Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The “ID is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo” smear championed by Eugenie Scott et al of NCSE is now Law School Textbook orthodoxy . . .

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From ENV  — even as Dr Eugenie Scott of NCSE retires (having championed the ID is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo smear for years and years in the teeth of all correction . . . ) — we see a development, courtesy a whistle-blowing Law School student:

The latest attempt to insert creationism into the classroom is what is known as the Theory of Intelligent Design. The theory is that all of the complex natural phenomena could not have happened randomly; there had to be a design and a designer. Since the concept of the designer does not require a biblical interpretation, its advocates believe that it could possibly pass constitutional muster. Some states have proposed that science standards be rewritten to include requiring teachers to compare and contrast the design hypothesis with evidence that supports evolution . . . .

The efforts of Christian Fundamentalists to insert the biblical Book of Genesis’ explanation into the teaching of science in the public school classroom evolved in stages from direct state prohibitions to teaching Darwinian evolution, to teaching creation as a science, to balanced treatment of both creationism and evolution, and finally to the latest intelligent design movement (IDM) . . . .

Evidence in the [Dover, it seems] case indicated how the progenitors of intelligent design had adapted their wording and tactics immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. Edwards had struck down a legislative attempt to give “balanced-treatment” to “creation science” along with evolution in public school science classes. The federal court in Pennsylvania said that: “The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates . . . that the systemic change from ‘creation’ to ‘intelligent design’ occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports plaintiff’s assertion that ID is creationism relabeled.” [Apparently: Kern Alexander and M. David Alexander,  American Public School Law (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 8th Edn) p. 381.]

This is a blatantly slanderous strawman distortion in defiance of duties of care to truth, accuracy and fairness, and presents in misleading justification a false history of the origin of and motivation for design theory.

ENV’s Casey Luskin, quite properly, replies:

[F]irst off we see the equation of intelligent design (ID) with creationism. Is ID a form of “creationism”? For the purpose of a legal textbook, surely it’s important to see how courts have defined creationism. When the U.S. Supreme Court defined creationism, they found that it “embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.” Leading scholars on both sides of this debate agree that creationism generally holds that “supernatural” powers created life. Even under this broad definition of creationism, ID is not creationism. This is because ID does not try to address questions about whether the designer acting in biological nature is natural or supernatural, and in fact explicitly allows that the designer could have been natural. (We’ve discussed this before in detail; see “ID Does Not Address Religious Claims About the Supernatural.”) As should be clear, then, intelligent design lacks the key defining characteristic that makes creationism both unscientific and unconstitutional.

American Public School Law goes on to cite the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling as having demonstrated that intelligent design is creationism. Does the evidence from that case in fact show that intelligent design fits the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of creationism? Here’s how biologist Scott Minnich testified in explaining intelligent design to the court:

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator?
A. I do.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. It does not.

(Scott Minnich testimony, November 3, 2005.)

Or as Michael Behe testified:

Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to represent that intelligent design holds that the designer was God?
Behe: No, that is completely inaccurate.
Q. Well, people have asked you your opinion as to who you believe the designer is, is that correct?
Behe: That is right.
Q. Has science answered that question?
Behe: No, science has not done so.
Q. And I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct?
Behe: Yes, that’s correct.
Q. Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
Behe: No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.

(Michael Behe testimony, October 17, 2005.)

The judge in the case, John E. Jones, refused to allow ID proponents to define their own theory and ignored this testimony in his ruling. But far from being a mere exercise in rhetoric, Behe’s argument is principled, based on a commitment to respect the limits of science. His belief in God is not a hard-and fast conclusion of intelligent design, but something he concludes for different reasons, “based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.” He makes clear that ID doesn’t identify the designer.

For example, let’s say (for the sake of argument) that the DNA encoding the bacterial flagellum gives evidence that it did not arise by a random and unguided process like Darwinian evolution, but instead arose by a non-random and intelligently directed process. The raw data here is a highly complex molecular machine encoded by information in DNA. But that genetic information, and that machine has no way of directly telling us whether the designer is Yahweh, Buddha, Yoda, or some other source of intelligent agency. Based on our present knowledge, identifying the designer lies beyond the competence of science. It is strictly a philosophical or theological matter and, for the scientific theory of ID, it is beyond its scope. Since ID is based solely upon empirical data, the theory must remain silent on such questions.

Going on further, a better informed, more accurate  summary of the history of the roots of design theory would be:

In more recent decades, the resurgence of ID in science and philosophy arose from the confluence of information theory with the discoveries of the astonishingly complex and digital nature of DNA and cell engineering. It was not a response to the legal flaws associated with Biblical creationism, but a recognition that the mechanisms proposed by neo-Darwinism could not adequately explain the informational and irreducible properties of living systems that were increasingly being identified in biological literature as identical to features common in language and engineered machines. The term “intelligent design” appears to have been coined in its contemporary usage by cosmologist Dr. Fred Hoyle and soon thereafter Dr. Charles Thaxton, a chemist and academic editor for the Pandas textbook, adopted the term after hearing it mentioned by a NASA engineer. Thaxton’s adoption of the term was not an attempt to evade a court decision, but rather to distinguish ID from creationism, because, in contrast to creationism, ID sought to stay solely within the empirical domain:

I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there.

In their effort to tie ID to creationism, the plaintiffs introduced as their “smoking gun” a comparison of the language in early pre-publication drafts of Pandas that used the term “creation” and later pre-publication drafts as well as published editions that used the term “intelligent design.” They alleged the terminology was switched merely in an effort to evade the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which found “creation science” unconstitutional. But the plaintiffs (and Judge Jones, who relied on them) were wrong both historically and conceptually.

Historically, it is clear (as just pointed out) that the research that generated the Pandas textbook came years before any of the litigation over “creation science.” Conceptually, early drafts of Pandas, although they used the word “creation,” did not advocate “creationism” as that term was defined by the Supreme Court.

In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court found that creationism was religion because it referred to a “supernatural creator.” Yet long before Edwards, pre-publication drafts of Pandas specifically rejected the view that science could determine whether an intelligent cause identified through the scientific method was supernatural. A pre-Edwards draft argued that “observable instances of information cannot tell us if the intellect behind them is natural or supernatural. This is not a question that science can answer.” The same draft explicitly rejected William Paley’s eighteenth century design arguments because they unscientifically “extrapolate to the supernatural” from the empirical data.

The draft stated that Paley was wrong because “there was no basis in uniform experience for going from nature to the supernatural, for inferring an unobserved supernatural cause from an observed effect.” Another pre-publication draft made similar arguments: “[W]e cannot learn [about the supernatural] through uniform sensory experience . . . and so to teach it in science classes would be out of place . . . [S]cience can identify an intellect, but is powerless to tell us if that intellect is within the universe or beyond it.”

By unequivocally affirming that the empirical evidence of science “cannot tell us if the intellect behind [the information in life] is natural or supernatural” it is evident that these pre-publication drafts of Pandas meant something very different by “creation” than did the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, in which the Court defined creationism as religion because it postulated a “supernatural creator.”

(David DeWolf, John West, and Casey Luskin, “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” Montana Law Review, Vol. 68:7 (Winter, 2007) (internal citations omitted).)

So, as we approach the retirement of Ms Scott of NCSE, where are we?

Right where Lewontin said in his infamous 1997 NYRB article, Billions and Billions of Demons:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [If you think this is quote-mined, in accord with a typical counter talking point, kindly cf the larger excerpt with annotations here on.]

Philip Johnson’s reply in November that same year is well deserved:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
. . . .   The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

No wonder, Luskin summarises where we have come since the 1920’s  thusly:

The efforts of Darwinian Fundamentalists to insert materialist explanations into the teaching of science in the public school classroom evolved in stages from opposing direct state prohibitions to teaching Darwinian evolution, to opposing balanced treatment of both creationism and evolution, to opposing any mention of scientific alternatives like intelligent design, to refusing to allow even mainstream scientific critiques of their viewpoint to be taught. Thus, while Evolution activists might have had the moral high ground in 1925 during the Scopes trial, Justice Scalia notes that today we have “Scopes in Reverse,” where they try to censor critics by creating a climate of fear and intimidation.

Do you see why I keep on pointing out the warning made by Plato, 2350 years ago now? Namely, this from The Laws, Bk X:

Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily “scientific” view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors:  (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . .

[[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.– [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke’s views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic “every man does what is right in his own eyes” chaos leading to tyranny. )] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here],  these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them.

Will it take the infamous 4:00 am knock on the doors by Jack-booted thugs (while the neighbours cower, shivering, behind their doors . . . ), to wake us up?

The authors of a text book that acts like this, should be publicly named and shamed, and the publishers should be exposed as failing in basic duties of care.

On right of fair, credibly informed comment and in light of duties of care for education:

Kern Alexander and M. David Alexander, SHAME ON YOU!

Wadsworth of Belmont, CA: SHAME ON YOU!

And, that this propagation of evident deception under false name of knowledge and education, is in the direct context of shaping the next generation of lawyers, FBI agents, Judges and Legislators, etc, is chilling beyond words.

It is time to wake up now, before it is too late. END

Comments
G2: I accept. Next time, please understand what it is like to be the frog when the small boy approaches, stone in hand: fun for you means death to me. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2013
May
05
May
15
15
2013
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
KF: Im not sure how to respond. I sincerely appologize for any offence, but I thought it was obvious that it was purely rhetorical. I know nothing about you: I dont even know your gender.Graham2
May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
F/N: G2, you have crossed a line (given threats I have had to deal with), and I have given you warning appended to the above comment. Don't EVER do such again or the like. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
G2, the evidence and context say different, given that you have been utterly unresponsive to a serious answer, as reflective of the wider context of the viciously slanderous agendas at work in our civilisation at this time and as has now reached the dangerous level of Law School textbook orthodoxy -- the very point of the OP you are willfully ignoring. And so, I for one am not going to cosset any asp on the pretence that it has suddenly become lamb-like. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT
KF: Get a grip man, Im not about to eat your wife. Im just curious about your beliefs. ======= Don't you even dare MENTION my wife again. Your ilk have already tried to out and threaten her and our children. KFGraham2
May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
G2: It is quite plain that you are willfully diverting focus from a sobering issue on the table, of the twisting of law based on a long term calculated deception and slander promoted by the NCSE et al. This, at the very same time when we are seeing an unfolding scandal in global news headlines on what such slanderous twisting can lead to, serious abuse by officials. Your unwillingness to take seriously that there is a significant SCIENTIFIC/INDUCTIVE LOGIC point, that design theory as theory is about inferring from empirically tested, reliable signs [such as FSCO/I] that are signatures of design as cause, is therefore a key component of enabling behaviour. Linked to this, there is a contempt to those who hold a theistic worldview (doubtless driven by the sort of polarisation, stereotyping and scapegoating that are now ever so commonly promoted by the so-called New Atheists and the like), leading to a willingness to irresponsibly project nefarious motivation through turnabout accusations and insinuations, and to seek to try to trap in words. In short, you have -- across time -- been unwilling to entertain that there are design thinkers who actually, on evidence, hold that we can distinguish say:
OSC: qwqwqwqwqwqwqwqw . . . RSC, typ: goeighufwufwheyfo42gruw . . . FSC: a functionally specific sequence of components
. . . based on empirical characteristics linked to the nature of functionally specific complex information and associated organisation. At this stage, that is willful denial of and closed-mindedness to empirically grounded, often patent reality. Instead of addressing such a serious problem on the merits, you have chosen to play ideological games of polarisation and projection, which speaks volumes. For, that is classic enabling of the sort of abuse that is the focus of this thread. If you and others of your ilk had actually shown that the inference on sign is ill-founded, that would have been one thing. That has not been done -- despite years of trying. Instead, there is a well-funded movement that actually pretends to be able to redefine science in a question-begging, ideologically captivated fashion, as in effect applied atheism. This robs science of its ability to seek the truth objectively, especially on matters of origins. This undermines the integrity of science, a keystone institution in our civilisation. And yes, you may wish to suggest that to be concerned about that is overblown, but it is a serious matter, one with a living memory t5rack record of what can happen when science is perverted and when such darkened science becomes a tool of the ruthless in power. Let's just say: EUGENICS, as one example. Such thereafter turns science education into indoctrination in materialism, which is itself seriously destructive as it is both self-referentially incoherent and inherently has in it no IS capable of objectively grounding OUGHT; undermining our capacity for moral governance and leading to increasing influence of the nihilistic notion that might and manipulation determine 'truth' and 'right'; which are exactly what too much of so-called post modernism is about. That is, such feeds narcissism, sociopathy and machiavellianism [a version of modern psychology's dark triad], as Plato in effect warned against 2350 years ago, on destructive examples in ancient Athens such as Alcibiades. There are a great many more, too many in living memory, as the ghosts of 100+ million victims of secularist and/or neo-pagan political messianisms warn us. Now, I know EA is trying to be generous, to suggest to you that you still have a chance to pull back to reasonableness; that which distinguishes us from brute beasts or worse. I fear, on track record, you are but little open to such gentle suasion. I do, however, hope, that you are sufficiently reasonable and responsive, to see the issues, contexts and concerns being laid out, and are or eventually will be sufficiently willing to recognise the no-harm principle of dealing with others, that you will pull back. Where, it is to be noted that not only have you, several times, been given the priority issue, that FSCO/I stands as an inductively grounded reliable sign of design as cause, but also have been pointed out that from Thaxton et al on, it has been understood by the modern design movement, that inferring design as causal pattern based on FSCO/I in the world of life, is not equal to identifying any particular designer, much less whether such is in or beyond the cosmos. It has also been pointed out that there is another level of design theory, pioneered by the lifelong agnostic and Nobel-equivalent Prize holder in Astronomy, Sir Fred Hoyle, which points to the fine tuning of the observed cosmos in many ways, that sets up a frame in which C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life becomes possible. From this, it raises the question that the observed cosmos evinces signs of design, which implicates a designer of vast power, knowledge and skill beyond the cosmos. Even, through a multiverse speculative model. Thus, there is a reasonable WORLDVIEW level conclusion that the net result of relevant sciences in our time is that we live in a cosmos designed for life and in which we find life, which shows strong signs of being designed such as FSCO/I. So, by whatever mechanism and on whatever timeline, we have an independent line or two of scientifically grounded thought, that makes a theistic view of life quite reasonable and tenable as a worldview, in light of scientific thought in our day. Which seems enormously threatening to those who are heavily invested in the cosmos and ourselves not being the product of design. And if that is threatening, I guess the sort of implications as are highlighted on the minimal facts discussion on the historical foundations of the Christian Faith, are evidently even more threatening. Where, we can see how even after he was publicly corrected and had to concede in a debate, Dawkins was recently noted in a Playboy interview -- the venue speaks volumes -- tried to pretend that there is little historical warrant for Christian foundations, starting with pretending that here is little reason to accept the historicity of Jesus. As in -- again -- read and weep. All of this has been pointed out to you, and in your presence many times. All of this, you have plainly willfully chosen to ignore, the better to push your loaded talking points in defiance of duties of care to truth and fairness. And, not even the issue that even as we speak, we see a pattern of abuse in our headlines, has been enough to give you pause. So, I must caution you that your pattern of behaviour in this thread (given its context) exhibits the blame the intended victim, polarisation tactic, the turnabout accusation, or insinuation. Here, leading to a well-known pattern of attempted well poisoning:
Namely: ID is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo, and the issue is the alleged injection of the feared and inherently irrational supernatural into the halls of science and education, leading to right wing tyranny . . . as has already been pointedly corrected above, in addition cf here on on some of the pivotal roots of modern liberty and democracy that you will increasingly not hear about in school or in easily accessible media, and here on some roots of science that you will similarly nor commonly learn about . . . such are the pernicious history warping ways of amoral ideologies
. . . and evident closed minded refusal to entertain cogent responses or reflect on what you are enabling. In fact, your lack of willingness to interact on such serious points of concern, and with reasonable responses informed by the wider context, suggests that you are here only to push distractive, disruptive talking points fed to you by the sort of agendas that -- on sobering track record from Alcibiades et al on -- we are highlighting as a danger to our civilisation. The redeeming aspect of this, is that it shows the astute onlooker, the sort of thought and behaviour pattern that has led to the sort of abuse of education that is in the textbook headlined in the OP. I trust, that those onlookers will take due note and will increasingly understand the dangerous nihilism that our civilisation is increasingly entertaining and even clutching to its breast, like the proverbial asp. Not wise. For, a snake is and will always remain a snake; never a lamb. And, such undiscerning cossetting is not likely to have good consequences. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
Its a general request that you state what role (if any) you think your god may have in the creation of life. If its 'loaded', 'slander', 'well poisening', and the end of civilization as we know it, then I hardly think the blame is mine. If you are confident in your faith, I really dont see why you should be ducking for cover behind all the smoke.Graham2
May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Graham2 @74: Please, don't go all victim on us. You asked a question that was, at best, ambiguous. I already outlined why and mentioned some possible interpretations. There are a couple of possibilities at work here: 1. You didn't realize the question was poorly worded or ambiguous, but now having had it pointed out to you, you could clarify your question and move the discussion forward. 2. You knew the question was purposely worded in a way to catch someone. Having not been successful in doing so, you will continue to demand that the original question -- without any clarification to remove the ambiguity -- be answered. You will also feign surprise and shock that anyone could possibly have misunderstood your question and pretend that it is all very innocent. Which is it? So far, it looks like you are headed down road #2, but there is still time to demonstrate that you are on road #1.Eric Anderson
May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
PS: We are also in an age where words like "faith" are often utterly loaded with contempt- laced doublespeak when issuing from the mouths of materialists, cf. here. (Note how I took time above to discuss the terms. G2 would also profit by taking time to think through the issue of worldview foundations and faith points leading to the challenge of comparative difficulties. But then, on recent track record, it seems that philosophy is also a target of contempt from too many of today's equivalent of the village atheists of old, not to mention the first principles of right reason. As this post for record shows, this last directly implicates G2.)kairosfocus
May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
G2: With all reasonable respect, the sustained disingenuousness of your response is patent. It reminds me of the accusation made to Luther at the Diet of Worms, when his inquisitor demanded a "simple" answer to a loaded question. Or, we could compare the case of Jesus, teaching in the temple -- doubtless on preciously important matters -- and interrupted by those who, malice aforethought, tossed a woman allegedly caught in the very act of adultery [where was the man?] at his feet and demanded a "simple" answer to the case. Here, a very serious matter is on the table, the entrenching of a long since corrected slander with potentially serious consequences (one, however that keeps on being championed by various groups hoping to do harm thereby by blaming the victim . . . ), in Law School textbooks. As with other threads at UD, you have interrupted, and tried to toss in a question designed to "prove" that design theory is as the false accusation pretends. (BTW, onlookers present and prospective, notice, this is the ONLY real response being made by objectors to design theory. That speaks volumes.) Instead of tossing you out of the thread or tagging you a troll and ignoring you, I and others have taken time to point out that matters are not as "simple" as alleged, and that the underlying claim is not as you imagine. You continue to demand a "simple" -- naive or simplistic -- answer to a matter that is not simple. I will further respond here to the "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo" implied allegation, by citing the UD WAC on that topic,as is accessible under the resources tab at every page that is found at UD:
5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo” In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based. Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the “forward” approach in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” With these thinkers, the investigation was faith-based. By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover” — i.e. from effect to its “best” causal explanation — is obviously empirically based. To say then, that Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm (Creationism) is similar to Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley (ID) is equivalent to saying forward equals backward. What could be more illogical? 6] Since Intelligent Design Proponents Believe in a “Designer” or “Creator” They Can Be Called “Creationists” First, a basic fact: while many intelligent design proponents believe in a Creator (which is their world-view right), not all do. Some hold that some immanent principle or law in nature could design the universe. That is: to believe in intelligent design is not necessarily to believe in a transcendent creative being. However, what is rhetorically significant is the further fact that the term “creationist” is very often used today in a derogatory way. Traditionally, the word was used to describe the world view that God created the universe, a belief shared by many ID scientists, and even some ID critics. But now, that same term is too often used dishonestly in an attempt to associate intelligent design, an empirically-based methodology, with Creationism, a faith-based methodology. Some Darwinist advocates and some theistic evolutionists seem to feel that if they can tag ID with the “Creationist” label often enough and thus keep the focus away from science–if they can create the false impression that ID allows religious bias to “leak” into its methodology–if they can characterize it as a religious presupposition rather than a design inference –then the press and the public will eventually come to believe that ID is not really science at all. In short, anti-ID ideologues use the word “creationist” to distract from a scientific debate that they cannot win on the merits. The only real question is whether someone who uses this dubious strategy is doing so out of ignorance (having been taken in by it, too) or out of malice. 7] Because William Dembski once commented that the design patterns in nature are consistent with the “logos theology” of the Bible, he unwittingly exposed his intentions to do religion in the name of science In general, personal beliefs and personal views about the general nature of reality (be they religious, atheistic, or of any kind) should not be considered directly relevant to what scientists say and do in their specific scientific work: that’s a very simple rule of intellectual respect and democracy, and it simply means that nobody can impose a specific model of reality on others, and on science itself. Moreover, Dembski is qualified as a theologian and a philospher-scientist-mathematician (one of a long and distinguished tradition), so he has a perfect right to comment seriously on intelligent design from both perspectives. Further to this, the quote in question comes from a theologically oriented book in which Dembski explores the “theological implications” of the science of intelligent design. Such theological reframing of a scientific theory and/or its implications is not the same thing as the theory itself, even though each may be logically consistent with the other. Dembski’s point, of course, was that truth is unified, so we shouldn’t be surprised that theological truths confirm scientific truths and vice versa. Also, Dembski’s reference to John 1:1 ff. underscores how a worldview level or theological claim may have empirical implications, and is thus subject to empirical test. For, in that text, the aged Apostle John put into the heart of foundational era Christian thought, the idea that Creation is premised on Rational Mind and Intelligent Communication/Information. Now, after nineteen centuries, we see that — per empirical observation — we evidently do live in a cosmos that exhibits fine-tumed, function-specifying complex information as a premise of facilitating life, and cell-based life is also based on such functional, complex, and specific information, e.g in DNA. Thus, theological truth claims here line up with subsequent empirical investigation:a risky empirical prediction has been confirmed by the evidence. (Of course, had it been otherwise – and per track record — many of the same critics would have pounced on the “scientific facts” as a disconfirmation. So, why then is it suddenly illegitimate for Christians to point out from scientific evidence, that on this point their faith has passed a significant empirical test?) 8] Intelligent Design is an attempt by the Religious Right to establish a Theocracy Darwinist advocates often like to single out the “Discovery Institute” as their prime target for this charge. It is, of course, beyond ridiculous. In fact, all members from that organization and all prominent ID spokespersons embrace the American Founders’ principle of representative democracy. All agree that civil liberties are grounded in religious “principles” (on which the framers built the republic) not religious “laws” (which they risked their lives to avoid), and support the proposition that Church and State should never become one. However, anti-ID zealots too often tend to misrepresent the political issues at stake and distort the original intent, spirit, and letter of the founding documents. Historically, the relationship between Church and State was characterized not as a “union” (religious theocracy) or a radical separation (secular tyranny) but rather as an “intersection,” a mutual co-existence that would allow each to express itself fully without any undue interference from the other. There was no separation of God from government. On the contrary, everyone understood that freedom follows from the principle that the Creator God grants “unalienable rights,” a point that is explicit in the US Declaration of Independence. Many Darwinists are hostile to such an explicitly Creation-anchored and declaratively “self-evident” foundation for liberty and too often then misunderstand or pervert its historical context – the concept and practice of covenantal nationhood and just Government under God. Then, it becomes very tempting to take the cheap way out: (i) evade the responsibility of making their scientific case, (ii) change the subject to politics, (iii) pretend to a superior knowledge of the history, and (iv) accuse the other side of attempting to establish a “theocracy.” In fact, design thinking is incompatible with theocratic principles, a point that is often lost on those who don’t understand it. Jefferson and his colleagues — all design thinkers — argued that nature is designed, and part of that design reflects the “natural moral law,” which is observed in nature and written in the human heart as “conscience.” Without it, there is no reasonable standard for informing the civil law or any moral code for defining responsible citizenship. For, the founders held that (by virtue of the Mind and Conscience placed within by our common Creator) humans can in principle know the core ideas that distinguish right from wrong without blindly appealing to any religious text or hierarchy. They therefore claimed that the relationship between basic rights and responsibilities regarding life, liberty and fulfillment of one’s potential as a person is intuitively clear. Indeed, to deny these principles leads into a morass of self-contradictions and blatant self-serving hypocrisies; which is just what “self-evident” means. So, as a member of a community, each citizen is should follow his conscience and traditions in light of such self-evident moral truth; s/he therefore deserves to be free from any tyranny or theocracy that which would frustrate such pursuit of virtue. By that standard, religious believers are permitted and even obliged to publicly promote their values for the common