Monday, October 31, 2005
ID in Europe
Two pieces of news that should be of interest to anyone with the mistaken impression that ID is an exclusively American pre-occupation.
First, the recent day conference on ID in Prague, attended by some 700 people from 18 nations, organized by Charles and Carole Thaxton (cf. http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?title=major_european_id_conference_in_prague_a&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1).
European speakers at the conference included philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski (France), Oxford University mathematician John Lennox (UK), molecular phycistist Cees Dekker (Netherlands) and phycisist Dalibor Krupka (Slovacia).
Second, I noticed that one of the rebuttals submitted to the current Dover school board hearing in America is from Steve William Fuller, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick (UK). Fuller has both an MPhil and a PhD in the history & philosophy of science, and argues that:
'...contrary to various opinions expressed in the Expert Reports, ID is a legitimate scientific inquiry that does not constitute "religion" in a sense that undermines the pursuit of science more generally or, for that matter, undermines the seperation of State and Church in the US Constitution.' (cf. www.arn.org/docs/dovertrial/fullerexpertwitness.pdf)
First, the recent day conference on ID in Prague, attended by some 700 people from 18 nations, organized by Charles and Carole Thaxton (cf. http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?title=major_european_id_conference_in_prague_a&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1).
European speakers at the conference included philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski (France), Oxford University mathematician John Lennox (UK), molecular phycistist Cees Dekker (Netherlands) and phycisist Dalibor Krupka (Slovacia).
Second, I noticed that one of the rebuttals submitted to the current Dover school board hearing in America is from Steve William Fuller, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick (UK). Fuller has both an MPhil and a PhD in the history & philosophy of science, and argues that:
'...contrary to various opinions expressed in the Expert Reports, ID is a legitimate scientific inquiry that does not constitute "religion" in a sense that undermines the pursuit of science more generally or, for that matter, undermines the seperation of State and Church in the US Constitution.' (cf. www.arn.org/docs/dovertrial/fullerexpertwitness.pdf)
Friday, October 07, 2005
Postmodern Areopagus plugs ID.Plus
Thanks to Randy Kluver in Singapore for advertising ID.Plus on his 'Postmodern Areopagus' blog @ http://postmodernareopagus.blogspot.com/2005/10/new-id-blog.html
Randy kindly writes the following endorsement: 'I have seen some of Peter's other writings, and this new blog promises to be even handed and thoughtful, with an appreciation of the multiple issues involved.'
Randy kindly writes the following endorsement: 'I have seen some of Peter's other writings, and this new blog promises to be even handed and thoughtful, with an appreciation of the multiple issues involved.'
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Scientific American column attacks ID
In October's Scientific American, Steve Mirsky attacks Intelligent Design theory in his 'AntiGravity' column as:
'"the full-blown intellectual surrender strategy" that proposes that a scientific explanation of life's complexity requires the intercesion of a supernatural being.'
I have a number of observations:
1) Mirsky's italics suggest he thinks a supernatural explanation cannot be a 'scientific' explanation. This would come as news to scientists like Newton! Mirsky's rule is either based upon the assumption that naturalism is true (an assumption few people share), or the assumption that science should be methodologically naturalistic - a rule that turns science into applied naturalism rather than a no-holds barred search for truth, and a rule questioned by many philosophers of science (e.g. Ratzsche, Meyer, Moreland).
2) ID does not propose that 'the intercession of a supernatural being' is a scientific explanation, or even an explanation, required by life's complexity. All that ID hypothesises is the intercession of intelligence, full stop. Of course, many ID theorists (but not all) do philosophically identify this intelligence as a supernatural being (i.e. God), but such an identification is philosophical and is neither scientific nor part of Intelligent Design theory.
3) Would a forensic scientist who concludes that a person died due to 'unnatural causes', i.e. by being deliberately murdered by an itelligent agent, be accused of 'intellectual surrender' on the grounds that they should continue to seek a naturalistic explanation of the death in question? Would a SETI researcher who concluded that the message they had received from space detailing how to build a complex machine (as in the movie Contact) be accused of 'intellectual surrender' because they should continue searching for a naturalistic explantion of the data? No. In which case, why accuse ID of 'intellectual surrender' for making design inferences of exactly the same sort?
4) ID is not 'intellectual surrender' if its conclusions are based on sound design detection criteria and if the conditions of those criteria are fulfilled by anything in nature. In that case, ID is an intellectual advance.
5) Mirsky oversimplifies when he says that ID infers design on the basis of 'life's complexity'. It is not complexity per se that ID says justifies infering intelligent design, but specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity (cf. the work of Dembski & Behe).
'"the full-blown intellectual surrender strategy" that proposes that a scientific explanation of life's complexity requires the intercesion of a supernatural being.'
I have a number of observations:
1) Mirsky's italics suggest he thinks a supernatural explanation cannot be a 'scientific' explanation. This would come as news to scientists like Newton! Mirsky's rule is either based upon the assumption that naturalism is true (an assumption few people share), or the assumption that science should be methodologically naturalistic - a rule that turns science into applied naturalism rather than a no-holds barred search for truth, and a rule questioned by many philosophers of science (e.g. Ratzsche, Meyer, Moreland).
2) ID does not propose that 'the intercession of a supernatural being' is a scientific explanation, or even an explanation, required by life's complexity. All that ID hypothesises is the intercession of intelligence, full stop. Of course, many ID theorists (but not all) do philosophically identify this intelligence as a supernatural being (i.e. God), but such an identification is philosophical and is neither scientific nor part of Intelligent Design theory.
3) Would a forensic scientist who concludes that a person died due to 'unnatural causes', i.e. by being deliberately murdered by an itelligent agent, be accused of 'intellectual surrender' on the grounds that they should continue to seek a naturalistic explanation of the death in question? Would a SETI researcher who concluded that the message they had received from space detailing how to build a complex machine (as in the movie Contact) be accused of 'intellectual surrender' because they should continue searching for a naturalistic explantion of the data? No. In which case, why accuse ID of 'intellectual surrender' for making design inferences of exactly the same sort?
4) ID is not 'intellectual surrender' if its conclusions are based on sound design detection criteria and if the conditions of those criteria are fulfilled by anything in nature. In that case, ID is an intellectual advance.
5) Mirsky oversimplifies when he says that ID infers design on the basis of 'life's complexity'. It is not complexity per se that ID says justifies infering intelligent design, but specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity (cf. the work of Dembski & Behe).
