Don't tell anyone, but...
By Mark Vernon on Thursday, December 24 2009, 07:48 - Personal observations - Permalink
... I'm reading a book advocating Intelligent Design. It feels a bit naughty, in a cigarettes-behind-the-shed kind of way. I know it's not good for me, but so many of the great and good condemn ID that the temptation became irresistible. I've picked Stephen Meyer's Signature In The Cell: DNA And The Evidence For Intelligent Design. Thomas Nagel, one of the most articulate philosophers around, and an atheist, picked it as a book of the year in the TLS. The letters page storm is still raging. So far, it's very readable, very knowledgeable about evolution, its philosophy and history, though it feels a bit god-of-the-gappy, and rather like Newton's deism depended upon a mechanistic model of the universe, Meyer's deism, if that's what it is, appears to depend upon an informational model of biology. But I'm only a chapter or two in. Shh!
Comments
Mark, Have you read much or all of the Wiki page/article by Jimmy Wales re the Wedge Strategy promoted by the "Discovery" Institute.
To me this is essential reading because it provides the necessary context(s) for understanding the political and cultural purposes of this book, especially as it relates to the science vs exoteric religionism culture wars in the USA. And the related project to re-"Christianize" the USA.
Power politics all the way down. Rather than turtles all the way down or the fact that all supposed explanations ultimately dissolve in laughter or paradox.
Not much laughter, paradox, or de-light to be found at the "Discovery" Institute.
Brian Leiter has also made some very scathing comments re this review on his Leiter report.
Mark, Do you know that the heavy-weight billionaire who provided the set-up finance for the "Discovery" Institute is on public record as being openly hostile toward homo-sexuals. He attended the Anglican GAFCON anti-gay gab-fest in Jersualem.
I imagine that the said institute is also very actively involved in promoting the world-wide anti-gay movement.
Plus a quote: "Basically, the "Creator-God" idea is a simplistic philosophical idea, based on a very primitive and naive point of view. It appeals to people who have not yet profoundly considered its horrific implications."
The thing is I don't doubt the Discovery Institute has vile politics. The Vatican has vile politics, and is on a worldwide mission. But that doesn't mean not reading anything it can be associated with. Also, I'm wondering whether some of the stuff associated with ID might be interesting, though not for ID's sake: ID seems to me to be so clearly flawed on theological grounds, let alone on scientific grounds, that I wonder any thoughtful believer takes it seriously per se. Rather, I wonder whether the more thoughtful advocates of ID - and perhaps Meyer is one of those - have anything to contribute to (a) breaking the neo-Darwinian consensus which any wider reading in evolution (not least Darwin himself) does seem to be unnecessarily self-limiting, even self-policing; and (b) to the mystery that is life, on which scientific naturalism is just one voice, if a very fascinating one.
I am a scientist, a molecular biologist, and I have no problem stating that the universe is some kind of system wherein things, like atoms and forces and conglomerations thereof, act according to their natures--for instance, oxygen wants to combine with hydrogen----and that these behaviors and forces and natures -- you could call it the nature of the universe as a whole--- created life and all else, according to its nature. Yes, I am asserting that the creation of life is in accordance with the nature of the universe. I am even willing to say that the purpose of the universe is to create life as part of the fulfillment of its nature--that in some way life is a kind of aim or goal in accordance with its nature. Why not? I just have no problem with that.
As for a christian creator god--as in the old testament---the old man in the sky----that is absurd. It is the introduction of such a stupid entity that divides me from the christian creationists and places me in vehemnent opposition to them. I say bring in Ockham and straightaway cut out that idiotic anthropomorphism!
But then who created the universe? Why, the Universe of course!
Keep the creationist boneheads from the threshold of science----let science be science. Evolution and biology is a favorite point of entry for creationist crap----and yes, sure, there are all kinds of problems with evolutionary theory--but these are scientific problems and they will have scientific solutions. Great modifications in evolutionary theory, if they happen, will be a scientific solution; to introduce a creationist god is irrelevant---a wave of god's hand is not a scientific conception and that is what it comes down to. Science is science in great part because a wave of god's (or some such entity's hand) is not a scientific conception or mechanism. The exclusion of such an entity from explanation is a foundation of science and central to its identity and its effectiveness. The same creationists who seek help from medical science to cure their ills, want to undermine the scientific culture that made their cures possible-- by forceful introduction of the great white father. Idiots! My prayers are to Saint Ockham tonight!
Mark, I'm sure we would all be interested to hear your thoughts on this book when you're done with it (though you might have to close such a post to comments to preserve your sanity!).