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

Crusading to "save Western civilisation" as an anonymous blogger, unfortunately, answering simple and direct questions isn't a strong point of Timaeus'. With Timaeus' on-line habits, one needs to read carefully, not just what he answers, but to keep an eye out closely for what he doesn't answer. In this case, he and Mung were discussing if 'everything is designed.' It seemed that Timaeus was implying that view is an "essentially Biblical teaching." Thus, I asked them both simple direct questions, which have not yet been answered. From #30: What then in your opinion, Timaeus, is *not* designed, from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint (since you personally “don’t insist on” the natural scientificity of ID)? Timaeus opined: “Mung offers an essentially Biblical teaching.” Is Timaeus suggesting it is “an essentially Biblical teaching” that “everything in nature is designed?” But he seemed to stop short (#28) of saying that it is “an essentially Biblical teaching” that “everything is designed,” as I defined ‘universal designism’ to describe some peoples’ views. Is that the distinction Timaeus wishes to make, thus hinging on the ‘in nature’ in his attempted clarification? Or does he accept and personally believe that both “everything in nature is designed” and “everything is designed” are “an essentially Biblical teaching”? So far, it is not clear. Timaeus wrote: ““everything in nature is designed” — and that is essentially the position of Genesis 1.” What does that have to do with ‘modern’ ID theory as a specifically DI-IDM invention that claims natural scientificity? Even Dembski distinguishes ‘[the] design argument(s)’ (language adjusted because he flip-flops between singular and plural repeatedly) from ‘Intelligent Design’ theory. There’s a chapter on it in his book “The Design Revolution.” It looks like Timaeus and Mung are attempting to conflate a classical 'design argument(s)' with IDT, whereas Dembski quite clearly would not agree with them (and its Dembski's definition of ID that most matters here at UD).Gregory_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

Guys, guys! If Gregory wants to discuss the views of Tour, that's fine. But if, in any of his posts on Tour, he slips Big-ID vs. small-id terminology into the discussion, we should simply not reply to those posts. It's the only way we will ever stop him from talking about Big-ID vs. small-id -- to ignore anything he publishes here on the subject. I will make some comments on Tour: 1. His doubts about neo-Darwinism, as his talk shows (from about 52 to 56 minutes in) are based on science, not religion. He doesn't think the neo-Darwinian mechanism has what it takes to produce the kind of molecular novelty it needs to produce. In that, he is right in tune with ID theorists. That must piss Gregory off no end, but it's a fact. 2. By his own confession, his Christian understanding is primarily experiential. He says he's not a philosopher or theologian, and doesn't pretend to any ability to articulate Christian theology in a coherent way. (This modesty is a pleasant change from those BioLogos and ASA scientists who don't acknowledge their intellectual limitations and are always making amateur and foolish systematic claims regarding providence, randomness, deism, etc.) So we can expect that his philosophical articulation of Christian faith will have some defects in it. He may not notice those Biblical passages which have natural theology implications, because he is so fixated on the "experiential" side of Christianity -- and hence on the passages which relate to sin, guilt, personal salvation, etc. Generally speaking, I've noticed that those Christians who are of a "fideistic" temperament (usually Wesleyans, but sometimes Lutherans, Pietists, Mennonite, etc.) don't much care for ID, whereas those Christians who are of a "rational" temperament do. And this is not surprising. The natural tendency of fideism is to downplay reason, observation, common sense, science, logic, etc. and emphasize the sheer emotional power of the conversion experience, of revelation, etc. Those of us, on the other hand, who identify with the Classical-Christian tradition (which is predominant in Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and parts of Calvinist Christianity), are much less negative about the powers of reason and observation. In connection with this, it is interesting that while "TE" means theistic evolution and therefore should be attractive to Jews, Muslims, and others, TE in practice is a wholly Christian affair in which Jews and Muslims take very little interest, whereas ID attracts Jews, Muslims and others, because ID's insistence upon the powers of human reason and observation -- which cross religious boundaries -- makes it possible for people of different religions to join hands, Here, the Pope's Regensburg address is relevant: Catholic Christianity acknowledges a common rationality which belongs to man as man, and therefore provides a home for natural theology, which can serve as a vestibule for revealed theology. For many TEs -- and even for non-TEs such as Tour -- the truths of the natural man and the truths of revelation are in disconnection. So one looks at nature and sees nothing but laws and chance, until faith says: "You are required to regard all these natural phenomena as designed, because I, God, tell you so." We can count on Tour, as a good scientist, to resist the bullying of the neo-Darwinists. But we can't count on Tour for help with ID. He embraces a form of Christian piety which is antithetical to the atmosphere ID needs to flourish, a form of Christian piety which I (speaking purely personally and not for Christianity itself, since I have no authority to do that) regard as deeply defective, and as one of the sources of the evils of modernity. Good science plus Billy Graham is not the synthesis that can save Western civilization.Timaeus_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Gregory
Torley is holding Tour up as an authority, as an expert in another thread, yet StephenB is claiming superiority here over Tour’s grasp of ‘biblical teaching.
Gregory needs to read for context. Torley acknowledges Tour's expertise as a chemist and so do I. That has nothing to do with the Tour's ignorance of Biblical theology, which is made evident by his false claim that Biblical authors consistently asked believers to accept God's existence on faith. (If Gregory has not yet looked up the word Fideism, he should do so now).
StephenB claims my position “doesn’t account for natural theology.
It isn't just a claim, it is a fact. Would you care to argue against the point?
But even in admitting that point, StephenB then *must* acknowledge that ‘ID’ is not and cannot be a ‘natural-science-only’ theory!
I would love to know why Gregory believes that the second idea follows from the first.
I’ve been saying for several years, echoing and echoed by others, that ‘ID’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse.
To say something for years is not at all the same thing as providing a rational defense for what is said. Perhaps Gregory can put on his thinking hat and try to explain which part of "irreducible complexity" can be understood as a science, philosophy, theology/ world view discourse.
The discrepancy between us would be easily explained and perhaps overcome once or if ever StephenB could come out from behind his sock puppet as a real man and admit that Big-ID vs. small-id has both a practically and theoretically valid purpose.
Perhaps the discrepancy between us could be explained if Gregory could define his terms and place meaningful limits on his categories.
Obviously both Max and I have rejected the DI’s advice. And Max’s new Journal, with its goal “to invite dialogue concerning philosophy, theology, and science,” is obviously much more advanced and courageous than many here at UD who insist on a natural-science-only of ‘ID.’
It is fun to watch critics complain from both sides, part of the flak coming from those who say that ID has become too religious and this latest charge that ID will not dialogue with religion.StephenB_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Folks: It is pretty clear from the above that G's terminology is tendentious and this fallaciously loaded. My above note on the loading in his terminology stands, and it stands as showing that we should reject the Procrustean bed that he would stretch or cut us to fit. KFkairosfocus_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

"I don’t think that God was designed. Satisfied?" No, that's why I asked for five. The first is a freebie. That's the most common answer (not to suggest that it is invalid; it is an answer nevertheless), and rocks and diamonds are in the top-5, which you've already claimed are 'designed.' Usually I ask "other than God, what are five examples?" So, you've got 4 more remaining to potentially satisfy. What are 4 more examples of things you think were/are not 'designed,' from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint? There is no need to bring in 'design inference' rhetoric (or 'anthropic coincidences'), which is highly debatable and problematic. The question is simple and without frills.Gregory_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Gregory, at times you are incredibly difficult to understand. You've quoted me as saying that I believe everything is designed. Now you want me to give you five things I think were not designed. I'll give you one so that you can have your rhetorical victory. God. I don't think that God was designed. Satisfied? But what does that have to do with universal designism? Here again, is your definition:
‘Universalist designism’ is an ideology that contends ‘everything is designed’ and in the Big-ID theory variety, it says natural science (using statistics and probabilities combined with bio-informatics) can ‘prove/infer’ it [that everything is designed].
I don't believe that a design inference can be made for everything. I only believe that we can infer design for some things. Like the anthropic coincidences. :) So far that places me square in the small i small d camp. Right? In what sense is that "universal designism"? Where's the ideology?Mung_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

I asked: "How do you actually personally *know* that?" StephenB answered: "it is safe to make that accusation." Notice how there was no explanation, just hand waving? We are left to conclude that StephenB has no such knowledge and just wants to oppose anyone and everyone who rejects 'ID,' no matter how valid the reason. Why is it considered 'safe' to accuse (finger-pointing at) Dr. James M. Tour as Mr. 'StephenB' has done in this thread? Is it only because he thinks his fellow IDists won’t hold him up to the light of truth to the care of honest and open scrutiny? And why would he even dare to think his proclaimed theological superiority to Tour would display any kind of intellectual and personal integrity? Torley is holding Tour up as an authority, as an expert in another thread, yet StephenB is claiming superiority here over Tour's grasp of 'biblical teaching.' So, now we've got StephenB, whose click-on homepage address is UD blog, who has never published a single thing under peer review and probably has never tried to submit a single paper to a legitimate journal about 'ID' (correct us if that’s untrue), who is a died-in-the-wool ideological IDist, denying that *any* possible logical arguments against 'ID' (which I call Big-ID) even could possibly be made, whether by a world-class chemist, or by world-class scientists or science-religion scholars. The possibility of ‘falsification’ or correction for StephenB simply does not exist. That's why he doesn't recognise the helpful lower case, non-capitalised 'intelligent design' (small-id) vs. Upper Case, capitalised 'Intelligent Design' (Big-ID) distinction, even as many other people well familiar with this topic do. It's a ball-breaker to the IDM's flip-flopping habits. It's a 'come clean or wallow in the mud' kind of challenge. StephenB claims my position "doesn’t account for natural theology." But even in admitting that point, StephenB then *must* acknowledge that 'ID' is not and cannot be a 'natural-science-only' theory! Yet that is part of the current IDM definition. And so, tied to the originators’ definition of ‘ID’ as he is by loyalty, StephenB simply cannot concede a point even as obvious as that. I’ve been saying for several years, echoing and echoed by others, that ‘ID’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse. Does StephenB now reluctantly agree with this, regardless of how much or how little I ‘account for natural theology’ in that question? The discrepancy between us would be easily explained and perhaps overcome once or if ever StephenB could come out from behind his sock puppet as a real man and admit that Big-ID vs. small-id has both a practically and theoretically valid purpose. But he can't or won't do this because of his ideological commitment to 'IDism' and the 'IDM' and due to the ‘expelled syndrome’ among some IDists. To me, that is a sad situation, completely unnecessary, yet to this day part of the IDM’s strategy of ideological entrapment. Max Andrews and I saw this first hand at the Discovery Institute, which recommended that we operate under pseudonyms. Obviously both Max and I have rejected the DI's advice. And Max's new Journal, with its goal “to invite dialogue concerning philosophy, theology, and science,” is obviously much more advanced and courageous than many here at UD who insist on a natural-science-only of 'ID.' I guess we did learn something important at the DI after all.Gregory_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

As a universalist designism advocate, no other conclusion is available to you, Mung. You had no choice but to say what you did. "everything is designed, even rocks"! Your denial is therefore entirely predictable, even as it is also insignificant and without impact. "a position that I do not hold." - Mung But wait, are we then going to see more IDist back-peddling and/or flip-flopping in this thread? What then in your opinion, Mung, is *not* designed, from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint? Since you've been extraordinarily impertinent, I'll ask for at least 5 things that are *not designed* from your natural theological perspective. An answer should be fairly easy.Gregory_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Gregory
How do you actually personally *know* that? Is that just a hypothesis or do you have some proof of Dr. Tour’s (supposedly lack of) “acquaintance with the Biblical teaching”?
When someone misrepresents biblical teaching, and in Tour's case, it is safe to make that accusation, then I give that person the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance rather than malice. Naturally, it falls on me to explain *why* Tours rejects ID and to identify the false premise that informs that rejection. All Gregory knows is that Tours rejects ID, so, in his mind, there must be a good reason in there somewhere.
What you seemingly require yourself to ignore on this topic, StephenB, is that Tour and I and Gingerich and T. Davis and R. Isaac and G. Murphy and D. Alexander and many others, even of Catholic faith, reject the ‘natural scientificity’ of the so-called ‘evidence’ you claim exists.
I don't ignore them. I know what they reject and why they reject it. That is why I had no difficulty explaining the weakness in Gingerich's (and Gregory's) "small id" fiasco. That formulation doesn't account for natural theology, which makes it inaccurate, misleading, and deceptive.
Romans 1:20 is surely among the IDM’s favorite ‘designist’ passages of the New Testament!
Yes, and I notice that Gregory has no arguments to counter that passage. He just sneers at it. Theologians call that kind of behavior "willful ignorance."
Suggesting that I “know nothing about science, design technology, or natural theology” just reveals your arrogant presumptuousness as a know-it-all IDist
Character references aside, the fact remains that Gregory really doesn't know anything about science, design technology, or natural theology. Since he didn't bother to look up the meaning of the word "Fideism," we can assume that he chooses to remain willfully ignorant on that subject as well.StephenB_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
‘Universalist designism’ is an ideology that contends ‘everything is designed’ and in the Big-ID theory variety, it says natural science (using statistics and probabilities combined with bio-informatics) can ‘prove/infer’ it.
The claim that everything is designed, even rocks, is thus a far cry from 'Universalist designism' and saying “I believe everything is designed, even rocks” really says very little at all, if anything, on behalf of universalist designism. So your claim is false and you attribute to me a position that I do not hold.Mung_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

"Folks: We need to understand just how loaded G’s terms are..." - KF (a.k.a. GEM) Yes, loaded with important warnings about IDism! ;) Correction: It should read "Comrades: We need to understand..." KF/GEM's 'rally-the-troops' language is quite obvious. Upper Case (ID) vs. lower case (id) was first expressed by a world-class scientist and man of faith, Owen Gingerich. I don't know if KF/GEM qualifies as either such categories, my suspicion is no. It makes easy sense for sincere readers to realise that KF/GEM is a mere 'everyman' blogger, while Owen Gingerich is a decorated scholar. KF might be a man of faith, but is not a high-level scientist (32 flavours are not nearly enough). Who would you take seriously – reader, lurker, visitor – if you had the choice; an internet sock puppet or a credible, visible scholar active in projects and publications? The other alternative is to hold a conspiracy theory that *all* scientists are against ID simply for political reasons and that even faithful Abrahamic scholars only reject ID because they are open theists or somehow theologically unorthodox or non-traditional. This is what cements the IDM to a predominantly (neo-)conservative, right-wing agenda. The so-called 'talking points' I have raised over several months at UD challenge the obvious natural scientistic rationale of Big-ID theory. If KF/GEM is *actually* an 'applied physicist' as it says on the Resources page, then it stands to reason that he would approach 'ID' from an empiricist perspective, obtuse to much of the broader context in which discussions about evolution(ism), creation(ism) and intelligent design(ism) take place. That is why KF/GEM, who has quite obviously made a large personal investment in hitching his blog-active wagon to FSCO/I and other IDM schemes, has seemingly raised cognitive barriers that disallow himself to potentially treat my challenges to Big-ID fairly. KF seems to think he’s on the doorstep of winning the Nobel Prize in Physics; that he’s walking in the footsteps of “the Newton of information science,” that his work is on the cusp of a ‘scientific revolution.’ That anyone 'reasonable' or 'logical' couldn't help but to agree with his 'empirical' and 'scientific' proofs/inferences. Most people, however, simply chuckle and move slightly uncomfortably to walk past such a person who is handing out to them a ('highly informative and important') pamphlet on the street.Gregory_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

"nor is he [James M. Tour] acquainted with the Biblical teaching on the evidence for God’s existence." - StephenB How do you actually personally *know* that? Is that just a hypothesis or do you have some proof of Dr. Tour's (supposedly lack of) "acquaintance with the Biblical teaching"? When you contend things like this, StephenB, you sound like a fanatic rather than someone reasonable and trustworthy. What you seemingly require yourself to ignore on this topic, StephenB, is that Tour and I and Gingerich and T. Davis and R. Isaac and G. Murphy and D. Alexander and many others, even of Catholic faith, reject the 'natural scientificity' of the so-called 'evidence' you claim exists. You have neglected to face this 'natural scientistic' aspect of the Big-ID challenge too many times to count. Romans 1:20 is surely among the IDM's favorite 'designist' passages of the New Testament! Suggesting that I "know nothing about science, design technology, or natural theology" just reveals your arrogant presumptuousness as a know-it-all IDist. I have witnessed this kind of attitude first-hand, in person, not just on internet blogs. Surely so has Max Andrews, when he was at the DI. ID theory qua theory simply *could not be not true* for such people. It’s just like trying to discuss things with young earth creationists; nothing you could possibly say would change their minds. Note: of course, StephenB is not a YEC, but as for ID, the ideological grasp on him seems to be quite strong. Nevertheless, I still believe that many who are attracted to ID theories in their heart of hearts seek the truth. And if it means rejecting Big-ID theory, then so be it. In the long-run, the truth is better embraced, and a fruitful science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse promoted, than to hang onto politically-motivated PR and 'pseudo-scientific' propaganda.Gregory_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Gregory
Thank goodness for James M. Tour rejecting Big-ID for good reasons!
In fact, James Tour's reason for rejecting ID is based on a false premise:
It is a remarkable fact that no canonical [biblical] author has ever used nature to prove God. They all try to make people believe in him.
That statement is untrue and it reveals a total ignorance about the Judeo Christian world view as expressed in Romans 1:20. Tour is a scientist, but he knows nothing about ID's design inference (a deficiency he admits to his credit) nor is he acquainted with the Biblical teaching on the evidence for God's existence. Gregory, on the other hand, loses on all three accounts, since he knows nothing about science, design technology, or natural theology. It goes without saying that he is also ignorant about Fideism. The man is simply not prepared to engage in a rational dialogue.StephenB_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Folks: We need to understand just how loaded G's terms are: ____________ >> Re Gregory at a recent comment in the CS Lewis thread in resonse to a discussion of the exchange between C S Lewis and the new, a priori materialist, blind watchmaker thesis, religion is child abuse circle of new atheists:
anyone who thinks ‘ID’ and ‘apologetics’ are *completely unintegrated* is either naive or simply hasn’t read Big-ID literature
Notice, the loading [as I highlight], that the design inference in the hands of those who argue that on empirical evidence we may infer inductively from tested reliable signs that certain objects are designed, is here held to be an integral part of the thin edge of a wedge for a hidden religious agenda; inviting the onward agenda of accusations on theocracy, war against science, etc that are ever so familiar. This -- by now, willfully -- misrepresents the actual point made since the early 1980's (and in part made by people who have no connexion to the Christian faith such as Sir Fred Hoyle) that there are things in the world that -- on inductive explanation and investigation of a type commonly used in historical sciences such as forensics or reconstructions of the past of land forms etc -- point to design as best causal explanation, per the known alternatives, chance, necessity, art. Once that investigation is carried out objectively -- as has been done -- it stands on its own merits, and snide motive mongering is then tendentious and willful well poisoning, if it is persisted in in the teeth of cogent correction. As, sadly, we are evidently seeing. That is a good slice of why I hold Gregory's game with upper/lower case ID to be wholly tendentious and useless or worse than useless. Notr only does it not fit what I have been doing, and what many others have been doing, it is a feed-point for all sorts of demonstrably false but damaging propagandistic talking points of the type I just spent a fair bit of time exposing in the case of Wikipedia. Frankly, for all I know, Gregory is yet another sock puppet from the usual suspect sites. Similar to the now common tactic of I am an X but this is what I say, and then spewing forth the usual sort of talking points designed to poison atmosphere and twist issues into strawmen. Even if he is not, he is at minimum indulging enabling behaviour and has no good reason to do this, when the real issue is very simple: is or is not it the case that there are empirically tested, reliable signs of design in our world? If not, simply produce a solid counter-example. That would suffice to finish any design theory movement. That this is not being done, but instead we find every sort of manipulative rhetorical tactic being used, tells me that the truth is that the objectors have no real answer to the provide an example challenge. That is, in fact, it is so on the merits that there are abundant signs that are well tested and point to design as best explanation of any number of objects in our world. Where some of these are the living cell, major body plans and the fine tuned cosmos that accommodates life. Sure, those empirically grounded warrants then may help shift the balance of weight on various worldviews, but that is beyond science. Not that that means such are unimportant!>> ____________ I think we should not use or accept such terms, given the loaded agendas connected to them. KFkairosfocus_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Thank goodness for James M. Tour rejecting Big-ID for good reasons! What then in your opinion, Timaeus, is *not* designed, from a natural theological instead of a natural scientific viewpoint (since you personally “don’t insist on” the natural scientificity of ID)? Let’s forget your 2nd paragraph in #28; it’s an unnecessary diversion. You wrote: “Mung offers an essentially Biblical teaching.” Are you suggesting it is “an essentially Biblical teaching” that “everything in nature is designed?” But you seemed to stop short of saying that it is “an essentially Biblical teaching” that “everything is designed,” as I defined ‘universal designism’ to describe some peoples’ views. Is that the distinction you wish to make, thus hinging on the ‘in nature’ in your attempted clarification? Or do you accept and personally believe that both “everything in nature is designed” and “everything is designed” are “an essentially Biblical teaching”? So far, it is not clear. You wrote: ““everything in nature is designed” — and that is essentially the position of Genesis 1.” What does that have to do with ‘modern’ ID theory as a specifically DI-IDM invention that claims natural scientificity? Even Dembski distinguishes ‘[the] design argument(s)’ (language adjusted because he flip-flops between singular and plural repeatedly) from ‘Intelligent Design’ theory. There’s a chapter on it in his book “The Design Revolution.”Gregory_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Gregory: What do you fear from publishing the list of your texts and teachers at the ID summer school? How could it do anything but improve our understanding of Discovery-ID and of yourself for us to know ( a ) what Discovery at the time considered the essential "basic readings"; ( b ) which readings you actually got done, so we would know what knowledge base to presume in discussions with you; ( c ) which teachers you had, so that we could learn who might have influenced the remarks that you make here?Timaeus_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT}

Well, Gregory, as I'm not in the habit of employing ugly neologisms such as "universal designism," I must admit that I probably misinterpreted what you meant by the term. I took it that you meant: "everything in nature is designed" -- and that is essentially the position of Genesis 1 (unless you take the non-traditional view that the waters were pre-existent). Of course, many TEs appear to believe that only the evolutionary process itself was designed, the specific outcomes of that process being dependent on random factors, and therefore not designed outcomes. So "birdlike being" was designed, but not "blue jay"; and "some sort of being intelligent enough to be worthy of receiving God's image" was designed, but not "man" (it could have been a talking Flipper instead). Open theism has arrived! And given a choice between open theism, and "everything in nature is designed," I'll go with the latter.Timaeus_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

God luck and good thinking. All attention to subjects like these will breed correction to error surely. Truth trumps error is done well.Robert Byers_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
We were required to read primary sources of Big-ID literature to participate in the DI’s Summer Program
Clearly, you were not required to demonstrate an understanding of what you read.StephenB_{February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Why does James M. Tour reject Big-ID theory? Because I will honour vjtorley's request that I not participate on any of his threads, let me add here the words of Dr. James M. Tour about 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design' theory and why he rejects it. His reasons are pretty much exactly the same as mine, though of course, I'm not an organic chemist, expert in nanotechnology ;) It would have provided more balance (in context) to torley's recent 'publication' here at UD to have included this (which he has likely already read):
"I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label." - James M. Tour
Again, we all know the Wedge strategy quite well: It is one thing to say '(neo-)Darwinian evolutionary theory is not enough' or that Darwin made errors, etc. yada yada, but it is another thing to conclude a positive case for natural scientifically proven/inferred 'Intelligent Design.' With James M. Tour, I agree "the scientific proof[/inference] is not there, in my opinion." Let me add that I believe this is both a reasonable and responsible position to hold. The Creation that Dr. Tour 'sees' is through the eyes of faith, not requiring 'scientific proofs.' Indeed, that is the orthodox view of the Abrahamic faiths. It is also why Big-ID is seen by most of us as highly problematic; because it insists upon its scientificity.Gregory_{February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

No, I will not specify the list of required sources nor the list of 'teachers' from the DI's summer program here at UD. Perhaps if Max comes here to participate, he will do so. I wish to give no fuel to the IDM's scientistic fantasies. Again, Timaeus displays his distorted (political IDM movement-mongering) way of 'charitable reading.' I did *not* 'ridicule' "an essentially Biblical teaching." He should be ashamed to have tried to put those words in my mouth. 'Universalist designism' is an ideology that contends 'everything is designed' and in the Big-ID theory variety, it says natural science (using statistics and probabilities combined with bio-informatics) can 'prove/infer' it. Does the Torah, the Bible and/or the Quran say that? If so, chapter(s) and verse(s) please. Are you suggesting verses like Romans 1:20 say that?Gregory_{February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

“I believe everything is designed, even rocks.” – Mung "Enough said on behalf of universalist designism." -- Gregory Interesting. Mung offers an essentially Biblical teaching, and Gregory ridicules it.Timaeus_{February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

In response to a comment of Gregory above (which is *not* about Big-ID versus small id, but actually provides some information about his summer school program): "We were required to read primary sources of Big-ID literature to participate in the DI’s Summer Program" I wonder if Gregory would specify this list of required sources, and tell us which of them he actually read during the course of the program, and which teachers there evaluated his understanding of those sources.Timaeus_{February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
We were required to read primary sources of Big-ID literature to participate in the DI’s Summer Program....
I read them without being part of any program. Also, Gregory, science is science and tehre isn't any warrant for any "natural science only"- that is a meaningless phrase.Joe_{February 17, 2013
February
02
Feb
17
17
2013
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
It was an accusation,...
Nope, it was an observation. And if you knew Alan Like I know Alan, then you would know it is an observation. As I said you ain't an investigator, just an instigator.Joe_{February 17, 2013
February
02
Feb
17
17
2013
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Mung: I observe your clip from Gregory:
anyone who thinks ‘ID’ and ‘apologetics’ are *completely unintegrated* is either naive or simply hasn’t read Big-ID literature
Notice, the loading [as I highlight], that the design inference in the hands of those who argue that on empirical evidence we may infer inductively from tested reliable signs that certain objects are designed, is here held to be an integral part of the thin edge of a wedge for a hidden religious agenda; inviting the onward agenda of accusations on theocracy, war against science, etc that are ever so familiar. This -- by now, willfully -- misrepresents the actual point made since the early 1980's (and in part made by people who have no connexion to the Christian faith such as Sir Fred Hoyle) that there are things in the world that -- on inductive explanation and investigation of a type commonly us4ed in historical sciences such as forensics or reconstructions of the past of land forms etc -- point to design as best causal explanation, per the known alternatives, chance, necessity, art. Once that investigation is carried out objectively -- as has been done -- it stands on its own merits, and snide motive mongering is then tendentious and willful well poisoning, if it is persisted in in the teeth of cogent correction. As, sadly, we are evidently seeing. That is a good slice of why I hold Gregory's game with upper/lower case ID to be wholly tendentious and useless or worse than useless. Notr only does it not fit what I have been doing, and what many others have been doing, it is a feed-point for all sorts of demonstrably false but damaging propagandistic talking points of the type I just spent a fair bit of time exposing in the case of Wikipedia. Frankly, for all I know, Gregory is yet another sock puppet from the usual suspect sites. Similar to the now common tactic of I am an X but this is what I say, and then spewing forth the usual sort of talking points designed to poison atmosphere and twist issues into strawmen. Even if he is not, he is at minimum indulging enabling behaviour and has no good reason to do this, when the real issue is very simple: is or is not it eh case that here are empirically tested, reliable signs of design in our world? If not, simply produce a solid counter-example. That would suffice to finish any design theory movement. That this is not being done, but instead we find every soert of manipulative rhetorical tactic being used, tells me that the truth is that he objectors have no real answer tothe provide and example challenge. That is, in fact, it is so ont eh merits that here are abundant signs that are well tested sand point o design as best explanation of any number of objects in our world. Where some of these are the living cell, major body plans and the fine tuned cosmos that accommodates life. Sure, those empirically grounded warrants then may help shift the balance of weight on various worldviews, but that is beyond science. Not that that means such are unimportant! KFkairosfocus_{February 17, 2013
February
02
Feb
17
17
2013
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

"he hasn’t read the primary sources." - Mung We were required to read primary sources of Big-ID literature to participate in the DI's Summer Program and were given several DI published or fellows' books. I don't doubt that the same was true for Max Andrews when he was there. And while I was writing my master's thesis partially on the IDM, I also read Big-ID primary sources. In more recent years, Big-ID primary sources haven't held much attraction. The 'movement' hasn't actually 'moved' forward much (by small-d design) since then. Mung flings the word 'lie' around so easily, truth must not mean much to him. "I believe everything is designed, even rocks." - Mung Enough said on behalf of universalist designism.Gregory_{February 17, 2013
February
02
Feb
17
17
2013
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
I applaud Max for his efforts at encouraging more holistic thinking than many at UD have yet allowed themselves to muster regarding Big-ID ‘theory’.
Gregory:
anyone who thinks ‘ID’ and ‘apologetics’ are *completely unintegrated* is either naive or simply hasn’t read Big-ID literature.
A not too uncommon charge leveled against Gregory here at UD is that he hasn't read the primary sources.Mung_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

Congratulations to Max Andrews. Might I suggest that Gregory submit a paper to this new journal?Mung_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

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

Christian Intelligent Design proponents predicted that the “junk DNA hypothesis” would be overturned and that science would eventually need to be revised. [104]
Mung_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply