More Warfare Thesis Lies, This Time From CNN

_{Cornelius Hunter

May 3, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

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_{May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

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_{May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

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_{May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

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_{May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

"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_{May 14, 2013
May
05
May
14
14
2013
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

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_{May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
. . . 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_{May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

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_{May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

“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_{May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Timaeus @34: Thanks, this helps understand what is going on a bit more. Well (and humorously) said.Eric Anderson_{May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

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_{May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

T: When I met Thaxton, in Jamaica in the early 2000's, he was there specifically defending design theory in a public forum. KFkairosfocus_{May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

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_{May 13, 2013
May
05
May
13
13
2013
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

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_{May 12, 2013
May
05
May
12
12
2013
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

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_{May 12, 2013
May
05
May
12
12
2013
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Timaeus @26: Well said. LOL! at the last paragraph.Eric Anderson_{May 12, 2013
May
05
May
12
12
2013
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

@ Gregory Matt. 5:37Optimus_{May 12, 2013
May
05
May
12
12
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

projectionkairosfocus_{May 12, 2013
May
05
May
12
12
2013
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

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_{May 12, 2013
May
05
May
12
12
2013
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

To understand what is going on, notice 23 above. KFkairosfocus_{May 12, 2013
May
05
May
12
12
2013
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

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_{May 12, 2013
May
05
May
12
12
2013
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

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_{May 12, 2013
May
05
May
12
12
2013
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

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_{May 12, 2013
May
05
May
12
12
2013
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{May 11, 2013
May
05
May
11
11
2013
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
. . . 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_{May 11, 2013
May
05
May
11
11
2013
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

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_{May 11, 2013
May
05
May
11
11
2013
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

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_{May 11, 2013
May
05
May
11
11
2013
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

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_{May 8, 2013
May
05
May
8
08
2013
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

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_{May 8, 2013
May
05
May
8
08
2013
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

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_{May 8, 2013
May
05
May
8
08
2013
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply