Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote | Upright Biped: ID is making a frontal assault on one of the (if not the) most widely held, yet still debated, beliefs in modern academia – that all observations made by mankind are explained by the random interactions of particle matter, i.e. design is an illusion. To back up their claim, they have (for all practical purposes) the entire global science and media machines on their side. I know this for a fact, I work there.
In making an assault on ideological materialism there are a few tidbits of vast historical wisdom that apply, regardless if anyone cares to know them. They are the rules of opposing force. Like most profound tidbits of wisdom, the sentences are short but the depth of meaning is most often understood only after generous reflection. The first little wisdom is the one you unknowingly raise: that is to beware (or be aware) of the defended position. It says to know everything about the defended position, and to treat that knowledge with the utmost rationality.
It should be obvious; to make a frontal assault, the primary strategic concern is the strength of the defended position (emotion, particularly fear, has nothing to do with it).
The next tidbit is to attack on a narrow front. This, again, seems to be obvious if you take into account that one force is small while the other is large. Attacking on a narrow front is a conscious decision to balance the offense against the greater strength of the defense. It is a disciplined recognition of reality. Yet here we are, apparently doing our damndest to broaden our attack, and apparently we’re not contented to just ignore what we are doing, but also willing to shoot ourselves in the foot while doing it. The chosen subject matter of this new ID runs completely opposite to one of the load-bearing strengths of the old ID (we attack materialism on material grounds alone).
jerry: Thanks for the detailed response. I, too, have read SunTzu and find his wisdom applicable across more domains than military strategy and tactics. |
Compare this to Darwin's Origin of Species, which anticipated most every reasonable scientific objection, then directly attempted to respond to those objections. The goal is not to win the debate through rhetorical devices, but to convince one's peers of the validity of one's position.
| Quote | | Sal Gal: What I find refreshing in Steve Fuller’s remarks is that he confronts, without invoking the term, the “God of the Gaps” in ID. A design inference is intrinsically a claim that something we cannot observe empirically exists, has certain anthropomorphic properties, and manifests itself in what we do observe. Eschewing semantic contortions, an unobservable, goal-directed intelligence is supernatural, be it the intelligence of God or a God-like intelligence created by God. |
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
