Biological argument for God from design more compelling than cosmological one?

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 5, 2013

Design inference, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Ratio Christi, a Christian campus ministry, features Jonathan McLatchie, one of our News writers, in their blog, The Poached Egg , explaining why he thinks so:

The more I come to terms with the sheer engineering prowess of the cell, the more I am becoming convinced that the argument from biological design is perhaps the single most powerful argument for God’s existence — I now consider it to be stronger than even the cosmological and teleological arguments. It seems to be a rather under-used apologetic, however, particularly in Christian-atheist debates. ID as a scientific proposition, of course, doesn’t necessitate God as designer. But it is certainly a very compelling part of a cumulative body of evidence for theism. Catching just a glimpse of the beauty and sophistication of the cell should be enough to render absolutely anyone without excuse.

“Without excuse” indeed. That was a part of the apostle Paul’s point 2000 years ago, when he was explaining to the Romans why he was a Christian:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse .

The thing about arguments from design, whether biologial or cosmological, is that, because the design is evident, most counterarguments are irrational.

Consider:

“So what if this universe works? There is surely an infinite number of universes out there that have failed.” In other words, we are invited to exchange what we know for what someone imagines might be so. And it gets better:

“Life only looks designed. Random Darwinan processes can accomplish this feat.” To say that the evidence for such processes doing so is slight is to shower them with praise. Everywhere, randomness signals disorder at a level that precludes life.

“Life only looks designed. Your brain evolved in such a way as to see a design that isn’t there.” Well, maybe it’s more like this: The Darwinian’s brain somehow evolved so as to see no design where it obviously exists. Offhand, the latter is far more likely.

Most of the time, when we see a design, or a pattern, it is there.

Hat tip Phillip Cunningham

Comments

Gregory, being off in space, has no need for balance.Mung_{September 8, 2013
September
09
Sep
8
08
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

I am not a ‘DARWINIST,’ you idiotic conclusion-jumping-with-no-evidence IDist! Do people reading this now see why IDism is a soon to be dead-end ‘theory’ based on typical behaviour like this?
So suddenly irreducible complexity is resolved, and semiotic systems pop into existence - all because you've been misunderstood? Gregory, do you have any conception of how unbalanced you come off to others? A ranting armchair sociologist without a drop of self awareness. It's quite a sight really. If you were commissioned to research working biologists to establish their responses to specific ID claims, I am convinced you couldn't even get the sample out of the field. Of course, that may simply be a reflection of my low opinion of your respect for data. :) In any case, if you should ever come to be assured enough of your claims, particularly to the extent that you'd have them tested in debate as opposed to just mouthing them off, then let me know. Your claim that ID requires an analogy to man-made things has been demonstrated to be completely false - and with it, a large portion of the political tirade you insist on regurgitating.Upright BiPed_{September 7, 2013
September
09
Sep
7
07
2013
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

As both Bruce David and I expected he would, Gregory (56) evaded the challenge to refute the arguments put forth by ID proponents. It is of course understandable that someone trained in sociology might not be able to answer technical arguments put forward by people with degrees in biochemistry, mathematics, computer programming, etc. I wouldn't fault Gregory or anyone for opting out of answering, by saying: "These arguments are not in my field, and I'm not competent to judge their validity." Unfortunately, that is not Gregory's approach. Gregory's approach is to launch an aggressive assault upon these arguments as a group, declaring them invalid in a blanket judgment. But everyone here can see that Gregory has no refutation to justify his rejection. He simply doesn't like the conclusions that ID authors come to, so he says that their arguments are bad. It is interesting that Gregory chooses Adrian Bejan as an example of someone who has argued for "design in nature." Of course Bejan has done no such thing. Bejan's "design" rests on equivocation. What Bejan calls "design" is what Dawkins more correctly calls "apparent design." There is no real "design" in nature in Bejan's account. There are patterns generated by mathematical formalisms. But "pattern" is not "design." The shape of freezing raindrops on a window pane may form a striking "pattern"; a wristwatch is "designed." Bejan gives no examples of truly "designed" things produced by natural laws. He gives examples only of patterns. This is understandable; since Bejan does not believe that any designer exists, he cannot believe in any design. All that he can do is misuse the word "design" by applying it in a popular, casual sense to patterns that give the superficial appearance of design. But this has nothing to do with what "design" means in intelligent design thinking. Oddly, though Gregory never tires of invoking the name of Bejan against ID people, Bejan is not someone whose ideas Gregory will discuss. Once on this site he provided links to four articles about Bejan and demanded that someone here respond. I read the articles, and responded. Gregory continued to post replies on that thread, but to my comments about Bejan, he replied not a word, as can be confirmed at: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-argument-for-intelligent-design/ See comment #338. It is interesting that the only "design in nature" thinker that Gregory admires and respects is an atheist.Timaeus_{September 7, 2013
September
09
Sep
7
07
2013
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

"you ducked, just like Darwinists always do." I am not a 'DARWINIST,' you idiotic conclusion-jumping-with-no-evidence IDist! Do people reading this now see why IDism is a soon to be dead-end 'theory' based on typical behaviour like this? Bruce David - martyr for a 'quasi-science' when instead he could live healthy away from Expelled Syndrome working for responsible and meaningful science, philosophy and theology/worldview dialogue. Yet he willingly gives that opportunity up (with free will!) to chant 'Scientific Revolution' in an IDist tribe. So sad and unnecessary.Gregory_{September 7, 2013
September
09
Sep
7
07
2013
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Gregory, re. #56: Well, Greg, Timaeus sent the ball squarely into your court and you ducked, just like Darwinists always do. Your non-response that "IDism is not a 'concrete scientific and mathematical' theory" only serves to strengthen the arguments of Meyer, Dembski, Denton, Behe, Axe, Gauger, Berlinski, Sanford, Sewell, Wells, et al by making it apparent that there is no effective response to the points that they make. This is why there is a revolution in the making here. Darwinism simply has no counter to the arguments for ID.Bruce David_{September 7, 2013
September
09
Sep
7
07
2013
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

“the sort of argument in ID books that I was asking Gregory to respond to were technical, scientific arguments... where the *science* in ID arguments is wrong.” – timaeus This guy timaeus is rather dull, but persistent. At least he deserves credit for something. Doesn’t he know that IDT is not a ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ theory? An argument cannot be shown to be ‘strictly [natural] scientifically’ wrong if it is not ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ in the first place. “not a scientific argument for design.” – timaeus Yes, exactly. What does anyone OWE to an Expelled Syndrome victim like timaeus who continues to betray reality in the fanatical cause of his IDism? timaeus' participation here, from which he has claimed he is about to ‘pull away,’ is marked by its demanding sense of entitlement. “Gregory has never, either here, or in any place on Uncommon Descent that I can recall, responded, in his *own* voice, expressing his *own* arguments, to *any* scientific argument for design (or, if one wishes to dispute the term “scientific argument for design,” one can substitute “argument for design based on the empirical data provided by modern science”) ever offered by any ID proponent.” – timaeus Are you upset, timaeus, because I called you unoriginal and a regurgitator? You’ve already admitted you’ve offered nothing original to IDT yourself. NOTHING. Sure, there’s lots of angry stars in your text, timaeus, but no happy shine coming from your regurgitated and outdated ‘argument.’ There are choirs of ‘design’ theorists laughing at IDism and its misappropriation of ‘design’ into ‘Design,’ from human-social science into natural theology. “technical arguments” – timaeus Do you mean Dembski’s probabilism, his specificationism? You think that’s ‘scientific’ and ‘technical’? :P timaeus demands that I make “concrete scientific and mathematical” points. But IDism is not a “concrete scientific and mathematical” theory. So how is that even possible? “technical, science-based arguments for design in nature.” – timaeus They haven’t. It’s for Uppercase ‘Design’ sought for ‘in nature.’ Why on earth do you think ISCID, the journal Dembski trumpeted in 2004 as a great success for "technical, science-based arguments" for IDism, collapsed soon thereafter? These are the kinds of 'very clear and cogent' facts that timaeus can't see while suffering from Expelled Syndrome. Where are those actually ‘technical, science-based arguments for Uppercase Design in nature’? Adrian Bejan betters the whole IDM by himself with his lowercase ‘design in nature’ openly acknowledged presupposition! IDism is a “biological argument for God,” as repeatedly admitted in this thread. This doesn’t even need a ‘gotcha’. Just read it in the title of the thread! Go see a priest, timaeus. You are embarrassing your so-called religious studies degree and the institution that gave it to you by requiring scientism to validate yourself.Gregory_{September 7, 2013
September
09
Sep
7
07
2013
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Timaeus, re. #54: Well said! Very clear and cogent. That puts the ball squarely in Gregory's court. Let's see what he does with it. I suspect he will ignore it. Gregory, re. #53:
David, again: How do you *know* the ‘designer’ or ‘designers’ are ‘natural’ to justify your (intentional?) use of ‘the nature of’ to describe them?
Please read more carefully before you respond. I did not say that I thought that the designers were "natural". I said that I believe that they were souls similar to us only not incarnate at that time. That hardly qualifies as "natural". Use of the phrase "the nature of" does not imply that the referent is "natural". One can speak of the nature of God, for example, or the nature of the soul.
Your refusal to accept the argument that a Creator, when spoken of as also a Designer, theologically suggests capitalisation. That is, unless you don’t care about the Abrahamic traditions of capitalisation with regard to the divine. This is precisely one of the dangers of IDism; it runs away from classical theology into its own post-modern quasi-deist scientistic strategy.
I'll repeat this point one more time, but I doubt that you will get it, since it has been pointed out to you several times already and you seem unable to understand the distinctions involved: The scientific inference is that certain natural phenomena were designed. This inference makes no claim to know who or what the designer or designers are or were, hence lower case. A theological (ie, not scientific) conclusion is that the Designer is the God of the Christian tradition. This conclusion, however, does not follow from the scientific determination of the presence of design. Other (theological, not scientific) assumptions or beliefs are required. From what I said above in this comment it should be clear that I do not share those beliefs and assumptions.Bruce David_{September 7, 2013
September
09
Sep
7
07
2013
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Above (50), I wrote to Gregory: "Arguments of the form: “On Page 297 of his book, Meyer writes, regarding information theory and the arrangement of the nucleotides, that …., and this is wrong because …” are very much welcome to me. But those are not the kind of arguments you have ever offered here." It is clear from the hypothetical example I give, involving "information theory" and "nucleotide arrangement," that the sort of argument in ID books that I was asking Gregory to respond to were technical, scientific arguments. It is clear that I was asking Gregory to show where the *science* in ID arguments is wrong. Gregory now replies (53): "I’ve done that many times. Most recently with Dembski’s 2004 argument in this thread!" Wherever the "many times" are, I must have missed them all. As for the "2004 argument" of Dembski on this thread, let's look at what that argument was about (1 above): "William Dembski tries to distinguish between ‘(the) design argument(s)’ and Intelligent Design theory (IDT). The former are/is theological, the latter claims to be a kind of neo-biological ‘science.’ Do folks at UD know about and openly acknowledge this intentional distinction Dembski makes? It’s written in “The Design Revolution” (2004)." The assertion of Dembski that Gregory is here referring to here, as can be seen by reading Gregory's summary of it, is not a scientific argument for design. It is Dembski's *attempt to distinguish the meanings of the terms* "design arguments" and "intelligent design theory." Gregory then tells us that by "design arguments" (as opposed to arguments in "intelligent design theory") Dembski means something "theological." So even if Dembski were making "design arguments" here (which he isn't -- he's merely explaining what the term means), they would not be the sort of argument I gave in my hypothetical Meyer example. They would be theological, not scientific, arguments. So, I repeat: Gregory has never, either here, or in any place on Uncommon Descent that I can recall, responded, in his *own* voice, expressing his *own* arguments, to *any* scientific argument for design (or, if one wishes to dispute the term "scientific argument for design," one can substitute "argument for design based on the empirical data provided by modern science") ever offered by any ID proponent. Behe, Meyer, Dembski, Wells, Denton and many others have written literally thousands of pages containing technical, science-based arguments for design in nature. To those thousands of pages, Gregory's response has been silence. We must conclude that Gregory has no response to the technical arguments of the ID writers. If he had such a response, he would offer it. Instead, he either entirely ignores the technical arguments, or else passes off the refutation of the arguments to others, by making sweeping general claims that scientists reject ID, without giving any impression that he has examined those scientists' refutations or understands the biology, chemistry, physics, math, etc. behind them. I'll try one more time: Gregory, in *No Free Lunch*, Dembski offers "one long argument" in favor of ID. Where, in your opinion (a report of others' opinions is of no value to me), does Dembski argue wrongly in that book about mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc.? Where, in *Signature in the Cell*, does Meyer argue wrongly about these subjects? Where, in *Nature's Destiny*, does Denton argue wrongly about these subjects? Point out for us the chapters, the pages. Show us that these writers' scientific arguments (or science-based arguments, if you will) for design in nature are invalid. If Gregory replies with more discussion of the alleged theological motivation of ID people, more discussion of ID vs. id, IDT vs. ID, etc., I will simply ignore his answer. But if he replies with concrete scientific and mathematical contents, based on his own understanding of nature and the natural sciences, I will review his arguments with care and give him a courteous and considered reply.Timaeus_{September 7, 2013
September
09
Sep
7
07
2013
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

"There will be a revolution ... because living things actually were designed and engineered" - Bruce David
I'll rest my case on the 'scientific revoutionary' fantasies of IDists with that. timaeus still won't believe it even if it's right in front of his nose. But it really doesn't matter what an Expelled Syndrme victim believes in the long run unless/until he finally seeks a cure for his malady.
"those are not the kind of arguments you have ever offered here."
I've done that many times. Most recently with Dembski's 2004 argument in this thread! Why the bluff and bluster, timaeus? David, again: How do you *know* the ‘designer’ or ‘designers’ are ‘natural’ to justify your (intentional?) use of ‘the nature of’ to describe them? Your refusal to accept the argument that a Creator, when spoken of as also a Designer, theologically suggests capitalisation. That is, unless you don't care about the Abrahamic traditions of capitalisation with regard to the divine. This is precisely one of the dangers of IDism; it runs away from classical theology into its own post-modern quasi-deist scientistic strategy. If IDism were to openly embrace its obviously proper place as a concept for science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse, then the capitalisation problem for IDT would fade away. It could then be done properly and without guile or shame, as VJ Torley, StephenB and a few others here do. The fakers, the rhetoricians like timaeus and many of the DI's leaders are the problem here. That's why timaeus refuses the meaningful distinction between Uppercase Intelligent Design and lowercase intelligent design; it destroys the maybe-yes, maybe-no facade that the IDM has constructed for its 'revolutionary' purposes. We've seen through this already, folks.
"So what’s the point?" - timaeus
Go back and read again. Hint: reification.
"I’ve said repeatedly that whether intelligent design counts as “science” depends on one’s definition of “science”; therefore, whether intelligent design is a “scientific theory” depends on what one means by “scientific theory.” According to some understandings, ID would be a “scientific theory”; according to other understandings, it wouldn’t be." - timaeus
What's with this po-mo relativism, timaues?
"You simply don’t address the question of whether or not there is detectable design in nature." - timaeus
How many times do it take? First, it is 'technically' correct to speak of Uppercase 'Design in nature' that IDT proposes to discover because the 'Design' transcends nature. Bejan's lowercase 'design in nature' technically differs from that because for him there is nothing other than nature. For IDism, if there is nothing other than nature, the theory collapses. That's why the capitalisation matters. Second, I've already indicated that using 'Design' the way the IDM does is a category mistake. timaeus may not agree, but most people do. And it blew up in John G. West's face in the 2008 summer program at the DI. The category mistake by IDists is easily evident with how many times people have pointed to the distinction between 'artifactual' human-made things (mousetraps, Mt. Rushmore, Easter Island, etc.) and non-human-made things, specifically 'natural' things. But IDists, fervent in their 'revolutionary' mindset, ignore the valid criticisms that countless people have made. And ignoring valid criticims has relegated IDT to a very low academic standard. This is why the term -ism makes sense for what IDT has become; it tries to universalise the concept of 'Design' by conflating (wrapping together) those two distinct notions of 'artificial' and 'natural.' That, folks, is 'Designism.' Be careful you don't catch it, for want of being an ID 'revolutionary' like timaeus! So, basically, you're running out of the frying pan and into the fire, committing the same sort of ideological excess that Dawkins commits with his 'universal Darwinism'. O.k. so go back and dance with him again, while the rest of the world moves forward and leaves you both behind.Gregory_{September 7, 2013
September
09
Sep
7
07
2013
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

should have been "nano factories of living cells performing protein synthesis"... living cells performing got deletedBreckmin_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Fine tuning arguments should be used for agnostic theism. Code/Information in biological systems as well as the nano factories of protein synthesis should be used as evidence of Intelligent Causation only. Those creationists who stay away from the nomenclature of "Intelligent Design" often do so to avoid ridiculous atheists' generalization of "design arguments" that fail to address the exact nature of code/programming/information or mechanical working systems that don't self-create. It is not that anyone is embarrassed by the Discovery Institute...it is rather than materialists/naturalists think that they have somehow debunked "design" so they fail to address the exact argument and result to generalizations of teleology. I only stay away from using to term "intelligent design" because of the ignorance of those who reject it...NOT because there is anything embarrassing about the history of the ID movement. ID is distinct of theism.... IOW, identifying something that is the result of intelligence is distinct from agnostic theism (which is a stepping stone in a cumulative case argument for monotheism). These distinctions of ID, theism and the religious implications of theism are too often ignored by those waving the flags of skepticism.Breckmin_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

Gregory: Of course ID people have spoken of a "theory of intelligent design." I've never denied that. So what's the point? I've said repeatedly that whether intelligent design counts as "science" depends on one's definition of "science"; therefore, whether intelligent design is a "scientific theory" depends on what one means by "scientific theory." According to some understandings, ID would be a "scientific theory"; according to other understandings, it wouldn't be. If you lay down a rule that design inferences are outside of the province of natural science, then obviously ID is not a "natural scientific theory." I see no reason, however, to accept such a rule. It's arbitrary and has not been accepted at all times in the history of natural science. Nonetheless, it makes no difference to my position. Suppose I agreed to the rule; then I'd simply say that Meyer is wrong when he speaks of ID as a "scientific theory." I'd say that ID is "a philosophical extrapolation from scientific data." But it still might be a valid extrapolation. It still might state a truth about nature. What do I care whether the rebuttal of the position of Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, Atkins, etc. is labelled a "scientific" or a "philosophical" rebuttal? If it's a valid rebuttal, that's all that matters. You are quite different from myself, Gregory. You are true academic in the modern vein. You like hair-splitting quarrels over definitions; you like assigning an "ism" to every position; you like classifying people, determining who belongs to this camp and who belongs to that camp. You also like dwelling at inordinate length on people's alleged personal motives (another thing very common in modern academia, though it was regarded as an unbecoming preoccupation by the older generation of scholars). None of those things are important to me. I want to read texts and study their arguments, and debate about the validity of those arguments. I couldn't care less, for example, whether Bertrand Russell is classed as a "positivist" or a "Platonist" (both terms have been applied to him) or something else. I just want to read Russell's arguments and try to figure out whether or not Russell's conclusions are right. So if you have an *argument* against particular passages of ID theory written by Meyer, Dembski, Behe, etc., trot out your argument and I'll respectfully examine it. But if you want to keep complaining about the motives of ID people, or keep trying to redefine ID so that it is something entirely other than what its proponents say it is, or keep making arguments from authority ("X is world famous and he says that ID is bad science and bad theology"), I have no interest in the conversation. Arguments of the form: "On Page 297 of his book, Meyer writes, regarding information theory and the arrangement of the nucleotides, that ...., and this is wrong because ..." are very much welcome to me. But those are not the kind of arguments you have ever offered here. What you offer here is motive-mongering, academic social-science shop-talk, academic name-dropping, and cultural analysis. None of which have anything to do with whether or not Meyer's application of information theory to the cell is valid or invalid. You simply don't address the question of whether or not there is detectable design in nature. You want to talk about *the people and movements* who argue that there is detectable design and nature. That's why you are on the wrong web site. "The sociology of intelligent design theorists" is a completely different topic from "the arguments for design in nature." And you will bang your head endlessly in frustration if you think you can get the folks here to abandon the second topic and take up the first. They just aren't interested. I'm not saying that "the sociology of intelligent design theorists" is not a valid subject of discussion. It's a perfectly valid subject for discussion. But it has zero bearing on whether the conclusions advanced by ID advocates are true or false. And that's what we want to talk about here.Timaeus_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Gregroy, re. #48:
“the scientific inference does not extend so far as to include the nature of the designer or designers” I’m sorry, Bruce David, but this is not enough. You offer little explanation to the theologians I mentioned above who feel the term ‘Design’ is tainted by the Movement you embrace. You are part of a small group of people trying to effect a ‘Revolution’ with your ‘Design inference’ talk. But we are wise to your linguistic tricks.
The theologians will have to deal with their feelings however they may. The distinction that proponents of ID make between what can legitimately be inferred by scientific inquiry and what is properly the province of philosophy and/or theology is quite clear. It is you who are muddying the waters here. And by the way, whether or not there will be a revolution will be determined by where the truth actually lies, not by the efforts of any group, be it the ID proponents or the Darwin defenders. There will be a revolution, not because I and the rest of a small group are "trying to effect" it but because living things actually were designed and engineered, and more and more people both within and outside of the scientific professions are coming to see the truth of this.Bruce David_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

"the scientific inference does not extend so far as to include the nature of the designer or designers" I'm sorry, Bruce David, but this is not enough. You offer little explanation to the theologians I mentioned above who feel the term 'Design' is tainted by the Movement you embrace. You are part of a small group of people trying to effect a 'Revolution' with your 'Design inference' talk. But we are wise to your linguistic tricks. How do you *know* the 'designer' or 'designers' are 'natural' to justify your (intentional?) use of 'the nature of' to describe them? If the Designer of Nature is not 'natural' (which most philosophers and theologians accept) then your language is misleading from the start. Do you recognise and acknowledge this? I realise that you want to sound 'strictly [natural] scientific' in your defence of IDT. But please wake up to the fact that theologians reject scientistic IDism for very good reasons. #12: "speaking merely about “‘the nature of’ that intelligence/Intelligence” is disingenuous." You have made no improvement upon your response nor explanation of this in #46 Bruce.Gregory_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

English-speakers live in a hovel.
I missed this earlier. Joe, are you going to put up with this affront to English speakers. I mean some of us might live on a parking lot but we can still manage eloquent prose, as Joe's posts demonstrate .Alan Fox_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Gregory, re. #12:
Why assume the lowercase signifier? Why not Designer or Designers?
If you had read my comment carefully, you would know. It's because the scientific inference does not extend so far as to include the nature of the designer or designers, only that design is the best explanation for the existence of the phenomena. For your information, personally, I believe that the designers were souls very much like ourselves, but not incarnate at that time. So an upper case "D" is not appropriate in any case.Bruce David_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

"Let’s take back words and their real meaning. I’ll join with you in that struggle, Gregory." With the term 'design/Design' as used by the IDM, I'm sad to say that it seems like a lost cause. And worse, IDists don't seem to care less how they've left the place. Sloppy and disgusting, worse for wear. But still triumphantly trumpeting 'Scientific Revolution!' in the name of 'Design,' right folks? I can't recall how many times I've pointed out at UD that 'design theory' is alive and well in higher education today; it has *nothing* to do with IDT and wants nothing to do with it either. IDists just don't seem to get this, nor are they willing to look into it. Not long ago I was giving a presentation in a large room full of 'design theorists' who laughed (with me) when the concept duo 'Intelligent Design' was raised. They all quite easily saw through IDism's 'biological Design' facade. How many UDists have been in such a situation and nevertheless still emerged as self-styled 'martyrs' for the IDM's historically speculative scientistic theory, claiming positive religiosity for their American evangelical tribalism? Anyone?Gregory_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

…stained in history…
Not necessarily. We don’t have to agree to the subversion of commonly agreed words like “design”. We can insist that new concepts (maybe ID will come up with one one day) have to find their own words. Let’s take back words and their real meaning. I’ll join with you in that struggle, Gregory. For us who have sausage fingers and a short attention span an edit button would be a small kindness.Alan Fox_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

...stained in history... Not necessarily. We don't have to agree to the subversion of commonly agreed words like "design". We can insist that new concepts (maybe ID will come up with one one day) have to find their own words. Let's take back words and their real meaning. I'll join with you in that struggle, Gregory.
Alan Fox_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Guilty of repeating: "Hawking...makes a complete ass of himself by speaking outside of his field." Fine, can we move on then? Y'know, IDism = biological argument for God (but claims to be 'strictly [natural] scientific'? The term ‘design’ is now (at least for the forseeable future) stained in history by the IDM’s scientism! :(Gregory_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Oops HTML error that should be obvious, obvioulsy to the cognoscenti! ;)Alan Fox_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

<blockquote<Perhaps “make an ass of himself” is just crude timaean language. Nevertheless, Hawking is teetering on quackery rather than responsible ‘science’ so it seems to this amateur. Gregory, don't blame Timaeus for your own choice of language. Tea culpa!Alan Fox_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the respect of your correction, Alan. Yes, startling it may seem. I don't disagree with timaeus about everything. If he didn't suffer so tragically from Expelled Syndrome and hadn't fallen brain-first ideologically into IDism's trap, I even believe he could have been a decent scholar in science and religion discourse. But that's an aside to the reality we find ourselves in now. I've been reading cosmologists and physicists recently and even discussing with them. Hawking goes overboard similarly to how Dawkins does in his anti-theism, wrapped in scientific garb. It is scientism of a similar variety to IDist leaders such as Meyer, Dembski and Behe. That' why they make such precious dancing partners, entertaining to watch but not envious in any way to join. Perhaps "make an ass of himself" is just crude timaean language. Nevertheless, Hawking is teetering on quackery rather than responsible 'science' so it seems to this amateur.Gregory_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Apologies: Dr S.Alan Fox_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Alan, I agree that Hawking makes an ass of himself with exaggerations of what he ‘scientifically’ knows.
*steps back in amazement* Agree with whom, Mr S? Hawking may enter the realm of the speculative, but he does not make an ass of himself.Alan Fox_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Alan, I agree that Hawking makes an ass of himself with exaggerations of what he ‘scientifically’ knows. His “The Grand Design” seems to flirt with Dawkins for how many ridiculous things he can say on topics he is ignorant about. And his positivistic, scientific anti-realism is highly problematic from a PoS perspective, in contrast to say Penrose’s realism. Nevertheless, as with you, I'd welcome responses from IDists here about ISSR's statement, in addition to timaeus' rose-coloured glasses assessment.
"ID, as a theory, is about inferring *a designer*. Full stop."
IDT is a 'strictly [natural] scientific' theory about inferring an uppercase Designer, full stop. You should recognise the difference, timaeus, but are consistently too stubborn to admit it in public. It's a "biological argument for God," timaeus, according to some people here and the title of this thread. Wake up, take the cotton out of your ears!
"There is no trickery in my use of ID rather than IDT."
Do you deny then that 'Intelligent Design' is proposed and promoted as a 'strictly [natural] scientific' theory by Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Wells & Nelson? If you answer 'No,' then that's trickery.
"I am only interested in the question whether there is design in nature" - timaeus
In a fantasy world, perhaps that might be true. But you have concluded that 'there is' already. I have proof of this in your own words, timaeus, which upon seeing again you would take back as a chronic waffle does, and just as you’ve done here before. Claiming there need be some kind of ‘honest question’ about "whether there is" is once again disingenuous. But as a religious scholar, I'm sure that doesn't cross your mind, timaeus, does it? The ‘design argument’ is accepted by all Abrahamic believers; it is IDT that is properly reject as scientistic. Have you no real life contact with honourable and credible scholars in your life, timaeus, e.g. cosmologists, biologists, physicists, etc.? You seem to waste so much time and effort on IDists, atheists and anti-theists that it makes you angry and self-isolating from the Expelled Syndrome you've contracted. I've watched over 4 years as you try desperately to defend IDism, while missing out on good and important scholarship by people you could possibly admire and have fellowship with, but which are outside of your hyper-IDist radar. It is saddening why you have chosen this ignoble path, when better options are available.
"I would not try to pry it out of you if the person spoke to you in confidence." – timaeus
Man, get on with your life. Scholars are active around the world on serious and significant topics. You belittle yourself by considering UD your main 'academic' publishing venue. For how much better you loudly proclaim education was 'back in your day', you seem oblivious to the current academic landscape to even imagine that UD is an ‘academic’ venue or that the same standards hold here. Try talking to a non-IDist academic religious and take a risk to return to reality. It would do you at least some good, if not curing you entirely from Expelled Syndrome IDism.
“Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence “intelligently designed.” The hallmark of intelligent design [read: Uppercase Intelligent Design theory], however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I’m dubious about that.” – A. Plantinga

“When using the word “intelligence,” I keep it in lower case if I am referring to an attribute of intelligent beings, but I use capital letters (e.g. “an Intelligence”) when I am referring to the Designer of Nature – a Being Whom I believe to be God.” – V.J. Torley
If only timaeus were as forthcoming at UD as Torley or Plantinga!! The thread starts with "Ratio Christi, a Christian campus ministry..." Maybe that could give timaeus a hint that 'strictly [natural] scientific' is a mis-attribution for IDT. But since his IDists comrades believe it, he won't openly say it.Gregory_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

@ Timaeus Hawking unworthy? For shame!Alan Fox_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

My pleasure at seeing the smiley appear as wished is somewhat diminished by the typo; :sad: makesAlan Fox_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

I do believe it is a particular gift of the peoples of English-speaking countries.
Axel, you're scaring me :shock: You're saying thing that make sense to me!Alan Fox_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Gregory: Dembski does indeed speak in some places of transcendent designers etc. And I think he personally believes that ultimately ID pushes one back to a transcendent designer. It does not follow that ID, understood as a theory of design detection, requires a *transcendent* designer. ID, as a theory, is about inferring *a designer*. Full stop. The determination that the designer is *transcendent* proceeds from further reasoning, *after the design inference has been made*. And the conclusion that the designer must be a transcendent one is not in itself a *design* inference. It is an inference of another kind. Dembski, I believe, would agree with this. So would all the other leading ID proponents, as far as I know. But why do you constantly "privilege" (and here I use the word correctly) Dembski's statements as if they are the final word on ID? Dembski has been at best *primus inter pares* of the ID leaders, and arguably is no longer even that. I would say that currently he is less visible than the other ID leaders, certainly less visible than Meyer. In any case, he has never had any authority vested in him by the others to lay down the law on what ID is. Yet you keep throwing quotations from him in everyone's face, as if he has such authority. I assume that your motive for doing, this, like your motive in everything you write here, is political, i.e., that you seek to win a culture-war victory over ID fans by using Dembski in this way. But since I grant Dembski no special authority to define ID, your victory is hollow. I'm as free to reject particular statements of Dembski as I am to reject particular statements of Fuller or anyone else who claims to understand "what ID is." I defer to the minimalist definition of ID (chance alone is inadequate, intelligent cause needed) set forth in many Discovery documents. Beyond that, I defer to no ID proponent. I simply agree with the ones I agree with, and disagree with the ones I disagree with. There is no trickery in my use of ID rather than IDT. I've rarely said anything but "ID" from day one. You are the one who keeps inventing unnecessary, unwanted, and confusing variants -- IDT, big-ID, small-id, etc. Most ID people just say ID, meaning "intelligent design", and leave the determination of the narrower meaning (a theory of design detection, the actual design(s) detected by the method, the general intellectual movement, etc.) to the context. ID certainly could be a "strictly scientific theory." I don't say it is, but it could be. Your statement is dogmatic and, as usual, without evidence. But of course I am utterly uninterested in whether it is labelled science or philosophy, theory or hypothesis. Those are questions for tenured and tenure-seeking academics to argue about. I am only interested in the question whether there is design in nature, and whether said design is sufficiently in evidence as, if not to "prove" design, at least to invalidate the overclaims of the atheists that all apparent design is known (because of Darwin) to be illusory design. I am satisfied that the answer is yes to both questions. You disagree. You have every right to disagree. As Frank Sinatra sang, "everybody has a right to be wrong." :-) As for your failure to answer my earlier question, yes, you are right; you are under no obligation to reveal the identity of the cosmologist who in your judgment (but, I suspect, in the judgment of no one else here) is "world class". And I would not try to pry it out of you if the person spoke to you in confidence. But it would be interesting to know the name of yet another arrogant physics/cosmology prof, who, along with Hawking, Sean Carroll, Krauss, etc. makes a complete ass of himself by speaking outside of his field.Timaeus_{September 6, 2013
September
09
Sep
6
06
2013
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply