intelligent design, right and wrong

I think things were getting interesting when people were trying to compare and contrast creationism and IDC.I'm very suspicious of attempts to separate IDC from standard creationism, and I'm even reluctant to refer to "Intelligent Design" without adding "Creationism," although I'm sure that's not a designation that proponents of IDC prefer. Dembski himself objected to the way Robert Pennock consistently uses the 'IDC' tag. Needless to say, that's a good enough reason for me to adopt it as well.However, the IDC'ers should be careful to what extent they declare IDC has diverged from the original creationist population. After all, the main thrust of IDC is identical to standard creationism: casting doubt upon the Darwinist scientific orthodoxy. The end result of this strategy is supposed to be the downfall of naturalist, materialist, reductionist science. Here's the problem: what replaces it?IDC's insistence that it is a different philosophical entity from standard creationism is a double-edged sword, it seems. Though it would allow IDC to distance itself from religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism, it would also make explicit the fact that no one philosophy could claim to replace Darwinism by default.This would force IDC to create a more positive account of its methodology, something that does not seem forthcoming.

I'd rather eat an ice cream.Are we back on topic now?

The IDC forum site bears as its motto, "Retraining the Scientific Imagination to See Purpose in Nature." I suppose it's nice to know what you're looking for, and it's to be expected that IDC will be able to recognize it when it sees it.However, I agree with holmes that the IDC strategy reveals motives not nearly so noble. If scientists perform experiments and publish papers that challenge the reigning orthodoxy, there should be Nobel prizes and massive grant money in their future. Then I would imagine that school curricula would change to reflect the shift in scientific perspective.IDC's complete lack of success in building a realistic research program or constructing a scientific methodology to replace what they consider the inadequate naturalistic model has not prevented its proponents from claiming that IDC comprises a scientific alternative to Darwinism. Their attempts to force IDC into the schools despite its lack of impact in the lab seem premature at best, and irresponsible at worst.

I hope IDC will be as unsuccessful in its quest to renew culture as it has been in its efforts to revolutionize science. Let's not forget one thing that the Intelligent Design Creationists say that Design thinking will recognize: that societies and social behavior have also been designed for certain purposes. Am I wrong in wondering if anything at odds with this perceived social purpose will not be tolerated?Daniel Dennett has argued that the Darwinian revolution frees us from the deterministic dead-end of mind-first philosophy. While we understand that most distinctions (life, species, language, consciousness, etc.) are more accurately seen as differences of degree than as differences in essence, we can make distinctions when they are useful to us.For example, we understand that all languages are part of a continuum in which distinctions can't be made with complete certainty. However, a traveler to Paris can buy a French phrasebook based on the fact that certain oversimplifications are necessary in life.In the same way, morality without mind-first philosophical baggage is not doomed to utter subjectivity. Just because we don't have the convenience of an essentialist doctrine that declares that 'right' and 'wrong' are mutually exclusive universals does not mean that anything goes. We can determine the fitness of certain behavior or moral choices in their context, and declare certain ethical distinctions that we feel are necessary.Intelligent Design Creationism wants us to acknowledge purpose in Nature. If we fail to see it, that simply means our imaginations have to be 'retrained.' Imagine what's in store for us if we fail to acknowledge the grand purpose in human society.

Daniel Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' is probably my all-time favorite book. I'm a voracious reader and I've read some amazing books, but that one is truly staggering.Intelligent design creationism asserts that where there's design, there must be a designer, even when we're looking at living things. What they forget is that in our experience, intelligence has never been responsible for the design of living things. Dennett says the cranes of natural selection have done the design work, and the ingenuity of these purposeless processes is a wonder to behold. Whether the raw material for the Darwinian algorithm is genetic, statistical, or philosophical, the output is always determined by fitness functions alone, and never any moral or teleological absolutes.In that case, is right or wrong merely an illusion, like the intelligence people try to see in undirected natural processes? Not necessarily. The Darwinian framework frees us from the obligations to discern divine purpose and enforce God-mandated absolutes. We're free to set our own standards (to determine the fitness functions ourselves, as it were) and allow the program to shape society in a way we consider rational and just.------------------
Quien busca, halla

Parasomnium,I have to agree with Crashfrog here. Slam-dunking bored 14-year-olds with no discernible scientific background may be as sporting as beating infants at chess, but there's no real entertainment to be had raking the mentally ill over the coals.In the past, I've made light of Brad's thread-killing abilities as well as his habit of name-dropping. His desperate logorrhea makes for reading that's either comical or poignant, depending on your degree of empathy. Brad may be incoherent, but his participation here is tolerated even if rarely understood.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.