Skip to main content

I am NOT an advocate of ID, but this criticism by Shermer is lame

Michael Shermer argues that ID stifles creativity.  I can see why one would think this claim plausible: it is easy to imagine that one who believes in ID thinks that acceptance of that hypothesis amounts to saying "God did it miraculously" whenever one encounters a phenomenon that's too difficult to expalin via natural causes.  But once we know that God did it, there seems to be no need to ask how God effected this mystery: the only answer that can be given is that it was done miraculously.  And why did God perform this miracle?  Because God chose to do so.   Why does God choose to act one way rather than another?  One cannot explain this completely, because if one could give a complete explanation of God's actions, then it would the case that those actions happened necessarily.  In which case they would not be free. 

This appeal to divine will is a bit of a conversation stopper--if the conversation is one about scientific explanation.  Hence Shermer opposes ID so that the scientific conversation--and the creativity that takes place therein--may flourish.

BUT Shermer also mentions an experiment that supposedly shows that ID need to rejected.  Well, if IF generates such research then it is not a source of complacency in the scientific community at large.  In fact, it may generate a lack of complacency.  For if it poses challenges worthy of consideration (IF!), then those who accept these challenges will have to come up with demonstrations to prove what they previously more or less took for granted.  The key word in this paragraph is, of course, 'if'!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more