Many if not most of the greatest minds in the history of science thought the universe was designed.

Here’s an interesting bit of news in regard to perhaps the greatest of them all.

es58: Dawkins is quoted as saying that design in living things is an illusion. Does this not imply that he maintains:
-) there is a rigorous definition for design
-) there is a way to detect design

Good questions. I believe it implies acknowledgment of at least an intuitive sense of design.

Now, for someone willing to consider the possibility that it could truly be design, the next reasonable step would be to try to clarify how one distinguishes true design. Such a person is likely in (or will be in) the ID stream.

To all for whom real design in nature would be objectionable, the whole idea of identifying design is objectionable, often viscerally so.

It appears Francis Beckwith is conflating natural ability with pre ordained purpose. A naturalist can deplore someone shunning their intrinsic gifts because they will not experience the same joy and fullfillment that making a good go at one’s potential generally provides. That is not at all the same thing as being saddenned that they have not followed their divinely ordained path. I just don’t see the beginnings of a contradiction.

I would agree with lars. Beckwith expresses the issue in terms of duties, which must be illusions in Dawkins worldview. But even if “duty” were replaced with some other value, those would be equally illusory.

In short, Dawkins has no objective framework from which to judge Wise’s choice or fault religion’s effect. The most Dawkins could ever consistently say is that it doesn’t fit with his own chosen values.

Some are tempted to say that some values are “obvious” but there simply are no objective values in the atheistic framework — only individual choices that have no objective claim to priority or superiority.

There is no atheistic basis for saying “Everyone ought to …”.

if not, how can he know it’s an illusion, if yes, where is his definition and method
if neither, what’s he talking about?

It appears Francis Beckwith is conflating natural ability with pre ordained purpose. A naturalist can deplore someone shunning their intrinsic gifts because they will not experience the same joy and fullfillment that making a good go at one’s potential generally provides. That is not at all the same thing as being saddenned that they have not followed their divinely ordained path. I just don’t see the beginnings of a contradiction.

I think the point is this. Dawkins laments and deplores the “wound”, the event causing Wise (in Dawkins’ mind at least) not to experience the joy and fulfillment Wise had the potential for. Dawkins is even “hostile toward religion for what it did to Kurt Wise”. Dawkins clearly believes strongly that cutting short the potential joy and fulfillment was morally objectionable; in other words, he believes there is some moral duty to cause or at least allow one’s innate gifting to flourish. Where does such a duty come from? Why should Dawkins care if Wise is happy and be “hostile toward religion” because he is not? From a materialist point of view, the rejection of a scientific career was just an outworking of existing conditions in Wise’s character (and thus his material makeup). The “wound” therefore should be no less legitimate a part of who Wise is, than his positive scientific gifting. Why should one aspect of Wise be that which ought to be fulfilled, and another aspect be wrong … unless his gifting was *intended* to be fulfilled?

Maybe you have answers to these questions, but hopefully at least this clarifies where Beckwith gets the “beginnings of a contradiction”.

I deplore shunning someone with intrinsic gifts like Guillermo Gonzalez whose talent in astronomy is nothing short of “gifted” and far surpasses most of his peers just because he believes the universe and the life it contains is no accident. Many if not most of the greatest minds in the history of science thought the universe was designed.

The more I learn of Gould, the more respect I have for him.

You don’t have to reject YEC in order to accept ID.

I understand that, and that’s why I said “or kept it personal”.

I mean like Paul Nelson for example, he’s a YEC (as far as I can tell), but he doesn’t bring this up to debates or discussion about ID, nor does he (also as far as I can tell) insist on teaching and writing books about it.

I am not writing this to criticize Dr. Wise. He is free to do whatever he thinks is correct and I respect him for this. I was just thinking that he could’ve been a great addition to the ID movement.