Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List


subscribe to our mailing list:



SECTIONS

Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes

Counter-Apologetics

Serious Notions with a Smile

Miscellaneous

Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site

Discussion

You can read and reply to the existing discussion threads related to the article, or create a new thread:

Your name *:
Your email *:
Security question *: 9 + 19 =
Related article(s):
Subject *:
Message *:
     Length: (max.: 3000 characters)

 

Title Author Date
A note to Norman Levitt RE: Steven Fuller. Peterson, Mark Apr 23, 2008
I just wanted to say thank you for a single heading in your reflection on Steven's apparently having fallen off the world:"The reactionary nostalgia of postmodernism".

Beautifully turned.

hiho
Mpeterson

 

Title Author Date
Steve Fuller Gallagher, Alex Mar 30, 2006
In his excellent article debunking Steve Fuller, Norman Levitt states;

"Fuller's connection with the ID crowd is a rather old one. He signed on as a fellow-traveler as early as 1998, embracing Intelligent Design Theory as a ploy in his more general campaign to challenge the hegemony of standard science and to compel scientists to accept the legitimacy of "local knowledges" of the sort that fail when confronted with scientific standards of rigor."

It might be of interest that in this article in the Daily Telegraph (UK), he is claiming to be "one of the architects of the theory".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/28/do2803.xml

Is Fuller correct? Is he actually an architect of ID?

 

Title Author Date
great artcile, but caution Nigh , Ronald Mar 30, 2006
A great piece by Levitt and a well-deserved trouncing for Fuller. But I would urge caution here. I question Levitt’s dismissal of the motivations of all who might be suspicious of the notion that our current scientific image of nature has settled once and for all our fundamental questions about what exists and how we know about it. To question creationism as ideological nonsense is not to accept that Darwin’s Victorian view of life and the universe full tilt.

A candle in the dark does not illuminate the entire cosmos and indeed may give us a highly misleading view of reality if we try to project what we think we know beyond the glow of our current knowledge into the dark beyond. Though our science provides no unequivocable evidence for a universe of “moral equity and ultimate justice”, say, it does not deny the possibility either, nor can atheists legitimately claim their ideology to be fully ‘science based’. Another trap is to believe that American wingnut Christiantity is representative of all, or even most, religious thought.

I don’t think that refraining from arrogance about what science teaches us about our world, or from believing that our current science is the sole source of such knowledge, is necessarily motivated by a reactionary desire to reinstall ‘supersitition’ and theocracy. Knowledge is always situated, to use Haraway’s accurante phrase, it exists from a point of view and this is always its limitation, but also the source of its ultimate legitimacy.
>And from our own point of view, we must view the whole universe, including those parts which the candle of our scientific knowledge does not reveal.

In this effort, religion, understood as the rational ordering of our values, ethics, wisdom and compassion, is an indispensable guide. (posted at Gene Expression)