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

No. Can't be, Timaeus. Gregory is a truth-seeker. We have his word for it.Axel_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Hi, everybody. I want to report some statistics concerning two of the issues in this discussion. I'll avoid personal characterizations and simply state the facts. Re StephenB's question to Gregory on Aquinas and Paley: The question was raised in Comment #38. Gregory has replied to Stephen and other 8 times since then. Gregory has not yet answered the question. Re StephenB's challenge to Gregory on Catholic teaching: The passages from Humani Generis were posted in Comment #19. Gregory has replied to Stephen and others 9 times since then. Gregory has not yet provided any counter-exegesis of the passages.Timaeus_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Yes or No, was ‘Kairos Focus’ one of the ‘Contributors’ to UD’s Definition, FAQ’s, and/or Glossary?
Only someone who has failed to pay attention to what kf has written would question whether he had contributed.Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
“in the literature” = Owen Gingerich “God’s Universe” Belnap Press, 2006. Upper case ID vs. lower case id.
lol. In a popular book you mean, taken from his Noble lectures. So all academics are now supposed to follow his distinction along with 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.
The previous books are all essentially secular in the sense that they are not written from an explicitly Christian perspective. Even the books by Flew and Gingerich [God's Universe], which support belief in God, have no explicitly Christian component. - Karl W. Giberson
So there's nothing explicitly Christian about small-id. Is that due to it's "big tent" ideology or is there some other reason? Just what sort of god does small-id get folks to?Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

The 'human being' who goes by the name of 'kairosfocus' at Uncommon Descent blog is obviously not willing to answer a very simple question. It sure seems that he is a flip-flopper, if one follows the evidence where it leads and makes an inference to the best explanation. He WANTS us to be confused by his beaver-loving misanthropism! 2 + 2 = 4 and UD definitions flip-flop between small-id and Big-ID. Speak the truth! Yes or No, was 'Kairos Focus' one of the 'Contributors' to UD's Definition, FAQ's, and/or Glossary? Only a coward would not answer this simple question, since answering it would not compromise KF's IDistic pseudonym here at all. Does KF have the courage to answer truthfully or will he just spew more rhetoric like his mentor Saul Alinsky?Gregory_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion
[an alleged flip flop]
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.
There is no flip flop. ID is one member of a class that contains several other modes of scientific design detection, including forensic science, SETI, cosmological fine-tuning, archeology etc. Thus, ID can be defined narrowly, as one member of a class, or broadly, as the class itself. The point is to show that ID is not unique, drawing on the same idea as many other forms of design detection. Always read for context.
As is typical of scientific, technological or academic fields of endeavor, Intelligent Design has its own technical vocabulary.
[an alleged flip flop]
FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligent design.
Again, you are not reading for context. In this case, the class indicated is the whole of [science, technology, and academia], as opposed to the smaller class indicated earlier [scientific design detection]. Further, the difference in punctuation [Intelligent Design] vs. [intelligent design] is simply a difference in a formal and informal expression of the same idea. There is no reason to keep capitalizing the same term if you are going to use it a hundred times. Some people capitalize Big Bang Cosmology; others don’t. Some people capitalize Relativity; others don’t. No one I know keeps the same punctuation when the context is already understood. Note Wikipedia on the Theory of Relativity: “The Einstein Theory of Relativity” and “The theory of relativity, or simply relativity, generally” If context is understood, punctuation usually doesn't matter. You are chasing your own tail.
StephenB, would it be right to assume that you were one of the ‘Contributors’?”[of the FAQ]
Yes.
In the face of this incontrovertible evidence of flip-flopping, what’s your next move, StephenB? If you say something like, “so what if it *is* happening; I’ve never denied it,” then you’ve got a credibility problem on your hands. You know it’s happening, but turn a blind eye to and thus support the waffling at UD.
I have already provided more than enough evidence to show that the problem resides with you and your misplaced obsessions, which are irrelevant from an analytical perspective. For some reason, you have a terrible time differentiating the whole from its parts, which would explain why your attempt to synthesize a whole (Big ID, small id) fails. Among other things, you don't know which parts (Aquinas, Paley) belong to your whole (small id). This is a common problem. Some people have the talent to analyze (take the whole apart) and synthesize (form the whole from the parts), others are better at one or the other, and a few, like yourself, struggle in both areas. The good news is that the right kind of disciplined study can correct this deficiency. If you are wise, you will take my advice and attend to it.
You could also choose to wave away the distinction between upper case and lower case versions of ‘ID’ as if it doesn’t matter, but doing so would be to insult dialogue partners who contend that it *does* matter. Among those persons, obviously along with myself, include decorated scientists, scholars and thinkers in the Abrahamic tradition: e.g. O. Gingerich, S. Barr, G. Murphy, T. Davis, R. Isaac, et al.
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. If you cannot respond to that simple inquiry, then your category has no meaning and is useless as an analytical tool. The same can be said for Big ID. (The "wholes" are not analytically connected to the "parts.") I have studied Gingerich’s inadequate definitions of these terms. They seem no different from yours. I assume, then, that Gingerich would also be unequal to the task of answering my questions. If anti-ID partisans cannot define their terms in a rational way, then no one should bother to take them seriously.
You are a Big-ID writer yourself, StephenB. Even vjtorley seems to understand the difference in capitalisation quite well and honours it.
You allow your dialogue partners only one of two choices: [a] ignore your unreasonable refusal to use common terms or [b] humor you and use the only language that you can understand, which is your own. I cannot speak for VJ, but I suspect he was practicing that noble art known as "stooping to conquer." (The more informed person reaches down to lift up the less informed person by entering into his world). As a general rule, the owner of a highly-developed, well-trained mind does not carry on about it. If the intellectual superiority is there, there is no need to call attention to it-- everyone will recognize it. If isn't obvious to everyone, it isn't there.StephenB_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

"in the literature" = Owen Gingerich "God's Universe" Belnap Press, 2006. Upper case ID vs. lower case id. Let Mung play his sorry song some more! :(Gregory_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Mung: Youch! Did he burn the hand? I hope he remembered the one hand in the pocket rule that prevents a current through the heart. I assume, the ckt breakers and fuses blew in good time, but it always seems that solid state components can't be saved by a trip out. I have not done a lot with valves [tubes for you Americans], but they should be more robust, on principle. KF PS: I see Gregory is pulling more of his down spiral into self-discrediting. He has invented or popularised an idiosyncratic and tendentious pseudo distinction that he is stamping his little feet as he demands others follow. On pain of being mocked, it seems. Meanwhile, he is failing to address the pivotal issues. In a context where his attention has been repeatedly drawn to the, 2 + 2 = 4, so we can safely infer that he has no serious case on the merits but is trying to get a distraction and gain attention.kairosfocus_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Someone taken off the streets is most likely to “let the smoke out” of the components [an old joke usually trotted out when someone has smoked a component or a board in a lab . . . it happens], or do harm to himself or others.
I remember a guy back when I was in the Navy working on a piece of high voltage radio equipment with a ring on. PoW! Talk about letting the smoke out.Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Where are the peer-reviewed papers on small-id vs. Big-ID? Anyone?Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

"Let us take due note." - KF “There is no flip-flopping.” - KF Evidence is obviously not very important to KF! The flip-flopping is evident. As an IDist, he simply doesn't want to see it. Just cover your eyes, KF. "Is this the same KF who along with StephenB (awaiting confirmation or disconfirmation of this) is one of the ‘Contributors’ to the flip-flopping Big-ID/small-id language?" A simple Yes or No will suffice, KF. Thanks. "Gregory also tries to inject humanity onto the situation, as though we are locked up to humanity." - KF To 'inject humanity'?! Yeah, that would be a horrible thing wouldn't it? ;) To work towards humanising people instead of dehumanising them, as empiricists, materialists and naturalists are wont do. KF thinks that's a bad thing? "Go away you, anyone who tries to 'inject humanity' - we IDists (made in KF's image) are just trying to physicalise a Big-ID natural science theory here - no humanity allowed!" No shock here; I'm a human being. Aren't you KF? Sometimes it seems doubtful. You seem to have been Alinskyed! "not being human." - KF Purposely misanthropic?!Gregory_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Kindly cf here, also, in context. Gregory has obviously lost all hope of addressing matters on serious merits, and has decided to resort to Saul Alinsky's nihilistic and utterly uncivil tactics:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” . . . . 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.”
This tells us a lot about both his failure on the merits, and, unfortunately, about his failing a character test. Obviously, he has nothing cogent to say on the merits but hopes to annoy or insult to get a reaction that can be played up rhetorically. Let us take due note. As to the game of playing with terminology, had Gregory et al simply said that there is a difference between: a: those who think the observed cosmos is designed and/or significant features in it but who may think that design is not empirically recognisable per observable signs, and b: those who hold, further or differently that per empirically testable and reliable signs, we may infer from observing certain features of objects etc that they are best explained on design . . . that would have been one thing. And, indeed, that is not controversial at all. But that is not what is at work here. What poisons the whole terminology that he would force-fit on us, is that he and apparently others, refuse to acknowledge the basic fact that there is no a priori commitment on the part of design theory as a scientific enterprise that the world is a creation by God or the like supernatural entity or that life in it is a similar product. That is, the whole issue of the investigation of potential and now credible signs of design [such as the FSCO/I that G has tried to brush aside or mock . . . observe his failure to actually come to grips with it . . . ], pivots on an empirical analysis that in the end, apart from where it is inconvenient to the dominant a priori materialist school of thought that Lewontin so aptly exemplifies, is not even controversial. Gregory also tries to inject humanity onto the situation, as though we are locked up to humanity. But it has been repeatedly pointed out to him that being human is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain cases of known design. For instance already brought to his attention and brushed aside without serious consideration, beavers are not human and though limited are obviously intelligent designers of their dams that are adapted to circumstances of flow, etc. Similarly, when it comes to design of electronics and related systems such as computers, as I know from experience, being knowledgeable and skillful is what we need, not being human. Someone taken off the streets is most likely to "let the smoke out" of the components [an old joke usually trotted out when someone has smoked a component or a board in a lab . . . it happens], or do harm to himself or others. Indeed, such a one would be well advised that electricity is in fact tangible, but by the time you feel it, it may be too late. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
It is of little consequence if KF thinks Big-ID/small-id is a ‘tendentious distinction.’ It is already in the literature, authored by someone many times more credible and well-spoken than KF and his IDist comrades.
Peer-reviewed papers on small-id vs Big-ID? Where?Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
Here is evidence that Uncommon Descent blog flip-flops between writing non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) and capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case) ... No reason for this flip-flop is given.
So?Mung_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
One thing I am thankful for, StephenB, is that we are both interested in truth.
LoL! All evidence to the contrary, of course. And Gregory, when you leave make sure the door doesn't slap you in the arse on the way out- you may get a black eye...Joe_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

'One thing I am thankful for, StephenB, is that we are both interested in truth.' - Greg Well, what a relief that is. I'd just this minute been thinking of the futility of arguing with an eristic opponent.Axel_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Gregory, I've seen more that my share of arrogance in dealing with neo-Darwinists who proclaim themselves to be wise, but you sir take the cake.bornagain77_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

KF: "There is no flip-flopping." Is this the same KF who along with StephenB (awaiting confirmation or disconfirmation of this) is one of the 'Contributors' to the flip-flopping Big-ID/small-id language?
Contributors: "KF is an Applied Physicist and educator with interests in information technologies and related information theory and statistical thermodynamics."
If so, no wonder he flat-out denies it. It is of little consequence if KF thinks Big-ID/small-id is a 'tendentious distinction.' It is already in the literature, authored by someone many times more credible and well-spoken than KF and his IDist comrades. Thus, KF can simply choose to respect people who make the important distinction or not. "design thinkers in the relevant sense" and therefore also "design thinkers in the irrelevant sense." Yes, indeed, KF! p.s. but I'm still trying to think of the most recent applied physicist appearance on Saturday Night Live -) It might have been Saul Alinsky, oh wait...Gregory_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Beating A Dead Horse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI Thing ought to be glue by now! :)bornagain77_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Gregory There is no flip-flopping. There is no reason to reckon with the tendentious distinction you are trying to insert, and so there is no significance to the variation, save where ID may refer to something a bit more official. Yes, there are those who believe in design, but unless such also accept the credibility of the warrant for empirical detectability of design per the design inference on tested and reliable signs in cases that exhibit such, they are not design thinkers in the relevant sense. The underlying issue, as yet again pointed out to you here, is the inductive, empirical warrant for the design inference on sign. Which, thank you, stands well grounded. (And, indeed, other than where the a priori materialism of today's new magisterium in the lab coat is called into question, is not even controversial. So, the real fill-in-the-blanks question is: the empirically observed evidence that shows that a plausible chemical stew in some pond or comet etc produces Cell-based life forms from chance behaviour or circumstances and the necessity of laws of physics and chemistry is ___________. Similarly, the evidence of observed origin of body plans per blind chance variation and differential reproductive success in ecological niches is _____________. Publications include ____________ . Where also the Nobel or equivalent prizes won for this work is/are _____________ . [For sure, success in any of these two would win such a prize.] If you cannot readily fill in these blanks, that is strong evidence that you cannot pass the test of a shown adequate cause capable of the effects in question. The world around us is abundant testimony that he only empirically known source of FSCO/I is design, with posts in this very thread being cases in point of string data structures meeting a functionally specific and complex specification, on which we routinely and uncontroversially infer that these are designed, not produced by lucky noise on the Internet. As to whodunit, that is often harder to do, what looks like posts by G may -- for all ordinary viewers or commenters can tell -- in fact be the blog owner under cover drumming up controversy by putting up a strawman target!) KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

One thing I am thankful for, StephenB, is that we are both interested in truth.
“I will be happy to admit in public to any error for which I should be held accountable, either of a factual nature [or…?]. If you will lead the way and show me where I am wrong, I will gratefully respond. The only thing that counts is the truth.” – StephenB
Beauty and goodness also count in my view, but that’s beside the main point here (because Big-ID is not an ‘aesthetic’ theory; it claims to be a ‘natural scientific-only’ theory). Here is evidence that Uncommon Descent blog flip-flops between writing non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) and capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case), from UD’s own Definitions, FAQ’s and Glossary: UD’s definition of ID starts out small, i.e. non-capitalised:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
Yet in the *very next paragraph* it flip-flops to capitalised Intelligent Design (Big-ID, upper case):
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.
No reason for this flip-flop is given. In the FAQ’s, even just in Response 1 (there are many other examples in FAQ’s too), the authors flip-flop immediately between non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) and capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case):
Dr William Dembski, a leading intelligent design researcher, has aptly stated: “Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”
In the Glossary, it starts out with capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’(Big-ID, upper case):
“As is typical of scientific, technological or academic fields of endeavor, Intelligent Design has its own technical vocabulary.”
Elsewhere, in the Glossary, non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) is written:
“FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligent design.”

Intelligent design [ID] – Dr William A Dembski, a leading design theorist, has defined ID as “the science that studies signs of [small-i] intelligence.”
Flip-flopping between capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case) and non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) is thus tolerated and seemingly even encouraged at Uncommon Descent blog! StephenB, would it be right to assume that you were one of the ‘Contributors’?”
SB is a Philosopher-Communicator with an emphasis on the application of sound common sense reasoning to the design controversy, GP is a Medical Doctor with a focus on the microbiology and microevolutonary issues, and KF is an Applied Physicist and educator with interests in information technologies and related information theory and statistical thermodynamics.
In the face of this incontrovertible evidence of flip-flopping, what’s your next move, StephenB? If you say something like, “so what if it *is* happening; I’ve never denied it,” then you’ve got a credibility problem on your hands. You know it’s happening, but turn a blind eye to and thus support the waffling at UD. Otoh, you could simply say that it was different authors of each paragraph and the final result was simply an over-looked mixture of Big-ID and small-id. But this would just prove the point I am making about flip-flopping the capitalisation vs. non-capitalisation. Frankly, I don’t know the motives of why people would choose to do this. Perhaps you could help people to understand it. You could also choose to wave away the distinction between upper case and lower case versions of ‘ID’ as if it doesn’t matter, but doing so would be to insult dialogue partners who contend that it *does* matter. Among those persons, obviously along with myself, include decorated scientists, scholars and thinkers in the Abrahamic tradition: e.g. O. Gingerich, S. Barr, G. Murphy, T. Davis, R. Isaac, et al. You are a Big-ID writer yourself, StephenB. Even vjtorley seems to understand the difference in capitalisation quite well and honours it. But for the sake of ‘movement unity’ will you ignore this evidence or will you face up to it and seek to correct it; for the sake of improved communication and honesty? In the common search for truth, thanks for your patience as evidence is presented which can be ‘followed where it leads’ and where an ‘inference to the best explanation’ (i.e. for flip-flopping between small-id and Big-ID) can be discussed. Gregory p.s. you can find a more detailed message on this topic at Human Extension.Gregory_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

StephenB: Yes, if Gregory could refrain from taking shots at me in his discussions with others here, I would be less inclined to respond to him. I wouldn't even mind if his references to me were neutral, e.g., "You and Timaeus have said, whereas nullasalus and Kantian Naturalist have said ...". But mere reporting is never enough for Gregory. He has to editorialize. Thus, it's always more like "I care not for your arguments, nor those of the rhetorician Timaeus, who doesn't even have enough courage to ..." But of course, even if Gregory stopped attacking me tomorrow, all the other problems would remain. Even when addressing others, he still frequently makes ad hominem remarks, and he frequently dodges the hardest questions, and he is fixated on certain themes which he repeats over and over again, even when people here indicate that they aren't interested in discussing them. I do not understand the motivation behind any of this behavior. If it were exhibited only in my case, I might attribute it to some historical grudge against me personally; but it seems to apply to everyone here who dares to defend ID. I cannot imagine that Gregory converses this way with his Dean, his departmental Chairman, his departmental colleagues, scholars he meets at conferences, or anyone on whom his hiring, tenure, or academic career might depend. If he did speak to other scholars in that way, his academic career would be short-lived indeed. In any case, I look forward to his answers to your challenges, if they should ever come. For what it is worth, I agree with your interpretation of the Catholic document, and I think your point about Paley and Aquinas is excellent, since Gregory must either denounce them as Big-ID or admit that they are only small-id; and either path will put him in an untenable situation. He is on the horns of a dilemma. That is why I expect that he will avoid answering you.Timaeus_{February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Timaeus
Gregory says he does not wish to talk to me any longer.
That would seem to be an acceptable alternative so long as he also refrains from talking about you.
That’s fine; I’d rather he talked with you. I’d rather he answered: a. Your challenge regarding Humani Generis. b. Your question about Paley and Aquinas.
I would certainly be willing to openly discuss these matters with him in a spirit of friendliness and mutual respect. The future does not have to equal the past. Change is possible at any time.StephenB_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Gregory says he does not wish to talk to me any longer. That's fine; I'd rather he talked with you. I'd rather he answered: a. Your challenge regarding Humani Generis. b. Your question about Paley and Aquinas. If he would respond honestly and fully to these two things, I would be satisfied that he really wishes to have an intellectual discussion. If he ducks responding, or answers only glibly and superficially, I will know that he is doing culture politics as usual.Timaeus_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Regarding this exchange: “ID proponents argue mainly about two things: natural science and theology.” – Timaeus Gregory: "If that’s the case, then why, Oh LORD, why hasn’t ‘Timaeus’ the timid North American intervened in support of my words when I’ve made that very same point to others at UD!?!" Answer: Because you have not made "that very same point." *My* point is that sometimes ID people talk about science (when they are trying to prove design in nature), and other times they talk about theology (when they are trying to address the implications of design in nature, or when they are responding to criticism from TEs, or when they are setting forth their personal religious positions in popular books). *Your* point is that the whole ID enterprise (detecting design in nature) is dishonest because it is really a covert way of slipping theological assumptions into scientific discussions. And I disagree with that point. And I have challenged you for many months now to produce even a single passage from an ID theoretical book which illegitimately imports theological assumptions into a scientific argument. You have not been able to find a single passage, let alone show that this practice is so widespread as to nullify the entire ID project.Timaeus_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Aquinas and Paley were obviously not ‘natural scientists’ as the term is generally understood now and they cannot be mis-appropriated as Big-IDists as the IDM has already done with A.R. Wallace.
I didn't ask you about "Big ID." I asked you about "small id." According to you, small id is the "belief" that God created the universe and the "assumption" that design is real. Yet Aquinas and Paley did not proceed in that fashion. Quite the contrary, they began with observation and tried to prove God's existence through inferential reasoning. They did not begin their proofs by believing or assuming anything. In which category, then, do Aquinas and Paley belong?StephenB_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Gregory: "I'm a pretty humble guy." There is a disconnect between the way Gregory perceives himself, and the way others see him. I would suggest that the cause of this disconnect lies in the way that Gregory presents himself. Unfortunately, pointing out to Gregory the way he comes across, even quoting back to him words of his which to all normal readers seem self-promoting, boastful, or arrogant, makes zero difference in his behavior.Timaeus_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

first para @49should read.."either of a factual [or interpretive nature"].StephenB_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
If I provided you with incontrovertible evidence that you (and anyone else reading this) could personally “follow where it leads,” but that in fact challenges your position, would you be willing to publically admit it when you saw it or not? Yes or No.
I will be happy to admit in public to any error for which I should be held accountable, either of a factual nature. If you will lead the way and show me where I am wrong, I will gratefully respond. The only thing that counts is the truth.
As for StephenB’s question whether or not “small id excludes design arguments that do NOT assume design, as is the case with Aquinas and Paley.” The answer can only be found if StephenB will ever stop fronting the current Big-ID ‘objectivistic’ and/or ‘neutralistic’ position that Big-ID is a natural science-only theory.
I don't know what to say to someone who cannot comprehend his own formulations. Inasmuch as the reputed difference between "small id" and "Big ID" informs your life's mission, you should be able to tell us what each category means. There is a very simple reason that I asked you to take this simple, yet disciplined, intellectual jog. It was clear to me that you have yet to undertake the most basic of all mental exercises: You do not yet know the meanings of your own operative terms. Do Aquinas and Paley qualify for the "small ID" class, in which case they violate your criterion of "assumed design," or are they to be cast out into the Twilight Zone with no category to cover them? This is no small problem for you.
I had read the passage from Humani Generis before you cited it, StephenB.
As a non-Catholic, you knew exactly which encyclical to go to and where to find the passage?---and you just happened to go there in advance of our discussion? That is quite a coincidence. Have you drawn many royal flushes lately? Either way, I am less interested in when you read the passages and more interested in your ability or inability to comprehend them. Find the relevant passages and show how they forbid or even discourage a scientific inference to design.
Imo, it [Humani Generis]does not credit your unsupported Big-IDist ideology.
I know that this will be a stretch for you, but---WHY does it not support Big IDism. You are here to give REASONS for your opinions, not to just state them.
So it wasn’t worth addressing here.
Any thoughtless or unsupported reply to my carefully-crafted refutation is worth addressing.
I answered your question above and showed how your ‘trendy’ accusation was mudslinging bunk. Perhaps you will display the basic human dignity to understand this and treat me more fairly in future communication.
You answered no questions and you demonstrated nothing. You simply offered an uninformed opinion without even a semblance of an argument. There are plenty of "trendy," "anti-Magisterial" Catholics running around and I don't hesitate to label them for what they are. Insofar as they accept the evolution of mind from matter, they violate both the letter and spirit of Humani Generis, which means that they are, indeed, "anti-Magisterial" Catholics. I can defend that charge all day long. With respect to my relationship with you, I am always open to a new beginning and the happy prospect for a fruitful dialogue. I don't hold out much hope, though, because I have no reason to believe that you will ever disclose your own position on evolution or answer questions about the meaning of "small id."StephenB_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

The purpose of my participation is not to demonstrate my brilliance or excellence at all. I’m a pretty humble guy, after all I’ve been through and who I’ve met. People who know me know that. My words and experience at the DI summer program simply show that it is possible, nay indeed logical, to reject Big-ID theory qua theory, having been through the indoctrination of the DI in regard to ‘scientificity.’ It would be improper to speak in depth of the IDM’s summer program here at UD, in Big-ID friendly (and sometimes frantic) territory. Most partisan folks here simply wouldn’t accept any criticism or the reality of that event, even truth be told about it. Here’s an example: Discovery Institute promotes a science, philosophy, theology/worldview agenda first and foremost. E.g. it prays, in the evangelical Christian tradition, before meals. That is, other than when it is double-speaking a ‘natural-science-only’ agenda. Likewise, blog-format written messages reporting this kinda thing usually wouldn’t be the right medium to challenge a person’s (world)views. Big-IDists here at UD are likely going to stay Big-IDists, come hell or high water. This isn’t a place for critical thinking and discovery; it is a place for ideology and back-patting. My contribution here has been to reveal the ideology and back-patting, which some people are too sensitive or radical to allow. “ID proponents argue mainly about two things: natural science and theology.” – Timaeus If that’s the case, then why, Oh LORD, why hasn’t ‘Timaeus’ the timid North American intervened in support of my words when I’ve made that very same point to others at UD!?! Coward, intentionally ignorant, back-stabbing. jealousy, etc.? Why hasn’t he had the baXXs to come forward and defend me against the ignorant relativist ‘little-big-tenters’ here at UD who falsely imagine that there is such a thing as a human-social science of ID? He knows that there is no such thing and could easily say so to his ‘tribe.’ Why not? Because, ladies and gentlemen, he’s (status among you, weak to the truth) afraid. As for who I’ll be working with this will include both natural scientists and theologians, and I think StephenB would well approve. ‘Timaeus’ is a D-leaguer in the realm of scholarship, who dreams of playing with the big-boys. But hey, Jeremy Lin and others have made it to the highest stage. So why can’t ‘Timaeus’ eventually have the courage and try to publish in a peer-reviewed journal (not just in ID-friendly journals or books) and maybe eventually come out of the closet or return to the tenure-track that he sadly fell off? People understand this; I don’t speak down to people. My task and real life service is to lift people up. Timaeus acts under on-line masks towards me as if he is on such a high horse. Yet I know something about the actual (real person) position on which he sits. He seems to think Big-ID theory can elevate him to the top of the ladder that he once dreamed to achieve, even if he doesn’t defend Big-ID’s scientificity. He wants to be a revolutionary for Big-IDism. And I’m simply delivering a reality check to him about this ideology, this movement, this quasi-science. It’s not going to happen the way he thinks in his historian’s, religious studies agenda. In this thread I’m not really interested in ‘Timaeus’ anymore and would rather he spend his weekend elsewhere. My patience here is for StephenB’s response to ‘creationism’ as ideology, which he asked me for and to which I responded. I gave him a concise challenge in #43 and #36. Will he rise to meet it?Gregory_{February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply