The Human Question

At one point in his Design Revolution he indicates that the design component could have been placed in matter with the big bang at the beginning of the universe (my comment: in this case ID would fall under the anthropic principle). At another point (chapter 19) he suggests that information enters ex nihilo (with a little help from quantum indeterminacy)--not at the beginning of the universe, but--after the creation of the universe. I suppose both could be affirmed as partial explanations, so it is not a case of a clear-cut inconsistency. But why isn't he clear on this? Maybe he is treating this issue an an empirical one and is exploring two possible options that would both be consistent with the very general thesis that some type of ID at some time helped originate the present species. Also, maybe the talk of ex nihilo another way of saying that design is not something that you can quantify. It's a kind of qualia , as in the qualia that escape description of sensation ...

Intelligent design is not the only alternative to random variation. The other alternative is a genus, non-random. ID is a species of non-random explanations, one that can be further divided into first-cell ID, creationist ID (start off with more than one life form), and stages ID (that is, a series of miracles guide evolution). The other species within the genus of non-random evolution is teleological evolution that does not admit of mechanistic explanation (ID is essentially a theory about biochemical mechanics). The other major species can be divided in to different species (all of which may be dubious, but that's another question). Those species include the already discredit Lamarkian explanation of evolution, which is that use modifies inheritance. Another would be more gene savy, but deny that mutation proceeds like, as Gould said in Full House, a drunk man walking... Instead, the telos of the first life form was the human. A kind of unconscious force, as it were. Now ...

I am not on the ID bandwagon, but when someone like RD says that the teaching of it is harmful to the education of children, I am tempted to change the subject just a little and point out that RD does at least as much damage with his announcing that science undermines belief in God. For doing so makes science into something that it is not. It makes science look like a threat to theism when it is not, and that certainly does not motivate parents to promote the study of science. When talking about what science teaches us, he should stick to the sorts of facts that can be established through research in scientific journals.

...meme theory or intelligent design? (that is, which is harder to test) That is, which proposal is less likely ever to come up with a testable hypothesis? Another question: doesn't meme theory show a basic ignorance of the difference between social science and natural science? For it tries to gain an understanding of cultural phenomena (shared thoughts, practices and goals) by comparing them to the kinds of things you might find in the bottom of a test tube. Well those are two different sorts of cultures! Who needs to thematize meaning, intentionality, evidence and TRUTH (especially universal and necessary truth)? Let's drop all of those themes from our study of religion and society: let's instead treat cultural patterns like viruses! To borrow from HLA Hart, this is like trying to understand a traffic signal by noting patterns of stopping and starting but ignoring the possibility that the light functions as a sign: self-stultification. To this criticism one mi...