Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

More Warfare Thesis Lies, This Time From CNN

arroba Email

When nineteenth century evolutionist Andrew Dickson White constructed a false history of science, casting evolutionists as the latest in a long history of heroic truth seekers who faced religious intolerance and opposition at every turn, he set in motion a powerful genre that would be difficult to stop. From White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom to the mythical Inherit the Wind, a fictional account of the famous 1925 Monkey Trial that evolutionists use to indoctrinate students such as Judge Jones, to today’s pundits and even President Obama, the false Warfare Thesis, which pits religion against science, is too powerful and alluring to allow the truth to get in the way. And so it is no surprise that with all the news surrounding the new Pope taking charge, evolutionists would be sure to reinforce and remind everyone of their whig history we are supposed to believe. Enter Florence Davey-Attlee and her recentCNN piece where she wrote, among other things that:  Read more

Gregory at 75: I intend to end on a peaceful note, but first I will respond to what has been said above. First, I don't answer irrelevant questions. We were talking not about what I have *written* but about what I have *read*. In your post 72 you made a claim about what I had *read*. You wrote: "First, what is called ‘the books’ he refers to are mainly published by a right-wing funded American think-tank – the Discovery Institute Press." And I showed that this is false, and that in fact all of the books that I have repeatedly cited have been published by other publishers. You wouldn't retract, and still won't retract, and now you try to cover up your failure to admit error by (once again) changing the subject to my identity. This is a very minor point you have been asked to concede. It doesn't involve retracting any major position you have taken on any issue. It just involves admitting that you spoke in haste and said something that was not true, and that you now stand corrected, and won't repeat the false statement again (even if you think you can get away with it somewhere else). One can't have a good-faith conversation with someone who *never* admits that he is wrong on anything, even on minor and inessential points. And since you won't admit you are wrong about my sources, when the evidence is visible for all to see, it is clear that you don't want a good-faith conversation with me. So I will stop requesting one. By the way, before I go, another correction to a new false statement of yours: I have never failed to directly deal with any of your arguments *where they concern what ID is actually about, i.e., detecting design in nature*. But you hardly ever talk about detecting design in nature. You generally talk about "IDism" or other things which don't interest me in the slightest. If you would offer me statements concerning the arguments for design in any of the books on my list above, you would find me very direct and generous in my replies. Nor have I "put words into your mouth" except where, due to your evasive and indirect habits of writing, you have left the reader guessing what your actual position is, and I've had to draw inferences. And if I've drawn the wrong inferences, the fault is with the person who writes evasively and ambiguously, who could easily prevent the misinterpretation by saying straight out what he thinks. For example, on Feser and Fuller, you could easily prevent me from drawing wrong inferences or "putting words into your mouth" by clearly stating your position: is Feser *right*, and Fuller *wrong*, about the Christian God (re univocal predication)? All you have to do say what you think, and my inference-drawing will stop. But you are unwilling to say what you think; you prefer to leave your readers with an ambiguous position. Don't blame me for that. But let us end these quarrels and close with good will. Best wishes, Gregory. I know you will be a successful academic. You have the right set of qualities to go far in the profession. And in that context, I offer my sincere hope that all your scholarly life (and that of all other academics) will be constantly illuminated by the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. For the ultimate goal of all academics must be knowledge of these things. I could not wish you, or any thinker, a higher blessing. Timaeus
Stalking me again on another thread is 'timaeus.' Let's make a deal, since you seem to like trying to bully people who are anti-IDism as a 'rhetorician without a position'. You have put words into my mouth, distorted my words, ommitted directly dealing with my arguments instead preferring tangents and impugned my well-informed views of 'Intelligent Design Theory' and the IDM too many times (as again several times in this thread) for you to garner much of any trust at all from me. You answer my question and I'll address your charge of error. Yes or no: Have you or have you not, personally, in your 'first life,' i.e. in your real birth name, published anything with the Discovery Institute Press? No answer, no deal. Thanks, Gregory Gregory
Gregory: I see that you have failed to admit error regarding your claim about the publishers of ID books. (See your 72 above for the error, and my 73 above for the correction.) It is interesting that under another column you claim (falsely) that it is extremely rare for to me admit errors or accept corrections; but in fact, I find it is you who will rarely or never grant even small points to ID folks. Here is a chance for you to turn over a new leaf, and acknowledge that most of the books I've cited aren't published by Discovery. Then, with the "Discovery excuse" for not reading those books removed, you could undertake to read them, and withhold further criticism of ID until you have done so. That would do a great deal to transform the discussion from one that is constantly ad hominem to one that is oriented to intellectual contents. Timaeus
All right, Gregory, so you don't "hate" ID. I'll retract the word. But it seems fair to say that you are "obsessed" with showing the worthlessness of ID. The amount of time and energy you put into the task would appear to warrant that term. You wrote: "First, what is called ‘the books’ he refers to are mainly published by a right-wing funded American think-tank – the Discovery Institute Press." This is a typical "fact-free" statement on Gregory's part. The books I have referred to most often, when asking Gregory to respond to ID claims, have been: Denton, Nature's Destiny (Free Press) Behe, Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution (Free Press) Dembski, No Free Lunch (Rowman and Littlefield) Dembski, The Design Inference (Cambridge) Dembski and Ruse, Debating Design (Cambridge) Dembski and Wells, The Design of Life (Foundation for Thought and Ethics) Meyer, Signature in the Cell (HarperOne) Does anyone see "Discovery Institute" among any of those publisher references? And which of those books has Gregory read from cover to cover? (Not skimmed, not read a couple of chapters from, not formed an opinion of based on reviews, but read from cover to cover.) And which of those books is Gregory willing to debate me on, regarding its arguments for design in nature? Timaeus
“You hate ID, because you have personal resentment against some of the people at Discovery.”
You’re a real a#%hole, timaeus. You intentionally put words into peoples’ mouths simply when they get the best of you. I find this behaviour disgusting and petty. Worse, because you could try to do better but won’t because or your myopic defense of IDism. I don’t “hate ID.” However, I think it is a foolish theory that only survives in the shadow of American fundamentalism and creationism. And this is true, which you too would find if you studied the IDM carefully. That’s why ‘neo-creationism’ is an accurate label for IDism and why creationists are more than happy to call themselves IDists. And I don’t ‘resent’ people at the DI. They’re generally kind, goodhearted, decent people ... who just happen to have become deluded by an ideology that has by now grown out of their control! They’re on a sinking ship, timaeus, which is why their supporters so desperately defend them here, trying to bail water after Dover and many other debacles. What is more, gasp! – IDT unnecessarily discriminates against atheists! ;) Why? Because one cannot accept an (uppercase) Intelligent Designer ‘Designed’ the universe and still be an atheist, by definition. IDists (double-talk) say this need not be so, but that is part of the swindle they are attempting; i.e. to apologetically attract atheists who don’t believe in a Designer or in a divine Intelligence to think that a probability argument requires it to be so. And with up to 16% of American citizens openly declaring themselves ‘non-religious’ according to recent surveys, it would therefore be impossible to introduce IDT in public schools because of this (reverse) discrimination. Indeed, in this sense, as some scholars in Eastern Europe have already recognized, the USA is a ‘pre-atheist’ nation-state, just as the Russian Federation and other Eastern European countries are ‘post-atheist.’ But since timaeus “doesn’t insist” (that’s his gem of non-committal, folks!) on forcing IDism into public (American or Canadian) schools, his views are irrelevant on this topic.
“ID, as a movement, should not be promoting any particular religious view.”
Yes. But that is exactly what it does, timaeus. Go figure, eh?! So what are you going to do about that fact? Bury your head and feel no shame for your association with the Movement? Whether there is ‘design in nature’ is actually *not* a crucial question for our time. There are many, many more important questions. That’s your ideology of wish-fulfillment talking, timaeus. Rev. Paley already faced that question two centuries ago (!!) and it later faded away because it (‘the design argument’) is too easily swept up as apologetics. Whether or not nature is Created, however, is still a crucial feature of the Abrahamic worldview and even of most Native American worldviews/religions. But subsuming it into ‘strictly scientific’ is not what mature Abrahamists or Native Americans want. The IDM is tricksy (obvious reference to LoTR’s Gollum) because it wants to have its cake and eat it too wrt ‘the design argument’ (lowercase id) and ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ (uppercase ID), the latter which depends for its implied value on being (as Casey Luskin repeats) ‘strictly scientific.’ In Adrian Bejan’s case, author of “Design in Nature” (2012) – which has yet to be reviewed on UD – ‘design in nature’ is scientific apologetics, with no ‘Designer’ of nature necessary. In the IDM’s case, ‘Design in nature’ is also scientific apologetics, but it is based on the past-tense analogy of (mundane) intelligent design with (transcendent) Intelligent Design. It relies heretically on univocal predication of the notion that human beings make things as the Abrahamic God makes things. Whereas STA writes: “Univocal predication is impossible between God and creatures.” Iow, IDism represents a particularly non-catholic, i.e. protestant Christian theology and it does this consciously and on-purpose. But because the DI is so stubbornly wedge-oriented, there is thus far no leader in the IDM who has given a non-forked-tongue answer about this, which is why ID leaders (and even a few activists at UD) have been roasted by Catholic thinkers (e.g. Stephen Barr, Francis Beckwith and Ed Feser), who have exposed IDism for what it really is as a protestant-oriented scientistic ideology. That a small few Catholics have swallowed it and that M. Behe speaks for it at school board trials is really no more than a ‘drop in the bucket.’
“What ID is about is the arguments in the books of the ID theorists.”
That’s only a portion of it. timaeus probably knows this, but conveniently ignores the reality for his personal fantasy (as if I take him seriously enough to think he might know the difference between them!). First, what is called ‘the books’ he refers to are mainly published by a right-wing funded American think-tank – the Discovery Institute Press. Much of it doesn’t or wouldn’t pass a legitimate peer review process. Just like timaeus himself cannot publish anything on IDism unless at the DI Press. And this is where the movement and networking with fellow ideological IDists comes into play. But timaeus likely won’t talk openly about that, since he is attempting to be an objective, impersonal observer, a man who supposedly has no motivational investment in IDism’s truth or falsehood.
“I couldn’t care less about the sociological peculiarities of ID as a social entity. That’s your interest, not mine. You have every right to criticize ID folks on their religious culture if you like, but I equally have every right to ignore their religious culture — which has nothing to do with me — and concentrate on design arguments.”
Why does he wish to be ignorant of facts and knowledge regarding IDism? If timaeus was sincere in what he says, he would easily come up with a list of ‘non-IDists’ who have put forth ‘design arguments.’ But where’s timaeus’ list? He hasn’t got one. There are lots and lots of ‘design theories’ and many ‘design arguments’ that cannot be properly called ‘Intelligent Design Theory.’ But IDists, who are stuck in their pseudo-apologetic ‘strictly scientific’ claims, pay no attention to them. This shows how uninterested in reality and documented, available scholarship they really are.
“I defend irreducible complexity and fine-tuning, not prayers in summer courses, not apologetics films, and not a renewal of culture along fundamentalist lines.”
Well, timaeus, it is true and obvious that you are not a responsible person and not an actual player in the IDM. That you’ve admitted that is at least truthful. It is likewise true that the IDM is stained by the problematic features mentioned above. And sadly, it is evident that you continue to try to persuade ‘innocent’ readers at UD that your views are ‘orthodox’ with ID leaders’ views of uppercase ID, when they are not, and that your views are compatible with Abrahamic faith (which does not require ‘scientific proof’ of a ‘Designer’), which it does not seem that they are. And I would take Feser, Beckwith and Barr, who are superior in your own fields than you are, over you on just about any topic, including IDism that can be imagined. That’s why I don’t trust you, timaeus and why others, regulars or readers here should think twice before succumbing to your rhetorical wizardry with black-and-white words on a blog (that's what the guy does for a living, folks - play with words!). In voice or on video/TV, you wouldn’t last 5 minutes as an opponent, timaeus; your game would be up as hollow talk. And if you'd like to display the courage to try, I've already offered you space for such a challenge. Gregory
Gregory @ 68: If we ignore all the personal flak (which always seems to make up a considerable part of your posts), we are in agreement. ID, as a movement, should not be promoting any particular religious view. As for whether I am only a "marginal figure" in the ID movement, that is something I don't lose any sleep over. I have never said that I'm an important ID figure. I'm a commenter on an ID blog site. The important ID figures, to me, are Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Nelson, Wells, Axe, Gauger, Sternberg, Minnich, Sanford, Gonzalez, Denton, etc. I certainly don't put myself up in these people's class, because I don't have the necessary scientific training. I'm certainly not a "minion" of the Discovery Institute, nor do I wish to be. Nor am I an ID theorist. I'm an academically-trained *ally* of ID -- I pretend to nothing more. My contribution is my ability to write about religion and science, history of science, philosophy, theology, etc. I'm trying to show the open-minded public the merits of ID as a general position, one that is compatible with good empirical science and (for those interested in the religious implications) with traditional Christian theology. You hate ID, because you have personal resentment against some of the people at Discovery. I look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the question whether there is detectable design in nature. That's the question I'm interested in. I think it's a crucial question for our time. I'm not going to let the petty failings of some Discovery personnel derail me. Would you cease to vote for the political left because a few individuals on the left were guilty of some misdemeanors? The Discovery summer course, whatever its flaws, is a drop in the bucket, in the grand scheme of things. What ID is about is the arguments in the books of the ID theorists. I think the arguments in those books are, overall (not in every detail) persuasive, and I defend those conclusions. I couldn't care less about the sociological peculiarities of ID as a social entity. That's your interest, not mine. You have every right to criticize ID folks on their religious culture if you like, but I equally have every right to ignore their religious culture -- which has nothing to do with me -- and concentrate on design arguments. And that's what I do. So please, take your complaints about ID behavior to Discovery or somewhere else. Stop making me responsible for others. I defend irreducible complexity and fine-tuning, not prayers in summer courses, not apologetics films, and not a renewal of culture along fundamentalist lines. Timaeus
p.s. the evangelical-Protestant Christian 'sales pitch' of the DI is rather obvious, it is not even disguised "a movement that was setting the world on fire." N.B. a 'movement' that timaeus has said he does *not* want to be part of... "The Rather Obvious Demise of Intelligent Design http://thebenshi.com/2012/04/06/207-the-rather-obvious-demise-of-intelligent-design/ Gregory
“a straight-up sales pitch for a particular Christian view” – timaeus Strobel’s film is exactly that. Understanding the ‘context’ changes nothing in this case. 'A straight-up sales pitch for a particular Christian view' is exactly what the DI does to (unsuspecting) students. And they orchestrate (evangelical Protestant) Christian prayers before meals too. This reflects the evangelical 'renewal of culture' message found in the original 'centre for the renewal of science and culture' that was later changed to try to be more palatable (i.e. more religiously 'neutral') to American society. That's part of the DI's documented history. Such is the ‘context’ of DI ‘culture’ and it is why M. Denton left the DI – it was reportedly ‘too Christian’ for him. He's just back for the evangelical-networked money, as a Fellow. I've studied this stuff and spoken to ID leaders more than probably any other sociologist alive. But, of course, don't believe it, folks, if it offends you as simply contrarian to your 'honest' and 'impartial' advocacy of IDist ideology. timaeus doesn't want people questioning or even thinking (it'll hurt your minds! ;) about why M. Denton chose to leave the DI. He just wants people focussed on so-called 'scientific' ideas devoid of their humanity. Instead, I'm interested in putting the pieces of Humpty Dumpty back together again from timaeus' and the IDM's repetitive dehumanisation attempts. "I wouldn’t show a Lee Strobel film if I were running the Discovery summer program in the social sciences...I wouldn’t." Right, that's noted. But then again, because you don't actively defend the exclusively 'scientific' meaning of 'Intelligent Design Theory,' timaeus, you sadly have no appropriate place in the Discovery Institute's minions. You are thus a marginal figure who the DI can't really embrace as a 'brother in arms,' for their movement. Perhaps just as their editor, since you can't (or as you said here, just haven't 'yet') publish anything about IDism in your own real, personal, professional name. Nevertheless, since you have said the above, it means that admitting publically that IDT is properly understood as not just 'natural science-only' or as 'strictly scientific' (Luskin), but as a 'science, philosophy, theology/worldview' conversation as I have done for about 8 years really shouldn't be that hard for you. Yet for some unknown reason, however, you cannot bring yourself to say it. Frankly, you're not even (real name) listed among the editors of the new 'ID-friendly' Salvo magazine, timaeus, which is made up of many 'courageous' IDists. And you said here that you haven't published anything 'professional' apparently since 2006. This makes me wonder if you think your embrace of timaeusean-IDism is hindering your prospects (like it has done to Behe's)? It would be sad if 'warfare thesis' ideologues, such as expressed in the OP have got the best of you via IDism. Why not rise up, without a protestant evangelical sales pitch, timaeus? small-id, as you well know, is the catholic/orthodox view. Why would you put your anonymous reputation behind trying to defend scientism cum IDism? Gregory
I hope that satisfies him.
Oh yes! Finally something to satisfy Gregory. :| Upright BiPed
For Gregory and others interested in his comments above: Sorry, I have been away for a while. Let me answer some of the comments in 64: Gregory: 'So, let’s say that the DI showed a film by Lee Strobel called “The Case for Christ” at its Summer Program. You would be against that, would you not timaeus? That year, in the Humanities and Social Sciences section an A. Hitchcock film was also shown. But that could not be as easily called ‘apologetics’ as “The Case for Christ.” ' Whether I would be against the Strobel film's being shown would depend on context. If it was shown as a straight-up sales pitch for a particular Christian view, I would of course be against it in an ID context. But the mention of a Hitchcock film -- and I'm sure that most people at Discovery would not think very highly of Hitchcock (probably they would see him as one of the greatest perverters and debasers of modern morality) -- suggests to me that perhaps they were showing films representing a wide variety of perspectives on modern life, in which case there might be justification for the Strobel film. (I add that I have not seen the Strobel film, and know nothing of its contents, beyond what I might be able to guess from the title.) Gregory: ' Do not be naive, folks, in thinking that IDism is not inevitably, unmistakeably and irrevocably intertwined with religion, specifically, with American Protestant Christian theism. ' Ummm ... Behe, Sternberg, Torley, StephenB, O'Leary, Richards, Gage, Chapman -- all Catholics, last I heard. Klinghoffer, a religious Jew, last I heard. Berlinski, a secular Jew, last I heard. Wells, a follower of Moon, last I heard. Denton, a Deist of some sort, last I heard -- and not an American. Surely Gregory's is a very one-sided description of ID? Does ID enjoy strong support from American conservative evangelicals? Of course; I don't deny it. Are many of its leaders American conservative evangelicals? Of course; I don't deny it. Does that make ID per se an American conservative evangelical project? No, it does not. Are some conservative Protestants merely using ID as an apologetic tool to defend their traditional creationism? Of course; I've never denied that. But that doesn't mean I endorse such tactics. I'm as much against intelligent design being hijacked by narrow fundamentalists as I'm against theistic evolution being hijacked by shallow Christian liberals (which is what has happened at BioLogos, in many American Christian colleges, in parts of the British scientific world, and elsewhere). Still, just as Gregory does not abandon Christianity because of the Crusades and the Inquisition, I'm not about to abandon intelligent design because of some misdemeanors of some of its proponents. The point is: if "design detection" is an intellectually valid project, then the motives of the people involved in it shouldn't matter. I'm against the sort of motive-mongering that Gregory is constantly engaged in. So if a Lee Strobel film proves that the Discovery Institute has a Christian bias, I say, so what? That doesn't make the ID arguments of Behe or Meyer or Dembski invalid. And nothing that Gregory has said in many years of internet posting suggests that he has dealt with, or intends to deal with, the substantive arguments for design in nature. Apparently he doesn't care whether they are valid or not. But the rest of us here do. What does Gregory want me to say? That I wouldn't show a Lee Strobel film if I were running the Discovery summer program in the social sciences? Well, then, I'll say it: I wouldn't. I'd have the students read Allan Bloom instead. I hope that satisfies him. Timaeus
Is it worth repeating here? Who knows? I don't count ideological IDists as enemies, only as (usually less than worthy) opponents in the field of ideas. They are ideologically on the losing side globally-socially, as sadly as it will sound to the majority of IDist supporters here. Perhaps one or two will take up the call for change. So, let’s say that the DI showed a film by Lee Strobel called “The Case for Christ” at its [2008] Summer Program. You would be against that, would you not timaeus? Consider it speculative if you wish. The history of the DI's summer program is not 'untouchable'. What is timaeus' answer? Would that be an acceptable film to show at the DI's Summer Program or not? This is asked because timaeus said:
“I for one have always been against mixing ID theory with Christian apologetics, and I don’t think the DI should be doing any Christian apologetics at all — in its summer courses or anywhere else.”
Ohh, tentative timaeus who ignores the politicking of the Discovery Institute and how it desperately tries to hide *any* trace of its religious/theological/conservative evangelical dominant agenda. How little does timaeus seem to realise of what spiritual-PR-propaganda goes on there! vjtorley, otoh, says openly and in public, using his birth name, writing 'safely' as an English teacher in Japan:
“I hold that science can and should leave room for the supernatural, and that God-talk has a legitimate place in science.” / “To hold, as the Intelligent Design movement does, that there can be scientific evidence for a Designer of Nature is perfectly orthodox. I for one refuse to be bullied into keeping the search for a Designer within a purely natural framework. I don’t hold that science can take us to the God of classical theism, as such, but I think it can take us to the supernatural, at least in principle” Vincent Torley
As vjtorley is an 'evangelical' Catholic (incidentally, one who Edward Feser has demolished regarding 'IDism', as far from "perfectly orthodox") it sure does appear that vjtorley would be opposed to timaeus' timid compartmentalisation of knowledge/experience. He claims "scientific evidence for a Designer of Nature" and is theologically unfraid to capitalise 'Designer' and 'Nature.' Otoh, timaeus calls the wise capitalisation of 'Designer' worthless and distracting, while departing from ID-leaders' insistence on the 'scientificity' of IDT. Who should people trust? Probably neither of them, at least, not on a scholarly level! But hey, at the end of the day, so far UD-IDists have tended to conveniently and intentionally forget about their mutually exclusive views (e.g. Young Earthism vs. normal 'old' Earth science) in order to try to give the appearance of being cohesive - one cultural renewal, revolutionary 'Science' Movement under the 'disembodied, perhaps alien, designer' - in their protesting attacks against their elusive foe of '(neo-)Darwinism' and their dancing partner of Dawkins and the 'brights.' The vast number of balanced, sane, responsible critics of IDism, the majority of Abrahamic believers who do not wish to sell their faith to 'scientism' in the name of "strictly [natural] scientific in its approach," are well advised to ignore the fanaticism of IDists like timaeus and vjtorley. It would be preferable not to even have to acknowledge people like timaeus and stephenb as fanatics. But given the reality of 'Expelled Syndrome' having spread so widely among IDists and the sociologically huge percentage of pseudonyms taken by IDists, one isn't left much reason to trust them. Gregory
Wait, so Salvador T. Cordova has also attended the DI’s Summer Program?
I never said I did, I said I missed the opportunity to see you in 2008, which means I wasn't there in 2008. I've never attended the seminars, but I know a few who did. In fact I was at another conference on the other side of the USA that summer with 3 other guys from UD (bevets, johnnyb, Walter ReMine): http://www.creationicc.org/proceedings/ICC08_TOC.htm scordova
"I for one have always been against mixing ID theory with Christian apologetics, and I don’t think the DI should be doing any Christian apologetics at all — in its summer courses or anywhere else." So, let's say that the DI showed a film by Lee Strobel called "The Case for Christ" at its Summer Program. You would be against that, would you not timaeus? That year, in the Humanities and Social Sciences section an A. Hitchcock film was also shown. But that could not be as easily called 'apologetics' as "The Case for Christ." Do not be naive, folks, in thinking that IDism is not inevitably, unmistakeably and irrevocably intertwined with religion, specifically, with American Protestant Christian theism. If you don't realise this, then there's an elephant looking over your shoulder that you think isn't in the room. That's the reality. Why not face it? "Now that I found out he was at the 2008 seminar, I’m glad I missed him and never had the displeasure of meeting him personally..." Wait, so Salvador T. Cordova has also attended the DI's Summer Program? If so, why don't you folks ask him to share his dirty laundry (what he calls 'sensitive information') with you? I've already said I'm not willing to provide any answers that would promote, support or spread positive info about IDism, nor to help it in any way. Did they show Strobel's "The Case for Christ" when Salvador was at the Seattle Pacific University for the DI's Summer Program too? My guess is yes! An 'axe' to grind? Yes, Doug Axe and his ideological IDism. That's an axe that needs grinding - the blunt truth will tell. ;) In answer to "which of those people he actually received instruction from" - all of them, except Sternberg and Wells (I had an excused absence). Luskin was sick and couldn't speak, though I ate lunch with him and asked necessary questions. And Chapman didn't teach; he just spoke at the opening banquet as a politician. West was the main 'Expelled Syndrome' victimising reminder, which is obviously still visible here at UD. Someone call a doctor! Returning to the OP, 'warfare thesis lies' just takes on a different name at the DI. Gregory
SC: Thanks for sharing, and for highlighting the phenomenon of web stalking, outing (which includes family members) etc. I have linked your comment and the onward discussion of CL's experience, here. KF kairosfocus
The point, of course, is that it is quite possible that Gregory is misrepresenting what happened in the Summer program, not necessarily out of malice aforethought (though that cannot be ruled out, given his visible animus against ID and many individual IDers), but perhaps only out of misunderstanding; he simply may not have “got” what the Summer program teachers were trying to convey to him.
I don't know Gregory personally, but known him through the net since about 2004, that's 9 years ago. He was extremely nasty to me, all the garbage he spews out here on Eric, he spewed out on me times 10 while piling on with the Darwinists and bloviating about my religious motivations and insinuating it distorted my ability to do science. He dished out abuse just like a Pharyngulite. When I was at Telic Thoughts it felt like I got an obsessed stalker following me around. The risk that he'll out people I consider real, and I really would prefer he remain silent about the summer seminars lest he inadverdently disclose sensitive information. It is hard to express how frightening the behavior of Darwinists is. When we had pro-ID meetings at GMU, the anti-ID bio profs and even Pandas Thumbster would show up. I feared for the students, and I finally had to take the meetings off campus. At Cornell, reporter Celeste Biever lied trying to infiltrate the IDEA club. Read this frightening account of how Wesley Elsberry tried to destroy Casey Luskin while Casey was a grad student: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1428 Gregory has shown a pattern of hostility toward those in the ID community, and it's disconcerting he had access to senstive information such as the identities of grad students or possibly some of the research projects back in 2008 (which thankfully some are now in the public Domain now that Dembski, Marks, and Ewert are published). These summer seminars are where the future Jonathan Wells, Casey Luskins, Doug Axe's, Michael Denton's, Ben Carson's, Richard Sternberg's get in contact with others in ID community. Their identities and privacy are extremely important, and the NCSE's Glen Branch, people like Barbara Forrest, etc. actively encourage getting pro-ID students and faculty identified and tossed out of academia and even other institutions. Look what happened to Sternberg at NIH, David Coppedge at JPL, etc. Gregory has never comprehended ID for the last 9 years, he never will and questions you pose about the summer seminar will not be a reliable account of what he's learning because he's never shown he can fairly and accurately what is discussed here at UD, TT, and ARN... Don't try to straighten out him out, he's had 9 years to learn, he seems to disdain the scientific technicalities and prefers to couch ID in terms of a sociological, psychological, philosophical, and theological phenomenon. You can see that in the way he treats Eric Anderson, and I can see that in the way he treated me while he joined Artur Hunt, Andrea Botarro, and Richard Hoppe in piling on at ARN while I was trying to learn ID for years. I never forgot his tactics of attempted intimidation to knock me out of the discuss. Now that I found out he was at the 2008 seminar, I'm glad I missed him and never had the displeasure of meeting him personally... My criticism of him is harsh, but well, if you get stalked on the interenet for a few years by someone with an axe to grind, you'll have a different perspective of them which you'll never forget. scordova
Timaeus is right. It may very well be that Gregory was there but after having argued the point for so long, insulting just about everyone who has asked him for more information on it, he should now take his notes and fire them up here for us all to see so that we can at least get a better handle on how he came to his conclusions. Would that be fair enough Gregory? In fact why don't you create a post about it on your blog, giving us a run down of the classes you took, backed up with the notes you took, and under each one stipulating the reason as to why you came to the conclusion that you did? Admittedly this might take you a while, but then again you have spent months here trying to defend yourself without giving us a shred of evidence, so why not have a stab at it? PeterJ
scordova: Just to be clear, those "quotations" I gave from Gregory were presented only as near-quotations -- though they did not falsify the spirit or intended meaning of the real quotations they were derived from. I accept your point about the need not to "out" people who have attended Discovery activities. I would not want Gregory to do that without consulting the people involved. But if Gregory first sought permission from the people he named before naming them, and they consented, no harm would be done. The point, of course, is that it is quite possible that Gregory is misrepresenting what happened in the Summer program, not necessarily out of malice aforethought (though that cannot be ruled out, given his visible animus against ID and many individual IDers), but perhaps only out of misunderstanding; he simply may not have "got" what the Summer program teachers were trying to convey to him. If he would specify the sins of the program, it would be easy to ask the teachers and other students for the other side of the story. But I don't think that is going to happen. I don't think he wants to make the charges specific enough that they can be checked out. I believe that Gregory did attend the Summer program. I find it extremely hard to believe that he listened to the biological and mathematical arguments with a genuinely open mind, and it sounds (from his reminiscences) that he may have behaved in a combative manner in more than one classroom or non-classroom situation, which of course is not conducive to learning. I don't believe he is a credible witness to the overall character of the program. But if I'm wrong, he can show that by being very specific in his criticisms, naming the teachers whose presentations were inadequate and demonstrating why they were inadequate. Timaeus
Imagine having such a uncontrollable personality at the head of an project. Good bye data. Upright BiPed
what other students were in the course who could confirm his statements of fact and his judgments
I would ask the names of other students at those courses not be mentioned in a public forum. Some students who attended the DI summer seminars are in PhD programs and if they are outed, it could be the end of their career. FWIW, I'll accept Gregory was there, if so, what a waste... I think he owes Eric and others an apology for his insults. And finally he says this of himself and others:
“I crushed Bruce Gordon in argument” and “I was far more theoretically advanced in social science than John West” and “I met Sternberg and he’s no angel.”
Such statements strike me as someone trying to get attention because they have nothing of substance to offer. The only way they get noticed is to show up in discussion and bloviate and pontificate and accuse falsely. His tirade against Eric was way over the line. scordova
correction -- "that is why [no one] knows what his terms "Abrahamic" or "little id" mean. StephenB
Timaeus, Timaeus, I don’t think Gregory is very well informed about holistic thinking or the interaction between specialized disciplines. It has likely never occurred to him that the university, as its name implies, was originally designed to teach universal knowledge. Putting aside a few glorious exceptions, that vision has been lost. Gregory’s generation has been steeped in the post-modern notion that college courses are like individual bottles on a shelf, each having little or nothing to do with the other. The first semester, they may choose a bottle of sociology, a bottle of philosophy, and a bottle of political science; the next semester they may choose four or five bottles of something else. They are unaware of the vertical hierarchy of truths or the fact that higher sciences, like physics and chemistry, illuminate lower sciences, like biology. Likewise, they are ignorant of the horizontal knowledge continuum or that fact that each specialty overlaps with another, just as social-psychology overlaps with sociology, which, in turn, overlaps with anthropology. As a victim of his compartmentalized training, Gregory cannot conceive of a harmonic relationship between science and theology that would preserve the integrity of each discipline. If one suggests, for example, that science’s Big Bang Cosmology could also be understood in terms of the Biblical passage, “let there be light,” or that ID Theory could relate to the Logos Theory of the Gospel, Gregory would interpret those explanations as equivocations or “flip-flops.” Like Barbara Forrest, Gregory interprets any such analysis as proof that ID proponents allow their religious faith to leak into their scientific methodology, even though neither could describe ID methodology on a bet. (To honestly describe ID’s methodology is to refute the uninformed anti-ID rationale that drives the partisanship). In that sense, Gregory's posture is very strange since he also insists that Steve Fuller, his intellectual hero, is right to say that ID should be an amalgamation of Theology, Philosophy, and Science. If, as Gregory asserts, ID is already what Steve Fuller thinks it should become, why doesn’t he celebrate it? At this point, then, we have to ask ourselves the following question: What is the true nature of the partisan ideology that drives Gregory’s anti-ID rants? Here we have to read between the lines because Gregory always argues by insinuation, never by logic. Among other things, he seems to hold (he has never denied the charge) that God’s designs are, and must be, accessible only through the lens of religious faith. Theistic Evolutionists also tend to think this way, which may explain why he often joins hands with them. Compounding this error, he holds that the entire Judeo-Christian tradition defines itself by this same faith-first approach, rejecting any observation-based reasoning process (such as natural theology or origin’s science) that would cause us to discover the existence of God (or a designer) apart from a faith commitment. In Gregory’s mind, faith and reason are enemies and must never be allowed to influence each other. This is the classic definition of fideism and I think it is the driving force. When you break it down, his formula is simple: On matters of creation and evolution, apriori reasoning is good (little id), and aposteriori reasoning is bad (Bid ID). It is the latter formula that Gregory refers to when he uses that dubious phrase “natural-science only.” At this point, any well-educated person would stop and ask the definitive question: “Wait a minute, aren’t we leaving something out?” It isn’t just ID science (or what Gregory calls Big ID) that uses aposteriori reasoning. Quite the contrary. Aristotle, the pagan philosopher, Aquinas, the Scholastic, and Paley, the Natural Theologian, all observed the order of nature and inferred the existence of an ordering intelligence. They were not, in any way, relying on faith to arrive at that conviction. Indeed, that is the whole point of the aforementioned passage in Romans 1:20, which is also an observation-based exhortation: “ For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” From the Judeo-Christian perspective, which is clearly a part of the “Abrahamic” element, we don’t need to believe that God exists at all; we can know it by simply observing and thinking. Believing is for things that we cannot know, not for things that are self-evident. Contrary to his claims, Gregory’s position, insofar as he has one, is at variance with the Judeo-Christian world view. It is ridiculous for him to assert that all Abrahamic religions take design on faith when the Judeo-Christian doctrine explicitly and dramatically describes itself in the opposite way. Because Gregory seems to disdain that long tradition of rational thinking, he finds himself abandoning rationality altogether. His most important categories remain undefined, which is why one knows what his terms “Abrahamic” or “little id” means. In fact, he doesn’t know what they mean. His only real position is that he has no position. He insists that he does not embrace Neo-Darwinism, Theistic Evolution, Creation Science, or Intelligent Design. What else is left? Only undisciplined and unarticulated fideism. In the end, Gregory’s “little id and it’s faith-first restriction,” which is supposed to be the definitive perspective embraced by all “Abrahamic” believers, is either radically incomplete and unrepresentative of Judeo-Christianity, insofar as it ignores natural theology, or else it is totally meaningless, insofar as its boundaries have never been defined. StephenB
Eric: Good question! Gregory is not the most coherent of critics. He tends to be "all over the map," so one rarely feels that his criticism is coming from a stable position that is easily identifiable. When ID folks won't talk about theology *enough* to suit his tastes, he accuses them of being naively or stupidly "science-only" people, interested only in cells and probability theory and information theory etc. when they should be linking up their scientific discussions with their theological discussions. When ID folks tall about theology *too much* to suit his taste, discussing the interpretation of Genesis or the thoughts of Calvin or Augustine or Aquinas or Paley, he accuses their science of being secretly theologically driven, as if mingling science and theology is a bad thing. I can't resolve this contradiction. If I had to take a stab at it, I'd say that Gregory actually thinks that scientific ideas about origins *should* be mingled with theological ideas about origins, but that the theological ideas about origins should be *liberal* theological ideas rather than conservative ones. Based on Gregory's many obvious attacks on Bible-based Protestantism in America, and his more subtle snide remarks against Calvinism, and his reading of plainly conservative Catholic texts in a ludicrously liberal way (even when his exegesis is demolished for all to see by StephenB), it seems to be not *theology* that Gregory hates, but any form of *conservative* theology -- meaning not just American fundamentalism but also conservative Calvinism, conservative Catholicism, etc. (He makes a big deal out of his allegiance to Orthodoxy, which might give the impression that he is conservative, but then he recommends the thought of Berdyaev -- certainly heretical and modern and liberal by Orthodox standards.) And this fits in with his constant digs at me, telling me that I should stop studying classical texts in philosophy and theology and "get with it" and embrace the world of Facebook and Twitter and "texting" and popular culture, relegating Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Luther, Augustine, etc. to the wastebasket as irrelevant to modern life and modern people's tastes and wishes. The idea that modern life and modern people's wishes might be perverse, ignorant, frivolous, shallow, self-contradictory, irrational, or sinful, and that this might be an age which stands under divine judgment for its departure from the truth, doesn't seem to occur to Gregory as even a remote possibility. For Gregory, the modern, the latest, the academically avant garde -- that is the way the world should go, and anyone who counsels otherwise is a hopeless, backwards reactionary who deserves to be jobless, incomeless, and barred from social decision-making. Gregory appears to worship the current and the fashionable. But of course this is not uncommon among modern Ph.D.s. Timaeus
. . . his complaint that the DI was promoting Christian theology rather than science . . .
Yeah, but the weird thing is that he has also complained that intelligent design theory is a "natural science" theory. I'm trying to understand what his complaint is there, but he has failed to clarify. Is he complaining that ID doesn't go into theology? Eric Anderson
But to make the charges, and then not substantiate them, is both academically and ethically unacceptable.
This seems to be a rather recurrent theme where Gregory is concerned. Upright BiPed
In #17, Gregory gives a list of names of ID people who were present (i.e., on the site) during his summer seminar. He does not say *which of those people he actually received instruction from*. (For example, there might have been two or three sections going at a time, so that one could not attend all the sections. This is especially likely, given that the program was only something like 9 days long.) Nor does he say what each person taught. Did he not take notes? His reports of the event, which are scattered over his various posts to UD, consist of statements like "I crushed Bruce Gordon in argument" and "I was far more theoretically advanced in social science than John West" and "I met Sternberg and he's no angel." Gregory offers no description of the contents of any of the courses or lectures or seminars, only boasting and bravado. One gets the impression that he walked into the program and started criticizing its entire purpose and method from Day 1, and never stopped until the course was over. As if he thought he was there as an intellectual peer rather than as a student. If he had that kind of chip on his shoulder, it's no wonder if he didn't get along with people there. He also gives an incomplete list of entries from a sourcebook used in the program. Of the 24 chapters he says were in the book, he lists the titles of only 7. The first 6 concern theology. The 7th concerns Darwin. How do we know that 8 through 24 aren't about methodology in natural science, methodology in social science, biochemistry, information theory, evolutionary algorithms, origin of life research, etc.? Gregory has suppressed the information. In any case, the work in question is listed as a "sourcebook." That means the passages were to be used as reference or discussion material. We don't know from the list of sources that there were lectures devoted specifically to Christian theology (as opposed to lectures on design in nature which made historical references to Christian doctrine concerning God and creation). Still less can we tell that the lectures actually promoted Christian theology. They may have; but Gregory has not said so. And if he does say so, he should specify which teachers tried to promote Christian theology. In any case, of the people he listed, Sternberg and Chapman are Catholics, and Wells is from the Unification Church, so it wouldn't be Protestant fundamentalism that was being taught by those people, if they were teaching any religion at all. I would guess that Sternberg was teaching hard-core biological theory. But maybe Gregory skipped all the sessions that had to do with biology; he's already indicated that he isn't interested in that sort of thing. What Gregory doesn't realize is that, if he could offer real substance to back up his charges against the DI -- if he could produce fellow-students would would verify his facts and join him in his complaint that the DI was promoting Christian theology rather than science -- many of us here would be sympathetic with him. I for one have always been against mixing ID theory with Christian apologetics, and I don't think the DI should be doing any Christian apologetics at all -- in its summer courses or anywhere else. (Of course, ID proponents have every right to do Christian apologetics in their private lives, write books on the subject, etc. But in their capacity as members of the DI, they should be religion-neutral.) By not providing evidence to back up his claims, Gregory gives us the impression that he has no evidence, or at least that he is giving us only a very partial and biased account of what happened at the summer school. He thus loses the chance to enlighten us and win us over. The ball's in Gregory's court. He should either make specific charges of religious bias against specific individuals, and back those charges up with information that can be checked by an impartial investigator, or he should withdraw the charges. But to make the charges, and then not substantiate them, is both academically and ethically unacceptable. Timaeus
Gregory, I thought you had better things to do than debate here on UD? Seeing as how you are sticking around how about providing evidence of your week at the DI camp? I don't know how many times you have been asked for it. Look I have answered every question you have thrown at me, even those at a very personal level. So I think it only polite for you to do the same. Show us the relevant information Gregory, or please, go and be busy where ever it is your expertise has been called upon. And may the Lord bless you in it. PeterJ
Gregory, You are a bush-league critic. And you couldn't demolish your way out of a wet paper bag. Joe
"Intelligently Designed windmills" Add 'Joe' to the capitalisation camp? He'll flip-flop back to uncapitalised 'id' as soon as he can. Jump outside of an IDist-happy site and Joe's 'arguments' are demolished. This is the kind of 30 second comentator that makes IDT look like a bush-league theory, like neo-creationism. timaeus should not be proud to defend the moronic IDist attitude of 'Joe,' but for some reason he likes to do it ;) Gregory
Gregory, the foresaken wannabe, tilting at Intelligently Designed windmills. Eric would have to get a lobotomy to be on a level playing field with you, Gregory. He shouldn't risk it. Joe
"I’ve read many ID books" Obviously too many to realise that you've been indoctrinated with IDist 'scientism.' IDT = 'scientific'! This is primitive American PoS showing us the Emperor has no clothes. It's time to face reality, Eric. "I’m happy to discuss it" No, I don't think you're telling the truth and you have demonstrated you are not willing to face it. The communication offer is open. You've avoided it thus far. Come into my lair, Eric. Your voice is much more powerful than your black & white blogger text. Your IDist lair stinks of evasion and deception. Honest people risk contamination from Expelled Syndrome here. Abrahamic believers are wise to avoid IDism like a post-modern plague. Will you 'cowboy-up' and risk a level playing field? Gregory
Open most ID books and you’ll find the claim that IDT is a ‘natural scientific theory’ and a ‘revolutionary’ one at that. Why do you not know this?
I've read many ID books, thank you very much. It is still unclear (i) what you mean by ID being a "natural scientific theory," and (ii) why you think that is a problem. I'm happy to discuss it if you will just answer the questions instead of being evasive and making vague references to the Discovery Institute or the ID literature and the like. Eric Anderson
Hey look, if you can't support what you post just say so. Your bloviating, false accusations and innundos have become legendary, mr. all fluff and no stuff. What happened to you in Seatle? Did you make unwanted advances are were rebuffed? Joe
That would be really, really, really *difficult*! ;) One would have to go to the library and read everyday for 'like' 10 months to find such references. Just say it ain't so, Joe! The Byers-Joe chauvinistic defense of ID has become 'legendary.' Eric, timaeus, Byers and Joe - all IDists, like a happy family of 'protesters'! Warfare model advocates represented at UD. Gregory
Open most ID books and you’ll find the claim that IDT is a ‘natural scientific theory’ and a ‘revolutionary’ one at that.
Name one and reference the page(s), please. Joe
"One of the great strengths of ID is that it doesn’t seek to go beyond what can be reasonably demonstrated on the evidence." Great strength?! You must be joking, Eric. "it seeks to identify signs of intelligence on the basis of the empirical evidence and doesn’t delve into the metaphysical" Reality check: the whole IDist 'movement' is drenched in metaphysics! Can IDT empirically demonstrate that it is a paradigm shift, a scientific 'revolution' in the waiting, as it claims to be, Eric? "The Design Revolution" by William Dembski - does this not ring a bell? Open most ID books and you'll find the claim that IDT is a 'natural scientific theory' and a 'revolutionary' one at that. Why do you not know this? There are very few 'strengths' of IDT, Eric (but indeed, there are a few, which I have spoken about here before). A layman such as yourself, a non-scientist, has simply been swindled into investing power and defensive personality into IDT, taking up a swagger at IDT-happy sites such as UD. What you call 'strength,' Eric, unfortunately is simple IDist propaganda that you've 'bought' into. But like I said, Eric, my email is open to you. So far you have not taken up the gracious offer. We'll settle this by voice, not by black-and-white blogging. Gregory
Regarding my claim that the idea of creation implies the idea of divine design, Gregory writes: "Abrahamic believers accept this already." but sadly, no, they don't -- not all of them. Oh, *traditional* believers do -- Orthodox Jews, Roman Catholics, orthodox Calvinists and Lutherans, traditional adherents of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, traditional (mostly now breakaway) Anglicans, etc. And I do. And maybe Gregory does, too. (I can't say, because I have never been able to grasp Gregory's religious position, but if he says he believes that God designed the properties of living cells, I will take him at his word and nod in agreement.) But a number of TEs -- especially on BioLogos, but also in many "Wesleyan" and non-denominational colleges, and in the ASA -- choke in the throat when asked whether God designed any particular feature of the world. The usual criticism is that speaking of God as "designing" anything makes him into "a mere engineer." But of course God can be everything that an engineer is, and much, much more, so the criticism fails. The *real* reasons why so many TEs (and so many liberal mainstream Christians and liberal evangelicals) don't like "design" language in relation to creation are: 1. They have been taught by "consensus science" that most of the results of "creation" are stochastic, the outcome of contingent events, swirlings of atoms and molecules without rhyme or reason, mutations of genes without rhyme or reason, etc. And they don't dare say "boo" to consensus science (whether on evolution or global warming or anything else). 2. The idea of "design" suggests to some TEs, especially Ken Miller and the BioLogos TEs, that nature has no choice but to realize God's design, that it has no freedom to deviate from the design, that it has no ability to "improvise" and hence no "creativity" or "freedom." If God imposes a "design" on anything he must be a harsh, control-freak of a tyrant who wants to repress his "kids" (natural powers and forces) and not allow them to grow up to become creative individuals themselves. (All the sneers against "Calvinism" so frequently on the lips of TEs come into play here.) If I walked into a church of common, traditional believers, and asked anyone if they thought that God planned out (i.e., designed) what he wanted before creating it, I would have no problem getting universal assent to the proposition. But if I walk into a room full of TEs and ask exactly the same question, I will get mostly equivocation. That's because many of the TEs have the scientific and theological commitments and preferences outlined above. I would like to believe that Gregory is right. But empirical evidence -- what I and all ID folks have seen before our very eyes, for about 20 years now, in the writings of Lamoureux, Alexander, Giberson, Falk, Venema, Miller, Van Till, and many others, both leaders and epigones among the TEs -- indicates that Gregory sees the TEs as much more orthodox and traditional than many of them in fact are. They believe that a good deal of creation is the result not of sound design, but of poor design or non-design. And there is no way of squaring that belief with the Bible and tradition. Timaeus
. . . most thinking Catholics and Orthodox Christians, as well as many Anglicans, Methodists, Wesleyans, Calvinists and other Christians, have decided that IDism’s requirement that IDT simply *is* a ‘natural-science-only’ theory disqualifies it from respectability or believability.
Let's set aside for a moment your (unsupported) assertion about what "most" Christians have decided regarding intelligent design. You still haven't explained this complaint of yours about ID being a "natural-science-only" theory. Is your beef just that ID does not seek to identify the designer? Is that what all this complaining and shouting and battling ID is about -- that it seeks to identify signs of intelligence on the basis of the empirical evidence and doesn't delve into the metaphysical? One of the great strengths of ID is that it doesn't seek to go beyond what can be reasonably demonstrated on the evidence. That is a strength, not a weakness. Eric Anderson
Abrahamic believers all accept the Creation of the universe. What they don’t accept is the so-called ‘natural-scientific theory’ of Uppercase ID = ‘Intelligent Design Theory.’ (This is what ‘timaeus’ knows, but doesn’t understand, while he claims to understand ‘everything fully’ like a jaded genius ;). Sit by his feet, PeterJ, and you’ll find in timaeus a man who is sharp with words, strong in ‘western religious studies,’ knows little and feels almost nothing about Orthodoxy, but is simply too lazy as a bloated believer to even go to Church in the morning. It’s too early for him to be inspired Sunday morning before 11:00. I don’t have time for such a person. He is a shame on the IDM, which of course embraces his fanaticism for their ideological cause.) “if God created the world he also designed it.” That’s about enough that need be said about supposedly ‘scientific’ IDT! 'Musting' on ‘God’ is typical of IDism, from under its pseudo-secret mask of credulity. Or as Behe distortively claims, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it must be a Big-D Duck! One doesn’t need to ‘war’ with IDism, with a push-over ideology. It is not a threat to anybody except for suckers who would become ideologues for ‘scientism’ in the name of IDT, thinking they are being ‘orthodox’ to their local Protestantism. ‘Revolutionaries,’ as Dembski, Meyer, Wells, Nelson and Meyer call themselves! You are all invited to join them. Is it a danger to think oneself a ‘revolutionary’ for the idea that it can be scientifically proven that the universe is Uppercase D Designed by a/the Uppercase D Designer? Abrahamic believers accept this already, without the scientific proof. Darwin will be overcome eventually. Be patient, folks. Curb your anger and religiously-harmful dissent. Dembskiism certainly isn’t going to become the next Darwinism, and evolutionary theory is not a dead-end ;) Dembski is still a technological evolutionist himself! IDism has infected a significant though still quite small number of people in the USA with Expelled Syndrome. The pseudonymous blogger ‘timaeus’ is just such an example of this willfully-contracted disease. What doctor wouldn’t want to help cure people from so obvious an ailment, if it would benefit them in the long-run? In this case, what’s first needed is for people to admit they’ve been infected with the disease, to admit they’ve become addicted to IDism as part of their worldview, their theological scientific outlook. Acknowledging they suffer from Expelled Syndrome will be very difficult for them to admit, for many of you at UD to do. The IDM is a major player perpetuating the contemporary ‘warfare thesis’ based on its insistence that IDT is ‘natural-science-only’ theory. I and others have patiently and gently pointed out that it is properly so-called a ‘science, philosophy, theology/worldview’ conversation. Yet if they admit this, their ruse will be exposed for what it is. Scientism = IDism. That is the ‘conversation trap’ that IDists have set for themselves and from which there seems to be no escape. Gregory
“My interest in Intelligent Design (upper or lower case) is purely that – an interest.” Thanks PeterJ. Your interest seems reasonable to me and at least openly curious. However, since I’ve come to see through the smokescreen of IDism, I’d suggest you have some rethinking (and hopefully also praying about it) to do. There are many solid Christian scholars out there to help disabuse you of both YECism and IDism. Have you yet sought them out? As you know, this isn’t much of a place to suggest viable alternatives due to IDist backlash, 'reasonable' propaganda and purely ad hominem replies, is it?
“The name of the book was actually taken from a song by a band called ‘the Manic Street Preachers’ as throughout my wayward years I had always thought of it as some kind of anthem, the words almost mirroring my life.”
Your book has on its cover, as far as I can see on the Amazon site, 4 images. They indicate to me at least that ‘Design for Life’ (though the title came from MSP’s – cool group!) involves your theology/worldview. These are Christian images on the cover. It seems to me that MSP also had an Uppercase D ‘Designer’ in mind/heart when they wrote that song. That is really all I meant when I asked you if “what you personally call ‘Intelligent Design’ openly involves your theology/worldview.” It seems to me there is nothing wrong with you answering this in the affirmative. That's the reality given your lack of scientific training and openly theistic advocacy.
“I can tell you categorically what I am not, however, and that is – a Theistic Evolutionist. For me, from what I have learned over these last 6 years, this, along with Darwinian evolution, is the weakest theory on the block.”
Well, we have something in common then. I’m categorically not a ‘Theistic Evolutionist’ either. Shall we shake on that? For whatever weaknesses Darwinian evolutionary theory and the neo-Darwinian ‘modern synthesis’ possess (and there is of course much strength to go alongside), however, they both contain something that IDT fails to provide: a theory of process. Because IDT fails to provide this (i.e. refuses to study ‘Designing,’ i.e. the ‘guided evolution’ of TE/ECs) and because it avoids Who, Where, When, How and Why questions, it is about as ‘weak’ a theory as one could possibly fathom or seek to promote while keeping a straight face. That's just a fact of the so-called 'theory,' narrow and minimalist, but pretending to be 'revolutionary' in the closet. I’m speaking about the so-called ‘natural scientific’ theory called IDT, PeterJ, please note that. IDT is heavily ‘implicationistic’ (i.e. by implication from natural science there must be a ‘mind/Mind,’ a ‘God’ if one is an Abrahamic believer) which draws for its 'evangelical' credibility on prior Catholic and Orthodox theological/apologetic ‘design arguments.’ It is completely unsurprising when born-again Protestant evangelicals embrace IDism. That's a 'no-brainer' as people say. What I’ve learned over the past 10+ years studying IDism and the people who idolise it, is that most thinking Catholics and Orthodox Christians, as well as many Anglicans, Methodists, Wesleyans, Calvinists and other Christians, have decided that IDism’s requirement that IDT simply *is* a ‘natural-science-only’ theory disqualifies it from respectability or believability. 'Nuff said folks! Most of these good people have simply stopped talking or bothering to think about IDT qua ‘scientific theory,’ except when on occasion it is forced into their local American educational faces by fanatical IDists. Perhaps only a few fools (like Ivan) such as myself continue to beat the dead anti-IDist horse because, as a sociologist, observing an American-led movement of fanatics-for-science claiming to be 'mature' in PoS is actually an amazing sight to behold! I’ve enjoyed watching the contortions, backtracking and PR strategies of the DI, as they try to regain dignity debacle after debacle, failure after failure, and noting how few people there are who will actually go to the wall of truth to defend an ideology that no sane person of faith should ever be forced or tricked to believe. As a man, it is of course sad, while as a neutral research scholar observing the action, it is rewarding to witness this travesty of Philosophy of Science (PoS). American PoS will likely not recover from this exposure of its naivite for generations! Gregory
Timaeus @34: Thanks, this helps understand what is going on a bit more. Well (and humorously) said. Eric Anderson
PS: Here was my response to a summary of G's thought that I found via a Google search. (I had forgotten about this.) kairosfocus
T: When I met Thaxton, in Jamaica in the early 2000's, he was there specifically defending design theory in a public forum. KF kairosfocus
Are Gregory's comments in 28 intended to be a reply to my comments in 26? If so, for the record, I note: Not even one of the three points I made in 26 is addressed in 28. The points made in Gregory's 28 include: speculation about what Thaxton might say; a report that some people at a European design conference were ridiculing ID (a report worded ambiguously enough that it could be taken that Buckminster Fuller was among those laughing, though of course he died 30 years ago); and a claim that ID is trying to usurp all ideas of design everywhere. First, it's academically irresponsible to speculate on what Thaxton might say about the term "intelligent design" and then report one's hunch (based on one brief personal meeting) as the basis of a wide judgment invoking Thaxton's authority; the proper thing to do is to ask him. When Gregory has written to Thaxton and determined what Thaxton's view is, then he can report back; until then, he should withdraw his speculation. (By the way, I have met Bradley -- Thaxton's co-author. He also is "a peaceable and decent, warm guy, in my estimation" and appears to be onside with the term "intelligent design." Maybe Gregory could write to him, too.) Second, I'd like a list of the names of the "scholars" at the design convention who openly ridiculed ID. Third, it is utterly false to say that ID as a movement has claimed to represent all work done on "design" in all fields. ID has not claimed that engineers, architects, makers of cereal boxes and advertising posters, creators of women's dresses, planners of theme parks, etc. are under its authority. ID has argued that certain features of nature appear to be designed rather than the products of chance and necessity. Period. This is a modest claim, nothing like the grandiose one Gregory imputes to ID. What is bizarre is that Gregory clearly finds the ID movement *threatening* to his own professional ambitions. It is as if, in order for his sociological goals to be achieved, ID must die. But in fact, ID people aren't the slightest bit interested in sociology (except to the extent that sociology is relevant to the biases of modern scientists), and ID is quite happy for Gregory to write book after book on "design" in a social context. No ID theorist will be attacking Gregory's work on Buckminster Fuller or Marshall McLuhan, because no ID theorist will be reading it. And no ID theorist will be submitting articles to the sort of social science journal that Gregory publishes in. ID is about as much a threat to Gregory's academic career as the subject of Puerto Rican Studies or Radiology is. ID people like to talk about the molecular construction of cells and the fine-tuning of the cosmos -- things which have no interest for Gregory and no relevance to his publications or teaching. So Gregory's cowboy attitude -- "There's ain't room in this town for the two of us, Discovery Institute!" -- is ridiculous. Mike Behe could have an office directly across the hallway from Gregory, and the two would never need to interact, let alone interfere with each other. And if Gregory said to Behe: "Hey, guess what! I've been invited to Zagreb next fall to read a paper on the relationship of Buckminster Fuller's geodesic dome to the educational theory of John Dewey and the media theory of Marshall McLuhan" I'm sure that Behe would say: "I'm happy for you, Gregory! Hope you get tenure soon!" And then he would go back to studying his molecules, leaving Gregory unharmed and undisturbed. But Gregory can't be content with this live-and-let-live arrangement. He's not happy in a world where some people pursue ID and others pursue sociology. He wants a world from which ID is excluded. He doesn't want people trying to show that there is design in nature. It's funny. No one here shows up on Gregory's website to bash "Human Extension" and to argue that in order for ID to thrive, Human Extension must die. The "war" between ID and Gregory is all in Gregory's mind. Gregory may be thinking constantly about ID, but ID people (except on this blog, and even here only when provoked) don't give five minutes' thought to Gregory's academic research. As far as ID people are concerned, Gregory can research whatever he wants, and become the Chair of Sociology at Harvard if he wants, and they will be very happy for him, as long as he stops maligning their work and their personal motives and extends to them the courtesy they extend to him -- of treating their research as a legitimate scientific and scholarly inquiry. But for some reason, Gregory is determined to have war, not peaceful coexistence, with ID. It appears that something in his personal history with ID people at the Summer School -- something which he won't talk about here, even when invited to do so -- has enraged him and twisted his judgment. But if we don't know what it is that he's mad about, how can we respond constructively to him? In sum: 1. Gregory has a theory of Human Extension. ID is not opposed to a theory of Human Extension. 2. Gregory is a sociologist. ID is not opposed to sociology. 3. Gregory is a Christian. ID is not opposed to Christianity. In fact, it's quite Christian-friendly, since it supports the notion of design in nature. 4. Gregory wants to emphasize the Abrahamic aspects of Christianity. ID is not opposed to the Abrahamic aspects of Christianity. In fact, one of the central insights of "Abrahamic" religion is the doctrine of creation -- a doctrine which necessarily includes the belief that nature was intelligently designed by God. 5. Gregory champions Fuller's belief that ID can be a genuine science of nature because we are made in the image of God. ID is not opposed to Fuller on that point. In fact, most ID proponents are Christians who would strongly assert that we are made in the image of God and would agree with Fuller that both God and man are designers, making design inferences legitimate. So what is the problem? Why does Gregory hate ID so vehemently? Its ideas are in the main compatible with his own. It must be because of personal conflicts Gregory has become embroiled in with ID leaders. I would recommend that Gregory rise above such ego-driven concerns, and consider ID not on the basis of personal likes and dislikes of people, but purely on the level of ideas. If he could do this, he could bring his vendetta against ID to an end, and get along just fine with all of us here. Timaeus
Dear Gregory, "Notice first, that PeterJ has not answered to my request for Quid pro quo – this for that. He wants to question, but not to answer. He wants to mock, but not be accountable himself. This is a typical IDist/YECist (and even just generic IDist) stratagem of run-and-hide without honouring communication." Did it honestly never occur to you that I may have too busy? How very odd? Now to answer your question: "Repeat: I’m guessing that you, PeterJ, from the title of your ["Design for Life"] book and as you’ve written here at UD, have absolutely no problem admitting that what you personally call ‘Intelligent Design’ openly involves your theology/worldview. Is that fair to say?" The answer is - No, not really. First of all the title of the book 'Design for Life', is not a reference to/taken from my interest in 'Intelligent Design'. The name of the book was actually taken from a song by a band called 'the Manic Street Preachers' as throughout my wayward years I had always thought of it as some kind of anthem, the words almost mirroring my life. Secondly, my interest in Intelligent Design, upper or lower case, is purely that - an interest. For the last time let me explain this to you. Almost 7 years ago, at the age of 38, I became a Christian. About 3 months after being Saved I was invited to attend a talk by a Creation scientist at the Town Hall where I live. Having always believed in some form of evolution to say that i was amazed at what i heard, and addmittedly not quite prepared to take his word for anything, I went home to look into these things for myself and there began my interest in 'Evolution/creation'. As you can imagine this study very quickly led me to sites such as this (ENV and UD being the top 2) where I began to learn about the controversies surrounding evolution at the molecular level, and much more. My interest in Intelligent Design (upper or lower case) is purely that - an interest. And lastly, as I have already explained, I am quite comfortable with a Young earth interpretation of genesis, as I am with an old earth interpretation. I will readily consider the arguments for both whenever they are presented to me, without fully committing myself to take one view over the other. I can tell you categorically what I am not, however, and that is - a Theistic Evolutionist. For me, from what I have learned over these last 6 years, this, along with Darwinian evolution, is the weakest theory on the block. I hope I have been able to answer some of your questions. PeterJ
Greagory @28:
According to universal designism, even the disgusting Cleveland kidnapping was ‘intelligently designed’!
Let's assume it was. So? Bad, hurtful, and evil things can certainly be designed. That you would think this is somehow an indictment of intelligent design demonstrates that you do not understand intelligent design.
Instead, what IDism quite clearly represents is ‘scientism’ – the desire against all costs to appear ‘scientific,’ though it denies this as weakly as possible using underdeveloped and immature American philosophy of science. You have demonstrated this ideological approach to ‘design/Design’ yourself, eriC.
You think "scientism" is the "desire against all costs to appear scientific"? To paraphrase a classic: "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Look up "scientism" in the dictionary. Secondly, IDism (whatever that means) denies that it wants to appear scientific? That isn't even a rational statement. Thirdly, you are incorrect that I have demonstrated some philosophical deficiency due to my use of capitalization of the word "design." Rather, you are demonstrating neurosis. Finally, what happened with my name? Did your capitalization obsession finally reach the breaking point and now you are capitalizing all the last letters? Eric Anderson
Timaeus @26: Well said. LOL! at the last paragraph. Eric Anderson
@ Gregory Matt. 5:37 Optimus
projection kairosfocus
For those of you who feel defensive (and it seems there are many of you given that IDism is a dead ideology), there is no need to feel that way. Most of you reading this who have been afflicted by IDism are probably decent people, I believe. You are not the ‘devils’ that some atheists would make you seem. Here is a reality check: The English-language term ‘design’ has been horribly and unnecessarily tarnished, perhaps even beyond recovery for most people, by the IDM’s (1993-201X) neo-creationist propaganda. Take a macro-view folks, and you'll conclude this also. Real 'design theorists' don't want anything to do with IDists, neo-creationists as they are demonstrably in the historical record (cdesignproponentsists). It is obvious that when UDists and IDists here use the term ‘design’ they imagine “raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens.” Just pretty music – that is ‘design’ for them. Snow White-IDism that is too perfect to ever recognise blemish. This seems too obvious psychologically to even need to be said, but it is important for anyone visiting this site who has not yet become indoctrinated by IDist witch doctors to realise the fanaticism involved in ‘universal designism’ (the ideology that ‘everything’ is designed)! According to universal designism, even the disgusting Cleveland kidnapping was 'intelligently designed'! Mind made it so it quacks like a duck so it is (lowercase id) 'intelligently designed.' Oh yeah, but 'the theory' is really about Origins of Life, origins of biological information, human origins, wink, wink ;) There is a clear conclusion regarding IDism's ultimate demise that is supported by the scholarly literature, as demonstrated both by theists and atheists, sometimes alike and oftentimes differently. News brief: this is a ‘battle’ you folks have already lost under the IDM’s leadership. IDists don’t ‘own’ the term ‘design’ and actual credible scholars want the term back from IDism’s non-credible ideological exaggerations of universal designism and its armchair (amateur wannabe) ‘experts.’ As for actual ‘design theorists’ (e.g. Buckminster Fuller or Horst Rittel), I was in a room full of them a few months back. They (and none of them suffering from Expelled Syndrome as IDism requires) collectively laughed out loud at the IDM’s attempted appropriation of *ALL DESIGN THOUGHT* under a Seattle, America-based ‘institute’s’ hyper-ambitious umbrella term IDT. What a joke of presumptuousness such unqualified appropriation actually is! If Charles Thaxton (the man who coined the [modern meaning of the] term ‘Intelligent Design’) knew about this habit of thought at UD, if he really knew the distortion and fanaticism that his chosen concept duo of ‘Intelligent Design’ would unleash for American niche-culture war purposes, he would likely never have coined the term ‘I+D!’ He’s a peaceable and decent, warm guy, in my estimation from a private encounter. He would likely scold the several (if not majority of) UDists that try to use IDT as a weapon for their own Expelled Syndrome purposes. “It’s just a neutral natural science,” they falsely contend, as ruses easily discarded. timaeus' sly rhetoric is no match or level of honour compared to the sincerity of Thaxton and his courage to work under his own legal birth name. Please don’t read this as funny, attempted humour or mocking. This situation of IDism in America is sad! It is sad what has become of the ideology of a few (roughly 14) individuals who gathered at Pajaro Dunes, California and purposefully (using PR and legal tactics) spawned a movement of American (and a few non-American) ideologues in the name of ‘universal designism.’ I don’t treat this as a laughing matter, even if jokes can be and are told about it. I am not laughing that the DI tries to program young people to hide their identity in public because they cannot be known as 'IDists' due to its scholarly incredulity. Why not let them realise that the 'incredulity' of IDism by orthodox Christian scholars like Francis Beckwith, Edward Feser, Stephen Barr and many others shows that IDism is probably something that it wouldn't be wise for them to affiliate themselves with?
“I hope it isn’t suggesting that intelligent design theory is a purely ‘natural theory’ in the sense of materialism?” – eriC andersoN
No, eriC, most IDists are not ‘materialists.’ That is, except for perhaps the rare ‘Christian materialist’ who has been unwisely seduced by IDist rhetoric. Instead, what IDism quite clearly represents is ‘scientism’ – the desire against all costs to appear ‘scientific,’ though it denies this as weakly as possible using underdeveloped and immature American philosophy of science. You have demonstrated this ideological approach to 'design/Design' yourself, eriC. This position has failed to convince careful thinking people because IDism insists on the scientificity of IDT! It is a documentable fact, found in many IDist books and articles. And the amount of effort IDists have exerted on ‘MN vs. MN’ at UD (and also at BioLogos) testifies to this. Apparently, they don't think there energy is better spent elsewhere. The DI is glad to have their allegiance, even the allegiance of YECs; anybody to their cause is a good thing for IDists! Sad PR for science. Gregory
To understand what is going on, notice 23 above. KF kairosfocus
In response to Gregory's two long rants, which are directed in part against two polite and carefully qualified statements of mine, I will reply in this single post: 1. Someone who has indignantly lectured people here over the "offensive" misspelling of BioLogos without the capital "L" should take more care to capitalize "Timaeus." Not that I care; I don't worry about petty things. But the lack of capitalization indicates a blatant double standard and reveals previous indignation about capitalization to be hollow. 2. I register fully the fact that BioLogos people and other TEs claim to believe that God "created" the world. However, the fact remains that in the Christian tradition, the claim that God created the world has always been inseparable from the understanding that he *designed* it in eternity before creating it in time. BioLogos and TEs generally have been systematically trying to drive a wedge between the idea of creation and the idea of design. Many of the TE leaders (especially the biologists and biochemists) understand the creation of species, and even the creation of genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla, and even the creation of man, and of life itself, to be something chancy; chemical processes don't "design" life and evolution doesn't "design" man. Life and man are just stochastic results. They need not have happened, and if the tape were run again, they probably wouldn't happen. This is not the Christian or Jewish or Muslim view, i.e., it is not the "Abrahamic" view which Gregory goes on about incessantly. And while Gregory himself does not appear to personally subscribe to the radically "chancy" understanding of creation pushed by many TEs, he has stood on the sidelines mocking and criticizing ID people whenever they have challenged the TEs on it, instead of joining hands with the ID people in insisting, against the TEs, that if God created the world he also designed it. 3. Regarding the need for evidence regarding Gregory's boast of knowledge about the DI and its people, I ignore Gregory's turn to ad hominem argumentation (i.e., "You have no right to lecture me on the need for evidence, when you ... [ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem]"). The fact remains that Gregory has provided no evidence for his boasts. And contrary to Gregory's apparent view, it is not only in academia that one needs to present evidence for one's claims. One must present evidence in many other areas of life. For example, in courts of law. And generally, whenever one makes a boast, one can be expected to provide evidence that the boast is true. If Gregory boasted that he could bench-press 500 pounds, people would demand that he do it front of their eyes. And that's a reasonable demand. Gregory claims to know intimately what everyone at Discovery thinks. It's therefore reasonable to demand of him which DI people he has taken courses with, how long the courses lasted, whether those DI people would affirm that Gregory attended their course and that he understood the material, whether his classmates would verify his interpretation of the DI people, and so on. But Gregory won't provide the evidence. He just says: "I'm an expert on what the DI people think." He can hardly pretend to be surprised when his expertise is doubted. He can confirm the expertise easily, by providing details. If he doesn't, he won't be believed. It's as simple as that. I note that once again I have tried to be polite and matter-of-fact in my tone. We will see if Gregory again replies with fury, scorn, indignation, and ad hominem remarks, or if he sticks to the points in dispute. The question is why Gregory is here at all. He months ago declared that this site was a waste of his time and that he was making a final break with it. He also declared that he had recently won some competition, or had been awarded some prize or honor or promotion (he was very vague about what it was) that had catapulted him into a high public rank in all discussions of design, and rendered his judgments superior to those of all of us here. We never heard back from him on what this promotion or award or honor or appointment was, and I have not seen any notice of it in the academic world. Perhaps he will tell us of his new status and prestige in some future communication. Timaeus
What pseudonymous Expelled Syndrome blogger ‘timaeus’ both cannot stomach and has demonstrated no ability or willingness to try to understand is that significant numbers of ‘orthodox’ Christian scholars were at first patient and curious about what IDT could propose, but then later saw through its smokescreen and therefore abandoned it. Catholic scholars especially have rejected the univocal predication of IDism and insistence that formal and final causes are merely ‘external’ to ‘Design,’ which is untenable in Thomist thought This shows what a difference it makes if one takes seriously theistic rejections of IDism, rather than just concentrating on atheistic and agnostic rejects of IDism (some of which are admittedly the same). Trying to ‘wedge-in’ orthodox Abrahamic believers with atheists and agnostics on a deeper level is a dangerous game that IDists seem all too willing to play. timaeus is simply not in tune with this reality or at least won’t admit it publically. timaeus continues to defend IDism, perhaps because he has no tenure to defend or even to aspire to. If he did, he’d probably second-guess his willingness to play the ideologue, the attempted iconoclast. He even has now started to contribute to IDism in print under the auspices (read: ‘protection’?) of the DI! Yes, folks, timaeus has ‘gone-IDist’ (perhaps that is why he was away from UD, doing actual work, though in this case, actual idolatry is more likely). Plato would be most displeased with this supposed imposter for ‘Science!’ Who’s actually defending TE/ECs here? Anyone? Am I? No. Yet timaeus’ arguments here are repeatedly with TE/ECs. They are not with me. He tries in vain to rhetorically make it appear that I am advocating TE/ECism. Why? You can probably guess, but likely won’t make the effort, since you are mostly IDists. Thinking first is not your strong point; advocacy and activism, school-board-style are your instincts. timaeus insists that he is a non-culture warrior, yet he voluntarily participates in ID vs. TE culture warring as often as his strength and disguise allows. That’s hypocritical! timaeus has already been offered a reasonable way out from IDist fanaticism, but he has passively (with excuses) rejected it. A middle-way is not what he seeks, folks. Instead, self-styled martyrdom under the label ‘IDism’ is what he has chosen. So do many people here seem to hold the same complex. Therefore, you should all hail him as your UD leader, brave in the face of Expelled Syndrome yet brilliant, evoking the same emotions you employ in your defense of Big-ID Theory.
“Gregory is of course correct if he means that all believers in Abrahamic religion *should* accept that the world, life, and man are designed[/created/made].” – timaeus
Well, though I’m honoured ‘timaeus’ would find me “of course correct,” he is of course wrong and puts words in my mouth *as usual*. Chronic this Expelled Syndrome seems to be wrt intentionally putting words in peoples’ mouths. ? Someone should call a doctor for timaeus’ disgusting habit, which he will of course deny! What is most important is the term ‘Created,’ not the tricksy (and ideologically damaged by American ‘creationists’) term ‘designed.’ All Abrahamic believers *do* accept the world is ‘Created.’ We don’t need a ‘scientific-wanna-be’ ex-creationist institute in Seattle telling us through paid propagandists that we simply *must* (i.e. if we are to be legitimate ‘revolutionaries’ in their eyes, read: paradigm shifters, Kuhnian-style) force our views of ‘Creation’ into a little ‘IDT’ box. timaeus invests the single English past-tense term ‘designed’ with such a fanatical out-of-proportion importance, that he seems ready to even distort the importance of ‘Creation’ language! This is generally considered as theological suspect for his ‘religious philosophy’ background, though he likely won’t speak about it with his local Priest or Pastor. timaeus seeks no religious validation or sanction for his IDism; he just considers himself 'above' the Church that broadly rejects IDism as a fanatical imbalanced ideology. Bigger than anything timaeus has imagined or produced, BioLogos has actually not forgotten the ‘Creation’ language. But instead it wisely and faithfully distances itself from ‘creationism,’ and tries to educate religious believers away from its ‘bad science,’ that is, unlike the intentionally ‘evangelical’ PR strategy of the IDM. Notice that above I used the terms “designed/created/made” while timaeus quickly reverted (limited his vocabulary as if not enough letters on his keyboard?) to ‘designed-only.’ Such is the small world of IDism that timaeus has chosen to make his pseudonymous home in which to willfully suffer from Expelled Syndrome. Perhaps someday a cure will be found for this IDist affliction. Gregory
Notice first, that PeterJ has not answered to my request for Quid pro quo – this for that. He wants to question, but not to answer. He wants to mock, but not be accountable himself. This is a typical IDist/YECist (and even just generic IDist) stratagem of run-and-hide without honouring communication. And yes, IDist/YECist is an appropriate label for PeterJ in this case because he has revealed it of himself. Is it any wonder neutral observers make a connection between IDism and YECism when such examples abound? Likely 30-40% of UD posters are ‘creationists’! Who has time for such people's 'scientific ideas' other than local Protestant chapters and fellow ideologues? I don't believe this American ideology which distorts sacred texts for 'fundamentalist' purposes.
Repeat: I’m guessing that you, PeterJ, from the title of your ["Design for Life"] book and as you’ve written here at UD, have absolutely no problem admitting that what you personally call ‘Intelligent Design’ openly involves your theology/worldview. Is that fair to say?
Silence in this case should be considered assent, as PeterJ has participated in the thread. The very reason he insults me for distinguishing Uppercase ID and lowercase id is because he knows it undermines his position...and he takes that personally. 9 out of 10 1st year psychology students would conclude he suffers from confirmation bias. There is a self-preservation reason he (and several others here) wish to deny the distinction between Big-ID and small-id any merit! They think their 'theory' is safe otherwise. Why is this important? If PeterJ answers honestly with his heart it will give IDism a bad name (which is why any UD-IDists who have his e-mail address are probably right now ‘counselling’ PeterJ to be ‘nuanced’ about his answer). This is because PeterJ is openly a YECist and YECism is not credible, is rather laughable, and is to be intellectually pitied within Christendom. Of course PeterJ’s unfettered embrace of IDism is connected to his now public conversion to Christianity. If it's not, he should openly deny this and distance himself from the 'scientistic theory' of 'Intelligent Design.' Otherwise, what could possibly be wrong with singing a YECist/IDist song on-line ‘loud and proud’? Acknowledging this will simply confirm Judge Jones and the vast majority of thinking persons who affirm the obvious, empirically-proven link (‘cdesignproponentsists’) between ‘IDT’ and ‘creationism.’ Likewise, it will show that PeterJ’s acceptance of ‘IDT’ is exactly why world-class scholars like Owen Gingerich and Stephen Barr have made the important distinction between Uppercase ID and lowercase id. This distinction was affirmed at UD recently by two IDists (!) and it is logical, reasonable and makes good sense to almost anyone except for fanatical ideologues, who are to be found plentifully here at UD blog. The pseudonymous blogger ‘timaeus,’ who goes by various names on other sites, is in *NO* position to lecture me or to demand of anyone ‘academic requirements.’ First, this is not an ‘academic’ site. Second, he has given up any credibility he might have had by hiding behind a pseudonym, suffering from ‘Expelled Syndrome’ as he does (perhaps its greatest imaginary sufferer!). And now that he has published a few texts recently under his real name at ID-happy sites, the (hide from his employer) game is up. All his employer has to do is search his real name in the information society and he is un-eraseably linked to IDism, proud as can be as one of its ideologues. But he surely knows this already and also that it has nothing to do with me; it is his own intentional choice to have thrown his ‘relevance’ cards in with DI-IDists. In my view, that makes him pretty much irrelevant. timaeus’ claim “This is not true” is the twisted thinking of an Expelled Syndrome victim. Every single columnist at BioLogos believes that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Every *single* one, without exception! That is because BioLogos is openly and without disguise a ‘science and faith’ organization. timaeus is just being a fellow-Protestant TE/EC critic, as it is quite easy to be for western religious scholars who think their 'orthodoxy' is more accurate than most. Not all that enlightening have been the exchanges between timaeus and BioLogos in terms of fruitful results. The DI and UD are, alternatively, polemic science vs. faith adherents. This is true at least outwardly in their insistence that ‘IDT’ *is* a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. Those of us who have closely studied IDT over the years know this is imaginary wishful thinking. We see the scientism in the DI's approach to its own supposed self-legitimation. I was even asked not long ago by one active poster at UD, ‘what if IDT didn’t insist on its natural scientificity?’ But this person didn’t seem to realise what would happen if Behe, Meyer, Dembski and Wells stood up in public and said that explicitly. The IDM would collapse. Gone. Dustbin of history. Forget about it. Over. Irrelevant. UD’s presence compromised or ranks broken with ‘IDism.’ IDEA clubs disbanded. No more Summer Program. So they simply cannot allow themselves to publically reveal what is to them (ideologically) still a lie, in seeking their cause of truth. Iow, they are trapped. Gregory
EA, T & PJ: Right now, sadly, G has unfinished business to resolve a false accusation that design thinkers who use concepts such as inferring design on sign similar to the arguments made by Dembski, Meyer, Behe et al, are following a deceptive school of thought. That is, by direct implication, that we are either knowingly or unknowingly participating in willful deception. I think this unfortunate point is material to other discussions he may try to initiate or participate in here at UD. KF kairosfocus
. . . the IDist ideology that [Intelligent Design Theory] is a ‘natural scientific theory.’
What does that mean? I hope it isn't suggesting that intelligent design theory is a purely 'natural theory' in the sense of materialism? Intelligent design theory is clearly based on the idea that intelligence is a reality and that not everything is just matter and energy. Or is this just another complaint over the fact that intelligent design doesn't seek to identify a designer, but rather restricts itself to the empirical evidence? Is that what all of this angst is about? Eric Anderson
Gregory wrote: "ALL Abrahamic believers, including both you and me and pretty much everyone who advocates ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ accepts that the universe is ‘designed/created/made’ by the Divine Creator" This is not true. For several years on BioLogos, there have been a good number of TEs who, when asked if life or living things are "designed" -- not "created by miraculous intervention," just "designed" (small d) -- either say no, or imply no, or refuse to answer. And that includes not just pseudonymous commenters, but even some front-line columnists, who say or strongly hint that many -- perhaps even most or all -- the outcomes of evolution were not designed, but were merely the result of stochastic processes. Some of the TEs have gone so far as to say that God did not intend "man" -- the bipedal creature we know -- but only some sort of creature -- maybe shelled or slimy or aquatic or airborne -- capable of possessing his "image." Anyone who has followed TE closely for a number of years and has read articles in the ASA journal, followed BioLogos blogs, read Ken Miller, listened to a variety of podcast talks and debates featuring TEs, knows that the word "design" -- even in lower case and without "intelligent" in front of it -- is a word which many TEs want to utterly disconnect from the Christian idea of creation, and that the reason for this is in part due to the stochastic understanding of evolution held by neo-Darwinism, and in part out of a strong dislike of conventional Christian theology regarding God's omnipotence, will, and providence, in favor of a theology of "freedom" in which nature "does its own thing" and God cannot tell it what to do. Gregory is of course correct if he means that all believers in Abrahamic religion *should* accept that the world, life, and man are designed. But since modern TE came along, about 20 years ago or so, many influential leaders in the ASA and in the liberal wings of the evangelical churches, colleges, and seminaries have been trying to divorce the idea of design (where "design" is understood as a plan or intention meant to be carried out exactly as drafted or formulated) from the idea of creation -- a divorce which, if effected, would amount to a willful rejection of nearly 2,000 years of Christian thinking on the subject of creation. Christian ID people have stood firmly against this unorthodox and un-Biblical theology. Timaeus
PeterJ: Thanks for trying again to get out of Gregory the information he has always withheld from us here. It is odd that Gregory, who has a Ph.D. and holds a position in a university, does not understand that all academics are required to provide *evidence* for their claims. No academic, no matter how brilliant, can presume that his colleagues should take his claims on faith. So Gregory of all people should understand that no one is under any intellectual obligation to believe his claims of deep knowledge of the DI or its people, until he provides evidence that he has such deep knowledge. Therefore, he must provide an account of his summer course -- how long it was, what the curriculum was, which teachers he had, what other students were in the course who could confirm his statements of fact and his judgments, etc. The fact that he will not provide this information suggests that he does not want anyone here following up on his account to do some fact-checking. At least, I can think of no other reason why he should withhold the information. I remain open to a more charitable interpretation, if Gregory or anyone else can provide it. Until Gregory comes through with full and clear answers, everyone here may reasonably infer, not that he is lying about actually taking a course at the DI or actually having met ID people, but (a) that he is greatly exaggerating his degree of familiarity with the ID people and (b) that his judgments both of the people and the program would not be uniformly shared by his fellow-students. I realize, PeterJ, that if Gregory reads this he will probably accuse me of all kinds of horrible motives and of maligning him personally. But if he reads this post carefully and with proper detachment he will see that I am merely seconding your request for confirming information, and that I remain entirely open to any legitimate explanation why he has withheld the requested information up to this point. Timaeus
PeterJ, Quid pro quo: How about you answer a question now? Repeat: I’m guessing that you, PeterJ, from the title of your ["Design for Life"] book and as you’ve written here at UD, have absolutely no problem admitting that what you personally call ‘Intelligent Design’ openly involves your theology/worldview. Is that fair to say? Thanks for your spiritual support in Scotland. p.s. don't worry, feelings mutual; I don't believe most things YECs say either. Asking for more about the DI summer program here, at an ID-happy blog, is too much. If you don't believe I was there and have seen through IDism, its PR propaganda machine and public deceptions, that's up to you. Gregory
Thanks for your reply Gregory, but I had hoped for a little more than what you provided. No matter however, as I'm not really sure I would have believed you any way. You have skirted around this issue for far too long, without providing evidence that you were actually there that I would find it very hard to accept any form of proof at this point in time. Although you could perhaps try: Names of the seminars with the names of those who took each one. That would have impressed me but unfortunately you have been asked to provide this for so long now that I doubt any thing you provide will be believable. Shame really, but there you go. "That’s all I have time for at UD." Please take care and keep up the good work. I'm sure you are someone with a lot to offer a discussion somewhere on the net. Blessings :) PeterJ
PeterJ asked: "what seminars did you attend and who from the DI was taking each one?" ... “I just want to know that you were actually there and that the statement you make above can be at least possible.” That is partly answered here. I've mentioned previously the DI people who were there, but since you asked politely, here are most of them again: Dembski, Meyer, Wells, Nelson, Sternberg, Luskin, West, Witt, Thaxton, Chapman, Gordon, Axe. I dug out my "Sourcebook for Seminar on ID in the Social Sciences & Humanities" (program now defunct, just like ISCID and PCID). Here's how it starts by chapter (excerpts from larger texts - 24 'chapters' in total): 1. Theophilus - Theophilus to Autolycus 2. Dionysius - The Books on Nature 3. Lactantius - The Divine Institutes 4. Irenaeus - Against Heresies 5. Hippolytus - The Refutation of All Heresies 6. Chrysostom - Homilies on Romans GAP COMING! 7. Charles Darwin - The Descent of Man When I used to watch Sesame Street as a child, there was a segment that perhaps many people here know, which perfectly suits this list of 7. It was called "One of these things is not like the other ones!" ;) The first line in the book reads:
“Chapter IV – Attributes of God: And He is without beginning, because He is unbegotten; and he is unchangeable, because He is immortal.”
The ID summer program *starts* with theology. Yet it tries to play coy that IDT is *only* a ‘natural scientific theory,’ speaking as if two sides of a ‘wedge’ hides their double-talk. Careful observers (both religious and non-religious) have seen through this ruse and don’t trust the IDM’s deceptiveness that theology has *nothing* to do with (even the coining of!) IDT. I’m guessing that you, PeterJ, from the title of your book and as you’ve written here at UD, have absolutely no problem admitting that what you personally call ‘Intelligent Design’ openly involves your theology/worldview. Is that fair to say? PeterJ the point is simply this. ALL Abrahamic believers, including both you and me and pretty much everyone who advocates 'Intelligent Design Theory' accepts that the universe is 'designed/created/made' by the Divine Creator (by whichever Name you use). That is why distinguishing lowercase id is so important; it *protects* them from being sucked in to the IDist ideology that IDT is a ‘natural scientific theory.’ Why are IDists trying to deny people that right to distinguish their theology from the IDM's scientistic ideology? It is problematic that Discovery Institute leaders insist on the scientificity of 'Intelligent Design Theory' when most Abrahamic believers won't listen to them (and imo, of course, shouldn’t listen to them). If people on this site were to face the reality that 'Intelligent Design Theory' is properly understood as a 'science, philosophy, theology/worldview' topic of conversation, as I’ve suggested to them, then there would be no problem. It would open up an entirely new realm of potentially fruitful conversation (like what happens in other science/religion venues). However, it would also destroy the myth that IDT is a science-only theory. So we are stuck. They won’t budge and neither will I, just as many initially curious Abrahamic believers have become disenchanted with the IDM and purposefully distanced themselves from it. (Unsurprisingly, they don't like to talk about those people around here.) Wrt to your YEC position, PeterJ, it is about as credible as flat earthism nowadays. Jus’ saying it. I applaud the NCSE and BioLogos Foundation and all educational institutions that work hard to cleanse the ideology of ‘young earth creationism’ from the minds of our nations’ youth. The USA is educationally impoverished in many ways connected with the YECism that still festers there. IDT has not gained the inroads into higher education institutions as it had hoped and still lacks credibility among the vast majority of (practising) scientists. And it has lost the Catholics, like this thread displays through various links here. Taking a victimised stance, however, as if the IDM is not at fault for any of this, is a rather sad aspect of the scientistic IDT proposal. From the link, I had a chuckle at this one: “Intelligent Design is The DaVinci Code of Biology”! What’s important to realise then, PeterJ, is that the end of ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ will not mean in the least mean that people have stopped believing in a Divine Creator. It will simply mean they have stopped believing they need to use natural science to do it and to prove it (to atheists, Darwinists, materialists, etc. – i.e. to their chosen opponents/dancing partners)! Giving up on IDT will not require you to renounce your Christian faith, PeterJ. The same of course is true of giving up on YECism and maturing in your faith using higher level resources on science, philosophy, theology/worldview dialogue that are now available and in many countries. To the OP theme: I'm another person against the warfare thesis. Wouldn't it be something if IDists could be more balanced regarding science, philosophy and theology/worldview than they currently appear? That's all I have time for at UD. Gregory
F/N: NCSE's main slander -- ID is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" -- is corrected in the UD WAC's here. KF kairosfocus
G: You have some apologising and explaining to do, which you have been ducking and doubling down on. When you project willful deception without credible evidence there is a name for such: slander. And that is shown above as well as elsewhere in UD at the moment. KF kairosfocus
NCSE has done much good against ‘creationists,’ whom you left out to mention, and their lies for their sectarian religion.
The NCSE is a bunch of liars and cowardly equivocators, period. And at least Creationists can make a positive case for their position. And that is something neither you nor the NCSE can do. Joe
Gregory, "The DI is no less deceptive than the NCSE. I’ve seen it from the inside, up close and personal. Have you?" I would like to call you out on this Gregory and ask that you prove it once and for all. In previous posts you asserted that you once attended a programme of seminars with the DI and it was then you discovered the truth about the DI's propaganda campaign. You have been asked miltiple times before and (although I should know better) I will ask again: what seminars did you attend and who from the DI was taking each one? Gregory please don't come with that rubbish about it being a secret, and you are not allowed to share it. I remember in a previous post you said that you were advised to give a 'false name, create a false identity, pretend to be someone else'. As if that is somehow a good enough reason for not providing us with information about your week of seminars with the DI. Come on Gregory, we all know who you are, and that you owe nothing to the DI, so why hold back the info that could give a little credence to your arguments? Look I couldn't care less if you turned up for those seminars dressed up as a woman and called yourself Shirley (pretending to be someone else), I just want to know that you were actually there and that the statement you make above can be at least possible. It's time to come out now Shirley, er sorry ... Gregory ;) PeterJ
Gregory, what is your deal? I partly agreed with a couple of the things you wrote and responded with a reasonable tone to meet you halfway. In response, you launch into attack mode with one irrational sentence after another. I have no interest in your personal definition of some "IDism." And why you think an Abrahamic believer would need to abandon some alleged "IDism" is even less clear. Who said Sternberg was an angel? And no, he did not make a publishing mistake. He took a courageous stance against fanatic materialists, as evidenced by the NCSE's deplorable tactics. He made a good publishing decision -- the kind of decision that so many others are afraid to make. On what basis do you think I desire to be a martyr to some scientism-savior? Your whole approach seems to be a mixture of militantly-prescribed definitions, high-strung antipathy to anyone who disagrees with you, and a strong dose of projection. You keep threatening to leave UD. Please do us all the favor. Eric Anderson
Eric, you have obviously swallowed far too much IDist propaganda for your own good. It is not 'reality' you are putting forward here with your talk of 'backhand insult.' It is a mirage that doesn't reflect what 'science' means to most people in society nowadays. IDism has become a 'little tent;' many people who once thought it was relevant and resonant have already left it. Now mainly freaks and side-shows remain. The DI is no less deceptive than the NCSE. I've seen it from the inside, up close and personal. Have you? You call it 'the ID debate' (cue ominous voice of solemn respect). Most mature Abrahamic believers have already moved beyond the IDM. Do you consider yourself an Abrahamic believer? If so, why haven't you outgrown IDism already? I've met Sternberg. He is no angel, Eric. He is a flawed human being who made a political publishing mistake. Why do you pretend or desire to be a martyr as a defender of your scientism-saviour, IDism? It is not what you imagine it to be; 'THE Bridge between science and theology.' Gregory
NCSE has done much good against ‘creationists,’ whom you left out to mention, and their lies for their sectarian religion. This is perhaps attributable to IDism’s tacit defense of ‘creationism’ under ‘big-little tent’ communicative strategy.
ID is a big tent because it is a limited proposition, not because of some plan or desire to be friendly with certain groups. I agree that some of what might be termed pure 'creationist' stuff should be left out of the science classroom, but that doesn't apply to the design inference, which is a legitimate science-based inquiry. The NCSE, however, knowingly and deceptively lumps everything together in order to push a purely naturalistic worldview, or at the very least a methodological naturalism that intentionally marginalizes contrary viewpoints. Their constant "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" rallying cry, a favorite of Matzke's on this blog and elsewhere, is not an exception to the rule; it is their explicit approach.
And I’m not endrsing E. Scott, but she is a more ‘anthropic’ thinker than any one of the DI leaders I met! She’s an anthropologist by training, after all, even if hers is an anthropology I strongly disagree with.
Well, I agree she is not as bad as some others. And I would even be willing to say as much, as long as it is understood as a backhanded insult and not a backhanded compliment. The NCSE's deliberate obfuscation of the ID debate under her leadership -- despite a multitude of corrections and opportunities to demonstrate a more balanced stance -- shows a commitment to an a priori materialistic philosophy, rather than a commitment to the truth. That coupled with their shameful and deliberate attempt to suppress dissent, even to the point of attempted career destruction (if memory serves, in the Sternberg affair?), caused them to lose any minor remaining credibility they may have had. Eric Anderson
Eric, Don't you think at least STOQ, referenced in the CNN article, should be supported by IDists? Of course, theirs is not a 'natural science alone' perspective, such as IDism claims to be. It involes 'theology' too! But still, might it not be worth something for the predominantly (Protestant) religious IDists to consider and perhaps throw their support behind, even if it is funded by Templeton Foundation, which broadly rejects IDism, like most reputable international science, philosophy and theology/worldview organisations/associations? NCSE has done much good against 'creationists,' whom you left out to mention, and their lies for their sectarian religion. This is perhaps attributable to IDism's tacit defense of 'creationism' under 'big-little tent' communicative strategy. And I'm not endrsing E. Scott, but she is a more 'anthropic' thinker than any one of the DI leaders I met! She's an anthropologist by training, after all, even if hers is an anthropology I strongly disagree with. Btw, I responded to your request here. Are you planning to respond? It seems futile to insist on the universal designism being proposed by some at UD, but then again, it serves as a perfect dancing partner for Dawkins' universal Darwinism, so perhaps we onlookers should just continue to watch, amused at how often and purposefully you step on each others' ideological toes. Gregory
The NCSE has probably done more to poison the well of public opinion and spread lies about evolution and intelligent design than nearly any other institution. They then stepped into the climate change debate with equivalent propaganda, bringing all their mudslinging and anti-information experience to bear. Eugenie Scott, if your goal was to spread misinformation and impede honest and open discourse on the important topics of origins and climate science, then congratulations on a job well done! Eric Anderson
NCSE's Eugenie Scott to retire - May 6th, 2013 http://ncse.com/news/2013/05/ncses-scott-to-retire-0014832 bornagain77
"Sciences are differentiated according to the different natures of knowable things. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion - that the earth, for instance is round; the astronomer by means of mathematics (that is, by abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself." Words written in the mid 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in the very first 1000 words of the Summa Theologica. No flat earther there and certainly no war with science. The war is simply the creation of atheistic scientism. This quote from Aquinas should be better known. It is a powerful tonic. rsiefker
Amazing, An atheist answers a question about Christians honestly. Somebody call the Pope, It's a miracle! Penn Jillette vs religion - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXQMREfc-q0 bornagain77
It is interesting to note that Atheists who angrily shake their fist at God in this world and repeatedly invoke deep (infinite?) time as their savior against 'religion', and who fail to make their peace with God in this temporal life through man's true savior, Christ, will, when they enter eternity, regret with all their might that there truly is such thing as 'deep' time. But this 'deep' time will not be in the temporal sense that they imagine it to be.
Big Bang Theory - An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ "When this paper was published (referring to the circa 1970 Hawking, Penrose, Ellis papers) we could only prove General Relativity's reliability to 1% precision, today we can prove it to 15 places of decimal." Hugh Ross PhD. Astrophysics - quote taken from 8:40 mark of the following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF1xSErF_f4
Moreover, on top of the fact that temporal time has been shown to have a beginning, time, as we understand it temporally, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole 'time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light' concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same 'thought experiment' that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest http://www.readersdigest.co.za/article/10170%26pageno=3 "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 Amazing --- light filmed at 1,000,000,000,000 Frames/Second! - video (so fast that at 9:00 Minute mark of video the time dilation effect of relativity is caught on film) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoHeWgLvlXI 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony
It is also very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)
Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ "Very often as they're moving through the tunnel, there's a very bright mystical light ... not like a light we're used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns..." - Jeffery Long M.D. - has studied NDE's extensively The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven. Barbara Springer "Regardless, it is impossible for me to adequately describe what I saw and felt. When I try to recount my experiences now, the description feels very pale. I feel as though I'm trying to describe a three-dimensional experience while living in a two-dimensional world. The appropriate words, descriptions and concepts don't even exist in our current language. I have subsequently read the accounts of other people's near-death experiences and their portrayals of heaven and I able to see the same limitations in their descriptions and vocabulary that I see in my own." Mary C. Neal, MD - To Heaven And Back pg. 71 Dr. Quantum in Flatland - 3D in a 2D world – video http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/9395/Dr_Quantum_Flatland_Explanation_3D_in_a_2D_world/ “I was in a body, and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head, it had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And it was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.”,,, “And then this vehicle formed itself around me. Vehicle is the only thing, or tube, or something, but it was a mode of transportation that’s for sure! And it formed around me. And there was no one in it with me. I was in it alone. But I knew there were other people ahead of me and behind me. What they were doing I don’t know, but there were people ahead of me and people behind me, but I was alone in my particular conveyance. And I could see out of it. And it went at a tremendously, horrifically, rapid rate of speed. But it wasn’t unpleasant. It was beautiful in fact. I was reclining in this thing, I wasn’t sitting straight up, but I wasn’t lying down either. I was sitting back. And it was just so fast. I can’t even begin to tell you where it went or whatever it was just fast!" – Vicki’s NDE – Blind since birth - quote taken from first part of the following video Near Death Experience Tunnel - Speed Of Light - Turin Shroud - video http://www.vimeo.com/18371644
As well, as with the scientifically verified tunnel for special relativity, we also have scientific confirmation of extreme ‘tunnel curvature’, within space-time, to a eternal ‘event horizon’ at black holes;
Space-Time of a Black hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8
Spot two wrong spellings of "archaeologist" is one sentence! I'd post the above as a blog, but I'm committed to uploading episodeas of a long essay on the history of design in theistic evolution at the moment. If that might interest any of you, it's here. Jon Garvey
A timely piece, for me. Yesterday evening I settled down to watch a documentary about the history of archaeology, presented by an archaeologist, which could have been good but was entirely informed by the nineteenth century science-v-religion myth, in which brave scientists sought to refute the harshly imposed dogma of "The Church" that the world was created in 4004. Few would have spotted that using the Church Canon Copernicus to make his point actually undercut it. Nor that most of the amateur antiquarians digging up the past and proposing theories were orthodox clergymen. Anachronistic references to Creationism (a 20th century mindset), failure to note the strong scientific opposition to deep time, failure to note the prominence of the gap theory from 1814 in theology in positive response to Hutton and the other geologists ... it's futile to rail, because that's the myth that's always perpetuated, and will be for a while to come, and is the only plausible one for today's public. But it's galling when you've just emerged from a week of reading primary sources, and you wonder why a presenter of "The History of Archaeology" is so out of touch with the modern findings of academic "History of Science". Here's one example of intellectual blinkers I found instructive. The guy gave credit (rightly) to Queen Helena, mother of Constantine, for being the first archaeologist after seeking, and purportedly finding, the site of the crucifixion under a Roman temple. Thereafter, the presenter used her motivation as a foil to the emerging scientific approach; finally contrasting her approach of finding the evidence to support existing dogma with the discovery of stone age artifacts in the middle nineteenth century which, he said, were "allowed to tell their own story." There's an element of truth in that - Helena was after all a relic-hunter, not a dispassionate scientist. But by the mid-nineteenth century, there was a new professional, and secular, occupation of "science" trying to gain ascendency over those who had previously made most of the scientific running - the aforementioned leisured clergymen, such as Darwin would have been had he not ended up on the Beagle. Deep time had been proposed in the 18th century, pre-adamic man in the 17th (and it dominated the new science of anthropology), and evolution, even for man, had been gaining ground since Lamarck, as it was attractive to Enlightenment skeptics with a direct desire to disprove God, and especially the Biblical God. So by the time palaeolithic tools were being discovered, the desired secular narrative had long been written into which to fit them, just as much as Queen Helena's had. Ignoring the socio-historic setting in both cases would be legitimate documentary making. Comparing it in both would be fascinating and thought-provoking, but maybe more history and sociology than science. What we got (and always get, nowadays) was a 2-dimensional cultural myth to confirm our society's prejudices. There was more true iconoclasm in medieval universities than there ever is now (which reminds me he was talking about the Enlightenment freeing intellectuals from the grip of bishops and kings, rather forgetting that Universities were set up to do just that from the 11th century - sheesh!). And so we ought to suspect, if arachaeologists have that kind of historical grounding, that archeologists will be more likely to dig up the present than the past! Jon Garvey
Its all indeed an attempt to say christians are bad, kids, and tried to stop science and its contributions. lets have a investigation inrto whether Christianity is the origin, opponent, or something else, regarding the gains of mankind in the last 400 hundred years. CNN should do this and get better ratings for once. By the way. I insist theres a female quota in journalism and CNN , for sure,. Is this incompetence revealing why its immoral and against intellectual advancement to have a female quota!! Robert Byers

Leave a Reply