Thanks to Phillip Johnson (or, Darwinism in its Death Throes)

_{Gil Dodgen

November 18, 2007

Darwinism}

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

On a private listserve which shall remain unnamed, I posted the following to Phillip Johnson. Phil deserves a tremendous amount of gratitude for his insight and courage.

Dear Phillip,

Neither you nor I have any notion of the magnitude of the ripple effects that have emanated from Darwin On Trial, but I can tell you this: That book cut through all the Darwinian story-telling presented as science like a razor. Darwin On Trial, combined with Michael Denton’s first book, made me slap myself on the forehead and proclaim, “Holy mackerel, I’ve been conned!”

Darwinism is in its evidential, mathematical, intellectual, philosophical, and ethical death throes — thus all the hysteria on the part of its adamant proponents, whose meaning in life (or lack thereof) is inextricably linked to it.

Thanks for your contribution in helping to reveal and clarify the essential issues, which have been, and continue to be, veiled in a pedantic smokescreen by Dawinists.

Gil

Comments

But your comments largely consisted of personal attacks on PlatosPlaything. That’s unacceptable. First warning. Her arguments are often purely personal so there's nothing left to deal with, for instance she says she knew she was a pagan as a little girl. It seems reasonable to ask what happened when she was a little girl that made up her mind and created the pattern of thought that governs the rest of her life. It's ashame what happens to cloud the mind sometimes.mynym_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

1: You know almost nothing about me. I can only know what you write, i.e. text that is presumably an artifact of your mind. If that is nothing about you then why are you taking what I write so personally? 2: If I had said I had been a Christian since I was little, would you have gotten so angry? You're trying to tell me what my feelings are again and simply assuming that I will accept your own projections. Discussing the history of paganism and making judgments about some forms of paganism, even harsh judgments, is no evidence that anyone is angry about anything. For that matter, it's possible to treat a pattern of thought with contempt and disdain without being angry about it. 3: If I said I had been Hindu, or had converted to Hinduism, would you have gotten so angry? If you could try to deal with things without trying to tell others what their personal feeling are then you probably wouldn't take things so personally. I said that Wicca has more to do with what some fellow in a bathrobe pontificated than sound philosophy and logic and ever since you've been saying that I'm an angry fellow. I'm not angry about it. I typically don't get angry so perhaps I'm not as angry as I should be about such charlatanism. 4: Are your statements about pagans based on actual experience, or Chick tracts. I'm not sure that Chick is big on some of the Gnostic heresies symbolized in what I referred to above and the like. If you're going to mention a pattern based on texts that you read then you need to be able to cite it. I've never read a Chick tract but if you want to cite one for comparison then I'm interested in seeing it. Perhaps what you mean by experience may reduce to have I given a pagan a lil' hug to prove that I'm a nice fellow. Why yes, yes I have, yet I can still make some sharply negative judgments about some forms of paganism based on logic and history. That's because whether or not I'm an angry fellow and so on has no bearing on the history of Nature based paganism and the illogical forms of thought typical to it such as those symbolized by ancient critics.mynym_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I think we have come to a meeting of minds at least on this particular issue.magnan_{November 26, 2007
November
11
Nov
26
26
2007
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Magnan: Good question. In my judgment, one benefit of showing that ID and Judeo Chrisitanity are compatible is to show that Judeo Chrisitanity and Darwinism are not. Darwinism insists that there is no design in nature, contradicting a core teaching in the Bible, which holds that design in nature is manifest, indeed that it is self evident. Many Darwinists claim to be devout Chrisitans even though their Darwinism (no design) and their Chrisitanity (design) cannot be reconciled, at least on that basis. They recruit other Christians by telling them that there is no contradiction between these two world views. That is a lie and I think that they should be called on it. Part of their "wedge" strategy is to keep silent about the difference.StephenB_{November 25, 2007
November
11
Nov
25
25
2007
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Re. StephenB (#129), To me it didn't seem to be "jumping the gun" to attribute a certain agenda to statements describing how ID theory is in accordance with some tenets of Christian theology. It may not be the case on your part, but usually such argumentation is used directly to support the overall truth of a religion. If part of the body of teachings is in accordance with what appears to be a truth of Nature, then the entire body of teachings must be correct, or so it is argued. In the case of Christianity the various revelatory tenets such as the nature and importance of Jesus appear to be inextricable from the overall theology, so a claim of the validity of another aspect of the theology (correspondence to ID theory) implies the truth of the rest of the theology. That seems to be the thinking here. If not, then why the effort to show correspondences between the Judeo-Christian world view and ID theory?magnan_{November 25, 2007
November
11
Nov
25
25
2007
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

--Webwander: “Your hierarchy, which leads with religious truth, must be secondary to what is fundamental in life.” --StephenB“Ah, yes, but how do we know what “fundamental” is? If we live beyond the grave, the definition of what matters most is far different that if we don’t. If we are “fallen angels,” (Christianity), that is one thing, if we are risen beasts (Darwinism), that is something entirely different.” Fair enough, but this gives but two options based on religious vs. materialistic concepts. Neither has been conclusively demonstrated as true. There are certainly other possibilities offered by other religions and philosophies. While I would agree that one must live from their clearest present understanding, there must also be an ever present willingness to let go of current beliefs and move on to greater understanding when evidence and insight warrant. --StephenB “Everything turns on our definition of what it means to be human. Besides knowing “what” we are, we also need to know “why” we are here and “where” we are going—or if we are going nowhere. If we can’t answer those questions, then we can hardly know ‘what is fundamental in life.’ Only religion can answer that question,” We may not know precisely what is fundamental to life, but we can conclude that something is. Knowing clearly “what” we are may well go a long way toward answering why we are here and where we are going. One problem is that we are so full of "concepts" of what we are that the essence of our being is severely obscured. It may be better to begin at least, to understand what we are not. If we subtract enough misperceptions about being, what remains may become clearer. It may be a stretch to say “only”. Religion may well be helpful in pointing to possibilities that may, or may not, be accurately represented and understood, but non-religious philosophies may go where specific religions cannot. --StephenB “If a religion shows itself to be untrue, it must be rejected.” I don’t consider religious teachings to be an all or nothing engagement. Many religious faithful have told me that if I don’t accept all, I must reject all. It’s just not that way. In a genuine search for truth one must gain insight where ever it is found. There is no requirement in life to reject an entire religion or philosophy simply because one disagrees with parts of it. There well yet be some grains of wheat among the chaff. In any case, it is each individual who is responsible to his/her own experience for what is accepted as true. Good luck on your choices.Webwanderer_{November 23, 2007
November
11
Nov
23
23
2007
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

-----StephanB: (129) “(2) Truth comes to us in a hierarchy. Religious truth illuminates philosophical truth, which, in turn, illuminates scientific truth. Also, religious truth itself comes in hierarchies.” -----Webwanderer responds, “I won’t bother to debate your hierarchy except to point out that it omits the most important truth of all…Fundamental truth. Your hierarchy, which leads with religious truth, must be secondary to what is fundamental in life. At least philosophical truth and scientific truth seeks out fundamental truth. It is only religious truth that suffers the restrictions of exclusivity to existing scripture, and therein lies its weakness. The presumption of scriptures written by the hand of God or by “his” emissaries, as being inviolate is more of a barrier to discovery than it is a guide.” (1) It was the religious notion that God created a rational universe that gave science the confidence to probe in earnest for regularity and order. While the Greeks introduced a special approach to science, it was left for Christianity to confirm that God is not frivolous, meaning that he does not surprise his creatures by changing the laws of nature on a whim. Scientists came believe that God created a rational universe and that they could “think God’s thoughts after him.” This confidence propelled science to new heights, and is the real foundation for all modern science. The new kid on the block, methodological naturalism, has turned out to be a juvenile delinquent. (2) Revealed truth is indeed risky business. That is why we should put every religion and every religious leader to the test of reason prior to giving our assent of faith: (a) Was the religious leader foretold or pre-announced? We don’t want to be caught off guard by a false prophet. (b) Did the leader perform miracles and “attribute those miracles to his Divinity? Anyone can claim to have been sent by God. (c) Did the leader ever say or do anything contrary to right reason. What sense does it make to turn one’s life over to a charlatan? I personally would not submit to any religious tradition or leader that cannot pass that minimal test. -----Your hierarchy, which leads with religious truth, must be secondary to what is fundamental in life. Ah, yes, but how do we know what “fundamental” is? If we live beyond the grave, the definition of what matters most is far different that if we don’t. If we are “fallen angels,” (Christianity), that is one thing, if we are risen beasts (Darwinism), that is something entirely different. If we have inherent dignity (Christianity), that is a radically different than being abject slaves (Islam). Everything turns on our definition of what it means to be human. Besides knowing “what” we are, we also need to know “why” we are here and “where” we are going---or if we are going nowhere. If we can’t answer those questions, then we can hardly know “what is fundamental in life.” Only religion can answer that question, and individual religions can only answer them to the extent that they are legitimate representations of the will and mind of God. Legitimate authority is a wonderful thing; illegitimate authority is a terrible thing. -----“Nothing is beyond question in an honest search for truth, especially our religious tenets, if for no other reason than the intensity in which we guide our lives by our religious faith. If our religious beliefs are true, then our search for truth is no threat to them and can only reinforce them. If, on the other hand, our religious beliefs are faulty, do we not want them exposed as soon as possible? Would we not want to be free of our misperception and ignorance? To feel otherwise is disingenuous and has no place in science of any kind.” Exactly right. If a religion shows itself to be untrue, it must be rejected. Obviously, that also applies to the religion of materialism. Only the mad man has no doubts. Isn’t it interesting that neither radical Islamists nor militant atheists ever have any doubts at all? That is why, in the name of their religion, one group murders infidels while the other murders babies. Nor does either group hesitate to enslave all in their path on the grounds that the “true” religion must be enforced. I’m with you all the way on this one. Give me the man who asks questions and spare me the self-assured ideologue. On the other hand, we should not fall into the error of believing that there is no such thing as truth. Radical skepticism is not the antidote to intolerant dogmatism. As G. K. Chesterton put it, “the purpose of opening the mind is to close it on something solid,” namely truth. To pursue truth passionately and defend if faithfully---- without being an insufferable ideologue---that is the challenge.StephenB_{November 23, 2007
November
11
Nov
23
23
2007
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

mynym: If you want to debate history and the root of modern reasoning that is fine. But your comments largely consisted of personal attacks on PlatosPlaything. That's unacceptable. First warning. PlatosPlaything: Try not to respond in kind. Solon: I'll be watching you closely.Patrick_{November 23, 2007
November
11
Nov
23
23
2007
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

StephanB: (129) “(2) Truth comes to us in a hierarchy. Religious truth illuminates philosophical truth, which, in turn, illuminates scientific truth. Also, religious truth itself comes in hierarchies.” I won’t bother to debate your hierarchy except to point out that it omits the most important truth of all…Fundamental truth. Your hierarchy, which leads with religious truth, must be secondary to what is fundamental in life. At least philosophical truth and scientific truth seeks out fundamental truth. It is only religious truth that suffers the restrictions of exclusivity to existing scripture, and therein lies its weakness. The presumption of scriptures written by the hand of God or by “his” emissaries, as being inviolate is more of a barrier to discovery than it is a guide. Nothing is beyond question in an honest search for truth, especially our religious tenets, if for no other reason than the intensity in which we guide our lives by our religious faith. If our religious beliefs are true, then our search for truth is no threat to them and can only reinforce them. If, on the other hand, our religious beliefs are faulty, do we not want them exposed as soon as possible? Would we not want to be free of our misperception and ignorance? To feel otherwise is disingenuous and has no place in science of any kind.Webwanderer_{November 23, 2007
November
11
Nov
23
23
2007
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

------magnam: “but that in itself (my statement that to be Christian is to be ID) does not establish that the Bible is the one and only truthful Divine teaching. This line of argument seems to be going in the direction of claiming that one must be a Christian to be an ID adherent.” (1) To say that the Bible is pro-ID is not to say that ID is to be Judeo/Christian. It is not a "bi-conditional proposition--that is if A/then B does not translate into If B/than A. You seem to be jumping the gun a little bit here. (2) Truth comes to us in a hierarchy. Religious truth illuminates philosophical truth, which, in turn, illuminates scientific truth. Also, religious truth itself comes in hierarchies. All religions contain “some” truth; each contains varying degrees of truth. The religions themselves array themselves in a “truth” hierarchy. (a) To what extent does a religion acknowledge a monotheistic God? (b) To what extent does a religion recognize the inherent dignity of the human person? (c) To what extent does a religion facilitate moral growth? (d) To what extent can a religion provide the philosophical underpinning for a well-ordered society? (e) To what extent does a religion reflect the human condition? (f) To what extent does a religion faithfully reflect the necessary conditions for salvation? The list could contain at least fifty more questions. On another post, I actually placed them in a hierarchy, but I will leave that judgment to you for now. Suffice it to say, that “the one and only truthful Divine teaching” is much too simplistic a formulation. -----“That the Bible appears to promote a “realistic” epistemology and metaphysics in accordance with ID theory is apparent, and is obviously why many ID advocates are Christians. But the primary message of the New Testament is the message of Jesus. This is interpreted as the teaching of Jesus as the one and only Son of God, of the Triune God, and that any who do not accept Him are destined to eternity in Hell. Other claims often made include that Scripture is the direct Word of God to be interpreted literally. These revelatory and exclusionary claims are not established as the truth just because the general epistemology and metaphysics of the Bible appear to be in accordance with ID theory.” That’s true. Once again, you seem to be jumping the gun. Those extrapolations are yours, not mine. ----To my statement---“The Bible promotes a “realistic” epistemology and realistic metaphysics….We do not get this vision from any other belief system, either from atheism or Islam…..Only the Judeo/Christian world view in harmony with Aristotle and Aquinas can provide it.” -------------------You responded, “This is quite a claim and you would need to establish this. Please include the Bahai faith, Buddhism, Vedanta and Theosophy. Even if it were true, a non-Christian relationship with God is not precluded.” (1) The Bible is very clear in saying that (a) God is creator, and (b) that the design in nature is manifest to the point of being self evident, so much so, that anyone who would deny it is “without excuse.” Do you know of any other belief system that teaches anything like (b)? In this sense, the Judeo/Christian vision is exclusive, is it not? (2) I have no idea why you introduce that subject of establishing a “relationship with God,” since I did not discuss it in any way.StephenB_{November 23, 2007
November
11
Nov
23
23
2007
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

StephenB: "To put it bluntly, Scripture is pro ID and anti-skepticism, both philosophically and theologically." I agree, but that in itself does not establish that the Bible is the one and only truthful Divine teaching. This line of argument seems to be going in the direction of claiming that one must be a Christian to be an ID adherent. That the Bible appears to promote a "realistic" epistemology and metaphysics in accordance with ID theory is apparent, and is obviously why many ID advocates are Christians. But the primary message of the New Testament is the message of Jesus. This is interpreted as the teaching of Jesus as the one and only Son of God, of the Triune God, and that any who do not accept Him are destined to eternity in Hell. Other claims often made include that Scripture is the direct Word of God to be interpreted literally. These revelatory and exclusionary claims are not established as the truth just because the general epistemology and metaphysics of the Bible appear to be in accordance with ID theory. To use an unpleasant example, Darwin's On the Origin of Species describes many examples of apparent descent with modification in nature that are either breeding for modified allele frequencies within strict species limits, or microvolution (i.e. finches' beaks in the Galapagos). These are clearly actual mechanisms of limited descent with modification and correspond with scientific truth. But the overarching claims of the book are that these mechanisms are the underlying truth of evolution of all life. This large claim of the work is a claim not scientific truth and not established by the previous observations of nature. "The Bible promotes a “realistic” epistemology and realistic metaphysics....We do not get this vision from any other belief system, either from atheism or Islam.....Only the Judeo/Christian world view in harmony with Aristotle and Aquinas can provide it." This is quite a claim and you would need to establish this. Please include the Bahai faith, Buddhism, Vedanta and Theosophy. Even if it were true, a non-Christian relationship with God is not precluded.magnan_{November 23, 2007
November
11
Nov
23
23
2007
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

Zoe (& Stephen B): A few remarks are plainly still in order. 1] "Facetious'? First Zoe, not so fast; your rhetorical tactics reveal a deeper problem. For instance, "facetious" does not constitute a good enough response to my observations on your statement in 113: "BTW, we [pagans] invented logic. Every heard of a guy called Aristotle?" Let's replay a bit of the tape from 118:
Sorry, logic is not an invention but a discoverable (though immaterial!) reality written into how or minds and languages work, and indeed into how the observable world works. [Think about your reaction when you stand by a Zebra crossing and see a car racing up to it.] Aristotle worked to systematise a certain view of logic, through the syllogisms and of course related enthymemes. But in fact, logic is built in to the foundation of creation. And indeed, that is exactly what the Judaeo-Christian tradition recognised and taught long before Aristotle — or, indeed, Greek culture as we know it — was born.
Now, of course, Christian and Jewish thinkers, in their critical synthesis of the inheritance we share form classical culture used Aristotle's systematisation of logic, and for that matter the broader approach of Isocrates and co to rhetoric and education. And indeed, Greek and Hellenistic culture [broader than just Greek (hint: why do we count time in sexagesimal units, and why do we use a phonetic alphabet), without having to take on board all that is in Bernal, Diop et al] is a major part of trhe intellectual foundations of Western and world culture. No serious Christain or Jewish thinker disputes that. But, equally, we do have reason to note and object that there is a current tendency to run up long litanies of the real or imagined sins of Christendom while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge -- or even insistently dismissing or denigrating -- the role and value of specifically Judaeo-Christian contributions and critical syntheses [starting with a certain Tent-making Rabbi from that Asian city, Tarsus, but including especially men like Augustine and Aquinas etc, not to mention the likes of a Faraday or a Maxwell or a Lord Kelvin or even a Wilberforce or a Buxton or a George Liele]; contributions that have ALSO played critical roles in the late classical, medieval and modern development of Western Civilisation. It is this attitude and the de-Christianising, Anti-Christian hostility that it represents, that are -- in light of the all too telling recent history of the latest major attempt to revert to paganism in Germany several decades ago -- ever so sadly telling and portentous. 2] The specifically Hebraic contribution Going yet deeper, there is also a tendency to dismiss the force of the point that the C15 - C10 BC Hebraic critical synthesis of ANE cultural elements under Yahwehistic, monotheistic influence through Moshe and his successors also antedates and anticipates and even balances certain elemetns in the more celebrated Greek classical synthesis. As I noted in 118, therefore, I now again excerpt:
Cf. the Wisdom literature in the Bible, e.g. here is the personification of Wisdom, C10 BC: PR 8:22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; PR 8:23 I was appointed from eternity,from the beginning, before the world began . . . . PR 8:27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep . . .
Without debating the detailed interpretation of Genesis [which, with due allowance for genre etc, has far more credibility and force than the pagan myths [as opposed to, say, Deist philosophy] you evidently would substitute!], this is a clear statement that wisdom - the object of philosophy was built into the cosmic order from eternity past, including not only logical, metaphysical and epistemic elements but also spiritual and moral ones. And, shutting one's eyes to such evidence from creation without and our hearts and minds within lands us in the deepest folly and bondage to the worst of sins, not only the obvious ones but also that most terrible and most foolish of all sins: arrogant, wise in one's own eyes pride. This brings us right back to the crucial issue of: 3] A discoverable reality On this StephenB is tellingly on target:
. . . let’s expand on an agreed upon fact . . . that logic was indeed discovered by asking the relevant question: Why was logic discovered? It was discovered because it was set up by the Creator as one of the many clues to be found in his creation. To be more precise, logic was fashioned as a mental tool by which we can apprehend rational truths outside of the mind. That means logic relates to, or to put it more technically, is in correspondence with, reality. Thus, we have a big picture that looks like this: God created 1) a rational universe, 2) a rational mind to comprehend the rational universe, and 3) an ontological connection between the two. Take away any one of these three components, and no one could investigate anything in any context. This also happens to be the Judeo/Christian world view—a Biblical vision of reality.
He is therefore very right to echo that scarred old tentmaker form Tarsus, and it is well worth reading on in Rom 1 from v 20 which he cites, especially:
RO 1:28 Furthermore, since [men in rebellion against what God has written into the face of creation without and on the tablets of our hearts and minds within] did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless . . .
Resemblance to the current situation, ideas and decadent-destructive trends in Western civilisation is NOT coincidental. 4] Zoe, 121: it’s getting a little crazy if you think you have to accept Jesus as your personal savior before you can be logical! (Quite the opposite, I think!). Pardon, your hostility is showing, and -- given your highly selective engagement above -- it is warping your ability to address the issue. FYI, here is a somewhat updated version of my introductory lecture on phil method for a class I once taught in one of those Evangelical Seminaries you are -- given the plain import and tone of your dismissive "Quite the opposite" -- plainly wont to dismiss as being inherently and inescapably irrational. You will therefore understand the following: I challenge you to find what is in the linked an inescapably irrational and indefensible approach -- as opposed to a critical Judaeo-Christian synthesis in the spirit of say Ac 17. Failing that, you owe us a bigtime apology, madam. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 22, 2007
November
11
Nov
22
22
2007
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

#123 Mynym: I have very little say to you, except this: 1: You know almost nothing about me. 2: If I had said I had been a Christian since I was little, would you have gotten so angry? 3: If I said I had been Hindu, or had converted to Hinduism, would you have gotten so angry? 4: Are your statements about pagans based on actual experience, or Chick tracts. Zoe. (not a vegetarian, but a lesbian who has never been domestically abused).PlatosPlaything_{November 22, 2007
November
11
Nov
22
22
2007
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

-----PlatosPlaything: “I think it was clear that I was being a little facetious in saying Aristotle invented logic. Of course it was discovered. But it wasn’t discovered, as you say, in creation. Even if one was to accept the myth of Genesis, and imagine that some solitary, human-like intelligence made the world, It could not have made it in such a way that, say, modus ponens did not hold (see, I studied philosophy at college!).” -----Magnam: “This seems to me to be accurate. But from the “outside” as a nonChristian ID advocate, an important psychological aspect has been left out. This is that such an approach of course presupposes the underlying truth of the worldview in which interpretations of Scripture are actually relevant to science. This worldview is assumed a priori. Of course other worldviews are assumed a priori by other ID advocates, with the common ground being rejection of Darwinism and acceptance of the overwhelming evidence that there is some great Intelligence behind life and the universe.” Let's look at both objections from the vantage point of philosophical "realism." First, let’s expand on an agreed upon fact (courtesy of kairosfocus #118) that logic was indeed discovered by asking the relevant question: Why was logic discovered? It was discovered because it was set up by the Creator as one of the many clues to be found in his creation. To be more precise, logic was fashioned as a mental tool by which we can apprehend rational truths outside of the mind. That means logic relates to, or to put it more technically, is in correspondence with, reality. Thus, we have a big picture that looks like this: God created 1) a rational universe, 2) a rational mind to comprehend the rational universe, and 3) an ontological connection between the two. Take away any one of these three components, and no one could investigate anything in any context. This also happens to be the Judeo/Christian world view—a Biblical vision of reality. That is why scripture emphasis a Creator God who “designed” the world in such a way that the design is “evident. Indeed, St. Paul” goes so far that those who deny this self-evident nature about design inference “are without excuse.” To put it bluntly, Scripture is pro ID and anti-skepticism, both philosophically and theologically. (That means we should abandone the radical epistemologies of non-correspondence such as “pre-established harmony,” and “parallelism.”) According to the Christian vision, we live in a real world and we can apprehend that real world, even though we must learn about it in bits and pieces. To be logical and rational, we ought to reject the entire agenda of modern philosophy, which holds that we first know our own thoughts, not real things existing outside our mind. It is the reverse that is true. From an epistemological perspective, we are investigators in search of knowable truth, though, for far too long, we have allowed the investigator to intrude on the investigation. The Bible promotes a “realistic” epistemology and realistic metaphysics. We do not get this vision from any other belief system, either from atheism or Islam. Only the Judeo/Christian world view in harmony with Aristotle and Aquinas can provide it. Inasmuch as agnostics or Moslems can sign on to ID, it is to that extent that they agree with Christians that we live in a rational universe, the design of which has been made manifest. What they may disagree with Christians about is that the ultimate meaning of that design. Christians believe that the universe was designed for “soul making,” and that it provides the stage on which we all work out our eternal destinies. The notion that the creation “did not hold” does not reflect on the quality of the creation, unless one expects the “garden of Eden” to be impervious to the mischief (sin) of its inhabitants. According to the book of Genesis, that is exactly what happened. An engineer can create a perfect automobile, but if a reckless driver damages it, it is not the engineer who should be held accountable. There is only way to guarantee that the debacle will not occur --- remove all risk by taking away the driver’s freedom.StephenB_{November 22, 2007
November
11
Nov
22
22
2007
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Is it embarrassment on the part of some? Could it be arrogance on the part of others? Just how refined, dear Id’ers, would you like your tent to be? This blog has always been defined by the decisions of moderates and not by a philosophy represented by the big tent metaphor. It's not as if the policies of this blog represent the ID movement in general. But the comments here may be representative, it seems to me that all it takes to understand most of them is an understanding that ID is a necessary but not sufficient component of Christianity, therefore it's not the equivalent of defined or "fundamentalist" forms of Christianity. For a current example of this distinction see the case of Antony Flew, as he notes he is now more open to Christianity than he used to be but currently he isn't a Christian. Ironically ID is similar to the "publick religion" which Benjamin Franklin argued was necessary for a Republic to stand, yet this is the very sort of distinction that federal judges are apparently now too incompetent to make. The Supreme Court once tried to admit to a distinction so obvious that even an ignorant schoolboy is capable of knowledge of it by specifying it as "ceremonial deism" but it's a little more than that. Anyway, the fact that ID is not necessarily the equivalent of Christianity is not really that difficult to understand.mynym_{November 22, 2007
November
11
Nov
22
22
2007
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Gee thanks. (BTW, we invented logic. Every heard of a guy called Aristotle?) The Jewish and Christian view is that all of humanity sits on one family tree ultimately created in some way by and through Logos... and shouldn't you be stressing unity over separation anyway? After all, I'm sure we can all come together and looove each other. Don’t even get me started on the Christian sense of victimization. Victimization is a universal language of mankind and can be found everywhere, yet it seems to lie at the root of almost all neopagan logic. Oh, and I’ve known I was a pagan since I was a little girl. And I’ve had this kind of treatment from guys like you (you’re a guy, right?) pretty much since then. Yes, it does seem that your psychological dynamics are clear. So, what happened when you were a little girl which made your mind up about things for the rest of your life? And no, I don’t think of myself as a victim. Then perhaps you should try to craft some arguments which do not rely on victimization for whatever moral force they have. Man, there’s a lot of anger here. Is it here? How do you feel it? If you're not lost in your own feelings then note how psychotic a victimization complex can become:
After the last beating, she said to me: 'Look at you. Everyone's going to think you're the victim'.(The Guardian (London) October 19, 1998 The Guardian Features Page; Pg. 8 Silent partners, byline: Mel Steel)
Why do you suppose that she was so concerned with maintaining an immanent Victim status and was so ignorant of transcendent things? Why do you suppose that rates of domestic violence are so much higher among lesbians? At any rate, did you know that the gnostic symbolism shows Solomon slaying a female demon, why do you suppose they represented his wisdom overcoming a malevolent feminine form? For example:
...here as there we have the astonishing combination of familiar representations from the gospels (Annunciation, Nativity, Baptism, Crucifixion, Resurrection on the bracelets) with figures like the Egyptian solar Chnoubis-serpent, so frequent on ‘Gnostic’ intaglios, the ‘Seal of Solomon’ and King Solomon himself on horse back, treading down and transfixing with his lance the female evil demon.
(Three Elusive Amulets by A. A. Barb Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 27. (1964) :1-22) It's interesting to note that they also represented the symbolic Serpent slithering through the Tree of Life while eating its own tale. Here Zoe, how about a little zoological tale for anyone who feel that they have a tender lil' heart just because they like animals and their likeness: Once upon a time there was a man named Cain. He tilled the soil and he was a vegetarian. Because of this he thought to himself, "See how pure I am!" He looked at his brother one day and saw that he killed animals as if that could be sacred. So he thought to himself, "His hands are bloody! But look at mine, they are clean." He began to think, "Why does he kill the animals. It's just not nice." Then he began to feel, "It's just not nice! But I, well, I am nice..." He began to see his brother a little differently, losing eyes to see his brother as human, instead he saw him as some sort of animal. So he came to think, "Why...he is just a vermin! But I am nice. I am the nice one here. Why doesn't the One like me! See how they victimize me!" So he took a rock and crept up behind his brother and killed him because he was just an animal. The end. The curious thing about it is that if pagans who have a misanthropic attitude with respect to the Tree of Life are for "animal rights" then in accordance with the logic of their own zoologic one would think that they'd be for the rights of the people that they portray as animals and so on. Is that not a logical conclusion, Zoe? If so, then why do you suppose that so many pagans fail to make it?mynym_{November 22, 2007
November
11
Nov
22
22
2007
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

StephenB: ".....if any scientific truth appears to contradict their (most ID advocates who embrace Christianity) interpretation of scripture, either their interpretation of Scripture is wrong, or their interpretation of that scientific truth is wrong. When they comment on this blog, they feel free to express their religious beliefs, and they generally use good judgment when relating their religious beliefs to the discipline of ID science." This seems to me to be accurate. But from the "outside" as a nonChristian ID advocate, an important psychological aspect has been left out. This is that such an approach of course presupposes the underlying truth of the worldview in which interpretations of Scripture are actually relevant to science. This worldview is assumed a priori. Of course other worldviews are assumed a priori by other ID advocates, with the common ground being rejection of Darwinism and acceptance of the overwhelming evidence that there is some great Intelligence behind life and the universe. All of the prominent published ID advocates appear to be Christians. As such it appears that they must entertain various forms of cognitive dissonance. To be fair, this is also the case with most non Christian but still Deist ID advocates, including myself. Webwanderer (#116) expressed it too well for me to try to better it: "In fact, integrity is the first trait to die when one places any belief over truth, even philosophically. We may not always be clear on what the truth is, but as a preference it must always hold a superior position over belief, whether that belief be religious or otherwise......There is a similar problem for both religious Darwinists and religious IDists." Hence the careful maintenance of internal cognitive dissonances and the necessary tiptoeing around these issues in order to engage in meaningful discourse.magnan_{November 22, 2007
November
11
Nov
22
22
2007
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Thank you Jerry! Of course there's a place for religious thinking in the world -- I wouldn't be here if I didn't think so. But it's getting a little crazy if you think you have to accept Jesus as your personal savior before you can be logical! (Quite the opposite, I think!). Peace, Joy, oh, and Happy Thanksgiving! Zoe Alexandria, 415. We shall never forgetPlatosPlaything_{November 22, 2007
November
11
Nov
22
22
2007
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

In his course with the Teaching Company titled "Great Scientific Ideas That Changed the World" Stephen Goldman's first two ideas were Writing and Reasoning These were both developed by the Greeks and while not all of it emanated directly from Athens, a lot of it did and Solon is considered the architect of Athenian democracy. So most of intellectual history follows a path that leads back to 5th century BC Athens. Sure there were brilliant people before the Greeks and there was writing but before the Greeks little was done with it till they used it to describe the world and pose questions about it. Writing led to the formalization of reason which eventually led to Western Civilization. A lot of Christian thinking piggybacked on Greek thinking.jerry_{November 22, 2007
November
11
Nov
22
22
2007
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

#118:
1] PP, 130: (BTW, we [i.e. pagans] invented logic. Every heard of a guy called Aristotle?) Sorry, logic is not an invention but a discoverable (though immaterial!) reality written into how or minds and languages work, and indeed into how the observable world works. [Think about your reaction when you stand by a Zebra crossing and see a car racing up to it.] Aristotle worked to systematise a certain view of logic, through the syllogisms and of course related enthymemes. But in fact, logic is built in to the foundation of creation. And indeed, that is exactly what the Judaeo-Christian tradition recognised and taught long before Aristotle — or, indeed, Greek culture as we know it — was born.
I think it was clear that I was being a little facetious in saying Aristotle invented logic. Of course it was discovered. But it wasn't discovered, as you say, in creation. Even if one was to accept the myth of Genesis, and imagine that some solitary, human-like intelligence made the world, It could not have made it in such a way that, say, modus ponens did not hold (see, I studied philosophy at college!).PlatosPlaything_{November 22, 2007
November
11
Nov
22
22
2007
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

