“you’ve spent much more time with John West and others at the DI than I ever have” - EricMH
Come again? Weren’t you a participant at the DI’s summer program for students in Seattle too, as I was? If so, then it would seem to make sense that you were with “West & others at the DI” just as much as I was. I met several and ate lunch with a few of them; didn’t you?
You spent a week with the DI’s leaders, then have since been active working with Marks & Ewert. Dembski kinda disappeared for a couple of years, but he’s not leading the DI these days, just a fixture of the IDM. He is your “colleague”, EricMH. What’s this about “you’ve spent more time with IDists than I have” talk? Are you hesitating your allegiance?
“trying to contact them through me is unlikely to produce any new insight than you’ve already received.”
Well, I’ve been distinguishing “them” (DI leaders) and “you” so far, EricMH. Since you are making claims, e.g. about “human design”, that they are not. I like them as “nice people” and expect you are decent too. Nevertheless, from a scholarly basis, neither you nor they have developed a coherent or meaningful “human design theory” based on the “Intelligent Design theory” of Thaxton, Johnson, Meyer, Behe, Dembski, et al.
And I take that a step further saying simply: it’s not possible to create an ID theory of human design (because ID theory is a theory of Divine Design, not human design) & any attempt to do so should be abandoned. You have feigned otherwise, but never actually delivered, and frankly I don’t wish to challenge you to do so, as it does not seem you are qualified or the right person in the IDM to make the attempt. Design theory, design studies, design history, design thinking; these things all already exist.
ID theory is the unwanted guest in Academia (return to OP again) because it exaggerates & tries to swallow too much into its ideological overlay, blurring the meaning of “intelligence/Intelligence” along the way. In short, our shared belief in Divine Creation should not be impacted whatsoever by “ID theory”, at least not once a person already believes in the Creator.
This “sociological level” is the level at which I observe the IDM, in addition to the ID theory qua “theory” people are making claims about, EricMH. I’m not someone seeking to validate ID theory as a “strictly scientific” theory about the origins of life and information, as the DI envisions it. You are aware of that major difference between us, right, as you seem clearly in validation-at-all-costs mode pro-ID theories?
“the appearance that I’m some sort of DI shill”
Well, to be fair, you do receive a salary from the DI currently to work for the Bradley Center & post somewhat regularly at Mind Matters website, do you not? I’ve never called you a “shill”, and don’t prefer such low language even for opponents. If you may accept this humble observation on my part as a sociologist watching the conversations you are involved in at multiple locations, you sure do repeat a lot of what the DI has already said, and look up to IDists above many other highly qualified scholars, scientists and thinkers. Most people outside of the DI don’t do that.
“I’ve barely had any interaction with the majority of the people at the DI.”
Thanks for being open about this. I find it fascinating, as someone who studies social movements, how the ID Movement attracts & retains its followers. The summer program is one of the Discovery Institute’s key projects to “spread the word” about ID theory to the next generation. Were you aware of this, EricMH?
You sat in lectures with and met many of the leaders of the DI at the summer program you attended. To me, that counts as having more than “barely had any interaction” with IDists. It would certainly appear that you do know and communicate with quite a few IDists personally, along with working collaboratively as a colleague with IDists on “ID theory”. Frankly, you appear every bit the “revolutionary” that the DI’s summer program expected to be generating; you and Winston.
“I’ve tried discussing philosophy and such with him, but it is a dead end”
Yes, and the same is true for Egnor, Axe, Gauger, Behe & Ewert frankly; either a dead end or extremely low level wrt philosophy. I recommend that you do really need to look beyond IDism, the IDM & DI authors (incl. Meyer, Richards & Nelson, a trio of IDist philosophists) for discussing actual philosophy, not something meant mainly for an introductory course in information apologetics for engineers and computer scientists. For real. It will change your life positively, I entreat you, EricMH.
NB: You wouldn’t have to and will not be asked to give up the RCC. Instead, you will simply feel compelled to ditch IDist ideology after having seen the facts that reveal it as such too clearly to forget. I’m quite sure you would discover at least something about what I mean by that if you contact Meyer &/or West and ask the questions indicated above. Does it interest you?
Reporting by experience of having spoken with those who went through it, once a person drops over-the-top IDism that they are taught by the DI, they discover that their felt need of trying to argue for topics like “Academic persecution of ID proponents” swiftly ends along with it. That’s why I put my finger on this particular button when it passed by at BioLogos EricMH. You do yourself no favours when you invite persecution - “just a poor boy” - for embracing ID theory, despite the many strong and convincing arguments by Abrahamic monotheists against it, leave aside the atheist/agnostic critiques.
As it is, after you slagged your own ID theory partner in Bob Marks, please be aware that I’ve been trying to discuss philosophy and social sciences with you occasionally for a couple of years now. So far, that’s been a dead end. Don’t necessarily feel bad about that, EricMH, given your field of training/education, though you can work to grow on that if you choose; it was differently, but largely the same with John G. West at the DI’s summer program. He was not simply willing to listen to or learn anything other than the ideology in his head: “IDism rules!” … except shutting down the summer program for ID theory in social sciences and humanities and adding an apologetics “scientism studies” section in its place, speaks loudly against IDism in action.
Again, why not at least write an email to Meyer & West asking them their thoughts? What would be the harm in that? You work for them, why should they not address your honest question to them? It would give both you and everyone else here an answer to that “important question” that we at least have agreed about so far. Can you contribute to that progress in conversation between us, EricMH? Why not give it a try?
Simple asks to Meyer & West: 1) small-id vs. Big-ID, & 2) human design vs. Divine Design. I’m sure the results would be fascinating, EricMH. And as you know this is not a site where your opponents are atheists or agnostics, so your report would likely be met with a respectfully different response than you are used to arguing with about ID theory among the latter. What’s to lose in writing that email to them, EricMH?