Release of the Sententias Journal

_{News
February 15, 2013

News

1}_{Categories
News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Quite so, Timaeus. I'm not suggesting translating those Hebrew words as "design", for the clear reason that the semantic range of words in Hebrew and in English is different, and in English is still changing decade by decade; the particular concepts in dispute behind the words are what matters. So the English word "design" occurs a number of times of human artifacts in the NIV, but not at all in the KJV - where a number of different words are used for the same verses. It's not the Hebrew that's changed. The issue, surely, is whether the biblical usage of words for God's creation covers purpose-free, self-eventuating processes (design without a designer). Clearly it encompasses "natural" processes, in that (for example) everybody knows God "finds prey for the lion" by its walking within view in the normal course of things. But it's equally clear that the whole idea of "natural", as discrete from God, has no place in biblical thought - God is intimately involved (at the level of will, not merely of "sustaining power") with his whole cosmos. Hence my emphasis on the planning/purpose/forethought content of the Hebrew words, which are also essential to the concept of design in English. As you say, though, we mustn't fall into thinking of God as a mere CAD wizard, or a Masonic Great Architect. That's why "design" is at best a partial description of his work. However I'm not sure how possible it is to persuade people not to take biblical words as termini technici when they are persuaded that capitalization shifts a word into a totally different category.Jon Garvey_{March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PST}

Jon: I don't deny that *bara* and *yatsar* imply design. God thinks ahead about what he wants, what it will look like what it will be made of, what function it will serve, etc. I wouldn't, however, *translate* either term as "design." In English, we distinguish between "designing" a thing and "building" or "constructing" or "manufacturing" it. The Hebrew verbs you mention refer to something carried out, effected, done, not merely conceived, intended, planned, etc. "Design" is too weak an English word to convey their full meaning. However, I don't think you *are* actually suggesting that we should translate these words as "design" -- are you? I take you to be trying to flesh out some connections between God's designing or purposing and God's making and creating and forming. And that is fine with me. Regarding the word *bara*, I think its full meaning is elusive, and none of the scholarly conjectures about it entirely satisfy me. It actually is not a very common word in the Old Testament, and it's rarely (I think only once or twice, and then not in the "qal" form) used of a subject other than God. But I would agree with you that some notion of fulfilled purpose or design is entailed in its usage in Genesis. Mung: Not sure I understand your last question. Yes, I think the tabernacle etc. point, symbolically (if that word is allowed), beyond themselves, but I'm not sure how you are connecting that with ID/God as designer vs. Gregory's contempt for "God as designer." I suspect I wouldn't disagree with what you are suggesting, if I knew for sure what it was.Timaeus_{March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PST}

And of course, when speaking of Greek and design, there's the need to consider Logos. I could haul our my 10 (or is it 12) volume TDOT to try to answer Gregory, but is it even worth it? T, you make an excellent point about the tabernacle. And were they not but types and signs to point to another reality?Mung_{March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PST}

Timaeus/Mung/KN Then we can consider the basic Hebrew term bara, create. If you look at John H Walton's word study it become clear that the core meaning is to "establish function and order", not to zap into existence ex nihilo, though of course God could do the first by the second. The first relevant definition of "design" in my edition of OED is "destine for a service", which doesn't seem a million miles from the primary word in the Genesis creation account. In Hebrew terms, if God has not determined (ie applied) the means by which functional order is established, then he has not created it. The other main Hebrew word for God's "making" is yatsar. Its spectrum covers "fashion - form - frame - make - purpose". Interestingly it's also used as a noun, meaning "potter". My OED has "purpose" as its third definition of "design".Jon Garvey_{March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PST}

Mung (83): Good point against Gregory; the absence of a particular word does not prove the absence of the idea connected with the word. In this case, Gregory's error is twofold: 1. He is relying on English translation, rather than Hebrew or Greek, and words meaning "design" might not be rendered as "design" in English, but as "order" "scheme" "plan" "device" "purpose" "thought" "arrangement" etc. And in fact there are various Hebrew words (which I won't bother to set forth here) rendered as "purpose" or "device" -- indicating projects of the human mind, things planned and intended to be executed. To be sure, very often those projects are plots or schemes concerning the use or abuse of other human beings, rather than for the construction of inanimate objects. Gregory might try to make hay of that, but unfortunately for him, that doesn't matter, because of his second, larger error. 2. Even if words meaning "device" or "purpose" were never used in Hebrew, the notion of device or purpose could still be there -- and in fact is there now, even in passages where all such words are absent. This is especially obvious in the case of manufactured objects. For example, take Noah's Ark. We are not told that it is "designed" or even "devised" or "purposed" -- but God gives specific dimensions to Noah, and specifies the material, and even orders him to seal it with pitch. These are design specifications, even if the word "design" is not used. The same can be said of God's very precise instructions for building the ark of the covenant, the tabernacle, the altar of incense, the priestly garments, etc. Measurements, substances, specification of parts and their arrangements -- all thought out in advance by God, and later executed by the craftsmen of Israel. Design again, though the word is not used. I would suggest that the temple of Solomon and the heavenly city of Revelation could serve as two more examples of things that are clearly designed. Now Gregory might triumphantly interject: "Aha! Your examples -- boats and arks and tabernacles and temples and cities -- are of artificial things, not natural things! So ID goes out the window!" Unfortunately for Gregory, the Bible makes the analogy that he rejects: in Job, and in some other books, we get references to the use of plumb lines, etc., in the construction of the world -- surveyor's/engineer's language. Design is implied for natural things as well as for things made by man. The Bible therefore contains many examples of design, and of the design of natural things as well as artificial things. Q. E. D. So Gregory is wrong. Again. I wonder what it would take to get him to stop making statements about Catholic theology, the Bible, etc., without first checking the original sources?Timaeus_{March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PST}

KN: *kosmos* (*cosmos* in Latin letters) means "order" but the sense seems to be more aesthetic than mechanical; the verb "to beautify" (i.e., to adorn) is "kosmeo" (from which we get "cosmetics"). The "kosmos" is thus the "order" or "beauty" or "beautiful arrangement" of the world. (By a natural transference it comes to mean "world" as well.) So, while the orderliness of the world might imply a design, "kosmos" by itself doesn't mean "design." "design" in the sense of "contrivance" is usually either "technema" or "mechane". That is, it is connected with the idea of arts/crafts (techne) or with a more general notion of contrivance, especially clever contrivance (mechane). Mechane is cognate with Latin machina, hence "mechanical" -- "contrived," "arranged to serve a particular purpose." So the connection of "design" thinking with contrivances, "machines", engineering, architecture, etc. goes right back to the early Greek language. There are other words for design which are less about the physical arrangements and more about the intelligent thought put into the design, e.g., "ennoia" (something which is "in mind"; related to "nous" -- mind), "bouleuma" (plan, intent, wish), etc. There is also "taxis" (order, arrangement) which implies design (e.g., in the arrangement of armies on a battlefield), but generally this word is translated as order or arrangement, as it is more applied to simple geometrical layouts than to "the purposeful arrangement of parts" (mechane or technema). Mung: *oikoumene* is often translated as "world," but its emphasis is on the inhabited world ("oikeo" is the verb for "living in a home," and the noun was originally a participle of that verb) rather than the entire physical world -- though by an easy transference the entire physical world might be meant, since we in a broad sense "inhabit" not only the earth (ge) but the world (kosmos) of which the earth is part. Regarding translations of "world" in the New Testament, one has to be careful, because quite often the word is not "kosmos" (which refers more to the physical world) but "aion" (which refers to the world as an expression of time, and is usually better rendered as "age" or "era"). In the days of King James, "world" still had a time-reference (it meant "the age of man" in Anglo-Saxon), but in modern English, it has a spatial reference, so the older translation can be misleading. In the passage you mention, I don't know whether it was "judge the kosmos" or "judge the aion" without looking up the passage, but the general meaning would appear to be "judge the age" -- i.e., "judge the behavior of the men who live in that age." But the meanings of "kosmos" and "aion" sometimes slid into each other, so one can't translate mechanically. "kosmos" may occasionally refer more to the people of the world, than the physical structure of the world. We have to remember that the New Testament was written in Hellenistic Greek, which was sloppy Greek, and "translation Greek," and we can't expect the precision or consistency of Classical Greek from Semitic authors who didn't know the Classical literature. There is an extensive essay on the nuances here by C. S. Lewis in *Studies in Words*.Timaeus_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PST}

Acts 24:25 and he reasoning concerning righteousness, and temperance, and the judgment that is about to be, Felix, having become afraid, answered, 'For the present be going, and having got time, I will call for thee;'
Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PST}

Maybe that was just an anomaly. Maybe Paul just misspoke on that one occasion. But then we see:
Acts 24:15 having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous;
Surely Paul was delusional. Isn't it about time we threw out his writings as non canonical? But then what do we make of Jesus and the other New Testament writers who also preached a judgment and resurrection that was about to take place?Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PST}

Speaking of Mars Hill:
31 because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him out of the dead.'
Why on earth would Paul say that He was "about to judge the world"? Was Paul just confused about the timing of the judgment? Or perhaps he was confused about the nature of the judgment? Or perhaps he was only repeating what he had received from Jesus himself:
27 'For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work. 28 Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'
According to Paul the judgment was near. So also, according to Jesus. Some Christians claim there was no judgment, some claim there was a judgment, but there's still another one yet to come. How does either of those views do justice to Scripture?Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PST}

KN: If the Greek word for "design" is Kosmos, what does the Greek word Oikoumene mean? It's a trick question. ;)Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PST}

I invite Timaeus to correct me, but I believe the Greek word for "design" is cosmos.Kantian Naturalist_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PST}

The idea that a transcendent reality can be known or at least intimated through the mundane has a long history and is not a specifically religious idea. Such an approach can be found within the New Testament itself, most notably in Paul's "Areopagus address," and achieved significant elaboration in the thought of the early Christian fathers. - McGrath, Alister E. A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology. p. 11
c.f. Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism (Gifford Lectures Series) Sorry Gregory. The evidence is against you. Who's this Gifford guy?Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PST}

Timaeus, I wonder if Sentenias would publish an article written under a pseudonym. Perhaps an article on "Human Extension." Here's how Gregory advertizes his blog:
A place to discuss development, evolution, creation, intelligent design & human extension – a collaborative science, philosophy & theology/worldview conversation for the 21c. electronic-information age.
Collaborative eh? Gregory, is that how you see yourself here at UD, as a collaborator in discussing development, evolution, creation, intelligent design & human extension? Is there a reason you don't practice here at UD what you preach on your own blog?Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PST}

If Gregory wants to publish peer-reviewed material on ID and evolution, let him.
Haha. Gregory increasing the number of peer-reviewed ID articles. I'd pay to see that.Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PST}

Timaeus:
All of these evasions show that Gregory is not interested in intellectual debate.
I'm thinking that maybe Gregory is the only entity posting here at UD who doesn't see that he avoids intellectual debate like it's something straight from the bowels of the Discovery Institute.
I would not stand up on a stage with such a person.
You see, this is where we differ. I'd get up on stage with him, say some very nasty things about him that he had no chance of refuting in front of the audience, and then walk off, saying I refused to remain on stage with such a person. Now that's how to win a debate!Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PST}

Timaeus:
Why is he not challenging “Mung” or “bornagain” or others?
Because he knows I'd thrash him, literally. ;) You're too much of a gentleman, even if you are a sock.Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PST}

Gregory:
For the record, folks, Timaeus has come out briefly from under his sock puppet in the past. Let us see if he has the courage to do so again.
Wow, I never realized that Timaeus is a sock puppet! Why is he allowed to continue posting here at UD? If you ask me, Gregory is a sock puppet.Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PST}

Gregory:
Timaeus would obviously defend the affirmative and I would defend the negative.
How wrong you were. I guess you either: 1) Don't understand Timaeus. 2) Don't understand ID. 3) Both of the above. The first debate should be over what are the claims of intelligent design theory. What say you Timaeus, is that something you would debate Gregory on, lol?Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PST}

Fatuous is right. The guy can barely string together two coherent truthful sentences.Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PST}

Gregory:
Because a ‘theory of everything’ is also likewise a ‘theory of nothing.’ That is what Big-ID theory becomes in the ‘everything is designed’ approach of people like Mung and Timaeus; a theory of nothing.
The problem with your argument, Gregory, is that is not ID, and you know it isn't ID. So Big-ID becomes no such thing in my hands. And you're making things up, again. You argue out of both sides of your mouth. "Big-ID is a natural scientific only theory." Really? How does "natural science only" lead to the inference that everything is designed? It doesn't, it can't. And you'll never see me trying to use intelligent design as an argument to demonstrate that everything is Designed. So once again, we get from you nothing more than a misrepresentation and a straw-man. Twisting and distorting. Boring.Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PST}

Regarding Gregory's fatuous "challenge": 1. No, I would not be interested in live-debating the first question that Gregory proposes. I would not choose to take the affirmative side, because I do not agree with it as stated; I think the question is badly misframed. If Gregory wants to debate that question, he can find someone else. 2. Regarding the "second-string question" that Gregory has proposed (and clearly is not enthusiastic about debating, as he relegates it to a follow-up debate which likely would never take place): in a hypothetical universe, with a hypothetical debating partner, I would consent to live-debate that question, but in the real universe, with Gregory as debating partner, I will not. Here are my reasons: 3. Gregory has been given infinite chances to state his position on that very question here on UD. No one has muzzled him (as long as he avoids discussing biographical facts, privately obtained, about posters here). He can advocate any position on the question that he wishes. He can write as many posts as he needs to, to explain his position. And he has been asked, by me and others, scores of times, to state his position on that question, and will not. For a few *years* now he has refused to give his view. If he will not do it in *three years*, here, where there is pressure on him to do so, what reason do I have for believing that he would do it in 90 minutes, before a live audience, when there is motivation to play to the audience (to score points through mockery and misrepresentation) and all kinds of rhetorical devices are available for dancing around the question? The fact is that Gregory does not want us to know what he thinks about design inferences from nature, and what his reasons are for thinking so. 4. The case is quite different where there are two well-known protagonists who have both made their views perfectly clear in writing. Then the public wishes to see them "go at it" head to head. But here, one of the protagonists (myself) would be at a distinct disadvantage, trying to pry out of the other (Gregory) a position which the other has, for years, avoided disclosing, whereas the first protagonist's position (mine) is well-known and he (myself) would have no room for the evasive shifting available to the other (Gregory). Gregory seeks the rhetorical advantage which comes from being the one with the undisclosed position which, as a debating tactic, he can continue to conceal, or, if he wishes, spring as a surprise on the other before a live audience. This is cowardly. 5. Gregory's entire motivation here is personal. It is to get me to reveal my identity to the world. (Something I never asked him to do when his identity was secret -- unlike him, I *respect* the personal life-choices of others.) Why else has he constantly hinted at my identity here, desisting only when ordered to by the moderators? Even now he is skirting another ban, by guesstimating my year of birth, something I have never discussed. And even if his guesstimate -- true or false -- does me no harm, the motivation is all wrong. 6. And note the way he is using my age. He is using it *ad hominem*. He is suggesting that my age -- the generation I come from -- somehow makes my arguments outdated and invalid. This is so typical of Gregory, to argue to the man, and not to the point. Why would I go up on a stage with him, when I know that he argues in this way? He has not shown himself to be an honorable academic. He hits below the belt, and he does so in almost every exchange we have ever had. 7. Finally, why is Gregory not challenging "Mike Gene" (who also conceals his real name) to a public debate over design in nature? Why is he not challenging "Mung" or "bornagain" or others? If his crusade is against people who use pseudonyms (a principle he violated for years when he used a false last name), and if he seeks to remove the protection of false names, he should be offering these debates to *everyone* with a false name, not just to me. The fact that he zeroes in on me reveals the personal animus behind the challenge. (He has a *personal* history with me that he does not have with the others.) Summary: A. There is not a single thing we could debate on stage or on camera, that we could not debate more fully, more carefully, in greater detail, with the presentation of more primary texts, and with more extensive and nuanced interaction, right here. I dodge no arguments, and I refuse to answer no questions (unlike Gregory who refuses to answer 3/4 of the questions and arguments put to him). I never begrudge clarifications. I never refuse to discuss texts. There is no reason that we cannot debate the question of design in nature here, as long as all questions pertaining to personal identity are excluded. B. I stand to gain nothing intellectually by meeting Gregory's challenge: I have no guarantee that he will answer questions in live debate that he won't answer here, and Gregory's past practice indicates that he would not answer the questions I really want the answers to. C. I have much to lose personally by answering Gregory's challenge. On the other hand, Gregory loses nothing personally if I debate him -- his career in sociology won't be affected one way or the other, as I'm a complete unknown in the world of sociology and his sociology colleagues will just regard such a debate as a private hobby activity of his, irrelevant to his tenure petition. But Gregory gains something. He has long wanted to reveal my identity, but has been prevented, partly from threats of banning where he has strongly hinted at it, and partly out of the shame he would feel (he does have some Christian convictions, after all), if he used privately obtained information to harm a debating partner. But if he can goad me into revealing my identity, in order to prove I'm not a "coward" or "afraid" to debate him -- then he gets the result he has long desired, with no consequences of banning and no guilt for behaving dishonorably by revealing private information given in trust. What is stunning is that a Christian would wish for such a revelation. Gregory knows that I have made a number of enemies on the web, among them some very angry atheists whose identities are hidden from me, and who could strike at me with impunity if they knew my name, location, phone number, etc. He knows that they would use the information to embarrass me in many venues, and he knows that some of them might well violate my privacy, necessitating changing phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc. He knows also that many people who disapprove of ID might cut me off from the contract work I need to feed my family -- a concern he does not have to worry about because (a) he is single and (b) he has a secure job. That he should wish for all of this to happen to me does not comport well with his profession of loving "Abrahamic religion." If it were *necessary* that my identity be revealed in order for us to have a debate, there might be justification for the personal risks Gregory demands that I take; but I have already shown that my identity is irrelevant to the issues at stake, and that they can better be debated here. D. I have in the past listed a number of major questions that Gregory has ducked. He continues to duck them all. Catholicism on Adam and Eve -- he refuses to deal with the passage StephenB plunked in front of him. (Because it disproves Gregory's statements about Catholic teaching.) He refuses to answer my question about Fuller and univocal predication. (Because he can't face the music with either a yes or no answer.) And of course he refuses, above, to answer my question whether design can be inferred from nature. (Excusing himself on the grounds that my views are different from the DI's -- which is utterly irrelevant to the question.) All of these evasions show that Gregory is not interested in intellectual debate. I would not stand up on a stage with such a person. E. I have never at any point offered my opinions on ID and evolution as peer-reviewed academic work. Gregory knows that I have published a good number of things under my real name, including some very good scholarly work. He also knows that I have not shied from defending that scholarly work in public. His claim that I am cowardly, that I avoid the scholarly world, is thus baseless, and he knows it to be so. What he wants me to do is to put my *scholarly* reputation on the line on the basis of my *extracurricular* studies in ID and evolution. That I will not do. I intend to keep publishing *scholarly* material in my fields of training, and *private* opinions, in *popular* media, regarding ID and evolution. If Gregory wants to publish peer-reviewed material on ID and evolution, let him. But he has no right to bully me into doing so, nor does he have the right to call me a coward because I don't do so. I show exactly the courage needed in my academic publications, and exactly the courage needed in my private writing in popular media regarding ID. Gregory's charge of cowardice therefore has no basis. The charge is being made simply to goad me to reveal my name to make myself more vulnerable to personal harassment and ad hominem attacks. And he maliciously misrepresents my prudence as cowardice. F. The true coward is the one who will not answer on-topic questions, and who tries to deflect attention from his evasiveness by various devices, such as issuing fatuous challenges to public debates. There is pretty near universal agreement here that Gregory has dodged a large number of important questions and criticisms. And Gregory is fully aware of the questions to which he has not provided answers, and I conclude that he has no intention of providing answers to those questions now, or in the future here, or on any other website, or in live debate. So let the readers of this site decide who is the coward. P.S. There is little doubt that Gregory will ignore 90% of the discussion in the above reply, and focus on my refusal to debate on his terms, and call me a coward for backing out. But of course I never agreed to any debate in the first place, so I have backed out of nothing. And of course his calling me a coward will provide further smokescreen for the unanswered questions referred to above. But no one here will fall for it. Everyone here knows that Gregory cannot defend his views and that this is why he will not give clear answers to questions and clear responses to textual evidence.Timaeus_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PST}

Gregory:
Even if the book of Genesis doesn’t have the term ‘design’ anywhere in the text!
sarcasm Oh, now there's a convincing argument for you. /sarcasm How about transubstantiation? Chapter and Verse please. If some Biblical author wanted to get across the concept of design, what Hebrew word would he use? What Greek word?Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PST}

Gregory:
But it obviously was a flip-flop that still isn’t properly explained. Is God ‘designed/Designed’ or not, Mung, according to you? That’s a pretty basic question.
If the question is so utterly basic, Gregory, why are you just now getting around to asking it? No, God is not designed. I thought I made that clear and gave my reason why, but here it is again for you: Only some thing can be designed or not designed. God is no thing. Therefore, God cannot be designed. If only your own "arguments" were as clear and concise. So now what? Now that I make it clear that I don't think God is designed, and why, how does that change anything?
In any case, it sounds like Timaeus is ready to concede that ID theory is a version of natural theology, not of natural science.
It's also possible that you've offered a false dichotomoy. Natural theology is natural, after all. You've obviously not been keeping up with my posts on natural theology. But why should I repeat myself?Mung_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PST}

In this thread I challenged Timaeus to a public debate, in his real name, documented and recorded. This is because UD is clearly not neutral territory and because I think Timaeus says things about ID theory that he wouldn’t say if he were actually standing behind his name, his credibility and his reputation and that he couldn’t get away with on a level playing field without fellow IDists supporting him, dog-piling on dissent and impugning the characters of anti-IDists. I don’t think he provides a credible or coherent defense of ID theory and I am willing to challenge him and to put my name, credibility and reputation on the line against him in a friendly debate. Timaeus queried this potential debate and now I am responding to him. I am suggesting a voice-recorded debate, following a format that Timaeus would likely agree to (which I will not now reveal here), since it would give him some control over editing the final copy of the audio recording. If Timaeus can only write, but can’t speak or think on his feet, obviously this won’t be agreeable to him. “just suppose, in an alternate universe, I were to agree to such a debate; tell me what the *question* of the debate would be, and I’ll tell you whether I would be even hypothetically interested.” – Timaeus Here’s what I propose is the *question* of the debate:
“This house believes that Intelligent Design is a revolutionary natural scientific theory for origins of life, origins of biological information and human origins, which will potentially replace (neo-)Darwinian evolutionary theory.”
Timaeus would obviously defend the affirmative and I would defend the negative. One suggestion; this debate would be submitted to Max Andrews’ new Sententias journal, as an audio file for its website. Feedback to the debate would be open under Andrews’ moderation. As an additional option to ‘sweeten’ the incentive for Timaeus, a second follow-up debate could be included, in which his question to me in this thread is used:
This house believes “that human reason, based on empirical evidence drawn from nature, and without any information derived from revelation, *could*, at least in principle, determine that at least some features of the natural world are designed."
Timaeus would again take the affirmative and I would take the negative. A moderator would be involved in one or both debates. My question would be addressed first. This debate/these debates would take place between mid-April and mid-May 2013. The ball’s now in Timaeus’ court. Does he accept this challenge or not? ‘ID’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse. It is not and cannot be a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. I have stated this repeatedly at UD and Timaeus has summoned the seemingly utmost limits of his crafty, rhetorical (and sometimes preposterous) sophistry in ducking, avoiding or spinning it. That is because the Discovery Institute still insists that ‘Intelligent Design’ theory is a natural scientific-only theory. Let us put this to sleep once and for all, done publically, not from behind Timaeus’ safety sock puppet mask. Will Timaeus accept the challenge to stand behind ‘Intelligent Design’ theory in public? For the record, folks, Timaeus has come out briefly from under his sock puppet in the past. Let us see if he has the courage to do so again.Gregory_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PST}

“Theism is quite compatible with science once the science is not locked up to being applied Lewontinian a priori materialism, the real problem we face.” – KF Yes, KF, I agree. And as you should know by now, I am not a ‘Lewontinian a priori materialist.’ So please stop treating me as one because that is how you seem to treat anyone who rejects Big-ID theory. “Dembski is right that classical [theological] ‘design arguments’ should be distinguished from the modern ID argument which claims natural scientificity, especially in biology.” – Gregory Again, I stand behind this important distinction. “If it is true that everything in God’s creation — from atoms through rocks to stars and planets and vegetables and animals and man — is designed, then it is at least *possible* that the design in *all* or *some* cases can be detected by a combination of empirical and rational investigation.” – Timaeus Just like ‘cdesign proponentsists,’ Timaeus slips from ‘God’s creation’ to ‘nobody-in-particular’s design.’ Here is a clear example of Timaeus missing or simply glossing over (untenured) Dembski’s important distinction, and indeed, that which clearly and unequivocally validates the distinction between small-id (design arguments) and Big-ID (the modern ID argument; natural scientific ‘design in nature’ detection/inference). Mung wrote: “It’s hard to see where Gregory is going with this. Maybe he will share.” Because a ‘theory of everything’ is also likewise a ‘theory of nothing.’ That is what Big-ID theory becomes in the 'everything is designed' approach of people like Mung and Timaeus; a theory of nothing. Continually bleating “it couldn’t have happened by chance,” surely does have an apophatic place in science, philosophy, theology/worldview dialogue. I guess it’s just not that important in the more continental dialogue I’m involved in. We’re interested in deeper conversations than American philosophy of science allows and about the ‘here’s how it happened’ kataphatic case as well. “God has not forbidden the ID position, and he has not endorsed the TE position. Given God’s silence on the matter, I see nothing theologically offensive in the ID effort.” – Timaeus It is theologically offensive, as McGrath and many others have pointed out, because it needlessly makes theology vulnerable to scientific progress and discovery. You may not either recognise or accept that is what Big-ID theory actually means, Timaeus. But Big-ID’s particular ‘gap’ dependence is theologically offensive in many peoples’ eyes including theologians and apologists (e.g. notice even generally IDM-friendly John Lennox expresses reservations about using the term ‘intelligent design’). What is noteworthy to me is that Timaeus is categorically stuck in an ID vs. TE dichotomy and unfortunately seems himself unable to escape from this position and wants to drag others down with him. It may be that his generation (he was born in 1956, as he wrote indirectly at UD, in comparing his age to S. Fuller’s, which I confirmed independently) is still captive to the old ‘evolution vs. creation' conversation of the 20th century. He may therefore be not ready to move into the 21st century electronic age of extension, smart phones and twitter. But others here needn’t be chained in spirit by what binds Timaeus to pre-electric medieval ideas and philosophies. If a progressive contemporary holistic alternative to either ID or TE/EC came along, would others want to cling to his false dichotomous position, dragging them-selves down with Timaeusean-IDism? I should hope that independent thinkers at UD would at least be open to consider another possibility. “how about YOU dispense with trivial things (such as ID vs. id, the L in BioLogos, etc.) and address “the spirit of a proposition” concerning design in nature?” – Timaeus The Big-L in BioLogos is a monumental confession by one of the most important figures in science and religion/theology/faith dialogue in N. America. Trying to downplay or ignore the import of the Big-L in Logos is a self-inflicted insult to Timaeus’ intelligence and rationalist-religious sensitivities. Likewise, along with others outside of UD, I have shown already why Big-ID vs. small-id is both a legitimate and helpful distinction. This is why English-speaking world leaders in science, philosophy, theology discourse have adopted it, and I have simply followed their lead. Shooting the rare brave (and/or idiotic!) messenger won’t gain ‘ID’ any additional credibility. This is also likely why Timaeus himself first accepted the linguistic distinction between small-id and Big-ID, only to flip-flop and later reject it here for all to see in UD-ID safe haven; he saw what a significant (and ultimately devastating) challenge it poses to the IDM *if* it is required to choose *either* to write ‘Intelligent Design’ or ‘intelligent design’ in unison. The DI already knows this, which is why they almost uniformly now use ‘intelligent design’ without capital letters. Guys like Torley simply haven’t yet caught up or don’t care to tow the party line, due to their own independent evangelical on-line Intelligent Design missions. In the other thread I showed a direct example of UD flip-flopping between these Big-ID and small-id distinctions *communicatively speaking* in its own Glossary and even “ID Defined” page. And all I did to discover this was to ‘follow the evidence where it leads’! But IDists, in this case, seem to want to close their eyes, ears and hearts and to ‘not follow the evidence where it leads’ because that would uncover their ideological agenda. As for the rest regarding 'Timaeus,' see the challenge below. (cont'd)Gregory_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PST}

First, in regard to this: “we have no evidence that Gregory would endorse ID arguments even if they were stripped bare of the terms ‘science’ and ‘scientific’.” – Timaeus Obviously they would cease to be DI-based ‘ID arguments’ in the case that “they were stripped bare of terms ‘science’ and ‘scientific’.” I’ve explained this many times already. Timaeus simply doesn’t want to acknowledge it. I'm not going to waste time discussing Timaeus' personal 'I+D' theory because no one follows it but himself. “I want him to stop using the term ‘scientific’ as a convenient excuse to avoid answering the question.”- Timaeus Again, then we wouldn’t be talking about DI-based ‘ID theory’ anymore. I’ll get back to Timaeus’ ‘avoidance’ suggestion below. In any case, it sounds like Timaeus is ready to concede that ID theory is a version of natural theology, not of natural science. Thus, ‘ID’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, (natural) theology/worldview discourse, as I’ve been saying here for too many months. It is not and cannot be a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. That should be an easy conclusion. Second, in a brief review of this thread: “I don’t think that God was designed.” – Mung (later taken back, see below) “there are literally infinitely many entities that are not designed / there are infinitely many non-designed entities.” – KF (See discussion of 'non-designed things,' which ended in silence by my IDist opponent, between gpuccio and I over 2 years ago here) Yet according to Mung and Timaeus (and BA77), “everything [in nature &/or creation] is designed,” which directly contradicts KF’s contention regarding ‘non-designed entities.’ Here I take “everything is designed” and “infinitely many non-designed entities” as incompatible with each other. Everything is ‘designed’ or everything is ‘non-designed’; these are the only two options these three (four) folks at UD are giving us. So, which is it? As Timaeus said: “It seems to me that Genesis 1 teaches that everything in creation was designed.” This is actually very close to ‘creationism,’ even if not of the young earth variety. Again, if a religious scripture says that, and if a religious believer believes it, then nothing that natural science says will convince them otherwise. (Timaeus already publically conceded that he believed in small-id ‘intelligent design’ before he’d heard of Big-ID 'Intelligent Design' theory.) And nothing a person discovers using “a combination of empirical and rational investigation” will convince them otherwise either. That 'ID' is what they ‘believe’ (i.e. have faith) in, above and beyond the limits of scientific explanation. Even if the book of Genesis doesn’t have the term ‘design’ anywhere in the text! And then Mung flip-flopped on his own statement above, even though it didn’t include the word ‘thing,’ by rejecting the thing-ness of ‘God.’ “God is no thing. So God cannot be a thing that is not designed. Sorry Gregory. It wasn’t an intentional tease.” – Mung But it obviously was a flip-flop that still isn’t properly explained. Is God ‘designed/Designed’ or not, Mung, according to you? That’s a pretty basic question. Telling another petty joke at my supposed expense isn’t going to change that. (Notice please that this is not asking if God is the designer/Designer necessary as a ‘mere implication’ of ID theory.) Why not just try to answer the question without playing the jester? (cont'd)Gregory_{March 3, 2013
March
03
Mar
3
03
2013
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PST}

Hi, Mung. Re your question at 75, I'm just trying to get Gregory to clarify his position. He has said that he accepts design in nature, because of his "Abrahamic" faith. I translate such remarks into normal English as something like: "Because I am a Christian, I would believe in design on the strength of revelation even if I had no demonstration of it." Well, OK. I'm sure Augustine or Aquinas or Calvin would have no problem with a position like that. But I'm asking whether, in addition to that, Gregory believes anything more. We know that he heaps scorn on the idea that design in nature can be demonstrated "by science." What we don't know is whether he thinks that design in nature might be able to be proved by arguments such as those of Paley, or of others in the natural theology tradition. He has recently suggested that ID people have confused their approach with the earlier natural theology approach. That remark *could* imply that Gregory favors, or is open to, natural theology. So I'm trying to press him for more clarity on that. If, for example, Michael Behe were to swear never to use the word "science" or "scientific" in his arguments again, but used the same arguments, e.g., the adaptation of means to ends in the flagellum, then his arguments would look very much like Paley's; only they would be about molecules rather than bones or muscles. (Paley never used the word "scientific" to describe his arguments.) Thus, if Gregory were to say that Behe's arguments were quite fine, as long as he did not call them "scientific," then Gregory would be endorsing the general line of thinking of the natural theologians. So, far, however, we have no evidence that Gregory would endorse ID arguments even if they were stripped bare of the terms "science" and "scientific." And despite Gregory's distinction between ID and the old natural theology, he has never applied that distinction in favor of natural theology. He has never said, "ID bad, natural theology good." All he has said is "ID bad, ID also confused with natural theology." That leaves his position ambiguous. His position might well be, "ID bad, natural theology also bad, though not as bad as stinkin' ID." Another way of putting it is that Gregory has been clear about only two positions: ID, and fideistic Chrsitian belief in design. ID sucks, he says, and fideistic Christian belief is good. The intermediate possibility -- acceptance that *some* knowledge of God can come from reasoning about nature, even in the absence of revelation -- he has not taken a position on. So I've asked him to do that. But it is close to certain that he won't. Whenever we come close to pinning Gregory down to an intellectually coherent position, he either drops the discussion, or attacks the questioner for asking an illegitimate question, or indignantly refuses to respond to someone who is "demanding answers," or the like. He has accused me of lacking courage on a countless number of occasions, even where I have swiftly and forthrightly answered his questions. Well, I accuse him of lacking courage -- if he won't answer my question in #74 above. I want to hear him say either that he is open, or not open, to arguments made for design in nature that are not based on revelation. And I want him to stop using the term "scientific" as a convenient excuse to avoid answering the question.Timaeus_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PST}

James Madden addresses the teleological argument (or argument from design) in chapter eight, which he likewise divides into two versions - a classical one and a modern one. Madden holds out little hope for the classical version, but argues that the modern version, inspired by by the kind of scientific research utilized in the so-called intelligent design movement, does show promise for overcoming Humean obstacles. - In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment
Oh my, it seems they forgot to capitalize certain essential terms! And worse, gasp!, there may be some benefit in the arguments or the approach of the IDM.Mung_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PST}

Do you believe that human reason, based on empirical evidence drawn from nature, and without any information derived from revelation, *could*, at least in principle, determine that at least some features of the natural world are designed?
I've recently begun: Natural Signs and Knowledge of God: A New Look at Theistic Arguments Maybe Gregory would like to obtain a copy and discuss.Mung_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PST}

T, And if Gregory is absolutely opposed to any *natural theology, how well does that fit in with the Christian tradition? *I don't say that he is, because he apparently supports Gingerich and the fine-tuning argument (and possibly other teleological and cosmological arguments), but I don't know if he sees them as part of natural theology. I certainly don't see him expressing any outrage towards natural theology, but maybe I'm just not looking.Mung_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply