Congratulations to New BioLogos President

_{Jonathan Bartlett

January 29, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

I just wanted to extend my congratulations to Deborah Haarsma, the new president of BioLogos! I hope that in the coming years, whether BioLogos embraces Intelligent Design or not, they can at least come to understand better the positions we hold.

I have not read Dr. Haarsma’s book on creation/evolution/intelligent design, but I would be interested to hear from people who have.

Anyway, many congratulations, and I hope the BioLogos Foundation’s search for truth is effective and fruitful.

Comments

Mung: It evidently has not occurred to OG that if the values of key terms and laws in physics are forced to take up the values they hold by a higher order law [and for many ot them, that is patently not so, and in other cases a tuned value works for multiple constraining reasons that bear no obvious connexion . . . ], that higher order law will itself be unreasonably and suspiciously fine tuned. One cannot get away from the fine tuning issue that easily. KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Somehow, the universe seems rigged, "a put-up job," as Fred Hoyle expressed it. One possibility is that the universe is intentionally and intelligently designed. ...Or perhaps for reasons still opaque to us, all of these constants are forced to have these values because there is no alternative. ...Or perhaps a multitude of choices and a multitude of other universes exist ... - Owen Gingerich
He forgot to capitalize Intelligently Designed. I wonder if he is using "intentional" and "intelligent" univocally. And look at the categories he uses. Necessity, Chance, and Design. Sounds like a veritable ID theorist. I'd hate to think that Dembski was actually on to something. p.s. The answer to the captcha was 42.Mung_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
But the point seems to be; you don’t really care one way or another and support the flip-flopping at UD for ideological purposes.
I really don't care one way or the other, but that's because I really do care, for ideological reasons. That's supposed to be a coherent argument? And as I was kind enough to point out for you, you're cherry-picking your data. Not a good practice.Mung_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

(cont'd) “I don’t think anyone, you or those cited in the above paragraph, knows what “small id” means. I know that Owen Gingerich and you both think you know what it means, but when I asked you if Aquinas and Paley qualify for that class, you had no answer.” – StephenB It means saying clearly, rationally, deliberately and faithfully: ‘No’ to ‘ID.’ No, to the nonsense generated by the IDM and its propaganda PR machine in Seattle, Washington. No, to the pseudo-science of Big-ID that actually masquerades as scientism. The term ‘small-id’ or ‘lower case id’ is framed as a way of rejecting ‘Big-ID’ or ‘upper case ID,’ both the Movement (politically-oriented, right-wing American, Protestantism, school boards, etc.) and its pseudo-revolutionary claims of ‘scientificity.’ The term doesn’t need any more than the most basic positive content of its own because Abrahamic orthodoxy already exists, and we who speak of small-id against Big-ID are humble Abrahamic believers (even when we have to express ourselves like in Matthew 10:16). And Solomon (the small) did slay Goliath (the Big) (oh, what irony comes in that expression!). Big-IDists, however aren’t willing (yet) to invest *any* theological content to their Big-ID notion (despite S.C. Meyer’s recent theodicy quasi-applause to S. Fuller), even when it is plain to see for most people how inter-tangled Big-ID theory, and more directly older variants of the concept-duo ‘intelligent design,’ actually is historically with religious-cultural thought, sometimes (oftentimes!) creationism, and even fundamentalism in the USA. To claim ‘ID’ is natural science-only is a charade that intelligent folks no longer need entertain. Why does StephenB? Likewise, there is no need to label Aquinas or Paley as small-id advocates; they were both Christians. They weren’t ‘half-Christians’ or ‘neutral observationist’ Christians or check their brains at the door Christians who forgot who they were when they wrote their works. They believed “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” They were more balanced and open and explicit about their ‘natural theology’ than anyone in the IDM! They weren’t trying to ‘natural scientifically’ prove God’s, i.e. the Big-D Designer’s existence via so-called ‘natural scientific’ small-d ‘design’ theory. Their ‘design argument’ is theological, not scientific. Dembski even acknowledges this in his writings. Aquinas and Paley capitalise the divine name, as you properly do, and as vjtorley does also, StephenB! There are very good reasons that most educated persons who have ‘followed the evidence where it leads’ and sought an ‘inference to the best explanation’ how found the wisdom to reject the IDM and its Big-ID theory. This is why the distinction between Big-ID and small-id is made. That you seem to irrationally reject those reasons and won’t even here and now acknowledge your own part, as flip-flopping co-author of the UD definitions page doesn’t help move the conversation forward. Talking out of both sides of your mouths by seemingly supporting the flip-flop usage of either ‘Intelligent Design’ or ‘intelligent design’ to supposedly signify the same ‘class’ doesn’t help the cause; it merely highlights the IDM’s communicative waffling and stubborn wedge-iness, which most people ignore. All you need to do is change your tune and the dance will continue on. “If context is understood, punctuation usually doesn’t matter.” – StephenB Why, in the same document, the flip-flopping? What’s the rationale? I have said quite clearly and repeatedly: the topic of ‘Intelligent Design’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation. Yet you, StephenB, and others in the IDM, insist on a go-it-alone, natural science-only approach. That’s your self-inflicted ‘movement’ problem, not everyone else’s. Mung wrote: “all of us here at UD who have never cared to make any such distinction or thought it at all important that one need be made.” Such is the typical group-think “here at UD,” speaking on behalf of ‘we,’ ‘all of us,’ ‘IDists,’ ‘ID people,’ etc. But the factual record shows otherwise; people *do* care to make such a distinction, for whatever their personal reasons, e.g. StephenB, vjtorley, nullasalus and others. All one can conclude if the differences in punctuation are not explained further here by StephenB and/or kairosfocus, is that UD is a place that doesn’t value clarity of thought and expression, that doesn’t pay heed to facts or strive to correct and improve itself, even in its own ‘Definitions’! Will we see if changes in the FAQ’s, Definitions and Glossary are made, so that a consistent single term ‘intelligent design’ or ‘Intelligent Design’ is used? I guess we’ll have to wait for change or stasis from the contributors. Gregory p.s. Mung, I have a tickling feeling that if you expended just a fraction more effort and tried naming the folders 'Intelligent Design – Big' and 'intelligent design – small,' you'd be able to overcome your problem with 'Winblowz.' But the point seems to be; you don’t really care one way or another and support the flip-flopping at UD for ideological purposes.Gregory_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Let me admit that I probably went too far in my recent post in questioning your credentials. I apologise for labelling you something that it turns out is not true. My only explanation for that is I was shocked that you would not admit the truth of the evidence I had provided. But that is no excuse for insulting your intelligence as I did. That said, however, the evidence still stands for itself on the links provided to UD definitions above (and I don’t appreciate KF directing me to re-read a link that I had already linked to with evidence of waffling on terms!). By KF stating “two of the principal authors of the WAC in its current form” – which is a rather indirect and drawn-out way of him finally answering my direct question if he was one of the principle authors or not – he apparently is – now we have two persons here who are responsible for what seems to be clear evidence of Big-ID/small-id linguistic flip-flopping at UD. It is not that my “concerns are overblown” it is that KF and StephenB need to face the facts. Perhaps one or both of you could tell us: Why are the terms ‘Intelligent Design’ and ‘intelligent design’ both used in the same documents in the Resources section at UD? Are you conflating these two meaningfully different signifiers? Are you purposefully equivocating between them? Why did you choose at one time to write non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) and at another time to write capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case)? Please just explain to us your reasoning behind this, if you have any to offer, i.e. if it wasn’t just a ‘mistake,’ a typo. We all here I’m sure learned in grade school that capitalization is done for a reason. So what’s yours? Note this clearly: I’m not asking you about the acronym ‘ID.’ StephenB tried to collapse both ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ into a single acronym. But that’s just loose, casual thought and an insufficient explanation that most people can see right through. “the difference in punctuation [Intelligent Design] vs. [intelligent design] is simply a difference in a formal and informal expression of the same idea.” – StephenB What does that actually mean? Like ‘informal,’ when IDists speak at their local Church and admit yes, the Big-D Designer is really the Deity they pray to and ‘formal’ when they try to argue with natural scientists for a ‘scientific revolution’ based on their so-called ‘technical writings’ that ‘intelligent design’ theory is a natural scientific-only theory and that it has *nothing * to do with religion or theology? What distinguishes the ‘formal’ from the ‘informal’ use of or lack of capitalisation Big-ID/small-id? Let me repeat, I do sincerely appreciate vjtorley’s candor on this topic. He actually explains why he capitalises ‘Intelligent Design’ and ‘Intelligent Designer’:
“(ii) When I’m using the word “intelligent” in front of “designer,” I normally capitalize both (“Intelligent Designer”) to make it clear that I’m referring to the Designer of Nature – a Being Whom I believe to be God (although I cannot demonstrate this on scientific grounds, as science can only tell us so much about the Designer); (vi) When using the word “intelligence,” I keep it in lower case if I am referring to an attribute of intelligent beings, but I use capital letters (e.g. “an Intelligence”) when I am referring to the Designer of Nature – a Being Whom I believe to be God;”
Of course, this disqualifies his view from being ‘natural science-only,’ but that doesn’t matter for the legitimate and pious distinction he is making. The point is that non-capitalised ‘intelligent beings’ can’t do the work that Big-ID theory requires when it comes to OoL, OoBI or human origins. And it would deviate from traditional Abrahamic theology to contend that it can. “There is no reason to keep capitalizing the same term if you are going to use it a hundred times.” – StephenB Yes, there are good reasons: communicative clarity, consistency, intellectual integrity and even, yes, StephenB, piety. The fact is that more than just I see the flip-flopping. More than I alone see ‘ID’ as a (conscious or unconscious) worldview proxy. That recognition is often displayed here with the universal IDists, who think/believe that nothing is not ‘designed/Designed’ (e.g. Mung). One cannot reject their ‘ID’ without being thought to be rejecting the religious worldview that it is based on. But that position is simply ridiculous. I’m not even concerned if you respond to my ‘main point’ about creationism as ideology in the other thread, if you’ll just honestly explain about the sources I cited in this thread, i.e. why you and KF flip-flop between ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ without any explanation. Like I said, there’s not much time left and the evidence of flip-flopping given here is quite clear. (cont'd)Gregory_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

I kinda hope that's the end of the matter to be honest, I mean why is this man even allowed to take up so much time and space on this forum with this rediculous argument. It's plainly obvious I suppose that Gregory geniunely believes he's onto something, and possibly sees everyone on here as running scared of him, but personally speaking, and no matter how hard I've tried, I just can't figure out why that would be? Although I shouldn't let that worry me, especially after looking at his blog page on this very subject as it doesn't look like anyone who follows it(if at all there are any) was even interested. There are no comments, and only 1 like. I think that should really tell him something. http://humanextension.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/big-id-and-small-id/ Even KN, who Gregory named as a supporter of his argument, seems to be staying well out of it. Gregory, do yourself (and us) a favour, and find something else to discuss. I'm sure you might have plenty to offer.PeterJ_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Check out the image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_moralisee Picturing God as an architect. That's got to be heretical, right? At least as bad as God as a designer, if not worse!Mung_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Folks: I am still waiting to hear Gregory answer to the basic case for the design inference on the merits, for the "I do not know how many"-th time. KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

Gregory
So, we’ve got this bachelor-level ‘philosopher-communicator’ who doesn’t think capitalisation makes any difference at all!?
I am not a "bachelor-level" philosopher. I obtained my graduate credentials years ago. Among those things for which I am most grateful is the fact that I was blessed with a good education at a time when higher education counted for something. I know that it is part of your perverse strategy to go after the credibility of those whose arguments you cannot answer, but this time you are barking up the wrong tree. Still, I can understand your attitude. Why worry about yet another factual misrepresentation, with so many other ethical violations already on the record.
…. ‘StephenB,’ a non-scholar, a man who hasn’t published, who is not a professional, and who simply posts at a blog hosted by the IDM?! Are we really supposed to attribute such superior authority to ‘StephenB’ because he can’t face the truth of his own blog-published words here at UD?”
But Gregory, you are making yourself look very foolish. I have published. I am a part of the community of scholars. Just because I, unlike you, don’t bore the hell out of everyone by listing my accomplishments doesn’t mean that I don’t have any. While you were taking all those cushy courses in sociology, I was studying physics, chemistry, higher technical math, and scholastic metaphysics. Meanwhile, as Timaeus has pointed out, you continue to avoid my questions. Big ID and small id are the elements that make up your life’s work, yet you cannot even tell us what you mean when you use the terms. You make wild claims about the Catholic Church and evolution, but when I correct the record and call you to account, you head for the hills. Equally important, you continue to make stupidly inaccurate claims about ID proponents flipping and flopping when the real problem is that you simply lack the analytical ability to comprehend what they are saying. From this point on, I will answer no more of your questions until you gird up your loins and begin to answer mine.StephenB_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

Mung @87: LOL!Eric Anderson_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

The balance between the energy of expansion and the braking power of gravitation had to be extraordinarily exact -- to such a degree that it seems as if the universe must have been expressly designed for humankind. - Owen Gingerich
Shall we say that there is no known natural law which explains the balance? And shall we say that the chance hypothesis is just too incredible? If not, what on earth could turn the mind towards design? Let's call this "weak id," because the "pattern" does not conform to any independent specification. So what Gregory calls "small-id" we'll just call "weak-id." Or perhaps the independent specification is "human friendly." But then that sounds just like Intelligent Design.Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

T, Obviously Bill Gates himself is in on the conspiracy. Thank you.Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Mung: 87 above raised a smile. :-) The dry wit will probably be wasted on our over-serious social science friend, but it was very nicely done! Your finds in 93 and 94 are great. Of course, we know what the response will be: "The DI duplicitously uses lower-case letters to conceal the scientistic, ideological, "science-only" agenda of their project, which is Big-ID." You see, Mung, once someone has latched onto a conspiracy theory, no amount of evidence can make any difference. All evidence counting against the theory will simply be finessed as "diabolically clever deception" or the like. So Gregory's conviction -- that the whole DI, and all of us here, and anyone anywhere who endorses ID arguments, are involved in a massive cover-up which portrays ID as science but actually intends to turn America into a fundamentalist theocracy -- is irrefutable. We could point out to him that none of us has never met any of the others, and that with very few exceptions we don't even know each other's real names or locations or phone numbers or e-mail addresses, which would make it very hard for us to conspire. We could point out to him that each of us has a unique stance toward Christianity -- some not being Christian at all, some being Protestant, some Catholic, some YECs, some OECs, some Christian evolutionists -- which again would make it hard for us to consciously collaborate. We could point out similar divisions within the DI itself, with agnostics, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, YECs, OECs and evolutionists all having high positions of influence. We could point out to him the hundreds of columns here which have discussed the nitty-gritty of random mutations and information theory and have not discussed God at all. We could point out to him the refereed journal *Bio-Complexity*, which does not discuss religious issues at all. We could point to him many places, here and elsewhere, where ID proponents have been critical of YECs. We could point out to him the growing list of people who endorse (or are at least sympathetic to some aspects of) ID who are not Christian, but Deist, agnostic and even atheist -- Nagel, Monton, Flew, Barham, etc. We could point out to him that our criticisms of Darwinism are often shared by qualified evolutionary biologists or other scientists who have no known religious belief -- Shapiro, Newman, Margulis, Venter, etc. We can show him authors like Paley and Aquinas who were not funded by American fundamentalists. None of it matters. Gregory's theory is beyond falsification. (And thus, by Popper's definition, his theory is not scientific, not even social scientific.) Nonetheless, your comments are welcome, because I take them to be, not attempts to convince Gregory by more evidence that his ID/id distinction is hopeless and cannot be sustained, but attempts to show its absurdity. I'm reminded of the Monty Python sketch of a dramatic courtroom trial which goes on for 10 or 15 minutes with all formality and solemnity, near the end of which we are informed that it is over a parking ticket! If someone is going to propose, as a serious academic thesis, that some profound distinction is to be found in the capitalization -- more often accidental than planned -- of ID/id -- we are into Theater of the Absurd, and a mind more like that of Beckett than of Paley or Dembski is called for. Glad to have you here, to give us a sense of proportion in these matters.Timaeus_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

More pages that have been scrubbed due to Gregory's crusade: http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.phpMung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

At least someone is listening to Gregory! http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php Discuss.Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

kf, I know, it's hilarious. Or pathetic. Can it be both? What sort of 'scholar' refuses to do his homework?Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

The current brouhaha over Intelligent Design is ultimately an argument over the role of the miraculous, though it is seldom discussed in such stark terms. Since I believe in a created universe, one fashioned with staggering intricacy and beauty, am I an advocate of Intelligent Design? Dare I, as a scientist, believe in design? And is there a difference between believing in design and accepting Intelligent Design, capital I capital D? - Owen Gingerich
Well gee. Since the terms remained undefined, who knows? Is Gingerich defining Intelligent Design as the belief that God continually and dramatically intervenes in the natural world?Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

F/N: G needs to realise that the fact that he has been corrected by two of the principal authors of the WAC in its current form is a clue that his concerns are overblown. As to accusations of duplicity, they fall of their own weight, once there is -- as we have seen -- a persistent failure on his part to address the matter on the merits. But then, even painful attention is attention, and G has managed to side-track yet another thread. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Gregory, in his attempted challenge [to which, in his mind I must reply to on pain of cowardice . . . ] inadvertently reveals one of his problems. Had he simply read the UD Weak Argument Correctives (resources tab, this and every UD page . . . ), introduction, he would know the answer that has been on open record since January 2009. This further shows a basic problem, i.e. G has evidently not read the WAC with a goal of understanding. Fortunately, that is easy to remedy. Such may even help resolve many of the seemingly enormous problems he perceives. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Many highly intelligent people...long for a universe where God continually and dramatically intervenes in the natural world. - Owen Gingerich
Isn't that the Christian message?Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Stupid Winblowz. I created an "Intelligent Design" folder and then tried to create an "intelligent design" folder so that I can keep the two separate and distinct, but it would not allow me to do that. Perhaps Gregory could write to Bill Gates and explain the importance of being able to use both names? I guess I could put one folder inside the other, but which belongs inside which? Or I could put one of them inside the Creationism folder, but which one?Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

The truth is that UD (links provided above) flip-flops between non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) and capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case) in its own definitions of ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design.’
How many different definitions of Intelligent Design are there here?
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.
ok, who capitalized Intelligent Design and forgot to capitalize Intelligent Cause? You're Fired!Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Well, Gregory, since you're a demonstrated and proven liar, no one should believe anything you say.Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

'So, we’ve got this bachelor-level ‘philosopher-communicator’ who doesn’t think capitalisation makes any difference at all!?' Can't help himself, can he? Greg's Golden Rule: When cornered, say, 'I've got a higher academic qualification than you'! (... and, 'My dad's a policeman, and he's got a hundred guns!')Axel_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Poor Owen Gingerich. It seems he didn't get the memo from Gregory. He says "design" when he means "Design" and he says intelligent when he means Intelligent. And he uses the word intelligent univocally, etc. etc. And now I'm confused. I was going to file his little book under Intelligent Design but now I'm thinking it more properly belongs under Creationism. What do you think Gregory?Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

lol LoL LOL lOl LOl lOLMung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

i HerebY refuSe to foLlow anyonE's rulEs about cApitaliZatIOn and punc-tUatiOn FOr THAt maTter caNT WRiTE anyMore RIghT nOW the capITaliZatiON POLIce aRe knoCKIng oN My DoOrEric Anderson_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

StephenB, “I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.” – F. Nietzsche #72 is one of the most unbelievable posts I’ve read at UD. The truth is that UD (links provided above) flip-flops between non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) and capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case) in its own definitions of ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design.’ Proof of this has been given. It should no longer be in doubt; this can only be purposefully denied (falsified) by the very flip-floppers who promoted it in the first place, seemingly with the support of their culture-war pro-ID accomplices. “Big-ID comrades, join StephenB and KF by denying the truth. Lie for Big-ID!” StephenB said: “I will be happy to admit in public to any error for which I should be held accountable.” Should anyone believe him after this charade in #72? "There is no flip flop." - StephenB Yet evidence proves that there *is* flip-flopping. Why does StephenB now renege on his word? Anything, even lying is what he seems willing to do for Big-ID theory? Stephen C. Meyer and John G. West would be proud of the PR movement they’ve engineered with such responses as StephenB's here. I am reading for context, StephenB. I am a context thinker. You, sir, are simply spinning untruths to try to protect an error that you are admittedly complicit in. So, we've got this bachelor-level 'philosopher-communicator' who doesn't think capitalisation makes any difference at all!? That's the IDM in a nutshell - flip-flopping double-speak. Wedge. No talk of 'designers/Designers,' except when speaking in evangelical Protestant churches. It is so easy for most ‘normal’ people to see through this façade. “Gingerich would also be unequal to the task of answering my questions.” - StephenB Another joke from ‘StephenB!’ Are we really supposed to believe that a top-level scientist, one of the leading Copernicus scholars in the world, should take a back seat to a pseudonymous blogger named ‘StephenB,’ a non-scholar, a man who hasn’t published, who is not a professional, and who simply posts at a blog hosted by the IDM?! Are we really supposed to attribute such superior authority to ‘StephenB’ because he can't face the truth of his own blog-published words here at UD? There are serious delusions and misanthropies that people here are holding about their level of knowledge and understanding. This thread shows it quite clearly.Gregory_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

It appears to me that Gregory has staked some significant part of his career and his perception of himself on this supposed distinction between "big-ID" and "little-ID", and so is resistant to correction and interprets those that attempt to correct him negatively to preserve his perspective. He's left no room for the motivations of others to be something other than what he believes them to be in terms of how they argue about ID. It would be difficult indeed to find out that much of what you have spent so much time developing a professional life around is simply a matter of mistaking variances of punctuation for an intentional expression of wholly different categories of thought on the part of ID advocates. I mean, it never even occurred to me, when I read the FAQ, that there was any categorical distinction between the capitalized versions of ID and the non-capitalized. People have different reasons for capitalizing things at different times. Generally I don't capitalize ID when I'm just talking about obvious cases - human ID ... and do capitalize it when I'm referencing the theory itself. However, I never for a second think anyone is going to infer from that that I'm talking about two entirely different things.William J Murray_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

No, it can't be. Flip-flopping *cannot* happen by IDists! We have their/your word for it, right?Gregory_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply