And that should be phrased even stronger, given its influence (along with the standard others) upon Darwin’s thought – what sort of things he looked at, what questions he (eventually) asked.

But who keeps the scaffolding up after the building’s finished?*

• horrible analogy, of course, since the building is most certainly not finished, but a better one would have to involve some weird self-hoisting scaffolding that removes itself from each floor after it enables work to begin on the floor above. . . . Ugh. And for my next trick, I’ll draw an ironic New Yorker cover . . . !

IIRC, at least earlier you had argued that design could help people to look at biological structures from a design perspective, and so learn useful things. What confuse me is, well, isn’t this what already happens, without any need to undermine modern science?

Probably true – after all, it just came out last month and (for those of us in the States) apparently isn’t being sold in the US yet (though it can be ordered). Of course, you being the author and all, you’re in a pretty good position to explain what we’re missing, though I can certainly understand that you’d be reluctant to do so in what’s proved to be a fairly unsympathetic forum.

“This is just a profession of faith-based science”

What does that even mean, besides also being a common creationist claim (that science is just another religion, and a particularly dogmatic kind of fundamentalism at that – see also ‘I know you are but what am I’)?

Apparently your new book’s cover flap argues that* “
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is itself best understood as the work of a failed ID theorist.“. That’s quite clever!, given Darwin’s respect for and early admiration of Paley’s work. It’s a fascinating perspective though, a bit like describing William Harvey as a failed Galenite.

From what little I’ve picked up of the history of science, though, I certainly wouldn’t discount the importance of (within science) now-discarded guiding ideas, worn-out intellectual structures, and obsolete methodologies in providing focus, impetus, space for study and question-framing, avenues of research and argument – in their time. But when their time has passed . . . ah, a perfect metaphor: ID creationism (and related issues) once was a living field of inquiry, but ultimately died. Unfortunately though, over a century later foolish mortals sought to resurrect it and now it wanders the the earth not as a living science, not even a pseudoscience, but as an undead science! Indeed, as a scientific vampire, a simulacrum of life lacking any productive power and able to sustain its unnatural and twilight existence by draining others. And it sucks.

Yes, I’m just entertaining myself (and am so easily amused!) but it’s not like you’re giving me anything to work with, so why not?

And it does sound like you might be pushing ideas about the importance of certain ideas within Christianity for the development of modern science unusually far . . .

Cover flap says: “Steve Fuller argues that hostility to ID is based less on science than sheer anti-religious bigotry. ”

Do you really believe this? (Which is, of course, another, albeit implicit, creationist talking point). Can you think of any other reasons why people might be hostile to ID? Although yes, I know that the tireless opposition to ID of noted hardcore atheist and anti-religious bigot Ken Miller . . . wait, what? Oh . . . (yes, yes, I know, proves nothing, and anyway he’s just a horrible ol’ theistic evolutionist . . . )

• and yes, I know that analysis via blurb can be a bit . . . tricky. Hey, if you send me a free copy, I’ll certainly read it!

ID (or Paleyism) is NOT a clever and novel scientific idea with some possible insights for unimaginative traditionalists; it’s a fraud perpetrated by fraudsters. The reason many scientists won’t engage in debate with proponents (or should that be propenstists?) of ID is that their vacuous drivel has prejudice but no insight. As Michael Behe showed, their most powerful argument is an argument from their own ignorance: “I don’t understand it, therefore nobody understands it, therefore God, sorry some unspecified intelligent designer, did it.”

There is no case for a discussion of the methodological naturalism with regard to ID any more than there would be with regard to a political party or campaigning group.

Of course, if ID people want to do some honest research of their own, rather than publish speculation in creationist tracts, I’m sure the world of biology would be interested and amused to read it!

Steve Poole gave the book a flaming review because he’s a sensible guy using his brain. One does not need specialist knowledge to know a crocked argument when it’s as grotesquely obvious as suggesting that the mendacity of religious dunderheads could provide rational insight.

Guess I’ll go read some Pennock.

But of course, I realize that threads of this kind are not designed really to discuss serious issues but simply to engage in some form of intellectual bloodsport, where you declare lynching season on someone. Some of the bloggers on Crooked Timber seem to find this acceptable behaviour. How it squares with their avowed dedication to liberalism completely eludes me.

The only reason why I posted Keith Ward’s review from the Times Higher is that the review that got this thread going, which was so widely lauded by people who hadn’t even read the book, was by someone (Steven Poole) whose main achievement has been in the aesthetics of videogames. He clearly did not know what to make of ‘Dissent over Descent’ but knew he didn’t like me (he was part of an earlier lynch mob on this blog) and so he trotted out some anti-ID boilerplate and cherry-picked some suitably outrageous quotes to put the book in the worst possible light. I suppose that’s his right. However, more neutral parties coming to this blog might wonder whether Poole got it right with his ‘outright gibberish’ judgement. Of course, I could have said no myself, but given the number of people on this blog who presume that if not I’m an idiot, I’m a liar, I realized that would have been a futile gesture.

There are some very interesting and important discussions to be had about methodological naturalism and all the other evo-ID topics, but this is not the place to have them.

Well.
. . . I suppose I could try that. And certainly I have so little background in the relevant fields I’m sure there’s much I’m not understanding . . . – Though, have you significantly changed your views since ‘05/’06? I’d be particularly curious to hear where you currently stand on ID in the classroom, especially if it doesn’t involve international shipping fees (a depressingly large amount of my teeny book budget went, amusingly enough, towards Lebo’s “The Devil in Dover“).

Anyway, my first question, on methodological naturalism, references the current review you linked to; given your comment about how the reviewer had “actually read and understood it,” I was assuming that you didn’t feel it substantially misrepresented anything. I don’t entirely understand why it’s a non-sensible question.

The Designer did it?

also: “that’s not an interpretation I’m familiar with . . . esp. in terms of scientific work – that really should lose the “esp.” – although I actually haven’t seen reference to that argument before the early 20thC – would like to hear more ‘bout that?

{follows link}: “There is a major proofreading error on page 173, which turns the Ontological Argument into nonsense. Deleting the word “that” will restore sense.”

I have to say, this is one of the most amusing things I’ve read out of this whole to-do (along with the Wedge Document’s mention of “modern approaches . . . to product liability” as one of the hideous consequences stemming from the evil triumph of materialism – also certain bits of the Dover trial transcript and that pithy little saying about Dembski and jello).

Anyway – Mr. Fuller, I was hoping you might show up – having gone back and read some of your earlier posts& comments here and at Berube’s old blog, I’ve been walking around with that frustrating stuck-arguing-in-one’s-head-with-an-absent-interlocutor feeling, one not easily satisfied by talking back at years-old blog comments. Although I must admit I haven’t read your book or any other non-bloggish works, and from what I’ve seen suspect I wouldn’t be able to make sense of it – like I was saying yesterday, you often seem to be approaching these issues with utterly unfamiliar (to me) aims and means, and very little in the way of common ground. And real life demands that I step away from the computer for at least a few hours . . .

Still I’m curious about what that reviewer describes as your characterization of methodological naturalism as “a ‘pseudophilosophy’ fuelled by bigotry.” At least on the surface, this does seem unfortunately familiar – Phillip Johnson and all. What’s up with that? – and why does (what I see as) a highly formalized version of ‘No, no, we need a plumber, not an exorcist’ (etc.) comes in for such criticism? (There also seems some contradiction or shift of focus, if I understand correctly, since you appear to be arguing for design as (despite no current evidence for any accuracy or predictive power on its part) a way to encourage certain (useful?) attitudes and outcomes —yet one could view methodological naturalism in something of a similar light, and with much more evidence of its usefulness and . . . nonintrusiveness, I guess, but that’s going to have to be left confused for now.

Also, something Dr. Free-Ride’s responding to in her old linked post:
“what was provocative about Origin of the Species was not the prospect that a theory of plant and animal species could also explain humans, but the exact opposite: that a theory so obviously grounded in the explanatory framework of laissez faire capitalism could be generalized across all of nature. ” – that’s not an interpretation I’m familiar with (though I should repeat here that I have at best a rather pop acquaintance with the history of evolutionary theory), esp. in terms of scientific work – where should I look, what contemporary works, arguments, figures?

I’m also unsure how your general . . . framework? applies elsewhere, say in terms of the history of plate tectonics, or the Alvarez hypothesis (dinosaur, meet asteroid. bye-bye!), the channeled scablands debate (perhaps the closest, in some ways, but also showing how much contrast there is really is), or the role of Helicobacter pylori in causing many ulcers – another striking contrast, really . . .

Also, to bounce off what jim said at 6:22 on 7/21, about democratization of science – I think Dr. Free-Ride had an excellent point in saying (old linked post again):
However, it seems to me that there is a way in which lack of uniformity in core science curricula may actually undercut the prospects for democratizing the tribe of science. Sound scientific education—education that reflects the methodologies scientists actually use to build new knowledge, and that exposes students to the theoretical frameworks scientists have found most productive in building new knowledge—may be necessary for students to have, as a live option, the possibility of becoming scientists and joining the tribe of science. ”

More later. FWIW.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402929&c=2