[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Ian]
Arlo, may I focus on your surprising response because we must, must, have
misunderstood each other ?

[Arlo]
Could very well be.

[Ian]
I'm surprised to find you quoting a dictionary definition (well, wikipedia
anyway) as an argument - not usually your style, but in fact it doesn't support
any argument against what I (thought I'd) said.

[Arlo]
Okay, let me be as clear as I can. _You_ may  be using the term "intelligent
design" in a way you may be able to convince me is appropriate, but those
arguing _for_ "intelligent design" are not interested in emergence, metaphor or
complexity theories. They are specifically arguing FOR an external, master
creator who plans, orders and designs the cosmos in predetermined,
preconceptualized ways... and they mean this _literally_.

So I am very weary about appropriating a term that is mostly associated with
backdoor theism. 

[Ian]
Note the phrase, in your dictionary quote "best explained by" intelligent agency
.... etc "best explained by" ie pragmatically useful to use this (fiction,
metaphor) in an explanation - with the unspoken caveat that it's not literal or
real.

[Arlo]
I think you are reading a gentle kindness towards metaphor into a movement where
there is none, or very little. I'd interpret the majority of ID'ers as saying
"ONLY explained by"... meaning this preplanning, preconceptual "designer" is
the only way to explain the complexity and remarkable depth of the universe.

Now... You know, of course, I respect Joseph Campbell, and more than many other
"anti-theists", I see valuable insight to be gleaned from examination and
consideration of metaphor, as metaphor and analogy is the only way we have to
talk about these things. I have no problem with a Campbellian metaphorical
analysis of theistic beliefs, from Inuit to Christian, as providing some sort
of valuable coverage of our place, our role, and the "meaning of it all". I
just don't think the ID'ers are this clever, nor do I think they are genuinely
interested in advancing a metaphorical reading of "intelligent designer". Poll
them and I would venture into the 90 percentiles they say, literally,
"intelligent design" is proof of (their particular) God's existence.

[Ian]
It's just short-hand for something more complex and emergent, not (necessarily)
an acceptance of some actual transcendent intelligent agent. Too mind-boggling
to explain in every sentence - as Platt spotted.

[Arlo]
Well, now this is terminology. The phrase has different implications for me. I
am happy and content to talk about emergence, chaos, complexity and read
descriptions (like Johnson provided) without recourse to "intelligent design".
But if that's just a baggage issue on my part, let's let it drop.

[Ian]
Some dimwits will use the language to reify their preferred models and foist the
bogey-man on us - but some (most, all) of us (here) are too intelligent to fall
for it - aren't we Arlo ?

[Arlo]
I should hope. But words carry different connotations to different people.
Nothing wrong with that, so long as we clarify. 

[Ian]
The point I made was that you yourself (as Case and Micah also mentioned) had
used anthropomorphic metaphors for what individual cells "decided to do",
Pirsig does it too (as Squonk observed). Remember Pirsig's magnet and iron
powder - so ridiculed by his denigrators, even less 'intelligent" than cells.

[Arlo]
And I have no problem with this, and if some want to use "intelligent design" as
an anthropomorphic metaphor to describe emergence, I won't stop you. But I
would caution that this use of the word runs counter to its use in most everday
speak.

[Ian]
I didn't for a minute suspect you meant cells contained or were controlled by
highly intellectual agents. Nor you I, I would have hoped ? Anyway ...

[Arlo]
No, I did not think this is what you meant. But even apart from its
theistic-core, I'd say the term "design" too much conveys "intent". To say that
the human body is the result of intelligent design really implies (and I would
think this covers most people) that before the human body existed, an "intent"
was formed to create it. And again, I'd say that most people would see this
intent as _literal_.

So, let me try this... we agree on process descriptions, but you find value in
the metaphor of an "intelligent design", whereas I find too laden literal
theism to make that metaphor valuable.

[Ian]
It's a matter of choice how we use these linguistic tools. You wanna fight, you
get one. I can have one with DMB any day I want, and he with me, but it's
nothing personal, just our bag. As David M says we can choose who we fight with
whichever weapons (critical arguments) we choose, even our opponent's weapons,
if that's our game. But You wanna build, you get construction. (Swords,
ploughshares, you get the picture ...)

[Arlo]
Of course. Pirsig says "Quality is the Tao". I have no problems with that. But I
also know that the majority of those who use the word "Tao" will "get it". The
majority who support "intelligent design" don't. Maybe some do. Maybe some
important people do. Hell, maybe the MOST important people do. But the rank and
file out there fighting for ID in schools are NOT interested in metaphors such
as this, but with establishing proof of "God" (and their own particular,
nationalistic one at that).

[Ian]
Jeez, even Dawkins used "the blind watchmaker". It's a watchmaker Jim, it really
is, but not as we know it (ie a blind one, one that doesn't need omniscience,
not even an eyeball, not even a pinhole camera.)

[Arlo]
See, now I am humming "Star Trekking". "... on the Starship Enterprise, under
Captain Kirk..."

[Ian]
The higher intelligence is just the emergent sum total of all the little
consciousnesses (excuse my reductionist "just" David M, just this once anyway.)
It's (conscious, aware) turtles all the way down.

[Arlo]
"God" is our future, not our past? :-)

[Ian]
How are we ever going to move on constructively from old battles ?

[Arlo]
By spending more time convincing ID'ers that their model is "just an analogy"
than worrying about whether Arlo likes this particular analogy or not. (Sorry,
that sounds snippy, but I wrote it playfully... really).