George Gilder and the likeminded

[_Hoops]

:O

[_EAllusion]

No, she is not. For geology, it matters not one whit how photosynthesizing organisms got here, just that they got here and when (i.e., a long time ago). The same principles of geology would hold if photosynthesizing organisms arose through several acts of special creation and the same techniques would be used if common descent were blanked from everyone's mind tomorrow.

Several acts of special creation by fiat is consistent with the geological data. How could it not be? It's consistent with every possible geological formation. That's why special creation isn't helpful as an explanation for anything.

The difference is that evolution informs geological understanding. For instance, it explains why oxygenation in the Earth's atmosphere occurred when it did. Evolutionary theory helps explains why geological formations are the way they are and helps develop a coherent timeline. You can predict features of heretofore unknown creatures (e.g. tiktaalik) in a given strata and you can data a given strata in part by looking at the traits of organisms found therein. You can't make those predictions with the notion that God is creating organisms in a linear sequence of creative acts unless you attach the needlessly ad hoc corollary: "in manner that matches what one would expect given evolution."

Now, you may disagree with this, but interestingly, you choose to signal out geology and leave the widely believed proposition that evolutionary theory is central to biology alone. Why? It's just as true that the vertebrate immune system would be the same as it is today if God created that through a series of acts of special creation too. There are myriad ways that evolution informs our understanding of the system, just as there are in geology, but the same argument applies. You might say it doesn't matter how the immune system got here, but it does matter and, regardless, that's part of the science of the field. The same is true of geology.

[_Some Schmo]

You are wrong, as per usual, your pretense of learning and delusions of adequacy notwithstanding.

LMAO

There's nothing quite like watching this dumbass demonstrate his idiocy and ignorance publicly in the process of trying to appear intelligent and learned. You can't buy that kind of entertainment.

[_mikwut]

Hi EAllusion,

Just to see how long I can keep up:

Micheal Behe
Johnathan Wells (Unification Church)
William Dembski
Charles Thaxton
Nancy Pearcey
Philip Johnson
Stephen Meyer
Bruce Chapman
Dean Kenyon
Percival Davis
Robert Koons
Richard Weikart
John West
Jay Richards
Paul Nelson
Albert Mohler
J.P. Moreland
Lee Strobel
Marcus Ross
Robert J. Marks II

Ok. Aaaaaand Go.

Bradley Monton (Author of An Atheist Defends ID)
David Berlinski
Steve Fuller
A.N. Wilson (Has returned to Christianity so might not count)
James La Fanu
Thomas Nagel (At least defending the constitutionality of teaching ID)
Fred Hoyle

I still got more in the pocket and I think that makes 70 for you.;)

regards, mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Mikwut -

Bradley Monton
David Berlinski
Steve Fuller
Thomas Nagel

What these people have in common is they defend IDists and ID as serious while not believing in ID themselves. In particular, they tend to be enamored with the anti-evolution arguments that come out of ID. I actually already pointed this out of Berlinkski in this thread before you went to the trouble of listing him.

I believe the same was true of A.N Wilson, but I'm open to correction on that. I don't know enough about James La Fanu to say. Some citations would be helpful here.

I'm not sure how Fred Hoyle got included on the list. Hoyle made arguments that were and in some cases are a staple of creationist literature, such as his calculations on the "impossibility" of abiogenesis on Earth or his argument that archeopteryx was a fraud. But Hoyle used Hoyle's fallacy to argue in favor of panspermia, not ID. He felt that intelligent design was at work in some mysterious way in the universe, but the doesn't scaffold his arguments to that. He wasn't an IDist in that sense.

So almost all your list is wrong, which is telling in of itself. But you do have two possible candidates there I think. I'll give you a pass on Hoyle and wait on some quotes from La Fanu and Wilson. If you could help me verify those, I'll gladly give you another round of 10.

Thanks.

[_EAllusion]

It's also worth noting that there is some ambiguity in who is going to count here. When I talked about notable IDists, I meant people who are players in advocating ID arguments. While not actually IDists, Berlinski and Fuller clearly count on those grounds. But A.N Wilson? That's not really what I had in mind. If you open the field up to anyone who is a recognized journalist, politician, or public figure of note and has an opinion on the subject, there are far more people than I imagined that I could draw from. I wouldn't even think of listing someone like Rick Santorum, who at least was an important political friend of the ID movement, but it would seem that would make sense given where you are going with this. Or what about a James Kennedy, who I think of more as an evangelical pastor than an ID advocate per se? The list for me is effectively endless at that point. Mentioning A.N. Wilson to me is like bringing up Orson Scott Card. Is that really notable? I was planning on naming people like Richard Sternberg in my next round of 10.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Bradley Monton does not defend ID.

[_EAllusion]

I haven't read his book Stak, but I have read stuff from him where he argues ID should be treated seriously as a science. Which isn't the same thing as being an ID advocate. At all. But I already said that. So I think I'll abuse my mod powers and edit your post into a confession of being a huge fan of the Real Housewives of New Jersey.

[_MrStakhanovite]

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.

In the case of Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Judge Jones ruled that a pro-intelligent design disclaimer cannot be read to public school students. In his decision, he gave demarcation criteria for what counts as science, ruling that intelligent design fails these criteria. I argue that these criteria are flawed, with most of my focus on the criterion of methodological naturalism. The way to refute intelligent design is not by declaring it unscientific, but by showing that the empirical evidence for design is not there.

SAUCE

[_mikwut]

Hi,

My problem is I mostly agree with you in what I think your point to Droopy was. But I also enjoy the discussion for the nuanced differences. Certainly, I did create ambiguity and your point is ceded, it was part of my interest I hope you don't mind. I was listing atheists or agnostics that defend ID rather than marginalize it even if they don't agree with the theistic conclusions. I believe that is generally what Montan argues, that ID could be considered science and that it is undeserving of the marginalization, particularly regarding the interesting (medical for example) questions it raises.

All those distinctions probably could be a death of a thousand needles where you could easily fight each needle at a time, but I think it also marginalizes a bit the other atheistic extreme. It seems that different hills are fought over and the rationale for each differs. Thomas Nagel for example defends ID as a science but lately defends that it should be taught in school as well so his approach is a legal/educational one. Fontan for more of the philosophical and scientific questions that can be raised outside of God did it. Fuller approaches it from a social scientific standpoint and equality in perspective. But what would you say about someone like Nick Bostrom for example. Certainly no Christian IDst, but he defends his simulation argument based on evidence of fine tuning in the universe and biologically to coincide with a simulation creator(s) - or programmer(s), possibly another simulated advanced race. Would that count? His approach is more metaphysical. Or what about David Eagleman http://www.eagleman.com/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=18 who argues based on the epistemological position of "possibilianism" that atheism over commits but so does theism, there are several viable possibilities - certainly not an IDist per se but someone at least willing to defend it from the radical atheists simple waving of the hand at it.

The battle over irreducible complexity is also a different battle than say the necessary presumption of materialism in regards to the origin of life. That is more of a philosophical battle, at least right now. That is also a different battle than for example the scientific debate over mutation or symbiogenesis that for example Lynn Margulis (http://discover.coverleaf.com/discoverm ... pg=68#pg70) wages where she agrees that ID's criticisms are valid (she wouldn't agree with any God did it conclusion of course) but would validating IDs arguments count?

In Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves (Harper Press, 2009) James Le Fanu, an apparently agnostic physician and writer, contends:

The Ascent of Man from knuckle-walking chimp to upright human seems . . . almost self-evident, yet it conceals events that are without precedent in the whole of biology . . . This discrepancy between the beguiling simplicities of evolutionary theory and the profundity of the biological phenomena it seems to explain is very striking . . . Here the greatest virtue of Darwin's proposed mechanism, its simplicity, might seem its greatest drawback ? that it is far too simple to begin to account for the complexities of life . . . There is . . . more than enough evidence already to suspect that Darwin was less right than is commonly perceived.

He seems more concerned with Darwinism is part of a puzzle that is still very very incomplete and ID provides critique of those missing pieces and possible alternative answers. He might be closer to Jerry Fodor.

This same ambiguity exists on the other side of this fence. Obviously among those you listed such as Stephen Meyer, an inference toward design is what is argued for, like if a rocket ship was photographed on another planet we would infer intelligent design. But Del Ratzsch argues that we perceive it rather than infer it, you know I dig that.

My point is Droopy might have been overly broad and your are affirmed, but the counter inference of your charge might also be charged with being too narrow. Particularly depending on what issues ID is being discussed with. I waffle a bit when the atheist reduces today's ID to yesterdays creationism, common roots sure, some funny business in the courtroom, ya - metaphysically, theologically, philosophically and scientifically all the same, not so sure.

my regards, mikwut