MrStakhanovite wrote:I haven’t understood him in a way that is that strong, what got him in trouble with the Panda’s Thumb crowd is his difference with Pennock over demarcation criteria for what counts as science. I think his criticisms of ID are top notch, because even with a somewhat looser criteria, he still shows ID comes up short.
I've definitely seen him argue in articles online and, if I recall, via a fawning interview with Casey Luskin that ID arguments are serious and legitimate. I think he regards ID as good, but not quite good enough. I've read him much like Berlinski in that he's praiseworthy enough that you have to know he's not an IDist from other comments to appreciate he's not an IDist.
When I've seen the Pandas Thumb crowd criticize him, it's been for not understanding ID as a coherent cultural movement and for misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) the arguments against its legality in public classrooms.
By "IDist" I mean someone noteworthy for advocating arguments we generally refer to as intelligent design. That doesn't include people who support the anti-evolution arguments found in the intelligent design world, but do not conclude design, those who aren't IDists but simply think it should be legal to teach in government run schools, those who believe there is a God (and thus an intelligent designer), but for non-design related reasons, etc.
I'm willing to generically define ID as the proposition that life or some aspect of it was designed and there is scientific evidence of this view. That'll let in fine-tuners, who already are increasingly part of the ID tent anyway, but it won't let in any old theistic apologetic. That skirts the cultural context of ID a bit, as ID is overwhelmingly not-evolution; therefore design arguments, but at least it grounds the term in the design based arguments it refers to as a matter of history and common parlance.