Release of the Sententias Journal

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 15, 2013

News}

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

Max Andrews, a blogger and student of philosophy well known to many of us in the ID community, has launched a graduate/postgraduate peer-reviewed journal, which is scheduled for quarterly release and has the stated purpose “to invite dialogue concerning philosophy, theology, and science.” People of any religious affiliation or metaphysical persuasion — including Christians, theists, agnostics and atheists — are invited to submit articles to the journal.

You can download the first issue of the journal here.

Comments

“this Franciscan way of speaking about God provides a theological basis for ID.”
Gregory has no counter argument. Pope FrancisMung_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

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_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Yes, I realise I am speaking to/about my elder, whom normally I would honour.
LIARMung_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

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_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

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_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

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_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

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_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

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 SuarezMung_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

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 GaukrogerMung_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

"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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

“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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

“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_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

oops! I have no ties with ‘IDists’, but I'm sympathetic to their cause.Box_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

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_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

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_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

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_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

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_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

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_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

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_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

“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_{March 9, 2013
March
03
Mar
9
09
2013
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply