Good job! I am an engineer, and engineering is defined as science + intelligent design. We are generally quite contemptuous of the notion that ID is subordinate to science, since it is quite clearly outside of science. It gets even worse when ID becomes subordinate to theology, because theologians had a science class once upon a time. The other side is that ID quite clearly exists. The other missing ingredient is that at some level ID is part of our subconscious makeup (the image of God?) which almost certainly precludes humans from thinking in a non-ID reference frame towards design.

I'd love to have you break that down more. I think I agree with you. I am a programmer by occupation, but was a philosophy student in college, and come with a penchant for science. All this to say I am versed in all concepts needed for this discussion, but not compentent enough in any to be an “expert.” Could you explain what you are saying a little more?

In the book (Personal Knowledge) actually terms the conflation of 'science' and 'operating principles' as technology/machines. Which is precisely why that quote is perfect – science cannot account for operating principles. And yes, in the case of a machine, operating principles clearly exist otherwise the machine would not exist as such.

@jobelenus, (I presume that this is your blog?) my threats checker is giving warnings on this blog!

@Kevin, I think the article does a good summary of breaking things down between science and ID. My last statements about unconscious ID is something that was hammered into my head as I spent time trying to take simple ideas that people have and turn them into reliable computer code. “Stack the blocks as high as you can.” “Make a standing house from the cards.” A kindergartner can do these things, but a single person cannot even fathom all the steps needed to make a device perform those operations. If I try to explain to someone why a simple operation can't be easily turned into a sequence of steps, they will have a hard time grasping what I am saying. More intelligent people tend to do even more complex things through subconscious ID. It is due to this that I think that humans are not capable of thinking rationally about design from a non-ID perspective.

Looney, everything here is pretty kosher. I don't know what “threats checker” you have, but it could be yelly about the Disqus cross-site scripting.

I would not use terms like “subconscious ID” or “non-ID” about this. People no longer think about knowledge in a personal way. They do not think about how “they just know” how to do these things. Because “things I just know” are ruled out of court as meaningful by Kant and objectivism.

Oddly enough we still worship at that altar when we watch sports and take in art. These people “just know” how to do what they do. Sure there is training. But there is no way they can (scientifically) explain how to throw a curveball, hit a home run, or strike a football into the upper corner. They just look and do. It makes sense to them because of all the personal knowledge they've acquired doing it. These are all valid claims for knowledge. And these valid claims for knowledge, as well as the study of language/rhetoric all form the basis for a neo-platonic understanding of the world which, in turn, was the basis for a thousand years of Christian theology.

The system I use is AVG Free.

Plantinga says that we have a properly basic belief in God. I would tend to agree with you yet there is problem of what I call the Church of Darwin who would like to reduce all to materialism and draw whatever meaning that can be grasped to free us from God. Science is a tool but it is what is done with that tool by a mind that tends to get in the way. ID likes to keep to things like irreducible complexity that only speaks against chaos. Understanding the limitations being given to ID much less science makes it a worthy pursuit as you (Kant) keep all to a pure magisterial.

Jape, Your comment:

“Science is a tool but it is what is done with that tool by a mind that tends to get in the way”

is much like mine:

“Science does not tell us we are a cosmic accident. People are telling us that. And that is what we should be arguing against.”

Against, however, your comment: “ID likes to keep to things like irreducible complexity that only speaks against chaos.” My issue is that ID does so on the wrong grounds, the grounds of science. It should do so on the grounds of philosophy and of theology. It should speak against chaos on the issue of understanding ourselves and the world around us as vestiges (using the language of the first millennia of the church), and ourselves as the image of God. My issue is that we should speak on the grounds that are correct, and, secondarily, that we can win. The every same grounds we have fought on for a thousand years before the rise of Christian thought which combated Aristotelian objectivism in Aquinas.

I think we are in the midst of a cultural war in a free and open marketplace of ideas. In essence this may be a problem of semantics in regard to the tactics available to us. What I am trying to say is that the atheist can't help but make metaphysical claims just as the theist and scientific claims. We can and do win on the grounds you mention but in some ways we must make effort to go into enemy territory so to speak. A sorites of arguments that are woven together. Let's face the fact that ID can only show an alien or Gödel's higher meta-validation as a necessary being. I think as part of the sorites I speak of then ID as only a small player yet is valid in a limited role to seek to get the stubborn materialist to see that more can be revealed. I think we need all the tools available in an effort to win hearts and minds.

Jape,

I think your comment:
“Let's face the fact that ID can only show an alien or Gödel's higher meta-validation as a necessary being”

ignores all of what I said in my post. ID cannot show design/meaning/value through science. Science cannot answer those questions by design. To ask science to do such an act is to misunderstand its use.

Of course, “the atheist can't help but make metaphysical claims just as the theist”. Yet, we must show them that they are not making these claims on the basis of science but on some other antecedent belief they have. That is the battleground.

Jape,nnI think your comment:n”Let’s face the fact that ID can only show an alien or Gu00f6del’s higher meta-validation as a necessary being”nnignores all of what I said in my post. ID cannot show design/meaning/value through science. Science cannot answer those questions by design. To ask science to do such an act is to misunderstand its use.nnOf course, “the atheist can’t help but make metaphysical claims just as the theist”. Yet, we must show them that they are not making these claims on the basis of science but on some other antecedent belief they have. That is the battleground.