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

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_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

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_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

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_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

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_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

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_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

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_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Intelligent Design extends from our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And I am OK with polygenism.Joe_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

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_{March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

If Gregory is an eXtension of Human Extension I am not convinced I want to participate.Mung_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Mung: [This is a Fully-Fledged Flip Flop]. "There, fixed it fer ya!" What? No high fives for the alluring alliteration?StephenB_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Astounding! Gregory is determined to go out from here cavilling over petty points.
Too soon. He hasn't yet fired his parting shot.Mung_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

SB: XML - eXtensible Markup Language X Games - eXtreme Games Gregory's just being hip.Mung_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
This is a fully-fledged flip flop.
This is a Fully-Fledged Flip Flop. There, fixed it fer ya!Mung_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

“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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

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_T7fP7Qcwbornagain77_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

"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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

“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 sentGregory_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Gregory can't leave us. How will we ever punctuate our causes.Upright BiPed_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

“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_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply