Release of the Sententias Journal

“this Franciscan way of speaking about God provides a theological basis for ID.”

Gregory has no counter argument. Pope Francis Mung

Gregory:

Is there a ‘theological basis for ID’ or not?

YES. But really, was that ever in doubt? Did God ever say, thou shalt not do ID? Mung

Gregory:

Yes, I realise I am speaking to/about my elder, whom normally I would honour.

LIAR Mung

We’ve been assuming all along that Gregory wanted to discuss truth with us

Surely I was not the first to assert that Gregory is a liar! Mung

Gregory:

According to StephenB, modern evolutionary theory promotes polygenism. Well, that will be news to many.

Polygenism is the position of almost all evolutionary biologists. It flows from the theory. Obviously, this is news to Gregory, who reveals his profound ignorance at every turn.

StephenB would like people to believe that anyone who accepts theological ‘design arguments’ is therefore likewise an ID advocate.

That statement is as stupid as it is dishonest. It's stupid because it doesn't specify which theological design argument is being alluded to. It's dishonest because it seeks to associate that stupidity with me. Unfortunately, dishonesty can become a habit, and Gregory has become addicted to his vice.

I’ve met both Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt. They are simply and obviously not up to the challenge that Feser, Barr and other leading Roman Catholic thinkers present to IDist ideology. IDists are on the DI’s payroll, defending their salaries.

One problem with providing Gregory with even a partial list of Catholics who are pro-ID (I could have listed a hundred more) is that he will always question the competency and character of everyone on the roster even as he avoids the merits of their arguments. This is the way Gregory argues. Isn't it refreshing? Ask him about a substantive point, though, and he will fall to pieces.

‘Many’? Are you serious? So, who else? Who else, StephenB? I’ve already provided many more names than you have.

I repeat, I could list at least 100 prominent Catholics who are pro-ID. I would be happy to cite them if [a] Gregory could refrain from subjecting each one to his slanderous attacks and if [b] he would stop running away from my questions. Of course, the point that escapes Gregory's nitwitted analysis is that the numbers for each side are irrelevant. What matters are the arguments. I can refute the anti-ID Catholics with arguments; Gregory cannot refute the pro-ID Catholics with arguments. So, he desperately tries to discredit them. For someone who believes himself to be bold and brilliant, Gregory is really quite timid and backward. Even in terms of his own religion, he steers clear of any meaningful disclosure. What does it mean to support an "Abrahamic" religion? Is Gregory a Christian? What kind of a Christian is he? Or, is he a Jew? Or, is he a Muslim? Why is he afraid of his own up to his identity?

Does Fr. Thomas Dubay really promote ‘Intelligent Design’ theory, mimicking the DI’s party-line or does he just, like most Catholics, accept non-Big-ID ‘design arguments’? Where’s the evidence for StephenB’s black hole Big-IDist position?

Yes, the late Fr. Thomas Dubay, author of "The Evidential Power of Beauty," really promoted DI-style Intelligent Design, as does Bishop Donald Werle, as does Catholic Theologian Dr. Scott Hahn, as do countless other Catholics.

Fr. Guy Consolmagno, Fr. George Coyne, Fr. Nicano Austriaco, the list goes on and on.

I am aware of the many anti-ID Catholics. The problem is that Gregory is unaware of the many pro-ID Catholics. As usual, I know players from both sides of the debate, but Gregory knows only about those he wants to know about. Still, none of this has anything to do with the demonstrable fact that the Teachings of the Catholic Church are consistent with Intelligent Design and inconsistent with unguided Darwinian Evolution. Gregory quoting Feser:

"The reason Aquinas seems to be such an Aristotelian, and the reason he has always been regarded as an Aristotelian, is that he was an Aristotelian. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and not a seven-centuries-old “misinterpretation” waiting to be cleared up by a guy at the Discovery Institute.” – Feser (On Jay Richards, Catholics who reject ‘Intelligent Design’)

As a Thomist, I can tell everyone exactly what is wrong with that statement. The question is not whether "Aquinas is an Aristotelian." The question is whether Aquinas is solely, wholly, and without exception, an Aristotelian, especially on the subject of causality. In fact, he is not. Of course, Gregory has no idea about any of this. All he knows is that Feser is anti-ID and nothing else matters to him. In keeping with that point, I can anticipate Gregory's mindless response. He will avoid the substantive point and immediately launch into something like this: "Please, please, Ed Feser is really, really smart and StephenB is a nobody." When anti-ID partisans cannot make their case, they always resort to the ad hominem and the argument from authority. Notice how Feser dismissively refers to Jay Richards as "a guy from the Discovery Institute." StephenB

According to StephenB, modern evolutionary theory promotes polygenism. Well, that will be news to many. Unfortunately, StephenB is not an authority to be trusted, hiding out behind a pseudonym at the ID-friendly blog Uncommon Descent. No matter, he thinks he is credible because he says he is and means it and people should just darn well trust his sincerity! ;) Making a theological or worldview-oriented ‘design argument’ is entirely distinct from modern ‘Intelligent Design’ theory. The latter requires the natural scientificity of ‘Intelligent Design,’ even if it won’t name the Intelligent Designer. StephenB would like people to believe that anyone who accepts theological ‘design arguments’ is therefore likewise an ID advocate. That assumption, of course, is wrong. The silent majority of people who recognise this will not be troubled by a ‘philosopher-communicator’ who can’t even openly explain why he capitalises a concept duo or not, even in UD's 'definitions'. I’ve met both Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt. They are simply and obviously not up to the challenge that Feser, Barr and other leading Roman Catholic thinkers present to IDist ideology. IDists are on the DI's payroll, defending their salaries. Richards left the DI for the Acton Institute, though he still enjoys cashing in on the IDM’s funding channels. Several others who have left the DI simply reject their politics, which little-bunters like Timaeus and StephenB either don't know or fail to openly acknowledge. “Jay Richards, who refutes Feser quite handily, is just one among many. We could include Thomas Dubay, Jonathan Witt, Vincent Torley, Thomas Cudworth, and a number of others (a long list), including myself.” - StephenB ‘Many’? Are you serious? So, who else? That’s not a “long list” that StephenB provided and besides, he chose 3 Catholics from Uncommon Descent blog, including himself! Those are not authorities in my books. Who else, StephenB? I’ve already provided many more names than you have. Catholics who reject ‘Intelligent Design’ Does Fr. Thomas Dubay really promote ‘Intelligent Design’ theory, mimicking the DI’s party-line or does he just, like most Catholics, accept non-Big-ID ‘design arguments’? Where’s the evidence for StephenB’s black hole Big-IDist position? Fr. Guy Consolmagno, Fr. George Coyne, Fr. Nicano Austriaco, the list goes on and on. Here’s another: Catholics who reject ‘Intelligent Design’ or here You folks can’t even claim Cardinal Schorborn for Big-IDism any longer, ever as he agrees with small-id ‘design arguments’ and criticises ‘(neo-)Darwinian evolution.’ Like most people, he draws the line at making a *scientific* proof/inference claim of Big-ID ‘Intelligent Design’. But you folks don’t seem to care any more, given to ideology and propaganda as has become your trademark at UD.

“The reason Aquinas seems to be such an Aristotelian, and the reason he has always been regarded as an Aristotelian, is that he was an Aristotelian. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and not a seven-centuries-old “misinterpretation” waiting to be cleared up by a guy at the Discovery Institute.” – Feser (On Jay Richards, Catholics who reject ‘Intelligent Design’)

How long need the list go on? Gregory

Because ‘Timaeus’ is such an awkward hermit-like IDist, he arrogantly imagines that IDists understand *everything*. Indeed, Timaeus himself uses superlatives and absolutes so often in his writing that people might be mistakenly led to believe that he is a tenured professor, that he is an important scholar in demand, that people pay attention to him in the academic world. Unfortunately for him, he isn’t and they don’t. He apparently pissed off enough people at the university where he previously worked with his self-righteousness religious studies ‘teachings’ (read: IDist radicalism) that telling about it to IDists would only give ‘ID’ a bad name. Perhaps that’s why he hides his real name behind the Greek ‘Timaeus’ and says sugary things to everyone pro-IDist. Like ‘the teacher’ in Dan Brown’s story, only a bad ending will come from following Timaeusean IDism. Yes, I realise I am speaking to/about my elder, whom normally I would honour. In this case, my elder has been so disgustingly antagonistic and chock-full of false testimony that he gave away his pathway to tenure and credibility. And he has been so uncharitable here at UD in his crusade to defend IDism that dealing ‘fairly’ with him is a tall order. Look, I can’t be held responsible for what Timaeus wrote. I just quoted directly from him and drew the ‘implications’ from it. Timaeus wrote:

“Fuller, unlike the ID folks, understands the clash between univocity and analogy.”

It’s similar to how Timaeus at first supported the distinction between upper case Big-ID and lower case small-id, but then later flip-flopped thus contradicting himself. Who is guilty for these words and self-contradictions but Timaeus himself? Why does he seek to blame me that he has demonstrated himself as a flip-flopper? Yet again we are supposed to be patient witnesses to Timaeus’ chicanery. In one breath he claims that theology has *nothing* to do with Intelligent Design theory because IDM-ID, if one reads the leaders, is a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. However, then he spouts off and contradicts himself with the following:

“this Franciscan way of speaking about God provides a theological basis for ID.”

Is there a ‘theological basis for ID’ or not? It seemed Timaeus was denying that in the past. Maybe this is yet another flip-flop possibility for him. Timaeus then accusing me of being an intellectual coward is quite cute – like nice big cheeks and a double chin. ;) He has now ducked my challenge to him for a recorded public debate in neutral E-space. And he has not ever submitted a paper to an academic journal about ID theory, as if he had confidence that what he blurts out here at UD has any resemblance to truth. He doesn’t even write at UD behind his own name. What does that say for IDism, that one of UD’s ‘best and brightest’ can’t even summon the courage to promote his own non-IDM-ID ideas in public without a mask? “Blame the others,” has been the typical IDist answer, which we are to expect again. Keep dreaming of a ‘Revolution-baby’! No nearer to reality or the rehabilitation of Timaeus’ long-gone tenure possibility will happen than that. Gregory

StephenB: Agreed about Gregory's misrepresentation of your argument. On the broader question of human origins: Gregory will never answer the question whether or not modern humans have additional hominid ancestors, beyond Adam and Eve, for the same reason that he will never answer the question about Fuller and Feser. To give a clear answer would be to burn certain bridges, and take away a large amount of wiggle-room which he might want later on (to position himself for some job or in some science/theology discussion). The vaguer he can be, the better off he is, career-wise. We've been assuming all along that Gregory wanted to discuss truth with us, and when it has been difficult, we've been explaining that to ourselves in ways such as: he is not well-versed in ID writings (which is true); he is a poor communicator of ideas (which is also true); he is a very proud and stubborn individual who will never retract a point (which is also true). But in fact not even all such reasons taken together can fully explain his behavior. What we've overlooked is that he is an academic seeking tenure, advancement, and professional esteem. For someone like that, anything said in a forum such as this might come back to haunt him. A Protean position is therefore the safest strategy. He must leave the impression with future secular colleagues that he has contempt for ID and is committed to the biological theory of evolution; and he must leave the impression with future Christian colleagues that he is onside with views they are likely to hold about Adam and Eve and other matters. Elusiveness of formulation is his best way of navigating between Scylla and Charybdis. Under such circumstances, we cannot expect sincerity of argumentation from Gregory. Timaeus

Gregory:

Notice that StephenB offered no response when I called his bluff that the Church has made *NO* official teaching regarding ‘Intelligent Design’? Where is the evidence, StephenB? He’s got nothing to show in his hands, folks.

I am beginning to feel sorry for Gregory. Notice again how he stumbles over his own self-made strawman. Since I never said that the Catholic Church has taken an official position on Intelligent Design, I can hardly provide evidence for a claim that I did not make. Is this what passes for scholarship these days? What I did write is that the Catholic Church officially rejects unguided Darwinian evolution, which it does, and that its teachings are consistent with Intelligent Design, which they are. The meaning of this readily demonstrable fact is, I am sure, clear to any rational person. StephenB

Gregory:

IDism is not ‘natural-science-only’ and cannot ever be.

This isn't the IDism blog. Did someone send you here by mistake? It's funny. You oppose ID but support IDism. This while claiming to be opposed to ideologies. Mung

Gregory:

Why then do you think, Box, that IDists at UD seek to forcibly separate and compartmentalise ‘science’ from ‘philosophy’ and ‘theology’ as they do? What a silly and uninformed question. Because science has limits on what it can tell us based upon it's methodology. Most of us here at UD understand that. That's why it needs to be compartmentalized, so people don't make the mistake of thinking that science provides answers to philosophical and theological questions.

Mung

Kantian Naturalist:

I do recall that he puts a lot of emphasis on Suarez, whom he reads as setting out to tidy up Thomism but who ends up, on Placher’s reading, as eliminating the ambiguities that are actually quite important for preserving a non-domesticated sense of transcendence.

Suarez does seem to be getting a bit more attention these days. I've been collecting his writings as they have become available in English. The Philosophy of Francisco Suarez Mung

Kantian Naturalist:

I recommend Placher’s work as a contribution to the history of ideas, and as a work about the transition to modernity — a serious intellectual hobby of mine.

In that case, if you haven't already done so: Stephen Gaukroger Mung

Gregory:

I’ve been misrepresented mainly by IDists. By folks like ... Mung, ... who have put words into my mouth repeatedly

Hypocrite. So far we have liar and hypocrite. Is there a trifecta? Let's go back to my first real conflict with Gregory, at least as far as I can recall having interacted with him, and that was when he put words into the mouth of Paul Nelson, misrepresenting him. I called him (Gregory) on it, called Gregory a liar. Things have never been quite the same since. :) Mung

Gregory:

Hold on, folks. I thought it was protested loudly and regularly that Big-ID theory has *nothing* to do with theology. Absolutely nothing!? Timaeus could be asking me about the Los Angeles Lakers here, for all that matters. But I thought we were supposed to be talking about ‘real ID.’ Strike, as usual, for Timaeus.

Liar. Gregory:

Big-ID theory is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation, first and foremost.

Mung

"Notice that StephenB offered no response when I called his bluff that the Church has made *NO* official teaching regarding ‘Intelligent Design’? Where is the evidence, StephenB? He’s got nothing to show in his hands, folks." I doubt the Church will waste its time even addressing ‘Intelligent Design’ theory, unless the American-led movement grows too beligerant and self-righteous for its own good. StephenB would likely choose to reject the Church if faced with the choice of having to abandon ‘ID’ theory or return to orthodoxy. His IDism has seemingly stretched that far-out! Gregory

Timaeus @176. While you are reflecting on Gregory's proclivity to deconstruct your prose and misrepresent your arguments, try this one: I wrote, "If, as Gregory claims (stretching credulity to the breaking point), he had already read that magisterial document, then it would also mean that he knowingly characterized anti-magisterial Catholics as authentic Catholic spokesmen in order to mislead his readers into believing that ID is incompatible with the Church’s teachings." Gregory summarizes my message this way:

StephenB wrote: “ID is incompatible with the Church’s teachings.”

I have added this offering to my collection of "Gregory's Greatest Hits." StephenB

Gregory:

A major problem, however, is that Dembski is somewhat deluded when he calls ‘Darwinism’ a ‘science.’ E.g. in his “The Design Revolution,” he says “Darwinism is one scientific theory that attempts to account for the history of life” (2004: p. 55). . . . It would be an achievement then, wouldn’t it, if Dembski, Meyer, Nelson, Wells (actually, Wells in his Mooneyism is on that page already), and Axe would forthrightly admit this in public regarding their views of ‘ID’? But they still won’t.

Here we go again, conflating a theory with its implications and its motivations. Let's try this with simple math, because it doesn't seem to be getting through any other way. Let's assign some variables to make it easy: a = the scientific question of design detection, what this site and all the major design proponents refer to as "intelligent design" b = the implications of a positive design inference c = the motivations of design proponents d = philosophical questions relating to design . . . n Anderson says: a + b does not equal a. a + c does not equal a. and so on . . . Gregory stamps his feet and shouts over and over: a + b + c + d . . . + n = a Then he becomes upset that others disagree with this "revelation." They disagree because it is not a revelation. It is a conflation, an abuse of language, a pet distraction. Eric Anderson

In an astounding display of academic dishonesty, Gregory has twice (#155, #174) quoted the following out-of-context words of mine: “Fuller, unlike the ID folks, understands the clash between univocity and analogy” – Timaeus In doing so, he is trying to make it look as if I am endorsing the statement given, in particular the words "unlike the ID folks." But in fact what I wrote was: "As for Feser, he makes very clear that while Fuller “gets it” (meaning, Fuller, unlike the ID folks, understands the clash between univocity and analogy)," and in the context both of that post, and my whole series of posts on Feser and Fuller, it's clear that I am there representing *Feser's judgment* about Fuller's superiority over the ID folks, not my own estimation. Gregory thus tries to make me a witness against ID people, by yanking my words out of context -- by excising the crucial framing words. It there a clash between an *uncompromising* analogical view and an *uncompromising* univocal view of language about God? Yes. Are ID people unaware of the tension between the two views? No. Are there moderate positions which can allow for a limited use of univocal language? Yes. Does Feser reject such moderate positions. He does. Does Torley? He does not. Does Richards? He does not. Catholic ID people are *not* dolts who have failed to think out correctly what Fuller has thought out correctly. They do "get it." But they believe that there is a principled, nuanced way of handling the difficulty of language about God. So much for Gregory's dishonest attempt to enlist my words in the cause of a view that Gregory knows that I reject. Let's come back to the substantive issue. Fuller has said, repeatedly, in statements so numerous that his position cannot be misunderstood, that there is a "Franciscan" way of speaking about God that involves univocal predication (at least in some contexts), and that this Franciscan way of speaking about God provides a theological basis for ID. And Fuller *likes* this way of speaking about God and thinks that society needs *more* such speaking, not, as Feser would have it, less. So, here is a statement of my own, summarizing Fuller's position: "Univocal predication regarding language about God is in some contexts warranted; specifically, it is warranted when Christians understand nature as something designed and made by God, in the way that things are designed and made by human beings, who, being in the image of God, are in at least this respect like God." This is Fuller's position. Is this position rank Christian heresy, or true Christian doctrine, regarding character of the natural world? Should Fuller maintain it, or abandon it? If Gregory is not an intellectual coward, he will answer this question. But as he is driven by political concerns -- his career ambitions, and his desire to embarrass ID folks -- I do not expect him to show the requisite courage. He will not say anything that could be construed as a frontal challenge to a major position of either Fuller or Feser. He wants to keep all his options open for as long as possible. So again, I ask him to quit prolonging our agony, and to submit the "good-bye letter" he says he has drafted, and take his leave of us. He will be happier, and so will we. He has nothing more to teach us; and, while we have much more to teach him, he is an unwilling student. So any further conversation is profitless on both sides. It's time for Gregory to exit, either gracefully, or (if he follows his usual manner of self-presentation) ungracefully. By his own account, he is headed for great things, and he shouldn't let his fruitless activities here delay him. Timaeus

Gregory’s statement A:

Yes, that is understood and acknowledged. Like I said, I’ve read the text. The Catholic position does not support ‘polygenism’ and neither do I. Neither does StepenB. So what’s the problem?

Gregory’s statement B: “Gregory endorses the factual truth of biological evolution and accepts at least the main outlines of modern evolutionary theory.” – Timaeus

Yes, like any sane and educated person would and as the Catholic Church has done. Thank you.

So, which of those two contradictory positions does Gregory hold? Is it StatementB? (He and the Catholic Church [and all sane people] accept modern evolutionary theory, mind-from matter evolution, and polygenism). Or, is it StatementA? (He and the Catholic Church reject modern evolutionary theory, mind-from-matter evolution, and polygenism).

Here, on a blog dedicated to IDism, my time is wasted because it is clear that nothing that can be said would change the mind of ideologues-for-ID.

This is too funny. On the one hand, Gregory has no time to explain why he supports both Fuller and Feser even though they hold contradictory views. On the other hand, he wastes a large portion of his weekend writing 1000-word posts explaining why he doesn’t have the time to make his case. It just keeps getting better and better.

So, then who has ‘refuted’ Feser? Surely you don’t mean Jay W. Richards? He’s easy fodder for Feser re: IDism.

Jay Richards, who refutes Feser quite handily, is just one among many. We could include Thomas Dubay, Jonathan Witt, Vincent Torley, Thomas Cudworth, and a number of others (a long list), including myself. < StephenB’s hyped ‘refutation of Feser’ is trite. What is it about my refutation of Feser that is trite? Why does Gregory not try to summon up the intellectual courage to take it on? Better yet, why does he not ask me to summarize it for him so that can avoid the stupid blunder of characterizing something as trite that he cannot even identify.

The upper-case/lower-case distinction made by Gingerich, Barr, Davis, Murphy, Isaac, BioLogos and others is valid to protect Christian ortodoxy from IDist agnosticism and scientism.

I have refuted that nonsense as well. Neither Gregory nor his mentors can even define “small id.” Does it include natural theology? Gregory cannot tell me.

Notice that StephenB offered no response when I called his bluff that the Church has made *NO* official teaching regarding ‘Intelligent Design’?

Inasmuch as I have never said that the Church has an official teaching of Intelligent Design, or anything close to that, I can only conclude that Gregory is either cracking under the pressure or has taken leave of his senses. StephenB

“The document Humani Generis refutes fraudulent Catholics who support polygenism and the evolution of mind from matter in the name of Catholicism.” - StephenB Yes, that is understood and acknowledged. Like I said, I’ve read the text. The Catholic position does not support ‘polygenism’ and neither do I. Neither does StepenB. So what’s the problem? StephenB is engaged in chest-thumping triumphalism as if IDism is the preferred ideology of the future world order. “He [Gregory] refuses to answer any fair question about those inconsistencies or articulate his own views” - StephenB Have you read any of my published works, StephenB? There I certainly do ‘articulate my own views.’ Here, on a blog dedicated to IDism, my time is wasted because it is clear that nothing that can be said would change the mind of ideologues-for-ID. “Feser has been refuted by other Thomist Catholics...Gregory lacks the intellectual curiosity to ask me who these Thomists are.” – StephenB Actually, I’m quite a curious guy. So, then who has ‘refuted’ Feser? Surely you don’t mean Jay W. Richards? He’s easy fodder for Feser re: IDism. StephenB’s hyped ‘refutation of Feser’ is trite. Again, it’s like LeBron James (Feser) vs. a 3rd grader (StephenB) in one-on-one basketball. No contest necessary. Fuller calls the attitude of a guy like StephenB (a self-styled ‘philosopher-communicator’) as ‘Prot-Science,’ when people on the internet think they are capable of challenging experts. It is no wonder that most educated Catholics don’t waste their time responding to such garbage as the idea that ‘ID’ is a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. The upper-case/lower-case distinction made by Gingerich, Barr, Davis, Murphy, Isaac, BioLogos and others is valid to protect Christian ortodoxy from IDist agnosticism and scientism. This is worth highlighting again:

“Fuller, unlike the ID folks, understands the clash between univocity and analogy” – Timaeus

Yes, readers, there actually is *something* that ‘ID folks’ don’t understand. This is the case despite pretensions UDists hold to omniscience and ‘revolutionary’ genius in the IDM. Once ID folks recognise the significance of Feser’s and Fuller’s ‘discovery’ regarding ID's univocal predication, they will have to abandon their naïve claims to ‘natural-science-only’ IDism. IDism is not 'natural-science-only' and cannot ever be. “Gregory endorses the factual truth of biological evolution and accepts at least the main outlines of modern evolutionary theory.” – Timaeus Yes, like any sane and educated person would and as the Catholic Church has done. Thank you. StepenB wrote: “ID is incompatible with the Church’s teachings.” Though he doesn’t accept that statement, I do. But I doubt the Church will waste its time even addressing ‘Intelligent Design’ theory, unless the American-led movement grows too beligerant and self-righteous for its own good. Notice that StephenB offered no response when I called his bluff that the Church has made *NO* official teaching regarding ‘Intelligent Design’? Where is the evidence, StephenB? He's got nothing to show in his hands, folks. Of course, StephenB is invested personally in Uncommon Descent; he even links to it if you click on his name. StephenB would likely choose to reject the Church if faced with the choice of having to abandon ‘ID’ theory or return to orthodoxy.

“ID needs to reassert the specificity of the Abrahamic God as the implied intelligent designer. Without this specificity (which still allows for considerable theological dispute), the concept of an intelligent designer becomes devoid of content, adding to the suspicion that ID is no more than ‘not-evolution’.” – Fuller

So why do no ID leaders “reassert the specificity of the Abrahamic God as the implied intelligent designer”? Because they know it would spell the doom of their utopian insistence that ‘ID is a natural-scientific theory’ of OoL, OoBI and human origins. “Fuller has taken the wrong side.” Whenever people introduce Fuller at UD, they feel a need to call him an agnostic or a secular humanist, as if to impugn his motives. No wonder he doesn’t take the IDM seriously for its actual lack of scholarship. No wonder people don't take the IDM seriously because the vast majority of IDists are identity-challenged, under-developed thinkers, and creationist-buddies to boot! Gregory

“why is it ok for Neo-Darwinism to sing the ‘natural science-only’ tune like a broken record?” – Box It’s not o.k. And if one can credit the IDM for its most important contribution, it is in further (as in ‘neo-creationist’) unmasking the ideology behind ‘neo-Darwinism’ as ideology, not science. But that is only a negative contribution, not a positive ‘proof/inference’ of ID (cf. the Wedge). A major problem, however, is that Dembski is somewhat deluded when he calls ‘Darwinism’ a ‘science.’ E.g. in his “The Design Revolution,” he says “Darwinism is one scientific theory that attempts to account for the history of life” (2004: p. 55). Dembski badly needs a tutorial in the philosophy of science *outside* of the Anglo-American tradition in which he was educated. If he had such a tutorial, he would more easily be able to distinguish science from ideology. Thus, Dembski rejects the ‘science’ of ‘Darwinism’ and proposes the ‘science’ of IDism as an alternative. But that’s just simply ‘radical’ malarkey because it is an ideology of ‘scientistic-ID’ that he is proposing. “In my humble opinion one cannot separate science, philosophy and theology.” – Box Great! That’s the same as my humble opinion too. It would be an achievement then, wouldn't it, if Dembski, Meyer, Nelson, Wells (actually, Wells in his Mooneyism is on that page already), and Axe would forthrightly admit this in public regarding their views of ‘ID’? But they still won’t. Is it the opposite of humility in the name of 'scientistic-ID'? Why then do you think, Box, that IDists at UD seek to forcibly separate and compartmentalise ‘science’ from ‘philosophy’ and ‘theology’ as they do? Why do you think they insist that 'ID' is a natural-science-only theory? “I have held this view for a long time and considered it rather main stream.” – Box Have you heard of the Conflict thesis as propounded by J.W. Draper and A.D. White? Here’s a decent analysis of the situation. Are you aware of the ‘new atheists’ who are a perfect match for IDists in their ‘scientistic’ ideologies? One doesn’t need ‘Intelligent Designist’ ideology to overcome the conflict thesis because IDism actually exacerbates it. That’s sad, but unfortunately true. Yes, sympathetic to their cause, but do the means justify the end? After taking in their strongest Seattle-based arguments and speaking with ID leaders in person – decent people, most of them – I’ve concluded: ‘No, they don’t.’ You may of course still wish to be sympathetic to their cause without swallowing the primitive and ultimately damaging ideology they are foisting, as bad theology and bad science.

“The key thing that is the red thread that runs through all of this [ID talk] is that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God and therefore can understand and make sense of nature and…have a sense of responsibility for what happens” – Fuller

Gregory

oops! I have no ties with ‘IDists’, but I'm sympathetic to their cause. Box

Gregory, I'm just a passenger. I have no ties with 'IDists' other then that cause. But I only speak for myself. In my humble opinion one cannot separate science, philosophy and theology. That goes as well for Neo-Darwinism as for Intelligent Design. I have held this view for a long time and considered it rather main stream. Box

O.k. before I answer, let me understand you. The answer you gave in #169 leads me to believe that you "have no problem whatsoever admitting" that ID is properly interpreted as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation. Is that correct? I ask because others here at UD have long resisted admitting this. (Expect e-mails of warning and counsel from IDists here in case they have previously contacted you.) Thanks for indulging my patience. Gregory

Gregory Don’t you recognise, Box, that ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ is properly interpreted as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation?

I have no problem whatsoever admitting to that, but I’m no scientist. But why is it ok for Neo-Darwinism to sing the ‘natural science-only’ tune like a broken record? Don’t they have to come out the closet too – so to speak? Box

Well, this is really disappointing, but I can't find my copy of the Placher I've been going on about. I probably sold it a while ago when I needed some money and didn't imagine I'd need it again. I do recall that he puts a lot of emphasis on Suarez, whom he reads as setting out to tidy up Thomism but who ends up, on Placher's reading, as eliminating the ambiguities that are actually quite important for preserving a non-domesticated sense of transcendence. Sorry I can't contribute more. Kantian Naturalist

Bravo, Box. Yes, of course it is. I've been saying this in various locations since 2002. My 'beef' with 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design' is that it forcefully doesn't sing that tune. It sings a 'natural science-only' tune like a broken record. Don't you recognise, Box, that 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design' is properly interpreted as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation? Gregory

On wednesday Oct 29 2008 Gregory wrote:

Then the questions are immediately relevant: Which science? Whose science? Can 'evolution' mean 'guided' in a scientific sense? This is at the crux of whether or not 'theistic evolution' should be considered as a 'science' or a 'philosophy' or a mix of 'science, philosophy and theology,' (..)

Gregory, I’m sure you do not think for a moment that Darwin’s theory is not a mix of science, philosophy and theology. So what is your beef with intelligent design? Box

“My interest is in the general concept of design detection, very simply stated.” – Eric Anderson

Two of the first questions in the field of Science Studies are: Which science? and Whose science? Translate that into the design = science camp, which you are ‘advocating’ as: Which [general concept of] design [detection]? and Whose [general concept of] design [detection]? Unfortunately for Eric, his masters [whom it seems he will, like a ‘non-denominationalist,’ deny] require him to play dumb (remain silent) about these questions.

“Your Big-ID, small-id discussion means nothing to me.” – Eric Anderson

I’m sorry for your loss, but this is a most important discussion to others, meaning serious scholars and scientists who have closely considered ‘Intelligent Design’ theory, including myself. In fact, it crushes the simplistic (universalising) views of most IDists. Period. Why? Because they/you insist on the scientificity of ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID) theory. But Abrahamic believers who accept small-id (design arguments) through the eyes of faith, don’t require the ‘scientificity’ of their ‘detection.’ That’s a significant and meaningful difference.

“we should all be interested in some broader ‘movement’.” – Eric Anderson

With all due respect, Eric, you wouldn’t be *here* without the broader movement. Your 'we' is desperately (apologetically) parasitic on Thaxton, Meyer, Johnson, Dembski, et al. There wouldn’t even be a blog called ‘Uncommon Descent’ without the broader 'ID' movement. Do you really not understand this or need it to be further explained? Your lack of interest to discuss “the motives or intent of prominent design proponents” shows that you are not really interested to discuss what ‘Intelligent Design’ actually is as a theory. Iow, your opinions don't mean very much because they avoid almost everything important about Big-ID theory. Perhaps I was wrong to imagine that you might have produced an interesting public debate. Gregory

O.k. Kantian Naturalist, then I await your proposed quotations from Placher's works regarding univocal predication. From what I read, Placher didn't seem to be supportive of 'Intelligent Design' theory, and in fact debunked it along Feser's line. As with you, I'm quite interested in "the transition to modernity" and also to 'post-modernity,' whatever that signifier means. I quote Dupre in a recent paper I've been writing in regard to 'scientism'. But I don't consider the imagined 'collapse' of transcendence as something worthwhile for people to embrace. It sounds dehumanising in the vertical sense. Your capitalisation of 'Good Thing' is interesting. But here at UD, I'm supposed to be too obtuse to notice capitalisation of terms and what people mean by it. So I won't comment on that. Gregory

In re: Gregory @ 151:

Thanks to Kantian Naturalist for linking to the Placher book. I’m curious to hear how he negotiates Placher’s message of extra-natural transcendence with his (apparently) non-transcendent ‘naturalism.’ In any case, I would be glad to read some quotations he selects from Placher’s book about univocal predication and ‘Intelligent Design’ natural theology/‘science’.

I recommend Placher's work as a contribution to the history of ideas, and as a work about the transition to modernity -- a serious intellectual hobby of mine. (Apart from Placher, I've also read some things by Dupre, Toulmin, and Funkenstein.) But I don't endorse Placher's perspective -- he thinks of the domestication of transcendence as a bad thing, whereas I think of the "collapse" of transcendence as a Good Thing. Kantian Naturalist

Gregory @160: My interest is in the general concept of design detection, very simply stated. And, yes, it can be applied broadly across a multitude of artifacts. And, no, it doesn't matter who the designer is, nor is there any possible way to specifically identify the designer (though a design can give some clues as to a designer's capabilities and, perhaps, goals/intent). I have not misrepresented intelligent design. Further, even if you feel you have some unique insight and perspective into so-called "Big-ID" and even if I have not been willing to adopt your terminology, that does not mean I have misrepresented you. I have no interest in discussing various flavors of ID with their varying 'rules' of punctuation you have come up with. Your Big-ID, small-id discussion means nothing to me. I accept that you have strong feelings on the issue and that you feel there is some critical distinction and that we should all be interested in some broader "movement." I have no such inclination. Finally, the rest of the stuff you carry on about is less clear to me, though I am sure you are under the impression it is all very important and coherent. I am happy to talk about design detection generally. I am happy to talk about indicia of design, complex specified information, the origin of life, the irreducible complexity in biological systems, the semiotic state we see at work in DNA storage/retrieval/translation. I have no interest in discussing the ID "movement," various capitalization-dependent permutations of the words "intelligent design," or anyone's semi-paranoid or semi-delusional views on the motives or intent of prominent design proponents. Eric Anderson

[The Catholic Church rejects polygenism]. Gregory

Yes, the first sentence is quite well-known. And I’d already read the text you cited. Why is this controversial? What is being refuted?

Apparently, Gregory doesn’t catch on too quickly. The document Humani Generis refutes fraudulent Catholics who support polygenism and the evolution of mind from matter in the name of Catholicism. In that same sense, it refutes Gregory, who cites them with approval as authentic spokesmen for the Catholic position. If, as Gregory claims (stretching credulity to the breaking point), he had already read that magisterial document, then it would also mean that he knowingly characterized anti-magisterial Catholics as authentic Catholic spokesmen in order to mislead his readers into believing that ID is incompatible with the Church's teachings.

God willing, I work with and/or aim to work with people who are leaders in their scholarly fields; I’m not a ‘servant’ of either Fuller or Feser.

Since Feser and Fuller disapprove of ID in some measure, Gregory thinks that they must both be right for that reason alone, even if each man’s reasons are inconsistent with the other man’s reasons. He refuses to answer any fair question about those inconsistencies or articulate his own views on the matter since doing so would lead to a substantive discussion for which he is not prepared.

Feser is a Catholic, who has shown brilliantly how Thomism is incompatible with Big-ID theory

Feser has been refuted by other Thomist Catholics, who explain that Thomism is, indeed, compatible with ID. Naturally, Gregory lacks the intellectual curiosity to ask me who these Thomists are. Clearly, he doesn’t want to know. I would be happy to repeat my own refutation of Feser for Gregory if I thought he was capable of absorbing it. However, I have enough experience with Gregory to know how he would respond. In effect, he will ignore the refutation and say that I am not qualified to have an opinion. At the same time, he will insist that Feser, as a professional philosopher, is really---really---smart, and that I should defer on those grounds alone. This is the way Gregory tries to argue. StephenB

Apology accepted, Eric. I wrote: "There is a TON of ‘design theory’ out there even today that is simply outside the scope of ‘intelligent design’ as the IDM names it." Eric made a big beef about this. And probably he would not be willing to publically defend himself about the evidence other than protesting about it at ID-friendly UD. "Intelligent design is a broad concept that encompasses all design by intelligent agents." - Eric Anderson But Big-ID theory categorically *does not* study 'design' by human beings (i.e. 'intelligent agents'). There is no ID theory of human-made artefacts. What Eric said is thus a mispresentation of Big-ID theory. Check it out for yourselves: Myths about ID I enjoyed our conversations there, Eric, and appreciated your thoughts. It doesn't seem to me that you would wish to defend the 'revolutionary' claims of the IDM in a public debate. Gregory

Re: My comment @157: I apologize for my confrontational comment. What I should say is this: Please give me specific examples of times I have misrepresented you so that I can correct it. ---- And note that calling your bluff, or pointing out where you are wrong, or challenging your logic, or even making fun of a position do not constitute misrepresentation. Eric Anderson

O.k. then, Eric Anderson. I challenge you to the same public debate that I challenged Timaeus to. He was too afraid for his livelihood (Expelled Syndrome) to debate publically in his real name with a well-informed anti-IDist. How about you? You have told too many untruths here at ID using your ideological IDism. In our recent conversation, you dodged the entire field of 'design theory' outside of the IDM. Will you now stand up for the 'natural science-only' claims of Big-ID theory?

“This house believes that Intelligent Design is a revolutionary natural scientific theory for origins of life, origins of biological information and human origins, which will potentially replace (neo-)Darwinian evolutionary theory.”

Will you defend this claim of the IDM? If not, what question would you be willing to pose instead? Gregory

I’ve been misrepresented mainly by IDists. By folks like . . . Eric Anderson . . . who have put words into my mouth repeatedly, yes.

And that, sir, is a lie. Eric Anderson

Gregory can admit that he is down, or, like the knight in the Monty Python movie, he can keep fighting — with the same comical effect.

"Come back here! It's just a scratch!" LOL! Eric Anderson

'Horsecrap,' actually? Yes, this is a good definition of Timaeusean-IDism. Pure and simply ideologically smelly and deceptive! Run away from us foul-smelling Timaeus.

“Fuller, unlike the ID folks, understands the clash between univocity and analogy” – Timaeus

Yes, I recognise that.

“One of the difficulties in assessing *anything* that Gregory says about theology is that his *own* theology is extremely nebulous.” – Timaeus

Hold on, folks. I thought it was protested loudly and regularly that Big-ID theory has *nothing* to do with theology. Absolutely nothing!? Timaeus could be asking me about the Los Angeles Lakers here, for all that matters. But I thought we were supposed to be talking about ‘real ID.’ Strike, as usual, for Timaeus.

“When have I ever discussed the contents of his [Gregory’s] academic work in these debates?” - Timaeus

Never, that I am aware of. Timaeus doesn’t care to discuss post-IDist scenarios. He is blind and deaf to progressive ideas, pretending instead to support regressive pre-modern mentalities.

“when I speak of “evolution” or “evolutionary theory” or “modern evolutionary theory” *without qualification*, I *always* mean a natural science theory.” – Timaeus

So, you’re out of touch with contemporary ideas. What’s new?

“I have applauded him, here and elsewhere, for resisting the intrusion of “evolution” as a concept into human/social matters.” - Timaeus

One hand clapping for 3 seconds doesn’t constitute ‘applause.’ ;) Before it was a ‘biological’ idea, ‘evolution’ was a philosophical idea. And H. Spencer’s ‘evolution’ pre-dates Darwin’s ‘evolution.’ What does ‘Intelligent Design’ extend from? It’s a simple question. But easy for Timaeus to avoid, which is what he habitually likes to do on purpose. He seemingly can’t answer the question *only* because he *won’t.* He knows that answering it would destroy IDism as a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. So we are expected to torture ourselves waiting patiently for a reply from him as if ‘Timaeusean-ID’ is even significant and relevant when it actually isn’t. He couldn’t pass an undergraduate test on the topic, let alone pretending to be a teacher.

“What does it mean?” – Timaeus

Check you preferred dictionary and then attempt an answer.

“His attempt to portray himself as victimized” – Timaeus

No, I don’t feel victimised and claim no victimisation. Matzske is no perpetrator against me; neither are E. Scott, S. Harris, D. Dennett, R. Dawkins, et al. Do you hear me clearly when I say this? I’ve been misrepresented mainly by IDists. By folks like Timaeus and StephenB, Mung, Joe, KF, Eric Anderson, PeterJ and BA77 who have put words into my mouth repeatedly, yes. But no, I’m not victimised. It is Timaeus’ ‘Expelled Syndrome’ that is ‘victimisation-central’ when it comes to ‘Intelligent Design’ theory. Many UDists quite obviously suffer from this disease. Both Max Andrews and I understand this very well. Timaeus seems quaintly aloof. Other IDists seem ignorant. And I don’t really care if I am supposed to be ‘victimised’ by Timaeus, who has the ‘bite’ of a tame chili pepper.

“Berdyaev, who was a liberal, if not an outright heretic, within Russian Orthodox theology.” - Timaeus

Oops, he just read Wikipedia and formed a new view. Timaeus is actually a nobody; a flake, a failed ‘scholar.’ He simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. And as he told me, he is too lazy to go to church on Sunday mornings. Let IDists embrace his neutrality and lethargic (except pro-ID forums) work ethic! The remainder of Timaeus’ assumptions about who I am is laughable. Again, get a life Timeaus! Your cave seems so small and stingy.

“the liberals of the Faraday Institute” – Timaeus

Actually, there are quite a large number of ‘conservatives’ who are involved in and support the Faraday Institute. Timaeus doesn’t read their stuff, of course, so it’s not surprising that he wouldn’t know this.

“All we can be sure of is that whatever Christian theology Gregory holds to, it’s anti-ID.” - Timaeus

Yes, I reject Big-IDism. That ideology is both bad theology and bad science. Timaeus’ views of Fuller are so much softer and irrelevant than a ‘bolt.’ He is rather a ‘dolt’ in that conversation. My new position has nothing to do with Big-ID theory, with ‘Intelligent Design.’ Thankfully!! It is a legitimate and productive scholarly position. And I don’t answer to tenure-fail rejects like Timaeus who have nothing collaborative or positive to contribute to contemporary scholarship except by posting hatred and mockery on blogs. As I said above, my interest is in productive and active scholars, scientists and thinkers. We are blessed to have many such people active in research and teaching today. Unfortunately, IDists are under-represented in that category. If you want to swallow, folks, a rather freakish and fearful view of ‘the West’ (from a guy who won’t even tell where he lives, Canadian or American!) then pay close attention to what Timaeus writes and taste it for what it is. Indeed consume it if you like, without any worry that it is poisonous at all. Drink, IDists, drink! Gregory

Well, Gregory is back, and as insulting, belligerent and unreasonable as ever, even though I very carefully tried to keep my posts focused on the issues rather than on personalities. I often wonder why Gregory misunderstands simple things. Sometimes I think that his intelligence works on the basis of a mechanical literalism that is word-focused and context-blind; other times I think he deliberately misconstrues my intention. Here is an example where it is initially hard to tell: ************** “Everything Gregory has written, here and on BioLogos and elsewhere, indicates that he is happy to go along with modern evolutionary theory…” – Timaeus "As if Timaeus has read “everything” I’ve written – we just have to humour his constant exaggerations and sense of omniscience! The fact is that I’ve written and published in peer-reviewed journals and books *against* evolutionism and ‘evolutionary theory’ outside of natural-physical sciences (since I am not a natural-physical scientist). Why then would he even pretend that I’m “happy to go along with modern evolutionary theory”?" - Gregory ******************* Now, does Gregory *really* think that by "everything" he has written, that I was including his academic work, or even his blogging on social science matters? Isn't it quite clear from the context of these discussions that I meant "everything he has written on internet debating sites devoted to intelligent design, theistic evolution, Darwinism, etc."? If he knows perfectly well what I meant, then his indignation over my use of "everything" is mock, phoney, staged. And if he doesn't, why is he so poor at contextualizing remarks? When have I ever discussed the contents of his academic work in these debates? When have I ever quoted anything he said other than what he has said in the venues I've mentioned? But let's give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment, and pretend that he really didn't understand what I meant by "everything." Let's move further on into his paragraph. One thing he *does* understand about my meaning, very well -is that when I speak of "evolution" or "evolutionary theory" or "modern evolutionary theory" *without qualification*, I *always* mean a natural science theory. Gregory knows this. So he is faking, pretending, feigning indignation when he denies fiercely my supposed charge that he affirms "evolutionism and ‘evolutionary theory’ outside of natural-physical sciences"; he knows that I have *never* done so, in any conversation with him. In fact, he knows very well that I have applauded him, here and elsewhere, for resisting the intrusion of "evolution" as a concept into human/social matters. So *knows* that my meaning was limited to: "Gregory accepts the modern biological theory of evolution." Since he knows this, his indignant protest that I am making a false accusation is pure theater. I know it; and he knows that I know it. So who is he trying to fool? Now when we back-apply what I've just demonstrated to the earlier point, it becomes even clearer how the word "everything" was to be contextualized. Gregory must have known that what I meant was: "From the sum of his posts on the ASA list, BioLogos, here, and on other such sites, we can tell that Gregory endorses the factual truth of biological evolution and accepts at least the main outlines of modern evolutionary theory." His attempt to portray himself as victimized by my misrepresentation falls flat on its rear end. About Fuller, Gregory writes: "As for Fuller, he seems not to have made his ‘theology of ID’ altogether clear yet in his writings, though he openly references the Abrahamic faiths." Horsecrap. Fuller's Christian theology is far from clear overall, but *his point about univocity and Franciscan influence and his recommendation that the West should keep going along these lines, and not turn back to Thomism and kindred positions* -- these things are extremely clear. He has stated his position on these matters on this very site, and he has stated it in interviews available on the internet, and in some of his published writings. Gregory knows that I can provide the quotes, so I'm not going to bother with the formality of doing so. As for Feser, he makes very clear that while Fuller "gets it" (meaning, Fuller, unlike the ID folks, understands the clash between univocity and analogy), he thinks Fuller has taken the wrong side. The battle-line is drawn. There may be points on which Fuller and Feser agree, or could be harmonized; but this isn't one of them. One of them has to be right, and one of them has to be wrong. So Gregory either (1) lacks the metaphysical/theological understanding to "get" what Feser and Fuller both "get" -- which would not be surprising, since Gregory doesn't have a shred of training in systematic theology, history of Christian thought, Biblical exegesis, or the relevant ancient languages -- or (2) knows full well that he has to side with either Feser and Fuller, but won't do it publically, for some unknown political reason. One of the difficulties in assessing *anything* that Gregory says about theology is that his *own* theology is extremely nebulous. He sometimes affects to sound like an arch-conservative, defending Feser's Thomism lately, and previously screaming at BioLogos columnists like Alexander and Venema for allegedly denying the historical existence of Adam and Eve. But then he endorses the theology of Berdyaev, who was a liberal, if not an outright heretic, within Russian Orthodox theology, and he constantly makes snide remarks against American conservative and fundamentalist Protestantism -- even though that Protestantism has also argued strenuously against the BioLogos reading of Adam and Eve! He tries to appeal to the authority of the Catholic church in arguments, but is not himself Catholic and shows no interest in becoming one. He tells us that he likes aspects of the Orthodox church, but does not tell us whether or not he subscribes to its theology (in which case we should be hearing more from him about Maximus the Confessor than about Berdyaev and other modern Russian writers who orthodoxy was highly suspect). He has sneered a few times at Calvin and/or Calvinism, and he doesn't like any emphasis on God's sovereignty. He rarely cites theological writings (except in polemical contexts related to religion/science questions), giving the impression that he doesn't spend a lot of time reading Luther, Pascal, St. John of the Cross, Gregory Nazianzus, Augustine, Kierkegaard, etc. And generally speaking, he shows very little interest in detailed Biblical interpretation, even when arguing about things like Adam and Eve -- which makes him unlike any traditional evangelical Protestant (the close study of the Bible was the food, water and air of evangelical Protestantism). So when he "endorses" Feser or Fuller, or the liberals of the Faraday Institute, or anyone else, it is hard to tell what that amounts to. All we can be sure of is that whatever Christian theology Gregory holds to, it's anti-ID. I've shot my bolt about Fuller. It's sticking in Gregory's heart right now. Gregory can admit that he is down, or, like the knight in the Monty Python movie, he can keep fighting -- with the same comical effect. Gregory, it's clear that we aren't going to get any further on any of these issues, so why don't you save yourself and all of us time, and get on with your official farewell letter that you've been promising? Let us know what this new job or prize or whatever is that is going to make you such a big shot in the world of scholarship regarding ID, get your routine bragging off your chest, and give us your final denunciations -- how academically inferior we all are to you, how many light-years we are behind you, how ideological we all are, etc. And make sure you stick in "Big-ID" "Discovery-ID" "the cancelled Discovery summer program in social sciences and humanities" "I out-argued every single staff member of the Discovery Institute" "natural-science-only" "outdated history-of-ideas approach" "Bejan" and of course "human extension" as many times as you can, to remind us of the pleasures we'll be missing after you're gone. Timaeus

(cont'd) My view goes beyond the IDM’s narrow pseudo-naturalism (cosmology, chemistry, biology, natural informatics) to open up a new pathway to discussion that collaboratively (and potentially fruitfully) involves (natural and social) science, philosophy and theology/worldview. Without such a triadic discourse, Big-ID theory is just empty implicationism, thumping its radical chest. And by willfully inviting YECs into the ‘little-big tent’ of ID, the ‘science’ aspect of the theory’s claim is irrecoverably tainted and compromised. People who reject ID theory on theological grounds: Dr. William E. Carroll at the University of Oxford. – William E. Carroll Robert Forsyth, Bishop of South Sydney – Robert Forsyth “It is my firm conviction that theologians should reject ID as exactly that: an illusion, built to blind the faithful.” Taede Smedes These views should not be rejected by UDists blindly, as if those persons had not done their homework or as if they, as is repeated here far too often, ‘simply don’t understand ID.’ If ‘Timaeus’ actually thought he could defend ‘ID theory’ in front of his peers, then he would have the courage and stop hiding from his colleagues, from the world, and stand up tall to face them/us. I offered him an opportunity here to do that, but as expected he snivelled away, blaming me that he feels he has to play a victim. Some people are like that and will not stand up for what they believe in publically. That’s what ‘Expelled Syndrome’ has come to mean in the IDM. Thankfully, Max Andrews doesn’t suffer from such a condition and neither do I. There are, nevertheless, more fruitful ways of fulfilling the desires of IDist leaders themselves, *if* they are willing to choose alternative paths, for example, to openly admit that ‘ID’ *is* properly speaking a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation. This has been repeated here ad nausea. But the DI seems to be just too busy trying to be new Kuhnian-atheism-inspired ‘scientific’ revolutionaries to pay any attention to such potentially productive suggestions. The fact is that many people (e.g. like R. Collins, F. Beckwith and M. Ryland, who left the DI for various reason), after almost 20 years of hearing IDists’ ‘revolutionary’ hot-air, have stopped writing and talking about ‘Intelligent Design’ theory simply because they have decided it really isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things. The pomp and vanity of Big-ID natural scientism wasn’t worth listening to after all. That is how I will treat Big-ID theory, while working forward on fruitful paths from now on too. And it likewise means that I can be a productive mainstream scholar instead of a marginal ‘revolutionary’ daydreamer and American educational-political activist, and can accept orthodox Abrahamic belief that we are ‘Created,’ regardless of whether or not the word ‘Design’ can be ‘scientifically’ proven/inferred. Thus, evolution, creationism, ID and BioLogos can potentially be brought into new dialogical space. Gregory p.s. Jon Garvey is of course not obliged to answer to my questions about why he seemingly *wants* to be called an ‘evolutionist,’ even though he could easily renounce ‘evolutionism.’ As you can see, folks, there is peer pressure to conform here at UD (and Jon is a pleasant guy) and to be tactically polite at the risk of offending ideological IDists who try their hardest to conflict with their fellow religious opponents, the TEs and ECs in the contemporary American landscape. It’s perhaps unfortunate that Jon won’t explain why he persists in calling himself an ‘evolutionist,’ even as he is a theist, like most people here, because doing so might help UDists to realise that accepting ‘limited evolutionary biology’ isn’t such a bad thing as they make it out to be, even if they have to call it partially or wholly ‘Darwinian.’ Gregory

(cont'd) As for things that UD and Timaeus purposefully stay mainly silent about, a lot of good scholarship and honest work has been done. The Divine Action Project or Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action that combines the efforts of the Vatican Observatory and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences is one example. Yet again, these people are forthright and non-elusive in saying that they are doing ‘science and religion’ or ‘science, philosophy and theology’ discourse; they don’t demand public recognition as a ‘natural-science-only’ theory as Big-ID theory still does. The top science and religion organisations in the English speaking world *all* reject Big-ID theory, often based on the small-id (theology and no politics) vs. Big-ID (quasi-natural science and political movement) distinction that I and several others here at UD acknowledge. These include the Templeton Foundation, the Faraday Institute, the Centre for Theology and Natural Sciences, the BioLogos Foundation and the International Society for Science and Religion. They/we all reject Big-ID theory, while likewise accepting classical theological/apologetic ‘design arguments’ or ‘small-id’ (with the exception of a few Fellows of ISSR, who are religious non-theists). I’m quite confident that this is the same line that Dr. Jon Garvey would take in so far as he has accepts theological ‘design arguments,’ and doesn’t require the scientificity of ‘Intelligent Design,’ but rather only the ‘intuitive’ recognition of ‘Design’ seen through the eyes/ears of faith. ‘Intelligent Design’ theory has been rejected either as bad science or bad theology or both by most major science and religion organisations. Those are the facts one discovers if they ‘follow the evidence where it leads.’ The Discovery Institute is not a ‘science and religion’ institute, though it sponsors some ‘science and religion’ events; this is because it still insists that Big-ID theory is ‘natural-science-only.’ UD has completely failed to come to terms with this reality. ISSR statement “To find out what the Catholic Church teaches, one must go to the Church’s official documents, such as encyclicals or the Universal Catechism.” – StephenB Are we talking about what the Catholic Church ‘officially’ teaches? If so, I’m not aware that the RCC has officially ever uttered the concept duo ‘Intelligent Design.’ To the Catholic Church, as far as I know, YOUR THEORY DOESN’T EXIST. Do you have evidence otherwise? Can you provide evidence of an official position of the Catholic Church towards ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ theory? Your bluff has been called, StephenB. For most of the Catholic scholars, scientists and teachers who actually have heard of ‘Intelligent Design’ theory, they have apparently weighed the evidence and ideology and found the so-called ‘theory’ to be lacking both scientifically and theologically. And when Debmski says things like the following, it is no wonder the IDM is dwindling as a movement and why people have stopped taking it seriously given its ‘scientific’ production failures:

“Call those who are blind to God’s action in the world ‘naturalists,’ and call the view that nature is self-contained ‘naturalism’.” – Dembski

Anyone who is not a ‘supernaturalist’ (or ‘socialist’!) is therefore a ‘naturalist’? Such black and white polarising thinking is unhelpful in collaborative science and religion discourse. This is the case especially when it hides behind the naturalism of natural scientific methodologies in demanding and requiring that Big-ID is a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. (cont'd) Gregory

Thanks to Kantian Naturalist for linking to the Placher book. I’m curious to hear how he negotiates Placher’s message of extra-natural transcendence with his (apparently) non-transcendent ‘naturalism.’ In any case, I would be glad to read some quotations he selects from Placher’s book about univocal predication and ‘Intelligent Design’ natural theology/‘science’. From an on-line review of the book:

“This ‘shift to univocity’ – “the growing confidence that our language about God makes roughly the same sort of sense as our language about creatures” (79) – was the first stage of ‘the domestication of transcendence’.”

Is 'ID theory' an example of 'the domestication of transcendence'? The IDM’s obvious conjectures about an unidentifiable (by fiat) ‘intelligent agent/Intelligent Agent’ who supposedly did the ‘designing/Designing’ would seem to verify Placher’s contention. “The God of ID is a god that is measured to human proportions.” Oh, but wait, because according to the ‘official’ or ‘technical’ theory of Big-ID, there *is* no "God of ID!" And some people don’t seem to think that’s a problem, but rather actually a benefit of agnostic IDism.

“The Catholic Church condemns polygenism in principle. I provided the relevant texts that prove the point. Gregory should simply accept the refutation, concede the fact, and move on.” – StephenB

Yes, the first sentence is quite well-known. And I’d already read the text you cited. Why is this controversial? What is being refuted? You seem to be intent on arguing with someone, StephenB, and have thus projected your habitual argument onto me for convenience sake. ‘The fact’ doesn’t need to be conceded when it is accepted and understood. I've been ready to move on for months at UD, but hardcore IDists got stuck in the mud. Regarding Timaeus’ latest antics, not much needs to be said. If I’d had a vote, I wouldn’t have given such a contrarian person tenure in their 1st life either! Sadly, now he has lost his scholarly credibility to all but a few fellow ideologues and activists on-line, which makes it difficult for him to make a living. It’s not so much a question of pity, but rather, why did he let this happen to himself, when humility, diplomacy and patience would have served him well? Out of the blue, Timaeus put the word ‘polygenist’ into my mouth and then went on a tangent to suggest that perhaps I really do accept ‘polygenism,’ depending on how he, himself and him, the great ‘historian of ideas’ defines it. What a card! Such a human being seems to be beyond hope of honest, non-flip-flopping communication in respect of dialogue partners. One should respond to Timaeus with childrens’ rhymes: “Gimme, gimme never gets, all s/he gets is cigarettes.” Such a sense of entitlement as he has displayed here is hard to imagine on the Internet!

“Everything Gregory has written, here and on BioLogos and elsewhere, indicates that he is happy to go along with modern evolutionary theory...” - Timaeus

As if Timaeus has read “everything” I’ve written – we just have to humour his constant exaggerations and sense of omniscience! The fact is that I’ve written and published in peer-reviewed journals and books *against* evolutionism and ‘evolutionary theory’ outside of natural-physical sciences (since I am not a natural-physical scientist). Why then would he even pretend that I’m “happy to go along with modern evolutionary theory”? What ‘Timaeus’ has written at BioLogos is a testament to how confused he is as a so-called “intelligent design theistic evolutionist,” as he tries to bridge ID and TE, while at the same time ridiculing and condescending towards the theology of TEs. (Cf. Jon G.’s reasons for being ‘polite’ here at UD below) “Gregory cannot serve two masters.” – Timaeus God willing, I work with and/or aim to work with people who are leaders in their scholarly fields; I’m not a ‘servant’ of either Fuller or Feser. As for Fuller, he seems not to have made his ‘theology of ID’ altogether clear yet in his writings, though he openly references the Abrahamic faiths. I can say that the same is true when I’ve asked him personally about it; which differs drastically from Timaeus who puffed his chest up to proclaim his aged superiority over Fuller. Please don’t try to hold Fuller or myself captive to your ‘creationist’ pasts, folks at UD, simply because we both look at humanity and designing forwardly, not just in reverse as the IDM. The past tense ‘designed’ language deals with cosmology, biology and other non-anthropic fields, but it is desperately lacking (and sometimes gladly admits this, but sometimes doesn’t) when it comes to the study human beings and the already widespread uses of ‘teleological’ thinking. IDists want to play victims as if ‘teleological’ thinking is banished from today’s Academy/Universities, when that is simply not true, along with the fact that ‘design theory’ of the non-IDM variety is also ‘mainstream’ and productive. Feser is a Catholic, who has shown brilliantly how Thomism is incompatible with Big-ID theory: 1) IDism is actually about univocal predication instead of analogical predication with God, though ID leaders don’t openly admit this, and 2) IDism eschews immanent formal and final causes ‘for the sake of argument.’ 3) Feser also notes how ID is a ‘moving target,’ a feature which is displayed on a daily basis at UD, e.g. flip-flopping between ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ in the very definition of ‘ID’ shown at UD. I don’t participate at UD to ‘negotiate’ or ‘mediate’ between Fuller and Feser. They both exceed the limits of IDism in their own ways and I’d rather listen to either of them than to Dembski, Meyer, Wells, Nelson or Behe (all of which I’ve heard live other than Behe). They are both much stronger thinkers than DI-IDists, without a shadow of a doubt. The recent Fuller-Meyer exchange at Cambridge is just one example that demonstrates this clearly, and which IDists could see if they ‘followed the evidence where it leads’ in the light of recorded history. (cont’d) Gregory

As Ray commented in 1690, Francis Bacon's emphasis upon the importance of the empirical method allowed his generation of natural theologians to anchor their ideas firmly in the natural world. Robert Boyle's work in chemistry and Ray's in biology contributed significantly to the emergence of a new style of natural theology, distinguished by an appeal to the empirical world rather than the truths of reason. (p.23) - McGrath, Alister E. A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology.

Sorry Gregory. Mung

Jon @148: That is a wonderful story! :) I hear your skepticism. Yet, I think perhaps you are still being too conciliatory.

That to me seems plausible except for one thing – “undirected, unplanned.”

That is indeed the key. But even if we assume a naturalistic story, the story also breaks down if we start asking some simple questions about the specifics. Let's see. We have this population of organisms accumulating a bunch of junk for a long time and then something happens to trigger a change . . . In the entire population? In one or two individuals? How does the change get passed on throughout the population? It can only do so if it is not a large step change, for example one that would prevent interbreeding. When we are talking about development of a faster run, or more efficient digestion, or a larger brain, it is easy for the fertile mind to imagine that there is some continuum of slight successive changes that might lead to the result and that the population can follow. In most cases this series of slight successive changes only exists in the fertile imaginations of evolutionists, but we don't even have to go there because there are other examples where a series of slight, successive changes can't realistically get us across the chasm -- like going from asexual to sexual reproduction, or going from land-dwelling to ocean-dwelling, and so on. You don't get anything at all like an entire population slowly, gently, almost imperceptibly, crossing that chasm. The best you can hope for is an individual, or with sexual reproduction involved, at least two individuals, who happen to have evolved the necessary characteristics and also happen to mate, at which point an entirely new "population" emerges. Each such new population would therefore have its own "Adam and Eve" so to speak. :) Eric Anderson

Eric Though I've not yet got a clear handle on where you see the particular problem, as you say the devil is in the detail. My 500K hominid population above is wildly exaggerated - apart from specific bottlenecks most large mammal populations are quite small: yesterday our news said the deer population of UK is 1.25m, the largest number since the ice age. That's across 4 main species of a generalist herbivore: if we had predators it would be a fraction of that. A Scientific American paper estimates an absolute max "humanoid" population (ie sapiens, erectus, ergaster) of 55K 1m years ago... even at the stage they were already expanding out of Africa. That suggests any earlier "healthy" population in the low hundreds of thousands at most, and ditto for any Australopithecine ancestors. A very small population for all that evolutiomnary change, given a Darwinian gradualist population-wide model. And if a small subgroup was the focus of allopatric speciation, even more wondrous. The nearest to a "modern" explanation I've gleaned is this. Australopithecus wanders around going ape for a million or two years. As a small population with slow reproduction, natural selection has the capacity only for purifying - ie all the monsters die. Meanwhile, lots of near-neutral mutations (undirected and unplanned, of course) slip under the selective radar as repetitive elements, pseudogenes etc, but are not expressed in an interbreeding population. Result, maybe some gradual morphological change, but still a smallish population of the same kind of Australopithecus, only with greater genetic diversity - ie lots of junk in the attic. Then there's a crisis: change of environment, isolated population, or the very bottleneck we've discussed. The selective requirements change radically - if we're being 21st century types, Shapiro's hybridisation pressure might come into it too. The unusual recombination, in a new situation, of all that junk by sexual mixing suddenly turns up new genes doing useful stuff... like speech, abstract thought, the 10 commandments, cricket, democracy and ruling the world. "The job's a good'n'" as they say here. We've arrived. That to me seems plausible except for one thing - "undirected, unplanned." It beggars belief that with the only "intelligent" element in evolution kept busy just keeping apes the same, that the collection of random, unelected, junk for a million years will reliably accumulate enough stuff to turn up rational people as required - or birds, or tyrannosaurs, or butterflies, or symbionts of a particular species of worm... It does seem the equivalent of a compulsive beachcomber finding enough stuff to build a helicopter in his attic if the going gets tough. Jon Garvey

Gregory:

Big-ID theory is based on univocal predication between God and human beings (Design/design).

Ever read Alfred Russel Wallace? Mung

...it is what I do with my education that is important, not simply the diploma paper or title itself.

Obviously not a Harvard grad. Mung

Timaeus, fair enough. I asked because Placher has a lot to say about the role of univocal predication in the rise of modern science. I'll post some juicy quotes later on. Kantian Naturalist

Jon: Well, I think there are multiple ways to view Adam and Eve without doing violence to any of the well-established principles of population genetics. But I don't have a particular dog in the Adam and Eve fight, so I'll set that aside for now. My issue is more foundational. Population genetics are relevant once we have a population. The discussions always start with "Assume a population X . . ." But the origin of that population is often the very issue in question, certainly with respect to human origins. And every attempt to "explain" the current origins tends to assume, in very broad strokes and without enough detail to be really analyzable, that we start with a population that is roughly similar to what we have now. Indeed, in your example (I'm not picking on you, I think you've outlined the general thinking pretty well) we start with a population of actively interbreeding individuals that are pretty close to humans. Again, there is never much detail given, but the picture painted (either explicitly or implicitly) is that we have a population of individuals who can actively breed; they aren't human just yet, but with just a few tweaks here and there, they will become human. This is the picture that is painted. And it is relatively easy at that point to suggest that population genetics might be able to take over and ultimately lead to where we are today. Yet this ancestral population is completely hypothetical. Furthermore, as I've said, a big part of the open question is where this ancestral population came from. I used LUCA just as the most obvious example, because all individuals have to eventually converge on LUCA. But even at key break points, there has to be something like a LUCA. In order for population genetics to even get kick-started, we have to have a population. And the population has to be composed of individuals who can interbreed. And if I'm going from one type of organism to another, say land-dwelling to water-dwelling, it is perfectly reasonable to question how the water-dwelling population came about. Simply asserting that there was always a decent-sized population to work from at every minute step along the way, along all trajectories, and throughout all time is nothing more than a restatement of the theory. We have to rely on something other than population genetics to bridge the large gaps: whether we are talking about major body plan changes, a move from asexual to sexual reproduction, a radically different environment, and so on. (Especially when the fossil record is characterized by so many gaps and jumps, instead of what Darwin envisioned with organisms merging almost imperceptibly from one to the next, like colors on a color chart.) The primary reason these transitions from one major stage to another seem believable is because they are described in such vague and general terms. In terms of the origin of these key stages in the history of life on Earth, the perception of evolution's truth is inversely proportional to the specificity of the discussion. Eric Anderson

Eric I have many problems with current ET, but for some reason that isn't one of them. It seems obvious to me even at an uncontroversial micro-evolution level. Maybe one could compare language: every neologism is coined by an individual, but spreads through his/her circle before it can be said to become part of the language. No one individual contributes much to the total, and the language remains alive and English, but the trend is to change. By the time you're back to Chaucer, it's seems foreign. Population genetics also has the equivalent of dialects - not everything is a new mutation, but a selection of existing traits. So if weird Australians whose voices go up at the end of sentences get on to popular TV, it'll change the language though it's been around for decades. Regarding my point to nullasalus, there's a quote in the Telegraph today by Steve Jones (about genetic testing) which is relevant to the question of Adam and Eve, and possibly to your point too:

Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Human Genetics at UCL said: “On a long trudge through history – two parents, four great-grandparents [sic], and so on – very soon everyone runs out of ancestors and has to share them. As a result, almost every Briton is a descendant of Viking hordes, Roman legions, African migrants, Indian Brahmins, or anyone else they fancy.”

By the way, you're not suggesting we put Adam and Eve back to LUCA, are you ?? :-) Jon Garvey

Thanks, Jon @139: You've done a great job providing an overview of the population genetics story. I don't necessarily have an issue with the story as you've described it.* My question was a bit more simple and basic. And it relates to the assumption that your population genetics story started with: "Imagine a population of 500,000 . . ." That is precisely my point. Where did the population of 500,000 come from? Eventually, according to evolutionary theory, we get back to a LUCA (there is some discussion of there being more than one, but most agree that there is a LUCA). Furthermore, at any one point of major biological innovation (say, the land-dwelling mammal to a whale transition), it is immensely unclear that we would have a whole population being brought along the path. I realize that is what the story claims, but as soon as we start thinking through the particulars, it becomes much less satisfying. In any event, the alleged 10,000 starting population for humans is not really the "starting point," just a particular way station along the path. I think you did a good job of describing a scenario in which that might be so. But it underscores the 'artificialness' of selecting that starting point, as opposed to an earlier population. ----- One caveat: We often hear that "populations evolve, not individuals." And yet, every evolutionary change -- of any nature -- happens at the individual level. Furthermore, every living thing on the planet descended from a single individual (or pair, in the case of sexual reproduction). [Note, I am not saying that every gene in an individual's body came from the same intermediate line; they could have come from different intermediate lines.] But as far as actual progenitors, you have an ultimate father and an ultimate mother. And (setting HGT aside), therefore, everything you have inherited ultimately flowed through that single line at some point. I think this sometimes gets lost if we think of evolution as a general thing that happens to some undefined, vague population. Ultimately, every change had to flow through individuals -- from the LUCA right to you, every change showed up somewhere in your direct lineal inheritance line(s). Eric Anderson

Nullasalus Something along those lines seems to be Ed Feser's position, from my reading of his understanding of human nature, rational soul etc, though not necessarily at a palaeolithic distant point, as he sees it. As Timaeus knows all too well, I've been interested over the years in Rohde's work at MIT regarding Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) studies. That's basically a sophisticated version of the rough calculation that a thousand years or so ago each of us has more ancestors than the population of the world at that time (ie 2^number of generations). Rohde concludes (taking into account migration patterns etc) that there's a remarkably consistent figure of c3000 years ago, give or take a millennium or so depending on the modelling used, for the MRCA of the whole current human race. Furthermore, just a few thousand years before that, EVERYONE who has left any descendants now was an ancestor of all of us. We are truly of one blood, and that not necessarily in distant genetic prehistory. Now that's mathematical, and one could conceive, apart from the providence of God, of a lost tribe that missed out on all that. But it means that if common ancestry were the only criterion for Adam and Eve, it's completely conceivable that they could have existed any time from the historical setting of Genesis backwards. The genetic bottleneck, mitochondrial Eve and Y-Adam would all be distracting irrelevancies. Jon Garvey

Nevertheless, Timaeus’s point is correct: if a real Adam and Eve had appeared in the bottleneck population, and interbred, we’d be descended both from them and from all the rest of the 10K who have left any descendants at all.

I'm not sure Timaeus is disputing this, but if this is the case, this is a scenario entirely compatible with monogenism as the Church views it. nullasalus

Eric Good question, and an important one because it's where many people fail to understand the evolutionary/genetic position, and so make fools of themselves with evolutionists. First, individuals don't evolve - populations do. Imagine the whole population of (say) 500K prehuman apes in Africa. 20K of them get isolated in a forest by some geographical accident. They happen to be the "western" population with a tendency to red hair and voting Democrat. 10K die from a plague. The other 10K survive because they have natural immunity or are lucky - there's your population bottleneck. Meanwhile some bright new Intelligence and toolmaking genes appear in individuals and are so beneficial they spread throughout the 10K population (now in a position to increase). They are now a population of men, not apes. It happens that one woman's mitochondrial DNA (or one particular male Y chromosome, in some other generation) has a survival advantage over the other 9999, and over the millennia the other versions gradually disappear. Thus it is that the present race could be decended from a population of 10000 (with genetic markers to back that up), yet all share one ancestral Y chromosome and one ancestral mitochondrial DNA. The above really has no direct bearing on Adam and Eve - "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Adam are misleading" (attention-seeking?) slogans. Nevertheless, Timaeus's point is correct: if a real Adam and Eve had appeared in the bottleneck population, and interbred, we'd be descended both from them and from all the rest of the 10K who have left any descendants at all. Disclaimer: I've avoided speaking to the theological issues raised by this at all. I'm simply trying to illustrate the genetics. Have I succeeded? Jon Garvey

Eric A.: I understand your puzzlement, but I'm afraid I'm the wrong guy to ask. I've tried asking similar questions to population geneticists, and have never got clarity from them. For what it is worth, I think their answer to your first question would be "No; *traits* can sometimes be traced back to single individual -- though not to a *couple*; but *populations* get their sum total of traits from earlier populations, not from individuals." And to your second question I think they would answer: "No, it's because populations derive from earlier *populations* -- humanoid or sub-humanoid is irrelevant -- not from *individuals*." But don't ask me to justify these answers. And don't ask me to justify the figure 10,000, because I don't know how it was arrived at. I think it is arrived at by back-calculation, based on the genes possessed by modern human beings, and how they, according to theory, would have spread through the human population as it expanded. But I'm unfamiliar with the mathematical techniques used. By using these same techniques, I'm told, the population geneticists (or some of them) have calculated that, if there ever had been a first couple from whom all subsequent human beings were descended, just one male and one female, that first couple couldn't have lived later than about 6 to 9 million years ago. So if there ever had been a literal Adam and Eve, who were ancestors of literally every human being who has ever lived, they would have lived that long ago. The problem *then* is, at that time, there were no human beings, because that was before the hypothetical split between the human line and the chimpanzee line -- or something to that effect. So if "Adam and Eve" ever existed, they weren't human beings at all, but something less intelligent than the great apes of today! Thus, they infer, the Biblical story, if taken literally, is false in two ways: (1) The earliest human beings weren't a couple, but a population, and that population existed half a million or a million years ago, not 6,000 years ago; (2) the earliest primordial couple that could have been ancestral to all human beings were not even human, and they existed 5 to 9 million years ago, not 6,000 years ago. So according to this, the "young earth" position has been destroyed by population genetics. (So much for science class being constitutionally required to maintain neutrality on theological questions! I guess it doesn't have to be neutral toward religions which are "known" to be false. Gee, it's good to know that *all Americans* are free from state advocacy against their religion!) Anyhow, as I hope you can tell, I wasn't arguing on behalf of these calculations. I was pointing out that Gregory regularly defers to the biologists on the how and when and what of evolution, but then he wants to affirm a "Catholic" Adam and Eve who couldn't possibly have existed, according to the science he endorses. If they were only two out of a population, they weren't the universal ancestors of all later humans, and so Gregory's "agreement" with Catholic teaching goes out the window; and if they *were* the universal ancestors of all later humans, they weren't the decisively human "Adam and Eve" as portrayed by the Bible, but something far lower than the three-quarters-apes from *2001: A Space-Odyssey*. He can't have it both ways. Either he must reject atheist and TE population-genetics assumptions, or he must scrap part of Catholic theology. But as I've already indicated in the case of Fuller and Feser, Gregory is not very good at letting go of one half of a blatant contradiction. Timaeus

Timaeus @135: I'm a little confused on the descended-from-a-population-of-10,000 idea. Didn't that population of 10,000, in turn, descent from some smaller population? Say, a population of 100, which in turn descended from a population of, say, 10, and so on . . . Ultimately, is it not the case that each population can be traced back to a universal common ancestor? Do they suggest stopping at the 10,000 population point because earlier ancestors were not humanoid enough to count? Eric Anderson

Kantian (134): Don't know either the author or the title, but it sounds potentially interesting. I'll try to find a description of it on the web. Sorry I can't give you a response to the book. I wish I could. But if I get around to reading it, I'll get back to you. In the meantime, if you want to float some ideas from the book, I'll try to respond. Timaeus

Gregory (in #127 above) angrily denies holding the view of "polygenism." Well, maybe we should start by defining "polygenism." It turns out that (as is often the case) the word has more than one meaning. In the 19th century, it often meant that the different human races (as they were then characterized -- Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc.) had different origins. This view, however, is not required by modern evolutionary theory, so it need not concern us. What *is* (allegedly) required by modern evolutionary theory -- according to the population genetics calculations of both atheists and TEs -- is the conclusion that there was no single couple that was the ancestor of all human beings. According to the modern theory (if we can believe Dennis Venema etc.), all modern human beings descend not solely from an original couple, but from an original breeding population of not less than 10,000. If we call this view "polygenism" (as opposed to "monogenism" -- meaning that Adam and Eve alone were the ancestors of all human beings), then modern evolutionary theory is "polygenist" in this specified sense. We have more than one origin; we spring from Adam and Eve, but *also* from Shad and Gronk and Alley Oop and Wiley and Clumsy Carp and in fact from the majority of the original 10,000 hominids (since most of them would have had descendants). Now, Gregory has never challenged biological evolution per se. He has never said that evolution has not happened; he has never denied that man evolved from lower animals. In fact, he has implicitly endorsed evolution by effectively telling ID theorists to butt out of origins questions and let the natural scientists do their job. And he has never affirmed, despite having hundreds of opportunities to do so, that Adam and Eve were specially created, distinct from all the rest of the animal kingdom. He has in fact ridiculed "creationists" for such denials and affirmations. Everything Gregory has written, here and on BioLogos and elsewhere, indicates that he is happy to go along with modern evolutionary theory regarding the primate origins of mankind, and with whatever mathematics are regarded as good science among population geneticists, as long as science does not deny that there was an Adam and Eve. This means that, unless he explicitly states otherwise, he defers to the notion of an original breeding population of at least 10,000. So even if he accepts a literal Adam and Eve, a first couple endowed by God with some special spiritual capacity, he cannot accept that Adam and Eve were our *only* ancestors; he cannot be monogenist as I have defined it above; he must be polygenist as I have defined it above. But let's not make a big deal about the word. Let's let Gregory reject the *word* "polygenism" if something about it bothers him. (Maybe he thinks of 19th-century polygenism and the attendant racism.) As always, unlike Gregory, I'm not concerned about terms, but about the realities which the terms represent. So let's discuss the implications of the evolutionary reality which Gregory accepts, in light of his acceptance of a historical Adam and Eve. Let's suppose, as Denis Alexander and other TEs have suggested, that God "adopted" a single pair of hominids (Adam and Eve) out of this population, and endowed them with his "image" and gave them "federal headship" over all their descendants. That would make Adam and Eve "real historical individuals." However, the *rest* of the breeding population of 10,000 would itself go on to have descendants. Were *those* descendants under the "federal headship" of Adam and Eve? Why should they be? And when Adam and Eve fell, did only *their* children (Cain and Seth and any others they might have had) acquire original sin, or did the children of their hominid brethren and cousins also acquire original sin? Or did original sin only infect the entire human race after the humans descending from Adam and Eve were blended with the humans descending from the other 9,998 hominids of the original population? But would God have allowed such a blending, of beings in the image of God with beings not in the image of God? It's unclear, in TE statements of the "adopt a hominid" model, whether the "image of God" involves any change in the *nature* of Adam and Eve, or is merely an indication of a different relationship of Adam and Eve to God. If we suppose, for the sake of argument, that Adam and Eve became *physically* different in some important way as a result of incorporating the "image," would that mean that only they were truly "human" and that the other hominids were sub-human, i.e., merely a kind of beast, albeit more intelligent than the rest of the beasts? If so, recall from the Bible (the laws of the Pentateuch) that God regarded the blending of humans with any beast, even the most highly intelligent apes -- gorillas etc. -- as an abomination. So if Adam and Eve's 9,998 siblings, cousins, etc. were of sub-human status, surely God would have forbidden such unions. So how could they blend with Adam and Eve's descendants, and thus acquire the image of God? And if they didn't blend, what happened to these sub-human hominids, who must have been initially far more numerous than the descendants of Adam and Eve? Where are they now? Over at Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula? These and other conundrums arise with the "adoption" model proposed by many TEs. The problem I am raising here is that it is not enough to do what Gregory does -- to affirm that Adam and Eve were historical individuals. That is Catholic teaching, but it is not *all* of Catholic teaching on the subject. Gregory has affirmed *part* of Catholic teaching -- the reality of Adam and Eve. But when asked point-blank in the past, by myself, StephenB and others, Gregory has remained silent on the *other* part of Catholic teaching -- the veto of the view that modern human beings may have ancestors other than Adam and Eve. Gregory will not discuss the document quoted by StephenB -- which insists on this additional requirement. And this refusal is not new. If we go back to an older UD discussion (March 2012): https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/biologos-claims-not-to-be-darwinist-after-all-and-its-not-april-1-either/ We see in #33: Timaeus: "I’ll ask one more time: Gregory, were Adam and Eve (or some other primordial fully human couple, whatever names you give them) the exclusive ancestors of all human beings now living, or not?" The question was talked around, but not answered. And when it was put to him in terms of Catholic teaching, in #39: StephenB: "In fact, you have not been very clear on the matter. The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first parents of the human race, not simply that they existed as historical figures. You have not said that you agree with both elements of the teaching. Do you?" The question was not answered. Further, there is evidence that Gregory actually denies the second part of Catholic teaching. In the same place, in #25, we see: Gregory: "Do you accept the power of this argument against ‘fundamentalist’ biblical literalists, young earthers & special creationists, some of whom are present & active on UD’s blog? If so, then Amen to Darwin’s contribution toward over-taking the pre-Darwinian worldview held by some theists that the earth is just a few 1000yrs old and that there were no ‘pre-Adamic humans!’" Note that Gregory here mocks the view (that there were no pre-Adamic humans) which appears to be demanded by Catholic doctrine. Further clarity on this subject was requested of Gregory in another, later discussion (August 2012): https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/do-you-have-to-believe-in-adam-and-eve/ Gregory did not provide the requested clarity. So when StephenB and I press him on this subject, we are not "lying" about his views, nor are we trying to misrepresent him. On the contrary, we have given him every chance to be explicit and precise in formulating his view on Adam and Eve, on other hominids who might have existed before and after Adam and Eve, and so on. He has declined to formulate his view. He has merely repeated, like a mantra, that he agrees with Catholic teaching because he accepts a historical Adam and Eve. But that is simply not an adequate statement of Catholic teaching, and he cannot say he is in agreement with Catholic teaching until he says where he stands on the question whether our ancestry goes back *exclusively* to Adam and Eve, or only *partly* to Adam and Eve, and partly to other hominids who were not "in the image of God." I think I've been very fair and non-polemical here. Gregory can get as angry as he wants, and spew out charges of lies and misrepresentation, but he has invited misrepresentation by keeping his theological and biological cards close to his vest, and not laying them on the table. But his time has run out in this poker game. StephenB and I have now met all his raises, and we are "calling." What is Gregory's doctrine on human ancestry? Timaeus

Timaeus, are you familiar with Placher's The Domestication of Transcendence? It's one of the very few books of Christian theology I've read, but I found it to be profoundly enlightening on the transition to modernity. It might be one way to open up further just what is at stake in the debate between Feser and Fuller. Kantian Naturalist

Gregory:

As for something supposedly ‘counting against me’ to have ‘ducked the hard questions,’ which are actually quite ‘soft’ and ‘easy’ questions and thus not worth the time to answer or that I’ve already answered at Uncommon Descent blog from a non-existent ghost named ‘Timaeus,’ again laughter is the best medicine.

Translation: "Your hard questions are really easy questions, but they are still not worth answering, which is why I haven't responded to then--except for those that I have answered them many times." How can we not be entertained by this?

To respond to StephenB (and thus to expect disrespect and vitriol in reply), he is correct that Feser has not said “it is a “responsible” Catholic position to reject any form of ID theory.”

That is correct. A better response, though, would have been something like this: "I am sorry for misrepresenting Feser and for implicating him in my error. I now understand that the Catholic Church takes no official position on the "science-only" approach to Intelligent Design, but it does repudiate anti-Design arguments such as Theistic Darwinism or the idea that an immaterial human mind could emerge through an unguided, materialistic process."

But Feser has clearly said and repeated, following the link above, that ID theory is incompatible with Aristotelian-Thomistic thought.

1) What Feser clearly says is what Feser clearly says--nothing more.I know many in the Aristotelian/Thomism camp who say that ID IS compatible with Thomism. As a Thomist, I would argue the same way, as would VJTorley or Jay Richards or a number of others. Indeed, the fact that Feser carries on as if his account of Thomism was the only legitimate interpretation should cause some concern. 2) In addition to the Aristotelian/Thomism framework, Catholic thought also includes, among others, the Platonic/Augustinian/Bonaventurian view. Thus, even if Feser was right about ID and Thomism, which he isn't, it wouldn't follow that Catholicism also rejects ID. Indeed, there are several Catholic organizations (yes, I can name them) that promote Young Earth Creationism. 3) In summary, then, a Catholic can believe in Guided Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design, or even Young Earth Creationism. A Catholic may not believe in materialistic Darwinian evolution or any such process that is not end directed.

In addition, many Vatican scientists have rejected ID theory, as have pretty much all of the top ‘science and religion’ organizations in the world.

Here we go again with another shameless bluff. One Vatican scientist (not "many") publicly rejected ID and was promptly fired for his actions by the pro-ID Pope Benedict XVI. To find out what the Catholic Church teaches, one must go to the Church's official documents, such as encyclicals or the Universal Catechism. Trendy Catholics do not speak for the Universal Church. Gregory obviously does not know the difference and appears not to care.

It is expected that StephenB and Timaeus will dance together like donuts and reiterate their patently false claims about those who don’t hold to polygenism, as some kind of backward tactic to promote their IDist propaganda.

The Catholic Church condemns polygenism in principle. I provided the relevant texts that prove the point. Gregory should simply accept the refutation, concede the fact, and move on. StephenB

Upright Biped:

It has been rather baffling to watch Gregory these past months. In all the years I have read this blog, I cannot remember anyone (friend or foe) who has done more to utterly destroy their own position more than Gregory. Setting aside his abhorent discipline as a specialist, the idea that this man is supposed to be a “scholar” is simply stunning upon reflection. He will never recover his credibility from these tantrums.

UB, If Gregory had enough education, training, and experience to realize how badly he fares in these exchanges, he would weep with embarrassment. StephenB

Gregory's latest burst of remarks requires more than one post to handle. Here I will focus on Feser/Fuller. Gregory complains about my usage of "equivocal" rather than "analogous." I never intended to deny that Feser upheld "analogous" predication. I was treating "analogous predication" as a special case of "equivocal predication." There is some basis in Aquinas, *S.T.* I, 13, 5, for doing so, because Aquinas there says that names applied to God are not "purely equivocal" but are "proportional" or analogous. The adverb "purely" suggests that analogous predication has something of equivocality in it. However, I won't press this point, since later in the article, and in the *Summa Contra Gentiles*, Aquinas regards analogy as a sort of via media between univocity and equivocity, different from either rather than a special form of equivocity. So I'll yield the point to Gregory, and stick with the opposition between univocal and analogical predication. But of course, this is merely a terminological concession. What I don't concede is my main argument, i.e., that Gregory has not dealt adequately with the conflict between Feser and Fuller, and that, trying to have it both ways, he falls between two stools. Gregory writes: "But Feser has clearly said and repeated, following the link above, that ID theory is incompatible with Aristotelian-Thomistic thought." I agree; Feser has said this. And he has said more. He has said that the kind of God that ID thinking leads to is incompatible, not merely with Aristotelianism-Thomism, but with "classical theism" generally, and since for Feser Christian theology must dwell within "classical theism," he is saying that ID thinking necessarily leads to a heretical, non-Christian conception of God. (He doesn't say that ID proponents aren't sincere in their Christian faith; but he does imply that insofar as their understanding of God is colored by their ID arguments, it is a deeply defective and sub-Christian understanding of God.) Now, cut to Fuller. Fuller has said that the ID understanding of God is based on a tradition of Christian theologizing that runs outside the Thomistic tradition. It runs from the notion of "the image of God" found in Genesis through the Franciscans, and on into modern science (which owed much to the Franciscans). In this tradition, language about God is, if not purely univocal (Fuller concedes that pure univocity is not an option), univocal in at least *some* respects -- the respects which allow the language of designing, planning, making, etc. And Fuller, in contrast with Feser, *likes* that way of talking about God, and thinks it has been *productive* in the history of science, and *liberating* on the social-political level. He seems to be saying that society should push *further* in the direction of "man as creative" (because in the image of God); he does not *want* society to renounce the modern understanding and go back to Thomism. So Gregory has to choose. Does he think that the Thomistic or the "Franciscan" tradition of talking about God is more faithful to the Christian teaching overall? His rabid endorsements of Fuller's writings overall would suggest that he is attracted to the progressive vision of Fuller; and his general hostility to the old and the traditional, to things Greek and Medieval, makes him a strange bedfellow for the philosophical reactionary Feser. Yet lately, in his attacks on ID, he has been sounding much more like Feser than like Fuller. When is Gregory going to choose? When is he going to say: "Fuller defends a partial legitimacy of univocal predication, and Fuller is *theologically right* to do so," or "Fuller defends a partial legitimacy of univocal predication, and he is *theologically wrong* to do so"? When will Gregory choose, and indicate his choice publically? He cannot go on, playing both ends against the middle, in hopes of using both Feser and Fuller as tools against ID. Feser and Fuller recommend different directions for Christian theology, and Gregory cannot serve two masters. Timaeus

It has been rather baffling to watch Gregory these past months. In all the years I have read this blog, I cannot remember anyone (friend or foe) who has done more to utterly destroy their own position more than Gregory. Setting aside his abhorent discipline as a specialist, the idea that this man is supposed to be a "scholar" is simply stunning upon reflection. He will never recover his credibility from these tantrums. DaveScot would have offered a merciful end by comparison. Upright BiPed

Feser and Barr vs. Torley and StephenB would be laughable. It wouldn’t be worth the price of admission. It would expose how unqualified and unprepared UD-IDists are in defending their pet ideology. It would be like LeBron James ‘playing’ your local 3rd grader in a ‘game’ of one-on-one basketball. Feser and Barr need not even take Torley and StephenB seriously as ‘opponents.’ Sure, they may all be Catholics (or is Torley a Australian-Japanese evangelical?) and could likely agree on basic Catholic teachings, but it would clearly be professionals speaking to amateurs on the philosophical and theological level. Unfortunately, it would also be just like ‘creationism’ of old; Big-IDists trying to prove their intelligences and self-worth, to convince active and accomplished scholars and scientists that there really, really, really *is* a ‘natural scientific revolution’ on the brink, and that it is called ‘Intelligent Design’ theory. Timaeus’ charge of “no intellectual authority of any kind” isn’t unbearable. It is funny. It is welcome. It is tellingly sad as it comes from ‘that guy who hides out anonymous because he suffers from Expelled Syndrome that he will be discovered as being a kooky IDist that no one would ever want to hire.’ “Feser with his equivocal predication, or Fuller with his univocal predication” – Timaeus Feser does not accept equivocal prediction; he accepts analogous predication. Please get your story straight if you want to be taken seriously, Timaeus.

“I object to Paley’s univocal application of predicates both to human designers and to God (in the sense of ‘univocal’ as opposed to ‘analogous’ predication familiar from Aquinas’s doctrine of analogy), because I take it to lead to an unacceptably anthropomorphic conception of God at odds with classical theism.” – Feser

Big-ID theory is based on univocal predication between God and human beings (Design/design). Fuller recognizes this and says openly: ‘That’s what ID is obviously about…the ‘Designer’ is the Abrahamic God.’ But IDM leaders themselves still have not publically conceded this point, even while they do so ‘privately’ in their local churches. “Yes, what IDism is actually about is univocal predication.” Feser is saying that is incompatible with Aristotelian-Thomist thought, and additionally that Big-ID eschews immanent formal and final causes ‘for the sake of argument.’ Big-ID theory therefore has questions to answer to, much more than stating what my position wrt Fuller requires.

“Here's the Catch-22: If I don't quote someone specific, the ID defender will say "You're attacking a straw man! Who, specifically, are these people who take this view you're attributing to ID theory?" But if I do quote someone specific like Dembski, the ID defender will then say "That's just Dembski. Since when does he speak for all ID theorists?" And then of course there's the fact some ID theorists will count any old thing as "ID" as long as it involves a "designer" of some sort. Hence Torley says in one place that I must really be an ID theorist myself since as a Thomist I regard God as the ultimate source of the teleology that exists in the natural world. But then "ID" becomes completely vacuous. As I've complained before, ID is a moving target. It is, it seems, whatever its defender needs it to be at the moment in order to counter the objection of the moment. And while this approach to defending it might be good PR strategy, it's horrible philosophy.” – Feser

I ‘proven’ this already at UD, showing how StephenB and KF, responsible for defining ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ are uncompromising flip-floppers, using upper case Intelligent Design or lower case intelligent design at their apparently irrational and unexplained whims. That’s the evidence as it stands to this day – March 6, 2013. As for something supposedly ‘counting against me’ to have ‘ducked the hard questions,’ which are actually quite ‘soft’ and ‘easy’ questions and thus not worth the time to answer or that I’ve already answered at Uncommon Descent blog from a non-existent ghost named ‘Timaeus,’ again laughter is the best medicine. To respond to StephenB (and thus to expect disrespect and vitriol in reply), he is correct that Feser has not said “it is a “responsible” Catholic position to reject any form of ID theory.” But Feser has clearly said and repeated, following the link above, that ID theory is incompatible with Aristotelian-Thomistic thought. In addition, many Vatican scientists have rejected ID theory, as have pretty much all of the top ‘science and religion’ organizations in the world. And these people are not even new atheists or secularists rejecting ID theory, but theologians, religious scientists and scholars who have seen through the rhetoric, PR-propaganda and ‘scientistic’ posturing to the real ‘neo-creationist’ core of IDism. Readers at UD might be thinking there is a significant reason behind these views that should not unwisely be reduced to or dismissed as merely some globally unimportant American culture war mentality. I won’t dignify speaking to StephenB’s label of “faithless witnesses to their own religion,” except to say that it doesn’t apply to Feser or Barr. Nor do I imagine that either Feser or Barr accepts ‘polygenism,’ though I don’t have links to display it. It is expected that StephenB and Timaeus will dance together like donuts and reiterate their patently false claims about those who don’t hold to polygenism, as some kind of backward tactic to promote their IDist propaganda. Readers of this site should realize the low level of credibility, believability they display in such efforts. It is to a sad ideological position that ID has fallen that people who promote it feel they must behave in this way. Gregory

Intelligent Design extends from our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And I am OK with polygenism. Joe

This is despicable. Timaeus is a black-hearted liar. I do not accept polygenism. Where on earth did he conjure this rabbit-out-of-a-hat idea in his crazy cave-world? One just has to laugh at such a blatant attempt to be discredited. ;) If he can find *any* statements from me to support his bald-faced lie, he should show them now. I accept monogenism and believe this to be orthodox in the Abrahamic faiths.

“public attention — which I did not court” – Timaeus “I’m three years older than you are, and I’ve been around universities three years longer than you have.” – Timaeus puffing his chest up to Steve Fuller

That seems to be a textbook example of ‘courting public attention.’ Effectively, Timaeus was trying to say ‘I’m as good and qualified as you are to speak on this topic,’ since Fuller had said “I hope you are joking.” Steve Fuller’s position is quite clear: ID is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview topic and there’s no use denying this. Fuller thus suggests “inventing a new discipline that straddles the divinity school and the science lab.” IDM leaders, however, are not ready for that and thus still claim that it is a ‘natural-science-only’ ID theory that they have invented. Timaeus’ 1st life identity doesn’t much interest me; though, yes, I do know who he is by birth name and have spoken with him. The fact that he couldn’t argue himself out of a paper bag to defend Big-ID theory (as demonstrated in this thread and others) is the main issue here at UD in his 2nd life. I offered him a way to elevate himself in a public debate, but he seems to prefer the netherworld of blogging and being ‘the best little IDist at UD’ as his invisible carrying card. “I wish that Gregory had received a similar education [as the great untenured Timaeus].” Live in unreality, then, Timaeus. Live out of touch with people today. I don’t have insecurities with my education, though of course it is/was less than perfect. As with anyone else, it is what I do with my education that is important, not simply the diploma paper or title itself. Why Timaeus wishes to try to impose upon me and my peers with his obvious generational pompousness and misconceptions regarding education is quite bizarre. No generation’s education is perfect, but quality education faces the challenges of the era in which it participates. My education at several world-class universities compares rather well with Timaeus' 2nd-tier education at a provincial college. Timaes is demonstrating just as much ‘ageism’ towards me and my peers as he thinks I am towards him by calling my generation’s education deficient. My sociological studies show that the vast majority of folks who have already or are thinking about the possibility of swallowing IDist ideology are below the age of 35 years and Protestants. Though I’m not going to dig up quotes from ID leaders who have suggested this. Suffice it to say that Timaeus is obviously not speaking on behalf of young people today. He is someone who still demonstrates 20th century evolution vs. creation inescapable antagonism and cannot help us move forward simply with 21st century IDism "everything is designed" exaggeration. If Timaeus has trouble with English language, he should just say so. I didn’t ask: “What is the basis on which inferences of design in nature are made?” That simply begs the question. I asked: “what does ‘Intelligent Design’ eXtend from?” If he wants it phrased differently so that he can perhaps understand: “From what does Intelligent Design extend?” If Timaeus is confused by this question, let him go back and check his dictionaries; I asked it intentionally, purposefully, specifically as it is framed. ‘Extension’ is a commonly used word in a wide variety of contexts. Surely he can imagine what it means and apply it to the question above as it was asked to him. He seems to be as lost on this question as that lone IDist at BioLogos, who wrote: “An elephant’s trunk is an extension of its body. The natural world is not an extension of God’s body. Orthodox Christian theology has always understood this difference.” There he was shown that ‘extension’ carries a deeper and broader meaning than perhaps he realised.

“For this is what the LORD says: “I will extend peace to her like a river, and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream”…” – Isaiah 66:12

Mary’s song reads:

“His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.” – Luke 1:50

“The potency of a cause is the greater, the more remote the effects to which it extends.” – Thomas Aquinas (Summa c. Gent, III, c. lxxvii)

The question for IDists, then: What does ‘Intelligent Design’ extend from? If Timaeus doesn’t answer, perhaps someone else will. As usual, I expect silence, spinning or distraction from Timaeus on this question and complicit mockery from Mung the ‘marauder.’ (cont'd) Gregory

If Gregory is an eXtension of Human Extension I am not convinced I want to participate. Mung

Gregory:

As I said, and as Feser and Barr have repeatedly shown, it is a responsible Catholic position to reject Big-ID theory as a pseudo-natural scientific proof/inference of Design.

This is a dishonest statement on several counts: First, no one, Ed Feser, Stephen Barr, or anyone else, has ever shown that it is a “responsible” Catholic position to reject any form of ID theory. One cannot demonstrate the truth of a false statement. Second, Gregory is now walking back his original assertion that orthodox Catholics are required to reject ID theory. It was precisely that same reckless claim that prompted VJ Torley to end all communicative ties with him. Third, I have proven, with the relevant texts, that many of the anti-ID Catholic TEs that Gregory cites as Catholic spokespersons are, themselves, faithless witnesses to their own religion insofar as they posit the evolution of mind from matter. Fourth, I have pointed out, with the relevant texts, that many of these same TE Catholics are enemies of Catholic orthodoxy insofar as they accept polygenism. StephenB

Mung: [This is a Fully-Fledged Flip Flop]. "There, fixed it fer ya!" What? No high fives for the alluring alliteration? StephenB

Astounding! Gregory is determined to go out from here cavilling over petty points.

Too soon. He hasn't yet fired his parting shot. Mung

SB: XML - eXtensible Markup Language X Games - eXtreme Games Gregory's just being hip. Mung

Astounding! Gregory is determined to go out from here cavilling over petty points. But that's true to form, I guess, for someone who worries about a capital L in BioLogos. I said that I had never discussed the year of my birth. That was a true statement then, and remains a true statement now. I never *discussed the year of my birth*. What Gregory is yapping about is that, on a thread far removed from this one, I had indicated my *relative age* (not the year of my birth) with reference to Fuller's age; and from that discussion, Gregory *inferred* -- without 100% reliability, since I was using round numbers for both ages when I said three years, and calendar years can't always be derived from round-number differences -- the year of my birth. Gregory's *inference* and my *discussion* are two different things -- even if Gregory's inference should turn out to be correct. So I stated no inaccuracies, and told no lies. But Gregory is trying to make me out as lying, denying, etc. Not at all. I never *discussed* my year or birth, or even *stated* my year of birth. The fact remains that it was *Gregory* who, after digging up Fuller's age and then doing some arithmetic, calculated and then drew public attention -- which I did not court -- to my year of birth. And of course, that was part of his ongoing campaign to inform as many people as possible of facts that could point to my real identity, without formally violating his promise to the moderators here not to reveal my identity. The key point, of course, is not whether I actually discussed my year of birth. Suppose for the sake of argument that I had done so. The key point -- which Gregory is of course here not mentioning, as it would reflect upon him badly -- is that Gregory made remarks about my age -- his politically correct generation would call them "ageist" remarks -- to the effect that, because of the time and place in which I was educated, my views were invalid, out of date, irrelevant, etc. If I understand Gregory's argument -- not that such loose insinuations deserve the name of argument -- not having been brought up in the world of Facebook and of "texting" makes one incompetent to comment on theology, the history of science, design theory, etc. If Gregory had said that on the basis of my *sex* or *race* or *religion*, everyone here would recognize the prejudice and impropriety involved; and it's the same with age. Why should the fact that someone was born earlier than someone else make his arguments less valid than those of someone else? Gregory appears to be opposed to every "ism" but "ageism." Regarding Gregory's question, even if we eliminate the jargon, it becomes "What does intelligent design extend from?" This is not easily intelligible. The usage "extend from" is somewhat unclear. Is Gregory asking: "What is the basis on which inferences of design in nature are made?" Then why doesn't he just say so, instead of using "extend" in a puzzling way? My generation (whose education Gregory regularly mocks) was taught to express itself as plainly as possible, by avoiding specialized terms except when absolutely necessary, and using all other words in common rather than unusual ways. I wish that Gregory had received a similar education. But if what he means is: "What is the basis on which inferences of design in nature are made?" then I can give him an easy answer. He should read (1) the book of Stephen Meyer, which he has indicated he has not read; (2) Paley's *Natural Theology*, which it appears he also has not read. These works will give him a clear explanation of the basis on which inferences of design in nature are made. Gregory's remarks about his debate with StephenB over the Catholic Church are deliberately misleading. StephenB pointed to passages in a specific Catholic document which showed beyond a doubt that Gregory has misinterpreted the teaching of Rome on an original couple. Gregory refused then, and still refuses now, to take up that text in dialogue with StephenB, and show, by an analysis of passages, that its teaching is compatible with his own belief, i.e., polygenism. The only reasonable conclusion is that Gregory knows that the document opposes polygenism and does not want to admit it, because then he would have to either declare the Catholic teaching wrong (which he can't do, since he has repeatedly appealed to the Roman position in argument), or retract his support for polygenism (which he can't do, because he accepts the arguments of population genetics given by the atheist and TE evolutionists). Why Gregory does not have the honesty to admit "You are right, StephenB, the Catholic position is different from mine" and the courage to go on to say "And I disagree with the Catholic position" -- that is a mystery. Note that Gregory appeals to Barr and Feser for his notion of the Catholic position. But I note two things. First, neither Barr nor Feser are trained theologians, and neither has been given a teaching magisterium by the Church. They speak as individual Catholics, and their views on God, design, etc. have no more authority within Catholicism than those of StephenB and Vincent Torley, who are also Catholics. Second, Gregory's appeal to Feser regarding design theory shows once again that Feser disagrees with Fuller on this point, so that Gregory is once again found to be trying to agree with two people (Feser and Fuller) whose position (regarding God as designer) cannot be reconciled; and Gregory once again appears to lack the courage to take a side, and say which of the two -- Feser with his equivocal predication, or Fuller with his univocal predication -- is correct. (Or perhaps it is not lack of courage; perhaps Gregory, trained in sociology rather than theology, just does not understand the metaphysical issue at stake.) It's a pretty sad way for Gregory to go out, continuing to deny that he has evaded major theoretical questions, when all the evidence shows that he has. If he leaves this site without clearly stating his position on Adam and Eve and without clearly stating his position on equivocal predication and without clearly stating his position on whether design inferences are possible outside of revelation, he will have confirmed all my charges of evasion. But if that's how he wishes to be remembered here -- as someone who ducked the hard questions -- that's his business. It will, however, count against his claim that he has now been elevated (by some mysterious promotion that he won't discuss) to a higher level of authority on questions of intelligent design. A man who won't answer these tough questions about design and human evolution has no intellectual authority of any kind, not even if he becomes the professor of sociology of science at Harvard or Oxford. (Which of course none of us here are anticipating as the content of Gregory's forthcoming earthshaking announcement.) Timaeus

He [St. Thomas Aquinas] devotes the first three books of SCG [Summa contra gentiles] to fully developing a natural theology, dependent on natural reason and independent of revelation. - Stump, Eleonore. Aquinas.

Sorry Gregory. Mung

Gregory:

As for refusals to discuss, please would someone explain why no one is discussing A. Bejan’s constructal law or his book ‘Design in Nature’ at UD?

Having gone to the trouble of purchasing it, I would be happy to discuss it with you. But alas, you haven't the time or inclination, and have already yourself dismissed it. So what's your point? Mung

StephenB:

This is a fully-fledged flip flop.

This is a Fully-Fledged Flip Flop. There, fixed it fer ya! Mung

Timaeus @114, As we reflect on Gregory's deliberately weird spelling of the word "eXtend," one note of caution seems appropriate. Shrugging off this tactic as mere jargon may distract the reader from a much more serious offense. In referring to Human Extension Sociology, Gregory has consistently kept the smaller letters at lower case. This is a fully-fledged flip flop. StephenB

“by guesstimating my year of birth, something I have never discussed.” – Timaeus “I’m three years older than you are, and I’ve been around universities three years longer than you have.” – Timaeus puffing his chest up to Steve Fuller (who a quick search discovers, is born in 1959)

Did you not write both of these sentences, Timaeus? Do you refuse still to admit your oversight? Absolutely 'never' is what you wrote. Do you now take it back in the sharp teeth of evidence? Probably you'll just slither away and claim being victimised. Decapitalise the 'X' in 'eXtend' and both the word and the question are easily understandable: "what does ‘Intelligent Design’ eXtend from?" The answer might be revealing. Timaeus will probably blame me simply for asking it and chalk it up to the 99.5% of questions (IDists are programmed not to eXaggerate!) that I've supposedly dodged at UD. Again, how far from the truth do we need to go when reading Timaeus' posts given the number of questions, facts and themes that he has conveniently on 'home turf' avoided. 'Never'?! Oh yes he did say that. In regard to "StephenB’s irrefutable textual evidence about what the Catholic Church teaches about an original couple," I've never denied this and even openly supported it. Set the record straight instead of remaining twisted. Only rhetorical spin could deceptively convince someone that I've 'ducked' answering it, even as Big-ID theory is not supposed to be about Catholic teachings at all. Of course, that text says nothing about 'Intelligent Design,' which Timaeus and StephenB are both as 'brothers-in-arms' promoting here, each in their own ways. As I said, and as Feser and Barr have repeatedly shown, it is a responsible Catholic position to reject Big-ID theory as a pseudo-natural scientific proof/inference of Design. Because ID leaders still insist on ID's natural scientificity, no progress can be made. 'Timaeusean-ID' (TID) is not meant as jargon (unless Timaeus doesn't actually exist!!). It stands for the unique, not necessarily, almost, maybe, based on cutting-edge, but still not actually legitimate natural scientific theory, flip-flop, more like natural theology, history of ideas, sophistic, flip-flop again notion that Timaeus calls 'Intelligent Design.' Sure, he hasn't published a single paper about it anywhere credible and hasn't even submitted his views of 'Intelligent Design' to a journal for peer review, thus technically TID doesn't exist. So really, TID is a non-factor outside of UD because this is Timaeus' home base. If that's what Timaeus meant by calling TID 'jargon,' then I'll accept that. No one else holds TID ideology but Timaeus himself, as he hides (self-expelled) in his exiled cave, Nietzsche's dogs and the electronic post-modern era biting at his feet. No IDM leaders follow or agree with his 'theory,' not a single one. They all refuse Timaeus' 'nuance' and directly insist that 'Intelligent Design' is a natural science-only theory. But wait, let's hear yet some more spin and excuses from an untenured religious studies 'scholar' who repeatedly wails that Intelligent Design actually isn't based on religion, theology or worldview. Gregory

PeterJ:

Oh my, that will be a sad, sad day. I don’t know how I’m going to cope

Not to worry. I plan to take on Gregory's persona and continue in his absence. Mung

Last corrections for Gregory: 1. "eXtend" (with deliberately weird spelling) is jargon. "Timaeusean-ID" (in the preamble to Gregory's question in 105) is jargon. 2. The word "never" is not a "superlative." It is merely the negative of an adverb. A refresher course on grammar is recommended. Timaeus

Gregory:

Plain English, no jargon: “what does ‘Intelligent Design’ eXtend from?”

I know you want us to say HUMANS, as in Human eXtension, but instead, I shall say intelligent design extends from Nature so as to distinguish if from your Big I Big D Intelligent Design (i.e., Human Extension). Mung

No Atheist gunslinger in my google search but here is a cowboy who had a NDE: Cowboy Dies Of Heart Attack Then Visits Heaven! ( Near Death Experience ) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8_T7fP7Qcw bornagain77

"p.s. the departure letter is written, but not yet sent" Oh my, that will be a sad, sad day. I don't know how I'm going to cope ;) PeterJ

Gregory

Everything is ‘designed’ or everything is ‘non-designed’; these are the only two options these three (four) folks at UD are giving us. So, which is it?

Obviously, Gregory is still confused about the difference between a belief system and an inference. Inasmuch as he has explicitly characterized an inference as an act of faith, it is clear that he knows nothing at all about the empirical process he presumes to critique.

Is God ‘designed/Designed’ or not, Mung, according to you? That’s a pretty basic question. (Reference to Mung) Telling another petty joke at my supposed expense isn’t going to change that. (Notice please that this is not asking if God is the designer/Designer necessary as a ‘mere implication’ of ID theory.) Why not just try to answer the question without playing the jester?

This question is remarkably naïve. Obviously, God, as a self-existent being, could not have been designed. No ID proponent believes otherwise. No rational person believes otherwise.

Dembski is right that classical [theological] ‘design arguments’ should be distinguished from the modern ID argument which claims natural scientificity, especially in biology. I stand behind that distinction

Well, of course. Everyone stands behind that distinction. A question of greater magnitude would be this: Does Gregory know the difference between classical design arguments and classical faith-based arguments--that is--does he know the difference between natural theology and fideism? I will answer for Gregory since he cannot answer for himself. *No.* Under the circumstances, Gregory is not intellectually prepared to enter into the ID fray.

Because a ‘theory of everything’ is also likewise a ‘theory of nothing.’ That is what Big-ID theory becomes in the ‘everything is designed’ approach of people like Mung and Timaeus; a theory of nothing.

Again, Gregory mistakenly characterizes the “belief” that everything is designed as an “approach.” His misguided assumption that an inference is grounded in apriori faith perverts his grasp of design methodology. Ironically, Gregory seems not to have given much thought to the earth moving question he thinks he is asking. Does he mean *Was everything in nature designed prior to man’s arrival?* or does he mean, *is everything in nature designed now that man has interacted with it?* If Gregory wants to debate substantive issues, he must first learn the difference between a meaningful question and rhetorical ploy. Let's help Gregory by providing a few questions that might help stimulate his thought process: Was the arrangement of leaves that fell on his lawn last fall designed by God? What about the arrangement of leaves after Gregory walked on them or after they were raked? Were those patterns designed as well? Or, is it the case that when man interacts with God’s nature, chance begins to play a role? Gregory doesn’t think about these things. He just throws words around and hopes that a rational thought will emerge in the process.

This is because UD is clearly not neutral territory…..

Since when does Gregory need the comfort and security afforded by a “neutral” environment? According to his report, he has already confronted the best minds at the Discovery Institute and blown them away. Now, fresh and sassy from all those alleged road victories, Gregory walks into UD’s bar, points to the notches on his handle, and challenges any and all comers to a gunfight. However, each time Timaeus, myself, or some other ID proponent encourages him to go ahead and make his play, Gregory slinks away, claiming that UD is not the right place to have a shoot-out after all. I wonder what really happened at the Discovery Institute.

In this thread I challenged Timaeus to a public debate,

(“I will not fight you in this cheap saloon in the presence of witnesses, but I challenge to a private showdown in my backyard where no one will really know what happened”). Please! No one is buying this routine. StephenB

“by guesstimating my year of birth, something I have never discussed.” – Timaeus “I’m three years older than you are, and I’ve been around universities three years longer than you have.” – Timaeus puffing his chest up to Steve Fuller (who a quick search discovers, is born in 1959) Was it a surprise that gentle, meek, humble, innocent, rose-coloured glasses Timaeus failed to comment on this evidence of yet another of his falsehoods? I can't think of another figure I've 'met' on the internet that writes in superlatives and absolutes as often as Timaeus. 'NEVER'! "the worldwide debate over design" - "the world of design theory" Seriously, folks, Timaeus needs to get out more and face the real world of scholarship today instead of hiding in his cave complaining about why no one listens to him and how Big-ID theory suffers simply at the hands of others. I applaud Max Andrews for taking a stand, going out and producing (of course, we'll wait to see more than the first edition) and not succumbing to 'Expelled Syndrome,' as it was demonstrated to he and I and others at the Discovery Institute that told us if we valued our careers we should only write about Big-ID under pseudonym. 'No Fear' is something that Max and I and Torley and Garvey and a few others here can openly live in writing. Plain English, no jargon: "what does ‘Intelligent Design’ eXtend from?" p.s. the departure letter is written, but not yet sent Gregory

Gregory can't leave us. How will we ever punctuate our causes. Upright BiPed

Gregory writes: "Since I’ve already written my departure letter from UD, this will be fairly short." Huh? Where was that? I must have missed it. I remember a note where Gregory strongly hinted that, at some undefined point in the near future, he was no longer going to make time for UD, because he had won some prize or competition (which he wouldn't specify, and still has not specified) which now puts him in a class above all of us, as an intellectual authority in the worldwide debate over design. Is that vague announcement what he is calling his departure letter? If so, I remember feeling the pomposity of that announcement across the internet, and I remember wondering what great new authority Gregory had acquired. He still hasn't told us where this new authority is coming from. Is he now Head of Sociology of Science at Harvard, or something? Do tell, Gregory. Gregory asked me a question: "As part of your theory of Timaeusean-ID, what does ‘Intelligent Design’ (not the ‘theory,’ but the supposed ‘ID’ itself) eXtend from?" -- which I would gladly answer, if he would rewrite it in normal English, instead of bizarre jargon, so that I could understand what he's talking about. Gregory continues to duck the question: Can the human mind infer design from the facts of nature, without the aid of revelation? He continues to duck the question whether Fuller is right against Feser (in championing univocal predication and basing ID on it). He continues to duck StephenB's irrefutable textual evidence about what the Catholic Church teaches about an original couple. And his excuse for these evasions? "I reserve the right not to answer questions I deem unimportant or irrelevant." Gee, isn't it convenient that the "unimportant or irrelevant" questions are the ones which would, if answered, compel him to admit that he has been wrong? Finally, Gregory says that he has been "Making an argument that ‘Design’ is a category error in natural sciences" -- but in fact he has made no *argument* for that proposition at all. He has simply *asserted* the proposition. Repeatedly. And never defended it when challenged. Philosophy 101, Gregory. An assertion is not an argument. Not even in Russian philosophy, I'm sorry to say. I have not said that design in nature can be proved "scientifically," because I know how woodenly and narrowly the opponents of intelligent design understand "scientific" and "natural science." But of course, the very definition of natural science that excludes teleological discussion *a priori* is philosophically contestable, and historically recent (as Fuller has pointed out); and Gregory uncritically accepts the exclusion of teleology in modern natural science. In fact, his charge of "category error" is based on that uncritical acceptance. I know of no way of convincing Gregory to see natural science differently, other than taking him on a long course of study in the history of ideas -- a field which he repeatedly mocks and belittles. Regarding Gregory's objection to "surveyor's/engineer's language" -- my examples came from the Bible! Is Gregory saying that the Bible is guilty of advocating a God of the "Freemasons"? Is he saying that the Bible sometimes speaks wrongly about God? That would not surprise me. I've never found Gregory's form of Christianity to be strongly Biblically-based. As for Bejan, he may be "decorated" as an engineer or scientist, but that doesn't make him a good philosopher. And anyone who speaks about "design without a designer" needs some philosophical (or at least philological) training. And in fact I *did* discuss some of Bejan's ideas -- but Gregory did not respond to my discussion. Well, Gregory, congratulations on winning the prize you won't tell us about, and on your new position in the world of design theory that you won't tell us about. I'm sorry your interactions here haven't been more fruitful, because you actually have an interesting set of ideas about human designing that could fit in very well with ID arguments regarding design in nature; unfortunately, your delivery of those ideas -- dogmatic, preachy, condescending, and quite often personally insulting -- has hampered their reception here. If you could get rid of the pride, learn to concede points to opponents, learn to retract demonstrated errors, stop harping on ridiculous points about spelling and capitalization, and answer fair questions when asked instead of ducking them -- you would find yourself much better liked, and you would find your ideas more influential. Perhaps you will find this advice useful in future venues that you choose to debate in. Best wishes for your academic career. Timaeus

Since I’ve already written my departure letter from UD, this will be fairly short. The topic is important and I think finally we’ve got back on track, since this thread was to announce a new journal “to invite dialogue concerning philosophy, theology, and science.” Jon addressed his IDist friends at UD by name in #101, but swiped at me in the final sentence of #104. Perhaps he just doesn’t like being called out on his communicative habits of using ‘designist’ language, even if he is doing so safely in theology, not in natural science. My observations of this have little to do with where he lives, but with what he believes and what he writes on the Internet. My biggest problem with Jon: I don’t think he is an ‘evolutionist,’ I don’t think he qualifies as one. Yet he seems to actually *want* to call himself (on purpose!) an ‘evolutionist.’ I just don't understand his motives or rationale for this. He claims he is a ‘theistic evolutionist’ of the Warfieldian variety (though he hasn’t [yet] expanded on what he means by this at his blog). As for me, I think it makes little sense to tie the ideology of evolutionism together with his orthodox, reformed Christian theology. An example of why Jon needn’t call himself an ‘evolutionist’ is demonstrated in C. Hunter’s most recent post against ‘evolutionists’ here at UD today. Theistic evolution, o.k., but theistic evolutionism (which takes the label theistic evolutionist’), not o.k. That, and Jon’s clear theological usage of ‘design inference,’ which is a concept-duo borrowed directly from the ‘natural-science-only’ theory of Intelligent Design as coined by C. Thaxton, then later adapted by Meyer, Dembski, Behe, et al., puts he and I in a place that is communicatively problematic. So, he doesn’t feel or understand the ‘politics’ of the IDM (which includes inviting/forcing new language into public education), while otoh, Timaeus says he wants no part of the politics of the IDM, while he writes political theory in his '1st life' and regularly plays politics on behalf of IDism in his '2nd life' here at UD. Those seem to be the facts on the ground. Timaeus wrote:

“I take you [Jon] to be trying to flesh out some connections between God’s designing or purposing and God’s making and creating and forming. And that is fine with me.”

Yes, that’s fine with me also. Please realise that I am doing the same thing in a different realm of common thought; I am looking at human extension, which bridges aims, goals, purposes, artifice, design, creating, forming, building, making, etc. This is a post-evolutionistic understanding of ‘change-over-time’ because it does not privilege evolutionary language of randomness, chance, aimlessness, un-intention, etc. But note please that it is not a theological argument for ‘design’ that human extension is positing. When it comes to “the construction of the world — surveyor’s/engineer’s language.” This is coming very close to Freemasonry, as Jon warns us. It suggests an ‘engineer’s Creator,’ rather than a loving Abrahamic Deity. (Add+1 - Fr. G. Coyne also writes Big-ID 'Intelligent Design.') ‘Intelligent Design’ is sometimes translated into Russian as ‘razumny zasmysyl,’ which translates into English as ‘rational thinking-out.’ I’ve heard it also translated as ‘intelligent project’ and ‘intelligent pattern’. The philosophies of science in these languages and their integrative approach to science, philosophy and theology are often more advanced than Anglo-American English thinking, with its Christian-ethicist inspired MN fetish, and therefore people in those cultures are not confused by the ‘design/Design,’ ‘intelligence/Intelligence’ distinction as easily. They know that Big-ID (natural science and the IDM’s politics) differs meaningfully from small-id (natural theology and various politics) and thus are not easily deceived by the so-called ‘Wedge of Truth,’ P. Johnson-style. “Design is implied for natural things as well as for things made by man.” – Timaeus It is a *theological* ‘design argument’ that is being made here by KF, Mung, Jon, Timaeus, and insofar as they admit that is the category of ‘argument’ they are making (which Jon already has), I would add that I agree with them. BioLogos for that matter agrees with ‘theological design arguments’ too! However, this ‘implication’ does *not* provide a basis for the ‘modern’ natural scientific theory of ‘Intelligent Design’ that the IDM’s leaders are promoting. Do you folks recognise this distinction or not? Dembski does (“The Design Revolution,” 2004: pp. 64-71). As far as not answering whole boatloads of questions from IDists at this site and from Timaeus in particular, that’s a test of patience to my sense of humour. I’ve answered Timaeus so (too) many times, even if sometimes his fingers have been stuck in his ears or hands covering his eyes on important themes involving evolution(ism), creation(ism), ID(ism), BioLogos and other related topics. Of course, I reserve the right not to answer questions I deem unimportant or irrelevant, but let me again address the question of hypothesized ‘design in nature.’ Timaeus says I “refuse to discuss arguments for design in nature on this site.” Making an argument that ‘Design’ is a category error in natural sciences, that teleological language is properly used in the human-social and applied sciences and that ‘design theory’ is a widespread and valid field of study already in many areas of the Academy (for which one need suffer no 'Expelled Syndrome,' which seems to be a special kind of disease in the IDM), is indeed addressing the theme. As for refusals to discuss, please would someone explain why no one is discussing A. Bejan’s constructal law or his book ‘Design in Nature’ at UD? He is clearly more decorated as an engineer-scientist than anyone in the IDM, even if ‘authority’ means next to nothing to you. I haven’t read John H. Walton, but accept Jon’s reference to the ‘authority’ of Walton’s word study, as an example of citing a credible and respectable scholar. At least we all know now that Timaeus “does not agree” that “Intelligent Design is a revolutionary natural scientific theory for origins of life, origins of biological information and human origins, which will potentially replace (neo-)Darwinian evolutionary theory.” That is how I interpret IDM-ID, which it is obvious that Timaeus does not wish to defend. Regarding the ‘second-string’ question let me just say this: I believe ‘revelation’ is about more than just ‘information.’ Gregory

“by guesstimating my year of birth, something I have never discussed.” – Timaeus “I’m three years older than you are, and I’ve been around universities three years longer than you have.” – Timaeus puffing his chest up to Steve Fuller (who a quick search discovers, is born in 1959) Why is anyone to trust Timaeus, when lies, evasion of simple questions and flip-flopping on helpful distinctions are his continual habit? “I dodge no arguments, and I refuse to answer no questions” – Timaeus the Brave As part of your theory of Timaeusean-ID, what does ‘Intelligent Design’ (not the 'theory,' but the supposed 'ID' itself) eXtend from? If you answer, Timaeus, I’d like you to distinguish whether your answer is ‘scientific,’ ‘theological’ or ‘philosophical’ or a unique [non-IDM-ID] mixture of the 3. Gregory

Quite so, Timaeus. I'm not suggesting translating those Hebrew words as "design", for the clear reason that the semantic range of words in Hebrew and in English is different, and in English is still changing decade by decade; the particular concepts in dispute behind the words are what matters. So the English word "design" occurs a number of times of human artifacts in the NIV, but not at all in the KJV - where a number of different words are used for the same verses. It's not the Hebrew that's changed. The issue, surely, is whether the biblical usage of words for God's creation covers purpose-free, self-eventuating processes (design without a designer). Clearly it encompasses "natural" processes, in that (for example) everybody knows God "finds prey for the lion" by its walking within view in the normal course of things. But it's equally clear that the whole idea of "natural", as discrete from God, has no place in biblical thought - God is intimately involved (at the level of will, not merely of "sustaining power") with his whole cosmos. Hence my emphasis on the planning/purpose/forethought content of the Hebrew words, which are also essential to the concept of design in English. As you say, though, we mustn't fall into thinking of God as a mere CAD wizard, or a Masonic Great Architect. That's why "design" is at best a partial description of his work. However I'm not sure how possible it is to persuade people not to take biblical words as termini technici when they are persuaded that capitalization shifts a word into a totally different category. Jon Garvey

Jon: I don't deny that *bara* and *yatsar* imply design. God thinks ahead about what he wants, what it will look like what it will be made of, what function it will serve, etc. I wouldn't, however, *translate* either term as "design." In English, we distinguish between "designing" a thing and "building" or "constructing" or "manufacturing" it. The Hebrew verbs you mention refer to something carried out, effected, done, not merely conceived, intended, planned, etc. "Design" is too weak an English word to convey their full meaning. However, I don't think you *are* actually suggesting that we should translate these words as "design" -- are you? I take you to be trying to flesh out some connections between God's designing or purposing and God's making and creating and forming. And that is fine with me. Regarding the word *bara*, I think its full meaning is elusive, and none of the scholarly conjectures about it entirely satisfy me. It actually is not a very common word in the Old Testament, and it's rarely (I think only once or twice, and then not in the "qal" form) used of a subject other than God. But I would agree with you that some notion of fulfilled purpose or design is entailed in its usage in Genesis. Mung: Not sure I understand your last question. Yes, I think the tabernacle etc. point, symbolically (if that word is allowed), beyond themselves, but I'm not sure how you are connecting that with ID/God as designer vs. Gregory's contempt for "God as designer." I suspect I wouldn't disagree with what you are suggesting, if I knew for sure what it was. Timaeus

And of course, when speaking of Greek and design, there's the need to consider Logos. I could haul our my 10 (or is it 12) volume TDOT to try to answer Gregory, but is it even worth it? T, you make an excellent point about the tabernacle. And were they not but types and signs to point to another reality? Mung

Timaeus/Mung/KN Then we can consider the basic Hebrew term bara, create. If you look at John H Walton's word study it become clear that the core meaning is to "establish function and order", not to zap into existence ex nihilo, though of course God could do the first by the second. The first relevant definition of "design" in my edition of OED is "destine for a service", which doesn't seem a million miles from the primary word in the Genesis creation account. In Hebrew terms, if God has not determined (ie applied) the means by which functional order is established, then he has not created it. The other main Hebrew word for God's "making" is yatsar. Its spectrum covers "fashion - form - frame - make - purpose". Interestingly it's also used as a noun, meaning "potter". My OED has "purpose" as its third definition of "design". Jon Garvey

Mung (83): Good point against Gregory; the absence of a particular word does not prove the absence of the idea connected with the word. In this case, Gregory's error is twofold: 1. He is relying on English translation, rather than Hebrew or Greek, and words meaning "design" might not be rendered as "design" in English, but as "order" "scheme" "plan" "device" "purpose" "thought" "arrangement" etc. And in fact there are various Hebrew words (which I won't bother to set forth here) rendered as "purpose" or "device" -- indicating projects of the human mind, things planned and intended to be executed. To be sure, very often those projects are plots or schemes concerning the use or abuse of other human beings, rather than for the construction of inanimate objects. Gregory might try to make hay of that, but unfortunately for him, that doesn't matter, because of his second, larger error. 2. Even if words meaning "device" or "purpose" were never used in Hebrew, the notion of device or purpose could still be there -- and in fact is there now, even in passages where all such words are absent. This is especially obvious in the case of manufactured objects. For example, take Noah's Ark. We are not told that it is "designed" or even "devised" or "purposed" -- but God gives specific dimensions to Noah, and specifies the material, and even orders him to seal it with pitch. These are design specifications, even if the word "design" is not used. The same can be said of God's very precise instructions for building the ark of the covenant, the tabernacle, the altar of incense, the priestly garments, etc. Measurements, substances, specification of parts and their arrangements -- all thought out in advance by God, and later executed by the craftsmen of Israel. Design again, though the word is not used. I would suggest that the temple of Solomon and the heavenly city of Revelation could serve as two more examples of things that are clearly designed. Now Gregory might triumphantly interject: "Aha! Your examples -- boats and arks and tabernacles and temples and cities -- are of artificial things, not natural things! So ID goes out the window!" Unfortunately for Gregory, the Bible makes the analogy that he rejects: in Job, and in some other books, we get references to the use of plumb lines, etc., in the construction of the world -- surveyor's/engineer's language. Design is implied for natural things as well as for things made by man. The Bible therefore contains many examples of design, and of the design of natural things as well as artificial things. Q. E. D. So Gregory is wrong. Again. I wonder what it would take to get him to stop making statements about Catholic theology, the Bible, etc., without first checking the original sources? Timaeus

KN: *kosmos* (*cosmos* in Latin letters) means "order" but the sense seems to be more aesthetic than mechanical; the verb "to beautify" (i.e., to adorn) is "kosmeo" (from which we get "cosmetics"). The "kosmos" is thus the "order" or "beauty" or "beautiful arrangement" of the world. (By a natural transference it comes to mean "world" as well.) So, while the orderliness of the world might imply a design, "kosmos" by itself doesn't mean "design." "design" in the sense of "contrivance" is usually either "technema" or "mechane". That is, it is connected with the idea of arts/crafts (techne) or with a more general notion of contrivance, especially clever contrivance (mechane). Mechane is cognate with Latin machina, hence "mechanical" -- "contrived," "arranged to serve a particular purpose." So the connection of "design" thinking with contrivances, "machines", engineering, architecture, etc. goes right back to the early Greek language. There are other words for design which are less about the physical arrangements and more about the intelligent thought put into the design, e.g., "ennoia" (something which is "in mind"; related to "nous" -- mind), "bouleuma" (plan, intent, wish), etc. There is also "taxis" (order, arrangement) which implies design (e.g., in the arrangement of armies on a battlefield), but generally this word is translated as order or arrangement, as it is more applied to simple geometrical layouts than to "the purposeful arrangement of parts" (mechane or technema). Mung: *oikoumene* is often translated as "world," but its emphasis is on the inhabited world ("oikeo" is the verb for "living in a home," and the noun was originally a participle of that verb) rather than the entire physical world -- though by an easy transference the entire physical world might be meant, since we in a broad sense "inhabit" not only the earth (ge) but the world (kosmos) of which the earth is part. Regarding translations of "world" in the New Testament, one has to be careful, because quite often the word is not "kosmos" (which refers more to the physical world) but "aion" (which refers to the world as an expression of time, and is usually better rendered as "age" or "era"). In the days of King James, "world" still had a time-reference (it meant "the age of man" in Anglo-Saxon), but in modern English, it has a spatial reference, so the older translation can be misleading. In the passage you mention, I don't know whether it was "judge the kosmos" or "judge the aion" without looking up the passage, but the general meaning would appear to be "judge the age" -- i.e., "judge the behavior of the men who live in that age." But the meanings of "kosmos" and "aion" sometimes slid into each other, so one can't translate mechanically. "kosmos" may occasionally refer more to the people of the world, than the physical structure of the world. We have to remember that the New Testament was written in Hellenistic Greek, which was sloppy Greek, and "translation Greek," and we can't expect the precision or consistency of Classical Greek from Semitic authors who didn't know the Classical literature. There is an extensive essay on the nuances here by C. S. Lewis in *Studies in Words*. Timaeus

Acts 24:25 and he reasoning concerning righteousness, and temperance, and the judgment that is about to be, Felix, having become afraid, answered, 'For the present be going, and having got time, I will call for thee;'

Mung

Maybe that was just an anomaly. Maybe Paul just misspoke on that one occasion. But then we see:

Acts 24:15 having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous;

Surely Paul was delusional. Isn't it about time we threw out his writings as non canonical? But then what do we make of Jesus and the other New Testament writers who also preached a judgment and resurrection that was about to take place? Mung

Speaking of Mars Hill:

31 because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him out of the dead.'

Why on earth would Paul say that He was "about to judge the world"? Was Paul just confused about the timing of the judgment? Or perhaps he was confused about the nature of the judgment? Or perhaps he was only repeating what he had received from Jesus himself:

27 'For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work. 28 Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'

According to Paul the judgment was near. So also, according to Jesus. Some Christians claim there was no judgment, some claim there was a judgment, but there's still another one yet to come. How does either of those views do justice to Scripture? Mung

KN: If the Greek word for "design" is Kosmos, what does the Greek word Oikoumene mean? It's a trick question. ;) Mung

I invite Timaeus to correct me, but I believe the Greek word for "design" is cosmos. Kantian Naturalist

The idea that a transcendent reality can be known or at least intimated through the mundane has a long history and is not a specifically religious idea. Such an approach can be found within the New Testament itself, most notably in Paul's "Areopagus address," and achieved significant elaboration in the thought of the early Christian fathers. - McGrath, Alister E. A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology. p. 11

c.f. Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism (Gifford Lectures Series) Sorry Gregory. The evidence is against you. Who's this Gifford guy? Mung

Timaeus, I wonder if Sentenias would publish an article written under a pseudonym. Perhaps an article on "Human Extension." Here's how Gregory advertizes his blog:

A place to discuss development, evolution, creation, intelligent design & human extension – a collaborative science, philosophy & theology/worldview conversation for the 21c. electronic-information age.

Collaborative eh? Gregory, is that how you see yourself here at UD, as a collaborator in discussing development, evolution, creation, intelligent design & human extension? Is there a reason you don't practice here at UD what you preach on your own blog? Mung

If Gregory wants to publish peer-reviewed material on ID and evolution, let him.

Haha. Gregory increasing the number of peer-reviewed ID articles. I'd pay to see that. Mung

Timaeus:

All of these evasions show that Gregory is not interested in intellectual debate.

I'm thinking that maybe Gregory is the only entity posting here at UD who doesn't see that he avoids intellectual debate like it's something straight from the bowels of the Discovery Institute.

I would not stand up on a stage with such a person.

You see, this is where we differ. I'd get up on stage with him, say some very nasty things about him that he had no chance of refuting in front of the audience, and then walk off, saying I refused to remain on stage with such a person. Now that's how to win a debate! Mung

Timaeus:

Why is he not challenging “Mung” or “bornagain” or others?

Because he knows I'd thrash him, literally. ;) You're too much of a gentleman, even if you are a sock. Mung

Gregory:

For the record, folks, Timaeus has come out briefly from under his sock puppet in the past. Let us see if he has the courage to do so again.

Wow, I never realized that Timaeus is a sock puppet! Why is he allowed to continue posting here at UD? If you ask me, Gregory is a sock puppet. Mung

Gregory:

Timaeus would obviously defend the affirmative and I would defend the negative.

How wrong you were. I guess you either: 1) Don't understand Timaeus. 2) Don't understand ID. 3) Both of the above. The first debate should be over what are the claims of intelligent design theory. What say you Timaeus, is that something you would debate Gregory on, lol? Mung

Fatuous is right. The guy can barely string together two coherent truthful sentences. Mung

Gregory:

Because a ‘theory of everything’ is also likewise a ‘theory of nothing.’ That is what Big-ID theory becomes in the ‘everything is designed’ approach of people like Mung and Timaeus; a theory of nothing.

The problem with your argument, Gregory, is that is not ID, and you know it isn't ID. So Big-ID becomes no such thing in my hands. And you're making things up, again. You argue out of both sides of your mouth. "Big-ID is a natural scientific only theory." Really? How does "natural science only" lead to the inference that everything is designed? It doesn't, it can't. And you'll never see me trying to use intelligent design as an argument to demonstrate that everything is Designed. So once again, we get from you nothing more than a misrepresentation and a straw-man. Twisting and distorting. Boring. Mung

Regarding Gregory's fatuous "challenge": 1. No, I would not be interested in live-debating the first question that Gregory proposes. I would not choose to take the affirmative side, because I do not agree with it as stated; I think the question is badly misframed. If Gregory wants to debate that question, he can find someone else. 2. Regarding the "second-string question" that Gregory has proposed (and clearly is not enthusiastic about debating, as he relegates it to a follow-up debate which likely would never take place): in a hypothetical universe, with a hypothetical debating partner, I would consent to live-debate that question, but in the real universe, with Gregory as debating partner, I will not. Here are my reasons: 3. Gregory has been given infinite chances to state his position on that very question here on UD. No one has muzzled him (as long as he avoids discussing biographical facts, privately obtained, about posters here). He can advocate any position on the question that he wishes. He can write as many posts as he needs to, to explain his position. And he has been asked, by me and others, scores of times, to state his position on that question, and will not. For a few *years* now he has refused to give his view. If he will not do it in *three years*, here, where there is pressure on him to do so, what reason do I have for believing that he would do it in 90 minutes, before a live audience, when there is motivation to play to the audience (to score points through mockery and misrepresentation) and all kinds of rhetorical devices are available for dancing around the question? The fact is that Gregory does not want us to know what he thinks about design inferences from nature, and what his reasons are for thinking so. 4. The case is quite different where there are two well-known protagonists who have both made their views perfectly clear in writing. Then the public wishes to see them "go at it" head to head. But here, one of the protagonists (myself) would be at a distinct disadvantage, trying to pry out of the other (Gregory) a position which the other has, for years, avoided disclosing, whereas the first protagonist's position (mine) is well-known and he (myself) would have no room for the evasive shifting available to the other (Gregory). Gregory seeks the rhetorical advantage which comes from being the one with the undisclosed position which, as a debating tactic, he can continue to conceal, or, if he wishes, spring as a surprise on the other before a live audience. This is cowardly. 5. Gregory's entire motivation here is personal. It is to get me to reveal my identity to the world. (Something I never asked him to do when his identity was secret -- unlike him, I *respect* the personal life-choices of others.) Why else has he constantly hinted at my identity here, desisting only when ordered to by the moderators? Even now he is skirting another ban, by guesstimating my year of birth, something I have never discussed. And even if his guesstimate -- true or false -- does me no harm, the motivation is all wrong. 6. And note the way he is using my age. He is using it *ad hominem*. He is suggesting that my age -- the generation I come from -- somehow makes my arguments outdated and invalid. This is so typical of Gregory, to argue to the man, and not to the point. Why would I go up on a stage with him, when I know that he argues in this way? He has not shown himself to be an honorable academic. He hits below the belt, and he does so in almost every exchange we have ever had. 7. Finally, why is Gregory not challenging "Mike Gene" (who also conceals his real name) to a public debate over design in nature? Why is he not challenging "Mung" or "bornagain" or others? If his crusade is against people who use pseudonyms (a principle he violated for years when he used a false last name), and if he seeks to remove the protection of false names, he should be offering these debates to *everyone* with a false name, not just to me. The fact that he zeroes in on me reveals the personal animus behind the challenge. (He has a *personal* history with me that he does not have with the others.) Summary: A. There is not a single thing we could debate on stage or on camera, that we could not debate more fully, more carefully, in greater detail, with the presentation of more primary texts, and with more extensive and nuanced interaction, right here. I dodge no arguments, and I refuse to answer no questions (unlike Gregory who refuses to answer 3/4 of the questions and arguments put to him). I never begrudge clarifications. I never refuse to discuss texts. There is no reason that we cannot debate the question of design in nature here, as long as all questions pertaining to personal identity are excluded. B. I stand to gain nothing intellectually by meeting Gregory's challenge: I have no guarantee that he will answer questions in live debate that he won't answer here, and Gregory's past practice indicates that he would not answer the questions I really want the answers to. C. I have much to lose personally by answering Gregory's challenge. On the other hand, Gregory loses nothing personally if I debate him -- his career in sociology won't be affected one way or the other, as I'm a complete unknown in the world of sociology and his sociology colleagues will just regard such a debate as a private hobby activity of his, irrelevant to his tenure petition. But Gregory gains something. He has long wanted to reveal my identity, but has been prevented, partly from threats of banning where he has strongly hinted at it, and partly out of the shame he would feel (he does have some Christian convictions, after all), if he used privately obtained information to harm a debating partner. But if he can goad me into revealing my identity, in order to prove I'm not a "coward" or "afraid" to debate him -- then he gets the result he has long desired, with no consequences of banning and no guilt for behaving dishonorably by revealing private information given in trust. What is stunning is that a Christian would wish for such a revelation. Gregory knows that I have made a number of enemies on the web, among them some very angry atheists whose identities are hidden from me, and who could strike at me with impunity if they knew my name, location, phone number, etc. He knows that they would use the information to embarrass me in many venues, and he knows that some of them might well violate my privacy, necessitating changing phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc. He knows also that many people who disapprove of ID might cut me off from the contract work I need to feed my family -- a concern he does not have to worry about because (a) he is single and (b) he has a secure job. That he should wish for all of this to happen to me does not comport well with his profession of loving "Abrahamic religion." If it were *necessary* that my identity be revealed in order for us to have a debate, there might be justification for the personal risks Gregory demands that I take; but I have already shown that my identity is irrelevant to the issues at stake, and that they can better be debated here. D. I have in the past listed a number of major questions that Gregory has ducked. He continues to duck them all. Catholicism on Adam and Eve -- he refuses to deal with the passage StephenB plunked in front of him. (Because it disproves Gregory's statements about Catholic teaching.) He refuses to answer my question about Fuller and univocal predication. (Because he can't face the music with either a yes or no answer.) And of course he refuses, above, to answer my question whether design can be inferred from nature. (Excusing himself on the grounds that my views are different from the DI's -- which is utterly irrelevant to the question.) All of these evasions show that Gregory is not interested in intellectual debate. I would not stand up on a stage with such a person. E. I have never at any point offered my opinions on ID and evolution as peer-reviewed academic work. Gregory knows that I have published a good number of things under my real name, including some very good scholarly work. He also knows that I have not shied from defending that scholarly work in public. His claim that I am cowardly, that I avoid the scholarly world, is thus baseless, and he knows it to be so. What he wants me to do is to put my *scholarly* reputation on the line on the basis of my *extracurricular* studies in ID and evolution. That I will not do. I intend to keep publishing *scholarly* material in my fields of training, and *private* opinions, in *popular* media, regarding ID and evolution. If Gregory wants to publish peer-reviewed material on ID and evolution, let him. But he has no right to bully me into doing so, nor does he have the right to call me a coward because I don't do so. I show exactly the courage needed in my academic publications, and exactly the courage needed in my private writing in popular media regarding ID. Gregory's charge of cowardice therefore has no basis. The charge is being made simply to goad me to reveal my name to make myself more vulnerable to personal harassment and ad hominem attacks. And he maliciously misrepresents my prudence as cowardice. F. The true coward is the one who will not answer on-topic questions, and who tries to deflect attention from his evasiveness by various devices, such as issuing fatuous challenges to public debates. There is pretty near universal agreement here that Gregory has dodged a large number of important questions and criticisms. And Gregory is fully aware of the questions to which he has not provided answers, and I conclude that he has no intention of providing answers to those questions now, or in the future here, or on any other website, or in live debate. So let the readers of this site decide who is the coward. P.S. There is little doubt that Gregory will ignore 90% of the discussion in the above reply, and focus on my refusal to debate on his terms, and call me a coward for backing out. But of course I never agreed to any debate in the first place, so I have backed out of nothing. And of course his calling me a coward will provide further smokescreen for the unanswered questions referred to above. But no one here will fall for it. Everyone here knows that Gregory cannot defend his views and that this is why he will not give clear answers to questions and clear responses to textual evidence. Timaeus

Gregory:

Even if the book of Genesis doesn’t have the term ‘design’ anywhere in the text!

sarcasm Oh, now there's a convincing argument for you. /sarcasm How about transubstantiation? Chapter and Verse please. If some Biblical author wanted to get across the concept of design, what Hebrew word would he use? What Greek word? Mung

Gregory:

But it obviously was a flip-flop that still isn’t properly explained. Is God ‘designed/Designed’ or not, Mung, according to you? That’s a pretty basic question.

If the question is so utterly basic, Gregory, why are you just now getting around to asking it? No, God is not designed. I thought I made that clear and gave my reason why, but here it is again for you: Only some thing can be designed or not designed. God is no thing. Therefore, God cannot be designed. If only your own "arguments" were as clear and concise. So now what? Now that I make it clear that I don't think God is designed, and why, how does that change anything?

In any case, it sounds like Timaeus is ready to concede that ID theory is a version of natural theology, not of natural science.

It's also possible that you've offered a false dichotomoy. Natural theology is natural, after all. You've obviously not been keeping up with my posts on natural theology. But why should I repeat myself? Mung

In this thread I challenged Timaeus to a public debate, in his real name, documented and recorded. This is because UD is clearly not neutral territory and because I think Timaeus says things about ID theory that he wouldn’t say if he were actually standing behind his name, his credibility and his reputation and that he couldn’t get away with on a level playing field without fellow IDists supporting him, dog-piling on dissent and impugning the characters of anti-IDists. I don’t think he provides a credible or coherent defense of ID theory and I am willing to challenge him and to put my name, credibility and reputation on the line against him in a friendly debate. Timaeus queried this potential debate and now I am responding to him. I am suggesting a voice-recorded debate, following a format that Timaeus would likely agree to (which I will not now reveal here), since it would give him some control over editing the final copy of the audio recording. If Timaeus can only write, but can’t speak or think on his feet, obviously this won’t be agreeable to him. “just suppose, in an alternate universe, I were to agree to such a debate; tell me what the *question* of the debate would be, and I’ll tell you whether I would be even hypothetically interested.” – Timaeus Here’s what I propose is the *question* of the debate:

“This house believes that Intelligent Design is a revolutionary natural scientific theory for origins of life, origins of biological information and human origins, which will potentially replace (neo-)Darwinian evolutionary theory.”

Timaeus would obviously defend the affirmative and I would defend the negative. One suggestion; this debate would be submitted to Max Andrews’ new Sententias journal, as an audio file for its website. Feedback to the debate would be open under Andrews’ moderation. As an additional option to ‘sweeten’ the incentive for Timaeus, a second follow-up debate could be included, in which his question to me in this thread is used:

This house believes “that human reason, based on empirical evidence drawn from nature, and without any information derived from revelation, *could*, at least in principle, determine that at least some features of the natural world are designed."

Timaeus would again take the affirmative and I would take the negative. A moderator would be involved in one or both debates. My question would be addressed first. This debate/these debates would take place between mid-April and mid-May 2013. The ball’s now in Timaeus’ court. Does he accept this challenge or not? ‘ID’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse. It is not and cannot be a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. I have stated this repeatedly at UD and Timaeus has summoned the seemingly utmost limits of his crafty, rhetorical (and sometimes preposterous) sophistry in ducking, avoiding or spinning it. That is because the Discovery Institute still insists that ‘Intelligent Design’ theory is a natural scientific-only theory. Let us put this to sleep once and for all, done publically, not from behind Timaeus’ safety sock puppet mask. Will Timaeus accept the challenge to stand behind ‘Intelligent Design’ theory in public? For the record, folks, Timaeus has come out briefly from under his sock puppet in the past. Let us see if he has the courage to do so again. Gregory

“Theism is quite compatible with science once the science is not locked up to being applied Lewontinian a priori materialism, the real problem we face.” – KF Yes, KF, I agree. And as you should know by now, I am not a ‘Lewontinian a priori materialist.’ So please stop treating me as one because that is how you seem to treat anyone who rejects Big-ID theory. “Dembski is right that classical [theological] ‘design arguments’ should be distinguished from the modern ID argument which claims natural scientificity, especially in biology.” – Gregory Again, I stand behind this important distinction. “If it is true that everything in God’s creation — from atoms through rocks to stars and planets and vegetables and animals and man — is designed, then it is at least *possible* that the design in *all* or *some* cases can be detected by a combination of empirical and rational investigation.” – Timaeus Just like ‘cdesign proponentsists,’ Timaeus slips from ‘God’s creation’ to ‘nobody-in-particular’s design.’ Here is a clear example of Timaeus missing or simply glossing over (untenured) Dembski’s important distinction, and indeed, that which clearly and unequivocally validates the distinction between small-id (design arguments) and Big-ID (the modern ID argument; natural scientific ‘design in nature’ detection/inference). Mung wrote: “It’s hard to see where Gregory is going with this. Maybe he will share.” Because a ‘theory of everything’ is also likewise a ‘theory of nothing.’ That is what Big-ID theory becomes in the 'everything is designed' approach of people like Mung and Timaeus; a theory of nothing. Continually bleating “it couldn’t have happened by chance,” surely does have an apophatic place in science, philosophy, theology/worldview dialogue. I guess it’s just not that important in the more continental dialogue I’m involved in. We’re interested in deeper conversations than American philosophy of science allows and about the ‘here’s how it happened’ kataphatic case as well. “God has not forbidden the ID position, and he has not endorsed the TE position. Given God’s silence on the matter, I see nothing theologically offensive in the ID effort.” – Timaeus It is theologically offensive, as McGrath and many others have pointed out, because it needlessly makes theology vulnerable to scientific progress and discovery. You may not either recognise or accept that is what Big-ID theory actually means, Timaeus. But Big-ID’s particular ‘gap’ dependence is theologically offensive in many peoples’ eyes including theologians and apologists (e.g. notice even generally IDM-friendly John Lennox expresses reservations about using the term ‘intelligent design’). What is noteworthy to me is that Timaeus is categorically stuck in an ID vs. TE dichotomy and unfortunately seems himself unable to escape from this position and wants to drag others down with him. It may be that his generation (he was born in 1956, as he wrote indirectly at UD, in comparing his age to S. Fuller’s, which I confirmed independently) is still captive to the old ‘evolution vs. creation' conversation of the 20th century. He may therefore be not ready to move into the 21st century electronic age of extension, smart phones and twitter. But others here needn’t be chained in spirit by what binds Timaeus to pre-electric medieval ideas and philosophies. If a progressive contemporary holistic alternative to either ID or TE/EC came along, would others want to cling to his false dichotomous position, dragging them-selves down with Timaeusean-IDism? I should hope that independent thinkers at UD would at least be open to consider another possibility. “how about YOU dispense with trivial things (such as ID vs. id, the L in BioLogos, etc.) and address “the spirit of a proposition” concerning design in nature?” – Timaeus The Big-L in BioLogos is a monumental confession by one of the most important figures in science and religion/theology/faith dialogue in N. America. Trying to downplay or ignore the import of the Big-L in Logos is a self-inflicted insult to Timaeus’ intelligence and rationalist-religious sensitivities. Likewise, along with others outside of UD, I have shown already why Big-ID vs. small-id is both a legitimate and helpful distinction. This is why English-speaking world leaders in science, philosophy, theology discourse have adopted it, and I have simply followed their lead. Shooting the rare brave (and/or idiotic!) messenger won’t gain ‘ID’ any additional credibility. This is also likely why Timaeus himself first accepted the linguistic distinction between small-id and Big-ID, only to flip-flop and later reject it here for all to see in UD-ID safe haven; he saw what a significant (and ultimately devastating) challenge it poses to the IDM *if* it is required to choose *either* to write ‘Intelligent Design’ or ‘intelligent design’ in unison. The DI already knows this, which is why they almost uniformly now use ‘intelligent design’ without capital letters. Guys like Torley simply haven’t yet caught up or don’t care to tow the party line, due to their own independent evangelical on-line Intelligent Design missions. In the other thread I showed a direct example of UD flip-flopping between these Big-ID and small-id distinctions *communicatively speaking* in its own Glossary and even “ID Defined” page. And all I did to discover this was to ‘follow the evidence where it leads’! But IDists, in this case, seem to want to close their eyes, ears and hearts and to ‘not follow the evidence where it leads’ because that would uncover their ideological agenda. As for the rest regarding 'Timaeus,' see the challenge below. (cont'd) Gregory

First, in regard to this: “we have no evidence that Gregory would endorse ID arguments even if they were stripped bare of the terms ‘science’ and ‘scientific’.” – Timaeus Obviously they would cease to be DI-based ‘ID arguments’ in the case that “they were stripped bare of terms ‘science’ and ‘scientific’.” I’ve explained this many times already. Timaeus simply doesn’t want to acknowledge it. I'm not going to waste time discussing Timaeus' personal 'I+D' theory because no one follows it but himself. “I want him to stop using the term ‘scientific’ as a convenient excuse to avoid answering the question.”- Timaeus Again, then we wouldn’t be talking about DI-based ‘ID theory’ anymore. I’ll get back to Timaeus’ ‘avoidance’ suggestion below. In any case, it sounds like Timaeus is ready to concede that ID theory is a version of natural theology, not of natural science. Thus, ‘ID’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, (natural) theology/worldview discourse, as I’ve been saying here for too many months. It is not and cannot be a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. That should be an easy conclusion. Second, in a brief review of this thread: “I don’t think that God was designed.” – Mung (later taken back, see below) “there are literally infinitely many entities that are not designed / there are infinitely many non-designed entities.” – KF (See discussion of 'non-designed things,' which ended in silence by my IDist opponent, between gpuccio and I over 2 years ago here) Yet according to Mung and Timaeus (and BA77), “everything [in nature &/or creation] is designed,” which directly contradicts KF’s contention regarding ‘non-designed entities.’ Here I take “everything is designed” and “infinitely many non-designed entities” as incompatible with each other. Everything is ‘designed’ or everything is ‘non-designed’; these are the only two options these three (four) folks at UD are giving us. So, which is it? As Timaeus said: “It seems to me that Genesis 1 teaches that everything in creation was designed.” This is actually very close to ‘creationism,’ even if not of the young earth variety. Again, if a religious scripture says that, and if a religious believer believes it, then nothing that natural science says will convince them otherwise. (Timaeus already publically conceded that he believed in small-id ‘intelligent design’ before he’d heard of Big-ID 'Intelligent Design' theory.) And nothing a person discovers using “a combination of empirical and rational investigation” will convince them otherwise either. That 'ID' is what they ‘believe’ (i.e. have faith) in, above and beyond the limits of scientific explanation. Even if the book of Genesis doesn’t have the term ‘design’ anywhere in the text! And then Mung flip-flopped on his own statement above, even though it didn’t include the word ‘thing,’ by rejecting the thing-ness of ‘God.’ “God is no thing. So God cannot be a thing that is not designed. Sorry Gregory. It wasn’t an intentional tease.” – Mung But it obviously was a flip-flop that still isn’t properly explained. Is God ‘designed/Designed’ or not, Mung, according to you? That’s a pretty basic question. Telling another petty joke at my supposed expense isn’t going to change that. (Notice please that this is not asking if God is the designer/Designer necessary as a ‘mere implication’ of ID theory.) Why not just try to answer the question without playing the jester? (cont'd) Gregory

Hi, Mung. Re your question at 75, I'm just trying to get Gregory to clarify his position. He has said that he accepts design in nature, because of his "Abrahamic" faith. I translate such remarks into normal English as something like: "Because I am a Christian, I would believe in design on the strength of revelation even if I had no demonstration of it." Well, OK. I'm sure Augustine or Aquinas or Calvin would have no problem with a position like that. But I'm asking whether, in addition to that, Gregory believes anything more. We know that he heaps scorn on the idea that design in nature can be demonstrated "by science." What we don't know is whether he thinks that design in nature might be able to be proved by arguments such as those of Paley, or of others in the natural theology tradition. He has recently suggested that ID people have confused their approach with the earlier natural theology approach. That remark *could* imply that Gregory favors, or is open to, natural theology. So I'm trying to press him for more clarity on that. If, for example, Michael Behe were to swear never to use the word "science" or "scientific" in his arguments again, but used the same arguments, e.g., the adaptation of means to ends in the flagellum, then his arguments would look very much like Paley's; only they would be about molecules rather than bones or muscles. (Paley never used the word "scientific" to describe his arguments.) Thus, if Gregory were to say that Behe's arguments were quite fine, as long as he did not call them "scientific," then Gregory would be endorsing the general line of thinking of the natural theologians. So, far, however, we have no evidence that Gregory would endorse ID arguments even if they were stripped bare of the terms "science" and "scientific." And despite Gregory's distinction between ID and the old natural theology, he has never applied that distinction in favor of natural theology. He has never said, "ID bad, natural theology good." All he has said is "ID bad, ID also confused with natural theology." That leaves his position ambiguous. His position might well be, "ID bad, natural theology also bad, though not as bad as stinkin' ID." Another way of putting it is that Gregory has been clear about only two positions: ID, and fideistic Chrsitian belief in design. ID sucks, he says, and fideistic Christian belief is good. The intermediate possibility -- acceptance that *some* knowledge of God can come from reasoning about nature, even in the absence of revelation -- he has not taken a position on. So I've asked him to do that. But it is close to certain that he won't. Whenever we come close to pinning Gregory down to an intellectually coherent position, he either drops the discussion, or attacks the questioner for asking an illegitimate question, or indignantly refuses to respond to someone who is "demanding answers," or the like. He has accused me of lacking courage on a countless number of occasions, even where I have swiftly and forthrightly answered his questions. Well, I accuse him of lacking courage -- if he won't answer my question in #74 above. I want to hear him say either that he is open, or not open, to arguments made for design in nature that are not based on revelation. And I want him to stop using the term "scientific" as a convenient excuse to avoid answering the question. Timaeus

James Madden addresses the teleological argument (or argument from design) in chapter eight, which he likewise divides into two versions - a classical one and a modern one. Madden holds out little hope for the classical version, but argues that the modern version, inspired by by the kind of scientific research utilized in the so-called intelligent design movement, does show promise for overcoming Humean obstacles. - In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment

Oh my, it seems they forgot to capitalize certain essential terms! And worse, gasp!, there may be some benefit in the arguments or the approach of the IDM. Mung

Do you believe that human reason, based on empirical evidence drawn from nature, and without any information derived from revelation, *could*, at least in principle, determine that at least some features of the natural world are designed?

I've recently begun: Natural Signs and Knowledge of God: A New Look at Theistic Arguments Maybe Gregory would like to obtain a copy and discuss. Mung

T, And if Gregory is absolutely opposed to any *natural theology, how well does that fit in with the Christian tradition? *I don't say that he is, because he apparently supports Gingerich and the fine-tuning argument (and possibly other teleological and cosmological arguments), but I don't know if he sees them as part of natural theology. I certainly don't see him expressing any outrage towards natural theology, but maybe I'm just not looking. Mung

Gregory: Most of your reply above (69-70) is ad hominem -- have you ever asked yourself why you seem to be unable to disagree, not only with me, but with almost everyone you encounter on the internet, without throwing in gratuitous personal remarks? Anyhow, in light of your remark at the end of 70 above, concerning the need to ignore small matters of verbal expression and to get to "the spirit of the proposition" -- how about YOU dispense with trivial things (such as ID vs. id, the L in BioLogos, etc.) and address "the spirit of a proposition" concerning design in nature? Do you believe that human reason, based on empirical evidence drawn from nature, and without any information derived from revelation, *could*, at least in principle, determine that at least some features of the natural world are designed? Or do you believe that such a determination of design is impossible even in principle? And if you believe the latter, why? (Notice that the word "scientific" was no part of the question, and therefore should form no part of your answer.) If you are unwilling to answer this question, then no discussion between you and intelligent design proponents is possible. Timaeus

Gregory stamps his foot because I refuse to contradict myself. Then he berates Timaeus for not stepping in and what? I guess any opportunity to berate Timaeus is a good one. Gregory quotes me as saying I believe everything is designed. Then he demands that I give him a list of non-designed things. Then he whines when I don't. What gives? I think Gregory must be confused. He must think that ID is a theory of unintelligently designed things. Or perhaps a theory of intelligently non-designed things. It's hard to see where Gregory is going with this. Maybe he will share. Mung

F/N: Gregory also fails to acknowledge the point already highlighted, that a necessary being is non designed, not being contingent. Accordingly, there are literally infinitely many entities that are not designed. KF kairosfocus

Yup, just as, once, there was a Dred Scott decision. Judges are not normally experts on methods and philosophy of science and in this case when Judge Jones "traipsed" into design he refused to acknowledge the scientific and even plain simple brute print evidence in court -- remember, despite actual publications he ruled that such did not exist -- and he managed to copy submissions by NCSE/ACLU wholescale, gross errors and all. In short, in days to come, this decision will not look very good on serious analysis. Indeed, for good reason it has been severely dissected any number of times. KF kairosfocus

(cont’d) In the United States, there is a judicial precedent that states: “intelligent design is not science” and that “ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” That is simply a judicial fact, whether Timaeus or I or anyone else here agrees with it or not. You are of course correct, Timaeus, in saying “It all depends on what you mean by science.” Since you are so fond of biochemist Michael Behe’s philosophy of science, surely you count astrology and ether theory as ‘science,’ along with him, don’t you, Timaeus? The PoS Timaeus has repeatedly displayed at UD does not seem to be developed or wise any more than Behe’s! That’s a serious problem. If they were wise, people should not pay attention to Timaeus’ philosophy of science (PoS) because it is obviously very naïve. Pause and reflect pro-ID fanatics. As a religious studies PhD, Timaeus is clearly not trained in PoS (though he will likely contend that he thinks he is competent, without qualification) and as a self-admittedly active political theorist Timaeus has not trained himself (just by reading DI books?!) to competently speak about PoS. This is ‘following the evidence where it leads.’ Notice that Timaeus speaks of ‘ID efforts,’ much like a movement-propagandist would do. In doing so, he tries to avoid the question of ID’s supposed ‘natural scientificity,’ on which the ‘Design theory/hypothesis’ lives or dies. “the substance of what I am saying is the same as the substance of what they [Dembski and Behe] are saying” – Timaeus No, Timaeus. They are insisting on the natural scientificity of ID theory. You are not. Read your own words more carefully if you disagree: “I am *not* asking you to call the inference 'scientific'." - Timaeus You, Timaeus, are not claiming what they are claiming about the natural scientificity of ID theory as the IDM presents it publically. Will you not finally, openly, honestly, in public, like a man, like a person with a real character, face this fact? “I don’t feel bound to agree with Dembski, or any ID theorist, on every single point.” – Timaeus The proclaimed natural scientificity of ID theory is the linchpin of the so-called ‘ID controversy.’ Without it, you’ve got nothing. ID theorists believe there is ‘empirical evidence’ (follow it where it leads) of ‘design in nature’ that natural science can prove/infer. Timaeus, however, ‘doesn’t feel bound’ to that theory which he is propagating from the margins. What kind of flake speaks this way and expects to be taken seriously? How can Timaeus be a hero at UD when this is his twisted position? “I am not an original ID theorist but merely a supporter of ID.” – Timaeus Yes, that is surely correct. It means that Timaeus is simply a regurgitator of other peoples’ ideas, which he sometimes distorts. Timaeus is a provocateur with no original ideas of his own. This is what I’ve been highlighting about his Timaeusean-IDism for several years. “I am *not* asking you to call THE INFERENCE 'scientific'." - Timaeus I’ve met or corresponded with almost all of the actual originators of ID theory; Thaxton, Meyer, Behe, Johnson, Dembski, Wells, Nelson, West. Timaeus is self-admittedly not an ID theorist, and his views of ID are obviously parasitic on their conceptualisation. And if he actually thinks he is not parasitic, then he should please say so clearly and without the usual sophistry and rhetoric (this seems to be hard for him) how his own view of ‘ID’ theory differs from theirs. “What does labelling such empirical/rational arguments as “scientific” add to the strength of the arguments themselves?” – Timaeus That is what makes the argument an actual argument! The second side of the ID-Wedge is that Darwinian evolutionary theory, become neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory in the Modern Synthesis, is wrong, wrong, wrong and that ID theory is a natural scientific revolution that is destined to replace it. Drop the claims to natural scientificity and the IDM will rather swiftly disappear and its right-wing financiers along with it. “If it is true that everything in God’s creation — from atoms through rocks to stars and planets and vegetables and animals and man — is designed (a conclusion Gregory doesn’t object to), then it is at least *possible* that the design in *all* or *some* cases can be detected by a combination of empirical and rational investigation.” I don’t object to ‘design/Design’ on a theological level. But how you frame it, Timaeus, makes as much sense as saying if one is an Abrahamic believer, then one *should* accept Intelligent Design theory. That is simply not a necessary conclusion; it is the presupposition that any natural scientist brings to the table rather than the discoveries that their natural science makes. “Certainly, at a minimum, even if ID arguments are not “science” in themselves, they are *based on* the most current results of natural science.” – Timaeus That is of course debatable. You can’t claim that ID leaders are on the cutting-edge of a definition of a ‘science’ that they reject. They want unnamed ‘intelligent agents/Intelligent Agents’ included in biology! Aliens, ghosts, what else? Instead, all you can say is that IDists are *attempting* to force a paradigm shift. The truth is that most current natural scientists are not buying into it and the public education system in the USA has rejected it also. “I am *not* asking you to call the inference 'scientific'." - Timaeus It is not controversial to say that the IDist bid to get ‘intelligent agency/Intelligent Agency’ grafted into biology has failed to convince and even that it is bound to lose. “So what would Gregory have me call modern ID? Philosophical argumentation based on natural science?” – Timaeus Well, at least Timaeus asked with some attempt at honesty. The issue is not whether or not ID is ‘based on natural science’ or not. The paradigm called ‘creation science’ also claims to be ‘based on natural science.’ Timaeus has admitted that ‘creation science’ is ‘bad science.’ Therefore, such argumentation gets us nowhere. What would I have Timaeus call it: ID theory is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation. Will you not recognise this as the proper dialogical space for ID theory, Timaeus? “I do not see such a project as *in conflict with* the teaching of the Bible.” – Timaeus Yes, I agree. Your leaders’ ID project is not necessarily “*in conflict with* the teaching of the Bible.” But very, very many people disagree with your support of ID because its the claim of ‘natural scientificity,’ even if you don't stand behind that claim. And the Bible itself doesn’t use the speciic language of ‘Intelligent Design.’ If one can ‘natural scientifically’ prove/infer design, then faith in the unseen takes on a different meaning. “God has not forbidden the ID position, and he has not endorsed the TE position.” – Timaeus Timaeus, we are both Abrahamic believers. I’ve offered you a realistic third way and all you could do was pitifully critique my grammar and amend sentence structure, not once or in-depth focussing on the actual meaning, the spirit of the proposition. Had you done that, you could have leapt over many of the stubborn fetishes and dead-end streets you currently hold in support of ID theory, *as if* it is the savior of Western civilisation as you envision it. Gregory

Mung has taken his statement back (#59), so Timaeus is left holding the bag. That’s ID comradeship? That’s your movement's collective unconscious? “why my nuanced view concerning ID and science might be seen as constituting some kind of betrayal of, or defection from, ID?” – Timaeus Because it is ‘nuanced,’ meaning ‘tricksy’ (Gollum, Gollum) and unprofessional. Timaeus cannot betray that which he hasn’t privately or publically sworn any allegiance to. That’s Timaeusean-ID, that’s ideological propaganda. If Timaeus were actually a professional, then he’d have no hesitation to show it. He respectfully holds a PhD and should therefore be active in academic life. But we can only guess that for whatever reasons he isn’t, since he doesn’t show it. He chooses to hide, and that’s what his ‘fans’ and ‘drum-bangers’ at UD see and what visitors to this site realise about his tendentious commitment to ID theory. “his epic war against my ideas and my person” - Timaeus Oh, goodness, no. I’m at heart a collaborator rather than a combatant. My policy is ‘mutual aid’ (vzaimopomosh). I don’t live in the troubled North American fiasco, Timaeus, and thus I can speak openly without fear of being ‘expelled.’ This is a fear which Timaeus has stated personally here. I certainly don’t consider it an ‘epic war,’ but rather a friendly on-line disagreement. But I’m ready and not afraid to lock horns with fanatics and ideologues such as Timaeus when they announce themselves proud on behalf of IDism. Timaeus demonstrates fanatical IDist qualities (albeit as a flip-flopper) in abundance. Whether he is worth ‘locking horns with’ has yet to be shown since he cowers behind (an) on-line pseudonym(s) and won’t agree to recorded public debate. “suppose I were to start thinking the way Gregory thinks.” – Timaeus You’d quickly become a non-IDist. And you’d be ready to come out from behind your waterfall sock-puppet identity crisis and face the reality of ID’s natural scientistic dilemma. That would be the result if you started thinking like I do. “As for whether we should call the ID effort “scientific,” the answer to that is: “It all depends on what you mean by science.” Under some definitions of “science” ID would count as science; under others, it would not.” – Timaeus That is not ‘THE’ answer; it is ‘your’ personal self-righteous answer, delivered from behind an on-line sock-puppet. Hello, are you being solipsistic, ‘western’ religious historian? It would help if you would actually take credit and responsibility for your own thoughts, instead of expecting that is what everyone else thinks or *should* think as propaganda for the IDM. This is partly why I harp on your ‘anonymous’ pseudo-privilege; it allows you to slither away from investing your real character in your statements, such that your personal identity must stand or fall behind them. You have chosen not to stand, but to lie and hide and your views should thus be understood accordingly. (cont'd) Gregory

Mung says: “I believe everything is designed.” Is that supposed to be called a ‘natural scientific’ theory of ID?!

‘Universalist designism’ is an ideology that contends ‘everything is designed’ and in the Big-ID theory variety, it says natural science (using statistics and probabilities combined with bio-informatics) can ‘prove/infer’ it.

“What then in your opinion, Mung, is *not* designed, from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint?”

NO ANSWER! Stay silent. Mung has become (technically) ‘dumb’ (without the ability to speak). Grade: 2.5 – lowered because of flip-flop to: 0.0 = Fail. "Not really." Yes, really. Gregory

Gregory:

This kind of language demonstrates aptly why most people think hard-core IDists are simply flakes.

Not really. Mung

Strangest thing happened just now, I was browsing for interesting-looking NDE experiences on YouTube, turned the page, and right at the top of the list of video-clips accessible from that screen, was The Love Song of Alfred J Prufrock, narrated by T S Eliot, which I cited ironically, above! Yet it was under a different user-name. It could be another little joke of the security services. Axel

"there are infinitely many non-designed entities, and that by pointing to just one member of the class of necessary beings, that carries with it the rest" This kind of language demonstrates aptly why most people think hard-core IDists are simply flakes. Gregory

Gregory claims to have anticipated my original response. I wonder if he did so following the same non-thinking that he now accuses me of. lol

Not worth peoples’ time and attention.

Now if you could just empathize with us maybe you would change your tune. But I doubt it. Mung

Gregory wrote: "At least Timaeus is thinking, even as a political theorist." I'm staggered! Now as a normal person, my reaction would be to thank Gregory for the (somewhat left-handed) compliment, and to perceive a slight willingness on his part to scale down his epic war against my ideas and my person. But suppose I were to start thinking the way Gregory thinks. Suppose that, instead of taking Gregory's words for what they seem to be, and reacting to them on the assumption that he meant what he said (as he ought to react to ID arguments for design in nature as if the ID proponents meant what they said) -- suppose that I were to adopt the stance of the sociologist animated by the hermeneutic of suspicion, and start speculating about the motives which might lead Gregory to pay me even a minor compliment (as he speculates about the theocratic intentions behind even the driest of biochemical or statistical arguments in ID books). I then might come up with something like this: "Aha! Gregory suspects that, as I am somewhat older than he is, and may have health problems, the shock of receiving a compliment might go straight to my heart, and do me in! The compliment is therefore a dishonest rhetorical ploy, devised to cover up his secret agenda of "McLuhan-Fullerism," which aims at reshaping the world by a "human extension" which will "extend" out and crush "Big-ID," while simultaneously diminishing the number of humanities scholars in the world by one, to give sociologists a comparative advantage in securing academic jobs." That's what I would think, if I thought like Gregory. Naaahhh... Thanks for the compliment, Gregory. Keep 'em coming. Timaeus

Gregory, do you understand that there are infinitely many non-designed entities, and that by pointing to just one member of the class of necessary beings, that carries with it the rest? KF kairosfocus

Apology accepted. Yet another flip-flopping example of why no one should take the IDM seriously. "I don't think that God was designed" / "God cannot be a thing that is not designed." You have not spoken wisely. Universalist designism. Neo-creationism. Small-minded American home-grown ideology in the name of 'ID.' Not worth peoples' time and attention. At least Timaeus is thinking, even as a political theorist. Gregory

Sorry Gregory. It wasn't an intentional tease. :) Mung

I’ll give you one so that you can have your rhetorical victory. God. I don’t think that God was designed. Satisfied?

Sorry, I have to take that back. God is no thing. So God cannot be a thing that is not designed. Mung

I should have said, 'is the preferred 'battle order', rather than Hamlet and LSoAJP. Axel

It has got to be like clockwork for our scientismifical friends, Timaeus, and even the most oblique allusion to philosophy will give them a very nasty bout of the vapours. They wouldn't be mad about the quantum paradigm, as it's weirdness is so antithetical to the fabled 'promissory note'. Hence your perceived, grave 'faux pas'. IDers, doubtless with good reason, fear that introducing the scientismificists to such a sophisticated level of reasoning, comes dangerously close to 'bringing a knife to a gunfight'. A Maori-type Haka is preferred to Hamlet, or the Love Song of Alfred J Prufrock, if you get my drift. Axel

Perhaps Mung is biting his fingers, realising he is on the hook for 4 more examples. That's why he comments elsewhere, but doesn't offer a thoughtful answer here. We know which finger he's already bitten off! Gregory

Note this exchange, from Gregory above: *********** Gregory: You answered (Hurray!): “It seems to me that Genesis 1 teaches that everything in creation was designed.” Gregory: So, then (another drum roll please!), what does that have to do with ‘modern’ ID theory as a specifically DI-IDM invention that claims natural scientificity? ************ So Gregory approves of my answer to his first question. That's good. It means that he understands how I interpreted Mung's statement: "I believe that everything is designed, even rocks." So far, so good. But Gregory remains unsatisfied. He wants me to explain not merely why I defended Mung, but how my view relates to "modern ID theory." Well, I don't see that the answer is very complicated. If it is true that everything in God's creation -- from atoms through rocks to stars and planets and vegetables and animals and man -- is designed (a conclusion Gregory doesn't object to), then it is at least *possible* that the design in *all* or *some* cases can be detected by a combination of empirical and rational investigation. As I understand the efforts of Denton, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc., they are trying to show that *all* or at least *some* of the design in nature is detectable by a combination of empirical and rational investigation. I do not see such a project as *in conflict with* the teaching of the Bible. It may not be *required* by the teaching of the Bible, but it is not *in conflict with* the teaching of the Bible. Another way of putting this is: God may not have said, "Go out and try to prove that nature is designed rather than the product of chance," but equally he has not said, "Do not try to prove that nature is designed rather than the product of chance, because I have so constructed the universe that the design can never be established by mortals except by the eye of faith." In other words, God has not forbidden the ID position, and he has not endorsed the TE position. Given God's silence on the matter, I see nothing theologically offensive in the ID effort. As for whether we should call the ID effort "scientific," the answer to that is: "It all depends on what you mean by science." Under some definitions of "science" ID would count as science; under others, it would not. As Steve Fuller has indicated, not many centuries ago, ID would have been considered a perfectly "scientific" investigation. Certainly, at a minimum, even if ID arguments are not "science" in themselves, they are *based on* the most current results of natural science. So what would Gregory have me call modern ID? Philosophical argumentation based on natural science? And if I do, will he then accuse me of "disagreeing" with Behe, or Dembski, or someone else, because I don't use quite the same terminology as they, even though the substance of what I am saying is the same as the substance of what they are saying? To me, the essence of modern ID is the insight that the most up-to-date natural science confirms and strengthens the kind of argumentation that Paley and earlier philosophers and theologians used without the benefit of that natural science. Behe's biochemical arguments parallel Paley's anatomical arguments; Dembski's probability arguments give quantitative measurements to Paley's intuitive sense of what is improbable; etc. I thus see continuity between the method of Paley and the methods of modern ID. Does Dembski disagree with that? I don't know. I've never seen any statement of Dembski that disagrees with that; but supposing there are such statements, I don't feel bound to agree with Dembski, or any ID theorist, on every single point. I know that I am not an original ID theorist but merely a supporter of ID. But my contacts with ID people, which from time to time have included contacts with major ID people, have suggested to me that most ID people find my understanding of the project to be broadly in line with theirs. The statements that Gregory has chided me for about "scientificity" (what a clumsy, ugly word!), have never led to any reprimand to me, privately or publically, from any minor or major ID theorist. So I must confess, in all honesty, that I don't understand what Gregory is saying to me. I don't understand why he thinks I am far off the beaten track of ID theory. Can others here -- StephenB or kairosfocus or anyone else -- tell me why my nuanced view concerning ID and science might be seen as constituting some kind of betrayal of, or defection from, ID? Do I have to add the word "scientific" to my design arguments in order to be a true-blue ID supporter? Can't I just say that design is detectable by a combination of the empirical/mathematical investigation of nature and rational inferences based on that investigation? What does labelling such empirical/rational arguments as "scientific" add to the strength of the arguments themselves? If my lack of interest in shouting to the world, "ID is science, darn it! Science! Science!" means that I have failed the cause, would someone please straighten me out? Timaeus

"any necessary being is non-designed." - KF #51 Go fish. I'll keep waiting for Mung's next four examples. What are 4 more examples of things you think were/are not ‘designed,’ from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint? Does Mung agree with Timaeus that "everything ['in creation' and/or 'in nature'] was designed"? If so, then no more examples will be provided by Mung and he could easily acknowledge this: "Only God is not 'designed,' everything else is 'designed', i.e. by God. That's what natural theology says." "I don’t think that God was designed. Satisfied?" - Mung Gregory

Please stop your bobbling, Timaeus. You chose the 15th paragraph from #47, in which I highlighted your misleading phrase "Behe and I," yet ignored the first 14. This is typical of your communicative style; you seem to latch on to a single fetish of your own making, which you wish to try to exploit and then flood a thread writing paragraphs about it. Just stick to the main question and keep your parlour tricks to yourself. If you can do that, then afterwards I'll answer your anxious "alternative universe" response to the challenge of what you have perceived as "a special public debate." Hint: it doesn't involve "a thousand or two for travel costs" from your pocket! I asked: What then in your opinion, Timaeus, is *not* designed, from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint (since you personally “don’t insist on” the natural scientificity of ID)? You answered (Hurray!): “It seems to me that Genesis 1 teaches that everything in creation was designed.” So, then (another drum roll please!), what does that have to do with ‘modern’ ID theory as a specifically DI-IDM invention that claims natural scientificity? Nothing, right? "Everything [in creation] is designed," according to Genesis, according to sacred scripture. But that has *nothing* to do with the 'science' of Intelligent Design - zero, nada, zip, nul, zilch. Thus, Dembski is right that classical 'design arguments' should be distinguished from the modern ID argument which claims natural scientificity, especially in biology. Since ‘Timaeusean-ID’ is obviously parasitic on 'modern ID theory,’ this question is rather pertinent to his banana-skin pirouette. Timaeus did not come up with Intelligent Design theory on his own, but rather has swallowed what he has read from Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Wells, Nelson, et al. Obviously here and now he is regurgitating something (not scientific, but highly rhetorical) that he also calls 'Intelligent Design theory,' which is quite different from what ID leaders still contend because they insist on the natural scientificity of Intelligent Design while Timaeus does not. Gregory

Gregory

Thank you for this. We both already agree that Genesis 1 does *not* teach a modern ‘natural scientific’ theory.

Another strawman appears. No one ever claimed that Genesis presents a "modern natural scientific argument." Science measures things. Genesis makes no attempt to quantify the elements in nature or develop scientific theories.

We are as usual expected to guess at the reasons for his current flip-flop because he rarely explains himself.

Design arguments come in various forms such as philosophical design arguments, faith-based design arguments, and scientific design arguments, but Gregory thinks that the mere act of recognizing their common elements constitutes a "flip flop." Remarkable.

Timaeus rarely explains himself.

What could possibly prompt Gregory to make such a statement? The following explanation from Wikipedia might serve to illuminate: "'Psychological projection' was first conceptualized by Sigmund Freud as a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own negative attributes by ascribing them to the outside world instead. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting faults onto others."

I’m sure you’re regularly in e-mail contact with Dr. Michael Behe, aren’t you Timaeus? Are we really supposed to accept that a religious studies, western philosophy PhD and an American biochemist are ‘speaking the same language’ about ‘design,’ especially when one contends ID is a natural scientific theory and the other “doesn’t insist on it”? This is just so far from believable as to belong in theatre of the absurd.

Some things are worth repeating: "'Psychological projection' was first conceptualized by Sigmund Freud as a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own negative attributes by ascribing them to the outside world instead. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting faults onto others."

I’ve challenged you to a public debate, ‘Timaeus,’ in your real name, documented and recorded. You’ve ducked and will most likely duck the challenge once again here at UD, your perceived safe haven. Come out of UD and face me on neutral territory, with your integrity as a scholar openly exposed, and your seemingly invincible ‘design in nature’ non-apologetic plot will fall to pieces.

A change of venue would not help Gregory. At this site, he can get away with ignoring the questioner. In a public debate, he would have to hide behind the stage curtain. StephenB

Gregory, Pardon an intervention but the import of Mung's remark is that any necessary being is non-designed. That implies an infinity of non-designed entities, starting with abstract ones like numbers and relationships that are necessary, such as 3 + 2 = 5. Given that our physical world is credibly contingent, is is not credibly a necessary being, nor would be anything made up of particles in our world. Where also, there is strong evidence per fine tuning that the physical cosmos we live in is designed, as well as the world of life in it. That contingency in turn points onwards to a root of being that is necessary, intelligent and awesomely powerful, purposing to create life in a cosmos set up to host life. And yes, that sounds rather like providing a science-based side-light on things like "the heavens declare the glory of God," and like "in him we live and move and have our being" and like "the world was made through him" or "without him was not anything made that was made," and that he "upholds all things by his powerful world," etc. Theism is quite compatible with science once the science is not locked up to being applied Lewontinian a priori materialism, the real problem we face. KF kairosfocus

Gregory, you say bizarre things. Because I used the compound subject "Behe and I," you seem to think that I was claiming to be pals with Michael Behe! Well, first of all, I wouldn't regularly e-mail Behe even if I thought he would answer me -- I wouldn't want to distract him from his important work. And second of all, my sentence merely indicated that Behe and I had a view in common, not that we had ever communicated with each other! But don't underestimate Behe's interest in classical design arguments. He has talked about Paley in some depth -- albeit in one of those ID books you apparently haven't read, since you don't seem to remember his discussion of Paley. So right away he and I have something in common. Even so, I wouldn't interrupt his biochemical researches to gab about our common respect for Paley. You want a special public debate with me? Why? We're already in public debate here! Anything (*of a non-personal character*) that you could say on a stage at some college or university, you can say here. No scientific or philosophical or theological argument is forbidden here. The only difference is that the public debate would be in-person. But what would the advantage of that be? I don't have the good looks of Hugh Jackman and I don't have the greatest speaking voice, so it wouldn't be very entertaining from a show-biz point of view, and it's a very inefficient way of getting content to audiences, to spend hours or days travelling and weeks making travel arrangements so that 40 or 50 people could listen to us for 90 minutes, when in this medium we can pump out way more than 90 minutes' worth of material with much less effort, to a much bigger audience -- and have longer to answer audience questions as well! And at no monetary cost! There is no gain in the personal format that I can see, except in theatricality. Are you suggesting that an in-person format would somehow improve the contents of the debate? If so, how? You don't answer most of the objections and questions that are put to you here; why would I have any reason to think that you would be more forthcoming in person? And you speak to me angrily and insultingly here, and you accuse me of all kinds of base motives; why should I put up with having to listen to that in person? So all in all, what would there be in such an event for me? The same old outcome of our debates here, with me out a thousand or two for travel costs! But just suppose, in an alternate universe, I were to agree to such a debate; tell me what the *question* of the debate would be, and I'll tell you whether I would be even hypothetically interested. Timaeus

Gregory, I've just ran across this old beaut from Fuller that you might appreciate:

In Cambridge, Professor Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design - Video https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/news/in-cambridge-professor-steve-fuller-discusses-why-the-hypothesis-of-intelligent-design-is-not-more-popular-among-scientists-and-others/ At 17:34 minute mark of the video, Dr. Steve Fuller states: "So you think of physics in search of a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything", Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however mulrifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropiate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.",,, You see, there is sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,"

bornagain77

Mung is obviously busy munching on his freebie. Let's see if he has anything further to add. "I’ll give you one so that you can have your rhetorical victory." - Mung Oh, so generous! Yet it's not a rhetorical victory. It merely seeks to understand the truth of peoples' views. What then in your opinion, Mung, is *not* designed, from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint? Since you’ve been extraordinarily impertinent, I’ll ask for at least 5 things that are *not designed* from your natural theological perspective. So far you've given one. Gregory

Timaeus must have written #46 only half-awake. "It seems to me that Genesis 1 teaches that everything in creation was designed." - Timaeus Thank you for this. We both already agree that Genesis 1 does *not* teach a modern 'natural scientific' theory. Yet ever the flip-flopper, Timaeus now changes his wording again. Not "everything is designed" or "everything in nature is designed," but "everything in *creation* is designed." We are as usual expected to guess at the reasons for his current flip-flop because he rarely explains himself. Let us not forget that 'designing processes' are unfathomable for Timaeus because his personal meaning of 'design' is purely abstract, in the mind/Mind, not in the actualisation or instantiation. Let us remember that 'creationist' ideology also speaks about "everything in creation," just as Timaeus now does. But, of course, Timaeus is *not* (and cannot logically be) an ideologue in any sense, shape or form because he is so rational and careful with his flip-flopping words. He avows he is not a 'creationist,' does not believe in a 'young earth,' etc. and considers such a view 'bad science,' even if he won't personally take a stand against creationist-IDists. "There is nothing (of general purport, as opposed to scientific detail) that Behe argues that would be out of place in the pages of a Paley or a Renaissance Platonist or an ancient Greek or Roman defender of design." - Timaeus This shows how far outside the mainstream Timaeus' views of ID actually are. He does not require "scientific detail." He just wants a "general purport" argument for design. This of course departs drastically from Dembski, Behe and Meyer quite plainly, as anyone who has read these authors can see. Timaeus admits he has not read Dembski's 'popular' books and claims (presumptuously without knowing, as usual) that I haven't read any of Dembski's 'theoretical' books. However, I did read Dembski's "The Design Inference" (but he didn't 'eliminate chance,' of course!). So, yet again, Timaeus, in trying to speak for others is caught with his pants down. "frankly, I don’t care whether people are persuaded by Behe or by some ancient author, since I believe the argument for design is sound." - Timaeus As if there is a 'single,' unequivocal thing called (drum-roll please) "THE" argument for design, that Timaeus has direct access to through his training in ancient and pre-modern 'western philosophy'! The truth is that there are multiple 'design arguments,' as Dembski shows in "The Design Revolution" and as many others have written about in both ID and predominantly in non-ID literature. “I am *not* asking you to call the inference 'scientific'." - Timaeus Yes, that's the key Timaeusean-ID oversight. Have fun on the margins of IDM relevance then Timaeus because what you say is not what ID theory actually contends, in the works of Behe, Meyer, Dembski, Wells, Nelson, et al. And the strange thing is that you don't seem to care (and now have even openly stated this) one way or another, you seem to welcome your intentional marginality! You seem to realise that in not defending the IDM's necessary claim of the 'natural scientificity' of ID, you become basically irrelevant to the main actors, a kind of intellectual cheerleader watching the real action - go team. "Behe and I" - Timaeus I'm sure you're regularly in e-mail contact with Dr. Michael Behe, aren't you Timaeus? Are we really supposed to accept that a religious studies, western philosophy PhD and an American biochemist are 'speaking the same language' about 'design,' especially when one contends ID is a natural scientific theory and the other "doesn't insist on it"? This is just so far from believable as to belong in theatre of the absurd. "I think I can defend my arguments for design in nature" - Timaeus Timaeus thinks he can, but no, he would be intellectually slaughtered. He would be shown to be the fantasy-ID, anti-TE sock puppet that he currently is. No defense of ID's natural scientificity, no defense of his anti-TE/EC BioLogos-hating views, no pre-modern philosophy to offer that could potentially be resonant in the electronic-information age. Just soft-IDist pseudo-objectivism. Bring on lob-city! I've challenged you to a public debate, 'Timaeus,' in your real name, documented and recorded. You've ducked and will most likely duck the challenge once again here at UD, your perceived safe haven. Come out of UD and face me on neutral territory, with your integrity as a scholar openly exposed, and your seemingly invincible 'design in nature' non-apologetic plot will fall to pieces. You could then easily and with integrity admit and find my agreement if you so recognise it that "‘ID’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse." It is not and cannot be a 'natural-science-only' theory. Max Andrews, the main theme of the OP, seems to be on the same page with this assessment, going by the mission of his new Journal. Gregory

It's a bit rich for Gregory to complain about people not answering his questions, when he has failed to answer -- either by silence or by evasion/obfuscation -- about 90% of the questions put to him on this site. I made no comment on the views of Dembski or Discovery. I was asked to justify my comment that Mung's view struck me as Biblical. I tried to do that, by referring to Genesis 1 -- in line with Gregory's request (#24) for a Torah passage. It seems to me that Genesis 1 teaches that everything in creation was designed. If Gregory would like to debate my interpretation of Genesis, he has every right to; but I have explained what I meant and therefore fulfilled my primary dialogical obligation. I have not read any of Dembski's popular books, and Gregory has not read any of Dembski's theoretical books, which makes communication between us regarding Dembski quite difficult. However, I do know Behe's writings quite well, and it strikes me that no "conflation" of Behe's ID and classic design arguments is necessary. There is nothing (of general purport, as opposed to scientific detail) that Behe argues that would be out of place in the pages of a Paley or a Renaissance Platonist or an ancient Greek or Roman defender of design. The line of reasoning is exactly the same. But in an age that worships "science" (a worship which both Gregory and I deplore), an argument loaded with discussions of molecular biology and probability theory and information theory is likely to win more hearts and minds than an essentially identical argument couched in terms of means and ends and chance and contrivance etc. And frankly, I don't care whether people are persuaded by Behe or by some ancient author, since I believe the argument for design is sound. Nor am I overly worried -- if it should prove to be true -- that Dembski disagrees with some view that Behe and I share in common. Individuals from the same broad camp often disagree over things, sometimes even major things. That is a surprise to nobody. In the final analysis, my views are my own, and I must answer to reason and evidence, not to Dembski or Murphy or Bejan or Gregory or Fuller or anyone else. I think I can defend my arguments for design in nature, and have offered many times to defend them against Gregory's criticism; but he refuses to discuss arguments for design in nature on this site. Which is a bit like refusing to debate the doctrine of false consciousness on a site devoted to the thought of Marx, or refusing to debate the thesis that religious ideas shape cultures on a site devoted to the thought of Weber. Gregory comes here and writes hundreds of thousands of words, but won't write any words about the validity or invalidity of the actual arguments that have been offered for intelligent design. Bizarre. Timaeus

N. Matzke: "before declaring my entire field bogus" Well, I wouldn't call your entire field bogus. But I'm sure you'll admit that every field is based and built upon certain ideological preferences and 'schools' of thought. Your field of evolutionary biology is clearly tainted with ideology in so far as it shows a deep sociological imbalance via population statistics; more atheists and agnostics flock to that field than almost any other in the contemporary Academy. Surely you don't deny it. My suggestion: Be sure to inquire to James M. Tour about his considered rejection of ID when you meet him. He wants to be "free of that ID label" and people here should better understand why. That a well-in-pocket IDist would volunteer to pay for your trip to meet Dr. Tour's challenge regarding micro- & macro-evolution is otoh not surprising. Otoh, however, it may surprise ID people here at UD to hear about Tour's reasonable rejection of their quasi-positivistic, neo-creationist ID theory approach from the other side of Phillip Johnson's Wedge. "I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design for the reasons I state above: I can not prove it using my tools of chemistry to which I am bound in the chemistry classroom." -James M. Tour As Dr. Tour is a religious man, we can conclude he (believes he) sees 'Creation' through the eyes of faith. IDists, however, who claim that using natural scientific tools *can* 'prove/infer' Intelligent Design are obviously not convincing to Dr. Tour. Dr. Tour's distinction between 'Intelligent Design' and 'intelligent design' makes it possible for him to say "the scientific proof [for ID] is not there, in my opinion." Do you agree or disagree with this distinction, Nick? Dr. Tour continues: "I do not well-understand the stance of many of my creationist friends regarding their scientific evidence for creation or intelligent design...they are too quick to cite each other or to refer to 40-year-old studies, and slow to consider the newer findings in the mainstream scientific literature." That seems to reflect quite accurately what's going on in torley's Wedge-oriented thread on Dr. James M. Tour views of 'evolution'. Gregory

Crusading to "save Western civilisation" as an anonymous blogger, unfortunately, answering simple and direct questions isn't a strong point of Timaeus'. With Timaeus' on-line habits, one needs to read carefully, not just what he answers, but to keep an eye out closely for what he doesn't answer. In this case, he and Mung were discussing if 'everything is designed.' It seemed that Timaeus was implying that view is an "essentially Biblical teaching." Thus, I asked them both simple direct questions, which have not yet been answered. From #30: What then in your opinion, Timaeus, is *not* designed, from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint (since you personally “don’t insist on” the natural scientificity of ID)? Timaeus opined: “Mung offers an essentially Biblical teaching.” Is Timaeus suggesting it is “an essentially Biblical teaching” that “everything in nature is designed?” But he seemed to stop short (#28) of saying that it is “an essentially Biblical teaching” that “everything is designed,” as I defined ‘universal designism’ to describe some peoples’ views. Is that the distinction Timaeus wishes to make, thus hinging on the ‘in nature’ in his attempted clarification? Or does he accept and personally believe that both “everything in nature is designed” and “everything is designed” are “an essentially Biblical teaching”? So far, it is not clear. Timaeus wrote: ““everything in nature is designed” — and that is essentially the position of Genesis 1.” What does that have to do with ‘modern’ ID theory as a specifically DI-IDM invention that claims natural scientificity? Even Dembski distinguishes ‘[the] design argument(s)’ (language adjusted because he flip-flops between singular and plural repeatedly) from ‘Intelligent Design’ theory. There’s a chapter on it in his book “The Design Revolution.” It looks like Timaeus and Mung are attempting to conflate a classical 'design argument(s)' with IDT, whereas Dembski quite clearly would not agree with them (and its Dembski's definition of ID that most matters here at UD). Gregory

Guys, guys! If Gregory wants to discuss the views of Tour, that's fine. But if, in any of his posts on Tour, he slips Big-ID vs. small-id terminology into the discussion, we should simply not reply to those posts. It's the only way we will ever stop him from talking about Big-ID vs. small-id -- to ignore anything he publishes here on the subject. I will make some comments on Tour: 1. His doubts about neo-Darwinism, as his talk shows (from about 52 to 56 minutes in) are based on science, not religion. He doesn't think the neo-Darwinian mechanism has what it takes to produce the kind of molecular novelty it needs to produce. In that, he is right in tune with ID theorists. That must piss Gregory off no end, but it's a fact. 2. By his own confession, his Christian understanding is primarily experiential. He says he's not a philosopher or theologian, and doesn't pretend to any ability to articulate Christian theology in a coherent way. (This modesty is a pleasant change from those BioLogos and ASA scientists who don't acknowledge their intellectual limitations and are always making amateur and foolish systematic claims regarding providence, randomness, deism, etc.) So we can expect that his philosophical articulation of Christian faith will have some defects in it. He may not notice those Biblical passages which have natural theology implications, because he is so fixated on the "experiential" side of Christianity -- and hence on the passages which relate to sin, guilt, personal salvation, etc. Generally speaking, I've noticed that those Christians who are of a "fideistic" temperament (usually Wesleyans, but sometimes Lutherans, Pietists, Mennonite, etc.) don't much care for ID, whereas those Christians who are of a "rational" temperament do. And this is not surprising. The natural tendency of fideism is to downplay reason, observation, common sense, science, logic, etc. and emphasize the sheer emotional power of the conversion experience, of revelation, etc. Those of us, on the other hand, who identify with the Classical-Christian tradition (which is predominant in Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and parts of Calvinist Christianity), are much less negative about the powers of reason and observation. In connection with this, it is interesting that while "TE" means theistic evolution and therefore should be attractive to Jews, Muslims, and others, TE in practice is a wholly Christian affair in which Jews and Muslims take very little interest, whereas ID attracts Jews, Muslims and others, because ID's insistence upon the powers of human reason and observation -- which cross religious boundaries -- makes it possible for people of different religions to join hands, Here, the Pope's Regensburg address is relevant: Catholic Christianity acknowledges a common rationality which belongs to man as man, and therefore provides a home for natural theology, which can serve as a vestibule for revealed theology. For many TEs -- and even for non-TEs such as Tour -- the truths of the natural man and the truths of revelation are in disconnection. So one looks at nature and sees nothing but laws and chance, until faith says: "You are required to regard all these natural phenomena as designed, because I, God, tell you so." We can count on Tour, as a good scientist, to resist the bullying of the neo-Darwinists. But we can't count on Tour for help with ID. He embraces a form of Christian piety which is antithetical to the atmosphere ID needs to flourish, a form of Christian piety which I (speaking purely personally and not for Christianity itself, since I have no authority to do that) regard as deeply defective, and as one of the sources of the evils of modernity. Good science plus Billy Graham is not the synthesis that can save Western civilization. Timaeus

Gregory

Torley is holding Tour up as an authority, as an expert in another thread, yet StephenB is claiming superiority here over Tour’s grasp of ‘biblical teaching.

Gregory needs to read for context. Torley acknowledges Tour's expertise as a chemist and so do I. That has nothing to do with the Tour's ignorance of Biblical theology, which is made evident by his false claim that Biblical authors consistently asked believers to accept God's existence on faith. (If Gregory has not yet looked up the word Fideism, he should do so now).

StephenB claims my position “doesn’t account for natural theology.

It isn't just a claim, it is a fact. Would you care to argue against the point?

But even in admitting that point, StephenB then *must* acknowledge that ‘ID’ is not and cannot be a ‘natural-science-only’ theory!

I would love to know why Gregory believes that the second idea follows from the first.

I’ve been saying for several years, echoing and echoed by others, that ‘ID’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse.

To say something for years is not at all the same thing as providing a rational defense for what is said. Perhaps Gregory can put on his thinking hat and try to explain which part of "irreducible complexity" can be understood as a science, philosophy, theology/ world view discourse.

The discrepancy between us would be easily explained and perhaps overcome once or if ever StephenB could come out from behind his sock puppet as a real man and admit that Big-ID vs. small-id has both a practically and theoretically valid purpose.

Perhaps the discrepancy between us could be explained if Gregory could define his terms and place meaningful limits on his categories.

Obviously both Max and I have rejected the DI’s advice. And Max’s new Journal, with its goal “to invite dialogue concerning philosophy, theology, and science,” is obviously much more advanced and courageous than many here at UD who insist on a natural-science-only of ‘ID.’

It is fun to watch critics complain from both sides, part of the flak coming from those who say that ID has become too religious and this latest charge that ID will not dialogue with religion. StephenB

Folks: It is pretty clear from the above that G's terminology is tendentious and this fallaciously loaded. My above note on the loading in his terminology stands, and it stands as showing that we should reject the Procrustean bed that he would stretch or cut us to fit. KF kairosfocus

"I don’t think that God was designed. Satisfied?" No, that's why I asked for five. The first is a freebie. That's the most common answer (not to suggest that it is invalid; it is an answer nevertheless), and rocks and diamonds are in the top-5, which you've already claimed are 'designed.' Usually I ask "other than God, what are five examples?" So, you've got 4 more remaining to potentially satisfy. What are 4 more examples of things you think were/are not 'designed,' from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint? There is no need to bring in 'design inference' rhetoric (or 'anthropic coincidences'), which is highly debatable and problematic. The question is simple and without frills. Gregory

Gregory, at times you are incredibly difficult to understand. You've quoted me as saying that I believe everything is designed. Now you want me to give you five things I think were not designed. I'll give you one so that you can have your rhetorical victory. God. I don't think that God was designed. Satisfied? But what does that have to do with universal designism? Here again, is your definition:

‘Universalist designism’ is an ideology that contends ‘everything is designed’ and in the Big-ID theory variety, it says natural science (using statistics and probabilities combined with bio-informatics) can ‘prove/infer’ it [that everything is designed].

I don't believe that a design inference can be made for everything. I only believe that we can infer design for some things. Like the anthropic coincidences. :) So far that places me square in the small i small d camp. Right? In what sense is that "universal designism"? Where's the ideology? Mung

I asked: "How do you actually personally *know* that?" StephenB answered: "it is safe to make that accusation." Notice how there was no explanation, just hand waving? We are left to conclude that StephenB has no such knowledge and just wants to oppose anyone and everyone who rejects 'ID,' no matter how valid the reason. Why is it considered 'safe' to accuse (finger-pointing at) Dr. James M. Tour as Mr. 'StephenB' has done in this thread? Is it only because he thinks his fellow IDists won’t hold him up to the light of truth to the care of honest and open scrutiny? And why would he even dare to think his proclaimed theological superiority to Tour would display any kind of intellectual and personal integrity? Torley is holding Tour up as an authority, as an expert in another thread, yet StephenB is claiming superiority here over Tour's grasp of 'biblical teaching.' So, now we've got StephenB, whose click-on homepage address is UD blog, who has never published a single thing under peer review and probably has never tried to submit a single paper to a legitimate journal about 'ID' (correct us if that’s untrue), who is a died-in-the-wool ideological IDist, denying that *any* possible logical arguments against 'ID' (which I call Big-ID) even could possibly be made, whether by a world-class chemist, or by world-class scientists or science-religion scholars. The possibility of ‘falsification’ or correction for StephenB simply does not exist. That's why he doesn't recognise the helpful lower case, non-capitalised 'intelligent design' (small-id) vs. Upper Case, capitalised 'Intelligent Design' (Big-ID) distinction, even as many other people well familiar with this topic do. It's a ball-breaker to the IDM's flip-flopping habits. It's a 'come clean or wallow in the mud' kind of challenge. StephenB claims my position "doesn’t account for natural theology." But even in admitting that point, StephenB then *must* acknowledge that 'ID' is not and cannot be a 'natural-science-only' theory! Yet that is part of the current IDM definition. And so, tied to the originators’ definition of ‘ID’ as he is by loyalty, StephenB simply cannot concede a point even as obvious as that. I’ve been saying for several years, echoing and echoed by others, that ‘ID’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse. Does StephenB now reluctantly agree with this, regardless of how much or how little I ‘account for natural theology’ in that question? The discrepancy between us would be easily explained and perhaps overcome once or if ever StephenB could come out from behind his sock puppet as a real man and admit that Big-ID vs. small-id has both a practically and theoretically valid purpose. But he can't or won't do this because of his ideological commitment to 'IDism' and the 'IDM' and due to the ‘expelled syndrome’ among some IDists. To me, that is a sad situation, completely unnecessary, yet to this day part of the IDM’s strategy of ideological entrapment. Max Andrews and I saw this first hand at the Discovery Institute, which recommended that we operate under pseudonyms. Obviously both Max and I have rejected the DI's advice. And Max's new Journal, with its goal “to invite dialogue concerning philosophy, theology, and science,” is obviously much more advanced and courageous than many here at UD who insist on a natural-science-only of 'ID.' I guess we did learn something important at the DI after all. Gregory

As a universalist designism advocate, no other conclusion is available to you, Mung. You had no choice but to say what you did. "everything is designed, even rocks"! Your denial is therefore entirely predictable, even as it is also insignificant and without impact. "a position that I do not hold." - Mung But wait, are we then going to see more IDist back-peddling and/or flip-flopping in this thread? What then in your opinion, Mung, is *not* designed, from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint? Since you've been extraordinarily impertinent, I'll ask for at least 5 things that are *not designed* from your natural theological perspective. An answer should be fairly easy. Gregory

Gregory

How do you actually personally *know* that? Is that just a hypothesis or do you have some proof of Dr. Tour’s (supposedly lack of) “acquaintance with the Biblical teaching”?

When someone misrepresents biblical teaching, and in Tour's case, it is safe to make that accusation, then I give that person the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance rather than malice. Naturally, it falls on me to explain *why* Tours rejects ID and to identify the false premise that informs that rejection. All Gregory knows is that Tours rejects ID, so, in his mind, there must be a good reason in there somewhere.

What you seemingly require yourself to ignore on this topic, StephenB, is that Tour and I and Gingerich and T. Davis and R. Isaac and G. Murphy and D. Alexander and many others, even of Catholic faith, reject the ‘natural scientificity’ of the so-called ‘evidence’ you claim exists.

I don't ignore them. I know what they reject and why they reject it. That is why I had no difficulty explaining the weakness in Gingerich's (and Gregory's) "small id" fiasco. That formulation doesn't account for natural theology, which makes it inaccurate, misleading, and deceptive.

Romans 1:20 is surely among the IDM’s favorite ‘designist’ passages of the New Testament!

Yes, and I notice that Gregory has no arguments to counter that passage. He just sneers at it. Theologians call that kind of behavior "willful ignorance."

Suggesting that I “know nothing about science, design technology, or natural theology” just reveals your arrogant presumptuousness as a know-it-all IDist

Character references aside, the fact remains that Gregory really doesn't know anything about science, design technology, or natural theology. Since he didn't bother to look up the meaning of the word "Fideism," we can assume that he chooses to remain willfully ignorant on that subject as well. StephenB

Gregory:

‘Universalist designism’ is an ideology that contends ‘everything is designed’ and in the Big-ID theory variety, it says natural science (using statistics and probabilities combined with bio-informatics) can ‘prove/infer’ it.

The claim that everything is designed, even rocks, is thus a far cry from 'Universalist designism' and saying “I believe everything is designed, even rocks” really says very little at all, if anything, on behalf of universalist designism. So your claim is false and you attribute to me a position that I do not hold. Mung

"Folks: We need to understand just how loaded G’s terms are..." - KF (a.k.a. GEM) Yes, loaded with important warnings about IDism! ;) Correction: It should read "Comrades: We need to understand..." KF/GEM's 'rally-the-troops' language is quite obvious. Upper Case (ID) vs. lower case (id) was first expressed by a world-class scientist and man of faith, Owen Gingerich. I don't know if KF/GEM qualifies as either such categories, my suspicion is no. It makes easy sense for sincere readers to realise that KF/GEM is a mere 'everyman' blogger, while Owen Gingerich is a decorated scholar. KF might be a man of faith, but is not a high-level scientist (32 flavours are not nearly enough). Who would you take seriously – reader, lurker, visitor – if you had the choice; an internet sock puppet or a credible, visible scholar active in projects and publications? The other alternative is to hold a conspiracy theory that *all* scientists are against ID simply for political reasons and that even faithful Abrahamic scholars only reject ID because they are open theists or somehow theologically unorthodox or non-traditional. This is what cements the IDM to a predominantly (neo-)conservative, right-wing agenda. The so-called 'talking points' I have raised over several months at UD challenge the obvious natural scientistic rationale of Big-ID theory. If KF/GEM is *actually* an 'applied physicist' as it says on the Resources page, then it stands to reason that he would approach 'ID' from an empiricist perspective, obtuse to much of the broader context in which discussions about evolution(ism), creation(ism) and intelligent design(ism) take place. That is why KF/GEM, who has quite obviously made a large personal investment in hitching his blog-active wagon to FSCO/I and other IDM schemes, has seemingly raised cognitive barriers that disallow himself to potentially treat my challenges to Big-ID fairly. KF seems to think he’s on the doorstep of winning the Nobel Prize in Physics; that he’s walking in the footsteps of “the Newton of information science,” that his work is on the cusp of a ‘scientific revolution.’ That anyone 'reasonable' or 'logical' couldn't help but to agree with his 'empirical' and 'scientific' proofs/inferences. Most people, however, simply chuckle and move slightly uncomfortably to walk past such a person who is handing out to them a ('highly informative and important') pamphlet on the street. Gregory

"nor is he [James M. Tour] acquainted with the Biblical teaching on the evidence for God’s existence." - StephenB How do you actually personally *know* that? Is that just a hypothesis or do you have some proof of Dr. Tour's (supposedly lack of) "acquaintance with the Biblical teaching"? When you contend things like this, StephenB, you sound like a fanatic rather than someone reasonable and trustworthy. What you seemingly require yourself to ignore on this topic, StephenB, is that Tour and I and Gingerich and T. Davis and R. Isaac and G. Murphy and D. Alexander and many others, even of Catholic faith, reject the 'natural scientificity' of the so-called 'evidence' you claim exists. You have neglected to face this 'natural scientistic' aspect of the Big-ID challenge too many times to count. Romans 1:20 is surely among the IDM's favorite 'designist' passages of the New Testament! Suggesting that I "know nothing about science, design technology, or natural theology" just reveals your arrogant presumptuousness as a know-it-all IDist. I have witnessed this kind of attitude first-hand, in person, not just on internet blogs. Surely so has Max Andrews, when he was at the DI. ID theory qua theory simply *could not be not true* for such people. It’s just like trying to discuss things with young earth creationists; nothing you could possibly say would change their minds. Note: of course, StephenB is not a YEC, but as for ID, the ideological grasp on him seems to be quite strong. Nevertheless, I still believe that many who are attracted to ID theories in their heart of hearts seek the truth. And if it means rejecting Big-ID theory, then so be it. In the long-run, the truth is better embraced, and a fruitful science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse promoted, than to hang onto politically-motivated PR and 'pseudo-scientific' propaganda. Gregory

Gregory

Thank goodness for James M. Tour rejecting Big-ID for good reasons!

In fact, James Tour's reason for rejecting ID is based on a false premise:

It is a remarkable fact that no canonical [biblical] author has ever used nature to prove God. They all try to make people believe in him.

That statement is untrue and it reveals a total ignorance about the Judeo Christian world view as expressed in Romans 1:20. Tour is a scientist, but he knows nothing about ID's design inference (a deficiency he admits to his credit) nor is he acquainted with the Biblical teaching on the evidence for God's existence. Gregory, on the other hand, loses on all three accounts, since he knows nothing about science, design technology, or natural theology. It goes without saying that he is also ignorant about Fideism. The man is simply not prepared to engage in a rational dialogue. StephenB

Folks: We need to understand just how loaded G's terms are: ____________ >> Re Gregory at a recent comment in the CS Lewis thread in resonse to a discussion of the exchange between C S Lewis and the new, a priori materialist, blind watchmaker thesis, religion is child abuse circle of new atheists:

anyone who thinks ‘ID’ and ‘apologetics’ are *completely unintegrated* is either naive or simply hasn’t read Big-ID literature

Notice, the loading [as I highlight], that the design inference in the hands of those who argue that on empirical evidence we may infer inductively from tested reliable signs that certain objects are designed, is here held to be an integral part of the thin edge of a wedge for a hidden religious agenda; inviting the onward agenda of accusations on theocracy, war against science, etc that are ever so familiar. This -- by now, willfully -- misrepresents the actual point made since the early 1980's (and in part made by people who have no connexion to the Christian faith such as Sir Fred Hoyle) that there are things in the world that -- on inductive explanation and investigation of a type commonly used in historical sciences such as forensics or reconstructions of the past of land forms etc -- point to design as best causal explanation, per the known alternatives, chance, necessity, art. Once that investigation is carried out objectively -- as has been done -- it stands on its own merits, and snide motive mongering is then tendentious and willful well poisoning, if it is persisted in in the teeth of cogent correction. As, sadly, we are evidently seeing. That is a good slice of why I hold Gregory's game with upper/lower case ID to be wholly tendentious and useless or worse than useless. Notr only does it not fit what I have been doing, and what many others have been doing, it is a feed-point for all sorts of demonstrably false but damaging propagandistic talking points of the type I just spent a fair bit of time exposing in the case of Wikipedia. Frankly, for all I know, Gregory is yet another sock puppet from the usual suspect sites. Similar to the now common tactic of I am an X but this is what I say, and then spewing forth the usual sort of talking points designed to poison atmosphere and twist issues into strawmen. Even if he is not, he is at minimum indulging enabling behaviour and has no good reason to do this, when the real issue is very simple: is or is not it the case that there are empirically tested, reliable signs of design in our world? If not, simply produce a solid counter-example. That would suffice to finish any design theory movement. That this is not being done, but instead we find every sort of manipulative rhetorical tactic being used, tells me that the truth is that the objectors have no real answer to the provide an example challenge. That is, in fact, it is so on the merits that there are abundant signs that are well tested and point to design as best explanation of any number of objects in our world. Where some of these are the living cell, major body plans and the fine tuned cosmos that accommodates life. Sure, those empirically grounded warrants then may help shift the balance of weight on various worldviews, but that is beyond science. Not that that means such are unimportant!>> ____________ I think we should not use or accept such terms, given the loaded agendas connected to them. KF kairosfocus

Thank goodness for James M. Tour rejecting Big-ID for good reasons! What then in your opinion, Timaeus, is *not* designed, from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint (since you personally “don’t insist on” the natural scientificity of ID)? Let’s forget your 2nd paragraph in #28; it’s an unnecessary diversion. You wrote: “Mung offers an essentially Biblical teaching.” Are you suggesting it is “an essentially Biblical teaching” that “everything in nature is designed?” But you seemed to stop short of saying that it is “an essentially Biblical teaching” that “everything is designed,” as I defined ‘universal designism’ to describe some peoples’ views. Is that the distinction you wish to make, thus hinging on the ‘in nature’ in your attempted clarification? Or do you accept and personally believe that both “everything in nature is designed” and “everything is designed” are “an essentially Biblical teaching”? So far, it is not clear. You wrote: ““everything in nature is designed” — and that is essentially the position of Genesis 1.” What does that have to do with ‘modern’ ID theory as a specifically DI-IDM invention that claims natural scientificity? Even Dembski distinguishes ‘[the] design argument(s)’ (language adjusted because he flip-flops between singular and plural repeatedly) from ‘Intelligent Design’ theory. There’s a chapter on it in his book “The Design Revolution.” Gregory

Gregory: What do you fear from publishing the list of your texts and teachers at the ID summer school? How could it do anything but improve our understanding of Discovery-ID and of yourself for us to know ( a ) what Discovery at the time considered the essential "basic readings"; ( b ) which readings you actually got done, so we would know what knowledge base to presume in discussions with you; ( c ) which teachers you had, so that we could learn who might have influenced the remarks that you make here? Timaeus

Well, Gregory, as I'm not in the habit of employing ugly neologisms such as "universal designism," I must admit that I probably misinterpreted what you meant by the term. I took it that you meant: "everything in nature is designed" -- and that is essentially the position of Genesis 1 (unless you take the non-traditional view that the waters were pre-existent). Of course, many TEs appear to believe that only the evolutionary process itself was designed, the specific outcomes of that process being dependent on random factors, and therefore not designed outcomes. So "birdlike being" was designed, but not "blue jay"; and "some sort of being intelligent enough to be worthy of receiving God's image" was designed, but not "man" (it could have been a talking Flipper instead). Open theism has arrived! And given a choice between open theism, and "everything in nature is designed," I'll go with the latter. Timaeus

God luck and good thinking. All attention to subjects like these will breed correction to error surely. Truth trumps error is done well. Robert Byers

Gregory:

We were required to read primary sources of Big-ID literature to participate in the DI’s Summer Program

Clearly, you were not required to demonstrate an understanding of what you read. StephenB

Why does James M. Tour reject Big-ID theory? Because I will honour vjtorley's request that I not participate on any of his threads, let me add here the words of Dr. James M. Tour about 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design' theory and why he rejects it. His reasons are pretty much exactly the same as mine, though of course, I'm not an organic chemist, expert in nanotechnology ;) It would have provided more balance (in context) to torley's recent 'publication' here at UD to have included this (which he has likely already read):

"I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label." - James M. Tour

Again, we all know the Wedge strategy quite well: It is one thing to say '(neo-)Darwinian evolutionary theory is not enough' or that Darwin made errors, etc. yada yada, but it is another thing to conclude a positive case for natural scientifically proven/inferred 'Intelligent Design.' With James M. Tour, I agree "the scientific proof[/inference] is not there, in my opinion." Let me add that I believe this is both a reasonable and responsible position to hold. The Creation that Dr. Tour 'sees' is through the eyes of faith, not requiring 'scientific proofs.' Indeed, that is the orthodox view of the Abrahamic faiths. It is also why Big-ID is seen by most of us as highly problematic; because it insists upon its scientificity. Gregory

No, I will not specify the list of required sources nor the list of 'teachers' from the DI's summer program here at UD. Perhaps if Max comes here to participate, he will do so. I wish to give no fuel to the IDM's scientistic fantasies. Again, Timaeus displays his distorted (political IDM movement-mongering) way of 'charitable reading.' I did *not* 'ridicule' "an essentially Biblical teaching." He should be ashamed to have tried to put those words in my mouth. 'Universalist designism' is an ideology that contends 'everything is designed' and in the Big-ID theory variety, it says natural science (using statistics and probabilities combined with bio-informatics) can 'prove/infer' it. Does the Torah, the Bible and/or the Quran say that? If so, chapter(s) and verse(s) please. Are you suggesting verses like Romans 1:20 say that? Gregory

“I believe everything is designed, even rocks.” – Mung "Enough said on behalf of universalist designism." -- Gregory Interesting. Mung offers an essentially Biblical teaching, and Gregory ridicules it. Timaeus

In response to a comment of Gregory above (which is *not* about Big-ID versus small id, but actually provides some information about his summer school program): "We were required to read primary sources of Big-ID literature to participate in the DI’s Summer Program" I wonder if Gregory would specify this list of required sources, and tell us which of them he actually read during the course of the program, and which teachers there evaluated his understanding of those sources. Timaeus

Gregory:

We were required to read primary sources of Big-ID literature to participate in the DI’s Summer Program....

I read them without being part of any program. Also, Gregory, science is science and tehre isn't any warrant for any "natural science only"- that is a meaningless phrase. Joe

Gregory:

It was an accusation,...

Nope, it was an observation. And if you knew Alan Like I know Alan, then you would know it is an observation. As I said you ain't an investigator, just an instigator. Joe

Mung: I observe your clip from Gregory:

anyone who thinks ‘ID’ and ‘apologetics’ are *completely unintegrated* is either naive or simply hasn’t read Big-ID literature

Notice, the loading [as I highlight], that the design inference in the hands of those who argue that on empirical evidence we may infer inductively from tested reliable signs that certain objects are designed, is here held to be an integral part of the thin edge of a wedge for a hidden religious agenda; inviting the onward agenda of accusations on theocracy, war against science, etc that are ever so familiar. This -- by now, willfully -- misrepresents the actual point made since the early 1980's (and in part made by people who have no connexion to the Christian faith such as Sir Fred Hoyle) that there are things in the world that -- on inductive explanation and investigation of a type commonly us4ed in historical sciences such as forensics or reconstructions of the past of land forms etc -- point to design as best causal explanation, per the known alternatives, chance, necessity, art. Once that investigation is carried out objectively -- as has been done -- it stands on its own merits, and snide motive mongering is then tendentious and willful well poisoning, if it is persisted in in the teeth of cogent correction. As, sadly, we are evidently seeing. That is a good slice of why I hold Gregory's game with upper/lower case ID to be wholly tendentious and useless or worse than useless. Notr only does it not fit what I have been doing, and what many others have been doing, it is a feed-point for all sorts of demonstrably false but damaging propagandistic talking points of the type I just spent a fair bit of time exposing in the case of Wikipedia. Frankly, for all I know, Gregory is yet another sock puppet from the usual suspect sites. Similar to the now common tactic of I am an X but this is what I say, and then spewing forth the usual sort of talking points designed to poison atmosphere and twist issues into strawmen. Even if he is not, he is at minimum indulging enabling behaviour and has no good reason to do this, when the real issue is very simple: is or is not it eh case that here are empirically tested, reliable signs of design in our world? If not, simply produce a solid counter-example. That would suffice to finish any design theory movement. That this is not being done, but instead we find every soert of manipulative rhetorical tactic being used, tells me that the truth is that he objectors have no real answer tothe provide and example challenge. That is, in fact, it is so ont eh merits that here are abundant signs that are well tested sand point o design as best explanation of any number of objects in our world. Where some of these are the living cell, major body plans and the fine tuned cosmos that accommodates life. Sure, those empirically grounded warrants then may help shift the balance of weight on various worldviews, but that is beyond science. Not that that means such are unimportant! KF kairosfocus

"he hasn’t read the primary sources." - Mung We were required to read primary sources of Big-ID literature to participate in the DI's Summer Program and were given several DI published or fellows' books. I don't doubt that the same was true for Max Andrews when he was there. And while I was writing my master's thesis partially on the IDM, I also read Big-ID primary sources. In more recent years, Big-ID primary sources haven't held much attraction. The 'movement' hasn't actually 'moved' forward much (by small-d design) since then. Mung flings the word 'lie' around so easily, truth must not mean much to him. "I believe everything is designed, even rocks." - Mung Enough said on behalf of universalist designism. Gregory

Gregory:

I applaud Max for his efforts at encouraging more holistic thinking than many at UD have yet allowed themselves to muster regarding Big-ID ‘theory’.

Gregory:

anyone who thinks ‘ID’ and ‘apologetics’ are *completely unintegrated* is either naive or simply hasn’t read Big-ID literature.

A not too uncommon charge leveled against Gregory here at UD is that he hasn't read the primary sources. Mung

Congratulations to Max Andrews. Might I suggest that Gregory submit a paper to this new journal? Mung

Case Study:

For our second case study let’s examine a recent development where, as it turns out, theology “won.”

Christian Intelligent Design proponents predicted that the “junk DNA hypothesis” would be overturned and that science would eventually need to be revised. [104]

Mung

Gregory:

2) The only reference to the term ‘Intelligent Design’ in the first Sententias issue was capitalised. It also was preceded by the adjective ‘Christian.’

So? Sententias:

If we put this information into the abductive schema proposed by Meyer and Dembski, this would seem to favor the scientific research program over and against the Christian program

Mung

James Madden addresses the teleological argument (or argument from design) in chapter eight, which he likewise divides into two versions - a classical one and a modern one. Madden holds out little hope for the classical version, but argues that the modern version, inspired by by the kind of scientific research utilized in the so-called intelligent design movement, does show promise for overcoming Humean obstacles. - In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment

OUCH! OUCH! Oh my, that had to sting. Mung

Gregory:

Mung, Your ‘wants’ have everything to do with what you write here at UD. Do you really deny this?

The question is so vaguely broad that it's meaningless. I thought you were saying I "want" you to be a liar. The fact is, I "want" you to be honest and truthful, else I would have no issue with the false statements you make.

You are an IDist. You defend and (oftentimes sarcastically) promote IDM-ID (or Big-ID as I call it) here at UD. Again, do you deny this?

I don't even know what it means. What's the Creed and I'll tell you if I agree with it. I thought you complained elsewhere that I believe everything is designed, even rocks. Is that a stance taken by the IDM? I take it you missed my disagreement with Meyer as it played out here on UD. You seem also to have missed my arguments over information that have taken place here. And my arguments about entropy. If I'm such a staunch member of the club why do I argue with them?

It should be noted that ‘Mung’s’ pseudo-name alone is associated with the term ‘lie’ in this thread.

Do you mean I was the only one who saw your lie, or the only one who cared enough to respond to it, or the only one who believes you in fact lied, or the only one with the guts to speak the truth to you when you lie? I can recall three instances and only three where I have claimed you have lied. So it's not like I toss it out willy nilly. but I really would like to know why you think it advances your cause here to say things that are patently and demonstrably false. As for my use of a "pseudonym." I always have used one online and I see no reason to change just to rob you of a rhetorical talking point that has nothing at all to do with the arguments I make. Heck, if I told you who I really was there's no telling how much time you'd spend online searching for my cv so you can trash it as well as me. We've seen how you operate. Mung

Mung, Your 'wants' have everything to do with what you write here at UD. Do you really deny this? You are an IDist. You defend and (oftentimes sarcastically) promote IDM-ID (or Big-ID as I call it) here at UD. Again, do you deny this? It should be noted that 'Mung's' pseudo-name alone is associated with the term 'lie' in this thread. That he writes comic bunk under a pseudonym does his story no favours. DI Summer Program graduates are not usually as naive or fanatical as 'Mung,' even if they were warned by the DI not to show their real names in public discussions. I don't suppose Max would claim 'natural science-only' status for Big-ID theory, given his "science, philosophy, theology/worldview" approach (with which I agree and have supported for several years, though it flies in the face of IDM-ID). Let the audience wait and see. Gregory

It was an accusation, that I don't expect you to own up to. Gregory

Gregory:

“you are pointless.” – UDist ID talk.

No, it was an observation, Gregory. Joe

Gregory:

Just because you don’t want it to be true doesn’t make it untrue

A non sequitur. My "want" has nothing to do with it, one way or another.

IDist ‘Mung’.

I don't even know what that means. From the premise that intelligent design as presented here at UD and at the DI is not a holistic amalgam of science/religion/politics/sociology/anthropology/history/mathematics/aesthetics/philosophy/etc. etc. it does not follow that people here and at the DI do not engage in holistic thinking on these matters. And the facts indicate otherwise, as you are often quick to point out when it suits you and to forget about when it also suits you, which is why your assertion is not only illogical and incoherent but also factually false. And you know it is false. It is not therefore just maybe a lie, it is certainly a lie. Why do you feel the need to lie? Are you just not concerned at all about your credibility? Mung

"you are pointless." - UDist ID talk. Gregory

Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't make it untrue, IDist 'Mung'. Gregory

Gregory: That noted, I applaud Max for his efforts at encouraging more holistic thinking than many at UD have yet allowed themselves to muster regarding Big-ID ‘theory’. What a crock. Why lie, Gregory? Why this apparently uncontrollable compulsion on your part when addressing the subject of intelligent design, to resort to lies? Mung

Gregory:

1) This is obviously not an ‘Intelligent Design’ journal because it concerns “philosophy, theology, and science,” whereas ‘Intelligent Design’ (according to the Discovery Institute) is supposed to be a natural science-only theory...

LoL! Stoop to a new low, Gregory. Nice job. Science includes philosophy and theology, Gregory. It is inescapable.

2) The only reference to the term ‘Intelligent Design’ in the first Sententias issue was capitalised. It also was preceded by the adjective ‘Christian.’

So what? Christians have a stake in this too. Joe

Alan Fox:

Gregory offers good advice from another perspective.

No, he doesn't.

Clinging on to the pretence that “Intelligent Design” has anything to do with science seems just incredibly pointless.

Maybe to you, but then again you are pointless. No one pretends ID has anything to do with science, Alan. It is obvious that, especially when compared to evolutionism, that ID is science. Joe

Gregory offers good advice from another perspective. Clinging on to the pretence that "Intelligent Design" has anything to do with science seems just incredibly pointless. Move on and argue with atheism and agnosticism on the merits and stop trying to use the political system to further your ends. As Barry advised me "when you're in a hole, stop digging". (That really is my last word for a while) Alan Fox

Two things: 1) This is obviously not an 'Intelligent Design' journal because it concerns "philosophy, theology, and science," whereas 'Intelligent Design' (according to the Discovery Institute) is supposed to be a natural science-only theory (OoL, OoBI & human origins = not cultural or linguistic anthropology), which explains why the DI cancelled its ID Summer Program in Humanities and Social Science, of which both Max and I are 'graduates' (though I don't know if he was in this section or the Natural Science one). 2) The only reference to the term 'Intelligent Design' in the first Sententias issue was capitalised. It also was preceded by the adjective 'Christian.' That noted, I applaud Max for his efforts at encouraging more holistic thinking than many at UD have yet allowed themselves to muster regarding Big-ID 'theory'. If he is 'well known to many of you,' and if you will read his Journal, then perhaps people at UD's thinking can actually change to become less reductionistic, less scientistic. Gregory