[Admin Announcement] Get Back to Intelligent Design

Well, since I'm the one that responded with the initial rebuttal to Dave's comments, blame me for getting the ball rolling. It was meant partly funny as in "do you hear me now?"... But it was never intended for other than pointing out, if there is a Designer, due to advanced knowledge and technlogy, we can be heard. This is beside my personal experience in life, I think valid observations which can be expressed thru the forward looking progress of our current technological breakthrus. However, I found answers without - a forced fed theology. So, I wouldn't try to force it on anyone. In fact, Christ did not do so himself. My second response about Dave's purpose of being here and praying, I'll hold to myself :) So... back to ID, or is that, Back to the Future? Michaels7

Hey Dave, I think in your desire to allow Bill to say anything he wants about religion, you actually ruled him out in your post above. Bill has a PhD in Philosophy and in Mathematics, but his degree in Theology is a Master of Divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. Whoops! :)

It's already been pointed out to me but I'm sure everyone understood my meaning. And isn't theology just a subset of philsophy in any case? -ds EJ Klone

Let first offer my support of DaveScot's moderation here, he has devoted hours of his free time to this enterprise, and I will do my best to follow his lead. If my essay is not consistent with the subject matter of Uncommon Descent, there are other venues where it could be fully appropriate, and I will simply move it there.

Uncommon Descent is after all part of the Relentlessly Enthusiastic Online Community which is attracting notice by international reporters. And I wish to do all I can to support this weblog's efficacy.

jactone and Mats,

The tentative title is: Star Wars without Darth Vader, and the world without malicious designs. I intend to explore the topic of "bad design" from the perspective of drama, physics, information theory, mathematics, music, and engineering. I hope to show that the "bad design" argument pretends to be scientific argument, but is really a theological argument (thus it has no place in science), but even granted that it is theological argument, it can be negated by:

1. common sense philosophical arguments
2. some rather obscure mathematical and logical arguments
3. scientific arguments

I will NOT appeal to religious text or doctrine as authoritative support for my thesis.

I rather delight in being able to avoid countering theological arguments like the "bad design" arguments using non-theological arguements and "non-Biblical" arguments. Readers may be alarmed to hear me say that, but as the father of the ID movement (Phil Johnson) said:

the first thing we need to do is to get the Bible out of the discussion.

I agree with Phil Johnson and disagree with Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis). Ham insists that the Bible must always be part of the discussion. I offer my views as to why I side with Phil Johnson, and why it is Ham who is not the one being "Biblical" at:
My personal theology and philosophy. If any wish to persue the discussion there, they are invited to do so.

Salvador

I just remarked to Scott in an email that you and JohnnyB are the best authors here at sticking to science in your writing. This is remarkable in that you're also the only authors here (as far as I know) that believe in a young earth. My hat is off to both of you. -ds scordova

Amen and hallelujah. ID obviously has religious implications but it gets in the way of the science discussion and often the Darwinists bring it up a nano-second after the argument doesn't go their way and we should refuse to pander to them. But a lot of the posts recently have had cultural and political themes and it is kind of hard to keep the topic completely out of some threads. jerry

The "bad design" (or the "evil God") mindset is yet another evidence that for Darwinists, there are only two options: Creation or Evolution. The "bad design" arguement isn't an evidence for Darwinism, but only an evidence against the Designer. The mindset goes like "God wouldn't make it this way, THEREFORE it evolved by purely unguided processes". (And yet Darwinists claim that their theory has no religious implications). Mats

Salvador, a la Cornelius Hunter? Boy does he nail it in "Darwins God"! The whole argument of "bad design" reeks of theology. jacktone

Dave,

from moderation policy:

Theism and Atheism - We don’t discourage discussion of the implications ID or evolutionary theories have on religious or irreligious beliefs. We do discourage preaching–proselytizing for a particular faith or attacking one. This includes atheistic faith.

Dave,

I was preparing a post on the topic of Bad Design. Darwin and others today use the philosophical argument of "bad and malicious design" to argue against the scientific argument of intelligent design.

I thought it would be appropriate to counter this philosophical argument on philosophical and logical terms as the "bad design" argument I think needs to be addressed.

I won't appeal to any religious text or theology as an authority (but perhaps mention in historical context) in my discussion. Are philosophical discussion still ok? I see that Uncommon Descent still has a category for philosophy.

I rarely delve into this area, and I think I very rarely, if ever, I appealed to a theological argument at uncommon descent.

I will touch upon philosophy and metaphysics only in as much as it intereferes with the scientific discourse. I don't like to allow logically flawed arguments like "bad design" to float around and pre-empt consideration of intelligent design when indeed there are adequate answers to the "bad design" argument which make no appeal to theology. The "bad design" argument can be adquately addressed with a little bit of an appeal to common sense and common human experience. Would such posts be Ok since the "bad design" argument is constantly used to attack ID?

Salvador

The "bad design" argument is the Darwinists themselves making theological assumptions to refute a design inference that is devoid of theological assumptions. I don't see how it's gratuitous to point this out. Please proceed. -ds scordova

And now for a moment of science. Mung

As has been pointed out, the reason for the big controversy surrounding the Darwinism/ID debate is that there are profound metaphysical, philosophical and theological implications (e.g., where we came from and why we are here). This is why there is no big controversy surrounding discussion of the controversies in chemistry, physics and mathematics. (Besides, these disciplines represent real science based on solid evidence and logic, not pseudo-science attempting to pass off speculation and storytelling as evidence and logic.) So, let the best evidence and logic win! And let the metaphysical and theological pieces fall in place, as they inevitably will. In my opinion, the debate on the basis of evidence and logic is already over. Design screams at us with a shrill voice from every corner -- from the cosmologically huge to the microscopically small. The anti-ID folks are being forced to make increasingly ridiculous, counterintuitive, and desperate arguments, designed to refute the obvious evidence of design, which radically imposes itself upon us with great force, no matter where we turn. GilDodgen

Dang it! I just posted something religious! tribune7

Mats, Portugal beating Holland in the World Cup was noting short of the best evidence so far of the existence of Satan. I swear I saw horns on Figo's head when he did the head-butt. Definitely intelligently designed.

There was much shouting in the general direction of the TV today at the DaveScot household. I love watching a game where the ref isn't afraid to hand out yellow and red cards and the players aren't afraid to get them! -ds Raevmo

How can anyone even try to dissociate ID and religion without discussing or mentioning religion?

I said gratuitous. The comment moderation policy has warned all along that preaching-proselytizing is discouraged:

Theism and Atheism - We don’t discourage discussion of the implications ID or evolutionary theories have on religious or irreligious beliefs. We do discourage preaching–proselytizing for a particular faith or attacking one. This includes atheistic faith.

I have been lax in enforcing this for too long and breaking the rule myself. It seems to have gotten out of control. I can tell when it gets out of control because it causes friction between editor Scott and myself. -ds Larry Fafarman

I guess that means I can't anounce in here that Portugal beat Holland in the World Cup? ;) What if I say that it was an intelligently designed goal that gave us the victory ? Mats

Does political ideology and worldview qualify under the category of "religion"? (According to Ann Coulter, political beliefs equate with religious ones...at least when it comes to her opponents.) Atom