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:
2) The only reference to the term ‘Intelligent Design’ in the first Sententias issue was capitalised. It also was preceded by the adjective ‘Christian.’
So? Sententias:
If we put this information into the abductive schema proposed by Meyer and Dembski, this would seem to favor the scientific research program over and against the Christian program
Mung_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

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
OUCH! OUCH! Oh my, that had to sting.Mung_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Mung, Your ‘wants’ have everything to do with what you write here at UD. Do you really deny this?
The question is so vaguely broad that it's meaningless. I thought you were saying I "want" you to be a liar. The fact is, I "want" you to be honest and truthful, else I would have no issue with the false statements you make.
You are an IDist. You defend and (oftentimes sarcastically) promote IDM-ID (or Big-ID as I call it) here at UD. Again, do you deny this?
I don't even know what it means. What's the Creed and I'll tell you if I agree with it. I thought you complained elsewhere that I believe everything is designed, even rocks. Is that a stance taken by the IDM? I take it you missed my disagreement with Meyer as it played out here on UD. You seem also to have missed my arguments over information that have taken place here. And my arguments about entropy. If I'm such a staunch member of the club why do I argue with them?
It should be noted that ‘Mung’s’ pseudo-name alone is associated with the term ‘lie’ in this thread.
Do you mean I was the only one who saw your lie, or the only one who cared enough to respond to it, or the only one who believes you in fact lied, or the only one with the guts to speak the truth to you when you lie? I can recall three instances and only three where I have claimed you have lied. So it's not like I toss it out willy nilly. but I really would like to know why you think it advances your cause here to say things that are patently and demonstrably false. As for my use of a "pseudonym." I always have used one online and I see no reason to change just to rob you of a rhetorical talking point that has nothing at all to do with the arguments I make. Heck, if I told you who I really was there's no telling how much time you'd spend online searching for my cv so you can trash it as well as me. We've seen how you operate.Mung_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Mung, Your 'wants' have everything to do with what you write here at UD. Do you really deny this? You are an IDist. You defend and (oftentimes sarcastically) promote IDM-ID (or Big-ID as I call it) here at UD. Again, do you deny this? It should be noted that 'Mung's' pseudo-name alone is associated with the term 'lie' in this thread. That he writes comic bunk under a pseudonym does his story no favours. DI Summer Program graduates are not usually as naive or fanatical as 'Mung,' even if they were warned by the DI not to show their real names in public discussions. I don't suppose Max would claim 'natural science-only' status for Big-ID theory, given his "science, philosophy, theology/worldview" approach (with which I agree and have supported for several years, though it flies in the face of IDM-ID). Let the audience wait and see.Gregory_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

It was an accusation, that I don't expect you to own up to.Gregory_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
“you are pointless.” – UDist ID talk.
No, it was an observation, Gregory.Joe_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
Just because you don’t want it to be true doesn’t make it untrue
A non sequitur. My "want" has nothing to do with it, one way or another.
IDist ‘Mung’.
I don't even know what that means. From the premise that intelligent design as presented here at UD and at the DI is not a holistic amalgam of science/religion/politics/sociology/anthropology/history/mathematics/aesthetics/philosophy/etc. etc. it does not follow that people here and at the DI do not engage in holistic thinking on these matters. And the facts indicate otherwise, as you are often quick to point out when it suits you and to forget about when it also suits you, which is why your assertion is not only illogical and incoherent but also factually false. And you know it is false. It is not therefore just maybe a lie, it is certainly a lie. Why do you feel the need to lie? Are you just not concerned at all about your credibility?Mung_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

"you are pointless." - UDist ID talk.Gregory_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't make it untrue, IDist 'Mung'.Gregory_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Gregory: That noted, 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’. What a crock. Why lie, Gregory? Why this apparently uncontrollable compulsion on your part when addressing the subject of intelligent design, to resort to lies?Mung_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
1) This is obviously not an ‘Intelligent Design’ journal because it concerns “philosophy, theology, and science,” whereas ‘Intelligent Design’ (according to the Discovery Institute) is supposed to be a natural science-only theory...
LoL! Stoop to a new low, Gregory. Nice job. Science includes philosophy and theology, Gregory. It is inescapable.
2) The only reference to the term ‘Intelligent Design’ in the first Sententias issue was capitalised. It also was preceded by the adjective ‘Christian.’
So what? Christians have a stake in this too.Joe_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
Gregory offers good advice from another perspective.
No, he doesn't.
Clinging on to the pretence that “Intelligent Design” has anything to do with science seems just incredibly pointless.
Maybe to you, but then again you are pointless. No one pretends ID has anything to do with science, Alan. It is obvious that, especially when compared to evolutionism, that ID is science.Joe_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

Gregory offers good advice from another perspective. Clinging on to the pretence that "Intelligent Design" has anything to do with science seems just incredibly pointless. Move on and argue with atheism and agnosticism on the merits and stop trying to use the political system to further your ends. As Barry advised me "when you're in a hole, stop digging". (That really is my last word for a while)Alan Fox_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

Two things: 1) This is obviously not an 'Intelligent Design' journal because it concerns "philosophy, theology, and science," whereas 'Intelligent Design' (according to the Discovery Institute) is supposed to be a natural science-only theory (OoL, OoBI & human origins = not cultural or linguistic anthropology), which explains why the DI cancelled its ID Summer Program in Humanities and Social Science, of which both Max and I are 'graduates' (though I don't know if he was in this section or the Natural Science one). 2) The only reference to the term 'Intelligent Design' in the first Sententias issue was capitalised. It also was preceded by the adjective 'Christian.' That noted, 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'. If he is 'well known to many of you,' and if you will read his Journal, then perhaps people at UD's thinking can actually change to become less reductionistic, less scientistic.Gregory_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply