Steve Fuller in ID & Philosophy News

GS: My comments have consistently sought to respond to the actual core issue as to why the design inference is central to the actual design theory movement, rather than what seems to be being proposed to replace it. In particular, there is a reason why theology as such is not directly a part of the actual design theory focal question whether, per empirically tested sign, we may warrant an inference from such signs to design as cause of certain objects or phenomena found in nature. Similarly, while one may argue at theological/ worldview level that imago dei grounds the ability of mind to reason soundly and know credibly, that generally accepted datum is all that is needed to engage in the process of scientific reasoning. So also, I have highlighted some of the actual, natural alliances and associations of the real design theory: TRIZ, progress on self replicating systems, the study of algorithms (and in particular, evolutionary search algors). In addition, I have provided clarification of what the first principles of right reason are in the context of an exchange with SB, which seems to have led up to your attempted dismissal. All of this is directly responsive to both Fuller and yourself and to specific related points in the thread rather than diversionary (disagreement with grounds is responsive, not diversionary); and with all due respect, your attempted rebuke just above is out of line. KFkairosfocus

July 22, 2012

July

07

Jul

22

22

2012

02:25 PM

2

02

25

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Sorry, KF. Again I'm not biting on your diversionary tactics. The topic here in this thread is Steve Fuller's view of ID, not yours. Just wanted to repeat a question that was asked on Jon Garvey's blog: What has happened lately, in the past year or two tops, that Meyer is suddenly now ‘excited’ to include theology *in* intelligent design, to research theodicy as part of ID, or to build a theology of intelligent design? All speculations, references or anecdotes are welcome!Gregory

July 22, 2012

July

07

Jul

22

22

2012

12:11 PM

12

12

11

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

GS: Kindly follow up on the first principles of right reason, e.g. here on. Notice the context, phil and theol, with application to any context in which we are concerned to reason well. KFkairosfocus

July 21, 2012

July

07

Jul

21

21

2012

06:59 AM

6

06

59

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

(cont'd) “Intellectually, Science is on solid metaphysical grounds because reason’s rules are unshakeable and, through them, we can also demonstrate God’s existence. It is the self-evident nature of reason’s rules that underlie modern science more so than any assumption about imago dei.” – StephenB It seems to me that StephenB agrees with Fuller, but calls ‘reason’s rules’ what Fuller calls ‘thinking God’s thoughts after Him.’ One would be going over a chasm to stating that “we can demonstrate God’s existence with reason’s rules.” It sounds hyper-rationalist, rather than seeking an appropriate balance between reason and faith. B. Pascal once wrote: “Reason’s last step is the recognition that there are infinite number of things which are beyond it.” “the methodological starting point of their research was observation and evidence” – StephenB Who says ‘modern science began with methodology,’ rather than with theory? Subsuming theory under methodology is too confusing. “whether it [imago Dei] is a requirement for, or can even be reconciled with, ID’s empirical methods.” – StephenB Yes, that’s an important question, isn’t it? “For better or worse, mostly worse, we live in a culture that worships science and disdains reason.” – StephenB That sounds contradictory, given that you have already stated that science depends (heavily or even solely) on reason. I don’t live in the same culture as you do. But I can say that I neither worship science nor disdain reason. We’d likely agree then, StephenB regarding scientism, but perhaps there is more to be said about ‘rationalism’ and the rationalisation (and disenchantment) of the world (M. Weber). “Steve Fuller wants us to integrate them [philosophical arguments] with ID methods? ... The integration between design arguments and religion that Fuller seeks has already been made.” - StephenB No, imo Hugh Ross is not the paragon of reconciliation that you paint him to be (though I must tip my hat to him; we share the same alma mater). Fuller is not a ‘creationist’ and would likely never accept that label. Fuller’s ‘integration’ or position regarding ID involves philosophy of science at a deeper level than Hugh Ross. And personally, I think talk of ‘ID methods’ sounds strange. “Returning to the subject of ID science, someone needs to explain to me why imago dei is a requirement for science and, in that same sense, how one can, in a single process, assume design and also make an inference to design from data. Why should we even bother to admit scientific data to make an argument for design when the affirmative conclusion of design as already been settled in the form of an assumption[?] I need an answer to this question. So far, no one has been willing to step up to the plate.” – StephenB You’re assuming “the subject of ID science,” but I am not speaking about that and mainly neither is Fuller. So, we continue to speak past each other. I do not accept as an assumption what you are trying to prove, i.e. the scientificity of ID. The issue is not that “imago Dei is a requirement for science,” but that belief in it, in the persons of those who invented it in its ‘modern/contemporary’ meaning, is inescapably part of the history of the coining of the phrase ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design.’ This is simply an obvious fact, of course. So, you can suggest that it was just a search for evidence and data in nature that led to some kind of eureka-moment – the coining of the term ID by Charles Thaxton – but that doesn’t fit with how the IDM’s story has thus far been told. Nevertheless, I do think you’ve raised a key issue: how can one assume what they are attempting to ‘scientifically’ prove? Jon raised this question on his blog here. Here’s a taste of his argument: “Our inference of design when, say, examining archaeological artifacts is therefore, at root, intuitive, not scientific.” I assume that IDM-IDers here will accept calling ‘archaeology’ a ‘science’ because it is appealed to repeatedly in IDM-ID literature. And remember Jonathan Well’s story here at UD a few months ago: he went up a mountain, lived in a cabin, and without doing any experiments or ‘looking at the data scientifically,’ he was nevertheless convinced by wonder in ‘design/Design.’ “Living in a cabin I built in the mountains of Mendocino County, I was transformed by the beauty, peace and evident design around me. I ceased being an agnostic and a Darwinist.” – J. Wells Turning to Jon Garvey: “without this imago dei grounding for the validity of the scientific enterprise, science has a shaky philosophical basis. Or better, that science is not shaky simply because it was grounded on imago dei.” – Jon Garvey According Michael Novak: “For Jews and Christians, human beings are made in the image of God. For Islam, to conceive of an image of God is to fall very short of, even to falsify, His greatness. To speak of images of God is blasphemy. It marks one as an infidel—one who has not seen the point, and is in denial about the inconceivable greatness of God.” So, to say that ‘the scientific enterprise’ is founded upon it would mean to ignore the contribution of Islamic thought to the foundations of European science, the ‘scientific revolution’ and/or the ‘scientific/technological revolution’. Many Christians downplay or discount the contribution of Muslims to scientific development, so that might be something to take into consideration. What intrigues me about Fuller’s work is he speaks of Abrahamic faiths as recognising their ‘divine lineage’ or ‘relationship,’ which contributed to science. Thus, whether or not it is precisely called ‘image of God’ may not be the only language possible. “human design is the very same process as that seen in nature, in the same way that cause and effect in nature are exactly what is perceived by our matching reason. If the design inference is wrong, then on the same basis so is all science.” – Jon No, I wouldn’t go that far. In fact, StephenB is correct in the sense that it was the attitude of doing science, and thus of contributing to scientific development, that is fueled by the belief in the imago Dei, of “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Fuller’s book “Science: The Art of Living” (2008) makes this clearer. Jon wrote, reporting on what Fuller said, that “the assertion that we are created in God’s image is central to ID.” Then he clarified (or distorted the previous message) by saying: “As I understand it, Fuller is not arguing that confessing a faith commitment called “image of God” furthers ID. Rather, that “image of God” is the unspoken underpinning of the whole scientific enterprise, and always has been.” – Jon Are you suggesting that your second statement negates the first statement, Jon, or are they mutually complementary, or…? This seems crucial to clarify in your interpretation of the exchange between Fuller and Meyer. LYO wrote: “My problem with Fuller is that (from what little sense I can make of his writings) he seems to naively take the ID movement at its word that it is a scientific enterprise, rather than a political one.” Well, as someone who’s met him and makes much sense of his writings, I can assure you he does not “naively take the IDM at its word” re: science and politics. Your language of ‘the science’ reveals you could do with a significant dose of history, philosophy and sociology of science because these (3 separate and over-lapping) fields have considerably changed the discourse involving ‘science demarcation.’ The language you are using is outdated and reading Fuller could help you get updated. Bottom line: science, philosophy and theology do not need to be opposed to each other and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They can work cooperatively together in an integrative or synthetic way.Gregory

July 21, 2012

July

07

Jul

21

21

2012

02:44 AM

2

02

44

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

There’s some unfinished business in this thread, which I need to address before moving to Human Extension as an alternative way to look at ID in the other thread. In this long response (divided in two) I address comments from Timaeus, StephenB, Jon Garvey and lastly, LYO, the latter who is unfortunately not nearly on the same page as the other three. “It is premature to speculate about what the Meyer-Fuller exchange betokens. Let’s wait and hear more from Meyer and Fuller in the coming months, and see what develops. I know you would like to see in the exchange the crack in the dike that will bring down “IDM-ID’.” - Timaeus You talk like a partisan, Timaeus, like a culture warrior (e.g. “I’m in this fight…”). Since I acknowledged our off-list contact in the message above, this makes at least some sense (although, the choice to war or not to war is still yours) given that you live in North America. But I don’t and I’m not influenced as heavily by the ‘culture war’ mentality there, and thus don’t get so ruffled by the same people you do, who you bring up time and again as ‘critics/opponents’ of ID in what you perceive as a ‘culture war.’ Meyer’s response to Fuller is not a surprise to me at all. Did you notice how little discussion of it there has been since Jon's report, since this actually validated Fuller’s position…and people here at UD don’t seem to want to do that? Remember cantor’s disrespect to Fuller, denying that he is a ‘front-line contributor’ to ID? You didn’t defend Fuller in that regard either, Timaeus, though your token appreciation of his work always seems to get a line or two. Indeed it seems that most people at UD don't want ID to embrace theology. Jon's headline: “Fuller calls for ID to embrace theology – Steve Meyer agrees.” Again, my position is that ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ should be said to ‘belong’ in a ‘science, philosophy and religion/theology/worldview’ discourse; it is not only a topic of ‘pure science’ or ‘fundamental science,’ as some people at UD, and uncounted other IDers continue to believe. We’ll see if the video from the Cambridge event captures the exchange, after which, if Jon is correct, much re-evaluation by IDM-IDers will be required. J. Wells already supports closer connections stated between ID and theology, which he emphasised to me personally in 2008. “So why do you harangue ID people for something they are not guilty of? … ID people are on your side on this” – Timaeus One major problem is that imo most IDM-ID people are coming at the most important issues backwards; (objective/positive) nature first, (subjective/reflexive) human second. If they are actually on my side, Timaeus, they will see and understand the logic in my challenge to universal evolutionism. As you have surely read from some comments aimed at me on this site, several people at UD seem to take the approach that if a person is anti-IDM-ID, then they must be opposed at all costs to truth, integrity and justice. It may take time to change minds about this. I’m patient and have already waited over ten years. Basically, I’ve been ‘wrestling’ (a much more competitively sportive word than ‘conflicting’ or ‘warring’) with ID people with one hand behind my back for quite a long time. Now the tides have turned and this situation with Meyer and Fuller appears to be a potent example. “I agree with you that ‘everything evolves’ is an unwarranted extension from biological evolution.” – Timaeus Otoh, good and thanks. Otoh, you’re perpetuating the myth that evolution ‘begins’ in (i.e. ‘extends from a source’) biological science. That’s not entirely accurate. The Cambridge Platonists used the term ‘evolution’ in the 17th century, speaking of God’s evolving creation. This is why TEs and ECs today speak of evolution as “God’s way of creating.” So, the problem I see with your way of saying ‘unwarranted extension,’ is that it too is unwarranted because it privileges biology as the rightful ‘home-base’ for evolution. Again, otoh, I’m fine with that in the modern meaning of evolution; otoh, it needs to be spelled out that biology got ‘evolution’ from non-biological realms. “Human beings derive their experience of design from human/social contexts, before thinking about applying the notion of design to biology.” – Timaeus That would seem to be a very important point that is often taken for granted. And it is most certainly *not* “stressed by all ID proponents” as you pretend (and it is even pretentious to speak of and for “all ID proponents,” so please stop your exaggerative language of choice, Timaeus!). This gets at the argument from analogy that Meyer and Dembski have discussed, but not satisfactorily imo. They have a standard answer to this, which has been filtered down to IDM-ID proponents of various levels and positions. Meyer writes “the design argument from biological information does not represent an argument from analogy of the sort that Hume criticized.” Yet you are now saying you agree with me and that “before thinking about applying the notion of design to biology,” that “experience of design” is derived from human/social contexts. That’s a significant concession in favour of my and Fuller’s ‘alternative’ views of intelligent design, Timaeus! (And it also touches on the series Jon Garvey posted on his blog, listed below.) “persuaded many who do not accept a theistic world view that there is design in living nature.” – Timaeus Well, now you’re raising a sociological topic, aren’t you, Timaeus, about ‘people having been persuaded by Behe’s book?’ ;) Well, I haven’t seen any surveys of ‘how many’ people have ‘been persuaded’ that ‘design in nature’ can be scientifically detected and it could be that evangelical churches and book stores made significant profits from “Darwin’s Black Box,” given how it was promoted to YECs and their funding channels too. But, I stick by my view that atheists cannot accept ‘design’ by a transcendental Designer because by definition that would mean they are not atheists. One would have to be schizophrenic (divided against oneself) to both accept a transcendental Designer and to reject it at the same time. Btw, I’m not sure what ‘living’ adds to the IDM phrase, since ‘design in dead nature’ is implied too. The second part of the ‘persuaded people’ paragraph just reveals the so-called ‘second edge of the wedge,’ i.e. the attack on ‘Darwinian evolution’ as being ‘not enough,’ full of mistakes, etc. but which does not offer any ‘positive proof’ of ‘design in nature’ based on what is commonly called ‘scientific knowledge.’ You say it even more clearly later: “[Edge 1] I support ID because I think it has something true to say about nature — that [Edge 2] living systems did not arise by Darwinian means.” “Your position is now at least in principle compatible with Fuller’s.” – Timaeus I’m glad we’ve cleared that up and that you’ve retracted your attempted polarisation, Timaeus. “The DI is concerned with intelligent design in nature — in the phenomena studied by the natural sciences.” – Timaeus I don’t deny that is one of its concerns. But the DI is also the headquarters for what is commonly called “the intelligent design movement.” It issues newsletters, press releases, holds conferences and seminars, actively participates in legal cases, gives interviews, funds fellows and other programs, hosts a summer program for university students in Seattle, etc. To suggest that the DI is *only* concerned with ID in nature would of course be false. So, it seems you’re just dancing around the ‘movement’ issue. “’Science’ is shorter than ‘natural science’ and so we all tend to use it; but it can unconsciously bias us so that we start to think of ‘natural science’ as the only ‘science’ — the only systematic, reliable knowledge. I agree with you that there are other forms of reliable knowledge besides natural science. So do all ID proponents known to me.” – Timaeus Again, Timaeus, I don’t like your ‘all of us’ language, from a communicative perspective. Do you understand why? It appears as pretentious and self-glorifying to think that you speak on behalf of ‘all of us.’ If you’d been soaked in social scientific and humanitarian thought as I have, you’d surely have corrected your language/communication and would resist speaking in superlatives as much as possible. But you haven’t and you don’t, so I am on offer to point this out. People can be and are lazy with shortening names. But in this case it is imo worth the effort to distinguish between ‘natural science’ and ‘science,’ because ‘science’ (in the form of ‘scientists’) can and do(es) study non-natural or extra-natural things too (e.g. culture, politics, technology, etc.). There are those who claim theology is a ‘science,’ thus suggesting that science studies or can study supernatural (meaning divine) things, as you indicate also. The point is that to openly acknowledge *other* sciences than natural sciences is a significant, nay, a massive point of concession that will help turn the tables away from naturalism as ideology. Rejecting naturalism as ideology is also part of IDM-ID’s mission. Why then would ID people choose not to embrace this way of communicating and expend that little extra effort of typing ‘natural science’ or speaking of ‘sciences’ (just one letter more!) to clarify this difference? “The status of social science, as such, has nothing to do with the purpose of ID.” – Timaeus It is not a question of asking IDM-IDers to comment on ‘the status of social science’ as much as it is about realising the importance of the sociology, history, culturology and politics of ID (and evolutionism), which is what social science can study. To suggest that society has no influence on the coinage or reception of ID would be likewise to undermine many of the arguments the IDM makes about ‘Darwinist brown coats,’ a ‘peer review conspiracy,’ the notion of being ‘expelled’ based on not on scientific achievement, but because of extra-scientific reasons, etc. Don’t you think it is about time you acknowledge this, Timaeus, given that the DI already did so 5 years ago in starting an “Intelligent Design in the Social Sciences and Humanities” component of its Summer Program for students? Denying the relevance of Social Sciences and Humanities reveals an unnecessary blind spot in your Timaeus-specific approach to ID and IDM-ID. “ID is about detecting design in natural systems. If you are interested in that question, you will read the technical works of Behe, Denton, Dembski, Meyer, etc. If you are not interested in that question, you won’t.” – Timaeus Let me admit, I am not terribly interested in that question because in social sciences peoples’ main aim is not to study ‘natural systems’ (which is a debatable claim, as well). But I have taken the time to read some of the ‘technical works’ by the persons you mention. And so has Steve Fuller (he has likely read more of them than I have as he is a voracious reader, which you’ve privately stated about him to me). But this doesn’t negate the fact that you’re right, IDM-ID is primarily interested about (the possibility, if not the presupposition of) detecting ‘design in nature,’ which in my view seriously compromises it as a pseudo-naturalistic undertaking. Indeed, the ‘in nature’ part of ID is much less interesting to me than the social, cultural, political, religious movement of ID; why people join it, reject it, empathize with it, etc. What I’m most interested in is not just the sociology of the ID/M, but also the history, philosophy and sociology of ID and the IDM. “ID people aren’t interested in the the sociology of ID. ID people are interested in nature.” – Timaeus Again, this is untrue, partly because of TImaeus’ tendency to try to speak for ‘all of US,’ in this case, ID people. I’ve personally met many ID people who are interested in the sociology of ID. And of course, I think more people *should* be interested in it and indeed *will* be interested in it, once they see or hear it presented in a cogent way. It absolutely makes a *huge difference* in how ID is received by people, including their preconceptions, attitudes, feelings, etc. when they hear the term ‘ID.’ One could easily argue that Uncommon Descent blog is a feature of the sociology of ID and Darwinian evolution(ism). Here at UD, News posts many stories related to the “ID community”, not all of which have to do with the ‘technical works’ of ID that Timaeus would have us almost exclusively concentrate on. If ID people, according to Timaeus, were interested *only* in nature, then IDM-ID would not have generated anywhere near the attention that it has! “You want me to embrace some sort of “movement” that to you is represented by Fuller’s work.” – Timaeus This is incorrect. Go back and read again for a more accurate interpretation. “I could even agree with Fuller if his position were simply that all versions of design arguments imply a kinship between man and God, even if none of the people employing design arguments have ever thought about the phrase ‘image of God’.” – Timaeus Well, call Timaeus a partial follower of Fullerian-ID then folks! And again, I raised this challenge above; first a person must tell us that they accept ID, but personally do *not* believe in the imago Dei, before they protest that ID has nothing to do with the imago Dei. Are there any such folks out there? *All* (now I will use this term) of the 14 participants at Pajaro Dunes (with the possible exception of David Raup) “have thought about the phrase ‘image of God’.” Now, I’m speaking about the coiners of ID and the founders of the IDM. If Timaeus thinks otherwise, that’s just another indication that he is not part of the IDM, even though he repeatedly plays the tune of the IDM’s music. “as if Fuller is claiming to be the authority who defines ID, and the definitions of people like Dembski, Behe, etc. are of no account.” – Timaeus Surely, Timaeus, you’ll allow Fuller to hold his own definitions and meanings of ID, which may differ from those held by Dembski, Behe, et al.? Fuller has not said, in anything of his I’ve read, the ‘no account’ mud you sling at him. This may be your personal ‘feeling,’ Timaeus, but I’d ask you to back it up with some evidence rather than putting words in the mouth of a reputable scholar. If anything, Timaeus, imo you speak much more haughtily and possessively about ‘ID’ than Fuller does, and he’s got a lot of other things on the burner than just being focussed on ID. Otoh, your sock-puppet work at UD leaves no indication that you have a life outside of ID. “Fuller is an interesting person to whom ID people should listen. He has some stimulating challenges for ID. A judicious adoption of some of Fuller’s insights might help ID in some contexts.” – Timaeus So, the tune turns at the end! It might help then for you to list a few of these ‘stimulating challenges,’ Timaeus. Do you dare challenge IDM-ID via Fuller’s insights? A good place to start might be to have a look at and actually discuss some of the quotations of Fuller about ID linked to here. Then again, you’ve told me that you’ve read a bit of Fuller’s work, so might wish to use your own quotations that you’ve collected, instead of those that I chose. But the choice, of course, is yours to actually put up why you think Fuller is an interesting person and contributor to ID, instead of trying to impolitely force me into a polemic against him.Gregory

July 21, 2012

July

07

Jul

21

21

2012

02:23 AM

2

02

23

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Yes StephenB, I believe you had quite a interesting thing you had said about it. Something specifically, if I remember correctly, of false Greek influences being purged from the Catholic church, and how purging those false influences helped usher in a correct 'Christian' view of reality that was instrumental in nourishing modern science to a sustained level of maturity. A level of maturity for science (and engineering) that other cultures throughout history had prevented for one reason or another due to the negative influences of the false worldviews prevalent in those cultures..bornagain77

July 18, 2012

July

07

Jul

18

18

2012

09:34 AM

9

09

34

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

bornagain77, Thinking back, I believe I did make the argument that you allude to. I was probably following Thomas Woods, though I have not read him for a while. One reason that I often quote Rodney Stark is that, unlike Woods, he is not Catholic. So, when he says positive things about the Catholic Church, it carries more weight.StephenB

July 18, 2012

July

07

Jul

18

18

2012

08:47 AM

8

08

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

--bornagain77: "I thought it was you that had pointed out that this reformation within the Catholic church during the middle ages had also purged the Catholic church of influences that were counter-productive to modern science." Oh, I am with you now. I don't recall advancing that argument, though I may have. Perhaps I need to revisit my sources. One thing seems evident: If Church members' collective moral orientation was skewed, as it clearly was, it would follow that their collective orientation to truth would be equally skewed and also in need of reform.StephenB

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

09:28 PM

9

09

28

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

T: food for thought again. I do think DI as a whole does have policy and Soc Sci interests, e.g. in Cascadia as joining US and Canadian Pacific Coast interests. It is only a centre, CSC, that looks at ID. FWIW, I think to a different degree of warrant, there are points of reliable knowledge in social sciences. As well as history, are and even Phil. Lest we forget, Logic is a major branch of phil and so also is the study of knowledge. Design thinkers on the whole are interested in design thought and the major focus is biology issues that intersect with the signs of design question. But cosmological signs of design is a whole other side. TRIZ, the study of inventive problem solving is involved. Drawing on results from exploring technologies of life points to self replicating technologies, the Global village construction set project and open source industrial Civ 2.0. Thence, via say Bussard fusion tech possibilities, energy, development and solar system colonisation. If we can figure it out, galactic colonisation, too; starting with hollowing out a moon or two from the gas giants and building a multi-generation colony ship or two. And sign me up for the project to build a real R Daneel Olivaw. Nossiree, I don't see the design inference in isolation, and I see synergies across several disciplines with significant potential results and benefits. But then, I have always had a soft spot for positive futurism. The kind of nasty, ill-informed talking points that too often poison UD threads and other fora, are holding back some real serious futurist discussions inspired by reverse engineering nature's technologies. Ironically, THOSE are the real politics-playing science stoppers. KFkairosfocus

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

04:02 PM

4

04

02

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Ah, Steve, I hear you. We indeed live in an impoverished age. but I do read what you have to say. Human rationality and ability to accurately observe do underlie science and imago dei is a good ground for confidence, but they can be taken as brute givens supported by experience and consensus. Never mind that evo mat undermines them and is inescapably self refuting so false. KFkairosfocus

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

03:32 PM

3

03

32

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: Re LYO, 81: he [Steve Meyer] works for a political organization [DI is a thinktank] that aims to get ID taught in biology class This is false, just for record. Link. (That has been so for the past 10 years on the public record. Cf here also on Dover etc.) LYO is again spreading false and agenda-serving, loaded polarising talking points. I do not have time to do fact checks on all he says, just to note consistent failure to be accurate, informed or fair. Even, when corrected. KFkairosfocus

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

03:20 PM

3

03

20

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Jon @97. The “unspoken assumption” that Fuller mentions (God’s orderly universe) is, it seems to me, grounded more in reason than in faith. It does not stand on its own. To be more precise, it is derived, in large part, from Aquinas’ reasoned arguments for the existence of God, which, as you probably know, begin with observation, not faith. Notice the direction of the argument: Observation>>> reveals [Regularity]>>>which indicates [Order]>>>which indicates an [Orderer]. In other words, this “assumption” is not so much a starting point or an act of faith as it is a conclusion arrived at through reason. This is precisely that same order of things presented in Romans 1:20. “The things that are not seen are made evident by the things that are seen. Notice, once again that this is not a statement of faith, but is rather a philosophical argument informed by observation. The first point of this passage is that we can infer God’s existence based on rational observation and we can attribute Divinity to Christ based on historical evidence. Thus, the Christian faith, unlike all other religions, is grounded in rationality; it asks for a leap of faith only after it has submitted itself to and passed the test of reason. The second point that Romans1:20 is making is that we don’t have to accept God’s existence on faith; we should be able to figure it out. That way we can spend our faith in areas where it matters most-- to reach heights that reason simply cannot attain-- the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, God’s omniscience, God’s infinite love, and other sacred teachings. Thus, faith and reason are compatible because truth is unified. Moving from God to us, we [a] believe that He created the world, just as it says in the Bible, but, moving from ourselves to God, we [b] conclude the fact of His existence based on His handiwork. The second point does not depend on the first point but is clearly consistent with it. Each approach can confirm the other because each is coming from a different place. If both approaches were both coming from the same place, that is, from faith, then there would be no independent confirmation, only repetition-no grounding of Doctrine in reason, only the total submission of reason to faith Still, there is yet a deeper assumption that does, indeed, require apriori faith, deeper in the sense that it precedes, informs, and legitimizes the scieentist’s observations and the interpretation of evidence, a philosophical component that that we must assume--a starting point that cannot be based on observation—namely, the first rules of right reason. These Laws of non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle, and causality that underlie modern science, are not found in the Bible nor can they proved from reason. Indeed, these rules are the means by which we do the proving. Intellectually, Science is on solid metaphysical grounds because reason’s rules are unshakeable and, through them, we can also demonstrate God’s existence. It is the self-evident nature of reason’s rules that underlie modern science more so than any assumption about imago dei. So, if Fuller’s unspoken assumption, which is, at least in part, a sound philosophical conclusion, is not an absolute requirement for science, what role does it play? Why was this belief in a designer God necessary to launch the modern scientific enterprise? The answer, I submit, is that it provided the psychological motivation to persist through all the inevitable failures that were sure to come. The early scientists were convinced that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him,” and I agree that they were doing just that, but the methodological starting point of their research was observation and evidence. Yes, they believed in a law-like regularity of nature, and yes, they believed that God had produced an orderly universe, but that faith inspired them to press on, it was not a requirement for their science. The question on the table not whether imago dei inspired ID research but rather whether it is a requirement for, or can even be reconciled with, ID’s empirical methods. We do know that the first rules of right reason (and perhaps the correspondence theory of truth) are non-negotiable assumptions for any kind of science, ID included. I don’t think we can say the same thing about imago dei. If Professor Fuller wants to revive St. Thomas’ five ways, I say great. Let’s go for it. Those arguments do work, after all, and they are not subject to the changeability of science. What everyone needs to know, however, is that these arguments, though valid and compelling, have been rejected by atheists who would prefer not to deal with them. For better or worse, mostly worse, we live in a culture that worships science and disdains reason. I have been making these same reasoned arguments on this site for six years, but I have found that few people like to reason in the abstract, perhaps because it requires training in logic. Most want tangible evidence, not abstract truths. Never mind that the latter category of knowledge is nobler than the former, modern consumers of information just ain’t interested. ID proponents seem bored by philosophical arguments, and atheists attack them with irrational objections. So now, Steve Fuller wants us to integrate them with ID methods? Why doesn’t he go celebrate Hugh Ross who reconciles religion with science better than anyone on the planet? The integration between design arguments and religion that Fuller seeks has already been made. Why doesn’t he take advantage of it? Or, why doesn’t he explain to the Thomists that, in spite of their irrational objections, ID methods are consistent with St. Thomas’ arguments. Perhaps he can persuade them to stop their outrageous anti-ID partisanship in the name of their master, who deserves better than them. Returning to the subject of ID science, someone needs to explain to me why imago dei is a requirement for science and, in that same sense, how one can, in a single process, assume design and also make an inference to design from data. Why should we even bother to admit scientific data to make an argument for design when the affirmative conclusion of design as already been settled in the form of an assumption. I need an answer to this question. So far, no one has been willing to step up to the plate.StephenB

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

03:15 PM

3

03

15

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

LYO: There you go again. The clear impression you give is that you neither understand nor care to understand either the science or the history (including that of ideas) as they get in the way of your favourite smear talking points. That's sad, and sadly telling. KFkairosfocus

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

02:58 PM

2

02

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Gregory, My problem with Fuller is that (from what little sense I can make of his writings) he seems to naively take the ID movement at its word that it is a scientific enterprise, rather than a political one. (Perhaps because he isn't able, or doesn't care to understand the science.) And as a result completely misunderstands the dynamics at play.lastyearon

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

02:15 PM

2

02

15

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Well, Gregory, I did not expect you to reply, so I thank you for making the effort. It is evident that you would not have done me the courtesy had I not repeatedly pressed my objections, but better late than never, so I acknowledge your willingness to finally speak. 1. Meyer's reaction to Fuller is brand-new, and is nowhere near fully developed. Exactly what Meyer finds attractive in Fuller's proposal is still not fully clear, and where Meyer may still disagree with many views of Fuller is still not clear. It is premature to speculate about what the Meyer-Fuller exchange betokens. Let's wait and hear more from Meyer and Fuller in the coming months, and see what develops. I know you would like to see in the exchange the crack in the dike that will bring down "IDM-ID," but you are doing the equivalent of seizing upon one Biblical verse, out of context, and basing a new theology upon it. A little more intellectual caution is warranted. 2. I agree with you that "everything evolves" is an unwarranted extension from biological evolution. I do not know a single ID proponent who would *not* agree with you about that, so I don't know why you keep harping on it. It is not ID people, but your colleagues in the social sciences, who keep making this unwarranted extension. So why do you harangue ID people for something they are not guilty of? (All you have to do is read the many columns here where Darwinian explanations of art, religion, altruism, etc. are openly mocked and ridiculed, to see that ID people are on your side on this.) 3. You write: "Second, ‘design thinking’ does not belong (read: is not appropriate) in biology…for those who do not believe in ‘design’ already beyond biology." This would seem to mean one of two things: a. Human beings derive their experience of design from human/social contexts, before thinking about applying the notion of design to biology. b. There is no way of convincing someone that there is design in living systems if that person does not already accept a theistic world view which would lead him to assume design from the outset. If you mean (a), I agree, but that point is obvious, and is in fact stressed by all ID proponents, especially Steve Meyer. Why do you think he keeps talking about our uniform experience that X only occurs as a result of the activity of an intelligent agent? No ID proponent claims that human beings first got the idea of design from staring at a flower or an eclipse. So the point, while correct, is trivial. If you mean (b), I disagree -- with you, with Fuller, or with both. Behe's first book sold a quarter of a million copies, and persuaded many who do not accept a theistic world view that there is design in living nature. The same could be said of the works of many other ID proponents. It is not only Christians, or even only theists, who suspect that there is something more to the origin of species, or of life, than random mutations filtered by natural selection, or a chemical accident in a primeval soup 4 billion years ago. In any case, your previous statements on this subject have not been nuanced in the way that the above statement is nuanced. In the past, I have seen you say that design thinking does not belong in biology -- period. Your qualification here changes the situation. Your position is now at least in principle compatible with Fuller's. So we have cleared one thing up. 4. I know of no public statement from the DI regarding whether or not "social sciences" count as "sciences." This is not surprising, as the question is no part of the DI's concern, any more than the question whether "history" counts as a "science" or whether "literary criticism" counts as a science. The DI is concerned with intelligent design in nature -- in the phenomena studied by the natural sciences. It has no need to settle questions not pertaining to that concern. In any case, it is quite obvious that we wouldn't use the terms "social science" and "natural science" if we weren't making a distinction between their fields of study. And if you are complaining about the identification of "science" with "natural science," I agree with you that this is an unfortunate result of the habit we all have of using convenient short forms. "Science" is shorter than "natural science" and so we all tend to use it; but it can unconsciously bias us so that we start to think of "natural science" as the only "science" -- the only systematic, reliable knowledge. I agree with you that there are other forms of reliable knowledge besides natural science. So do all ID proponents known to me. In particular, those ID proponents who are Christian think that theology is a reliable form of knowledge that is not natural science. And of course Vincent Torley and others think that philosophy is a reliable form of knowledge, and so on. We are not disagreeing here in principle about the usage of words. But it is silly to ask the DI, or Russell, or anyone else, to spend time talking about fields and and questions that they are not interested in, and not trained in. The status of social science, as such, has nothing to do with the purpose of ID. ID is about detecting design in natural systems. If you are interested in that question, you will read the technical works of Behe, Denton, Dembski, Meyer, etc. If you are not interested in that question, you won't. My sense is that you aren't terribly interested in that question, because you rarely or never discuss the contents of the ID folks' technical writings. You seem more interested in the sociology of ID -- the real or alleged motives which drive ID people to research what they research. And that's fine. But ID people aren't interested in the the sociology of ID. ID people are interested in nature. If you can't see that, you don't understand ID. 5. You want me to embrace some sort of "movement" that to you is represented by Fuller's work. I don't embrace "movements." I embrace good arguments. My interests are philosophical, scientific, historical, etc. I try to discern the true from the false in those areas of inquiry. I couldn't care less what happens to "movements." I support ID because I think it has something true to say about nature -- that living systems did not arise by Darwinian means. And if I, as a result of believing as I do, support certain means -- such as this website, or the Discovery website -- which allow discussion of this truth, then, given that the courts and the science educators and the biology departments are trying to squash this truth out of existence, my support of these means is reasonable. But I have no desire to belong to ID as some sort of quasi-religious or quasi-political social agenda. I'm in this fight because I think Behe, Meyer, etc. are right and Dawkins, Coyne, Ken Miller, etc. are dead wrong about biological origins. You will notice that I have distanced myself from many of social causes embraced by some other ID proponents -- you won't hear me defending extreme right-wing capitalism, for example. And you won't hear me arguing that Darwin must be wrong because his biology leads to unacceptable morality. I'm not in this to join a moral crusade to revivify the soul of America, or anything of that sort. I'm in this to show that neo-Darwinism is bad biological science and that its defense has largely rested on metaphysical assumptions about nature and epistemological assumptions about human knowledge, rather than good empirical research. I'm in this to show that apparent design -- which Dawkins grants -- is real design. And I'm in this to take arrogant biologists and their arrogant philosopher-allies and their arrogant internet groupies down a peg, and show that their reductionist view of nature is based more on their macho anti-religion than on anything to do with the facts revealed by natural science. 6. Fuller says that historically, theism contributed immensely to Christianity. I agree with him. But I agree with him not because I want to join his "movement"; I agree with him because there is plenty of evidence that this is true. Fuller says there is a strong Christian tradition ("Franciscan" he characterizes it) which legitimates thinking of God as a designer. I agree with him again. There is historical evidence for that. 7. I could even agree with Fuller if his position were simply that all versions of design arguments imply a kinship between man and God, even if none of the people employing design arguments have ever thought about the phrase "image of God." But Fuller's language is not cautious. He keeps saying "ID *is* ..." rather than, "I believe that the project of ID implies a similarity between man and God which is rooted in the Biblical idea of the image of God." It is the phrasing "ID *is*" that is raising hackles around here, as if Fuller is claiming to be the authority who defines ID, and the definitions of people like Dembski, Behe, etc. are of no account. Fuller is a johnny-come-lately to the party; he doesn't get to define things in a unilateral way. 8. Finally, as I said at the very beginning, Fuller is an interesting person to whom ID people should listen. He has some stimulating challenges for ID. A judicious adoption of some of Fuller's insights might help ID in some contexts.Timaeus

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

10:54 AM

10

10

54

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

LYO: Pardon, you have some serious homework to do. I suggest you do some serious research as a basis for having an informed opinion. And, you have some serious amends to make. KFkairosfocus

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

09:23 AM

9

09

23

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

So what's your real problem LYO, are you complaining for (the surrounding environment that has led without your controlable blessing into you) being an agnostic? As intelligent as guy as Fuller overcame 'secular humanism' and you can do it to!Gregory

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

08:18 AM

8

08

18

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I don't doubt that the history of the church's approach to science is complicated. It's too simplistic to either lay all the blame on Christianity for the long period without much scientific progress, or to commend it for being solely responsible for the subsequent scientific revolution.lastyearon

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

08:12 AM

8

08

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB @ #83 As I understand it, Fuller is not arguing that confessing a faith commitment called "image of God" furthers ID. Rather, that "image of God" is the unspoken underpinning of the whole scientific enterprise, and always has been. LYO notwithstanding, modern science was pursued on the basis of thinking God's thoughts after him because, unlike other philosophies, Christianity implied that we could successfully do so. Incidentally, Stephen Clark gave a masterly overview of the development of western thought at Cambridge - a must see when the videos come out. So the first need is to hammer home the message that, without this imago dei grounding for the validity of the scientific enterprise, science has a shaky philosphical basis. Or better, that science is not shaky simply because it was grounded on imago dei. Secondly, a strong criticism of the design inference is that we have no reason for supposing we would correctly recognise non-human design, if it's only an analogical argument. Fuller cited geological uniformitarianism: it's convincing not because the changes in rocks are like those we see today, but because they are the same processes. So, if science depends on a conformity between human reason and the rationality of the Universe, the same axiom demonstrates that our recognition of design is a valid inference: human design is the very same process as that seen in nature, in the same way that cause and effect in nature are exactly what is perceived by our matching reason. If the design inference is wrong, then on the same basis so is all science. Does that persuade the atheist? No. But as Dembski says, the people to persuade are not the opponents, but the onlookers.Jon Garvey

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

03:15 AM

3

03

15

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB, I was thinking a little more along the lines of this reformation. Catholic Reformation In 1544 Paul III issued a bull that convoked a General Council to meet in Trent. The Council of Trent was in session, with two lengthy adjournments, between 1545 and 1563. The council had three main objectives—to effect needed reform within the church, to clarify and define disputed doctrine and condemn heresy, and to restore the peace and unity of the church. The council was unable to accomplish this final goal since the split between Protestantism and Catholicism was now too deeply rooted. Thus, the council was confined to the Catholic world and functioned not as an instrument of reconciliation or reunion, but as a body legislating and defining for those who continued to profess the Catholic faith. It undertook this task from the outset, treating questions of doctrine and reform simultaneously. http://www.answers.com/topic/catholic-reformation I thought it was you that had pointed out that this reformation within the Catholic church during the middle ages had also purged the Catholic church of influences that were counter-productive to modern science.bornagain77

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

01:46 AM

1

01

46

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Because I know you by 4 different on-line names in various locations and because we’ve spoken privately, Timaeus, it is difficult for me to take your position seriously. I know what you’ve said and done professionally, at least in outline, and how and why you hide yourself from defending ID publically. And I know why you attack and feign to challenge me as you do. That said, now I’m willing to answer your silly polemic contention that either Steve Fuller is wrong or I am. First, Steve Fuller encourages independent thinking and not dogmatic following of his views. He promotes thinking for one-self, rigourously and thoroughly, using the particular gifts and talents a person has been given. It happens that I was called (prizvaniye) into a similar thematic vocation as Fuller was/is (philosophy of science, science and technology studies, sociology of science), so our views overlap in several ways, though they are of course not identical. Second, ‘design thinking’ does not belong (read: is not appropriate) in biology…for those who do not believe in ‘design’ already beyond biology. Read: presuppositions, pre-commitments, background context, etc. There is a situation of forcing concepts into realms in which they don’t belong, not only for ‘design,’ but also for ‘evolution’ and ‘Darwinism.’ That is, people with presuppositions that ‘everything is designed’ will of course conclude that the biosphere is also ‘designed,’ ‘created’ or ‘made’ by God. Thus, TEs, ECs and BioLogos supporters *all* accept that “God created the heavens and the earth,” but reject IDM-ID’s notion that this ‘design’ is scientifically ‘detectable’ (cf. ‘provable’) as a biological theory. Likewise, people with presuppositions that ‘everything evolves’ will conclude that the noosphere and/or the sociosphere (cf. socium) also ‘evolves.’ But this is a gross exaggeration, a faulty transference of concepts from one realm into another based on ideological principles. I am in full support of Fuller’s view recognising “the deep theological roots of ID” (as apparently also now interested is Stephen C. Meyer) and also of his view that the ideologies of Darwinism and/or evolutionism have led to a serious and disastrous ‘zoocentric misanthropy’ (2006) in the human-social sciences. See Fuller’s views of the ‘casualisation’ of life and dehumanization for clear examples. For more on this, please look more closely at what I wrote above: “IDM-ID is stating that first we should look at effects and reverse-engineer them to causes while Fuller is saying we recognize ‘intelligently designed’ patterns be-cause we were created with/in a pattern ourselves.” Don’t attempt to avoid the priority by pleading objectivity, Timaeus, when you and everyone else reading this is an (unapologetically) embodied, subjective participant in our understanding and experience of the world and whatever ‘intelligent design’ is (or may be) present in it. My view that “design thinking belongs in the human/social sciences” is hereby again confirmed. This is a non-IDM-ID position, not least because the DI doesn’t (yet) acknowledge human-social sciences as ‘sciences,’ according to the Anglo-American typology of ‘science’ and ‘non-science.’ In the human-social sciences we see teleology, purpose, plan and goal-orientation (i.e. that which IDM-ID seeks in biology) on a common, regular and inescapable basis. I don’t expect Timaeus to be able to grasp or accept this because 1) he is neither a (practicing) philosopher nor social scientist, and 2) because he has not lived outside of an Anglo-American country for more than 3 months in his life. Thus, the possibility of Timaeus to ‘get it’ (i.e. to properly understand) is highly limited and improbable, statistically speaking. Then again (after having heard him in 2008), I wouldn’t have expected such ‘excitement’ from Meyer (history and philosophy of natural sciences, origins of life) toward Fuller (science and technology studies, social epistemology) either, so perhaps the IDM can indeed change its course, starting with leadership such as Meyer in the DI. What you’re sadly over-looking, Timaeus (as one-trick party-men have a tendency to do), is that Steve Fuller-ID does not promote IDM-ID in particular. His vision of ID goes far beyond what the political-cultural-renewal movement of ID in the USA has been advocating for a dozen or more years. He views ID in a macro-historical perspective as a science, philosophy, religion (SPR) project. Should you not join the movement to embrace a broader SPR discourse, such as what Fuller promotes, instead of defending IDM-ID’s narrow insistence on ‘ID-as-science-only?’ You have already told us that you do not count ID-as-science, just as Mike Gene, I and nullasalus have said. Yet you persistently defend IDM-ID, while not being an IDM-IDer; what’s up with that? The field of biology is the (unwilling) victim here, not the relationship between Fuller’s version of ID and my own. Indeed, Fuller’s views of ID reflect, nourish and supplement my own in that he identifies “the deep theological roots of ID.” Did you not notice, Timaeus, the angst (or avoidance) displayed here in this thread, even by yourself using twisted and distorted words, of those who support ID and yet who cannot possibly accept “the deep theological roots of ID?” Then Jon Garvey came along and turned the tables when he reported on Stephen C. Meyer’s open and public support at Cambridge University of Steve Fuller’s view that theology be included/acknowledged as part of ‘what ID is supposed to be.’ Jon showed that Meyer views Fuller as a 'front-line contributor,' regardless of what 'cantor' protests to the contrary. Thus, your attempt to antagonistically divorce Fuller’s view from my own is an outright failure, Timaeus. Of course, I don’t expect you to admit this openly or in public; I expect you instead to be stubborn, to protest and to revert hesitantly to your hiding place and to continue not to produce anything scholarly in regard to ‘intelligent design’ that could be viewed outside of your 4-name sock-puppet circus, using various internet blog and forum personas. But hey, they warned us to become anonymous for the safety of our careers at the DI’s summer program, so, Timaeus, I understand well and better than most your felt need to run away from being such a public intellectual as Fuller is, instead into anonymity. Bottom line: Fuller is not ‘wrong’ about ID, and neither am I. But we are speaking about ID in non-IDM-ID terms, using tools widely available in human-social sciences. And that is something that you folks at UD should perhaps take notice of, in light of new opportunities for non-IDM-ID dialogue soon to come. “the assertion that we are created in God’s image is central to ID” Yes, thank goodness for Jon Garvey in the U.K., for passing on the reality that Stephen C. Meyer is indeed excited about the views shared by Steve Fuller and for telling us the strap-line from the Cambridge event: “Fuller calls for ID to embrace theology – Steve Meyer agrees.” Perhaps this is a perspective that UDers will eventually come around to enhance and even to amplify in the future. Some people here are doing it already, in their own unhidden way.Gregory

July 17, 2012

July

07

Jul

17

17

2012

01:03 AM

1

01

03

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bornagain77, Rodney Stark puts it this way: "But, from early days, the church fathers taught that reason was the supreme gift from God and the means to progressively increase understanding of Scripture and revelation. Consequently Christianity was oriented to the future, while the other major religions asserted the superiority of the past. At least in principle, if not always in fact, Christian doctrines could always be modified in the name of progress, as demonstrated by reason. Encouraged by the scholastics and embodied in the great medieval universities founded by the church, faith in the power of reason infused Western culture, stimulating the pursuit of science and the evolution of democratic theory and practice. The rise of capitalism also was a victory for church-inspired reason, since capi-talism is, in essence, the systematic and sustained application of reason to com-merce — something that first took place within the great monastic estates. During the past century Western intellectuals have been more than willing to trace European imperialism to Christian origins, but they have been entirely un-willing to recognize that Christianity made any contribution (other than intolerance) to the Western capacity to dominate other societies. Rather, the West is said to have surged ahead precisely as it overcame re-ligious barriers to progress, especially those impeding science. Nonsense. The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians. Unfortunately, even many of those historians willing to grant Christianity a role in shaping Western progress have tended to limit themselves to tracing beneficial religious effects of the Protestant Reformation. It is as if the previous 1,500 years of Christianity either were of little matter, or were harmful. Such academic anti-Roman Catholicism inspired the most famous book ever written on the origins of capitalism. At the start of the 20th century, the German sociologist Max Weber published what soon became an immensely influential study: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In it Weber proposed that capitalism originated only in Europe because, of all the world's religions, only Protestantism provided a moral vision that led people to restrain their material consumption while vigorously seeking wealth. Weber argued that, before the Reformation, restraint on consumption was invariably linked to asceticism and, hence, to condemnations of commerce. Conversely, the pursuit of wealth was linked to profligate consumption. Either cultural pattern was inimical to capitalism. According to Weber, the Protestant ethic shattered those traditional linkages, creating a culture of frugal entrepreneurs content to systematically reinvest profits in order to pursue ever greater wealth, and therein lies the key to capitalism and the ascendancy of the West. Perhaps because it was such an elegant thesis, it was widely embraced, despite the fact that it was so obviously wrong. Even today The Protestant Ethic enjoys an almost sacred status among sociologists, although economic historians quickly dismissed Weber's surprisingly undocumented monograph on the irrefutable grounds that the rise of capitalism in Europe preceded the Reformation by centuries. Only a decade after Weber published, the celebrated Belgian scholar Henri Pirenne noted a large literature that "established the fact that all of the essential features of capitalism — individual enterprise, advances in credit, commercial profits, speculation, etc. — are to be found from the 12th century on, in the city republics of Italy — Venice, Genoa, or Florence." A generation later, the equally celebrated French historian Fernand Braudel complained, "All historians have opposed this tenuous theory, although they have not managed to be rid of it once and for all. Yet it is clearly false. The northern countries took over the place that earlier had so long and brilliantly been occupied by the old capitalist centers of the Mediterranean. They invented nothing, either in technology or business management." Braudel might have added that, during their critical period of economic development, those northern centers of capitalism were Catholic, not Protestant — the Reformation still lay well into the future. Further, as the Canadian historian John Gilchrist, an authority on the economic activity of the medieval church, pointed out, the first examples of capitalism appeared in the great Christian monasteries. Though Weber was wrong, however, he was correct to suppose that religious ideas played a vital role in the rise of capitalism in Europe. The material conditions needed for capitalism existed in many civilizations in various eras, including China, the Islamic world, India, Byzantium, and probably ancient Rome and Greece as well. But none of those societies broke through and developed capitalism, as none evolved ethical visions compatible with that dynamic economic system. Instead, leading religions outside the West called for asceticism and denounced profits, while wealth was exacted from peasants and merchants by rapacious elites dedicated to display and consumption. Why did things turn out differently in Europe? Because of the Christian commitment to rational theology, something that may have played a major role in causing the Reformation, but that surely predated Protestantism by far more than a millennium."StephenB

July 16, 2012

July

07

Jul

16

16

2012

11:11 PM

11

11

11

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

For instance:

Kepler: the Heavens Declare God's Glory Excerpt: About the time that the Reformation was proclaiming Christ rather than the pope as the head of the Church, science was announcing that the sun rather than the earth was the center of our planetary system. A leader in this changing scientific perspective was the German scientist Johann Kepler.,,, Throughout his scientific work, Kepler never sought any glory for himself, but always sought to bring glory to God. At the end of his life his prayer was: I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit. http://www.christianity.com/ChurchHistory/11630018/

bornagain77

July 16, 2012

July

07

Jul

16

16

2012

07:32 PM

7

07

32

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB, didn't the scientific revolution in Europe also coincide with the reformation of the Christian church,,, both protestant and internal Catholic reformation?bornagain77

July 16, 2012

July

07

Jul

16

16

2012

07:30 PM

7

07

30

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

--lastyearon: "That’s just revisionist history. Christianity stood bitterly opposed to any scientific discovery that cast doubt on the biblical story for a thousand years. The scientific revolution (and the vast increase of knowledge) coincided with the waning of christian hegemony over Europe." Obviously, you have not been apprised of the basic facts. The Jesuits were pre-eminent in astronomy and developed a scientific approach to archaeology and, for that matter, seismology. They designed the first laboratories. Where do you think the idea of a University came from? Who do you think preserved the wisdom of the ancient world and drove technological innovation for centuries? Who do you think taught that nature is orderly in contrast to ancient cultures who believed nature was unpredictable and the gods were capricious? You can forget about Islam and Allah as the inspiration for modern science. Allah, as described in the Koran and throughout Islamic history was understood as an active God who intervenes in the world whenever he pleases--not as a lawful creator who designed natural laws. Indeed, those who count in Islamic history believed that natural laws were blasphemous because they interfered with God’s ability to act. Earlier Greek thought played a role as I pointed out earlier. Among others, I draw my information from Thomas Woods, Rodney Stark, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, Christopher Dawson, and Philip Hughes. Please list some of your sources so that I can evaluate their competence.StephenB

July 16, 2012

July

07

Jul

16

16

2012

04:38 PM

4

04

38

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

lastyearon: Based on your reply to StephenB, I would infer that you have little to no academic training in history, at least, not in European history and the history of science. Let me whisper a few words in your ears: Jaki. Duhem. Hooykaas. Oakley. Collingwood. That should give you a start toward correcting your crude, journalistic "warfare" view of the relations between religion and science -- a view which has been held by no serious scholarly historian for about 50 years now. I imagine that you also still think that the Middle Ages were "the Dark Ages." And were you also taught that in Columbus's day, everyone was afraid that if they sailed too far West, they would fall off the edge of the flat earth? Sheesh.Timaeus

July 16, 2012

July

07

Jul

16

16

2012

03:55 PM

3

03

55

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB, "It was the Christians’ religious faith in a universe made for discovery that sustained them and turned the tide." That's just revisionist history. Christianity stood bitterly opposed to any scientific discovery that cast doubt on the biblical story for a thousand years. The scientific revolution (and the vast increase of knowledge) coincided with the waning of christian hegemony over Europe.lastyearon

July 16, 2012

July

07

Jul

16

16

2012

03:29 PM

3

03

29

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Gregory, you wrote: "This space is for serious discussion of Fuller’s views" Exactly! And I responded very specifically (37) to your interpretation of Fuller's views, demonstrating that, on at least one point, Fuller did not agree with your own views. You did not respond to that, not even when further prompted by Cantor and myself. Just to repeat the argument for the benefit of those who have lost the thread in the midst of lastyearon's partisan interruptions: Fuller affirms that God is a designer, just as man is a designer. Fuller therefore infers that regarding nature as designed is the appropriate natural science heuristic. Fuller therefore thinks that ID people are justified in looking for design features in natural, including biological, phenomena. Gregory has denied, in more than one place, that design thinking belongs in biology. Gregory has affirmed, in more than one place, that design thinking belongs in the human/social sciences, and that it it these sciences that ID theorists should be talking about, not biology. So Gregory thinks that design theory belongs only in the world of human affairs, not in the world of nature, whereas Fuller thinks that design theory is totally appropriate to the world of nature, and indeed, even *mandated* for the world of nature, by the "Franciscan" understanding of the divine nature and by the Biblical verses about "the image of God." Therefore, Gregory disagrees with Steve Fuller over something that is fundamental to Steve Fuller's project. Therefore, either Gregory or Steve Fuller is wrong. I now leave it up to Gregory to tell us which of the two is wrong. It does of course leave him on the horns of a dilemma to have to do so. But it is his own words that have placed him there. If Gregory wants to interpret me, as he has done with some interlocutors here in the past, as conducting a personal attack upon him, he can do so, but he will be wrong. I think it's part of academic duty for people to point out internal contradictions in the public statements of their dialogue partners. I think that, based on his public statements, Gregory is contradicting himself. I have pointed this out in non-polemical terms. I don't bear any personal grudge against Gregory; I just want him to clarify his position. Is design thinking appropriate in biology, or not? If so, will he retract his previous assertions that it isn't? And if not, will he follow up logically and say that Fuller is wrong?Timaeus

July 16, 2012

July

07

Jul

16

16

2012

02:38 PM

2

02

38

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

--lastyearon; "What about Greek, Roman and Islamic ideas? Did they have nothing to do with the birth of modern Science?" They provided some intellectual input, but they did not supply the psychological motivation and metaphysical conviction necessary to persist through multiple failures. It was the Christians' religious faith in a universe made for discovery that sustained them and turned the tide. The Greeks, for all their many virtues, simply did not have that advantage.StephenB

July 16, 2012

July

07

Jul

16

16

2012

02:17 PM

2

02

17

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

--Gregory: "Stephen C. Meyer is a tough figure for them to contradict, after all, and if “Fuller calls for ID to embrace theology – Steve Meyer agrees,” that’s a tough call to speak against.Jon Garvey’s word is good here and if that’s what Meyer said, it is significant." It is one thing to [a] embrace" theology as mutual partner in the acquisition of knowledge, but it is quite another thing to [b] presuppose theological principles as part of a scientific construct. Meyer, of course, understands the difference and, judging from Jon's report, is enthusiastic about [a]. I don't think Fuller gets the distinction, in which case, he has something in common with you.StephenB

July 16, 2012

July

07

Jul

16

16

2012

02:04 PM

2

02

04

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link