good; so long as they understand that believers (and unbelievers) who hold other traditions or worldviews may do the same. Many Darwinists, however, confuse civil laws that are derived from religious principles and from the natural moral law (representative democracy) with religious laws (autocratic theocracy). So, they are reduced to arguing that freedom is based on a murky notion of “reason,” which, for them, means anti-religion. Then, disavowing the existence of moral laws, natural rights, or objectively grounded consciences, they can provide no successful rational justification for the basic right to free expression; which easily explains why they tend to support it for only those who agree with their point of view. Sadly, they then too often push for — and often succeed in — establishing civil laws that de-legitimize those very same religious principles that are the historic foundation for their right to advocate their cause. Thus, they end up in precisely the morass of agenda-serving self-referential inconsistencies and abuses that the founders of the American Republic foresaw. So, it is no surprise that, as a matter of painfully repeated fact, such zealots will then typically “expel” and/or slander any scientist or educator who challenges their failed paradigm or questions its materialistic foundations. That is why for instance, Lewontin publicly stated: Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [Bold emphasis added] The point of all this should be clear. ID does not seek to establish a theocracy; it simply wants to disestablish a growing Darwinist tyranny.
Remember, the underlying point of the design inference is separate from theistic traditions, though that is exactly what the Christian tradition claims, in asserting in foundational documents, that the evident reality of an architect of the world is compellingly evident from what has been made and from what we find in our hearts, consciences and minds; if we were to truly and fairly listen on the merits. This is why (for instance), we find a moral expose of materialistic nihilism in Plato's The Laws Bk X, and why it is joined to a cosmological design inference. Cicero makes a similar claim regarding the chance of finding organised text by chance. When we look at Lucretius' On the Nature of Things, we find that his materialism has the fatal flaw of failing to ask, first, how do we come to be able to know and think, on such premises. (Which, leads to expose of the self-referential incoherence of evolutionary materialism that you will not take up, as is shown in 56, points 4 - 5, above.) And so forth. So, let me remind, yet again [by clipping from 54 above . . . the first response], on just what the design inference is in a nutshell:
As far as I am concerned, design is inferred on reliable signs as tested, who the designers are or could be is a second order question. As I have pointed out, echoing those who pioneered design theory from Thaxton et al on, evidence of design of life does not in itself imply that the relevant designers are within or beyond the cosmos. The issue is simple: is there evidence that — per a wide base of empirical tests — reliably points to design as a credible causal explanation of a given entity or object? ANS: Yes, signs such as FSCO/I. Is such evidence to be found in the living cell? ANS: Yes. Inductive Conclusion: the cell is in material part formed by design, per inference to best current explanation. To break that inductive inference is quite simple: show that FSCO/I or the like is not a reliable sign of design as cause. Tried — for years, but not delivered on; hence, the distraction and subject switching games such as is involved in the false accusation in the textbook at the heart of the OP, and which you are here echoing. And, it is now coming on eight months in which you and any number of others have had a free kick at goal to show here at UD through a hosted feature article length essay, that on observational evidence, the evolutionary materialist school of thought has adequately accounted for OOL and OO body plans. That there are no serious takers to date (especially on OOL) is utterly telling . . .
In that context, people adhere to the Christian tradition in light of encounter with God in the face of Jesus, and find supportive warrant for their view in light of relevant historical evidence and argument. The minimal facts issue I have yet again put before you by way of a challenge and witness, is a good example in point. (This time around, I am linking a reply to Dawkins' dismissive remarks in an interview with Playboy magazine, a revealing context in itself.) As I have also pointed out repeatedly now, such a position is consistent with various responsible views on how one interprets Genesis' creation account. That is why I have summarised from 54 onwards:
[Theistic, specifically Christian] faith (= confident trust in the cumulative force of evidence and experience leading to willingness to act on that trust . . . here amounting to moral certainty [cf. here, again]: evidence warranting a conclusion to a degree that is not equivalent to demonstrative deductive proof on axioms acceptable to all but which is sufficiently compelling on cumulative impact that one would be irresponsible to dismiss or ignore it when making decisions of great moment . . . ) would be compatible with: direct creation of the cosmos and world of life in either a young or an old creation frame. With, also, a broadly theistic evolutionary view, up to and including universal common descent similar to Behe’s view. With also, a view that God simply picked the cosmic simulation run or equivalent, that ends up with us. Or, whatever. Such a frame is empirically testable, as it would be INCONSISTENT with/severely undermined by a world in which on solid, systematic evidence there is no reason to infer to design as a key feature of the cause of the observed cosmos or of the world of life. It so happens, however, that the cosmological evidence — independent of that in the world of life — strongly points to fine tuning of the observed cosmos for life, and that the world of life — per FSCO/I etc — shows strong signs of design. That is, we have scientific evidence providing support, not undermining.
Beyond that, you do not have a right to an answer, in a context plainly designed to play poisonous attack the man rhetorical games in the context of enabling a slander with obviously serious consequences. We are talking here about warping of the education of those tasked to be bearers of the Law. In so responding, I am inviting you to open- mindedly examine the fundamental case for inferring design on tested reliable sign [where, that I hold that one is able to open one's mind already has implications as evo mat views imply that the mind is shaped, driven and controlled by blind forces unrelated to logic, reason, soundness or truth], on its merits as an exercise in empirically grounded inductive reasoning. That is what science, properly, is about. I am further inviting you to assess the core warrant for the dominant evolutionary materialist school of thought, as you have been challenged already at 56 above. Let us just say that the silence on the challenge that is now approaching eight months, speaks volumes on the actual want of an empirically grounded adequate material -- chance plus necessity -- mechanism that can generate FSCO/I as is found in the living cell and as is further found in diverse body plans. What instead patently drives the system is the imposition of a Lewontinian a priori materialistic circle of reasoning on the evidence, that locks out otherwise significant alternatives before the facts can speak for themselves. So, I can close off by citing Johnson's reply to Lewontin:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
Remember, the matter at stake at this point, per the OP, is the embedding of slander backed injustice in the system of law. This is not any longer a matter of talking point games and one upmanship. And, it is quite plain that you are here found on the side enabling slander and prospective serious injustice. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
My goodness. I asked KF a simple question regarding his faith, and I get all this clutching of pearls. If KF (or anyone) really wanted to answer it, it could be done in about 1 sentence.Graham2
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT
Graham2 @66:
For a believer, I would have thought its simple, trivial even … ever heard of Genesis ?
For a believer in what? A literal interpretation of Genesis without any other consideration? What would that have to do with the design inference?
I suspect no-body wants to answer the question.
You mean the question that you have refused to clearly ask? It is unfortunate that you are playing games, apparently with a goal to score some cheap points. Sorry to disappoint you, but we didn't fall prey to your little game.Eric Anderson
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed @#67 Thanks. I hope I'll have a chance to, though seeing that my area of expertise is design systems used by artists and architects of the Italian Renaissance, a relevant thread may not come up very often. Still, I'll jump in when I can.Dr.Ford
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
KF,
"He also fails to understand the principle that there is such a thing as showing oneself a reasonable interlocutor, who then has earned the right to ask questions."
Spot on. An inquisitor is not the same as an interlocutor. ;)Chance Ratcliff
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
KF: If you take any of a number of responsible positions then just give one of them. Im not fussy.Graham2
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
CR: Right. I see G2 has now clearly indicated his "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo" context, and so it can be pointed out to him, that it is a reasonable answer to state first the design inference, which stands on its own independent of any theistic tradition, and then point out that those who adhere to a Christian tradition may and do take any of a number of responsible positions. (Evidently, he cannot accept that that could indeed be my actual view.) He seems to want to pigeonhole; the better to play Alinskyite polarising games. Meanwhile he refuses to clarify a loaded "question." (He also fails to understand the principle that there is such a thing as showing oneself a reasonable interlocutor, who then has earned the right to ask questions. He needs to realise that the "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo" talking point game is now revealed by the OP to be a potentially destructive slander, and that it is a case of speaking in disregard of duties of care to truth and fairness, hoping to profit through the falsehood being seen as true to the detriment of those targetted. This is not mere verbal sparring, people are going to get hurt, and G2 is plainly on the side of those who want to do injustice based on slander.) KFkairosfocus
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
Eric @64: Yes, the needle of the irony meter nearly broke off. What could possibly be more dodgy than refusing to qualify a poorly considered question, when specifically asked to do so? Of course the problem is, when you asked Graham2 to qualify the question, you emptied it of its rhetorical power, and that's why it was asked in the first place.Chance Ratcliff
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
Dr Ford, I hope you'll continue to contribute here.Upright BiPed
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
This gets funnier as it goes along. For a believer, I would have thought its simple, trivial even ... ever heard of Genesis ? I suspect no-body wants to answer the question.Graham2
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
EA: Yup, there is an element of attempted turnabout accusation in what G2 is doing. That tends to cloud and further polarise the issue by a blame the victim game. Notice, that is exactly one of the intents of the false accusations in the OP, to cloud issues and create a perception of deserving what they got, for victims of career busting over design theory questions. Let us take due note, and let us understand what motivates such tactics. KFkairosfocus
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Ducking, weaving, bluster and the chirping of crickets.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I offer you Graham2 @62 as Exhibit A. ----- Chance: Re your 61 and Graham2's 62, I think your irony meter is about to explode. You can't script this kind of stuff! :)Eric Anderson
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
Onlookers: Alinsky's rules for radicals:
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. [NB: Notice the evil counsel to find a way to attack the man, not the issue. The easiest way to do that, is to use the trifecta stratagem: distract, distort, demonise.] In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."
Just so you know why G2 is playing the cynical distraction, caricatured distortion, demonisation, disrespect, denigration and polarisation games he is playing. KF PS: That should make it clear why I refuse to answer a barbed, loaded question in a hostile context in a naive way. Instead, I have laid out a range of serious Christian options, and -- pivoting on G2's use of a disrespectful atheistical rendering of a Divine title -- it is also why I have laid out the challegne evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers have in accounting for an evidently fine tuned cosmos, the origin of life, that of body plans including our own, as well as the grounding of mind and morals. That is often overlooked in the context of the attack-attack-attack tactics so often resorted to be advocates of evolutionary materialism. PPS: Observe as well, the context in which G2 has tried to play distractive attack rhetorical games. On a weekend where abuse of lawful power is making global headlines, the OP is about the embedding of a slanderous caricature of design theory in textbooks, intended to lead to marginalisation as being perceived as illegal and fraudulent, scapegoating and unjust targetting. In short, G2 is telling us worlds about his enabling behaviour by trying to distract attention through Alinskyite trollish tactics. Let us take due and proper note about what that implies about where such would lead our civilisation if unchecked. kairosfocus
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Ducking, weaving, bluster and the chirping of crickets.Graham2
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
What a laugh. Eric invites Graham2 to meaningfully clarify his question, and Graham2 makes a turnabout accusation of "ducking" in response. There's one for the irony files.Chance Ratcliff
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
Graham2: I see. So you are not willing to ask the question in clear and unambiguous terms. Instead you want the listener to try to interpret what you meant and then cover all the bases. Sounds like a fishing expedition. Hmmm . . .Eric Anderson
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
Eric: I expected that all this was understood and would be reflected in the answer. What Im seeing is a lot of ducking and weaving, but no answer.Graham2
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Graham2 @55: Did you consider that your question is too vague to permit a simple Yes/No answer? kf has given you a detailed answer that delves into the issues. If you are just trying to catch him in his word, then I suppose it would be easy to be disappointed that he didn't fall prey to your trap and take the bait. Perhaps you can clarify what you really mean when you say "Do you believe all life on earth was created by god?" 1. Do you mean that every organism that currently lives was individually created de novo? 2. Do you mean that every organism that currently lives descended from an identical organism initially created de novo and that there has been no modification or evolutionary change over time? 3. Are you trying to focus in on predation, "evil" design, pain, or suffering caused by one organism to another? 4. When you ask if god is the designer are you asking whether that is a conclusion that flows from the empirical evidence, or are you asking who kf thinks the creator is, as a personal belief and separate from what intelligent design proper can demonstrate? If you properly clarify your question with the appropriate details and nuances then you can perhaps get a Yes/No answer.Eric Anderson
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Do you believe all life on earth was created by god ?
No. Not even YECs believe that. That is a strawman of your making. It's as if you cannot help yourself.Joe
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
G2: With all due respect, you have all the answer an accusation in disguise like that (given the context indicated in the OP) deserves. Let me clip the core response, just for record:
As far as I am concerned, design is inferred on reliable signs as tested, who the designers are or could be is a second order question. As I have pointed out, echoing those who pioneered design theory from Thaxton et al on, evidence of design of life does not in itself imply that the relevant designers are within or beyond the cosmos. The issue is simple: is there evidence that — per a wide base of empirical tests — reliably points to design as a credible causal explanation of a given entity or object? ANS: Yes, signs such as FSCO/I. Is such evidence to be found in the living cell? ANS: Yes. Inductive Conclusion: the cell is in material part formed by design, per inference to best current explanation. To break that inductive inference is quite simple: show that FSCO/I or the like is not a reliable sign of design as cause. Tried — for years, but not delivered on; hence, the distraction and subject switching games such as is involved in the false accusation in the textbook at the heart of the OP, and which you are here echoing. And, it is now coming on eight months in which you and any number of others have had a free kick at goal to show here at UD through a hosted feature article length essay, that on observational evidence, the evolutionary materialist school of thought has adequately accounted for OOL and OO body plans. That there are no serious takers to date (especially on OOL) is utterly telling . . .
Also, this on the relationship between specifically Christian faith and the possibilities for origin of life and body plans compatible with or undermining of it:
[Theistic, specifically Christian] faith (= confident trust in the cumulative force of evidence and experience leading to willingness to act on that trust . . . here amounting to moral certainty [cf. here, again]: evidence warranting a conclusion to a degree that is not equivalent to demonstrative deductive proof on axioms acceptable to all but which is sufficiently compelling on cumulative impact that one would be irresponsible to dismiss or ignore it when making decisions of great moment . . . ) would be compatible with: direct creation of the cosmos and world of life in either a young or an old creation frame. With, also, a broadly theistic evolutionary view, up to and including universal common descent similar to Behe’s view. With also, a view that God simply picked the cosmic simulation run or equivalent, that ends up with us. Or, whatever. Such a frame is empirically testable, as it would be INCONSISTENT with/severely undermined by a world in which on solid, systematic evidence there is no reason to infer to design as a key feature of the cause of the observed cosmos or of the world of life. It so happens, however, that the cosmological evidence — independent of that in the world of life — strongly points to fine tuning of the observed cosmos for life, and that the world of life — per FSCO/I etc — shows strong signs of design. That is, we have scientific evidence providing support, not undermining.
I notice your continued brusque dismissiveness as "bluster" in the teeth of a summary and specific links on evidence and a specific explanation of what a design theory based view is about in respect of theistic worldviews and empirical evidence in light of the scientific investigations, and what would overturn it. So, it is time to turn the tables. 1] Your empirically grounded evidence that blind chance and mechanical necessity are plausibly adequate to form a life friendly cosmos, trigger OOL and then body plans (including our own with the crucial linguistic ability) is: ______________ ? 2] Your empirically grounded evidence that things like FSCO/I are not empirically tested, found reliable indicators of design is: ____________ ? 3] Your adequate reason for dismissing the reality of God, as is indicated by your telling resort to the common g above, is: ___________ ? 4] In that context, your grounding of the credibility of the human ability to reason and know (note here onlookers) is: ______________ ? 5] In that context, your grounding of OUGHT in an IS at worldview foundation level adequate to sustain rights as more than the nihilistic, amoral "might and manipulation make 'right' . . . " warned against by Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is: _______________ ? [Onlookers, cf. here, here and here for why this is absolutely important.) 6] Your best explanation for the minimal facts at the historical foundation of the Christian Faith is: _____________, and it is best warranted as ____________ ? 7] In light of the above, your best account for the system of reality we see in the world around us and in our hearts is: ______________, and it is best warranted as a worldview because ____________ ? KFkairosfocus
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
A lot of bluster, but no answer.Graham2
May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply