Joined: Oct. 2006
Fuller wrote, and I remarked:
|‘Intelligent design’ is presumably something more than a long-winded way of saying ‘design’. The phrase implies that the design displays signs of intelligence, which in turn means that the nature of the intelligence can be inferred, however fallibly, from the nature of the design...Contrast this with a ‘design science’ that insists that nothing about the artisan follows from the artefact. We know the artefact is designed simply because it functions in certain capacities in certain environments – and ‘design science’ is about identifying such things and making inferences about their functions, nothing more.|
The inferences drawn by "design science" are to agency, which is very much something more. The feigned agnosticism deployed by the ID movement concerns the identity of the agent and features that go beyond bare agency...Fuller again equivocates upon the word "design." He has assigned "design" one meaning (the fact of biological complexity and adaptedness), while the entire ID movement wants another (an inference to agency.) The actual "controversy" concerns whether biological complexity and adaptedness arose from natural processes, or instead reflects agency. No one in evolutionary biology resorts to explanation in terms of agency, whether intelligent or unintelligent.
Now Fuller just so happens to comment:
|I need to see more upfront from you before I answer, since life is short and I don’t know where you’re coming from. It’s clear that I believe that ‘intelligence’ doesn’t make sense without the ascription of agency.|
If so, Steve, you need to abandon your references to "card carrying Darwinists" and the research program of EvoDevo, because neither make reference to agency, your obfuscating equivocations on terms of art not withstanding.
(Hi, Steve! Your new post isn't any better.)
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace