| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2005 04:22:14 AM |
| Object: |
Steve Fuller |
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
Steve Fuller
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Steve%20Fuller%22&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=%22Steve+Fuller%22&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Steve+Fuller%22&btnG=Search+Directory&hl=en&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Steve+Fuller%22&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
.
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 09:11:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
So has "goddidit", but that doesn't make it a valid scientific theory.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 06:20:34 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Dworetsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 07:04:08 AM |
|
|
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
Many years ago, to promote international calling, British Telecom had
adverts featuring "Beattie", a sweet grandmother type in Australia, being
phoned by her grandson in Britain. A brief conversation ensues in which he
reveals that he has failed all his exams except Sociology.
"What's the problem?" replies Gran. "If you've got an -ology, you're a
scientist."
He must have been the best they could get. He is being paid $100 per hour
for lots of doubletalk claiming that ID is valid science. I tried reading
his submission but couldn't get past the first few pages without feeling
physically ill. This is an outstanding example of why my own University
(UCLondon) decided not to start a Sociology Department.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 07:16:06 AM |
|
|
"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:djl6vo$cpi$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
Many years ago, to promote international calling, British Telecom had
adverts featuring "Beattie", a sweet grandmother type in Australia, being
phoned by her grandson in Britain. A brief conversation ensues in which
he
reveals that he has failed all his exams except Sociology.
"What's the problem?" replies Gran. "If you've got an -ology, you're a
scientist."
He must have been the best they could get. He is being paid $100 per hour
for lots of doubletalk claiming that ID is valid science. I tried reading
his submission but couldn't get past the first few pages without feeling
physically ill. This is an outstanding example of why my own University
(UCLondon) decided not to start a Sociology Department.
Oi - we don't all read from the same book
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 06:54:32 PM |
|
|
Alexander wrote:
"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:djl6vo$cpi$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
Many years ago, to promote international calling, British Telecom had
adverts featuring "Beattie", a sweet grandmother type in Australia, being
phoned by her grandson in Britain. A brief conversation ensues in which
he
reveals that he has failed all his exams except Sociology.
"What's the problem?" replies Gran. "If you've got an -ology, you're a
scientist."
He must have been the best they could get. He is being paid $100 per hour
for lots of doubletalk claiming that ID is valid science. I tried reading
his submission but couldn't get past the first few pages without feeling
physically ill. This is an outstanding example of why my own University
(UCLondon) decided not to start a Sociology Department.
Oi - we don't all read from the same book
Fuller's the most extreme example of the sociology of knowledge program, the
so-called Strong Programme. In which, all knowledge is a social construct so
we should engage with all points of view.
There's a non-technical terms for this (although there's a forthcoming
companion volume to this term being prepared now): *****.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.
|
|
|
| User: "RAM" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 09:26:42 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
Alexander wrote:
"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:djl6vo$cpi$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
Many years ago, to promote international calling, British Telecom had
adverts featuring "Beattie", a sweet grandmother type in Australia, being
phoned by her grandson in Britain. A brief conversation ensues in which
he
reveals that he has failed all his exams except Sociology.
"What's the problem?" replies Gran. "If you've got an -ology, you're a
scientist."
He must have been the best they could get. He is being paid $100 per hour
for lots of doubletalk claiming that ID is valid science. I tried reading
his submission but couldn't get past the first few pages without feeling
physically ill. This is an outstanding example of why my own University
(UCLondon) decided not to start a Sociology Department.
Oi - we don't all read from the same book
Fuller's the most extreme example of the sociology of knowledge program, the
so-called Strong Programme. In which, all knowledge is a social construct so
we should engage with all points of view.
A view largely discredited in the 1970's when "Labelling Theory" was in
its ascendency and being attacked for the inherent weakness of its
empirically untennable extreme social constructionist tendencies.
There's a non-technical terms for this (although there's a forthcoming
companion volume to this term being prepared now): *****.
But especially note: http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/intellectual.html
A paragraph from a review of Fuller's "The Intellectual"
"A problem, however, with Fuller's generalizations about intellectuals
is that he is not always able to articulate differences between
different types of intellectuals who pursue often opposing agendas,
sometimes allying themselves with factions of the powers that be, while
sometimes taking the form of perpetual opposition. His third thesis,
"Intellectuals Need a Business Plan" emphasizes the economic basis of
the intellectual's social role, but also suggests that different
intellectuals seek or need very different sorts of economic support,
which skews their activity accordingly. Fuller's comments here are
especially relevant to the contemporary era where intellectuals try to
brand ideas, sniff out "The Next Big Thing," find a favorable market
environment for their ideas, and then promote themselves and their
product."
It looks more like "self-serving *****" derived from hugh dollops of
postmodern prolixities.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
26 Oct 2005 12:08:24 AM |
|
|
RAM wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Alexander wrote:
"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:djl6vo$cpi$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
Many years ago, to promote international calling, British Telecom had
adverts featuring "Beattie", a sweet grandmother type in Australia, being
phoned by her grandson in Britain. A brief conversation ensues in which
he
reveals that he has failed all his exams except Sociology.
"What's the problem?" replies Gran. "If you've got an -ology, you're a
scientist."
He must have been the best they could get. He is being paid $100 per hour
for lots of doubletalk claiming that ID is valid science. I tried reading
his submission but couldn't get past the first few pages without feeling
physically ill. This is an outstanding example of why my own University
(UCLondon) decided not to start a Sociology Department.
Oi - we don't all read from the same book
Fuller's the most extreme example of the sociology of knowledge program, the
so-called Strong Programme. In which, all knowledge is a social construct so
we should engage with all points of view.
A view largely discredited in the 1970's when "Labelling Theory" was in
its ascendency and being attacked for the inherent weakness of its
empirically untennable extreme social constructionist tendencies.
There's a non-technical terms for this (although there's a forthcoming
companion volume to this term being prepared now): *****.
But especially note: http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/intellectual.html
A paragraph from a review of Fuller's "The Intellectual"
"A problem, however, with Fuller's generalizations about intellectuals
is that he is not always able to articulate differences between
different types of intellectuals who pursue often opposing agendas,
sometimes allying themselves with factions of the powers that be, while
sometimes taking the form of perpetual opposition. His third thesis,
"Intellectuals Need a Business Plan" emphasizes the economic basis of
the intellectual's social role, but also suggests that different
intellectuals seek or need very different sorts of economic support,
which skews their activity accordingly. Fuller's comments here are
especially relevant to the contemporary era where intellectuals try to
brand ideas, sniff out "The Next Big Thing," find a favorable market
environment for their ideas, and then promote themselves and their
product."
It looks more like "self-serving *****" derived from hugh dollops of
postmodern prolixities.
It's worse than I thought - Fuller is a bleeding typologist...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Mathers" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
26 Oct 2005 03:06:40 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
RAM wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Alexander wrote:
"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:djl6vo$cpi$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
Many years ago, to promote international calling, British Telecom had
adverts featuring "Beattie", a sweet grandmother type in Australia, being
phoned by her grandson in Britain. A brief conversation ensues in which
he
reveals that he has failed all his exams except Sociology.
"What's the problem?" replies Gran. "If you've got an -ology, you're a
scientist."
He must have been the best they could get. He is being paid $100 per hour
for lots of doubletalk claiming that ID is valid science. I tried reading
his submission but couldn't get past the first few pages without feeling
physically ill. This is an outstanding example of why my own University
(UCLondon) decided not to start a Sociology Department.
Oi - we don't all read from the same book
Fuller's the most extreme example of the sociology of knowledge program, the
so-called Strong Programme. In which, all knowledge is a social construct so
we should engage with all points of view.
A view largely discredited in the 1970's when "Labelling Theory" was in
its ascendency and being attacked for the inherent weakness of its
empirically untennable extreme social constructionist tendencies.
There's a non-technical terms for this (although there's a forthcoming
companion volume to this term being prepared now): *****.
But especially note: http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/intellectual.html
A paragraph from a review of Fuller's "The Intellectual"
"A problem, however, with Fuller's generalizations about intellectuals
is that he is not always able to articulate differences between
different types of intellectuals who pursue often opposing agendas,
sometimes allying themselves with factions of the powers that be, while
sometimes taking the form of perpetual opposition. His third thesis,
"Intellectuals Need a Business Plan" emphasizes the economic basis of
the intellectual's social role, but also suggests that different
intellectuals seek or need very different sorts of economic support,
which skews their activity accordingly. Fuller's comments here are
especially relevant to the contemporary era where intellectuals try to
brand ideas, sniff out "The Next Big Thing," find a favorable market
environment for their ideas, and then promote themselves and their
product."
It looks more like "self-serving *****" derived from hugh dollops of
postmodern prolixities.
It's worse than I thought - Fuller is a bleeding typologist...
Only Simmel would be pleased.
This also partially explains his support of ID theory. The thing that
best explains his support of ID IMNSHO is his apparently complete
absence of empirical research experience (our lib does not have many of
his publications and about half of his Journal work, but I could find
none). The development of adequate metrics in new areas of research and
tying them to tightly hypothesized conceptual relationships that
parallel or reflect theoretical issues is a daunting task even for
highly trained researchers. I take it as a given that people like Ken
Miller understand this without saying so and people like Steve Fuller
are severely limited in their ability to adequately understand the
relationship between research and theorizing.
Parenthetically I also think the reason most researchers don't develop
new theories is that they know the empirical limitations of the dominant
theory. They also know how challenging it is to provide both new
insights and modifications to the present theory while also providing
substantive empirical support for them. This is particularly true since
these new insights and modifications have a high potential for being
empirically demonstated to be wrong. In this regard ID theory suffers
absolutely and irreparably from its inability to establish stable (i.e.
reliable and valid) metrics. Nowhere is this discussed in the trail or
by supposed experts in the sociology of knowledge. For people like
Fuller empirical knowledge, strategies, and skills are totally
tangential. This is why I like Eliot Sober because he understands they
are essential and salient. The real value of any theory is its relative
empirical support. The greater the empirical support the greater the
theoretical value. ID theory is at best valueless. Unstable, weak and
questionable metrics like IC and CSI are useless for assessing ID. That
is the primary reason it is not scientific.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "scooter" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 10:04:48 PM |
|
|
RAM wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Alexander wrote:
"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:djl6vo$cpi$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
Many years ago, to promote international calling, British Telecom had
adverts featuring "Beattie", a sweet grandmother type in Australia, being
phoned by her grandson in Britain. A brief conversation ensues in which
he
reveals that he has failed all his exams except Sociology.
"What's the problem?" replies Gran. "If you've got an -ology, you're a
scientist."
He must have been the best they could get. He is being paid $100 per hour
for lots of doubletalk claiming that ID is valid science. I tried reading
his submission but couldn't get past the first few pages without feeling
physically ill. This is an outstanding example of why my own University
(UCLondon) decided not to start a Sociology Department.
Oi - we don't all read from the same book
Fuller's the most extreme example of the sociology of knowledge program, the
so-called Strong Programme. In which, all knowledge is a social construct so
we should engage with all points of view.
A view largely discredited in the 1970's when "Labelling Theory" was in
its ascendency and being attacked for the inherent weakness of its
empirically untennable extreme social constructionist tendencies.
There's a non-technical terms for this (although there's a forthcoming
companion volume to this term being prepared now): *****.
But especially note: http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/intellectual.html
A paragraph from a review of Fuller's "The Intellectual"
"A problem, however, with Fuller's generalizations about intellectuals
is that he is not always able to articulate differences between
different types of intellectuals who pursue often opposing agendas,
sometimes allying themselves with factions of the powers that be, while
sometimes taking the form of perpetual opposition. His third thesis,
"Intellectuals Need a Business Plan" emphasizes the economic basis of
the intellectual's social role, but also suggests that different
intellectuals seek or need very different sorts of economic support,
which skews their activity accordingly. Fuller's comments here are
especially relevant to the contemporary era where intellectuals try to
brand ideas, sniff out "The Next Big Thing," find a favorable market
environment for their ideas, and then promote themselves and their
product."
It looks more like "self-serving *****" derived from hugh dollops of
postmodern prolixities.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
While there is something to be said for post-modernism (e.g. There was
nothing "civil" about the Civil War) I don't particularly subscribe to
the idea. Moreover, I would say that the hard sciences like biology
ect. have a certain amount of immunity to such bias precisely because
of the ability to repeat experiments with consistent results.
Most Sociologists believe that knowledge is produced in two ways:
1) Consensus. IOW, people believe what they believe because everyone
else thinks it true. Religion is a perfect example in this instance
precisely because of the astounding lack of evidence.
2) Experience/trial and error. This requires no explanantion.
As an aside, this forum is a sociologist's dream for reasons that, at
this moment, must be all too obvious.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 08:06:43 AM |
|
|
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
Many years ago, to promote international calling, British Telecom had
adverts featuring "Beattie", a sweet grandmother type in Australia, being
phoned by her grandson in Britain. A brief conversation ensues in which he
reveals that he has failed all his exams except Sociology.
That would be Maureen Lipman playing a Jewish grandmother.
I don't recall her being in Australia though, I always thought she was
in The North somewhere ("lots of planets have a North you know")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Torch" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 09:09:52 AM |
|
|
"Martin" <martin_nospam@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:435e2d90$0$23281$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
Many years ago, to promote international calling, British Telecom had
adverts featuring "Beattie", a sweet grandmother type in Australia, being
phoned by her grandson in Britain. A brief conversation ensues in which
he
reveals that he has failed all his exams except Sociology.
That would be Maureen Lipman playing a Jewish grandmother.
I don't recall her being in Australia though, I always thought she was
in The North somewhere ("lots of planets have a North you know")
No she was somewhere in Greater London (which I suppose may be the north if
you live in Brighton)
There was another advert in the series where she is complaining that her
area code has been changed to 081 and not 071 like the posh people in
central London. She warms to it when someone points out that 081 is the code
for 'Greater' London
(god I'm getting old)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 07:02:14 AM |
|
|
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
I didn't realise this until I saw this article, that Fuller has actually
written about ID in a book called :
"An Intelligent Person's Guide to Intelligent Design Theory"
But I can't find it ... either I'm not smart enough or it's a 2 page
pamphlet.
I'm rather depressed by Fuller's contribution to this whole debate - he
seems to be more motivated from an ivory tower conceptualisation of his own
rhetoric than a genuine understanding of the political and religious
movements behind ID.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 08:12:56 AM |
|
|
"On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:02:14 +0000 (UTC), in article
<djl6s6$52e$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Alexander stated..."
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
I didn't realise this until I saw this article, that Fuller has actually
written about ID in a book called :
"An Intelligent Person's Guide to Intelligent Design Theory"
But I can't find it ... either I'm not smart enough or it's a 2 page
pamphlet.
It is an essay in this book:
The intelligent design argument /
John Angus Campbell
East Lansing, Mich. : Michigan State Univ. Press, 1998
Rhetoric & public affairs,; v. 1, no. 4;
I haven't seen the book. I'm just quoting an online catalog.
Contents: Intelligent design, Darwinism, and the philosophy of public education
/ John Angus Campbell -- Reinstating design within science / William A. Dembski
-- DNA by design : an inference to the best explanation for the origin of
biological information / Stephen C. Meyer -- Some things in biology don't make
sense in the light of evolution / Jonathan Wells & Paul A. Nelson -- Intelligent
design as an alternative explanation for the existence of biomolecular machines
/ Michael J. Behe -- Intelligent design and irreducible complexity / David Depew
-- Intelligent Dasein / John Lyne -- The rhetorical problem of intelligent
design / Phillip E. Johnson -- The rhetoric of intelligent design : alternatives
for science and religion / Celeste Michelle Condit -- An intelligent person's
guide to intelligent design theory / Steve Fuller -- Biochemical complexity :
emergence or design? / Bruce H. Weber -- Intelligent design : a look at some of
the relevant literature / Thomas M. Lessl.
I'm rather depressed by Fuller's contribution to this whole debate - he
seems to be more motivated from an ivory tower conceptualisation of his own
rhetoric than a genuine understanding of the political and religious
movements behind ID.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 08:30:18 AM |
|
|
"TomS" <TomS_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:djlb0o021eb@drn.newsguy.com...
"On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:02:14 +0000 (UTC), in article
<djl6s6$52e$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Alexander stated..."
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
I didn't realise this until I saw this article, that Fuller has actually
written about ID in a book called :
"An Intelligent Person's Guide to Intelligent Design Theory"
But I can't find it ... either I'm not smart enough or it's a 2 page
pamphlet.
It is an essay in this book:
The intelligent design argument /
John Angus Campbell
East Lansing, Mich. : Michigan State Univ. Press, 1998
Rhetoric & public affairs,; v. 1, no. 4;
I haven't seen the book. I'm just quoting an online catalog.
Contents: Intelligent design, Darwinism, and the philosophy of public
education
/ John Angus Campbell -- Reinstating design within science / William A.
Dembski
-- DNA by design : an inference to the best explanation for the origin of
biological information / Stephen C. Meyer -- Some things in biology don't
make
sense in the light of evolution / Jonathan Wells & Paul A. Nelson --
Intelligent
design as an alternative explanation for the existence of biomolecular
machines
/ Michael J. Behe -- Intelligent design and irreducible complexity / David
Depew
-- Intelligent Dasein / John Lyne -- The rhetorical problem of intelligent
design / Phillip E. Johnson -- The rhetoric of intelligent design :
alternatives
for science and religion / Celeste Michelle Condit -- An intelligent
person's
guide to intelligent design theory / Steve Fuller -- Biochemical
complexity :
emergence or design? / Bruce H. Weber -- Intelligent design : a look at
some of
the relevant literature / Thomas M. Lessl.
Thanks for that - it starts to become clear why Fuller was called upon to
act for the defence as opposed to a random sociologist ... wondered where
the link was.
I'm rather depressed by Fuller's contribution to this whole debate - he
seems to be more motivated from an ivory tower conceptualisation of his
own
rhetoric than a genuine understanding of the political and religious
movements behind ID.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos
is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences
... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked
under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism",
Part II
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "scooter" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 09:25:40 AM |
|
|
Alexander wrote:
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
I didn't realise this until I saw this article, that Fuller has actually
written about ID in a book called :
"An Intelligent Person's Guide to Intelligent Design Theory"
But I can't find it ... either I'm not smart enough or it's a 2 page
pamphlet.
I'm rather depressed by Fuller's contribution to this whole debate - he
seems to be more motivated from an ivory tower conceptualisation of his own
rhetoric than a genuine understanding of the political and religious
movements behind ID.
It is kind of surprising that a sociologist is not able to recognize
this political/social movement for what it is. It's as if he's never
seen or read about other religiously motivated social constructs. The
only explanation is that hes caught up in the movement himself and is
incapable [or unwilling] of objective examination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 11:46:55 AM |
|
|
"scooter" <kwills@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:1130250340.291291.86420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Alexander wrote:
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory
of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept
that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
I didn't realise this until I saw this article, that Fuller has actually
written about ID in a book called :
"An Intelligent Person's Guide to Intelligent Design Theory"
But I can't find it ... either I'm not smart enough or it's a 2 page
pamphlet.
I'm rather depressed by Fuller's contribution to this whole debate - he
seems to be more motivated from an ivory tower conceptualisation of his
own
rhetoric than a genuine understanding of the political and religious
movements behind ID.
It is kind of surprising that a sociologist is not able to recognize
this political/social movement for what it is. It's as if he's never
seen or read about other religiously motivated social constructs. The
only explanation is that hes caught up in the movement himself and is
incapable [or unwilling] of objective examination.
See TomS post for the apparent link. I suspect that he's also arguing for
his own position within Social Epistemology (he's found an ideological stand
to hang his hat on so bugger the actual science and background), which is
not even that well received within sociological circles .... especially from
Critical Realists ... like what I am.
.
|
|
|
| User: "scooter" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 09:25:13 PM |
|
|
Alexander wrote:
"scooter" <kwills@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:1130250340.291291.86420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Alexander wrote:
"Nosterill" <robin@davinoptronics.com> wrote in message
news:1130239234.897973.24230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1599852,00.html
Sam Jones
Tuesday October 25, 2005
The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory
of
intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept
that
should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick,
said that the theory - which maintains that life on Earth was designed
by an unidentified intelligent force - is a valid scientific one
because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
A sociologist?? Couldn't they find anyone more relevant? Sorry...stupid
question.
I didn't realise this until I saw this article, that Fuller has actually
written about ID in a book called :
"An Intelligent Person's Guide to Intelligent Design Theory"
But I can't find it ... either I'm not smart enough or it's a 2 page
pamphlet.
I'm rather depressed by Fuller's contribution to this whole debate - he
seems to be more motivated from an ivory tower conceptualisation of his
own
rhetoric than a genuine understanding of the political and religious
movements behind ID.
It is kind of surprising that a sociologist is not able to recognize
this political/social movement for what it is. It's as if he's never
seen or read about other religiously motivated social constructs. The
only explanation is that hes caught up in the movement himself and is
incapable [or unwilling] of objective examination.
See TomS post for the apparent link. I suspect that he's also arguing for
his own position within Social Epistemology (he's found an ideological stand
to hang his hat on so bugger the actual science and background), which is
not even that well received within sociological circles .... especially from
Critical Realists ... like what I am.
Bugger indeed. I recall the section in my undergraduate Methods class
concerning Ethics. I suspect he missed that class.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Steve Fuller |
25 Oct 2005 09:12:40 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, "Alexander" <alexanderhudson@btinternet.com> wrote:
I'm rather depressed by Fuller's contribution to this whole debate -
he seems to be more motivated from an ivory tower conceptualisation
of his own rhetoric than a genuine understanding of the political
and religious movements behind ID.
Given that he's an "expert" witness for the defense, you wouldn't
expect someone who looked into those things too closely.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
