Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Categories
Defending our Civilization
Lessons of History
Philosophy
rhetoric
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
To tie to OP, these are about the current state extension of Schaeffer's framework.kairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
F/N 2: Later in 34 I also noted,
Suppressed context. Ever since Plato, it has been well known that we have the alternatives, natural [ = blind chance and/or mechanical necessity] vs the ART-ificial, where actions of intelligently directed configuration are often empirically observable and testable. Where, this is routinely practiced in archaeology and paleontology, forensics, medicine and more, where ART-ifacts are frequently observed and studied scientifically. In Telecommunications we routinely recognise signals from noise and signal to noise power ratio is a key metric of performance. This last distinction is central to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. So, there was an improper suppression of historically and currently warranted understanding due to ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism. Here backed by NSTA and the US National Academy of the Sciences.
In short, inference to the ART-ificial is a common part of science, based on its characteristic signs. To a priori exclude from the definition of science that it may when appropriate infer to intelligently directed configuration is massive question begging and twists science from pursuing empirically warranted, credibly and objectively truth (or at least best efforts so far) into a prestigious front for evolutionary materialistic scientism, an ideology. The end of this will be to discredit science, education, media and governments that went along with that perversion of the proper aim and values of science.kairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
F/N: In part I studied 6th form physics from a book titled nat phil, and of course Newton's great work is Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.kairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
VL, historically correct has to do with the actual history of scientific research, starting with the likes of Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton and co, and coming forward. It further speaks to typical definitions found in high quality dictionaries, as in fact follows immediately above. As for written by ID advocates, in fact the radical redefinitions were written by advocates of evolutionary materialistic scientism and twist the actual history since the scientific revolution; all you managed to do is to inadvertently affirm that the derided ID thinkers have a more accurate, historically correct understanding of the sciences; see the excerpt below. Our understanding must at least embrace the practice of science from Copernicus et al in the scientific revolution going forward. And the sciences in view are those we of British derivation call Natural Sciences as opposed to social and behavioural or looser senses. And this you know, the objections are ill grounded. KF PS: Newton, Opticks, Query 31, c 1718:
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [speculative] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phænomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover’d, and establish’d as Principles, and by them explaining the Phænomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.
Read the whole: https://erenow.net/common/history-philosophy-science-reader/50.php See where the classic discussions of what science is and what its methods are, come from?kairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
You said historically correct, KF, and 2005 is not exactly historical. That's why I asked. I looked up the definition you gave and it was written by some ID advocates, by the way, which also makes it not exactly historical. Also, the word "science" has several different levels of meanings. For instance, a google search finds "A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area", which is a very general meaning of the word. What I'm interested in, now that the subject has come up, is what has been the understanding of the domain of science in fields like physics, chemistry, and biology over the last couple of hundred years: has it been understood to be looking for explanations of the physical world in terms of other things in the physical world, as CD's professor said? Are there any sources about that, I wonder? P.S. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers some perspective.Viola Lee
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
VL, in 44 you asked for the definition I put up, so I pointed to where it is. See,
2005, historically and philosophically better founded and more substantial definition: “Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.” Compare, to: science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990 — and yes, they used the “z” Virginia!] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster’s 7th Collegiate, 1965]
KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Sev, almost amusing. This very thread shows the sort of point that Lewontin inadvertently made is key to a clear understanding of what is in the bag. As to definition of science, we are looking at school level ones, KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus/45
… yet another cat out of the bag moment.
As far as I can see, the cat was never in the bag - although Erwin Schrodinger may have begged to differ - it's been out and about, sniffing around the natural world, trying to dig up new information about it and keeping out of any boxes owned by quantum physicists. As for a precise definition of science, it's certainly been a question debated vigorously by philosophers of science but that hasn't prevented scientists themselves from actually doing it. They probably content themselves with Edmund Burke's pragmatic little aphorism
“Though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable.”
-- Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents 1770Seversky
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
KF, I already read and responded to 34, so why 48???Viola Lee
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Again I recommend the Durston video. It will save thousands of words.jerry
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Kindly see 34 above.kairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
VL, I specifically identified the 2005 definition and quoted it again. Insofar as there is a generic definition that is feasible, that serves well enough for schools level. Notice, Oxford Dictionary and Webster's 7th Collegiate. I am fully aware that Feyerabend et al have devastated any claim that there is a simple hard and fast definition of science and its methods that is precising, one size fits all and only, science, serving as a demarcation simply splitting off non science and pseudo science. However, scientism is without sound foundation and must be excluded, and materialism and physicalism are self referentially incoherent and necessarily false. The 2001 and 2007 radical ideologically loaded definitions invite these in. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
VL, logic is compatible with science or science is in deep trouble. Logic of being, likewise stands in judgement of science, not the converse. So, a logic of being case for the reality of God and for the reasonableness of so believing, is independent of and prior to science. As to scientific cases that point to God, we ID thinkers, from Thaxton et al in 1984 on in TMLO, have long been on record that the world of life has abundant evidence of intelligently directed configuration starting with the D/RNA code in the cell and protein spaces, going to now the XY and similar systems for sex determination illustrating isolated islands of function in vast configurations paces etc. However, a molecular nanotech lab some decades ahead of Venter et al could reasonably account for this. What raises a much bigger question is the fine tuning of the physics of our cosmos that fits it for life. By definition a designer who builds universes is supernatural and awesomely powerful. A familiar profile. Bring on board something from wider knowledge, that we are responsible rational self moved, significantly free morally governed creatures further requires that the necessary being root of reality is inherently good and utterly wise. Where, a serious candidate NB is either actual or impossible of being. Do you have good reason to hold God not a serious candidate NB ________ or that he is not possible of being ______ ? I will dare to predict that you will find it exceedingly hard to fill in such blanks. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
PS: I note definitions from high quality somewhat older dictionaries, which I have as paper copies (the 1965 being inherited from my late mom):
science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990 -- and yes, they used the "z" Virginia!] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster's 7th Collegiate, 1965]
The balance on merits is clear. The 2005 correction is sound, the 2001 and 2007 radical revisions invite radical ideological impositions, as does the 2000 statement of the US NSTA Board. Philip Johnson's reply to Lewontin is revealing:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses." [NB: I am aware that Rational Wiki has backed away, un-announced, from the cat-out-of-the-bag direct phrasing that was in place a few years ago. That historic phrasing is still valid as a summary of what is going on.]
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
Notice, what Rational Wiki said then puled back, doubtless as it was yet another cat out of the bag moment.kairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
"precise, historically correct phrasing." I'm curious what "historically correct" definition of science you are referring to. Can you point to a source?Viola Lee
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
VL, no, I point to Lewontin, I point to the pattern of Dawkins et al, I can point to a pattern that is too widespread to fairly deny or dismiss. What I actually said is that the phrasing INVITES, in a world where we have a pattern like we do, we have to lock out false and loaded interpretation by precise, historically correct phrasing. That is exactly what the 2005 statement as restored to a historically accurate form indicates. What can you find sound fault with in:
2005, historically and philosophically better founded and more substantial definition: “Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”
Where, I further noted:
Suppressed context. Ever since Plato, it has been well known that we have the alternatives, natural [ = blind chance and/or mechanical necessity] vs the ART-ificial, where actions of intelligently directed configuration are often empirically observable and testable. Where, this is routinely practiced in archaeology and paleontology, forensics, medicine and more, where ART-ifacts are frequently observed and studied scientifically. In Telecommunications we routinely recognise signals from noise and signal to noise power ratio is a key metric of performance. This last distinction is central to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
It is the mere fact that the 2005 correction was attacked widely, subjected to threats of dis-accrediting education, and was characterised in lurid terms as a radical religious subversion of science that is decisive: they do mean natural-ISTIC, physical-ISTIC, i.e. a priori ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism. This, is confession by projection. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
I want to know is if you think a logical argument for the existence of God as the creator of the physical world is science, not if it is merely “consistent” with science.
Definitely not science. But definitely a very logical argument. Science supports the logical evidence for a creator. Again I recommend the recently posted Durston video.jerry
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
re 39: First, it is you who read "physicalist" and "naturalistic" and "materialistic" implications into the statements. Of course you do: that your bias and hobbyhorse. I prefer to take the statements at their face value, and understand that they do not imply that science can do everything. Science, for instance, can not study consciousness, or values, or ethical principles, or many metaphysical speculations, such as the existence or non-existence of God, etc. You write also, " I am not going to try to parse a long exchange with SA in a line, but note that I have put on the table why belief in God is quite reasonable and consistent with a non radicalised scientific mindset." I'm not asking you to comment on the particular discussion I had with SA: what I want to know is if you think a logical argument for the existence of God as the creator of the physical world is science, not if it is merely "consistent" with science.Viola Lee
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
People confuse science with logic. Logic underpins science and is completely different from it. Science uses logic. Logic has no need of science. Though logical arguments will frequently use scientific findings. See Kirk Durston video just posted. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/kirk-durston-on-sabine-hossenfelder-and-god Also the dichotomy of “is” or “isn’t” is too often the criteria used. When the criteria should be “probable” vs “unlikely.” On certain things we will never know for sure. Is not knowing for sure a criteria for a functional world. ID is about probable explanations. Science by its very definition rules out some very probable conclusions. That is the problem modern science has. As a result it lets in very improbable explanations to eliminate the obvious it does not like. Modern science constantly commits the logical fallacy of “begging the question.” The irony is that modern science is illogical. jerry
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
VL, that the definitions seem reasonable to you is a symptom. In the Chem Teacher's definition, "physical" is grossly ambiguous, inviting the implication physical-IST, the updated form of materialism. Likewise, "natural" in the Kansas definitions and in the NSTA defintitions invites, "natural-ISM" which carries the implication, Scientism. I am not going to try to parse a long exchange with SA in a line, but note that I have put on the table why belief in God is quite reasonable and consistent with a non radicalised scientific mindset. Indeed, understanding God as a serious candidate to be the required necessary being root of reality, as a serious candidate NB, God is either actual or impossible. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Hmmm, KF, I think the definition you quoted in 34 is pretty much like CD's chem teacher in 26, and they seem reasonable to me. Science is a limited enterprise. It tries to explain certain kinds of things, and provide explanations about how those things relate to each other. It doesn't try to explain everything. The definition that includes the phrase "... logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena” runs into the problem I ran into in my long discussion with SA recently: SA had a "logical argument" that made what he considered not only an adequate but in fact a conclusive conclusion about God and his relationship to natural phenomena, but which I considered quite flawed. Without going back into the details, was SA's argument science?Viola Lee
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
F/N, Demographic collapse is a sign of loss of confidence and hope in the future, and itself is a direct cause of civilisation collapse due to lack of people. Almost all of the West is in demographic collapse, either generally or in key population segments. The future belongs to those who show up for it. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
VL, I think it would be interesting to see you interact with the NSTA Board definition i/l/o exchanges in Kansas, further informed by Dawkins and Lewontin. Not to mention Provine. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2022
April
04
Apr
4
04
2022
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT
CD, kindly note the above. KFkairosfocus
April 3, 2022
April
04
Apr
3
03
2022
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
F/N: The kind of impositions I am highlighting can be seen in the battle of definitions of science to be used in schools in Kansas where parents and children were held hostage over threats to dis-accredit their education:
2001 radical re-definition: “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world around us.” --> For natural, read the subtext, Natural-ISTIC 2005, historically and philosophically better founded and more substantial definition: “Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.” Re imposition after power plays and media smears, 2007: "Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us"
Suppressed context. Ever since Plato, it has been well known that we have the alternatives, natural [ = blind chance and/or mechanical necessity] vs the ART-ificial, where actions of intelligently directed configuration are often empirically observable and testable. Where, this is routinely practiced in archaeology and paleontology, forensics, medicine and more, where ART-ifacts are frequently observed and studied scientifically. In Telecommunications we routinely recognise signals from noise and signal to noise power ratio is a key metric of performance. This last distinction is central to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. So, there was an improper suppression of historically and currently warranted understanding due to ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism. Here backed by NSTA and the US National Academy of the Sciences. Thank you Lewontin, for letting the cat out of the bag. KFkairosfocus
April 3, 2022
April
04
Apr
3
03
2022
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
Jerry, Cicero laid out something truly foundational for law and government. We should not grudge to acknowledge our debt to him, any more than we resent being reminded of Newton's laws of momentum and gravitation or his co invention of the calculus etc. What is going on is frankly a disguised way of saying, we don't want to hear this voice, these truths; so, we confess by projecting blameworthiness. That speaks, not in our favour. KF PS: Here is Cicero in De Legibus, which happens to be highly relevant to Schaeffer;s contribution and to the way the Paul led Christian synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome became foundational to our civilisation as we know it:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [--> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [--> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
[--> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]
This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
PPS, I cannot but notice how there seems to be overlooking of the voice of the Russian General Staff on the nature of dirty -- they think, American backed -- colour revolutions, added to the OP above yesterday. This is background for Ukraine.kairosfocus
April 3, 2022
April
04
Apr
3
03
2022
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT
VL, If you read him, Lewontin accepts he does not speak for ALL scientists, but he does claim to represent a dominant faction or coalition. A faction or coalition that exhibits all too familiar ideas and agendas. Something with very direct echoes in the US NSTA standards and the attempt to redefine science, its substance and methods. If that were not the case, when Mr Dawkins said that those who challenged or questioned these ideas were ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, he would have been corrected and shunned, not made into a superstar celebrity voice of science. That's not cherry picking unrepresentative idiosyncrasies, it is recognising clear, readily observable patterns of domination despite spin games and frankly, gaslighting. Similarly, Provine is quite clear, down to elimination of our responsible, rational freedom, and its time and place where it picked up a science imprimatur. And yet it is easy to see that evolutionary materialistic scientism is self referentially incoherent and cannot be truth, is certainly not fact, and has a history of destructive consequences, not to mention a tendency to fly the colours of science while imposing questionable ideology. Where, fellow traveller accomodationists, whatever nuances and obfuscations they use, are in fact enablers of this domineering coalition. So, thank you for inadvertent whistleblowing, Mr Lewontin. Duly noted for action in defence of genuine science and of civilisation. KFkairosfocus
April 3, 2022
April
04
Apr
3
03
2022
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
:lol: If is true that a living organism has a goal then materialism is false because the goal concept is immaterial/intelligent . You can't explain a goal of a cell (or purpose of a computer ) with chemistry and physics alone. Try it. This is the Achilles heel of evolution that never will be answered . The layers of organisation of life are coming down from Intelligence-body-systems-organs-cells-molecules not like materialist would prefer from molecules to intelligence.Lieutenant Commander Data
April 3, 2022
April
04
Apr
3
03
2022
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
KF, you write, "VL, you see here the significance of Lewonyin’s confession on the part of the elites and their reigning orthodoxy," Because of your own biases, you cherry-pick those you want to represent "the elites" and ignore the countless numbers of scientists who are not materialists. Lewontin represents what you don't like, but that doesn't mean that he speaks for everyone, or that there aren't lots of people among the "elites" who would disagree with him. 'Nuf said. I just find it amusing that you trot out that quote so often.Viola Lee
April 3, 2022
April
04
Apr
3
03
2022
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
VL, you see here the significance of Lewonyin's confession on the part of the elites and their reigning orthodoxy, his refreshing honesty is worth a modicum of respect. As for the sophistries of NSTA, the manifest truth is, that they imagine science as the gold standard of knowledge and that it monopolises or utterly dominates so it effectively exhausts or so overrules that once Big Sc Science . . . Scientism . . . speaks, that decides. The exclusions therefore are effective dismissals. Read them in light of Lewontin, understand the fundamental failure and imposition. Oh, methodological naturalism is not metaphysical frankly only works because of the implicit loading and attitude Lewontin exposes, speaking as representative. The evasions and back doors fail. KF PS, Provine:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
kairosfocus
April 3, 2022
April
04
Apr
3
03
2022
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply