|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2005 : 08:05:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I DID address the political aspects.
Did you? I see some talk about Behe (whose Darwin's Black Box was clearly an attack upon common descent, but who's backed off over the years and is now hardly on the "front lines" of the ID debate at all), but nothing which suggests that the modern discussion about ID comes only from a political movement to insert Christianity into science in the USA.quote:
But the character of the proponents doesn't change the characteristics of ID as a philosophical idea.
No, it doesn't, but we wouldn't be discussing ID here at all if it weren't for the character of its proponents today, and their motivations. We might be occassionally discussing the design argument as formulated by Aquinas or Paley and as delivered by clear-cut creationists or mused over by theologians, but the "Intelligent Design" movement is just about 25 years old, and it exists for just one purpose.
After all, the scientific response to the basic design argument is "yeah, life might be designed, but until we have evidence that it is, we'll keep on making progress with what we've got, thanks." There's no controversy there, and the "philosophy" seems like it's only interesting to theologians, science-fiction authors and stoned undergraduates.
Is this now yet another semantic problem, wherein your definition of ID refers to a strictly-formulated design argument for the origin of life, and my definition of ID refers to the modern political movement? Perhaps, but my point is that when people like Behe and Dembski get mentioned, you're talking about my definition, and doing so while downplaying the politics (by portraying ID as if it were nothing more than the design argument) is like talking about a scorpion without mentioning the stinger. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 09:45:10 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.
Suggesting that the modern idea of ID comes only from a political movement to insert Christianity into science in the USA is NOT the same thing as addressing the political aspects. In my first post I clearly addressed the political aspects. I said: "Since when do we teach philosophical ideas as science in public schools? The reason ID should not be taught in schools is because the only reason anyone wants it taught is because they think it disputes evolution and advances crackpot Christian creationism."
Our dispute has already been made clear. You say that ID only exists for one purpose - to insert Christianity into science class in public schools. I assert that while it definitely does that, it has another purpose having to do with academic philosophy and theology. My opinion is backed up by wikipedia's entry on ID. I suggested that if you know so much more about this, you should "fix" wikipedia's entry. Oh, and perhaps you should write a letter to Campbridge University Press and let them know that by publishing Dembski's ideas on ID, they've contributed to a political Creationist conspiracy.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/09/2005 09:48:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 10:14:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Suggesting that the modern idea of ID comes only from a political movement to insert Christianity into science in the USA is NOT the same thing as addressing the political aspects.
No? I guess I find it interesting that I can pinpoint the political reason for the existence of the modern ID movement without addressing the political aspects of ID.quote:
Our dispute has already been made clear. You say that ID only exists for one purpose - to insert Christianity into science class in public schools.
No, I said that modern-day ID, as proposed by Dembski, Behe, and the like has just that one purpose.quote:
I assert that while it definitely does that, it has another purpose having to do with academic philosophy and theology.
And then later I agreed that the design argument throughout history is a different thing than ID. Did you know that Dembski has already called for renaming "Intelligent Design" as "Intelligent Evolution" to avoid the nasty implications of "ID" but try to jam the same creationist nonsense into schools under a slightly different name?quote:
My opinion is backed up by wikipedia's entry on ID. I suggested that if you know so much more about this, you should "fix" wikipedia's entry.
Why? The entry is fine, so long as you read the whole thing:Critics call ID religious dogma repackaged in an effort to return creationism into public school science classrooms and note that ID features notably as part of the campaign known as Teach the Controversy. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education assert that ID is not science, but creationism. And:Johnson explicitly calls for ID proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having ID recognized "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message." Though not all ID proponents are theistic or motivated by religious fervor, the majority of the principal ID advocates (including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer) are Christians and have stated that in their view the designer of life is clearly God. And: Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the intelligent design movement and its unofficial spokesman stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept... And:Critics note that instead of producing original scientific data to support ID's claims, the Discovery Institute has promoted ID politically to the public, education officials and public policymakers. Also oft mentioned is that there is a conflict between what leading ID proponents tell the public through the media and what they say before their conservative Christian audiences, and that the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy obfuscates its agenda. This they claim is proof that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it." So, that article is f |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 17:11:45 [Permalink]
|
Guns were invented to kill people "better" than what the current technology for killing was. The fact that some may use a gun for target practice or skeet shooting or as just an interesting wall hanging does not change the intent of the inventor(s). The purpose of the invention is to wipe out your enemy.
ID was invented to sneak creationist nonsense into public education "better" than the last lame attempt, "scientific creationism". That some may have bought into it as actual science or a legitimate philosophy does not change the intent of the inventor(s). ID was invented to kill science's exposing superstition as the unfounded, unbelievable muddled thinking that it is. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 18:29:10 [Permalink]
|
That some may have bought into it as actual science or a legitimate philosophy does not change the intent of the inventor(s).
I don't understand why we're splitting hairs on this. Who on this forum has said that the ID founders or major proponents had purely academic motivations? I didn't. I agreed that they were deceptive and either using the Creationists to promote their careers or using academia to promote their religious fundamentalism. It seems like the argument over this is - as almost always - based largely on different interpretations of phrasing.
One of the reasons I phrased my original post the diplomatic way that I did was because this was supposed to be a brain storming session for a civilized debate on the issue. Since design theory is a philosophical idea that many people (not just Christians BTW, but also deists and other theists) use to support their beliefs, and because it has a reputable philosophical background, getting all heavy handed about creationist conspiracies and calling the proponents "liars" is likely to make us look reactionary, even if we are right. So why not calmly and sensibly state what can be clearly demonstrated, which is:
ID is not science because it is not falsifiable. That is why the scientific community so fiercely rejects it.
ID should not be taught in public schools because it is not science and also because the movement to put it there is entirely supported by literal Biblical creationists. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 18:53:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
[
ID is not science because it is not falsifiable.
Here, here.
I agree, for what that's worth.
I do have a problem with the above line, though.
Could you explain it, please? |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 20:15:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I don't understand why we're splitting hairs on this.
Because it's important to be clear. The design argument is not now, nor has it ever been, the same thing as intelligent design. There is no such thing as "design theory" with regard to biological origins, so it cannot be used by theists or anyone else to support their beliefs. Calling it a "theory" as you did is part of the reason that ID activists are so well-received by the public, since to many people "theory" equals "science." As I said, this has turned again to semantics.quote:
So why not calmly and sensibly state what can be clearly demonstrated...
I thought I had been doing so. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 20:29:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The design argument is not now, nor has it ever been, the same thing as intelligent design.
Marfknox, Dave is correct. The modern Intelligent Design movement is distinctly different than past arguments from design, which no one disputes is a metaphysical argument some find valid. It isn't just that some people mischaracterize design arguments as science, it's that ID is fundamentally a political movement--one which does not owe it's roots to Paley or any previous design philosophers, although some of their arguments may share superficial similarities.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/09/2005 20:30:22 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 21:17:16 [Permalink]
|
I repeat my earlier quote from Wikipedia: "Although Intelligent Design may have been born out of opposition to the theory of evolution, it does not oppose the concept of evolution as a mechanism for directed, intelligent creation, nor even for limited, apparently undirected natural change."
ID is philosophy, not science. But it is philosophy.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 21:20:42 [Permalink]
|
Humbert,
ID does owe its roots to design philosophy, and the similarities are not only superficial.
Paragraph from wikipedia's entry on "Intelligent Design":
The design argument, precursor to ID
Main article: Teleological argument
Philosophers as far back as Plato have reasoned that the complexity of nature shows grounds for believing in supernatural design. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica (thirteenth century) and William Paley in his book Natural Theology (nineteenth century) where he makes the famous watchmaker analogy. According to intelligent design proponents, Intelligent Design is different from the design argument in one important respect: ID says nothing about who did the designing. It only seeks to know whether object X was designed, and pleads agnosticism on all questions of identity, purpose, or intent.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 21:22:15 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, and for the record, I think design philosophy is weak and flawed (as a philosophy) for exactly the same reasons that people here have criticized ID. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 22:35:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Paragraph from wikipedia's entry on "Intelligent Design":
The design argument, precursor to ID
Main article: Teleological argument
According to intelligent design proponents, Intelligent Design is different from the design argument in one important respect: ID says nothing about who did the designing.
Firstly, this says "according to intelligent design proponents...," which if you've been listening to a thing Dave has been telling you, it should be apparent that you cannot take those people at their word.
ID is fundamentally different from the design argument because in all previous instances, design has always been an a priori premise which had to be granted. ID claims that design in nature can be empirically detected through the scientific method. This is what Intelligent Design is, it's what ID says it can do. That it cannot, but that it's proponents are still pushing to have in taught in public schools anyway, should tell you everything you need to know about the integrity of their motives. Intelligent Design is not philosophy, it is a political movement that has cloaked old metaphysical assumptions and philosophical arguments in pseudoscience for the purpose of advancing a religious agenda.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/09/2005 22:41:47 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2005 : 02:20:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Since design theory is a philosophical idea that many people (not just Christians BTW, but also deists and other theists) use to support their beliefs, and because it has a reputable philosophical background, getting all heavy handed about creationist conspiracies and calling the proponents "liars" is likely to make us look reactionary, even if we are right. So why not calmly and sensibly state what can be clearly demonstrated, which is:
H.H. has said it better than I could have.
I'll only add: ID was invented as a political tool, its called the "wedge strategy" and it has been linked previously. Much in the same way that the "opposition" to the human contribution to global warming was invented. By finding a few well credentialed people willing to advocate the position, for either political, social, or financial gain. Add in sufficient funding for a public relations campaign, and you get what we have now.
To call it philosophy is an insult to philosophy. A pseudophilosophy, maybe. It does steal jargon from both science and philosophy to make it more appealing to those to ignorant to see it for what it is. You know the drill.... strengthen your argument from incredulity by tossing in some long words and creating a couple of catch phrases (irreducible complexity), so thet the layperson will shake their head and just agree, because afterall if you have catch phrases and long words you must know what you are talking about...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2005 : 03:21:06 [Permalink]
|
I am starting to wonder if ID is not becoming just another flash in the pan. I'm seeing more and more articles written by Christians refuting it. This one, for example. quote:
Creation Scientist Challenges Intelligent Design
One of the world's leading experts in origin of life research issued a statement on Friday saying that intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it is not science.
Saturday, Aug. 6, 2005 Posted: 9:12:30AM EST
One of the world's leading experts in origin of life research issued a statement on Friday saying that intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it is not science.
Dr. Fazale Rana, vice president for science apologetics of the organization Reasons to Believe, said in his statement, “As currently formulated, Intelligent Design is not science. It is not falsifiable and makes no predictions about future scientific discoveries.”
Dr. Rana further commented on the idea of teaching intelligent design in schools.
“As a biochemist, I am opposed to introducing any idea into the educational process that is scientifically ludicrous,” said Dr. Rana. “Many proponents of Intelligent Design lose credibility, for instance, when they say that the Earth is thousands of years old when the scientific evidence and the fossil record clearly prove our Earth is at least 4.5 billion years.”
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2005 : 05:45:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I repeat my earlier quote from Wikipedia: "Although Intelligent Design may have been born out of opposition to the theory of evolution, it does not oppose the concept of evolution as a mechanism for directed, intelligent creation, nor even for limited, apparently undirected natural change."
What does this really say? Well, since "directed, intelligent creation" is theistic evolution, and "limited, apparently undirected natural change" is micro-evolution, it says,...[ID] does not oppose the concept of evolution as a mechanism for [theistic evolution], nor even for [micro-evolution]. So ID leaves "undirected, unlimited evolution" out in the cold. And that's what its proponents are doing: saying that the scientific theory of evolution, which doesn't propose limits to change or directed change, is wrong.
(By the way, if you feel that ID doesn't conflict with any sort of evolution, then you should go "fix" the Wikipedia article.)quote:
ID is philosophy, not science. But it is philosophy.
No, the teleological argument is philosophy. ID is a political movement.
And don't forget the next sentence after the one you quoted:Ostensibly [ID's] main purpose is to investigate whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent or agents. (Emphassis mine.) Again, if you feel that the Wikipedia article is incorrect in saying that ID is "ostensibly" a science, then you should go "fix" it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
