Er…no he didn’t.

“From what little I have read of the [*ntelligent *esign] movement . . . ”

That’s a very honest admission, and I hope you’ll take the logical next step, if interested (or at least planning to discuss it frequently). Some (slightly aged) suggestions: Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against The New Creationism, by Robert Pennock, by Barabara Forrest and Paul Gross, the first half of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth Miller, pretty much anything about the Dover trial, including a google search for “cdesign proponentsists”, and of course, the infamous “Wedge document”, written by Discovery Institute staff and leaked over 10 years ago.

Basic idea: there’s no there there. There is no legitimate intelligent design movement apart from creationism (there may have been the occasional philosophical or theological musing being published in exceedingly arcane journals, but if so they were basically parasitized, hollowed out, and discarded by the ID movement). It’s actually a strategy that evolved to get around the (especially) legal and social defeats dealt out to creationism in the 80s, and funded by a number of wealthy right-wing cranks.

Sorry.

That’s a very honest admission, and I hope you’ll take the logical next step, if interested (or at least planning to discuss it frequently). Some (slightly aged) suggestions: Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against The New Creationism, by Robert Pennock, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Barabara Forrest and Paul Gross, the first half of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth Miller, pretty much anything about the Dover trial, including a google search for cdesign proponentsists, and of course, the infamous Wedge document, written by Discovery Institute staff and leaked over 10 years ago.

Basic idea: there’s no there there. There is no legitimate intelligent design movement apart from creationism (there may have been the occasional philosophical or theological musing being published in exceedingly arcane journals, but if so they were basically parasitized, hollowed out, and discarded by the ID movement). It’s basically a strategy that evolved to get around the legal and social defeats dealt creationism in the 80s, and funded by a number of wealthy right-wing cranks.

I am somewhat amazed at the virulence with which the original concept (intelligent design with a small”i…

I’m amazed that you’re amazed at something that’s purely a figment of your imagination. Intelligent design, regardless of capitalization, has never been anything but a top-down movement, the latest Trojan Horse, designed in hope of getting around the First Amendment, brought to you by the same people who previously peddled “Creation Science”. (Consult the Dover trial record for more details.)

I am somewhat amazed at the virulence with which the original concept (intelligent design with a small”i”) it is attacked by the scientific community. From what little I have read of the movement it’s original proponents have come mainly from the medical and scientific community

Observation/comment: I find it intriguing that only the Hindu religion has a concept of the age of the universe that roughly approximates what the scientific “consensus” holds it to be.

Strangely, I didn’t find much discussion of “intelligent design” here on this thread. My view is that while I full well realize why creationists seize upon the concept (intelligent design with the big “I”) and conflate it as being congruent with creationism to further their own agenda, I am somewhat amazed at the virulence with which the original concept (intelligent design with a small”i”) it is attacked by the scientific community. From what little I have read of the movement it’s original proponents have come mainly from the medical and scientific community with some very specific questions that evolutionists have not always handled well as far as I can see—although I will frankly admit I have not kept up with all the literature in the running debate. As such it seems to me they are saying that “ID” is not a paradigm that seeks to replace/supplant evolution, so much as modify it in the same way that Einstein’s physics did not supplant Newton’s, but only provided an alternate understanding for alternate situations, i.e., Newtonian physics seen as operating quite comfortable within the larger envelope of E=MCsqrd. (e.g., If I want to fire a missile from one point on the globe and successfully hit a target on another, the calculations that allow me to do that successfully are all Newton’s physics—not Einstein’s—and we won’t even get into the Quantum world). Even Darwin believed that religion had a role to play.

Seen in the above light, is the reason that so many are violently hostile to even discuss any aspect intelligent design with a small “i” with their questioning counterparts within the scientific community simply the fact they believe that the mere existence of any version of this concept unduly aides and abets Creationists and Creationism—or is it a hypersensitive reaction of some to criticisms they have trouble addressing? I am “agnostic” on this subject, myself, so am eliciting views.

You are not giving empirical evidence that the set of unselfish actions is empty, you are defining terms so that this is tautologically true.

As an empiricist-by-identity, you might wonder how it is possible for philosophers to discuss any subject under the heading of Metaphysics while entertaining any sort of hope of advancing their understanding of The Truth. There are actually two things they can rely on to help improve the accuracy of their guesses: (1) Logic, and (2) the existence of Other Minds.

When I share my [metaphysical] guesses with others who are philosophically inclined, they will either say, “I see things the same way” or “that doesn’t make any sense.” Validation of your guesses by another mind is not proof that your conceptualization is 100% accurate, but it is helpful. If the majority of other minds that hear of your conceptualization agree that it is ‘useful’, then you will develop a greater degree of confidence in your speculation. Absolute certainty is not something you can realistically hope to obtain through philosophical musings.

Logic is not quite as useful in metaphysics as we would like it to be. After all, logic can be flawlessly used by two different individuals to justify two completely opposite conclusions (think politics/economics). They embrace opposite conclusions not because one or the other of them [or both] is using faulty logic, but simply because they differ in the initial premises they have embraced.. What logic can do for us in metaphysics is point out when some of the assumptions we are advancing are logically inconsistent with other assumptions that we also claim to embrace, or because they contradict certain observable facts.

Ultimately, in the absence of absolute certainty, we have no choice but to rely on our guesses re: many metaphysical questions. Because this is true, I assert that ALL guesses re: the existence of God, the possibility of an Afterlife, etc., are equally legitimate as long as we are not embracing logical contradictions or a guess that is inconsistent with observable fact. Go ahead and criticize someone’s metaphysical speculations for being logically inconsistent with other un-provable assumptions, but do not make the mistake of criticizing a philosopher’s ‘guess’ for not being a fact.

So: other statements notwithstanding, this indicates, I think that W. was aware that there was a truth component to at least some aspects of Christianity, that many/most of these truth statements were incompatible with modern science, and that, for that reason, he,W., could not bring himself in good faith (!) to agree with them.

It also occurs to me, as I stated above that this arguments apply particularly to the Big Three religions and only dubiously, if at all,to other religions (Eastern ‘religions’ for example). But one could go further. One could argue that Dawkins’ real point is aimed specifically at Christianity, and that Judaism and Islam are much less exposed. I’m not an expert here, but my understanding is that Judaism and Islam are much more to be understood as forms of life, and ethical and political affiliations that Christianity. Judaism to an extent and Islam, much more so, are also much less hierarchical than, say Catholicism, which has a Pope, who is ‘infallible’ and who defines Truth (scientific and otherwise) for the faithful. Moreover, as I pointed out above, Christianity, much more than the other two, is bound to a scientific type truth claim, NOT that God created the Heavens and the Earth (which can easily be understood in a metaphorical or metaphysical way) but that, 2000 years ago, a man rose from the dead. Neither Islam nor Judaism are tied to a claim like that in such a specific sense. Moreover, my understanding is that the ‘aesthetic’ argument (which is, you might recall, where we came in) doesn’t really apply to Christianity, but DOES apply to Islam: many Muslims argue (apparently) that the aesthetic aspects of the Koran that are almost as important as any other aspect of it: indeed, some have converted (apparently) because the beauty of the poetry convinced them that this really was the word of God (which is a truth claim, but not an ersatz scientific one).

Which one is which?

Metaphysics, exactly.

But following Wittgenstein, let’s say we’re not going to do it the old way, we’re not going to build abstract and aery theories—instead we’re going to look to the usage of the words, and then we’re going to leave it there.

The usages show that the referents are different:

(1) We point to a horse and say “horse,” to teach a child the meaning, the referent of that symbol. No arguments there.

(2) We point to different sets of things, each set containing two objects, and say “two,” and the child understands. But philosophers will argue about where THAT concept exists: “it’s a logical class,” “it’s a Platonic ideal,” whatever. (In my own opinion it will always be irredeemably dualist, and I don’t care.) Number is metaphysical, but we give this particular metaphysics a “get out of jail free” card, because the operations we use it for are fruitful in science.

(3) Further on: How do we point to being, and how do we point to a set of instructions to bring about a change in being? What is a proper language for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zimbabwe_$100_trillion_2009_Obverse.jpg

How is the former, without the latter, different from being moved by a work of fiction? basically, the difference between the US dollar and the Zimbabwean dollar.

So you assert. But that leaves me with my original question: where is the added value? In the community (which seems to be Phil’s answer)? I can see that, to some extent. I used to attend Unitarian Universalist churches for that reason, and might well do so again in the future. But I can easily do so without taking Eagletosh’s kind of umbrage at Dawkins.