Mr. Moore,
I enjoyed the Dembski/Design piece but was left with two questions: why the piece ended so abruptly and whether your opinion of ID was shaped by ID arguments or Dembski's appearance at ICR?
 

I was surprised to see Spiegel post a four or five year old article on ID. You're right, it's come into the public view much more in recent months, and it was probably wise to sit on it.

I wasn't as surprised to see Spiegel pick up such a one-sided and innuendo filled piece. It's their bread and butter.

The teaser paragraph implies that ID adherents are liars ("profess to be open") and reinforces that notion with the mixed metaphor "riddled with... detours". "Riddled with..." commonly is completed with lies, deception, errors.

Paragraph two continues raising suspicions in the reader's mind by using a parenthetical "he says"--implying that he has a secret agenda lurking under the plain words he speaks and writes.

Found it interesting on review that you gave your readers (many of whom are likely to have been in Paris) some context about the monstrosity known as La Défense, but you tell us that your UCSD student hosts are not just yahoos and bumpkins but also deeply entangled in morbid yahooism since they can't make pick up a casual out-of-context comment about architecture.

Further along the line, the description of the ICR complex and personnel seems intentionally demeaning. The building "squats" along a barren road, the staff are laden with Ph.D.s, and their fliers are "little"--what does it matter? Why such hostility? Certainly the language could have been neutral. A careful editor could/would have ordered a rewrite. But I don't expect such neutrality from Der Spiegel--Deutsch oder Englisch.

Sowing seeds of doubt continues as Dembski is described as open, yet you let your readers know you don't believe it for a minute: "Again, that open mind."

What does it matter that Casey Luskin has "heavy eyebrows"? Or, later on, that Nate has "large, cowlike brown eyes"? Sure, you want to give your readers some compelling and vivid descriptive language, but these seem chosen to underscore a feeling that ID/ICR adherents are dimwits and okies.

Your zeal to uncover the hidden agenda seems so strong that in the paragraph about the Woodruff final lecture, you don't list (while it would have been better to evaluate) the questions or the answers given (other than to say that the questions were "sharp" and the answers "brief" and "brusque"--perhaps one of the few moments in the article where the prose is positive toward the ID folks.

What do you think of when you imagine "potbellied men" and "small-town sheriffs"? Probably folks who have never been to Paris or Berlin.

ICR offices are "whitewashed" and "faded" and "kitschy" and shabby"--certainly not neutral colored language.

And how about an example of Phillip Johnson's "poison pen" or of his "considerable" debating skills??--instead of just telling us that he has one or that these skills are possessed?

Guilt by association continues with the connection to those who reject "everything from modern science and to the United Nations".

I confess I was astonished, but not surprised, to see that while writing a story about a creation controversy and the ICR connection, you confess that prior to arriving in Santee, CA with your heavy browed host, you had never heard of the Institute of Creation Research--one half of the unlikely bedfellows whom you surprised in flagrante.

It's really no surprise that ID people talk to ICR people. It's no more surprising than to discover that Ted Kennedy and Bill Frist speak to each other, or that Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel keep in contact. Political adversaries maintain relationships in a civil society. It happens in the realm of theological debate as well.

I hope it has happened here in this post, too. My design (intelligent or not) was to point out that Spiegel posting this article was odd, and that the article, by design (obviously intelligent), sought to discredit ID and/or ICR with colorful prose, metaphors, and innuendo. I do not bring this as an insult to you, personally, but point out the shortcomings of the article and the non-newsworthiness of its content only to help reveal what lies beneath: antipathy toward ID.

By the way, I live in Munich, have visited Paris, and keep my eye open for beauty in architecture.
 

Jesus!

Somebody's on the defensive down south.

Munich: There is a huge difference between implying "that ID adherents are liars" and stating that they "profess to be open."

The fact that you can't work that difference out for yourself (and it's far from subtle, my friend!) demonstrates the degree to which you've approached this piece with an incredible amount of bias.

Nothing about Mike's article - including the descriptiveness of its language - strikes me as anything but neutral in his approach to the debate.

Finally, I'm happy to take a more plain approach to the debate for your benefit: ID, scientifically speaking, is nonsense.

Here's a link that spells out, with great neutrality/objectivity, exactly why this is the case, from a scientific perspective:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Derick
 

Munich: My piece wasn't a news story. It was a first-person feature. That explains, first, the point of view, second, the colorful details, and three, the age of the story. Picking on a first-person feature for its slant is like criticizing a blog comment for having a point of view.

But I did try to capture the state of innocence I was in back in 2001, when I really had no clue about "Creation Science" and believed Dembski and the others were so confident of their position that they would talk freely and openly about Intelligent Design. They won't. Not about everything. That was the shock. A real philosophical movement with no published papers and no status should have nothing to lose, right? Why not argue freely and volubly? But in the meantime I don't even need to reiterate that a) ID is not science, and b) there's an agenda behind the movement to change the curricula in public schools. (Which is one reason the piece ends abruptly, I think -- long ago there was more stuff about the so-called wedge strategy. Which is no longer news.)

The snobbish-sounding thing about Paris at the end was the kindest interpretation of the cold silence in the car. The unkind interpretation is that no one even wanted to chichat with a journalist.

I'm open to arguments against Darwinist orthodoxies, by the way. Darwin believed in God, unlike a lot of his defenders, and the idea that evolution happens "at random" -- which only means it obeys natural law, without making miraculous leaps -- is not a strict view of the world but just a discipline for scientists to keep superstition out of their thinking. It doesn't shut out God. Darwin (like Newton) thought a scientist's job was to describe God. Of course fundamentalists from any religion cannot agree, but until they come up with real science they need to be kept away from our children's science classes.

From the tone of your remarks about the piece, by the way, I can tell you came at it from a David's Medienkritik / dissect-the-liberal-press mindset that seems to be all the rage these days -- as if Intelligent Design were just another skirmish in the big Political and Culture Wars. It's not. It's way off the map.
 

Ipadron: From my answer above I hope it's clear that it wasn't just Dembski's presence at ICR that turned me off.
 

Sorry, one more thing: By "no published papers" in the long answer I mean "no serious published papers" -- no papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
 

Mr. Moore,
Thanks for the reply and I hope my questions don't offend.
In your reply to "Munich" you bring up an oft mentioned catch-22 ID theorists face, namely, the peer-reviewed and published paper paradox. Here it is:

1. Why aren't ID theorists
published in peer reviewed
journals? Because ID theory is
considered pseudoscience.

2. Why is ID theory considered
pseudoscience? Because ID
theorists haven't been
published in peer reviewed
journals.
How is this problem solved?
Shouldn't one be published in and interacted with at length in these journals before being branded the proponent of a pseudoscience?

You also wrote that evolution "is not a strict view of the world but just a discipline for scientists to keep superstition out of their thinking. It doesn't shut out God."

I respect your view but wonder why you would then oppose ID and consider it pseudoscience. After all, proponents of ID include qualified scientists, philosophers, etc. who, after weighing the scientific arguments and evidence, believe an intelligent agent is at work in the universe. Who's shutting god out?

And if evolution doesn't shut out god then why is ID opposed so vehemently and its advocates smeared as old time creationists when, as you noted, they're anything but? Why are they described as unpublished quacks when they face the peer reviewed paradox?

Finally, your view that evolution prevents superstitious thinking may lead to the problem below:

1. Evolution prevents
superstitious thinking.
2. Evolution does not shut out god.
3. ID proposes that a god of some
sort may be active in creation.
4. ID is superstitious, bad
science because it introduces
the idea of god.
5. Point number 2 above is not
true.

Thanks again for your previous reply and I apologize if I've misrepresented your views.

thx.,
lpadron
 

No need to apologize; it's a lively debate. But you did misread me in one important way: I didn't say evolution shuts out God. (It doesn't, anyway, and the proof that it doesn't is that Darwin was a Christian.) I said the doctrine of random selection prevents superstitious thinking by focusing the scientist on how the world actually works; but it doesn't shut God out from a scientist's larger worldview. In other words: a scientist, by pushing the big unprovable question to one side, can describe in detail some portion of how God behaves. The only person who could study evolution and see how well it's held up as a theory after over 100 years and still object to this simple idea is someone who finds a conflict between the scientific method and the literal word of the Bible.

I oppose ID because it's a conscious "thin edge of the wedge" strategy to fix what the Creationists in my piece (and other people who aren't Creationists) think of as the main problem facing mankind: that Darwin's theory has divided modern people from God. That debate can rage for weeks; but the point is, the question doesn't belong in a public science class!

Until ID does get peer-reviewed, I don't see why a public school should pay it any attention at all. I understand the problems with peer review, but what else are public schools supposed to use, as a filtering system? Or should we just let in any old fringe theory because it's "there"? In high school I learned rote mainstream science and was well prepared to look into more cutting-edge questions in college. (Or just outside biology class.) As discipline, frankly, Intelligent Design needs time to grow up, and until it does: Why feed it to kids? The only reason I see is an agenda that has nothing to do with science.
 

I really dont see how you can have a neutral viewpoint in such an article, not because of the first person account but merely because of the irrationality of the situation.

What I always find interesting is the idea not of testing randomness - thats just silly as we have no idea of any of the probabilities involved so a small % difference over so many years proves or disproves the case- what I find more interesting is the fact that humans are actually IMHO rather badly designed. Doe sthis mean that the big G is flawed himself? Why are our urinary and reproductive systems so close for example? Thats one bad design flaw causing many an infection and disease..... and thats the present, without going back into the misery that was life in the dark ages. We are basically very imperfect creatures. The big G was a bad designer.

But the idea of some scientific bible bashers is a funny one. I mean nobody could prove or disprove that its not all steered BUT Noah killing the dinosaurs. Even basic science can disprove that one.

I recommend that everyone reads at least the first three essas of "Why I am not a Christian" by B. Russel. Top banana.

No I think the article is good and a very fair assessment considering the way you were treated. The question is why is Germany's leading news magazine interesting in printing it? Thats why i find it interesting that you mention Medienkritik and that the article is roughly to do with the enlightenment. Surely Germany has a lot of political news at the moment but instead we have an old out of date article about fundamentalist Americans again. The victim - culprit mix up never stops at the SPON does it? But yeah of course... it could just be a random coincidence. In this case Id opt more for design.
 

Spiegel Online took it because I convinced them it would work for both American and British (or other) readers. ID is a massive topic in the States, and the rest of the world is sort of scratching its collective head. So the article works as a bridge. It introduces the broad outlines to non-Americans but adds meat for Americans -- a story that hasn't been told before. Not a major scoop or anything, but still interesting after all these years.

Spiegel Online can't do election coverage round the clock, Andy, especially when Angie and Gerd can't make up their minds. See you tomorrow at 2?
 

Well thats one possible theory I guess but really the probability of that is also pretty high imho. The coincidences are amazing....

... but yes I am looking forward to Friday. I did my leg in today but its already feeling better so I should be fine, though my not quite 100% fit arm that i broke does mean i hope i am not alone with you on this quest. I will see if i can bring a backup man.

See you then.

DBA
 

Mr. Moore,
You wrote: "In other words: a scientist, by pushing the big unprovable question to one side, can describe in detail some portion of how God behaves."
The last part of the of that sentence would get you labeled a creationist in Darwinist circles. How is it different from what ID theorists are saying?

They, too, are describing in portion how god (or an other intelligent agent) "behaved" by pointing out instances of complexity that could not have arisen randomly/accidentally.

You also wrote: "the only person who could study evolution and see how well it's held up as a theory after over 100 years and still object to this simple idea is someone who finds a conflict between the scientific method and the literal word of the Bible."
But if that's true how would you account for scientists and other academics who hold criticize or hold serious reservations of the theory yet aren't christian or theistic in their convictions?

Here are but two names that come to mind: David Berlinski and Michael Denton.

The former is a mathematician and philosopher who, as part of a reply to his critics, wrote "I have no creationist agenda whatsoever and, beyond respecting the injunction to have a good time all the time, no religious principles, either."

The interaction between Berlinski and his critics (and other Berlinski writing) can be read in full at this site: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1509

The latter was an philosopher who described himself as being "of no religion". His book, "Darwinian Fairytales" can be found here: http://www.realist.org/files/

It turns out that there have *always* been criticism of the theory, much of it coming from within. There are still many respected and well credentialed critics out there. Yet, they are rarely mentioned in news stories. Why don't we read about them and where are the lengthy interviews with them?

It's worth noting that ID isn't the only thing being opposed. There is equally vehement opposition to informing students of the significant problems and criticisms of the theory from within the academic community itself. This, too, is not mentioned in news stories.

The peer review problem is a recurring one in the debate. You understand the problem with ID being peer reviewed...maybe: how will the demands of peer review ever be met if ID is apriori ruled unfit for peer review?

Luckily, that problem isn't as severe as it could be. An annoted list of peer reviewed literature ID (in one form or another) has appeared in: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

Lastly, given that ID theorists make no mention of the bible or religious themes in academic papers what part(s) of their arguments need refining or maturation and what problems, if any, are there with evolutionary theory?
This note was far too long. I apologize to both you and my employer for that...lpadron
 

What I'm trying to say is that what you call random or accidental counts as a function of "Creation," if the scientist happens to believe in God.

Here's the point: This makes ID redundant. The whole project of proving it's "not random" strikes me as spurious science. Maybe the future will prove me wrong -- I doubt it -- but what you can't deny is that a whole political and social agenda trails behind the suspect science.

In any case I know a lot of good scientists who know what Darwin and Newton and Einstein meant by the word "God" and of course they wouldn't call any of those men Creationists.
 

Mr. Moore,
If randomness can account for the complexity both sides are trying to account for then you're correct: ID would be spurious and redundant.

The problem is that many in the *evolutionary* camp readily admit to the inability and/or high improbability of randomness to explain that complexity.

And if they're admitting to it why shouldn't ID be considered a scientific option especially if it *can* account for the complexity?

And while it's impossible to deny the political and social agenda behind some in the ID camp it's also impossible to deny the political and social agenda of its opponents many of who are unabashed atheists.

Since I don't particularly care for the either side's agenda it's best to examine the merits of each theory.

The mechanisms of evolution and randomness simply cannot account for the complexity we see about us. This is not a huge secret in darwinist circles. It's in the published literature for those interested enough to find it. Why, then, hold to what's admitted to be impossible simply because the idea of a creator is unpalatable?

I'm not sure what to make of your last point regarding Newton, Einstein, & Darwin other than this: Newton believed in a god and he's was a pretty good scientist (I don't believe history proves the same of the other two). Why, then, are some ID theorists not considered good scientists simply because they too believe in a god?

thx.,
lpadron





What I'm trying to say is that what you call random or accidental counts as a function of "Creation," if the scientist happens to believe in God.

Here's the point: This makes ID redundant. The whole project of proving it's "not random" strikes me as spurious science. Maybe the future will prove me wrong -- I doubt it -- but what you can't deny is that a whole political and social agenda trails behind the suspect science.

In any case I know a lot of good scientists who know what Darwin and Newton and Einstein meant by the word "God" and of course they wouldn't call any of those men Creationists.
 

"if they're admitting to it why shouldn't ID be considered a scientific option especially if it *can* account for the complexity?"

Because its results are not so good yet. When they're solid -- when it's mainstream science -- it should be taught in high schools. But why push it? You don't see this kind of high emotion in any other branch of young or cutting-edge thought.

The problem with "proving a Creator" is that fashions like this crop up in science all the time and then go away. Swedenborg once thought he could find the physical seat of the soul. These are amusing ideas, but they work better as metaphysics than actual science. (Like Freudianism.)

Also -- Einstein was very religious, but maybe not in any conventional way. Saul Bellow understood that. He tried explaining it once to an Orthodox Jew on a plane, but failed.
 

Mr. Moore,
There's a significant problem in your criteria not unlike the "peer review problem" I mentioned earlier.

You'd like ID to be taught only when it's mainstream science but, of course, mainstream science doesn't accept ID because, well, it's not mainstream science.

And what would it take for ID to be considered mainstream science? Well, it would have to drop the idea of an intelligent designer.

In which case you're criteria effectively eliminate even the *possibility* of ID ever being acceptable. Your criteria are faulty from the outset.

Perhaps a better way of looking at it is to ask this: if ID dropped the idea of design and intelligent agent (deity or alien or whatever else) would you allow ID to be taught as an alternative? If not, what exactly makes it shoddy science in your view?

For an instance of "high emotion" in cutting edge thought one needs only to look at the intramural debates between those in the evolution camp who support and oppose things like punctuated equilibrium or biological evolution. The interaction is every bit as emotional and hostile.
The idea that this level of emotion is unique to this one is simply mistaken.

The view that ID theorists are trying to prove a creator is something of a caricature. They're arguing that design and intelligence are *empirically* detected in nature. In the same way that we detect intelligence and design when we look at our cars we are able to detect design in biological (and other) systems. They offer various biological (and other) proof.
Rather than call them creationists why not address their proof?

You've pointed out, correctly, that proving a creator and other fashions come and go in science all the time.

Included in those fashions are things like natural selection (hotly contested and chock full of holes) and numerous skeletons thought to be our ancestors (like neanderthal which was ruled out not too long ago because of genetic differences.

Evolution has a great number of fashionable conclusions that have been quietly discarded. No one's running to discard the theory based on those failures. Why not?

Lastly, what makes you think evolution isn't a function of metaphysics as well?
 

My criteria are absolutely not faulty from the outset. If you're right that it's just Darwinist fashion keeping ID out of good journals, well, fashions change. When the mountain of evidence for a theory of Intelligent Design overwhelms the niggling protests of its Darwinist enemies there will be a revolution, and all of us doubers will have to stand around on the wrong side of history looking stupid. *Then* it can be taught in schools. This is the fate of all radical but true ideas. So what's the rush?

The problem for me isn't the idea of a creator or a grand design. That part intrigued me. I agree with you that a living thing shows evidence of design, just like a car. But the insights from a discipline like this had damn well better be subtle and profound, rather than easily hijacked by fundamentalists (for example); and Dembski's speech in San Diego sounded to me like a lot of hocus-pocus. It was not plain talk. Of course I can't judge it as a professional scientist, but as a speaker he sounded deliberately convoluted, with no payoff. Other good scientific speakers I've heard have gone out of their way to make things clear. Dembski didn't. Sorry if this sounds arrogant, but I went away sensing that my questions were subtler than his ideas.

And evolution isn't a function of metaphysics. Now we're back where we started: The whole point of the scientific method is to push metaphysics to one side, even if the scientist has some metaphysical conclusion in mind. (A lot of them do.) No cheating!

None of this, by the way, is the same thing as saying that science has the last word. It's just one way of knowing things. Good researchers understand that, too.
 

The idea that science operates without metaphysical assumptions pushed aside is mistaken. In fact, most scientists and philosophers in the evolutionary camp, readily admit to conducting their work within the framework of methodological naturalism. That naturalism is the accepted metaphysical starting point, that is, it’s assumed before any scientific inquiry begins, isn’t even questioned by either side. In short, meth. naturalism rules out the possibility of god as an explanation for anything found in the natural world; everything can and must be explained in terms of natural causes. Part of the debate centers on whether this presupposition is a justifiable and what the ramifications of such a starting point are.

But there’s a problem: if everything can and must be explained by natural causes then *no amount* of evidence to the contrary can ever lead its adherents to accept the idea of either a god or an other intelligent designer since neither is defined as a natural cause. The “no amount” claim cannot be overstated since it’s a logical consequence of the view. The problem remains: how does a naturalist theory such as evolution ever become unfashionable if the mountain of evidence you require to overthrow it is a priori ruled non-evidence? No cheating, indeed.

I gotta admit to sympathizing with you on one point though: a lot of it, on both sides, sounds like hocus pocus. You wrote this in reference to Dembski’s speech in San Diege a few years ago while I sometimes feel that way while regularly keeping tabs on the controversy. Dembski may very well have been convoluted and unclear that evening. It may be of value, then, to judge him and his position based on what he’s written instead in the time since you last heard him. He interacts regularly and at length with his critics. He has a considerable amount of writing available for free on the web.

He’s also very clear, when possible, as is the case with folks on both sides of the debate. Sometimes it’s not possible to write clearly for the layman if the subject requires significant training in mathematics, biology, etc.. But for the most part, Dembski and the work of others is accessible.

Should the multitude of criticisms and irresolvable problems of the theory be taught in schools? And finally, what would, to you, constitute acceptable empirical evidence for an intelligent designer?
Thanks for the opportunity to pepper you with all of this. I understand if you don’t have the time to keep up with this. And, again, if any of it offends I apologize.

lpadron
 

OK...I don't see how ID doesn't rule out aliens starting all this. If you read the arguments, it doesn't rule that out and doesn't rule it in. Maybe there was a more intelligent designer somewhere in outerspace.

e
 

Anonymouse,
You're correct. ID doesn't identify agent behind the design. It doesn't aim to identify because, like the other theory in question, it can't. What it does claim is that there is evidence of intentional design. ID's opponents claim that what looks like intentional design really isn't intentional at all but the product of chance.

Which begs the question of how one can tell intentional design from the illusion of design and what mechanism, if any, science has for detecting intentional design.

The answer: it doesn't. Why? Because the possibility of a designer is ruled out from the get go. But that's philosophy, not science.
 

I apologize for the misspelling of "anonymous". It was unintentional and I should have previewed my post.
 

Just real quick, while the internet gods are smiling: I heard Dembski neatly dismiss the alien-designer theory on the radio by saying it just raised the question of who created the aliens. Hard to deny.

But Ipadron, what you wrote about methodological naturalism is exactly the point: That's what science is. It restricts itself to natural causes. The ID people, if they're honest, either want to 1) claim profound discoveries outside the discipline of traditional science, or 2) expand the discipline of traditional science into new territory. In either case the project would be so revolutionary that there shouldn't be any reason, just yet, to teach it in schools.

And I think you're painting scientists too broadly. Atheism is common, but I know or know of plenty of researchers who aren't strict atheists. Still they play by the rules of logic and natural law.

Oh -- and I know about Dembski's site, and I've done plenty of reading on it.
 

Mr. Moore,
Thanks for time you've taken to reply to these notes.

You've something of a contradiction to resolve. In an earlier post you noted that the "whole point of the scientific method is to push aside metaphysics."

But in your last post you state the my observation about the "methodological naturalism (a metaphysical position) is exactly the point: That's what science is. It restricts itself to natural causes."

Which is it? How can science push aside metaphysics if it starts out with a metaphysical position?

And we're still left with the problem of identifying non-natural, intelligent causes if science restricts itself to natural causes.
You've answered before that enough evidence must be found for non-natural intelligent causes before ID is legitimate.

That leaves you with the contradiction of demanding natural explanations for what is non-natural. How is that resolved?

What ID is trying to do, in a sense, is not expand "traditional science" (whatever that may be) but correct it's arbitrary metaphysical presuppositions (meth. naturalism). Meth. naturalism is, in the end, a purely arbitrary starting point. That science can be done just as successfully w/o a naturalistic starting point is plainly evident by looking at the number of physicists, doctors, biologists, chemists, etc. who are of faith (christian or otherwise).

Dembski has made no secret of his belief that the designer is the christian god. And he's right, the alien designer theory of who the designer might be can be dismissed. But that deals with the question of *who* the designer might be rather than the question ID poses, namely, *is/was there an intelligent agent behind creation*?

To object to the second based on the answer to the first is to confuse the issue.

Was Dembsi clearer on his website than in your encounter with him at ICR?

thx.,
lpadron
 

No, that's not a contradiction. This is the kind of almost-logic I noticed on Dembski's site, too. A scientist's "metaphysical assumption" in the lab -- that we don't think about God because we can't prove God -- is just a discipline to describe how things actually work. It studies natural law. And it has a good track record. If you like, you might say methodological naturalism describes God in detail; but that idea seems to irritate some people who defend ID as well as (some) evolutionists.

The scientist's motives don't matter at all. Christian, atheist, pagan -- as long as his science is good, who cares? Most scientists I know are open-minded that way. But a lot of Baptists think that's blasphemy, and ID is full of recovering Baptists.

The ironic thing is that they're working on something very postmodern, a meta-science that thinks about science itself and wonders about first causes. That's fascinating, but it's not what science needs to do.
 

Yeah! Who did design the aliens? lol

eric
 

@eric

Giger, who else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._Giger

http://www.hrgiger.com/

@lp

You get points at least for your trolling dedication. If you want to actually convince us of anything then you have to bring an argument with facts and theories..... but I guess thats the whole problem isnt it?
 

Andy, it's unclear--if you're accusing Eric of trolling, you're completely off-base. Eric is an acquaintance of Mike's, making a good-spirited joke. Not a troll.
 

Whoops, too fast. Blame it on too much giddiness. Sorry Andy, I didn't see that you were separating Eric and Ipadron.

Although I don't think Ipadron's a troll, either, truth be told, but someone honestly engaging in debate.
 

Mr. Moore,

However we describe naturalism, whether as a discipline or a "starting point", the fact remains that it is a metaphysical presupposition. The philosophers on your side of the debate (for instance, Michael Ruse and Niall Shanks) don't argue this.

As far as we go, well, not to beat the issue to death but one can't claim that science sweeps metaphysics aside then later admit that science has a metaphysical starting point of its own. It's "A" or "non-A" but it can't be both. It's not almost logic; it is logic.

Undoubtedly, science has a good track record. But it has it's long list of mistakes, too. Some have argued that the process by which science "corrects" itself is sometimes, if not often, pretty much as controversial and ugly as what we see going on with the ID debate.

Again, I think there are at least two difficulties with any view that allows that "meth. naturalism describes god in detail". First, meth. naturalism disallows god as a description or a cause. This isn't even an option. That's why your definition irritates some on the evolution side. You're re-defining meth naturalism.

Second, if you accept the claim that it describes god in detail then you go even further than ID does since it doesn't claim to describe god though some ID'ers claim that god (whichever one you want to pick) is the agent behind what science studies.

I'd like to agree with the notion that a scientist's motive don't matter. Unfortunately, because they're as human as the rest of us and are every bit as susceptible to uncritical thinking and personal interests (whether good or bad) I tend to be a bit more cynical when it comes to motivations on either side. That's why I'd rather argue about research, evidence, and philosophical presuppositions than the people involved.

Finally, you wrote:
"The ironic thing is that they're working on something very postmodern, a meta-science that thinks about science itself and wonders about first causes."

Actually, what you've described is philosophy and the critical assessment of what science is or isn't, what it can and can't do, and what starting points, valid or invalid, science has. It's nothing new, really, and it's been going on for quite a while in philosophical circles. Science starts with philosophy: meth. naturalism. Why should it?

thx.,
lpadron
 

@Indri: thanks for the kind words.

@ DB Andy:

Listen to Indri. She knows of whence she speaks. And thanks for the "trolling dedication" points however many they are.

As for arguments and theories, I have none to speak of, really. My whole aim is to woo you with kind words, capture your heart and mind with my gentle words and disposition (and an apocalyptic Jack Chick tract or two or twelve), convert you to my own brand of skewered and apostate christianity (which, these days, is closer to the church of Bob Dobbs than the church of Jesus), then enslave you with innumberable rules in order to part you from your hard earned rubles under the pretense of "tithing to the lord".

Later, you'll come to your senses, start a recovery group, create a blog and website, and pine for the good old days when we interacted, however briefly, on "radio free mike" and you knew better than to fall prey to the likes of religious shucksters like moi.

Or not. Either way I really did appreciate your previous reply.

Although I ain't much when it comes to dedication of any sort preferring instead to slack and goof off when at work I did laugh at your "trolling dedication" line. Nice!
thx.,
lpadron
 

Ipadron, thanks for the civilized argument, though I don't know how much longer I can carry it on. But I think we're talking past each other on this question of metaphysical starting points. Absolutely, shoving metaphysics to one side to study nature is a metaphysical position. That gives the method a metaphysical starting point, no question. But not the scientist. Crucial difference. If you look back at our arguments you'll see this is the point I was trying to defend, and it's the reason for the charge of almost-logic.

Now. As for whether science should start there -- good question. But not one that really demands big space in a public school textbook.

Also. You wrote: "What I find interesting in this debate is the media's role ... I think the media (as well layman on both sides of the issue) need to consider the issues I listed before venturing far into the fray."

Sorry, but that's laughable. The ID movement has courted media attention from the start, Casey Luskin included. If the lofty, disinterested movement leaders want to develop a new scientific method in their ivory towers without meddlesome half-educated journalists mucking up the pure waters, they're welcome to do it. But that's patently not what they want.
 

No I mean Luis P. He is a boring troll. This isnt a debate, as a debate has 2 arguments backed with facts and an outcome based on them. The troll has brought neither fact nor argument.... hence troll.

I wait for the day where a simple computer bot can repeat the simple operation of such trolls. Then we can argue all day with nothing, against nothing and for nothing... but hey perhaps that how the Big G intended it to be.
 

Mr. Moore,
Before finishing up, I'd like to say that I'm grateful for your tone and the time you've taken throughout this. Civilized debate doesn't happen often with this topic so I'm glad to have been a part of it.

On metaphysics...you've only moved the problem a step back. Even if we agree that scientists are (or can be) neutral we still face the problem of how a non-naturalistic explanation for anything made by a neutral scientist will be accepted when only naturalistic explanations are considered scientifically valid.

No matter how neutral the scientist the fact remains that only naturalistic explanations are allowed.

So, either our neutral scientist continues to work towards a naturalistic answer, which effectively negates his neutrality, or he goes out on a limb and admits that the arbitrary constraints of naturalism are incorrect which is what many ID'ers like Michael Behe have done.
In the end, your crucial difference isn't crucial at all.

The obstacle faced remains: naturalistic explanations are the only explanations deemed valid by the scientific community.

A designer, god or otherwise, would be considered a supernatural agent. Naturalism, as practiced and by definition (not your re-definition), doesn't allow supernatural agents. How, then, can we know that a supernatural designer exists if only naturalistic explanations are allowed? Isn't this a rigged game?

Will science, which is about finding the truth, ever do so if it's playing a rigged game and should this problem be mentioned in public schools? I think so. The truth is worth it.

As for courting the media; you're probably right. I'm sure it's been done. But that's not the point of I was making.

My point is that media, being composed of responsible adults, should have the good sense to admit that it's not well informed about either side and that very little in their journalistic education adequately prepares them for knowing which side of the debate is credible.

There are no rigorous biology, physics, philosophy, logic, or mathematical requirements for journalism degrees as far as I know.

If the media don't and can't understand clearly what the ivory tower eggheads on *both* sides are saying in their jargon then how can it accurately and properly relay the information to the rest of us? Too often they simply don't.

So, it's the "meddlesome-half-educated- journalists-mucking-up-the-pure- waters" contingent, their effect on the debate, and whether it can remain objective and fair in representing both sides that interests me most.

Finally, blaming ID'ers for the reporting of a largely ignorant the media is a little like blaming the victim of rape for the rape itself. After all, the media's job is to get it right not muddle things further.

In any case, I've enjoyed the dialogue despite our different views. It'd be nice if most debates on this and other hot topics were conducted this respectfully as this one was.
I hope all continues to be well or at least relatively well on your end.
thx.,
lpadron
 

DB Andy:

You are probably correct on all counts. I hope all is well your end as well.

yours trol-ly,
lpadron
 

I'm not a troll...

I'M A HUMAN BEING!!!

hehe

eric