If we can’t find common ground, at least let’s find charitable ground

_{johnnyb
September 12, 2013

Academic Freedom, Culture, Media, News, Society

1}_{Categories
Academic Freedom
Culture
Media
News
Society}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Tania Lombrozo has a great piece up at NPR on why, more importantly than common ground, is charitable ground.

According to Lombrozo:

Issues about science and religion have become so politicized and polarizing that it’s hard to find public forums in which people with different commitments can meaningfully engage in discussion and debate. You know, respectful conversations, ones in which we interpret each other charitably and don’t simply assume that those who disagree with us are foolish, immoral or just plain stupid.

I’m not arguing for a middle ground in which we all compromise. The best position isn’t necessarily the one in the middle, or the one that wins by majority vote. But I do think we need a “charitable ground,” if you will — some shared territory in which we recognize that other people’s religious and scientific commitments can be as deeply felt and deeply reasoned as our own, and that there’s value in understanding why others believe what they do.

Question for the audience – which intellectuals deal most charitably with their opponents?

Comments

Okay boys, time to stop. The goal of this thread was to identify public intellectuals who were also charitable, not a discussion of which of our own commenters are more charitable than another. As promised, thread closed.johnnyb_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Charity anyone? Y'know, the title of the thread? UB is not even wrong. Hopefully PeterJ will recognise this if he reads what I've written elsewhere. Reading, however, doesn't seem to be a strength of IDists, e.g. what timaeus didn't know about Dembski's 'technological evolution' views. As for timaeus, well, 3 strikes on this thread and he's out. At least this time perhaps he means it and won't come back. But I've seen him break his word too many times to believe it. 'evolutionism' already in 2005 at UD: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/evolutionary-wars-todays-boston-globe/ If my focus on 'evolutionism' was what made timaeus aware of it, then that's great. He's still got a lot to learn that his religious studies/'philosophy' perspective didn't teach him. He is obviously just touching the surface in understanding 'evolutionism' and yet already wants to make IDism appear anti-evolutionistic when a significant number of IDist leaders, e.g. Behe, are not willing to accept such a label as 'anti-evolutionism'.
"much of evolutionary theory since Darwin is wrong or seriously misleading *even in the sphere in which Gregory says it properly applies*, i.e., in biology. And that is why ID people focus on biology rather than on social science, etc.; because in order to make their argument, they have to make it in the biological sphere." - timaeus
So IDism is anti-evolution in biology now? That doesn't make sense. Too many people have spoken against this view already at UD to be taken seriously. As for they have to make it in the biological sphere. They are not being forced; it is their ideological choice of strategy. They only do this by making a false analogy with human-made things. timaeus otoh wants to agree with me against “the ideological exaggeration of evolutionary theory into fields or topics where it does not properly belong.” But yet he cannot and will not bring himself to be against “the ideological exaggeration of DESIGN THEORY into fields or topics where it does not properly belong." That's because he supports a kind of 'Designism' - the ideological exaggeration of which is similar to 'evolutionism.' timaeus promised to stop saying I speak with 'hostility' - a mere projection of timaeus' Expelled Syndrome, but breaking promises seems to be so easy for 'calm and polite' timaeus, who keeps feeding people lies, exaggerations or faulty memory. Again, to the point of the thread, how to act charitably towards such a person who obviously doesn't mean what he says?Gregory_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Yeah, right PeterJ. Other than Dembski's 'technological evolution' fantasy which timaeus didn't know was more than a "single remark" until this thread. He's apologised for it, so that makes it o.k. You might want to follow up on that too. It is Dembski's blog afterall. He did even pose a 'technological evolution' contest here. ;) At peace with IDist Expelled Syndrome; that doesn't sound very enticing!Gregory_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Having read Timaeus post #102, I think we can safely put this thing to bed now. Timaeus is correct. Gregory's definition of 'evolutionism', and how 'evolutionary theory' should not be used in certain disciplines, is something that very few, if any, ID contributers would argue against. It therefore does seem to have been a bit of a waste of time, however all is maybe not lost as perhaps Gregory can now be at peace.PeterJ_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

PeterJ,
I don’t understand why you consider ‘the theory of evolution’ to be necessarily exempt from certain fields?
It means he doesn’t want you to conflate “the theory of evolution” your way, he wants you to conflate it his way. The word “evolution” had been around for a long while prior to 1859, and it doesn’t need a theory. It can be used in virtually any context where makes sense. The “theory” of evolution, on the other hand, is a specific biological process where specific things happen. He doesn’t want you to conflate that biological process with other contexts, he wants to do it for you so that he may startle your senses with his immaculate vision – human-made things don’t evolve because they are human choices among the pitiless indifference. yawnUpright BiPed_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

N.B. Regarding: ““!!! Gregory, not I, has introduced “evolutionism” as a term and concept for discussion here” By "here" I did not mean, "this thread," but "this site," i.e., UD. On both UD and TSZ, it is Gregory who has introduced the subject of "evolutionism" as one of the pressing issues of the day. I never thought about it, or (as far as I can remember) used the word, until I heard him use it. And when I brought it up on this thread, it was in reference to the discussion raised by Gregory recently on TSZ. I am sorry that Gregory sees fit to respond to my posts with hostility, no matter how calmly and politely I try to write them. I'm sorry, too, that he shows no interest in celebrating our agreements, such as I pointed out in 102, and that he seems to have no inclination to admit that he may have misunderstood my position and other IDers' position on "evolutionism." But in any case, I now remove myself from this thread, which will perhaps make him happier. I wish him the best in his study of human extension, a perfectly legitimate academic project in the human-social sciences.Timaeus_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Save us the self-aggrandisement, timaeus. This is a thread about CHARITY. Please stop chasing me around the internet as if your opinion is so important. You've made several errors already in this thread. Just an apology #2 & #3 and stop posting would suffice. Sorry to johnnyb; I had thought timaeus perhaps could figure this out.
"“!!! Gregory, not I, has introduced “evolutionism” as a term and concept for discussion here" - timaeus
Do you actually not use the "Find" feature ever to check for terms, timaeus? I only entered this discussion because of your silly 'evolutionism' advice re: TSZ, which was too absurd to let go in your IDist haven. Is it being uncharitable to suggest that you should post your own thread at UD? You do have posting privileges, don't you? I haven't seen you make a single OP at UD. Why not write your first post at UD and start your IDist publishing career, timaeus?Gregory_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Gregory has now pointed me to his definition of "evolutionism" (97 above). It is apparent to me, having consulted the passage in its original context, that I read, but did not remember, the definition, which was in a column quite a while back. I apologize for my lack of memory, but I was not lying. I did not recall it. The definition is: "the ideological exaggeration of evolutionary theory into fields or topics where it does not properly belong." Now, that is relatively clear! It is too bad that Gregory did not offer this concise definition very early on, over at TSZ. He could have saved himself and scores of others much time and effort, and avoided much wandering discussion. Now, I promised to comment on this definition, insofar as I was able. Here is my commentary: 1. Gregory's definition includes the phrase "evolutionary theory." My first thought is that by this he means "evolutionary theory" as what biologists talk about. If this is wrong, he must correct me. Otherwise, I shall assume that he means discussion of things such as random mutations, natural selection, homology, convergence, drift, Cambrian explosion, Australopithecus, Darwin, Huxley, Mayr, etc. 2. If this is what he means, he already knows my view of the matter, as I have expressed it scores of times, both in public and in private. The most recent statement is on this very web page (31): "If it means nothing more than “misapplying a biological theory to human matters” I am 100% on Gregory’s side that this is a bad thing" Now, my phrase "human matters" is a bit too narrow, in comparison with Gregory's definition, but I put it that way because Gregory mainly studies human matters, so I thought that was his main concern. I would gladly broaden my statement out to match the definition he has now provided, and replace "human matters" with "fields and topics where it does not properly belong." So my conjecture regarding his definition has now been adjusted to match his actual definition. In the article of Gregory's which contains the definition, Gregory follows up the definition with some admirable clarifying examples: "One example of this is giving ‘evolution’ a monopoly over ‘change.’ Another is the faulty transference of evolution from biology into anthropology, psychology, sociology, politics, economics and cultural studies; socio-biology and evolutionary psychology being the simplest examples." I understand and agree with what Gregory is driving at in both of these examples. First, I agree that "evolution" is not a synonym for "change," and that not all "change" is evolutionary. (And I add that I have never held any other position.) Second, I agree that the transference of biological thinking into humanities and social science subjects has very often been "faulty," and I think it has largely been either intellectually useless or intellectually destructive. I like both of his examples (sociobiology and evolutionary psychology) as well. (And again I add that I have never taken any other position.) What puzzles me is why Gregory would think (as he seems to think) that ID people would disagree with him on this. Denyse here has attacked, either on her own account or by presenting the opinions of others, things like sociobiology and evolutionary biology on scores of occasions. Surely Gregory knows this. John West has repeatedly criticized Larry Arnhart's attempt to ground ethics in biological evolution. Gregory must know about this, even if he has not read West's writings, because I have mentioned it to Gregory before. And I communicate with many ID supporters via email, and expressions like "evolutionary ethics" and "sociobiology" never cross their lips without sneers of disgust. Most ID people strongly support the notion that what is specifically human in man cannot be reduced to the elements in man that are shared with lower beings: animals, vegetables, minerals. Humans are, for all ID people I can think of, exceptional, unique. They have spiritual and mental traits that other beings do not have. It follows that the sciences which study human beings -- political science, anthropology, sociology, psychology, religious studies, ethical philosophy, etc. -- should not model themselves on biology, regarding either method or contents. Again, I can't think of any ID supporter who would not agree with this. So ID people, of all people, are not guilty of "evolutionism" as Gregory has defined it above. If anyone is guilty of "evolutionism," it would be some type of naturalistic thinker. Yet even among the naturalistic thinkers I know, not very many will declare that *everything* can be explained in evolutionary terms. Still, if there are such people, I disagree with them, and I agree with Gregory. I think that "evolutionism" as he understands it is a false and dangerous doctrine. And I think Behe, Dembski, etc. would all agree with him, too. So "evolutionism" is not what divides Gregory from ID, or from me. What, then, is it? I think that the difference is this: whereas ID people agree with Gregory that biological evolutionary theory should not be extended into other subjects, ID people also believe something which Gregory does not appear to believe, i.e., that much of evolutionary theory since Darwin is wrong or seriously misleading *even in the sphere in which Gregory says it properly applies*, i.e., in biology. And that is why ID people focus on biology rather than on social science, etc.; because in order to make their argument, they have to make it in the biological sphere. I do not ask Gregory to agree with ID's criticism of much of evolutionary biology. What I do expect him to understand is that ID's work in this area is *no threat* to his critique of "evolutionism." Therefore, even if he is lukewarm or indifferent to ID as a scientific project, he has no reason to fear ID; it will have no negative impact on the "human-social sciences" as he calls them. Taking the worst possibility, ID will turn out to be simply bad natural science and that will be the end of it. The social-human sciences are not implicated. His constant criticism of ID, then, is completely puzzling. ID people may be doing something he considers a waste of time, but their work in no way undermines his own disciplines or threatens any conclusions he might come to in those disciplines. So, regarding this topic at least, all the accusations of political motivations, all the rage, and all the personal insults seem to have been entirely unnecessary. Neither I nor ID generally endorse "evolutionism," or ever have.Timaeus_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

#95 (which I didn't see until now)
"!!! Gregory, not I, has introduced “evolutionism” as a term and concept for discussion here (and just about everywhere else on the internet). I would never have introduced the concept; I’ve never even uttered the word, except when Gregory has mentioned it."
#32 - 1st time 'evolutionism' used in this thread, by timaeus. What is truth to 'timaeus'?! Whatever he wants you to believe? As above: #32 being charitable towards ‘timaeus’ is like taking medicine to someone sick who doesn’t actually want to be healed.Gregory_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Hello PeterJ, In brief, because I don't want to distract any further from johnnyb's thread, I'd suggest you read the thread at TSZ, or even better, follow the link by clicking on my name (and following the links) and read a couple of the peer-reviewed papers I've published on this topic. 'Evolutionary theories' and 'evolutionism' are something I've been interested in for over a decade and writing about them and digging into the almost endless literature is continually challenging and also rewarding. Another paper on the topic is coming out next month that I've been waiting for over 2 years to reach the publishing stage. Btw, not long ago I discovered a fascinating project closely related to my work that is happening almost in your back yard, and am definitely planning to visit Scotland in the next year and a half. This work validates the idea of Human Extension and suggests people at UD were not charitable in thinking through the implications of what I proposed in the thread linked above (which timaeus forgot about most uncharitably). They are in Scotland, of course anti-IDism, but that shouldn't disqualify them from doing quality research; in fact, it is more likely if one isn't plagued by Expelled Syndrome to actually do good scholarly work that makes a difference socially. Cheers, Gr.Gregory_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Hi Gregory, Just quickly, this is your definition. "Here I define ‘evolutionism’ as the ideological exaggeration of evolutionary theory into fields or topics where it does not properly belong." And you site some examples. "One example of this is giving ‘evolution’ a monopoly over ‘change.’ Another is the faulty transference of evolution from biology into anthropology, psychology, sociology, politics, economics and cultural studies; socio-biology and evolutionary psychology being the simplest examples." I don't understand why you consider 'the theory of evolution' to be necessarily exempt from certain fields? Thanks.PeterJ_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

p.s. if timaeus interprets #97 as some kind of invitation to discussion about 'evolutionism' here, then he is wrong again. This still stands: "timaeus is trying to sucker me in to have a discussion about ‘evolutionism’ here in his IDist haven. No thanks." #97 serves simply as one small example of a lack of charity demonstrated by an IDist toward a potentially friendly, non-atheist, i.e. Abrahamic believer, who has been turned off by the propaganda shenanigans of IDists in their defense of scientistic IDism. The thread should return to the theme of charity or johnnyb is surely right in shutting it down.Gregory_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Charity. That's the main theme of this thread. Let's see if it can be demonstrated by one particular IDist.
"I am saying that I have never *seen* a definition of “evolutionism” posted here by you; or if I have, I have forgotten it — but I doubt the latter is the case." - timaeus
You doubt? That should (but for the sake of avoiding charity, probably won't) make two apologies by timaeus in a single thread. And it would be doubled or tripled, let me assure you folks, if it came to timaeus’ myopic (selective reading) views of 'theistic evolution.' He doubts, but the evidence is once again against him. Evidence Specifically: “Here I define ‘evolutionism’ as...” The whole thread is instructive for the present and future re: how willing IDists are to hear alternative ideas and what alternatives to IDism and Expelled Syndrome are available to curious persons interested in higher truths. So, now we know that timaeus wasn't lying, but that he rather forgot, even if he “doubt(s) the latter is the case”. How do we know this? Because he was active in that thread (even though he diverted his attention to try to engage Steve Fuller who came to address the main theme of Human Extension and not timaeus’ timaean-IDism). Iow, timaeus’ intention is to avoid significant challenges to his incoherent pet ideology as he has done with me over the past 4 years. Let me speak frankly and without malice. timaeus, you have been the most uncharitable and spiteful person I have (yet) encountered in the IDM so far (that includes *everyone* at the DI and at the ID’s Summer Program, whom I got along with rather well). Why do I openly say this in public? Because you could have done so much more based on your PhD training and intellectual background in 'philosophy'. You could have actually done some good in promoting alternative views - like Human Extension - instead of reverting to a backward-looking safe haven of IDism, which has sadly turned into Expelled Syndrome. I'm sorry if this observation stings, but that is clearly the truth of relationships and actions in this case. You have shown in this thread that you are both not genuine and have a faulty memory (but you’re not actually that old, since you already told us your age when you tried to speak down to Steve Fuller), that you don't do your homework and that you're more interested in sniping at me than in actually searching for truth. Why not (learn to) be more charitable, timaeus, as an IDist representative? Do people here ever wonder why I'm not worried about posting with my real name (click to follow links) while 'timaeus' hides behind a pseudonym acting as a revolutionary correctionist for IDism? It's because I've disassociated myself completely with IDism (after giving it a sporting chance) and would never want to be affiliated with the DI or the IDM. Even the DI recommends behind closed doors to students to take a pseudonym and not to allow themselves to be seen as advocates of IDism if they value their academic careers (this is actually reverse psychology 'Revolution' talk, like propagandists in the USSR used to use re: imperialists). timaeus, however, is more than just flirting with both of those options, while I took the DI’s advice to heart and instead got rid of their unnecessary ideology that was too haunting. johnnyb, these stories add to the bigger picture of ‘charity’ between IDists and YECists, TEs/ECs and agnostics/atheists. Abrahamic believers need not accept the scientistic ideology of IDism as a supposedly ‘progressive’ approach to contemporary science. Casey Luskin of the DI himself propagates that IDT is a ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ theory. A better option, however, which most thoughtful theists have taken when confronted with IDist advocacy, PR spin and news media, is to stress that IDT is properly seen as a science, philosophy and theology/worldview topic and *not* as a ‘strictly [natural] science,’ something I have repeated here at UD many times. But the DI leaders cannot and will not bring themselves to admit this in public, iow, to be honest and charitable by speaking the truth, even if in their heart of hearts they know that is accurate, because it would/will sink the IDist ship. Could timaeus ever be 'charitable' to a theistic anti-IDist view, a view that opposes BOTH neo-Darwinism and evolutionism, including the variety called 'theistic evolutionism' (which timaeus gets considerably wrong)? It doesn’t seem that he would be willing to do this *unless* such criticism of IDism is seen as potentially relevant in 'strictly [natural] sciences,' which is already beside the key point. He has made himself clear about this countless times, while I've wondered why his stubborn allegiances actually lie as they do in his outdated philosophy of science. timaeus' promises are not worth the pseudonymous 'commentary' he thinks so entitle him to answers. I'm not looking for any comment from him on my definition of 'evolutionism' that I provided months ago because I don't trust timaeus. I think he is an almost professional 'western' propagandist who’s obviously been seduced by a scientistic ideology, which is why he suffers from Expelled Syndrome; it is his own choice. He had the opportunity to comment constructively and charitably on my definition of ‘evolutionism’ before and instead intentionally stood in the way of potentially fruitful dialogue about Human Extension. Was that an intentional uncharitable act by him? If IDists want to be seen in society as thoughtful and 'charitable,' if they want to find charitable and/or common ground with others (and I believe johnnyb is this type of genuine person, as well as some others here), then the sins of needless antagonism committed by such folks as timaeus must eventually be seen for what they are: a defense of scientistic ideology, not a quest for higher truth. I do hope better for IDism and do not hold wish hurt or harm on any IDist. I asked for charity on TSZ as well as here. The current ‘theory’ of IDT, however, is imo simply too PR-loud, too exaggerative and too scientistic for Abrahamic believers to accept. But I pledge to continue to act charitably towards IDists regardless of whether or not they have anything significant or meaningful to say in the realm of science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse.If someday DI leaders finally admit this is actually their main realm of relevance, I'll be already there ready to welcome them with their former 'scientism' lowered from its (unfriendly) aggressive position.Gregory_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Final Addendum, to answer a question that crossed my last post: "Are you saying, timaeus, that you think I have *not* already given my definition of ‘evolutionism’ here at UD?" I am saying that I have never *seen* a definition of "evolutionism" posted here by you; or if I have, I have forgotten it -- but I doubt the latter is the case. If you have posted a *definition* of "evolutionism" -- *not* a beat-around-the-bush discussion, *not* a Socratic chase after a question like "What doesn't evolve?", *not* a list of historical figures who have contributed to the notion, but a *definition*, as every traditional school teacher and every traditional school child has understood "definition" -- if you have posted such a definition, and I have missed it, I would be glad to know where you have posted it. And on the other hand, if you have *not* posted such a definition, I would be glad to have it now. But if you insist that you have posted such a definition, yet refuse to tell me where you posted it, there is no point at all in continuing this conversation. You say "Let's get this finished." I agree!!! But you are the only one who can finish it. You are the one with the secret definition that I don't possess. Give it to me, and tell me what sort of comment on the definition that you are looking for, and I will respond, to the best of my ability, politely, rationally, and without any negative personal remarks. That is my promise.Timaeus_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

I will respond to just two more things that Gregory wrote: 1. "timaeus is trying to sucker me in to have a discussion about ‘evolutionism’." !!! Gregory, not I, has introduced "evolutionism" as a term and concept for discussion here (and just about everywhere else on the internet). I would never have introduced the concept; I've never even uttered the word, except when Gregory has mentioned it. And why should Gregory feel "suckered" if others ask for a clarification of a word *he* introduced here? Imagine this conversation: He: I think it is a bad thing for people to believe in God. She: What do you mean by God? He: You're not going to sucker me into a discussion of God! The last response doesn't make sense, does it, Gregory? 2. "And to be honest, I don’t think timaeus is willing to follow the evidence where it leads wrt ‘evolutionism’ anyway." False. I'm always willing to follow the evidence where it leads. And I will gladly do so, once Gregory provides a one-sentence definition of "evolutionism," couched in terms that any intelligent layman could grasp, and then tells me what it is that he is asking me to believe about "evolutionism" (that it's good? that it's bad? that it's true? that it's false?). I apologize to johnnyb and all for derailing this thread. I was trying to get a message to Kantian Naturalist (who was present earlier) or anyone else from TSZ, but I ended up doing damage. I won't attempt such an outside communication again. P.S. Nullasalus, thanks for your faith in me. Jon, thanks for attempting to translate Gregory's language for me; if you have a look at the TSZ thread, you will understand why, despite your effort, I'm still confused.Timaeus_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

Hi Gregory, I understand Johnnyb's dissapointment at how this thread has panned out, but before he obliterates it would you be as kind as to show me where you have clearly defined what you mean by 'evolutionism', and if you are going to point me to a long winded post I would much prefer a more specific answer, which I'm sure you could provide in a sentence. What is your definition of 'evolutionism'? ThanksPeterJ_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

Try being charitable, timaeus. That's what this thread is about. I didn't read #90 in its entirety. It's a waste of time like timaeus' fixation with BioLogos. Undoubtedly, since the DI-IDM doesn't take a position on age of earth, BioLogos is much more courageous than IDists are 'by definition'.
"I would therefore challenge Gregory, as much for his own sake as for everyone else’s, to come up with a one-sentence definition of “evolutionism.”" - timaeus
For my own sake? That's cute. Are you saying, timaeus, that you think I have *not* already given my definition of 'evolutionism' here at UD? Yes or no? Let's get this finished, o.k.? “I have already given my ‘definition’ of ‘evolutionism,’ both here and at TSZ.” Be charitable in your choice, timaeus. But don't spin it.Gregory_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

Yes I would like to second Timaues' call and ask Gregory to define what he means by 'evolutionism', and in one sentence preferably. After all that Gregory has posted on here, and some of it not very nice either (Timaeus, you have patience that a saint would proud of), I think it's the least he could do.PeterJ_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Gregory wrote (81): "I have already given my ‘definition’ of ‘evolutionism,’ both here and at TSZ." Well, Gregory may think he gave a definition, but 200+ comments at TSZ show that his dialogue partners there missed it. If he would take a suggestion: generally speaking, one-sentence definitions are the clearest and most useful. It also very much sharpens one's own intellectual clarity when one forces oneself to boil down one's many diverse thoughts on a subject to a core idea. I would therefore challenge Gregory, as much for his own sake as for everyone else's, to come up with a one-sentence definition of "evolutionism."Timaeus_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

I found Gregory's discussion of the "courage" of BioLogos amusing. Let's review some of the acts of "courage" that BioLogos and many of its writers have shown: Francis Collins, even before he became head of the NIH, i.e., before he was restrained from speaking his mind on ID in public by his official position, put out misinformation on what ID was about, yet when "called" on it by IDers, steadily refused either to retract the false characterization or else debate ID proponents over the matter. Karl Giberson also said false things about ID, and also often made extremely bad arguments regarding both science and theology, but when challenged on BioLogos by commenters, virtually always refused to engage with critics of his columns, and even when he (rarely) answered a critic, he never answered the critic's rejoinders. Kathryn Applegate has virtually always refused to engage with critics of her columns, and has never answered rejoinders. Ard Louis would engage only very briefly with critics, sometimes answering a first criticism, but never answering a rejoinder. Dennis Venema is polite and direct and courageous and generous in responding to scientific challenges to his views; to theological challenges, not so much. Vagueness, ambiguity, evasive action, and simple refusal to answer are his general strategies for handling theological criticism. Frequent guest columnist and leading British biologist-TE Denis Alexander refused to reply to commenters. One-shot guest columnist and leading British biologist-TE Oliver Barclay refused to reply to commenters. Christian plasma physicist Ian Hutchinson refused to respond to any critics of his BioLogos columns on "scientism"; indeed, I think that Gregory may have been one of those critics -- though since BioLogos now erases all comments after six months, I cannot verify that. BioLogos editors and columnists have launched dozens of attack columns against Meyer and Behe from the safety of their fortress. In the case of Behe, they have never allowed him column space for a rebuttal. In the case of Meyer, they *once* allowed him space for a rebuttal, but Darrel Falk prefaced Meyer's rebuttal with a long, chiding lecture about how he was not "respectful" enough to Ayala (who had certainly disrespected Meyer, but that's beside the point), and indicated that it was only with great reluctance that Meyer was being allowed to respond. The BioLogos readers, apparently, could not be trusted to read Meyer's defense against Ayala without first being inoculated against it by the management. BioLogos President Darrel Falk backed out of a technical biological debate with Stephen Meyer and Doug Axe. He cited procedural violations in the advertising for the debate as his excuse. At the Wheaton ID/TE debate last year, one or more (the exact persons are unknown) of the "BioLogos team" (which included Falk, Applegate, and current BioLogos Senior Scholar Jeffrey Schloss) vetoed the publication of the proceedings, preventing the public from assessing the quality of BioLogos's scientific arguments as measured against the ID side's scientific arguments. Of the numerous intra-biological challenges to neo-Darwinism, coming from Denton, Shapiro, Margulis, the Altenberg group, etc., the BioLogos biologists (neo-Darwinists to the core) have remained silent, for the entire duration of BioLogos's existence, as if the criticism will go away if they pretend it isn't there. On theological matters: The biologist-columnists at BioLogos have repeatedly refused to say what, *if anything*, they think God actually *does* in evolution. Thus, the question about evolution that is the most important to moderate and conservative evangelicals, they duck. (Three guesses why neo-Darwinists might feel uncomfortable speaking about what God does in evolution.) BioLogos sacked Peter Enns, its best columnist (and the one who interacted the most with readers, and frequently yielded points to constructive criticism), for reasons which were never stated, but which everyone behind the scenes knows, i.e., Enns's views were regarded as too dangerously liberal by some of the moderate evangelical supporters of BioLogos (some of whom would be, one may presume, financial donors to BioLogos). That in itself, however, would not be an act of cowardice, but for the fact that many of the columnists and executive who remained at BioLogos, but were less outspoken than Enns, appeared to hold views on the reliability and historical validity of certain passages of Scripture which were very similar to Enns's. In light of this, it is hard to read about the Enns case without hearing the echo of Scripture: "... it is expedient for us, that one man should be hung out to dry for the rest, that the whole institution should perish not." If all of this counts as "courage," I'd hate to see how BioLogos would act if it ever became cowardly.Timaeus_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

johnnyb, that's fine - it's your thread and can do with it what you like. I'd ask for a short prolongation so that this issue can be closed between timaeus and myself. timaeus started the diversion by talking about my thread on "The Limits of Evolution: Things that don't evolve" at TSZ. But actually, that diversion can be understood as providing a lesson. Indeed, it speaks directly at finding charitable ground because I honestly don't think timeaus is willing to provide it or openly recognise it here at UD. I think you will find that, if you prolong the thread for a short period, once timaeus answers to his charge against me, it may be that quite a bit productive regarding 'charitable ground' will come of it. Sadly, I just doubt that it will come from timaeus' perspective.Gregory_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

FYI - This thread has degenerated. I'm closing it this afternoon.johnnyb_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

"You suggested he’s somehow ‘afraid’ of dealing with contrary evidence" - nullasalus
Is that uncharitable reading or just reading in things that aren't there? I wrote and stand behind this:
"I don’t think timaeus is willing to follow the evidence where it leads wrt ‘evolutionism’ anyway; it would take him too far outside of his comfort zones."
Where is this 'fear' mentioned in the text? Lack of will need not be just attributed to being 'afraid.' Let us see what timaeus comes up with from his Expelled Syndrome infested cave: is he demonstrating lack of memory or intentional deceit? Either way, the sense of entitlement he displays simply reeks! But I'm sure he appreciates your 'general defense' of him at UD, nullasalus, even though you aren't an IDist.Gregory_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

Alan @77 I will just comment on one phrase of yours: "...[whether] you just like the idea of a supernatural element to common descent." That, with respect, isn't the issue for me, nor for many ID folk. Nor for "rank and file" TEs (of the kind who affect the percentages in national polls), though it seems to be for many of the current movers and shakers in that camp. I dispute (and have detailed on my own blogs) the whole validity of the natural/supernatural dichotomy arising from Enlightenment categories of thought. In classical Christian thought, "natural" means God's providential direction of all things in accordance with the natures he has given them, and "supernatural" to his providential direction of all things by working outside, or contrary to, their natures. What there isn't room for at all is a category of things that happens independent of God's providential direction, or God would not be God. I'm comfortable with any process, whether or not it involves "ID" restrictively understood, or common descent, that conforms to that view of reality. Which particular explanations are true is, of course, extremely interesting to science and to me, but not fundamental to understanding the universe.Jon Garvey_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

Are you defending timaeus on this point, nullasalus?
I am defending Timaeus generally, Gregory. You suggested he's somehow 'afraid' of dealing with contrary evidence, because it's 'outside of his comfort zone'. That is inane. He actually reads and straightforwardly engages the views of those he disagrees with, or he refrains from comment and/or qualifies his responses appropriately. I won't comment on any TSZ ramblings, because with rare exception, I don't dwell in that particular cesspool.nullasalus_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

That's kind of you, nullasalus. Glad to see you again! "I wouldn't call you a liar." - nullasalus I stand by what I said above: "timaeus demonstrates either his lack of memory or his intentional deception not to know or remember." Are you defending timaeus on this point, nullasalus?Gregory_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

Gregory, there's very little difference between "a person who is anonymous" and "a person who may as well be anonymous". In your case, the latter applies.
And to be honest, I don’t think timaeus is willing to follow the evidence where it leads wrt ‘evolutionism’ anyway; it would take him too far outside of his comfort zones.
And this is just flatly untrue. Timaeus has shown himself to be willing to investigate evidence he disagrees with and - crucially - have the sanity to do so. You? I wouldn't call you a liar. Just some variety of bonkers.nullasalus_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

Not quite sure where you stand on ID, Jon; whether you support the politics or you just like the idea of a supernatural element to common descent. So I don’t know if it is appropriate to ask you to join the experiment or not. Well Alan, Gregory defines my position as "IDism and Reformational ‘closed’ philosophy", which ought to make things perfectly clear to everybody, just like "evolutionism" does. When I've worked out what it means, I might be in a better position to decide whether I take a side on ID, and if so whether I take it strongly enough for it to dictate whether I post here... Meanwhile, my policy is that unless one respects the people one is posting for, one might as well keep silent anyway.Jon Garvey_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Repeat, since he didn't acknowledge the right not to answer him: timaeus is trying to sucker me in to have a discussion about ‘evolutionism’ here in his IDist haven. No thanks. If timaeus wants to join the TSZ, he is welcome there. Otherwise timaeus' over-inflated sense of entitlement to be answered at UD blog isn't very impressive.
"*I* don’t know what he means by it" - timaeus
timaeus demonstrates either his lack of memory or his intentional deception not to know or remember. I have already given my 'definition' of 'evolutionism,' both here and at TSZ. But obviously will need to do it again at TSZ with blinking lights attached to it so that nobody misses it. Again and again, timaeus is telling lies in public. And to be honest, I don't think timaeus is willing to follow the evidence where it leads wrt 'evolutionism' anyway; it would take him too far outside of his comfort zones. As for Dr. Edward Feser, he operates openly in public, facing challenges with his personal identity and reputation attached to what he says, has his own blog, works at a public college/university, prints books and articles under his own name. What does the person known here as 'timaeus' do? He is an Expelled Syndrome victim. What would it take to be healed? Only the 'Intelligent Designer' knows.Gregory_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

I am inviting all ID skeptics to stop commenting here for the next month.
The problem is not, and has never been, mere ID skeptics. I am skeptical of various aspects of ID, I've openly questioned them in many threads in the past, and I get along fine here. It's with people who have a particular axe to grind, cultural warriors of a particular type - in this case, most of whom congregate on one particular website, associated with the hateful, bigoted, homophobic swamp forums. So let's amend your test. Committed ID-hating TSZ regulars and likeminded people who can barely talk about ID with either contempt or mockery - or people who gleefully tolerate such, while pretending to be nice and open-minded, as Liddle does - take a hike, for a year. We'll see if UD can have conversations, insight, and discussions with real skeptics, not fakes.nullasalus_{September 16, 2013
September
09
Sep
16
16
2013
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next