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

Gregory: Most of your reply above (69-70) is ad hominem -- have you ever asked yourself why you seem to be unable to disagree, not only with me, but with almost everyone you encounter on the internet, without throwing in gratuitous personal remarks? Anyhow, in light of your remark at the end of 70 above, concerning the need to ignore small matters of verbal expression and to get to "the spirit of the proposition" -- how about YOU dispense with trivial things (such as ID vs. id, the L in BioLogos, etc.) and address "the spirit of a proposition" concerning design in nature? Do you believe that human reason, based on empirical evidence drawn from nature, and without any information derived from revelation, *could*, at least in principle, determine that at least some features of the natural world are designed? Or do you believe that such a determination of design is impossible even in principle? And if you believe the latter, why? (Notice that the word "scientific" was no part of the question, and therefore should form no part of your answer.) If you are unwilling to answer this question, then no discussion between you and intelligent design proponents is possible.Timaeus_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Gregory stamps his foot because I refuse to contradict myself. Then he berates Timaeus for not stepping in and what? I guess any opportunity to berate Timaeus is a good one. Gregory quotes me as saying I believe everything is designed. Then he demands that I give him a list of non-designed things. Then he whines when I don't. What gives? I think Gregory must be confused. He must think that ID is a theory of unintelligently designed things. Or perhaps a theory of intelligently non-designed things. It's hard to see where Gregory is going with this. Maybe he will share.Mung_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

F/N: Gregory also fails to acknowledge the point already highlighted, that a necessary being is non designed, not being contingent. Accordingly, there are literally infinitely many entities that are not designed. KFkairosfocus_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Yup, just as, once, there was a Dred Scott decision. Judges are not normally experts on methods and philosophy of science and in this case when Judge Jones "traipsed" into design he refused to acknowledge the scientific and even plain simple brute print evidence in court -- remember, despite actual publications he ruled that such did not exist -- and he managed to copy submissions by NCSE/ACLU wholescale, gross errors and all. In short, in days to come, this decision will not look very good on serious analysis. Indeed, for good reason it has been severely dissected any number of times. KFkairosfocus_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

(cont’d) In the United States, there is a judicial precedent that states: “intelligent design is not science” and that “ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” That is simply a judicial fact, whether Timaeus or I or anyone else here agrees with it or not. You are of course correct, Timaeus, in saying “It all depends on what you mean by science.” Since you are so fond of biochemist Michael Behe’s philosophy of science, surely you count astrology and ether theory as ‘science,’ along with him, don’t you, Timaeus? The PoS Timaeus has repeatedly displayed at UD does not seem to be developed or wise any more than Behe’s! That’s a serious problem. If they were wise, people should not pay attention to Timaeus’ philosophy of science (PoS) because it is obviously very naïve. Pause and reflect pro-ID fanatics. As a religious studies PhD, Timaeus is clearly not trained in PoS (though he will likely contend that he thinks he is competent, without qualification) and as a self-admittedly active political theorist Timaeus has not trained himself (just by reading DI books?!) to competently speak about PoS. This is ‘following the evidence where it leads.’ Notice that Timaeus speaks of ‘ID efforts,’ much like a movement-propagandist would do. In doing so, he tries to avoid the question of ID’s supposed ‘natural scientificity,’ on which the ‘Design theory/hypothesis’ lives or dies. “the substance of what I am saying is the same as the substance of what they [Dembski and Behe] are saying” – Timaeus No, Timaeus. They are insisting on the natural scientificity of ID theory. You are not. Read your own words more carefully if you disagree: “I am *not* asking you to call the inference 'scientific'." - Timaeus You, Timaeus, are not claiming what they are claiming about the natural scientificity of ID theory as the IDM presents it publically. Will you not finally, openly, honestly, in public, like a man, like a person with a real character, face this fact? “I don’t feel bound to agree with Dembski, or any ID theorist, on every single point.” – Timaeus The proclaimed natural scientificity of ID theory is the linchpin of the so-called ‘ID controversy.’ Without it, you’ve got nothing. ID theorists believe there is ‘empirical evidence’ (follow it where it leads) of ‘design in nature’ that natural science can prove/infer. Timaeus, however, ‘doesn’t feel bound’ to that theory which he is propagating from the margins. What kind of flake speaks this way and expects to be taken seriously? How can Timaeus be a hero at UD when this is his twisted position? “I am not an original ID theorist but merely a supporter of ID.” – Timaeus Yes, that is surely correct. It means that Timaeus is simply a regurgitator of other peoples’ ideas, which he sometimes distorts. Timaeus is a provocateur with no original ideas of his own. This is what I’ve been highlighting about his Timaeusean-IDism for several years. “I am *not* asking you to call THE INFERENCE 'scientific'." - Timaeus I’ve met or corresponded with almost all of the actual originators of ID theory; Thaxton, Meyer, Behe, Johnson, Dembski, Wells, Nelson, West. Timaeus is self-admittedly not an ID theorist, and his views of ID are obviously parasitic on their conceptualisation. And if he actually thinks he is not parasitic, then he should please say so clearly and without the usual sophistry and rhetoric (this seems to be hard for him) how his own view of ‘ID’ theory differs from theirs. “What does labelling such empirical/rational arguments as “scientific” add to the strength of the arguments themselves?” – Timaeus That is what makes the argument an actual argument! The second side of the ID-Wedge is that Darwinian evolutionary theory, become neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory in the Modern Synthesis, is wrong, wrong, wrong and that ID theory is a natural scientific revolution that is destined to replace it. Drop the claims to natural scientificity and the IDM will rather swiftly disappear and its right-wing financiers along with it. “If it is true that everything in God’s creation — from atoms through rocks to stars and planets and vegetables and animals and man — is designed (a conclusion Gregory doesn’t object to), then it is at least *possible* that the design in *all* or *some* cases can be detected by a combination of empirical and rational investigation.” I don’t object to ‘design/Design’ on a theological level. But how you frame it, Timaeus, makes as much sense as saying if one is an Abrahamic believer, then one *should* accept Intelligent Design theory. That is simply not a necessary conclusion; it is the presupposition that any natural scientist brings to the table rather than the discoveries that their natural science makes. “Certainly, at a minimum, even if ID arguments are not “science” in themselves, they are *based on* the most current results of natural science.” – Timaeus That is of course debatable. You can’t claim that ID leaders are on the cutting-edge of a definition of a ‘science’ that they reject. They want unnamed ‘intelligent agents/Intelligent Agents’ included in biology! Aliens, ghosts, what else? Instead, all you can say is that IDists are *attempting* to force a paradigm shift. The truth is that most current natural scientists are not buying into it and the public education system in the USA has rejected it also. “I am *not* asking you to call the inference 'scientific'." - Timaeus It is not controversial to say that the IDist bid to get ‘intelligent agency/Intelligent Agency’ grafted into biology has failed to convince and even that it is bound to lose. “So what would Gregory have me call modern ID? Philosophical argumentation based on natural science?” – Timaeus Well, at least Timaeus asked with some attempt at honesty. The issue is not whether or not ID is ‘based on natural science’ or not. The paradigm called ‘creation science’ also claims to be ‘based on natural science.’ Timaeus has admitted that ‘creation science’ is ‘bad science.’ Therefore, such argumentation gets us nowhere. What would I have Timaeus call it: ID theory is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation. Will you not recognise this as the proper dialogical space for ID theory, Timaeus? “I do not see such a project as *in conflict with* the teaching of the Bible.” – Timaeus Yes, I agree. Your leaders’ ID project is not necessarily “*in conflict with* the teaching of the Bible.” But very, very many people disagree with your support of ID because its the claim of ‘natural scientificity,’ even if you don't stand behind that claim. And the Bible itself doesn’t use the speciic language of ‘Intelligent Design.’ If one can ‘natural scientifically’ prove/infer design, then faith in the unseen takes on a different meaning. “God has not forbidden the ID position, and he has not endorsed the TE position.” – Timaeus Timaeus, we are both Abrahamic believers. I’ve offered you a realistic third way and all you could do was pitifully critique my grammar and amend sentence structure, not once or in-depth focussing on the actual meaning, the spirit of the proposition. Had you done that, you could have leapt over many of the stubborn fetishes and dead-end streets you currently hold in support of ID theory, *as if* it is the savior of Western civilisation as you envision it.Gregory_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Mung has taken his statement back (#59), so Timaeus is left holding the bag. That’s ID comradeship? That’s your movement's collective unconscious? “why my nuanced view concerning ID and science might be seen as constituting some kind of betrayal of, or defection from, ID?” – Timaeus Because it is ‘nuanced,’ meaning ‘tricksy’ (Gollum, Gollum) and unprofessional. Timaeus cannot betray that which he hasn’t privately or publically sworn any allegiance to. That’s Timaeusean-ID, that’s ideological propaganda. If Timaeus were actually a professional, then he’d have no hesitation to show it. He respectfully holds a PhD and should therefore be active in academic life. But we can only guess that for whatever reasons he isn’t, since he doesn’t show it. He chooses to hide, and that’s what his ‘fans’ and ‘drum-bangers’ at UD see and what visitors to this site realise about his tendentious commitment to ID theory. “his epic war against my ideas and my person” - Timaeus Oh, goodness, no. I’m at heart a collaborator rather than a combatant. My policy is ‘mutual aid’ (vzaimopomosh). I don’t live in the troubled North American fiasco, Timaeus, and thus I can speak openly without fear of being ‘expelled.’ This is a fear which Timaeus has stated personally here. I certainly don’t consider it an ‘epic war,’ but rather a friendly on-line disagreement. But I’m ready and not afraid to lock horns with fanatics and ideologues such as Timaeus when they announce themselves proud on behalf of IDism. Timaeus demonstrates fanatical IDist qualities (albeit as a flip-flopper) in abundance. Whether he is worth ‘locking horns with’ has yet to be shown since he cowers behind (an) on-line pseudonym(s) and won’t agree to recorded public debate. “suppose I were to start thinking the way Gregory thinks.” – Timaeus You’d quickly become a non-IDist. And you’d be ready to come out from behind your waterfall sock-puppet identity crisis and face the reality of ID’s natural scientistic dilemma. That would be the result if you started thinking like I do. “As for whether we should call the ID effort “scientific,” the answer to that is: “It all depends on what you mean by science.” Under some definitions of “science” ID would count as science; under others, it would not.” – Timaeus That is not ‘THE’ answer; it is ‘your’ personal self-righteous answer, delivered from behind an on-line sock-puppet. Hello, are you being solipsistic, ‘western’ religious historian? It would help if you would actually take credit and responsibility for your own thoughts, instead of expecting that is what everyone else thinks or *should* think as propaganda for the IDM. This is partly why I harp on your ‘anonymous’ pseudo-privilege; it allows you to slither away from investing your real character in your statements, such that your personal identity must stand or fall behind them. You have chosen not to stand, but to lie and hide and your views should thus be understood accordingly. (cont'd)Gregory_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Mung says: “I believe everything is designed.” Is that supposed to be called a ‘natural scientific’ theory of ID?!
‘Universalist designism’ is an ideology that contends ‘everything is designed’ and in the Big-ID theory variety, it says natural science (using statistics and probabilities combined with bio-informatics) can ‘prove/infer’ it.

“What then in your opinion, Mung, is *not* designed, from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint?”
NO ANSWER! Stay silent. Mung has become (technically) ‘dumb’ (without the ability to speak). Grade: 2.5 – lowered because of flip-flop to: 0.0 = Fail. "Not really." Yes, really.Gregory_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
This kind of language demonstrates aptly why most people think hard-core IDists are simply flakes.
Not really.Mung_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

Strangest thing happened just now, I was browsing for interesting-looking NDE experiences on YouTube, turned the page, and right at the top of the list of video-clips accessible from that screen, was The Love Song of Alfred J Prufrock, narrated by T S Eliot, which I cited ironically, above! Yet it was under a different user-name. It could be another little joke of the security services.Axel_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

"there are infinitely many non-designed entities, and that by pointing to just one member of the class of necessary beings, that carries with it the rest" This kind of language demonstrates aptly why most people think hard-core IDists are simply flakes.Gregory_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Gregory claims to have anticipated my original response. I wonder if he did so following the same non-thinking that he now accuses me of. lol
Not worth peoples’ time and attention.
Now if you could just empathize with us maybe you would change your tune. But I doubt it.Mung_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Gregory wrote: "At least Timaeus is thinking, even as a political theorist." I'm staggered! Now as a normal person, my reaction would be to thank Gregory for the (somewhat left-handed) compliment, and to perceive a slight willingness on his part to scale down his epic war against my ideas and my person. But suppose I were to start thinking the way Gregory thinks. Suppose that, instead of taking Gregory's words for what they seem to be, and reacting to them on the assumption that he meant what he said (as he ought to react to ID arguments for design in nature as if the ID proponents meant what they said) -- suppose that I were to adopt the stance of the sociologist animated by the hermeneutic of suspicion, and start speculating about the motives which might lead Gregory to pay me even a minor compliment (as he speculates about the theocratic intentions behind even the driest of biochemical or statistical arguments in ID books). I then might come up with something like this: "Aha! Gregory suspects that, as I am somewhat older than he is, and may have health problems, the shock of receiving a compliment might go straight to my heart, and do me in! The compliment is therefore a dishonest rhetorical ploy, devised to cover up his secret agenda of "McLuhan-Fullerism," which aims at reshaping the world by a "human extension" which will "extend" out and crush "Big-ID," while simultaneously diminishing the number of humanities scholars in the world by one, to give sociologists a comparative advantage in securing academic jobs." That's what I would think, if I thought like Gregory. Naaahhh... Thanks for the compliment, Gregory. Keep 'em coming.Timaeus_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Gregory, do you understand that there are infinitely many non-designed entities, and that by pointing to just one member of the class of necessary beings, that carries with it the rest? KFkairosfocus_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Apology accepted. Yet another flip-flopping example of why no one should take the IDM seriously. "I don't think that God was designed" / "God cannot be a thing that is not designed." You have not spoken wisely. Universalist designism. Neo-creationism. Small-minded American home-grown ideology in the name of 'ID.' Not worth peoples' time and attention. At least Timaeus is thinking, even as a political theorist.Gregory_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Sorry Gregory. It wasn't an intentional tease. :)Mung_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

I’ll give you one so that you can have your rhetorical victory. God. I don’t think that God was designed. Satisfied?
Sorry, I have to take that back. God is no thing. So God cannot be a thing that is not designed.Mung_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

I should have said, 'is the preferred 'battle order', rather than Hamlet and LSoAJP.Axel_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

It has got to be like clockwork for our scientismifical friends, Timaeus, and even the most oblique allusion to philosophy will give them a very nasty bout of the vapours. They wouldn't be mad about the quantum paradigm, as it's weirdness is so antithetical to the fabled 'promissory note'. Hence your perceived, grave 'faux pas'. IDers, doubtless with good reason, fear that introducing the scientismificists to such a sophisticated level of reasoning, comes dangerously close to 'bringing a knife to a gunfight'. A Maori-type Haka is preferred to Hamlet, or the Love Song of Alfred J Prufrock, if you get my drift.Axel_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Perhaps Mung is biting his fingers, realising he is on the hook for 4 more examples. That's why he comments elsewhere, but doesn't offer a thoughtful answer here. We know which finger he's already bitten off!Gregory_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Note this exchange, from Gregory above: *********** Gregory: You answered (Hurray!): “It seems to me that Genesis 1 teaches that everything in creation was designed.” Gregory: So, then (another drum roll please!), what does that have to do with ‘modern’ ID theory as a specifically DI-IDM invention that claims natural scientificity? ************ So Gregory approves of my answer to his first question. That's good. It means that he understands how I interpreted Mung's statement: "I believe that everything is designed, even rocks." So far, so good. But Gregory remains unsatisfied. He wants me to explain not merely why I defended Mung, but how my view relates to "modern ID theory." Well, I don't see that the answer is very complicated. If it is true that everything in God's creation -- from atoms through rocks to stars and planets and vegetables and animals and man -- is designed (a conclusion Gregory doesn't object to), then it is at least *possible* that the design in *all* or *some* cases can be detected by a combination of empirical and rational investigation. As I understand the efforts of Denton, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc., they are trying to show that *all* or at least *some* of the design in nature is detectable by a combination of empirical and rational investigation. I do not see such a project as *in conflict with* the teaching of the Bible. It may not be *required* by the teaching of the Bible, but it is not *in conflict with* the teaching of the Bible. Another way of putting this is: God may not have said, "Go out and try to prove that nature is designed rather than the product of chance," but equally he has not said, "Do not try to prove that nature is designed rather than the product of chance, because I have so constructed the universe that the design can never be established by mortals except by the eye of faith." In other words, God has not forbidden the ID position, and he has not endorsed the TE position. Given God's silence on the matter, I see nothing theologically offensive in the ID effort. As for whether we should call the ID effort "scientific," the answer to that is: "It all depends on what you mean by science." Under some definitions of "science" ID would count as science; under others, it would not. As Steve Fuller has indicated, not many centuries ago, ID would have been considered a perfectly "scientific" investigation. Certainly, at a minimum, even if ID arguments are not "science" in themselves, they are *based on* the most current results of natural science. So what would Gregory have me call modern ID? Philosophical argumentation based on natural science? And if I do, will he then accuse me of "disagreeing" with Behe, or Dembski, or someone else, because I don't use quite the same terminology as they, even though the substance of what I am saying is the same as the substance of what they are saying? To me, the essence of modern ID is the insight that the most up-to-date natural science confirms and strengthens the kind of argumentation that Paley and earlier philosophers and theologians used without the benefit of that natural science. Behe's biochemical arguments parallel Paley's anatomical arguments; Dembski's probability arguments give quantitative measurements to Paley's intuitive sense of what is improbable; etc. I thus see continuity between the method of Paley and the methods of modern ID. Does Dembski disagree with that? I don't know. I've never seen any statement of Dembski that disagrees with that; but supposing there are such statements, I don't feel bound to agree with Dembski, or any ID theorist, on every single point. I know that I am not an original ID theorist but merely a supporter of ID. But my contacts with ID people, which from time to time have included contacts with major ID people, have suggested to me that most ID people find my understanding of the project to be broadly in line with theirs. The statements that Gregory has chided me for about "scientificity" (what a clumsy, ugly word!), have never led to any reprimand to me, privately or publically, from any minor or major ID theorist. So I must confess, in all honesty, that I don't understand what Gregory is saying to me. I don't understand why he thinks I am far off the beaten track of ID theory. Can others here -- StephenB or kairosfocus or anyone else -- tell me why my nuanced view concerning ID and science might be seen as constituting some kind of betrayal of, or defection from, ID? Do I have to add the word "scientific" to my design arguments in order to be a true-blue ID supporter? Can't I just say that design is detectable by a combination of the empirical/mathematical investigation of nature and rational inferences based on that investigation? What does labelling such empirical/rational arguments as "scientific" add to the strength of the arguments themselves? If my lack of interest in shouting to the world, "ID is science, darn it! Science! Science!" means that I have failed the cause, would someone please straighten me out?Timaeus_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

"any necessary being is non-designed." - KF #51 Go fish. I'll keep waiting for Mung's next four examples. What are 4 more examples of things you think were/are not ‘designed,’ from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint? Does Mung agree with Timaeus that "everything ['in creation' and/or 'in nature'] was designed"? If so, then no more examples will be provided by Mung and he could easily acknowledge this: "Only God is not 'designed,' everything else is 'designed', i.e. by God. That's what natural theology says." "I don’t think that God was designed. Satisfied?" - MungGregory_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Please stop your bobbling, Timaeus. You chose the 15th paragraph from #47, in which I highlighted your misleading phrase "Behe and I," yet ignored the first 14. This is typical of your communicative style; you seem to latch on to a single fetish of your own making, which you wish to try to exploit and then flood a thread writing paragraphs about it. Just stick to the main question and keep your parlour tricks to yourself. If you can do that, then afterwards I'll answer your anxious "alternative universe" response to the challenge of what you have perceived as "a special public debate." Hint: it doesn't involve "a thousand or two for travel costs" from your pocket! I asked: What then in your opinion, Timaeus, is *not* designed, from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint (since you personally “don’t insist on” the natural scientificity of ID)? You answered (Hurray!): “It seems to me that Genesis 1 teaches that everything in creation was designed.” So, then (another drum roll please!), what does that have to do with ‘modern’ ID theory as a specifically DI-IDM invention that claims natural scientificity? Nothing, right? "Everything [in creation] is designed," according to Genesis, according to sacred scripture. But that has *nothing* to do with the 'science' of Intelligent Design - zero, nada, zip, nul, zilch. Thus, Dembski is right that classical 'design arguments' should be distinguished from the modern ID argument which claims natural scientificity, especially in biology. Since ‘Timaeusean-ID’ is obviously parasitic on 'modern ID theory,’ this question is rather pertinent to his banana-skin pirouette. Timaeus did not come up with Intelligent Design theory on his own, but rather has swallowed what he has read from Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Wells, Nelson, et al. Obviously here and now he is regurgitating something (not scientific, but highly rhetorical) that he also calls 'Intelligent Design theory,' which is quite different from what ID leaders still contend because they insist on the natural scientificity of Intelligent Design while Timaeus does not.Gregory_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Gregory
Thank you for this. We both already agree that Genesis 1 does *not* teach a modern ‘natural scientific’ theory.
Another strawman appears. No one ever claimed that Genesis presents a "modern natural scientific argument." Science measures things. Genesis makes no attempt to quantify the elements in nature or develop scientific theories.
We are as usual expected to guess at the reasons for his current flip-flop because he rarely explains himself.
Design arguments come in various forms such as philosophical design arguments, faith-based design arguments, and scientific design arguments, but Gregory thinks that the mere act of recognizing their common elements constitutes a "flip flop." Remarkable.
Timaeus rarely explains himself.
What could possibly prompt Gregory to make such a statement? The following explanation from Wikipedia might serve to illuminate: "'Psychological projection' was first conceptualized by Sigmund Freud as a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own negative attributes by ascribing them to the outside world instead. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting faults onto others."
I’m sure you’re regularly in e-mail contact with Dr. Michael Behe, aren’t you Timaeus? Are we really supposed to accept that a religious studies, western philosophy PhD and an American biochemist are ‘speaking the same language’ about ‘design,’ especially when one contends ID is a natural scientific theory and the other “doesn’t insist on it”? This is just so far from believable as to belong in theatre of the absurd.
Some things are worth repeating: "'Psychological projection' was first conceptualized by Sigmund Freud as a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own negative attributes by ascribing them to the outside world instead. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting faults onto others."
I’ve challenged you to a public debate, ‘Timaeus,’ in your real name, documented and recorded. You’ve ducked and will most likely duck the challenge once again here at UD, your perceived safe haven. Come out of UD and face me on neutral territory, with your integrity as a scholar openly exposed, and your seemingly invincible ‘design in nature’ non-apologetic plot will fall to pieces.
A change of venue would not help Gregory. At this site, he can get away with ignoring the questioner. In a public debate, he would have to hide behind the stage curtain.StephenB_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Gregory, Pardon an intervention but the import of Mung's remark is that any necessary being is non-designed. That implies an infinity of non-designed entities, starting with abstract ones like numbers and relationships that are necessary, such as 3 + 2 = 5. Given that our physical world is credibly contingent, is is not credibly a necessary being, nor would be anything made up of particles in our world. Where also, there is strong evidence per fine tuning that the physical cosmos we live in is designed, as well as the world of life in it. That contingency in turn points onwards to a root of being that is necessary, intelligent and awesomely powerful, purposing to create life in a cosmos set up to host life. And yes, that sounds rather like providing a science-based side-light on things like "the heavens declare the glory of God," and like "in him we live and move and have our being" and like "the world was made through him" or "without him was not anything made that was made," and that he "upholds all things by his powerful world," etc. Theism is quite compatible with science once the science is not locked up to being applied Lewontinian a priori materialism, the real problem we face. KFkairosfocus_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Gregory, you say bizarre things. Because I used the compound subject "Behe and I," you seem to think that I was claiming to be pals with Michael Behe! Well, first of all, I wouldn't regularly e-mail Behe even if I thought he would answer me -- I wouldn't want to distract him from his important work. And second of all, my sentence merely indicated that Behe and I had a view in common, not that we had ever communicated with each other! But don't underestimate Behe's interest in classical design arguments. He has talked about Paley in some depth -- albeit in one of those ID books you apparently haven't read, since you don't seem to remember his discussion of Paley. So right away he and I have something in common. Even so, I wouldn't interrupt his biochemical researches to gab about our common respect for Paley. You want a special public debate with me? Why? We're already in public debate here! Anything (*of a non-personal character*) that you could say on a stage at some college or university, you can say here. No scientific or philosophical or theological argument is forbidden here. The only difference is that the public debate would be in-person. But what would the advantage of that be? I don't have the good looks of Hugh Jackman and I don't have the greatest speaking voice, so it wouldn't be very entertaining from a show-biz point of view, and it's a very inefficient way of getting content to audiences, to spend hours or days travelling and weeks making travel arrangements so that 40 or 50 people could listen to us for 90 minutes, when in this medium we can pump out way more than 90 minutes' worth of material with much less effort, to a much bigger audience -- and have longer to answer audience questions as well! And at no monetary cost! There is no gain in the personal format that I can see, except in theatricality. Are you suggesting that an in-person format would somehow improve the contents of the debate? If so, how? You don't answer most of the objections and questions that are put to you here; why would I have any reason to think that you would be more forthcoming in person? And you speak to me angrily and insultingly here, and you accuse me of all kinds of base motives; why should I put up with having to listen to that in person? So all in all, what would there be in such an event for me? The same old outcome of our debates here, with me out a thousand or two for travel costs! But just suppose, in an alternate universe, I were to agree to such a debate; tell me what the *question* of the debate would be, and I'll tell you whether I would be even hypothetically interested.Timaeus_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

Gregory, I've just ran across this old beaut from Fuller that you might appreciate:
In Cambridge, Professor Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design - Video https://uncommondescent.com/news/in-cambridge-professor-steve-fuller-discusses-why-the-hypothesis-of-intelligent-design-is-not-more-popular-among-scientists-and-others/ At 17:34 minute mark of the video, Dr. Steve Fuller states: "So you think of physics in search of a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything", Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however mulrifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropiate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.",,, You see, there is sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,"
bornagain77_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

Mung is obviously busy munching on his freebie. Let's see if he has anything further to add. "I’ll give you one so that you can have your rhetorical victory." - Mung Oh, so generous! Yet it's not a rhetorical victory. It merely seeks to understand the truth of peoples' views. What then in your opinion, Mung, is *not* designed, from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint? Since you’ve been extraordinarily impertinent, I’ll ask for at least 5 things that are *not designed* from your natural theological perspective. So far you've given one.Gregory_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

Timaeus must have written #46 only half-awake. "It seems to me that Genesis 1 teaches that everything in creation was designed." - Timaeus Thank you for this. We both already agree that Genesis 1 does *not* teach a modern 'natural scientific' theory. Yet ever the flip-flopper, Timaeus now changes his wording again. Not "everything is designed" or "everything in nature is designed," but "everything in *creation* is designed." We are as usual expected to guess at the reasons for his current flip-flop because he rarely explains himself. Let us not forget that 'designing processes' are unfathomable for Timaeus because his personal meaning of 'design' is purely abstract, in the mind/Mind, not in the actualisation or instantiation. Let us remember that 'creationist' ideology also speaks about "everything in creation," just as Timaeus now does. But, of course, Timaeus is *not* (and cannot logically be) an ideologue in any sense, shape or form because he is so rational and careful with his flip-flopping words. He avows he is not a 'creationist,' does not believe in a 'young earth,' etc. and considers such a view 'bad science,' even if he won't personally take a stand against creationist-IDists. "There is nothing (of general purport, as opposed to scientific detail) that Behe argues that would be out of place in the pages of a Paley or a Renaissance Platonist or an ancient Greek or Roman defender of design." - Timaeus This shows how far outside the mainstream Timaeus' views of ID actually are. He does not require "scientific detail." He just wants a "general purport" argument for design. This of course departs drastically from Dembski, Behe and Meyer quite plainly, as anyone who has read these authors can see. Timaeus admits he has not read Dembski's 'popular' books and claims (presumptuously without knowing, as usual) that I haven't read any of Dembski's 'theoretical' books. However, I did read Dembski's "The Design Inference" (but he didn't 'eliminate chance,' of course!). So, yet again, Timaeus, in trying to speak for others is caught with his pants down. "frankly, I don’t care whether people are persuaded by Behe or by some ancient author, since I believe the argument for design is sound." - Timaeus As if there is a 'single,' unequivocal thing called (drum-roll please) "THE" argument for design, that Timaeus has direct access to through his training in ancient and pre-modern 'western philosophy'! The truth is that there are multiple 'design arguments,' as Dembski shows in "The Design Revolution" and as many others have written about in both ID and predominantly in non-ID literature. “I am *not* asking you to call the inference 'scientific'." - Timaeus Yes, that's the key Timaeusean-ID oversight. Have fun on the margins of IDM relevance then Timaeus because what you say is not what ID theory actually contends, in the works of Behe, Meyer, Dembski, Wells, Nelson, et al. And the strange thing is that you don't seem to care (and now have even openly stated this) one way or another, you seem to welcome your intentional marginality! You seem to realise that in not defending the IDM's necessary claim of the 'natural scientificity' of ID, you become basically irrelevant to the main actors, a kind of intellectual cheerleader watching the real action - go team. "Behe and I" - Timaeus I'm sure you're regularly in e-mail contact with Dr. Michael Behe, aren't you Timaeus? Are we really supposed to accept that a religious studies, western philosophy PhD and an American biochemist are 'speaking the same language' about 'design,' especially when one contends ID is a natural scientific theory and the other "doesn't insist on it"? This is just so far from believable as to belong in theatre of the absurd. "I think I can defend my arguments for design in nature" - Timaeus Timaeus thinks he can, but no, he would be intellectually slaughtered. He would be shown to be the fantasy-ID, anti-TE sock puppet that he currently is. No defense of ID's natural scientificity, no defense of his anti-TE/EC BioLogos-hating views, no pre-modern philosophy to offer that could potentially be resonant in the electronic-information age. Just soft-IDist pseudo-objectivism. Bring on lob-city! I've challenged you to a public debate, 'Timaeus,' in your real name, documented and recorded. You've ducked and will most likely duck the challenge once again here at UD, your perceived safe haven. Come out of UD and face me on neutral territory, with your integrity as a scholar openly exposed, and your seemingly invincible 'design in nature' non-apologetic plot will fall to pieces. You could then easily and with integrity admit and find my agreement if you so recognise it that "‘ID’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse." It is not and cannot be a 'natural-science-only' theory. Max Andrews, the main theme of the OP, seems to be on the same page with this assessment, going by the mission of his new Journal.Gregory_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

It's a bit rich for Gregory to complain about people not answering his questions, when he has failed to answer -- either by silence or by evasion/obfuscation -- about 90% of the questions put to him on this site. I made no comment on the views of Dembski or Discovery. I was asked to justify my comment that Mung's view struck me as Biblical. I tried to do that, by referring to Genesis 1 -- in line with Gregory's request (#24) for a Torah passage. It seems to me that Genesis 1 teaches that everything in creation was designed. If Gregory would like to debate my interpretation of Genesis, he has every right to; but I have explained what I meant and therefore fulfilled my primary dialogical obligation. I have not read any of Dembski's popular books, and Gregory has not read any of Dembski's theoretical books, which makes communication between us regarding Dembski quite difficult. However, I do know Behe's writings quite well, and it strikes me that no "conflation" of Behe's ID and classic design arguments is necessary. There is nothing (of general purport, as opposed to scientific detail) that Behe argues that would be out of place in the pages of a Paley or a Renaissance Platonist or an ancient Greek or Roman defender of design. The line of reasoning is exactly the same. But in an age that worships "science" (a worship which both Gregory and I deplore), an argument loaded with discussions of molecular biology and probability theory and information theory is likely to win more hearts and minds than an essentially identical argument couched in terms of means and ends and chance and contrivance etc. And frankly, I don't care whether people are persuaded by Behe or by some ancient author, since I believe the argument for design is sound. Nor am I overly worried -- if it should prove to be true -- that Dembski disagrees with some view that Behe and I share in common. Individuals from the same broad camp often disagree over things, sometimes even major things. That is a surprise to nobody. In the final analysis, my views are my own, and I must answer to reason and evidence, not to Dembski or Murphy or Bejan or Gregory or Fuller or anyone else. I think I can defend my arguments for design in nature, and have offered many times to defend them against Gregory's criticism; but he refuses to discuss arguments for design in nature on this site. Which is a bit like refusing to debate the doctrine of false consciousness on a site devoted to the thought of Marx, or refusing to debate the thesis that religious ideas shape cultures on a site devoted to the thought of Weber. Gregory comes here and writes hundreds of thousands of words, but won't write any words about the validity or invalidity of the actual arguments that have been offered for intelligent design. Bizarre.Timaeus_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

N. Matzke: "before declaring my entire field bogus" Well, I wouldn't call your entire field bogus. But I'm sure you'll admit that every field is based and built upon certain ideological preferences and 'schools' of thought. Your field of evolutionary biology is clearly tainted with ideology in so far as it shows a deep sociological imbalance via population statistics; more atheists and agnostics flock to that field than almost any other in the contemporary Academy. Surely you don't deny it. My suggestion: Be sure to inquire to James M. Tour about his considered rejection of ID when you meet him. He wants to be "free of that ID label" and people here should better understand why. That a well-in-pocket IDist would volunteer to pay for your trip to meet Dr. Tour's challenge regarding micro- & macro-evolution is otoh not surprising. Otoh, however, it may surprise ID people here at UD to hear about Tour's reasonable rejection of their quasi-positivistic, neo-creationist ID theory approach from the other side of Phillip Johnson's Wedge. "I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design for the reasons I state above: I can not prove it using my tools of chemistry to which I am bound in the chemistry classroom." -James M. Tour As Dr. Tour is a religious man, we can conclude he (believes he) sees 'Creation' through the eyes of faith. IDists, however, who claim that using natural scientific tools *can* 'prove/infer' Intelligent Design are obviously not convincing to Dr. Tour. Dr. Tour's distinction between 'Intelligent Design' and 'intelligent design' makes it possible for him to say "the scientific proof [for ID] is not there, in my opinion." Do you agree or disagree with this distinction, Nick? Dr. Tour continues: "I do not well-understand the stance of many of my creationist friends regarding their scientific evidence for creation or intelligent design...they are too quick to cite each other or to refer to 40-year-old studies, and slow to consider the newer findings in the mainstream scientific literature." That seems to reflect quite accurately what's going on in torley's Wedge-oriented thread on Dr. James M. Tour views of 'evolution'.Gregory_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply