Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Resolution for Darwin Year

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I have accepted an invitation to comment regularly on Uncommon Descent for the Darwin Anniversary 2009 (200 years for Darwin himself and 150 years for Origin of Species). My plan is to draw attention to some ideas, arguments, articles and books relating to the ongoing ID-evolution debate. I’ll also say something about when and where I will be speaking about these matters in the coming year.

 

In particular, my comments will focus on two general lines of thought that have also been featured in two books I have written relating to the debate over the past couple of years. Science vs. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution and Dissent over Descent: Intelligent Design’s Challenge to Darwinism

  1. Darwinism is an undead 19th century social theory.
  2. ID needs to confront the ‘Pastafarian’ Argument.

 

First, stripped of its current scientific scaffolding, Darwinism is a 19th century social theory that has been turned into a ‘general unified theory of everything’, and as such belongs in the same category as Marxism and Freudianism. The big difference is that Marxism and Freudianism – throughout their existence – have been contested (many would say decisively) by several alternative ways of organizing and interpreting the same body of data. In the case of Darwinism, this largely ended by 1950. However, it doesn’t mean that Darwinism has somehow turned into something other than a 19th century social theory.  No, it’s simply a 19th century social theory with unusual clout. Indeed, Darwinism is really no different from Marxism and Freudianism in using its concepts as rhetorical devices for associating intuitively clear phenomena with rather deep and mysterious causes. I hope to draw your attention to examples of this in the coming weeks.

 

Second, amidst the boneheadedness and bigotry that characterise most attacks on ID, the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ argument needs to be taken seriously. After all, what good is a theory of ‘intelligent design’ if it has nothing to say about the nature of the designer?  ID supporters are susceptible to the charge of ‘Pastafarianism’ because of their reluctance to speak openly about God – understandably, in a scientific culture that is so actively hostile to the very idea. (Also, religious scruples are probably in play.) Nevertheless, the most natural way to make sense, say, Dembski’s ‘explanatory filter’ and Behe’s ‘irreducible complexity’ is as saying something about, respectively, God’s bandwidth and God’s building blocks. Moreover, these are things that people can argue about reasonably, using logic and evidence, just as they would about any other comprehensive explanatory principle, such as ‘natural selection’. But it means returning to the original science of design, or ‘theodicy’, a branch of theology that became increasingly unfashionable after Kant and effectively died after Darwin.

 

Let me close with an observation on this last point, inspired by reading an article by Alex Byrne in the latest issue of the Boston Review. At one level, it is merely a sophisticated version of the familiar pseudo-syllogism: All philosophical arguments for God’s existence fail, ID is a version of one such argument, ergo ID fails. However, much more interesting is Byrne’s rhetorical undertow, which sends the message: ‘Look, you ID people don’t believe in God on rational grounds anyway, so why bother trying to find some? Just admit it’s a matter of faith, and let the scientists get on doing real science.’ If ID supporters grant this point, they effectively remove from scientific inquiry exactly what distinguishes their position from Darwinism, namely, the existence of an intelligent designer. But this in turn means that ID will need to be more forthright in advancing scientific theories of God – what ‘theology’ ought to mean. In other words, a persuasive intelligent design theory should provide rational grounds for believing in the existence of God.

 

Comments
How have all these different gods evolved?
You kid us not? Evolved gods? No, no no. Not even micro-evolved gods. Because they are indeed irreducibly complex: Take away one of their characteristics, e.g. immortality, and they are no gods no more. Thus, they are designed, indeed intelligently design. And this time we indeed know the designers.sparc
January 5, 2009
January
01
Jan
5
05
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Bantay you say, "I suppose somebody can rationally propagate a lie, knowing it is a lie. This is in remarkable contrast to those who believein God. At least they propagate their belief from a perspective of sincerity." Yet there have been so many gods that we humans have believed existed in all "sincerity." When we look back on ancient cultures, we don't ever believe in their gods, but we don't question those ancient culture's sincere belief in their gods. Perhaps you don't believe that the Hindu gods exist, but surely those that do believe are sincere? How have all these different gods evolved? Isn't sincerity of belief the common factor in all beliefs in a invisible, or seldom seen, or hard to see god?Michael Haanel
January 3, 2009
January
01
Jan
3
03
2009
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Sparc @ 73 "So if you asssume that god exists there is an identical likelihood that the FSM exists as well." Not necessarily. God is immaterial, while the FSM is supposed to be material (primarily starch?). The existence of God does not mean that anything material that can be mentally constructed would necessarily exist. However, it may exist in the minds and imaginations of Henderson & Co. "If one takes reports of repeated experience of rational and conscious agents serious FSM is indeed compatible with ID." I suppose somebody can rationally propagate a lie, knowing it is a lie. This is in remarkable contrast to those who believein God. At least they propagate their belief from a perspective of sincerity. With that in mind, who is more credible? The Christian who believes what he claims, or the Pastafarian who knows he is propating a fabrication? "seemingly, you are alreday deeply inside that debacle" Nope. Only the Pastafarian is faced with the debacle of 'who designed the pasta'. And we all know the answer to that.Bantay
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
allanius @75, right again. Perhaps we can do a thread on the "pure" scientists who think that vegetables feel pain.StephenB
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
"I would observe, however, that people who believe in God have an ugly tendency not to take “no” as an answer from nature." I have not a clue what this means. In terms of what we all may understand, I can support Fuller if he takes it upon himself to debate with the Darwinists, why they constantly mis represent what ID says and believes and why they feel it is necessary to do so. I happen to believe that would be a devastating argument against the Darwinists if it was allowed to play out. But I doubt that they would ever enter into such a debate. But after watching Fuller debate, I doubt that he is up to it or would have his heart in it.jerry
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
"Jerry, come on. Letting him start threads is not the same as making him a spokesperson. And maybe he’s just not a good debater. But his perspective should be considered if the cause is to be advanced." First of all, the conference that Fuller debated Conway Morris was not at Cambridge but Kings College London at something called the "Institute of Ideas" and it was in October 2007. When it was posted in September, I thought it was recent. So maybe in a year he has learned something. But StephenB pointed out in the discussion of this conference back in September that Fuller is a Postmodernist or social constructionist and truth made not mean the same thing for him as for many of us. We will have to ask him. Since he debated Simon Conway-Morris at a high level conference, on ID he has to be considered a spokesperson for ID. Conway-Morris is one of the big names on the naturalistic evolution side. Maybe there isn't anyone in the UK who could be considered an ID spokesperson but Fuller stepped up to the plate as one. Who is saying that his perspective will advance the cause? Can we make an argument for that? Is debating Pastafarianism advancing the cause. I do not think so. In fact I believe it will set it back. So go on about how Steve might be a good guy but what has he done for ID. Not much if you watch the debate.jerry
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Jerry,
Now if Steve Fuller will claim he believes in ID, sticks to what ID is about, namely science, then maybe he could be effective and then only when that was accomplished bring up some of his other issues.
You would do well to look into social epistemology, starting at Fuller's website. His job is not to tell society what to believe, but to comment on the formation of social beliefs. The idea that science is some sort of "Truth Methodology" is incredibly naive. As I have pointed out in another thread, there is no inductive inference without bias. What constitutes mainstream science in fact comes down to the bias a group of very intelligent people prefers for reasons that in and of themselves are not scientific. What makes many IDists and many atheists bedfellows is their fondness for pointing out the bias of others while sweeping their own bias, well, under the bed. ;) Personally, I like methodological materialism as a bias (or explanatory heuristic, in Fullerian terms) in science. But I also have an overarching belief system in which I know the limits of belief formation through empirical science. One may argue -- and I will listen closely, though I'm inclined to disagree -- that most people in society are not equipped to "put science in its place," and that a change of bias in science would serve the greater good. My response is that we should teach philosophy in high school, and drive home the point that the beliefs we arrive at by empirical science depend on the assumptions we begin with. Then again, Fuller suggested in a prior appearance at UD that attempting to "get into the mind of God" might prove to have explanatory value in science. Some people may doubt that, but there is no way to deny it. I would observe, however, that people who believe in God have an ugly tendency not to take "no" as an answer from nature. Selective is reporting is admittedly a problem throughout science, but people looking for proof of their God are especially bad. So I end by saying, be honest about your bias, and be honest in your reporting. I will support anyone who follows that dictum, even if I disagree with his or her bias.Sal Gal
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
tribune7 (85), I think you will understand what I was driving at if I point out that I was responding to (76): DaveScot wrote in 76:
Yeah but it’s not like Bill Dembski is doing the authorizing anymore and it’s not like Barry Arrington, who is doing the authorizing, is a fellow of the Discovery Institute. So I wouldn’t worry too much about those ramifications when the sources are so easily impeached.
Ironically, if he were still the "blog czar," he'd have banninated himself for that. There's nothing quite like dismissing a blog by dismissing the blog owner and then bothering to comment, is there? Good Ol' Dave! I'm actually all for freedom of expression. And one thing I will express is disgust for people who oppose it and exercise it. This blog is a vast improvement over what it was. The irony of the weeping Expelled expelling left and right was utterly amazing. I am very pleased to see Steve Fuller here. He is a first-rate intellectual with whom I disagree on various points. But he articulates those points honestly and well, and that makes for good discussion. And good discussion generally leads discussants to better understanding, if only of their own stances. Fuller values democracy highly, and this seems to be a key aspect of his thinking on social epistemology. He has a long history of asserting that it is the right of the masses to participate in the construction of various beliefs of importance to society, including scientific beliefs. It happens that I, like the American Founders (who were strongly influenced by Plato's Republic), believe that democracy leads to chaos. Fuller wants more democracy, and I want less. I believe in democratic election of elites who make better decisions for the people than the people would make for themselves. I also endorse an elitist scientific establishment. Beyond that, I believe in public education in which intellectual elites decide that content and the instructional methodology. The upshot is that Steve Fuller and I have different values. Yet I value people like him. Something many IDists have not caught onto is that the Golden Rule will get them further in debate than "an eye for an eye." As Gandhi pointed out, "An eye for and eye, and the whole world goes blind." If you want discussion that potentially leads the world to see the merits of ID, then you should do all you can to see the merits of discussants and, better yet, their points.Sal Gal
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
----Sal Gal: "Steve Fuller evinces honesty. Rather than call for people of faith to pretend that they don’t believe as they do, he calls for them to a) clarify their science and b) oppose the suppression of their ideas in public education." Here comes the motive mongering again. ID People of faith don't "pretend" anything. They distinguish their faith from their science, while contending that each can be reconciled with the other. That is what makes them different from Creation Scientists and Darwinists, both of whom inject their faith into their science and its methods. From an ID perspective, religion and science form an "intersection"; from the CS and Darwinist perspective, religion and science form a "union." The difference is only everything.StephenB
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Jerry, come on. Letting him start threads is not the same as making him a spokesperson. And maybe he's just not a good debater. But his perspective should be considered if the cause is to be advanced.tribune7
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Have any of you seen the debate on the video? He made ID a laughing stock. Steve Fuller won't say he believes in Intelligent Design when asked. Some spokesperson. So are we supposed to use as a spokesperson someone who has some kind of credentials that have nothing to do with evolution, not an American Political activist, testified at Dover and evinces honesty but does not believe in Intelligent Design and looked befuddled at Cambridge? I am seeing the value of the FSM as our spokesperson. Now if Steve Fuller will claim he believes in ID, sticks to what ID is about, namely science, then maybe he could be effective and then only when that was accomplished bring up some of his other issues.jerry
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Sal Gal, I agree that Steve Fuller should be welcomed to UD, and that his points should not be shouted down. Rather than call for people of faith to pretend that they don’t believe as they do If I said my faith has nothing to do with ID (and it doesn't) why should that be doubted? And why should ID not be accepted for debate on its own terms? 2. Steve Fuller cannot be impeached as an American political activist. And why should being an American political activist be grounds for impeachment but being a Canadian one (Pinker) or a British one (Dawkins) be laudable? In fact, both Pinker and Dawkins have made far more political statements than either Behe or Dembski. Actually, IIRC, Dembski was posting photos of his family with Obama on this site earlier this year. So much for the claim that he's a right wing demagogue.tribune7
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
1. Steve Fuller has credentials far superior to those of Bill Dembski and various others among the Discovery Institute fellows. 2. Steve Fuller cannot be impeached as an American political activist. His first concern, even here, is social epistemology. 3. Steve Fuller followed through with his promise to testify for the defense in the Dover trial. 4. Steve Fuller evinces honesty. Rather than call for people of faith to pretend that they don't believe as they do, he calls for them to a) clarify their science and b) oppose the suppression of their ideas in public education.Sal Gal
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
I still think Fuller has a lot to offer. Besides, we don't run this blog, obviously someone invited him to contribute.Platonist
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
-----Dave: "Wrong tense. ID can show only that a “designer” existed. Minimal abilities of the designer can be inferred but little else." Exactly right. I wrote the word "exist" too hurriedly.StephenB
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Platonist, I suggest you watch the video where Dr. Fuller tries to defend ID and see if you really want him as a spokesperson for ID. http://fora.tv/2007/10/28/Batt.....ing_Darwin Personally I thought Steve Fuller did a better job for the anti ID people than the pro ID people. If I wanted to undermine ID, I would choose to debate Fuller every time. and would relish a debate with Fuller where he takes on ‘Pastafarianism.’ I can see the debate headline now, "ID fails at evolution so it now debates the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So are you sure you want Steve Fuller as an ID spokesperson, unless you are amongst the anti ID group.jerry
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
#76: Thank you for the clarifications - this is more understandable for me now! I'll just move along then.William J. Murray
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
I hope some of the less than inviting comments on this thread didn't scare off Doc Fuller from posting here in the future.Platonist
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
StephenB At the present time, ID can show only that a “designer” exists Wrong tense. ID can show only that a "designer" existed. Minimal abilities of the designer can be inferred but little else. The flying spaghetti monster illustrates the silliness of assigning attributes to the "designer" where there is no physical or logical reason for it. For instance, why does the FSM have 2 eyes? Why not 1 or 20? The inclusion of 2 camera eyes is pure whimsy.DaveScot
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Thus, irrespective of being true or not FSM is fully compatible with ID and should not be expelled from the discussion of possible designer identities. Exactly! And we should remember to point out that the FSM is a far more reasonable hypothesis than whatever flavor of the day the materialist crowd is using to explain what came before the Big Bang.tribune7
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
WJM what gets authorized here as a legitimate part of the ID discussion has ramifications. Yeah but it's not like Bill Dembski is doing the authorizing anymore and it's not like Barry Arrington, who is doing the authorizing, is a fellow of the Discovery Institute. So I wouldn't worry too much about those ramifications when the sources are so easily impeached.DaveScot
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Like Levant’s classic wisecrack—“I knew Doris Day before she was a virgin”—it’s a little late in the game to restore the purity of science. Neither Bacon nor Descartes, progenitors of modern science, were pure. They both considered themselves philosophers, and they were both opposed to Scholasticism. Newton was not pure. He was opposed to Descartes’ dualism, as he explicitly states, and was an advocate of synthetic methods. He was also an ardent Christian deist who thought of himself as a theologian. Einstein was far from pure. Those who do not understand that relativity is an attack on Kant’s universals of time and space—that the wild popularity of the theory reflects opposition to Transcendentalism—are simply unacquainted with intellectual history. And Darwin—where does one begin? He wants us to believe that he set out on his famous voyage with no preconceptions; that he was nothing more than a blank slate with a highly receptive mind. Poor fellow; he didn’t know his own grandfather. Clearly there are good and bad ways of going about what has been proposed in the above post. If it is handled clumsily—if it comes across as “priests” dictating worn-out doctrine—if it is not subtle and infused with strategic vision and wisdom about the past—then it will be unsuccessful. If, on the other hand, it is handled with the cleverness of the examples cited above, then it has the potential to do what Johnson, Behe and Dembski set out to do long ago: overturn materialism and open the door to the restoration of culture.allanius
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Steve Fuller re; confronting the FSM idea Should every other science and philosophy have to confront the flying spaghetti monster too? I hereby accuse the FSM of sitting in your lap and moving your fingers. None of your writing is yours. It is all FSM writing. Should you confront this? Should anyone bother confronting such stupidity? Not in my opinion. Phenomena don't deserve serious consideration without serious evidence that they are real. I suggest saving the paranormal discussion for another time & place and focus instead on the evidence before us.DaveScot
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
Bantay @ '50
For example, it is a known fact that the FSM is willfully propagated under the assumption that God does not exist, so one would assume as well that the FSM has an equal likelihood that it doesn’t exist too.
So if you asssume that god exists there is an identical likelihood that the FSM exists as well.
Of note, Henderson doesn’t and never did really believe the FSM existed, so the entire concept is built around a lie. Who wants to hear about a known lie, when evidence of design in the natural realm is increasing?
Did Henderson ever make such a statement? And what about other religions. Would you characterize Mohamed like Henderson?
Making a distinct contrast to the frivolity abounding in noodly imaginations…I quote a cogent observation from…. Stephen Meyer says…
[W]e have repeated experience of rational and conscious agents-in particular ourselves-generating or causing increases in complex specified information, both in the form of sequence-specific lines of code and in the form of hierarchically arranged systems of parts. … Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent. (Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004).)
Can one say the same for the FSM?
If one takes reports of repeated experience of rational and conscious agents serious FSM is indeed compatible with ID.
My hope is for research to continue along a design methodology. Let the evidence for ID speak louder than the FSM.
But evidence for ID may be evidence for FSM.
I think staying out of the debacle of “identifying the designer” is wise,
seemingly, you are alreday deeply inside that debacle
unless it is to only expose the FSM for what it really is….known to not exist.
Do you think you can get it both ways?
At least with ID, we know evidence for design exists.
At least with FSM, we know evidence for design exists. Thus, irrespective of being true or not FSM is fully compatible with ID and should not be expelled from the discussion of possible designer identities.sparc
December 30, 2008
December
12
Dec
30
30
2008
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
-----Jerry: "It is hard to tell what is tongue in cheek in some of the comments but I fall on the side of keeping as far away from philosophy or theology as possible. They are interesting topics and many here relish the discussions. But I happen to think that showing the Darwinian mechanisms as limited would be the ultimate humiliation of the Darwinists. And this is from one here who gives wide credence to Darwinian processes to the formation of most new life forms in our world." I think that there is a responsible way to bring philosophy and theology into the discussion to SUPPORT to the ID science, but this thread is using philosophy and theology to COMPROMISE ID science. The difference is critical. Also, I agree that exposing the Darwinist fantasy should remain one of our top priorities.StephenB
December 30, 2008
December
12
Dec
30
30
2008
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
WJM: I think that your analysis is correct on one count, and premature on two counts. I agree that it is premature and even risky to try to make the design inference a purpose oriented enterprise, at least at this time. So we are together on that one. On the other hand, you seem to hold the entire blog accountable for one guest appearance from one writer (and two or three commentators), while ignoring a dozen or so administrators who agree with your emphasis on the science. You are assigning trend status to an anomaly. Second, you suggest that Fuller's motives are religious, yet I understand that he is a self-professed agnostic. Obviously, his intent is to appease Darwinists, not to spread the Gospel. I think that you ought to take these things into account.StephenB
December 30, 2008
December
12
Dec
30
30
2008
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
Besides isn't Dr. Fuller entitled to offer his two cents on who or what he feels the designer to be?Platonist
December 30, 2008
December
12
Dec
30
30
2008
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
Murray you may have a point but I for one still want to hear what Dr. Fuller has to say. I eagerily await is online class (here at Uncommon Descent) on the science of God.Platonist
December 30, 2008
December
12
Dec
30
30
2008
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
I.D. is science regardless of the misguided attempts by god-oriented advocates - apparently, like Fuller - who think the main purpose of ID is to make commentary about god. I never stated that ID had been outed as anything, nor implied it. However, given the ID advocates here that have jumped on baord with Fuller ... their motives have indeed been outed, IMO. My only hope this is some kind of joke or represents some bet made behind closed doors. If UD becomes a pulpit for examining the "purpose" and "motive" of god, then I'll just have to switch over to another ID site and hope this doesn't spread over.William J. Murray
December 30, 2008
December
12
Dec
30
30
2008
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
WjM: You write: ----"It would be the same as a biologist stating that nothing in biology makes sense, or means much, except in light of what statements it can make about evolution, or the origin of life." Yes, that is both a fair point and a good parallel to Steve Fuller's argument. Obviously, I think he is misguided. That is not the same thing, though, as saying, as you did @61, that ID advocates are trying to hide their true intentions, which, in your judgment, is to push religion in the name of science. Nothing that has been written on this post can justify that interpretation or your contention that ID has been outed as a "stealth mechanism."StephenB
December 30, 2008
December
12
Dec
30
30
2008
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply