Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Francis Schaeffer’s “line of despair” model of our civilisation’s intellectual history:

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We can adapt Francis Schaeffer’s themes, looking back to the Christian Synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Greece and Rome, and the onward flow of ideas and cultural agendas since Paul of Tarsus:

Extending (and correcting) Schaeffer’s vision of the course of western thought, worldviews and culture, C1 – 21

Schaeffer thought that once there was an upper/lower storey approach that in effect gave up on solving the problem of the one and the many, the lower storey would eat up the upper one, unity and coherence would disintegrate:

Dichotomising nature and grace leads to disjointedness in western man’s worldview

Schaeffer and others also thought in terms of the seven mountains picture of the span of culture, how the dominant view sets the agenda and how cultures therefore change. This has been championed by Wallnau and others in recent years. I adapt:

We may carry this onward to the challenge to speak into the culture prophetically, from a gospel based, worldviews informed sound perspective rooted in “The God who is there and who is not silent”:

In our time, all of this is complicated by complex geostrategic issues:

Food for thought. END

F/N: Let me add, a summary from a 2014 conference on military strategy and issues, by Russian General Valery Gerasimov, who in 2014 was Army General, Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation – First Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation.

So, this is not some nonentity speculating, this is literally the Russian analysis behind the war in Ukraine, which began in 2014 and has now surged to a much higher kinetic level:

He further amplifies:

U/D April 7: As a “lowest common denominator reference,” we may note that Wikipedia has an article on Colour Revolutions, complete with a list starting with the “yellow” revolution in the Philippines in 1986 (a year which saw also the ouster of “Baby Doc” Duvalier in Haiti). I add, in the same 1986, the student “Cess” strike and protests were observed to be targetted by literal card carrying Communists to become a trigger for a Haiti style overthrow of the Seaga, parliamentary government, it failed but came to the edge of having students shot down by riot police. (I note here as an eyewitness.) We should also note that Jamaica’s low intensity, cold war involved civil war from 1976 to 1980, culminating in the “peanut or lime” [red vs green] violence tainted election in October 1980 also reflects similar characteristics. It is clear that Cuba, the USSR, the USA and UK as well as Israel were involved in Jamaica’s civil conflict, indeed, in late 1990, the USSR sent a delegation to Jamaica to publicly apologise for its part in what happened. Wikipedia’s anonymous drafters and moderators collectively summarise:

Colour revolution (sometimes coloured revolution)[1] is a term used since around 2004 by worldwide media to describe various anti-regime protest movements and accompanying (attempted or successful) changes of government that took place in post-Soviet Eurasia during the early 21st century—namely countries of the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, and People’s Republic of China.[2] The term has also been more widely applied to several other revolutions elsewhere, including in the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region, and South America, dating from the late 1980s to the 2020s. Some observers (such as Justin Raimondo and Michael Lind) have called the events a revolutionary wave, the origins of which can be traced back to the 1986 People Power Revolution (also known as the “Yellow Revolution”) in the Philippines.

Some of these movements have had a measure of success; in the early 2000s, for example, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Bulldozer Revolution (2000), Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003), Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004), and Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution (2005). In most but not all cases, massive street-protests followed disputed elections or demands for fair elections. They led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders regarded by their opponents as authoritarian.[3] Some events have been called “colour revolutions” but differ from the above cases in certain basic characteristics, including such examples as Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution (2005) and Kuwait’s Blue Revolution (2005).

Russia, China and Vietnam[4] share the view that colour revolutions are the “product of machinations by the United States and other Western powers” and pose a vital threat to their public and national security.[5]

In short, colour revolutions are seen here, as a form of 4th generation war, with emphasis on subversive external intervention, but obviously the pivot is civil conflict, war in the shadows with low kinetic elements leading to or resisting subjugation. Where, as low kinetic implies, the operations of war are no longer primarily military.

Where, too, the baseline summary as to what fourth generation war is and how it emerged in mid C20 [going beyond Blitzkrieg, Deep Battle etc], can be charted:

Characteristics:

Where, the dirty form McFaul Colour revolution model can next be profitably cross connected to the SOCOM insurgency escalator framework and further tied to the 4th generation war model:

If that sounds familiar, it should. Culture War has gone geostrategic.

F/N2: How to destroy liberty.

We can use the Overton window concept to analyse how we can lose constitutional, lawful democracy with freedom and order, through cultural decline driven by ratcheting, slipperly slope lawless agendas, as summarised in the chain of expressions:

WORLDVIEW + POLICY/CULTURAL AGENDA = IDEOLOGY

IDEOLOGY + POWER/STRONG INFLUENCE = REGIME

REGIME (AKA, BALANCE OF POWER-FACTIONS) + DECISION-MAKING INFLUENCES = BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU)

BAU + INSISTENT VOYAGE OF SINFUL FOLLY = SHIPWRECK

And yes, cultural marxism and broader “critical theory” in the line flowing from the Frankfurt School, I am looking straight at you.

We must recall, lawless oligarchy is — historically — the normal state of government and governance and it can return:

For those who want background, here is more on the Overton Window:

Video:

We must not overlook, the media spin and gaslight game:

More broadly, we can analyse the conventional left-centre-right political spectrum and an alternative more historically anchored political spectrum:

These tie back to Schaeffer’s line of despair model, which is about worldview shifts that open up new cultural, lifestyle and political possibilities as seemingly plausible, opening up the Overton Window. The power brokers and influences manipulate this, and currently the means in play go all the way to colour revolution, 4th generation war operations.

Comments
Better
The design inference is to the process of design, not to a particular agent. Other considerations (cosmological fine tuning) point to an agent prior to our universe. Logic is critical though scientific findings help. PS, this is a skeletal outline with substantial arguments available from several sources.
This is 47 words. I have no idea what the rest of what you said means or why it is relevant. I happen to think the first sentence above which is a slight modification of your sentence Is pure "gold." It definitely should be separated out, not lost in the morass of the rest of your comment. Aside: I am on record as to agreeing with nearly all of your ideas. It is rhetorical style that I disagree with. You are being constantly attacked not because your ideas do not make sense but because they are presented in a way that is hard to understand.jerry
April 7, 2022
April
04
Apr
7
07
2022
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Jerry, there is persuasion and there is warrant, rhetoric and dialectic. What I noted, starting with Dan Brown et al, is material and a factor for that and many other issues. I do not think we will mutually agree on all points but I note to you that the main part of my comment just now to BA77 was 115 words, shorter even than your own example. That too is a summary, the substance of fact, logic, warrant would require considerably more. Substance, that in key part was hammered out live here at UD. KFkairosfocus
April 7, 2022
April
04
Apr
7
07
2022
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
clearly your 118
I stand by that comment. Nearly all the books I have read on persuasion emphasize shortness and a few clear logical points that address the main issue. If one wants more detail, then that can be provided. I haven't a clue what you are talking about in nearly all your comments. So I don't read them very often. It's a struggle. I definitely don't read your OP's except occasionally I scan them for a sentence that might make sense. Aside: I actually thought it was another comment. So I was surprised you would object to that one. Aside2: I attended one of the top business schools in the world. I learned more in a two minute discussion in our first class in Accounting than I did in the remaining two years. That two minutes succinctly outlined why businesses fail and why others succeed. It became the basis for all else I learned.jerry
April 7, 2022
April
04
Apr
7
07
2022
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
BA77, strictly the design inference itself is to process of design, not to a particular agent. Broader considerations point to an extra cosmic agent, especially cosmological fine tuning. Beyond, logic of being is actually more foundational than scientific considerations and when the causal temporal thermodynamic world is factored in we look at necessary being reality root. Our reality as contingent, responsible, rational morally governed creatures sets a need to bridge is and ought in that root, and so to the bill of requisites, necessary [so, eternal] being, capable of being source of worlds, inherently good and utterly wise. A familiar framework. Where, too, a serious candidate necessary being is either impossible of being or is actual. KF PS, a skeletal outline resting on substantial arguments developed here over the course of years.kairosfocus
April 7, 2022
April
04
Apr
7
07
2022
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
Jerry, the context of my comments at 134 and 137 is clearly your 118 above. And as an experienced educated person you know that substantial issues have to be addressed or at least recognised on fact and logic. Where, links often will not be read even as in the days of old 25% of readers were lost once there was a jump line. You will see that I outlined several considerations and linked two responses to the man who sold 80 million books and had a major widely viewed film adaptation with multiple media appearances as a case in point. Worse, occasionally, what happens here is actually original or at least fresh. KFkairosfocus
April 7, 2022
April
04
Apr
7
07
2022
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
"Have you read the book?" Of course I did. You specifically claimed that “ID doesn’t dispute the Deist view of the creator. It certainly doesn’t point to Christianity.” That claim is simply incompatible with what Meyer argued in his book. Of related interest, here are a few notes overturning the Copernican principle and/or the Principle of mediocrity, and, in the process, point to a 'personal' God.
the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity has now been overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science: (as well as by several other lines of scientific evidence) March 2022 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/neil-thomas-on-evolutionary-theory-as-magical-thinking/#comment-748883
bornagain77
April 7, 2022
April
04
Apr
7
07
2022
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
Well Stephen Meyer would certainly be very surprised
Have you read the book? I have the kindle and audio versions. What hit me is that he uses the BCE and CE designation and doesn’t mention Christ. He does mention Christianity several times in the sense that science as we know it only really appeared due to it. ID doesn’t say who created life, only an intelligence did. Most assume it’s the creator of the universe but really only that it was due to an intelligence can be readily argued. I have not gotten to that part of the book yet. By the way I personally believe in a personal creator. Meyer uses that exact term only a couple times and in a personal sense for him. Argument for a personal God: there were almost infinite number of possibilities for a universe creation, but the creator chose one. The act of choosing indicates an entity making a decision. In others words the creator had reasons for this specific universe and to me this means personal. Hope this doesn’t start the comment avalanche. Aside: I continually make the argument that this is the best of all possible worlds. Does that sound like an argument for an impersonal God?jerry
April 7, 2022
April
04
Apr
7
07
2022
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Jerry, makes this blanket statement, "ID doesn’t dispute the Deist view of the creator. It certainly doesn’t point to Christianity." Well Stephen Meyer would certainly be very surprised by that blanket statement from Jerry Deism holds that God is impersonal. i.e. That God created the universe and then, basically, walked away and let the universe unfold to its own accord. Yet Christian Theism holds that God is very much a personal God. i.e. God created the universe, did subsequent acts of creation within the universe, and that God upholds the universe, and everything within the universe, in its continual existence. (And this is even before we get to the very 'personal' fact that God took on a human form in Jesus Christ). Stephen Meyer, in his book 'The Return of the God Hypothesis", explicitly argues for the personal God of Christian Theism and against the impersonal God of Deism. As the description of his book reads, "he (Stephen Meyer) reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God."
Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe – March 30, 2021 Excerpt: Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe. Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God. https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505
Again, a 'personal God' is simply incompatible with Deism. Of supplemental note to Christianity and the design inference. ID holds that the information found in DNA, (and elsewhere), requires an Intelligent Designer in order to explain its existence. And Christianity just so happens to be on record, (approx. 2000 years before information in DNA was even discovered), 'predicting' that life had an author.
Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
I would call that a pretty amazing 'prediction'. Christianity is, apparently, far more compatible with ID than Jerry tried to imply. Quotes and Verse:
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." - Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics. 48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” 49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1 - Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77
April 7, 2022
April
04
Apr
7
07
2022
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
pardon an observation, what you have is a skeletal argument, not a substantial case
Which one? I have made several. What’s the difference between skeletal and substantial? Number of words?jerry
April 7, 2022
April
04
Apr
7
07
2022
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
U/D: I have added some remarks and a Wikipedia excerpt on Colour Revolutions to the F/N to the OP. It seems pretty evident that we are caught up in a global, multipolar, in the shadows geostrategic struggle. One, in which ruthless or even lawless actors are playing out a 4th generation in the shadows war that fits the pattern of my 2016 outline as is also in the OP. Yes, this is also a geostrategic design inference, to "long train[s] of abuses and usurpations" that pursue a common "design." We could even call this World War IV, the Cold War earning the retrospective title WW III. For sure, it had the death toll of a full blown world war. Where things get interesting is when we connect dots from Schaeffer's line of despair trend map as adjusted, to the worldviews --> ideologies and power agendas that are reflected in the seven mountains of influence framework. DV, later. KFkairosfocus
April 7, 2022
April
04
Apr
7
07
2022
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT
I don't think "God did it" can be a scientific question because "God" is far, far to open to interpretation unless one specifically defines what they mean by "God." If one means "God" as "the necessarily existent intelligence that designed and implemented the highly fine-tuned, organized, complex, interacting patterns of phenomena found as being what we call the universe, and especially in life," then yes. It's a form of forensic and other investigative sciences that can attribute a death to a murderer (or other agent of homicide,) or a fire to an arsonist, or certain objects to a designer, even if those agents cannot be specifically named.William J Murray
April 7, 2022
April
04
Apr
7
07
2022
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
F/N: An expose of and response to Dan Brown's claims, as an example of what is afoot. KF PS, Notice AiG and its response. In the spirit of this thread (itself a response to a point SA raised), the relevant matter for UD is we are here seeing free spreading of twisted myths that are widely taken as fairly sound . . . yes, people are swallowing a novel by a non expert as giving "Fact[s]" on the Christian faith's roots, while sound reply is only heard at the margins of popular awareness. Message/narrative domination over soundness. So, we see the importance of first principles and duties of reason, and of objectivity rooted in warrant.kairosfocus
April 7, 2022
April
04
Apr
7
07
2022
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT
VL, God did it is rather strawmannish and I suggest we have got into a bad cultural habit of substituting is it scientific for is it reasonable and credibly warranted as truth, so objectively knowable. That is why we have ended up at the fallacies of evolutionary materialistic scientism. The fifth force is an allusion to onward possible forces parallel to the four commonly discussed, God as noted is an agent who may use forces. I have already spoken to logic and to logic of being, so to what they frame using possible worlds. That is antecedent to whatever we explore scientifically and warrant -- cutting across dominant notions -- that as God is a serious candidate necessary being, he is actual or else impossible of being. As for science, since the early 50's cosmological fine tuning fitting the world for c chem, aqueous medium cell based life leads to a cosmological design inference on science. This would point to an extra cosmic designing agent. Some suggest for instance that we are part of a simulation or the like (on trends of computing technology) but I rather doubt that, starting with our evident responsible rational freedom. Nevertheless, that would be a design inference to creation of a simulation. Perhaps that can help us ponder why the design inference on signs is naturally and quite innocently not in itself inference to a particular agent. KF PS, why didn't I think to use Wiki as a handy first note?
In physics, there are four observed fundamental interactions (also known as fundamental forces) that form the basis of all known interactions in nature: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Some speculative theories have proposed a fifth force to explain various anomalous observations that do not fit existing theories. The characteristics of this fifth force depend on the hypothesis being advanced. Many postulate a force roughly the strength of gravity (i.e., it is much weaker than electromagnetism or the nuclear forces) with a range of anywhere from less than a millimeter to cosmological scales. Another proposal is a new weak force mediated by W' and Z' bosons. The search for a fifth force has increased in recent decades due to two discoveries in cosmology which are not explained by current theories. It has been discovered that most of the mass of the universe is accounted for by an unknown form of matter called dark matter. Most physicists believe that dark matter consists of new, undiscovered subatomic particles,[1] but some believe that it could be related to an unknown fundamental force. Second, it has also recently been discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which has been attributed to a form of energy called dark energy. Some physicists speculate that a form of dark energy called quintessence could be a fifth force.
kairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
F/N: going back to the thoughts of General and First Deputy Minister Valery Gerasimov, in the OP, we need to recognise that powerful, ruthless, sometimes lawless power elites are at work on a global scale, seeking to take oligarchic power. To whatever degree various colour revolutions since the Philippines in the 1980's have been legitimate, it is reasonable to acknowledge that several have been manipulated and tainted by proponents of 4th gen war operations. The list of revolutions and attempts he gives -- see OP -- likely includes several cases. The increasingly bizarre policies in much of the West suggest that similar forces are still at work. I suggest that ruthless ambitious elites either think they have critical mass or else fear that trends could reverse and are shifting gears. I further suggest that the USA has been going through a tainted McFaul type colour revolution attempt and that its future may be more in doubt than many are inclined to believe. Before deriding this as conspiracism -- a conspiracy is a secret strategy -- kindly read Plato's Ship of State, and for starters Wiki on the Chinese Cultural Revolution and on the Reichstag Fire incident in Germany. The sad fate of Milada Horakova should also be noted. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
Jerry, pardon an observation, what you have is a skeletal argument, not a substantial case. There is a place for such but absent fairly serious engagement with many questions, issues and arguments it will only affect those inclined to take premises as more or less correct. Recall, Discovery and History channels, Dan Brown, new atheists, Jesus Seminar etc have spent decades promoting a body of widely believed objections. Those objections start with doubting the historicity of Jesus and the NT as an authentic C1 narrative, with the OT even more dismissed. There are entire schools of thought on theology entrenched in Seminaries, denominations and more that actually promote such. Popular level Apologists are routinely debunked and dismissed online. Apologetics is often disdained as pseudo-scholarship and more serious Apologists like a Craig are targets of specific attack. (Someone like Habermas or like Evans or Licona will probably be simply marginalised as though they were not there.) And more. I am not saying that Christians don't have the weight on actual merits but I am saying that the above outline can only be a partial abstract for a case, especially in a context like UD. Beyond case making, lies counter culture building, which implies restructuring knowledge through independent research and analysis, which will not have access to the sort of funding tha, say,t deeply institutionalised cultural marxism increasingly has. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
If it succeed, none dare call it treason.kairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
But to say that ID solves the problem, it doesn’t.
Matter doesn't create higher organisation , doesn't use symbols , codes and meanings to achieve obvious purposes , building layers upon layer of bigger and bigger complexity. This is a magical belief . Nobody saw it , nobody will see it .It's just a mantra of "scientific" priesthood. There is nothing scientific in this materialistic speculation run all over the scientific realm. Ignoring the obvious evidence is not science and fortunately you don't need to be a scientist to see that.Lieutenant Commander Data
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Here is a defense of Christianity. 1) there is a creator - definitely addressed by ID 2) the creator is Christ or sent Christ into this world for a reason - absolutely nothing to do with ID 3) Christ started a religion - again absolutely nothing to do with ID. So the conclusion of this is that the creator started Christianity. ID only has relevance in point one. So Christians must defend points 2 and 3. Three is easy so the focus is on 2) as the basis for belief. The last thing I want to do here is get into a discussion of Christianity but the same could be said for any religion that the second point would have to be argued as true and evidence provided but these would not be ID based. So ID and any religion are non equivalent. (140 words)jerry
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Of course, the materialists take it farther and think that since science cannot reference God, that’s proof that God doesn’t exist.
Science by definition can not reference God. So to take a definition and then use it to eliminate what is not included in the definition is a non-sequitur. I constantly say that ID is Science+. What does this mean? It means that there is more than what science can show and ID encompasses both science and other conclusions that are evidence based. Above I called these additional things truth. So truth will include science but it will also include other things which science cannot address. Some of these are addressed by ID. But truth is not identical with ID. There are certain truths that ID cannot address. For example, ID cannot address who the creator is and what were his intentions, only that it is extremely likely that there is one. So to equate what one believes this creator is, will at best confuse the issue and is definitely not ID. If you are interested in combating the misinformation about science and religion, read Meyer's book. He goes into detail about it. But to say that ID solves the problem, it doesn't. It makes certain beliefs more palatable. ID doesn't dispute the Deist view of the creator. It certainly doesn't point to Christianity. So to defend Christianity with ID is obviously not valid. For that one has to go elsewhere which is definitely not ID. (246 words including reference quote and additions)jerry
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
SA “True. “Chance” cannot be a cause. It’s an accidental output. And science cannot even explain what chance is.” I can explain what chance is, chance is no thing ie nothing. Vividvividbleau
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Jerry
So to connect [God] to ID actually causes problems because it implies this is what ID is about.
That's what I think I said and you disagreed with it. ID uses a materialist framework that does not reference God. ID argues "as if" materialism is ok - so it tries to show that the Darwinian and materialist view doesn't work on their own standards. If ID said "God did it", even if that was correct, ID would be dismissed and ridiculed. So, ID just accepts materialist-science where God is not allowed to be mentioned. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. That's how the science-game is played. Nobody can mention God. Of course, the materialists take it farther and think that since science cannot reference God, that's proof that God doesn't exist.Silver Asiatic
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
I look at the evidence and conclude “God did it”. Is ID ok with that explanation?
You are welcome to make that conclusion. ID does not say it is wrong or it is correct. So to connect it to ID actually causes problems because it implies this is what ID is about.
An argument requires more than a summary.
Both can be short and there is no need to quote an entire book. For example, a summary
Meyer says that a creator is a likely explanation for the beginning and nature of the universe. Meyer also says that an intelligence is the likely explanation for the origin of life.
For an argument,
Meyer points to the fine tuning of the universe as the reason it did not arise accidentally. Meyer points to the evidence of expansion and having a finite beginning as the reason it had a beginning. His argument on life is less convincing for a God because some other intelligence could have been the cause.
Critiques on the improbability argument are mainly that there could be infinite instances of universes so our fine tuning is just the one we happen to live in. But infinite occurrence incur even more absurd possibilities so they are ruled out. That is enough. Now I understand that it cannot encompass everything but any further point could be most often addressed in less than 250 word chunks.jerry
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
VL, just to be clear, God would be an agent, not a force. Intelligently directed configuration uses forces, materials, laws of nature etc but the seat of intelligence will be an agent. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic True. “Chance” cannot be a cause. It’s an accidental output. And science cannot even explain what chance is.
Maybe you believe that Mayer himself has written the book . You are wrong. All Mayer did was to detonate a bomb inside a barrack full with logs and under logs was a canister with ink. That's all. After smoke disappeared the book was shinning in the middle of the barrack . I swear. Mayer just picked it up and sent it to Amazon .These thing happens all the time : origin of life ,origin of books, origin of Boeing 747 ,etc... I just wonder who detonated the bomb in the barrack full with barrels with inorganic chemicals that produced life?Lieutenant Commander Data
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Jerry
It actually can be summed up in less than 250 words.
An argument requires more than a summary.
ID has zero to do with belief or lack of belief in God or accepting a materialistic worldview or not. It is just logic applied to the evidence.
I look at the evidence and conclude "God did it". Is ID ok with that explanation?Silver Asiatic
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
ID just references “intelligence” in order to keep a materialist viewpoint in focus because that’s what our culture accepts. But not all cultures have to agree with that.
I completely disagree with this. ID has zero to do with belief or lack of belief in God or accepting a materialistic worldview or not. It is just logic applied to the evidence. The logic and evidence leads you in definite directions though.
Anti-Darwin arguments cannot be solved in short answers.
Yes, it can!!!!
Meyer’s recent book is 400 pages or so. He’s arguing for ID – so total up all the pages he has written in arguments defending ID and its in the thousands.
It actually can be summed up in less than 250 words. The entire book does not have to be in every comment nor even a long summary. They can be referenced.jerry
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
LCD True. "Chance" cannot be a cause. It's an accidental output. And science cannot even explain what chance is.Silver Asiatic
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Jerry
Most arguments can be resolved with very short replies.
Meyer's recent book is 400 pages or so. He's arguing for ID - so total up all the pages he has written in arguments defending ID and its in the thousands. Anti-Darwin arguments cannot be solved in short answers. Philosophical arguments are complex. Just defining the terminology is a challenge. Religious arguments are very complex. At the same time, I can accept anyone who thinks they have the perfect argument in a sentence or two. If that's all they have to say, that's fine with me. If they can convince people in a sentence - that is truly great also. Even if they can't convince anyone at all, if they think they said everything that was needed, then that's good with me. That makes for a very short conversation. But I think in just about every academic area, scholars work on arguments that are complex and take a lot of wriiting, thought, research and time to sort out. History, philosophy, art, religion, literature, politics, sociology, morality -- those require detailed and deeper analysis. Things like engineering or manufacturing or chemistry or computer repair or even software programming -- all of those do not need essay-level analysis usually. If there's a problem, it's often solved with a short answer. For some of those functional areas, the best, most efficient, quickest and most robust and easiest answer wins. That's not at all the same for many other areas.Silver Asiatic
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Viola Lee Many religious people, I think, would agree that “God did it” is not a scientific explanation. What do you think?
:lol: Let's not forget that contemporary "scientific" mainstream think that "Chance did it " . Is this a scientific explanation? Was SETI a scientific enterprize ? Was NOT, acording to VL. PS: What is the difference between “God did it” and "Chance did it ". The obvious bias of VL stands out .Lieutenant Commander Data
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
VL
In general, would “God did it” be a scientific explanation?
If someone asked: "What is the chemical composition of water?" then the answer "God did it" wouldn't be a scientific explanation. Something like: "What color are gray wolves?" would be the same. We would just give the color and not say "God did it". But there are other more significant questions where the idea that God is the necessary being involved in the observed event would be a perfectly reasonable corollary to the scientific exploration. That's what Newton showed in his principia. He took his observations and proposed God as the best explanation. ID does the same but avoids referencing God. The reason for that is that we live in a secularized culture that does not favor any one religion. But I don't see why scientists who live, for example, in an Islamic theocracy couldn't say that Allah is the best candidate for the origin of the universe. There is no other material/physical agency that can be the explanation for that, and the universe shows qualities that God alone can fulfill. ID just references "intelligence" in order to keep a materialist viewpoint in focus because that's what our culture accepts. But not all cultures have to agree with that.Silver Asiatic
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply