without knowing about the input stream or the parameters of the problem. In that regard it is similar to intelligent, human problem solving.
That means the information, the algorithm, is "built in" from the start. You're not going back to the beginning when the GA first got the information.
Holopupenko,
Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote instead of jumping into your usual hyperbole. Your problem, as far as I can see, is that you jump to fast into your boisterous talk without really getting a hold of the ideas that people are talking about.
The common link between plotonism, ID and deduction is their dependence on unreflexive presuppositions about the nature of reality.
Intelligent Design implies a Designer that is intelligent. If ID supporters don't like that, then they should rethink the name.
You infer from something I wrote that I am an athiest. You infer incorrectly. Try again.
You should actually read "postmodern" thought before you pronounce on it. Your hyperbole makes you sound foolish. This foolishness comes through most clearly in your claim that postmodern thought isn't concerned about truth. In fact, postmodern thinkers are supremely concerned with truth. They are concerned with how people like you, who unreflexively talk about Truth as if you somehow could get your hands on it, use truth to impose your policy views on people.
To say that ID and evolution offer storylines that help us meaningfully organize our lives and resources is not a philosophical claim to truth. It is an analytical statement. But more specifically, it is an ethnographic/ethnomethodological argument about the processes of meaning-making.
Talking about imposition. You seem hell bent on asserting your belief that Truth is out there just waiting to be found. Must I believe that too? Do I have a choice? I really wonder: Who is imposing on whom?
But more than that, you fail to see that your belief that Truth is out there waiting to be found is a presupposition. You don't epistemologically know that Truth is out there, but you presuppose it to be the case.
I presuppose something different--that Truth is not out there to be found. And, I have the gumption and courage to say that my belief is a presupposition, a faith that I have. Can you say that? Can you say that your belief that Truth is out there is a presupposition? Or must you say that it is True because it is True and no other possibility is available?
Can you show me Truth? Can you let me touch Truth? Have you seen Truth running down the street lately? If not, then it is metaphysical.
By citing scholars like Rorty and Latour who share my view, I'm simply pointing out that the world (contrary to your hyperbole) has not and will not turn upside down based on these ideas. Your claim that the world will turn upside down is only your way of saying that you don't understand what I'm saying.
Are all the scholars I cited antirealists? Perhaps. But more than that, they criticize the philosophical realists claim/assertion to know the structures of reality prior to analysis.
Science. Is it about finding truth out there? Perhaps. It is what you seem to believe. Or, could science be about something different than finding truth? Could it be a tool, a mode of thinking and doing, a way that humans have developed and refined to deal with the contingencies of their environment? Read Kuhn. That's what I am inclined to think. So, no, I don't think there is some kind of overarching goal of science to find truth. I think that "truth" is what philosophers use to justify science. But the actual work of doing science, isn't philosophy and it isn't about finding truth. It is trial and error, empirical work and telling stories about how empirical peices of evidence fit together into a useful framework that has value for human beings. Truth didn't get humans to the moon--building tools, technologies and other mechanisms that could propel people faster produced that effect.
Finally, where is power in your analysis. As far as I can see, it is nowhere to be seen. Why? Because you are an idealist, a metaphysician, a purist. I am not. I think life is grounded in concrete contexts and that the effects of power are inescapable.
Tom,
As a side note, Foucault spoke a lot of "truth." He didn't talk about it the way you talk about it, but he most certainly did talk about "truth."
Did he refer to "truth" out there? No. Did he refer to what people do with "truth"? Yes.
Your comment that classrooms admit this "kind of thing" suggests that you would rather shut the door to alternative arguments. Should we just keep them out of the classroom?
Jacob:
Text book incoherence: I appreciate your providing me the opportunity to point out to others your eclectic mix of postmodernism, positivism, anti-realism, ignorance of philosophy and history, etc., etc. as well as your self-serving attempts to impose such rubbish on us as "true"... all while decrying truth as such. "Science is about finding something other than truth"?!? You're trying to sound profound by speaking utter BS. I'm so, so sorry you've deluded yourself to such an extent...
Anon:
What in Beelzebub are you talking about in response to Tom's comment on Foucault?
Holopupenko,
What I basically did was provide you an opportunity to please yourself with your hyperbole. Rather than genuinly engage my ideas and claims, you basically incorporated me into your conveinent set of stereotypes that you employ over and again. Next time, work on the ideas and less on the rhetorical ploys and name calling.
See Michel Foucault, "Truth and Power." In The Essential Foucault. Eds., Rabinow and Rose. It has also been reprinted in several other edited books.
This will help you get started on reading somthing you apparently have not. From there, you kind find other readings that should clarify your view of Foucault and his thoughts on "truth" and how they differ from other views on truth.
All this depends on you caring enough to do it. If you don't care, then by all means continue to be misinformed.
DL:
Regarding something I hope we share: what Jacob is trying to do is undermine the MESs (and mathematics and logic)... AND, it is precisely the kind of thing Dawkins correctly rails against (in his comments on the Sokal affair and in other writings) because he knows the stakes all too well: eliminate truth and you eliminate much more than just the MESs.
Anon:
Okay, I admit I misunderstood your point. However, Faucault's (yes, I have read him) biggest problem is that he continues the modernist mistake of concentrating (roughly speaking) essentially all his thinking on epistemology: he's fixated on HOW we can know at the expense of WHETHER we know at all... and, of course, whether we know something depends on whether that thing is actually there. He (again, roughly but fairly correctly speaking) reduces the epistemology-ontology debate to an "either or" rather than a "this and"... and, as in all such cases, gets stuck... badly. Now, in terms of being informed, have you read the Summa... or is it to be simply dismissed out of hand so that you may remain blissfully uninformed?
Jacob:
"Engage in your ideas and claims"??? What could you possibly mean by that? How can anyone address the truth content of your assertions if you've relegated truth as such to "meaningless metaphysical discussions" and claim that truth should not be the goal? For that matter, why should YOU be taken seriously (as if what you were speaking were "truthful") if you decry truth? But that is precisely the postmodernist game, isn't it: reduce truth to power plays so that he who shouts the loudest or shoots with the biggest bullets wins. That's why you, as a sophist, can have it both ways: decry truth so as to sound profound (not!) while denying others that luxury. "Engage in your ideas and claims"? No thanks: it's fun just to watch you wallow in the intellectual mud of your own making.
Holopupenko,
The seriousness of my ideas and this way of thinking is witnessed by the authors I cited. But more than that, whole subfields within the discipline of sociology are doing the type of research I am talking about. So are some political scientists, particularly within the subfield of international relaitons.
YOu may not like what I have to say. ANd you may not understand what I have to say. But it is most certainly a serious mode of inquiry. Cheers.
Ron and Jacob,
These discussions have an interesting dynamic to them: I raised a topic about science literacy increasing in the years following the publication of two key ID-related texts. What came back was "you have to be a Christian to believe in ID," which had nothing at all to do with the post, topic. But I answered it, and in return I got back questions about several other topics: the nature of truth and politics, and the wedge, and ID's scientific productivity, and more.
It's a game of, "I'll see you that topic and raise you two."
Since I have another life outside of this forum, and I can't let my study priorities or my schedule be driven by blog comments, I'm not going to play that game further here. That means specifically I will not be taking time to respond to the nature of truth and politics, Jacob. Sorry; maybe some other time.
Ron, you've raised a lot of familiar and tired objections to ID. My guess is that you've raised them in lots of places. We're not likely to agree even if we go at this for days on end, are we?
I'll write a bit in response to your last post, though. First, this is amusing. It's a direct quote:
I don't want to put words in your mouth, so let me ask where you're going with this objection. "Atheist teachers and biologists are brainwashing kids into believing that evolution is a fact, when the truth is that there's this big raging scientific controversy that shows evolution is a Theory In Crisis(TM)." Did I forget anything?
Thanks for not putting words in my mouth.
As to creationists offering no science, that's a familiar charge. It's been dealt with often enough. I'm sure I won't answer it in a way that satisfies you, so I'll move on. Same for peer-reviewed journals and so on. There are peer-reviewed articles, but you've heard that before and it doesn't satisfy you. Fine, it doesn't satisfy you; I'm not going to make it my project here to satisfy you.
I didn't expect you to believe what I said about researchers having work they don't feel safe coming forth with. It's not a supportable claim unless you trust the people, like the DI, who make it. I trust them, you don't. I thought it worth saying anyway. I predict that when the current crop of biology students makes tenure, we'll see a whole lot more ID research coming out. I can't substantiate that prediction until time passes. So I'm willing to be patient and let the time pass.
I do make this related point, that you might agree with at least in part. ID is a fledgling science and remains to be proven. I'm not at all sure it will successfully substantiate its claims in a way that gain the support of a significant plurality of scientists. It's not that so much that I support its conclusions, as that I support
a) its philosophical mindset, which is methodological naturalism without philosophical naturalism, and
b) the importance of encouraging the research to move forward until it either gains acceptance or meets insuperable obstacles that turn around its momentum (which is currently growing).
Finally, related to that philosophical materialism,
An explanation has to actually explain something. You have to understand more about X than you did prior to the explanation.
I think when you say that, you mean we have to understand more about the natural processes behind X than you did prior to the explanation. Or, in other words, an explanation that is not given in terms of natural processes is not an explanation. That's philosophical naturalism.
PN works if it's true.
But why think that all causes must be natural? Why think that all explanations must be natural? What if God caused something in natural history? Wouldn't the explanation for that something be God? And if the explanation at that point is God, then we know more by that explanation than we did without it.
That doesn't mean ID is trying to find God or prove God. ID has the potential to demonstrate that something is going on in natural history that is not explainable in terms of undirected natural processes alone, and that something involves information, which by analogy implies intelligence. It's pursuing a suggestion that there might be something beyond what PN will allow to be considered. That's the best ID as science can ever hope to do.
But that would be a lot. What if ID accomplished that much? Would you say, "Phah! ID offers no explations!"? Or would you say, "Wow, now we know something absolutely incredible about the natural world we never realized before"? Or at least, "Wow, we have a whole new world of interesting questions to pursue!" That's not so bad if it happens, is it?
Jacob,
You've reacted quite strongly to Holopupenko's responses to you but, apparent indignation aside, you are no longer saying the things that he was reacting to.
You have recently said:
Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote instead of jumping into your usual hyperbole. Your problem, as far as I can see, is that you jump to fast into your boisterous talk without really getting a hold of the ideas that people are talking about.
With the example:
The common link between plotonism, ID and deduction is their dependence on unreflexive presuppositions about the nature of reality.
But that's not what you said.
You didn't say that they shared common elements but claimed that deduction and Platonism were other names for ID.
Another name (an older name) for ID is 'deduction.' And an older name still, is 'Platonism.' What the ID folks are saying and doing is not really new.
Holopupenko specifically asked you why you thought these names were synonymous with ID.
He said:
First, on what basis are you calling ID “Platonism”?
...
Second, you also term ID “deduction.” Please explain.
You quickly moved from this to saying that they are alike in that they presuppose something of nature and suggested to Holopupenko that he
be more reflixive about your thinking--that is, don't assume you know reality prior to analysis.
This is a little presumptuous to claim to know whether someone's perception of nature is pre-analysis or post-analysis. And, as you later admit yourself, you make your own presuppositions.
I presuppose something different--that Truth is not out there to be found. And, I have the gumption and courage to say that my belief is a presupposition, a faith that I have.
So are you not also a Platonist, IDist, by your criteria (they make presuppositions)?
You then defend yourself against Holopupenko's charge that you've made a truth claim while decrying truth claims with:To say that ID and evolution offer storylines that help us meaningfully organize our lives and resources is not a philosophical claim to truth.
But that's not the truth claim you had made and that Holopupenko remarked on.
What you said, and expressed as a truth, was what preceded that portion of your statement, and which you omitted in your defence:
Neither [ID not ToE] is going to capture the truth of the matter, yet both employ truth to justify their claims.
When I read this I dashed off a quick reply myself, asking about the seeming contradiction, but then, knowing nothing at all about your chosen subjects (Plato, in particular) decided I might be missing something inherent in your point which would ameliorate the apparent hypocrisy.
Being mostly ignorant I chose to wait and see your claims fleshed out a bit.
You complain that Holopupenko is not properly reading your comments and assessing your ideas, but are you sure you properly presented them in the first place?
This is going on and on, and you're right that it's taking up a lot of time.
ID can't be called science unless it's willing to play by the same set of rules--MN--that all other sciences do. No fair demanding that ID be allowed to appeal to magic--science won't lower the bar just to accomodate the fundies.
And it certainly is not reasonable to demand ID be taught in the schools before it even proves itself as a science. That's backward--establish your pet theory as a science first, then you get to print textbooks and have your new 'science' taught in school, not the other way round. I call for ID to prove itself first--you want ID to be taught first, and then if it turns out to be true, well, so much the better. That's what you're calling for, and that doesn't strike me as being sound educational policy.
I want science taught the way the experts call for, while you want it taught in a way they explicitly oppose, and only religious fundamentalists demand.
What if God caused something in natural history? Wouldn't the explanation for that something be God?
And since--according to you--God caused everything in natural history, you can now explain everything with God did it. Why is there disease? God did it. How do we explain the fossil record? God did it. How did the universe begin? God did it. Yep--ID's a real advance in science, all right.
And if the explanation at that point is God, then we know more by that explanation than we did without it.
And just what is it we know now we didn't know before? What is this great new insight into the workings of nature courtesy of ID? All together now---God did it.
Prove yourself as a valid science first, then come talk to us.
Ron, you have set up a whole series of straw men here.
1. ID leaders are not asking that ID be taught in schools.
2. ID proponents do use MN in their science.
3. ID does not appeal to magic. It is looking instead to discover whether there are limits to what can be explained via natural processes.
4. Nobody does the "God did it" dance that you think follows from the ID hypotheses.
Your objections have degenerated into caricatures.
Charlie:
Thanks for the support, but given that Jacob openly and directly decries truth (promoting THAT as a truth), I fear you’re wasting your time on him. Witness, moreover, what he descends to: because I don’t agree with him and expose the fallacious thinking behind his ideas, he accuses me of “not understanding”—a cute rhetorical trick that deflects from his errors in order to tie me up in an inconsequential defense. Foucault, Rorty, Latour, Dummet, et al are elevated as “truth” bearers and “significant thinkers.” Well, they are… but only among the members of the anti-realist choir to which they preach. Jacob is not, despite his supposedly “truthful” (read: self-serving) claim to the contrary, in command even of the disordered ideas he bandies about.
Perhaps this best characterizes Jacob’s position: What is a post-modernist? A person who has read postmodernist authors. Who is opposed to postmodernism? A person who has read postmodernist authors… and understands what they’re peddling.
Tom:
Ron’s straw men and arrogant name-calling (“fundies” and “then come to us”) is contemptible and betrays a deep insecurity over the fact that some people have dared to challenge his dogmatic ideas. Having said that, however, Ron does have a point—one that not only exposes the pedigree of ID thinking but comes back to haunt his own views of science as well.
First, ID: the MESs are not about detecting and studying design. Design has to do with the final cause, and the whatness of the entities studied has to do with the formal cause. Neither of these can be “seen” by the MESs—nor should they be. If they were, they would no longer be (properly speaking) MES—which can only study efficient causality after reducing the stuff of which things are made or can be made from the material cause writ large to the mere matter of physics. What ID does is it takes the data of biology, biochemistry, genetics, paleontology, etc. and correctly questions—from the MES perspective—the obvious failings. So far, so good: that is a proper application of methodological naturalism. Where ID goes wrong is that a non-MES interpretation is imposed on the data. Once that line is crossed, it is no longer an MES but a weak form of natural philosophy. Please understand my point: the MESs, because they are now quite often encountering the epistemological limits of their various methodologies, are, in a sense, “calling” to a broader and deeper explanation—one which they themselves cannot provide but which they “point” to. (This was brought out by Charlie, by the way, in an earlier comment… although I’m not sure he understood its significance. Good job, Charlie!) Such explanation can only be provided by philosophical reflection. I happen to agree that what ID points to is an explanation of some kind of design, but I disagree both with the explanation being reduced to the MESs and with the particular pedigree of the inherent natural philosophy in their position. I won’t get into this now because it’s quite a lengthy discussion. (I posted on this today, by the way.)
Second, neo-Darwinism: The irony is that while Darwinists purport to rely solely on methodological naturalism in their work, in fact—in a way quite similar to the IDers—they “slide” into metaphysical naturalism… thus abusing the science they do. It is no longer science for the Darwinists (such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and the usual suspects) to conclude there is no God… and for this reason it also should not be taught in the classrooms.
Biology as such and scientific criticisms of biological theories should be taught. Neither ID nor metaphysical naturalism should be taught in a science class: their proper place is in a philosophy class. My fear is that the ID movement has done harm to its overall vision by not honestly facing up to what it itself purports to achieve. The Discovery Institute, in my opinion, has gotten itself in too deep by accepting significant amounts of contributions from those who want to use the MESs to confirm their faith—primarily from the evangelical community. That may sound harsh, but losing the stakes is even harsher: such people will be sorely disappointed if the ID movement is not flexible enough to properly reconstitute itself.
Holopupenko,
Agreed on your major point: ID as science can't say much if anything about the designer; it usually makes no attempt to do so.
ID's project has been to try to determine whether, at the limits of science, there is an indication of something that is beyond its own horizon. Irreducible complexity, for example, would show that naturalistic, gradualistic accounts of life do not succeed, and then science would have no account for the development of species. That's a limit of science.
That, if it is established as good science, would take us all to a point where a handoff must be made, from science to philosophy and theology. The inference to a designer is in the realm of philosophy. ID theorists who believe irreducible complexity is solid are already doing some of the philosophy that it leads to. They're showing that IC represents information in action, and they're pointing out that by analogy to everything else we already know, information comes from intelligence and implies an intelligence behind the natural order. That's a very minimal philosophical inference that ID theorists agree on. Beyond that, a number of ID folks conclude the intelligence is God, but not all agree.
Tom:
Agreed, and you make a point that is important to me personally—it's a kind of vindication of Aristotle's argument 2,500 that good science points to something beyond itself. At this point it's speculation on my part, but if you take an overview of the MESs you'll notice "limits" being hit all the time—especially in the neurosciences, so-called AI, evolutionary theory, quantum mechanics, cosmology, etc., etc. What this may mean for the future of science is fascinating. What troubles me, though, is that scientists (highly qualified and experienced in their own fields) permit either faith (on the one hand) or metaphysical naturalism (on the other hand) interfere in the science itself... I guess we're only human and should therefore expect that.
Only human. Right . . .
But it's well to re-emphasize (as I am and I think you are) that ID science, qua science, is only trying to discover whether there are features of nature that are in principle impossible to explain just by natural processes.
All the theorizing from there is, well, it's theorizing from there, which is perfectly legitimate; but it's in other disciplines like philosophy and theology.
Tom:
If ID comes out with a clear statement to that effect, then I’m on board... and I also think that the metaphysical naturalists at that point really WILL have something to worry about. Why? Because the intellectual battle will have to take place on proper philosophical turf. (Trying to fight the good “inference to design” fight solely on MES grounds will not work.)
Note the anti-IDers are apparently well aware of this and the stakes involved: if nothing else, witness the MES-categories of understanding reality illicitly imposed on philosophy and theology/faith by DL, Paul, Jacob, and Ron (to varying degrees) in this blog. The same thing has been happening at Edge.org and in the most recent statements by Dawkins and Dennett: they’re trying to subsume all knowledge under the MESs. Not only is that unscientific, but in fact it ends up hurting science. I’m hopeful the tide is turning, and that continued shrillness on the part of these folks will more quickly and effectively expose metaphysical naturalism and atheism for the false (yet, literally, quite dangerous) worldviews they are.
Must I presuppose that Truth is out there in the world somewhere and that it is our job to go and find it and fit our words to it? Must I believe that Truth is the Overarching goal of Science, Life, etc? Can there be no other possibility? Or is that it? We are all just looking for Truth, period.
Jacob:
Let's play your little incoherent game just a bit longer: "Can there be no other possibility [apart from truth]?" Why, yes, there is: non-truth, i.e., lies, i.e., self-deception... all driven by a hunger for power. And, per your own criteria, we're still waiting for you to respond to why your assertions should convince anyone if they are not truthful and, even if they were, are not worthy of pursuit. Finally, stop your silly game of going after Platonic strawmen of "truth" and imputing that to reasonable thinkers. Ghosts of your own making are haunting you into an irrational state.
Holopupenko,
So, as you see it, there is either Truth or Lie. There can be no other possibility.
Truth would be when our words accurately fit with the world. Is that right?
Falsity would be when our words do not accurately fit with the world. Is that right?
This seems to me to be the standard referential epistemology. Nothing really controversial about that, right?
Now, what I am trying to suggest is that words not only refer but that they constitute too.
Words refer to the world and they constitute the world in meaningful ways.
So, for instance, I can refer to your use of the word "truth" or "rational," and at the same time, analyze the constitutive function of those words in your discourse.
So I ask myself: how do "truth" and "rational" function in his talk? Well, for one thing, "rational" is used to demarcate those ideas and people that you agree with and "irrational" is used to demarcate those ideas and people that you disagree with.
Looking at how words constitute reality, how they function in discourse, is another way of doing inquiry.
Perhaps I have done a poor job of explaining myself. I hope that this helps clear things up.
Jacob:
Are there any other options apart from being pregnant or not? What does it mean to "bend" a rule? Many other examples are available. I never said that certain topics/issues require only on/off "answers." Of course there are a multitude of multifacted options. But does this apply across the board? For you to (implicitly) claim so is to make an unsubstantiated truth claim... but your own rules don't permit that, do they? To paraphrase Chesterton: of course we should be open-minded... but not to the point of having our brains fall out.
So, when you present your definition of truth and falsity as tied to words alone (yes, that IS what you just did) you're making a grave error. Words are (technically speaking) conventional symbols (albeit powerful ones) that point to a reality beyond them. The word "tree" does NOT "contain" in itself the full ontological reality of a tree. Defining the word tree is okay, but it doesn't fully capture the full ontological import of trees. It's not only that words can be defined, but objects, concepts, etc. as well. A human being is a rational animal (genus and distinction), but that in no way means you capture WHAT a human being is in words. This should (I hope) indicate why it's silly to impute to me that my label of "irrationality" of certain concepts means it's a label I use to cover up a lack of understanding. Not only don't you have a logical basis for saying so, but you're avoiding the issue at hand.
Do you see what I'm struggling not to do (admitted failures notwithstanding)? I'm not immediately or directly asking you to accede to my views... but you can bet your bottom dollar I'll chase down YOUR statements and use them against themselves--your conceptualization of truth being a perfect example. Is it so difficult to see that for you to decry truth as such is itself a truth claim... which means such a conceptualization is self-cannibalizing? Is it so terrible for Charlie to ask to you stay focused on the implications of what I extract from your ideas and expose to the light of reason?
I'll be the first to admit truth is a hot-button item for me. But please don't handwave truth away just because its "cool" to consider options "other than" the truth. There is NO better goal to pursue than the truth... which leads to THE Truth... but that's a whole other discussion.
Holopupenko,
Chase down what you wish. My point right now is that words are constitutive as well as referential.
Which way you lean (toward referentiality or constitutionality) is an analytical matter. I prefer to examine how words funciton in discourse. And it is a mistake to think that it is only words without concrete consequences.
Consider the struggle over the symbol/word "marriage" in the US. "Marriage" points to a union/relationship, but what exactly that union means is up for debate. Is "marriage" limited to one man and one woman? Or does "marriage" have a broader meaning to include two women or two men.
The meaning of the word "marriage" is a matter of struggle with concrete consequences for people. Words are not just symbols that point, but symbols that constitute the meaning of the world for us as human beings.
Jacob,
My point right now is that words are constitutive as well as referential.
Do you mean that these words actually describe the way the world is, or are you constructing your own world? If the former, your argument is self-referentially incoherent. If the latter, why are you trying to convince us, and what if in the way I use "truth" I mean it only referentially? How on your view would you be able to correct me? And why should I listen to you?
It's amazing to me that these kinds of arguments are still around.
Aaron, asking Jacob to choose between description and construction ignores Jacob's previous transcendence of that either/or choice when he wrote that words are constitutive *and* referential.
Paul,
I underdstand, and probably I should qualify - as I see it, constitutive truth and referential truth are, in this debate and in the sense Jacob is using them, mutually exclusive. Can't elaborate now - I'll try to get back later (going home sick - 'tis the season, I suppose), so if this is your reaction too, Jacob, please wait till I've posted an explanation. Thanks.
Ditto to what Paul said.
Moreover, people that construct their "own world," as Aaron put it, are often referred to as "crazy," "insane," and "irrational," which is part of the broader point that I'm making--how words are used to define/construct a meaningful world have concrete consequences for people.
And I'm not trying to "correct" your use of "truth," Aaron, rather I'm examining what you are trying to do with "truth." That is, what view, policy, or goal are you trying to legitimate by appealing to the discourse of "truth."
To continue with an example I started in an earlier post, many people claim that the "true," one and only meaning of "marriage," refers to a bond between one man and one women. "Truth," in this instance, can thus be seen as legitimating one possibile meaning of "marriage" at the exclusion of several other possibilities. So, "truth," in this sense, is a political means to the institutionalization of particular state-sanctioned "marriage" policies and practices.
Oh, brother Jacob...
Asserting something silly doesn't make it profound just because you personally believe it sounds profound, nor is it truly profound just because a certain group of people want it to be profound. (Have you never read the Hans Christian Anderson fable "The Emperor's New Clothers"?) Your bandying about postmodern concepts would be merely laugable if you actually knew what you were talking about. That you don't is clear... and therein lies the tragedy.
I'll try to keep things simple: please answer the 01.22.07 - 9:12am question posed to you, namely, why should anyone be convinced by your assertions or even let them see the light of day if truth (per your own words) has been relegated to "meaningless metaphysical discussions" and that truth is not a goal worthy of pursuit? Stated another way: what possible truth content could there be in anything you say if you are consistent with your own rules of the game? If you can't (or refuse) to answer this, why should we listen to you?
Now, regarding words and meaning: of course words are significant and have impact--but not the words themselves: your "constituitive vs. referential" position is a non-starter. Words MUST refer to something understood by the person confronted by the word... or they are literally meaningless. Assuming you do not understand Chinese, if you saw the symbol for "marriage" in Chinese on a page it would mean nothing to you... and yet you impute a "mystical, constituitive" power to it. Talk about Platonic nonsense! To bring this out, see if you can answer the following question: can it be equivocally stated that meaning is in words as dirt is in rugs? Why?
Holopupenko,
Why should anyone listen to what I am saying? I can legitimate myself in a number of different ways. Here are two:
1). The methodology that I am suggesting is *useful*. It helps us redescribe/reconstitute situations in ways that can enable humans to exploit, control and predict.
2). Other researchers, authors, professors, institutes, etc do this type of work.
With regards to the latter part of your comment, I am not saying that words mean anything in and of themselves. I'm claiming that meaning emerges out of peoples' everyday use of words to describe/constitute the world. And again, I want to point out, how the world is made-meaningful has concrete consequnces for peoples' lives.
For instance, the meaning of "marriage" can refer to a number of possible relationships (e.g. one man + one woman; one man + multiple woman; one man + one man; one woman + one woman; etc). When one meaning of "marriage" is backed by the force of law, then other possible meanings of "marriage" (like polygomy and gay marriage) become a target.
And of course the Chinese symbol for marriage is unintelligible to me. I don't speak Chinese. So is the Ukrainian word/symbol for "marriage." I speak neither language. That doesn't mean, however, that I couldn't learn Chinese and learn the symbol of "marriage" and learn all of the various meanings that it has in that context.
But you understand quite well the Biblical meaning of "marriage," just as I do. We are both part of the same speech-community and we are all aware of the commonplace view of "marriage" in our community and how it is being challenged.
Jacob:
Let's say, just for the moment, I accept that the sneaking pragmatism in your first reason is a valid consideration. Doesn't it also have to be based on some truth to make it "useful." If it's not true, it's certainly not "useful," is it?
Your second reason is a non-starter because the argument from authority is the weakest of arguments in philosophical and scientific discourse--tending to fallacy more often than not. Moreover, I'll be willing to bet that not only currently, but throughout history as well, many, many more people have opposed your "experts" than you have "experts" to reference. Per your logic, you should be listening to what my experts are saying and working on... or are you also given to crude historicism?
Marriage may have different meanings for you based on others presuppositions driving you, but again applying your own criterion: throughout recorded history the concept of marriage has been quite consistent and stable. Isn't it arrogant to discount the "democracy of the dead" as Chesterton puts it? Moreover, you're again implicitly applying a "power grab" ethos to marriage simply because malcontents in recent history are proposing something else in order to have their way. Is that a reasonable argument? (And, again, why should I believe it if you decry truth?) Is that intellectual honesty or charity to the views of others? What ever happened to the idolized concept of "tolerance"?
Let's say for the moment I grant you the complexity of the "marriage issue." (It really isn't, but I'll humor you for the moment.) Let's talk about another concept upon which marriage is centrally dependent: fidelity. While marriage has overwhelmingly througout history been seen as the union of one woman and one man, I'll grant you that Muslim cultures have not and do not see it this way. Fair enough. But can you name one single example anywhere, anytime, under any conditions in which the concept of fidelity to one's spouse has been decried? I raise the ante even further: can you name one single example anywhere, anytime, under any conditions in which any marriage made room for "infidelity"?
Why stop with fidelity? How about fortitude/bravery and prudence? Can you name one single example anywhere, anytime, under any conditions in which any relationship or application to an act has decried bravery and prudence... and championed cowardliness and imprudence? Now let's move on to your oldie-but-goodie: "truth." While there are certainly people out there that will intentionally deceive others, can you name one single example, anytime, anywhere, under any conditions in which someone intentionally and consciously desires to deceive themselves?
Based on this, I would urge you to rethink your views on marriage. That there are challenges is clear--even internally to the instutiution of marriage on the part of people of faith who give it a bad name. Fair enough. But I believe if you think it through more critically, the challenges are really superficial ones--albeit quite damaging to, not least of all, children.
Consitutive and referential functions of words are only mutually exclusive to the extent that they are not identical with each other. Yes, referential funciont concerns what is true and consitutive function does not.
But that is a trivial kind of mutual exclusion. They are not mutually exclusive beyond this trivial sense because they operate in different realms. The consitutive function of words is not making a claim about what is true, and so it doesn't necessarily conflict with what words refer to.
I await Aaron's explanation of how he see them as mutually exclusive.
Holopeupenko,
First, I hestitate to conflate "truthful" with "useful." Something may well be "useful," like a hammer, a gun, or a word, but it does not necessarily follow that the hammer, gun or word are "true."
Two, logically your are correct. Arguments from authority are weak. But, again, I point to the everyday use of experts, authorities and citations to legitimate a position. All the time people appeal to authors to legitimate their claims. It is a social practice of legitimation and not necessarily a logical claim that I make.
Three, that the meaning of "marriage" is based on different sets of presuppositions is exactly part of the larger point that I'm making. And I disagree with your claim that the meaning of "marriage" has remained stable throughout "recorded history." Or to be more precise, the stability of the meaning of "marriage" is exactly what I want to account for. As I suggested above, when one meaning of "marriage" becomes interwoven with the law, then you get stability. But more than that, because the law helps stabilize the meaning of "marriage," the law becomes the target of challenges from groups wanting to redefine/reconstitute its meaning. Hence, the the challenges to the law in the US.
Four, again, what is the meaning of "infedelity." In a polygamous community, one man could be "married" to multiple females--and in the context of that community it would not constitute "infedelity." In the US it does, except for in small sub-national communities in Utah, for instance. Moreover, there are polyamorous couples I know that have "open" relationships in which "infedelity" would constitute having an extra-partner and not telling your primary-partner about them. Its a complex world.
Five, consciousness and intentions are problematic concepts because they are difficult to empirically talk about. However, I'm sure that you've known people that deluded themselves about their spouses/kids nefarious conduct because they were "blinded by love."
Paul (& Jacob),
The consitutive (sic) function of words is not making a claim about what is true, and so it doesn't necessarily conflict with what words refer to.
But this is precisely the way Jacob seems to be using it - in other words, the language we use constructs the truth - and precisely why I objected. I just don't see metaphysical, epistemic, and deflationary theories of truth being able to coexist, which is what it seems like Jacob is claiming. Of course, I could be mistaken on what Jacob is claiming - if so, please correct me. It seems to me, though, that from his comments, Jacob clearly holds a deflationary view of truth, which seems to me to be counterintuitive.
My point is that, on the issue of truth, it's one or the other - either constructive or referential.
Tom,
In scrolling through these comments and noting just how far off topic we are, I began to wonder (somewhat jokingly) if maybe you should have some sort of perpetual threads available on the subjects of truth, determinism and the MESs 
Aaron, all you did in your last post was to make a claim that construction can't co-exist with objecgtive truth or referentialism.
Can you provide any justification for this?
Commenting by HaloScan