All: First, overnight, re Solon: no sign of a response. That strongly tends to confirm the "sock-puppet" explanation over the "real person" explanation. (Again, SOLON, if you are a real person, the invitation at 95 still stands.) Now on a few points that caught my eye: 1] PP, 130: (BTW, we [i.e. pagans] invented logic. Every heard of a guy called Aristotle?) Sorry, logic is not an invention but a discoverable (though immaterial!) reality written into how or minds and languages work, and indeed into how the observable world works. [Think about your reaction when you stand by a Zebra crossing and see a car racing up to it.] Aristotle worked to systematise a certain view of logic, through the syllogisms and of course related enthymemes. But in fact, logic is built in to the foundation of creation. And indeed, that is exactly what the Judaeo-Christian tradition recognised and taught long before Aristotle -- or, indeed, Greek culture as we know it -- was born. Cf. the Wisdom literature in the Bible, e.g. here is the personification of Wisdom, C10 BC:
PR 8:22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; PR 8:23 I was appointed from eternity,from the beginning, before the world began . . . . PR 8:27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep . . .
This is of course strongly and deliberately echoed in the opening words of John, on the LOGOS:
JN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. JN 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men . . .
At the same time, Wisdom is far broader than the simple dynamics of the syllogism, as it addresses soundness, prudence and the ethics that are also built into the foundation of the cosmos:
PR 3:21 My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight . . . PR 3:23 Then you will go on your way in safety,and your foot will not stumble . . . .
Of course, properly, philosophy -- including logic as well as ethics among other things -- is the love of wisdom. 2] Tyke, 102: why not do an end-around? Tyke, please note first that, -- as has been pointed out and LINKED (cf. 35 above) -- there is ID research, some of which has been published under that name in the professional literature; even in the teeth of the fiercest opposition by too many of the power-holders and enforcers in the various institutions. So, kindly drop the inference that there is no such ID research, some explicitly under the name ID, and also some under other names, often with a sop or two to the thought police. However, note too that science is not just research, it is also in significant part a body of credible, tested, reliable -- but of course provisional -- knowledge based on the cumulative learning of the ages of investigations. Knowledge that is provisional but to be treated with respect -- we don't just ignore it when it is inconvenient. If there is something to be corrected, make the case. (Sounds rather like what evo mat advocates say, nuh? But, I am speaking TO evo mat advocates on the implications of their case for information theory and statistical thermodynamics, both of which point to something being very wrong with what the evo mat advocates are saying!) To wit, the proposed mechanisms of Body-plan innovation level Macro-evolution run into serious trouble with well-proved principles of well-proved fields in science so soon as the philosophical, question-begging blinkers of methodological naturalism are removed. The explanatory gap on the origin of life is even stronger. [Cf my always linked for details.] So, there is a serious case to be answered to by the adherents of the research programme known as evolutionary materialism. One that, sadly, instead of answering to the evident anomaly, we see far too often evasions, misrepresentations, strawman arguments and even outright persecution of what are in effect whistle-blowers. (That is, there is in fact a well-known context for explaining the observed sociology of evolutionary materialist science, but not exactly a flattering one.) 3] Magnan, 112: It might be feared that to ban this poster [Solon] would offend some of these important supporters. I cannot speak as a representative of the UD leadership team, but I think there are a few factors you may be overlooking. Besides, I have seen YEC posters here banned if they step over the line. Observations: --> First, the issue is in the first instance still up in the air: we do not know yet if Solon is for real, and whether if so, he is open to true dialogue and correction. --> Next, we have seen far too many evo mat advocacy talking-points spouting interventions [and can fairly rapidly identify "more of same"]; Solon is a relatively rare bird (in this sort of situation) if he is what he claims to be. So, he is of rarity- and "what- makes- him- tick"- interest. --> Third, in my observation, several evo mat advocates had very long runs so long as they did not become abusive, only being cut off when they clearly insistently ran over a line [cf RP] --> Fourth, the exercise of interacting with Solon is one in issues tied to design theory: identification of agents, and onward exploratory step [unless there is stuff over at Langley that is classified]. 4] Stephen B 104: I think Gil is right about one thing. This could have been a tribute to a great man. Philip Johnson was a big thinker, a trailblazer, and a man of great courage . . . that is what this thread should have been about. There is an uncomfortably apt point in this comment; which should make us take pause and look at how we are treating one another on the various sides of the issue. Having noted that, it is in a backhanded sense, a compliment to Dr Johnson, that the issues he raised nearly 20 years ago are very much live and kicking today. He is indeed a pioneer -- something we need to re-learn to respect. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 22, 2007
November
11
Nov
22
22
2007
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

Perhaps a more likely reason for this poster remaining unbanned is political.
For me, the most likely reason is pragmatic - the admins who would normally administer a banning have been off doing something more interesting. How dare they have real lives! BobBob O'H_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Is intelligent design a big enough tent to accommodate sincere Christians, rationalists, Deists. Etc? The search for truth is not an exclusive club. It is inclusive of anyone who genuinely seeks to understand how life and the universe came to be. But in order to see truth clearly one must be ever ready to sacrifice ones beliefs, no matter how strong the emotional attachment. In fact, integrity is the first trait to die when one places any belief over truth, even philosophically. We may not always be clear on what the truth is, but as a preference it must always hold a superior position over belief, whether that belief be religious or otherwise. There is a similar problem for both religious Darwinists and religious IDists. Both, it seems, attempt to defend their faith first, and seek truth only to the degree it supports their belief. But such defense is not a search for truth, it is a search for corroborating evidence. Painting Intelligent Design with Christian fundamentalism demonstrates how frightened religious Atheists/Darwinists are of having their sacred cow exposed. Honest descent would do everything possible to expose the science of ID for what it is…whatever that may be.Webwanderer_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

Wake up, Horace; your house is on fire. The question is not whether fundamentalist rants should be considered "scientific"; the question is whether they are permitted under the big tent. Rants of all types are welcomed here with solemn magnanimity, even such exotic, atiquated birds as Deism, which are easily deconstructed. Why then is the fundamentalist singled out for such fusillage? Is it embarrassment on the part of some? Could it be arrogance on the part of others? Just how refined, dear Id'ers, would you like your tent to be? And have you consulted Phillip Johnson?allanius_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Most ID advocates who embrace Christianity believe that God revealed himself in scripture and, in a less explicit way, in nature. So any discussion about their faith and their science poses no threat to either. They feel no need to defend one at the expense of the other, because they understand that religious truth and scientific truth are two pieces of the same rational puzzle. Thus, they know that if any scientific truth appears to contradict their interpretation of scripture, either their interpretation of Scripture is wrong, or their interpretation of that scientific truth is wrong. When they comment on this blog, they feel free to express their religious beliefs, and they generally use good judgment when relating their religious beliefs to the discipline of ID science. Seldom, if ever, do they go over the line into proselytizing or advancing one sectarian philosophy over another. The more complicated problem rests with a small minority of radically rigid Christians. This group does not understand the difference between a literal interpretation of scripture (the way the author meant it) and a literalist interpretation of scripture (whatever the words say no matter what the context). In this respect, they don’t know how to distinguish a real attack on their religion from one which is imagined. Being naïve in the ways of sound scriptural exegesis, they end up overplaying their hand as sincere and dedicated Christians. It is not only the rigid Christian that ends up overplaying his hand, however. Atheists can come on pretty strong too. Quite often, they use science to discredit and undermine Christianity. Whether Philip Johnson’s wedge strategy of a few years ago is appropriate today is questionable, but the problem he was addressing at the time was very real. There are few things more radical than a radical atheist. It was they who institutionalized the “no concession policy,” and who now persecute anyone who dissents from their entrenched orthodoxy. One thing sure, they will never be up front about their wedge strategy, and they do indeed have one---it’s called “higher education.” Here is my advice, then, to both atheists who are suspicious of religion and rigid Christians who are suspicious of science: Read St. Thomas Aquinas and learn about the unity of truth. Solon, for example, would benefit greatly to learn that truth cannot be fractured or distorted as one makes the journey from one discipline to the next. Conversely, the atheists among us would benefit from knowing that their skepticism and subjectivism is unwarranted. It is faith in the rationality of the universe and the God who created it that will liberate both the atheist and the rigid fundamentalist from their mistaken perception that good religion and good science can ever be enemies.StephenB_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

#109:
I didn’t say that Plato fell into that error because your original claim is false, many Christians have given noble pagans credit for engaging in basic forms of logic and reason.
Gee thanks. (BTW, we invented logic. Every heard of a guy called Aristotle?)
That’s a popular philosophy for teenagers with a victimization complex… and it seems that you haven’t grown out it entirely.
Don't even get me started on the Christian sense of victimization. Oh, and I've known I was a pagan since I was a little girl. And I've had this kind of treatment from guys like you (you're a guy, right?) pretty much since then. And no, I don't think of myself as a victim.
What is beautiful is Wisdom, its perversion is ugly. Note how even someone as wise as Solomon struggled with its perversion in occult traditions similar Wicca. If you are wise in your own eyes and make what you will of things then that which is ugly will seem beautiful to you.
So I guess we can't play nicely together? Even if we both are just interested in ID? Man, there's a lot of anger here. Peace and joy, dipstick. Zoe Alexandria, 415. We shall never forget PS: I'm sorry if I've offended anyone. If I'm acting like the lesbian witch at the revival meeting -- maybe that's because that is what I am.PlatosPlaything_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

This thread has become at the same time interesting, amusing and aggravating. It is amazing to me that an apparent fundamentalist Christian zealot (or a troll or sockpuppet pretending to be one) would be allowed to spout such intolerant stuff on UD when the equivalent rantings of a Darwinist zealot would probably be instantly banned. A couple of possible reasons come to mind. This may be because this is felt to raise some important issues, such as whether ID really isn't science, just as Darwinists claim. Instead it may be, as Solon claims, religion in a phony scientific disguise, in reality the word of God proclaimed through the Bible. Of course, then, bringing in all the other attendant beliefs that go along with this. Like the belief in the Triune nature of God, Jesus as the Son of God and that any not accepting Him (even if they have not been given the opportunity to choose) are destined to Hell for eternity. If the moderator considers these topics to be worthy subjects of debate in UD, so be it, though to entertain such a debate would be playing right into the Darwinist's hands, so to speak. See - the IDiots are actually debating whether ID is really creationism in disguise - that means they are at least considering it! The blog could also degenerate into endless sectarian religious conflicts. Nothing is more futile and pointless than theological disputes. Perhaps a more likely reason for this poster remaining unbanned is political. It appears that some of the major supporters of ID are Christian fundamentalists. Correct me if I am wrong here. It might be feared that to ban this poster would offend some of these important supporters. Such an action could be seen as politically incorrect and bad for business. Do we really want to get into debates over whether the Intelligence behind the world and nature is the Triune God of Christianity, Jesus, Jahweh, Allah, Krishna, or whatever? Do we really want to get into debates over whether the Bible is the literal Word of God, and on the interpretation of passages in the New Testament? Allowing this kind of fundamentalist ranting on UD is probably a bad idea and counterproductive. It is a tradeoff at best. Avoid offending some important ID supporters and engage in a couple of interesting issues, at the cost of offending, even driving off, a lot of other ID advocates, and aiding the Darwinist side of the cultural battle.magnan_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

“Darwin on Trial” is an inspiration to millions. It represents a watershed event because materialists suddenly found themselves compelled to take design seriously. It may not be the best or most convincing book of its type—try “The Transformist Illusion” (1958) for a formidable fusion of science erudition and modern rhetoric—but it is certainly the book that brought the scientific deficiencies of materialism to public notice. The responses to this post present an interesting challenge to leading ID advocates, however. Is their tent large enough to accommodate sincere (if unsophisticated) Christians who are not embarrassed to say the things out loud that many readers of this site are wondering? And if so, is there also room for self-described rationalists, Deists, and—let it be duly noted, cultural historians—“Neoplatonists”? Fools for Christ, but also fools for Plato? Science with its magnificent demonstrations of power or the oft-expressed promise of a deeper wisdom? Caesar or the cross?allanius_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

...IF YOU SAY THE DESIGNER COULD BE ALIENS YOU ARE LYING. WE KNOW WHO THE DESIGNER IS: JESUS CHRIST. Unless, that is, Jesus is in some sense like an alien or angel from another dimension capable of "transfiguration" as a "person of the light" that might even be mistaken for a UFO in the right light. It's clear that often different words are being used to describe similar patterns, believe it or not.mynym_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

If you mean those naive, anthropomorphised creation stories of Genesis... How is it that they anthropomorphized things when they were forbidden by their God from making graven images/forms and the like? Oh yeah? Says you! Along with anyone else throughout history with eyes to see and ears to hear, as it is the natural for people to recognize form and to know the reason behind its formation and ultimate origins. Even for pagans who believe that created beings are gods and so on the conclusion of an ultimate Source is logical, which is something worth keeping in mind. In contrast, saying that Nature contains its reason for being has long been a failure of Nature based paganism. I didn't say that Plato fell into that error because your original claim is false, many Christians have given noble pagans credit for engaging in basic forms of logic and reason. Given the pattern of your claims it seems that you want to be a victim and work towards the end of claiming that you or your tradition is victimized by Christians. What I make of that is that you sound like a religious bigot! I used to be a Gardnerian witch... That's a popular philosophy for teenagers with a victimization complex... and it seems that you haven't grown out it entirely. ...yours is a grotesque caricature of a beautiful Craft... What is beautiful is Wisdom, its perversion is ugly. Note how even someone as wise as Solomon struggled with its perversion in occult traditions similar Wicca. If you are wise in your own eyes and make what you will of things then that which is ugly will seem beautiful to you. All you will do is craft an illusion that cannot last because you can try to make of things what you will while reality still sits there unchanged.mynym_{November 21, 2007
November
11
Nov
21
21
2007
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply