Home » Intelligent Design » Congratulations to New BioLogos President

Congratulations to New BioLogos President

I just wanted to extend my congratulations to Deborah Haarsma, the new president of BioLogos! I hope that in the coming years, whether BioLogos embraces Intelligent Design or not, they can at least come to understand better the positions we hold.

I have not read Dr. Haarsma’s book on creation/evolution/intelligent design, but I would be interested to hear from people who have.

Anyway, many congratulations, and I hope the BioLogos Foundation’s search for truth is effective and fruitful.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

137 Responses to Congratulations to New BioLogos President

  1. Glad to see your unevolved/’extended’ congratulation, johnnyb to D. Haarsma at BioLogos. L. Haarsma is of course seated right beside her, unrepentant ‘evolutionist’ as he is.

    I notice you capitalise (Big-ID) ‘Intelligent Design.’ This puts you at odds with Timaeus’ recent chosen flip-flop language backing small-id ‘intelligent design’ and refusing to distinguish any meaningful difference between Big-ID ‘Intelligent Design’ and small-id ‘intelligent design’. That’s a simple philological observation (read: empirical fact of communication).

    As a graduate of DI’s summer program and former poster at BioLogos, it is clear that BioLogos *will not* ever ‘embrace Intelligent Design’ theory, there’s not a chance of this. Likwise, however, Big-ID theory *will not* ever ‘embrace theistic evolution or evolutionary creation’ there’s not a chance of this, following in P. Johnson’s footsteps.

    You folks (distinguishing us, meaning that I’m neither an IDist nor a TE/EC) are in dire need of a mediator, since the *will not* is about people’s choices and community/group pressures!

    What is most badly needed (after almost 2 decades of -ism concept duo i/I + d/D) is an alternative to Big-ID/small-id vs. theistic evolution/evolutionary creation, which no one within the IDM has thus far offered, just as no one among TE/ECs who rejects the loudly and brazenly proclaimed scientificity of Big-ID has yet put on the table.

    Loren Haarsma certainly doesn’t have a satisfactory answer for this dilemma. And Deborah is lost and found in the stars and physical matter with ‘only/ultimately’ theology as a ‘quasi-humanising’ effort.

    Neo-BioLogos and Big-ID will likely revert to outdated ‘(neo)Darwinism’-banter again before long. Let us hope Deborah has something different in her bag of EC tricks. Jeffrey Schloss, new Senior BioLogos scholar, formerly associated with DI but now confident anti-IDist (like Ryland, Beckwith and Collins), is certainly full of provocations…!

    Will you ‘extend’ your hand in congratulation to Schloss too, johnnyb?

  2. From amazon:

    When it comes to the history of the universe, many believe that science and faith are mutually exclusive. But in this revised version of Origins, physics professors Loren and Deborah Haarsma explore what God’s Word and God’s world teach us about creation, evolution, and intelligent design.

    GASP! small i small d intelligent design? Doesn’t this person know any better? You better get right on that Gregory.

  3. OT: Anton Zeilinger’s group is at it again, pushing the edge of the envelope as to quantum experimentation:

    Of Einstein and entanglement: Quantum erasure deconstructs wave-particle duality – January 29, 2013
    Excerpt: While previous quantum eraser experiments made the erasure choice before or (in delayed-choice experiments) after the interference – thereby allowing communications between erasure and interference in the two systems, respectively – scientists in Prof. Anton Zeilinger’s group at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the University of Vienna recently reported a quantum eraser experiment in which they prevented this communications possibility by enforcing Einstein locality. They accomplished this using hybrid path-polarization entangled photon pairs distributed over an optical fiber link of 55 meters in one experiment and over a free-space link of 144 kilometers in another. Choosing the polarization measurement for one photon decided whether its entangled partner followed a definite path as a particle, or whether this path-information information was erased and wave-like interference appeared. They concluded that since the two entangled systems are causally disconnected in terms of the erasure choice, wave-particle duality is an irreducible feature of quantum systems with no naïve realistic explanation). The world view that a photon always behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication, and should therefore be abandoned as a description of quantum behavior.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-e.....ructs.html

    Put more simply, a photon is not a self existent entity but is always dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain its continued existence within space-time. i.e. God ‘sustains’ the universe!

  4. Gregory –

    I couldn’t quite make out what your rant was about. But, in short, yes, I will heartily congratulate Jeffrey Schloss on his new post. Congratulations, Dr. Schloss, on your new position as Senior Scholar at BioLogos!

  5. Gregory:

    You folks (distinguishing us, meaning that I’m neither an IDist nor a TE/EC) are in dire need of a mediator…

    BioLogos:

    Dr. Schloss is excited by the opportunity to build bridges of dialogue on the relationship between science and faith, in light of the invitation to “worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth.”

  6. Biologos doesn’t embrace me!
    I think my crime was saying that the modern world was the result of a higher moral and intellectual status of the English and Scottish people because of having more and very influenced by the Puritan/Evangelical Protestant believers within them.
    It was either a evil idea or so dumb wrong as to lose me posting rights.
    By the way I say it was men way ahead the women but don’t tell Deborah.!

  7. Gregory

    Jeffrey Schloss, new Senior BioLogos scholar, formerly associated with DI but now confident anti-IDist…..

    Schloss stated that he left the Discovery Institute because, among other things, he disagreed strongly with the institute’s stance against evolution. As he put it, “I think evolutionary theory is compatible with faith.”

    That’s all well and good except for the fact that the Discovery Institute has no stance against evolution and agrees that it can be compatible with faith. Like most philosophically challenged TEs, Schloss doesn’t make the distinction between ID-compatible evolution, which is a purposeful maturation process, and anti-ID, Darwinian evolution, which is not.

  8. If “it just happened, that’s all” doesn’t require “faith,” I don’t know what would.

  9. StephenB, I saw this short clip on Mother Teresa the other day, about a small miracle of the sort that use to ‘follow her around’ and thought you might like to look at it:

    Ignorance Isn’t Bliss: What Every College Student Should Know About Religion – Mary Poplin at Reed – video (9:45 minute mark)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....age#t=579s

    Here’s the entire documentary (I haven’t watched the whole video yet though):

    Mother Teresa 1986 ( A.J.B. ) FILM – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnhiGtCBc10

  10. bornagain77, thanks very much for the link. Very inspiring.

  11. “the Discovery Institute has no stance against evolution and agrees that it can be compatible with faith.” – StephenB

    “Personally, I don’t think evolution passes either the Lemon Test or the Smell Test! Or the Laugh Test.” – Eric Anderson

    Gee, I wonder why anyone would think that IDists are against evolutionary theories?! That’s a really tough, almost impossible notion to imagine ;)

  12. What evolutionary theories, Gregory? The “theory” of evolution is too vague to be a theory. Are there others?

    And who is for these “theories” and why? Please be specific.

  13. So you obviously now see, StephenB, in response to #12, what you’re up against in trying to propogate the view that Big-ID/DI is “not against evolution,” right?

    “Jesus Saves. Evolution Doesn’t.”

    Yeah, right, StephenB, you’re hanging-out with people who oppose you! The creationists (proud and loud and unashamed) who are sustained by American religious conservatives that fund the quasi-science of Big-ID (see the balance sheets at DI) remain in your ever-present rear-view mirror.

    You are not a YEC, StephenB, but nevertheless seem willing to happily break BIG-ID ideological bread with YECs with whom you disagree.

    The only thing you can do as an IDist is to embrace a ‘little-big-tent’ which you (as a Catholic Christian) actually needn’t confidently defend. So many Catholics have already seen through the ideology that is being propogated by ‘natural-science-only’ Big-IDism. It would surprise me if you would still defend Big-IDism, just because of some kind of a fetish with a 19th c. ‘Darwin-from-Down’ scholar in the U.K.

    I have outgrown Charles R. Darwin, but it doesn’t seem like anyone in the IDM is prepared to even recognise how this is possible or preferred!

    They seem to want natural-science-only reductionism instead; they want Big-ID scientism. If they didn’t then they would elevate the work of Steve Fuller, the most insightful ‘ID/id’ advocate of the current era.

    People speak in your name here, StephenB, as IDists, denying that ‘evolution’ has any theory-value at all! Just open your eyes if you are so far blind to this. And yet you willingly allow them to represent you. That position, however, is obviously unworthy of serious consideration; it is uneducated, it is primitive. It is as if you would support the ignorance of (some) evangelical Protestants that claim ‘science is from the devil’ because of some feud you have with the global Catholic acceptance of Evolutionary Creation. There is no need to do that.

    People holding leadership positions in the little-big-tent (Chapman, Meyer, West, et al.) openly welcome creationist supporters as comrades because they promote Big-ID. This is both an obvious and necessary path of the IDM. Otoh, BioLogos actually has the courage of the Catholic Church to reject ‘creationists’ and disallow them to spread their propaganda as if people should believe it. Do you not stand with the Catholic Church in opposing YECism and in educating young believers?

  14. Hi Gregory,

    You seem to like to talk from your arse. Is that like comfort food to you?

    Just curious.

  15. Joe: Language, please. KF

  16. Gregory @14:

    Please give a succinct definition of what you understand to be “evolution.” Then we’ll tell you what we think of it.

    Incidentally, you seem so intent on finding a statement or a quote, anything, that can be read, or understood, or taken out of context, or interpreted in a hyper-technical sense, to drive your own personal Wedge into intelligent design, that you often miss the larger point of discussions. “Evolution” is a supremely slippery term, with many possible definitions, so most of us don’t bother getting into a long definition every time the word is used. Usually the context of the discussion thread adequately informs that meaning ascribed, but you seem sometimes unable or unwilling to appreciate any larger context. Also, there is a bit of a pot-kettle problem, as I note that you also failed to define “evolution” in your comment #14, for example.

    So, let the definitional games begin: What do you mean by “evolution.” Then I’ll tell you what my view of it is.

  17. kairosfocus:

    Just an administrative question, as most people here don’t know much about the inside machinations of UD.

    I’ve noticed that you’ve made a few comments lately (see 16 above for an example) about people’s language, as if reprimanding them. I think that in one discussion — on one of your own columns — you actually deleted or altered some words that you found offensive. I’m wondering if these comments reflect merely your personal opinion regarding inappropriate language, or whether you speak in some official capacity for UD when you make them. For example, have you been appointed one of the moderators?

    I’m not complaining about anything you have done — though I think that if Joe had been censored for the word “arse” (admittedly inelegant language) that would be too heavy-handed, especially given the provocation. I’m merely trying to establish whether people here have to abide by your “language code,” and whether that language code is one authorized by Barry, etc. Also, if there is a formal list of forbidden words (though I’d hate to think that freedom of speech defenders like ID people would maintain such a list on the UD site), it might be good to put that list up on a linked page somewhere, so everyone who contributes to UD can read know the rules, instead of having a veto or change sprung on them out of the blue.

    More generally, it might be helpful if UD provided a list of the people who are authorized to moderate these discussions. I know that Clive Hayden no longer does it, and I don’t know who the current people with moderators’ powers (beyond Mr. Arrington, obviously) are.

    Best wishes.

  18. Gregory, I am grateful for your comments because, as usual, they provide me with a teaching opportunity. So, I will take each point in order:

    You are not a YEC, StephenB, but nevertheless seem willing to happily break BIG-ID ideological bread with YECs with whom you disagree.

    Well, sure. I can do business with the YEC’s. Not only do they write with refreshing clarity and unadulterated sincerity, they define their terms, answer my questions, and respond to my challenges. I try to return the favor by answering their questions. Because they are honest and forthcoming, I have managed to find my point of contention with them, which is their denial of, and my acceptance of, “uniformitarianism.” That is what true dialogue can do. If only the TEs or anti-ID sociologists would be equally forthcoming.

    The only thing you can do as an IDist is to embrace a ‘little-big-tent’ which you (as a Catholic Christian) actually needn’t confidently defend.

    It might surprise you to know that the only thing I care about is the truth. If a YEC, or a OEC, or a TE, or the Discovery Institute stumbles onto to any portion of it, I will accept it with gratitude. Territorialism is not part of my gig.

    So many Catholics have already seen through the ideology that is being propogated by ‘natural-science-only’ Big-IDism. It would surprise me if you would still defend Big-IDism, just because of some kind of a fetish with a 19th c. ‘Darwin-from-Down’ scholar in the U.K.

    I don’t understand why you would say that a detectable pattern in nature is an ideology or why the Catholic Church would disdain such paradigms as “specified complexity” or “irreducible complexity.” You ought to read “The Evidential Power of Beauty,” by Fr. Thomas Dubay, a pro-ID catholic priest (Thomist). Any Catholic who opposes “Big ID” in the name of Catholicism understands neither ID nor Catholicism.

    I have outgrown Charles R. Darwin, but it doesn’t seem like anyone in the IDM is prepared to even recognise how this is possible or preferred!

    If you have outgrown Charles Darwin, we can clearly do business in that context.

    They seem to want natural-science-only reductionism instead; they want Big-ID scientism. If they didn’t then they would elevate the work of Steve Fuller, the most insightful ‘ID/id’ advocate of the current era.

    Steve Fuller has provided some interesting ideas that can serve as thought stimulators, but I don’t think he has thought them through to any appreciable degree.

    People speak in your name here, StephenB, as IDists, denying that ‘evolution’ has any theory-value at all!

    Let me try to help you out here with the meanings of key terms. I think that most ID proponents accept Darwin’s Special Theory of Evolution, but they reject Darwin’s General Theory of Evolution. Do you know the difference?

    And yet you willingly allow them to represent you. That position, however, is obviously unworthy of serious consideration; it is uneducated, it is primitive.

    Since I don’t know what you mean by “that position” or “it,” I cannot comment. You will recall that I had to make the necessary distinctions in your preceding comment in order to infuse meaning into your otherwise meaningless words.

    It is as if you would support the ignorance of (some) evangelical Protestants that claim ‘science is from the devil’ because of some feud you have with the global Catholic acceptance of Evolutionary Creation. There is no need to do that.

    According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The beauty of creation reflects the infinite beauty of the Creator, and ought to inspire the respect and submission of man’s intellect and will.” Who is more likely to admire the beauty of creation? Will it be a Big ID advocate, who thinks that God designed a bird’s wings, or an evolutionary creationist, who thinks that biological design is an illusion?

    People holding leadership positions in the little-big-tent (Chapman, Meyer, West, et al.) openly welcome creationist supporters as comrades because they promote Big-ID. This is both an obvious and necessary path of the IDM. Otoh, BioLogos actually has the courage of the Catholic Church to reject ‘creationists’ and disallow them to spread their propaganda as if people should believe it. Do you not stand with the Catholic Church in opposing YECism and in educating young believers.

    I stand with the same Catholic Church that rejects any explanation that posits the emergence of mind from matter or the heretical notion of polygenism, which is standard fare for evolutionary creationists and the muddle-headed partisans at BioLogos.

    From Humani Generis

    “For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

    When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

    The official teaching of the Catholic Church fits in with Big ID, but it doesn’t fit in with your trendy “Catholic” friends at BioLogos. Another one of your fantasies has been destroyed by a disgusting little fact.

  19. So I am reading The Wonder of the Universe: Hints of God in Our Fine-Tuned World by Karl Giberson.

    Now leaving aside for now that a fine-tuned world requires a Fine-Tuner, and we just can’t use that sort of univocal language when it comes to G-d, I’m reading a segment on Behe and Collins.

    After mentioning the books authored by Collins:

    “he [Collins] affirms the theory of evolution and the adequacy of the theory to explain the development of life on this planet.”

    Then, after mentioning the books authored by Behe, including one with the title The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism:

    “he [Behe] denies the theory of evolution by unguided mechanisms like natural selection, claiming it cannot account for the development of life on this planet. He does, however, accept the common ancestry of all life.”

    Now really, how muddled is this?

    It seems to me that Behe accepts the Darwinian mechanism, but says it may have limits.

    otoh, is he saying Collins believes in unguided evolution by setting his views against those of Behe [as a denier of unguided evolution]?

    Then we find this gem:

    “They are diametrically opposed on what the evidence from genetics is telling us about evolution.”

    REALLY?

    So why then do they both accept common ancestry? Where does the evidence for common ancestry come from if not from genetics?

    And since when do Behe’s arguments for intelligent design or the limits to Darwinian evolution appeal to genetics?

    Again, is he saying that Collins believes the evidence from genetics demonstrates that evolution is unguided and that unguided evolution is capable of bringing about all life on the planet?

    Why is it so difficult to find an honest discussion of the issues?

    What is his solution to deciding between Collins and Behe?

    More scientists agree with Collins.

    Argumentum ad populum?

    Scientist who agree with Collins are better credentialed than scientists who agree with Behe.

    More papers are published that agree with Collins.

    Grants are awarded!

    There are scientific meetings to discuss the view held by Collins.

    “This is not to say Behe is wrong.”

    LOL!

    Man, I really need to type up his list of reasons.

    Oh, and as a final kicker:

    “The ideas about intelligent design promoted by Behe…”

    He didn’t get Gregory’s memo!

  20. Excellent reply to Gregory, StephenB.

    I predict that Gregory will not engage with you at all on the passages you have quoted from Humani Generis. It’s pretty hard to explain away official Catholic teaching, and admitting error is not his style. But he’ll be back, a week or a month from now, here or on some other site, speaking confidently about the Catholic position — though he’s not Catholic himself and has no training in Catholic theology — and will make the same claims, as if you had never refuted them. And if there is no one as sharp as you up against him, he may get away with it. You’re invaluable.

  21. “Behe and Collins both claim to speak for science.”

    – Karl Giberson

    really?

  22. Timaeus, thanks very much for your kind words. Like you, I have no reason to believe that Gregory will respond to, absorb, or even consider my corrective. It seems that he hears only what he wants to hear.

    Permit me, though, to take time out for an editorial comment: The calm and non-judgmental spirit with which you tune out Gregory’s gratuitous personal attacks has been an inspiration to me.

  23. @ Timaeus & StephenB
    You guys are class acts! Appreciate your comments
    @ Mung
    Hey I remember you saying that you went to that ‘Analytic Philosophy Club’ meeting at Lakehills. Were you at the table in the middle? I was the guy with the hat…

  24. Thanks, StephenB and Optimus, for your encouraging words.

    It certainly is hard, Stephen, to turn the cheek sometimes. I don’t particularly like being constantly accused of dishonesty, duplicity, cowardice, poor scholarship, rhetorical gamesmanship, political machinations, etc.; I don’t enjoy insults to my research work and insinuations that I don’t deserve academic employment (while, of course, someone else does). And I don’t like it when my attempts at peacemaking and to put past conflicts behind are thrown back in my face as insincere, and when someone who refuses to answer honest questions asked in good faith accuses me of failing to answer in good faith, when I’ve bent over backwards to answer every query asked of me (except those involving personal matters) as fully as possible. It would be much easier (and faster) to lash back with answers in kind. Composing myself, and then composing measured answers, takes more time and effort. But I feel I owe it to the people here not to subject them to the vitriol that would be issued if I raised the temperature by striking back with insults, accusations about motives, etc.

    I don’t know why certain people can’t just argue about the issues: whether design is detectable in nature, without the aid of revelation, and if not, why not; whether design imagery is used in the Bible; whether God as designer is a theme of the Christian theological tradition; whether the science of ID is good, and if not, why not; whether TEs are consistent when they say that they believe in divine design and in the randomness of nature at the same time; whether or not TE in its most common forms is less Biblical than Deistic; why TEs hate natural theology so much; whether Fuller’s endorsement of divine design is offered in the same spirit and for the same motives as in the case of Behe and Dembski; whether it makes sense, with Bejan, to talk about design without a designer; etc.

    Any or all of these things I would gladly discuss, politely and respectfully, with Gregory, and listen keenly to his opinions, willing to alter mine if his arguments proved better; but he perpetually turns every discussion away from such questions of contents and toward questions of personal or group motivation and questions of general social/political criticism. He tries to take every discussion away from “What is nature like, and what does it show?” to things such as: the group politics of the various camps in the origins debates; the flaws of “US American” culture generally; the flaws of creationism as a socio-religious movement; the labelling of everyone as either a Big- or small- ID/id proponent, the former accused of being crassly politically motivated, the latter virtuous; etc. There is the constant (false) assertion that I and other ID people have said that “everything is designed” in the ID sense, when in fact no one here has asserted that everything that happens in the human world is designed (though some things obviously are); there is the constant claim that every opinion anyone (except Gregory) offers on creation is a cloaked expression of ideology; there is the constant list of charges against Discovery and its personnel, including the imputation of malice aforethought in the cancellation of certain programs by Discovery, and personal digs against West, Chapman, etc. It is as if all questions of scientific, philosophical and theological truth are to be set aside because the only truths are political truths — about the various motivations and machinations of prejudiced and ideology-driven human beings.

    This strikes me as the modern, deconstructionist agenda — the assault on the very idea of truth, the attempt to turn the university away from seeking truth and make it self-consciously a community of warring camps, each driven by self-interest. It thus stands opposed to everything I believe both as a scholar and a human being, a human being who reverences not only the truth but the Western civilization which, until recently (when deconstructionism and other forms of moral and intellectual nihilism took root and started to eat away that civilization from the inside), was noble precisely because it believed that truth could be found and lived.

    Gregory, of course, cannot believe that I have any motivations as noble as those I have just defended. He is convinced that I am a purely political animal who cares only for the political victory of ID. But why should I care for the political victory of ID? If ID is not truth, I want no part of it. If TE is truth, I will embrace it. If something else is truth, I will embrace it.

    All I ask is that Gregory stop hiding behind political discussions and tell us what *he* believes to be the truth — the truth not about politics and dark human motivations, but the truth about nature, and the truth about God, and the truth about Christianity. But he will not speak about these topics, except insofar as he mocks and belittles the answers provided by everyone else here when they speak about them.

    So how can I, how can any of us, converse constructively with Gregory? If he will not lay down his anger over political concerns, and address theoretical questions about nature and God, there is simply nothing useful that he can say to any of us, and nothing useful that any of us can say to him.

    What would Gregory have us do? What does he want from us? To serve as his punching bag, so that he can take out his frustrations with Discovery (whatever they are, and whatever personal history there may be) on all of us, and blame each of us individually for all of its shortcomings, even though none of us (to my knowledge) has any position in that organization? Or does he want us to praise social science as every bit as important as natural science, in order to redress some slight that he has received in his own academic career from the natural scientists? Or does he want us to simply abandon ID and adopt his view of God and nature and origins — even though he won’t tell us what his view is?

    Gregory’s behavior leaves us helpless. We cannot please him by what we do now; and we have no idea what we could possibly do differently, because we have no conception of his ultimate aims or motives. All we know is that he is constantly very angry with all of us and ready to jump down our throats no matter what we say or how politely we say it.

    So Gregory, if you are listening: We don’t know what you believe about God. Tell us. We don’t know which branch of Christianity you affirm as your own. Tell us. We don’t know what, for you, is the role of the Bible in the establishment of Christian truth. Tell us. We don’t know whether you think that design in nature is detectable without the aid of revelation. Tell us. We don’t know which ID books you’ve read, and what your critique of the science in each book is. Tell us. We don’t know why you endorse Fuller but reject his central teaching about univocal predication. Tell us.

    This is my plea. And if it remains unanswered, I see no point in engaging with Gregory further. What do you think, Stephen? Is this conclusion reasonable?

  25. Optimus:

    Hey I remember you saying that you went to that ‘Analytic Philosophy Club’ meeting at Lakehills. Were you at the table in the middle? I was the guy with the hat

    I was actually sitting a bit back from the table, at one of the corners, but not right up on it. A couple people to the right of the guy who actually seemed to be changing his opinion about intelligent design, if you remember him.

    Right behind that library is where I went to get my WA license.

  26. I get the feeling that Gregory did in fact attend a DI summer seminar but that it did not turn out well.

    My guess is that he has an agenda, his own vision for ID, and is still somewhat upset that the DI didn’t adopt it.

    How’s that for motive mongering?

  27. Yeah I remember that. I think we were in the same corner. That was a blast:-)

  28. I enjoyed it, it’s too bad we didn’t have more time.

  29. Karl Giberson:

    Europe was gradually becoming scientific and developing a worldview that included a belief in science; a part of this belief was an intuition that the world ran according to natural laws rather than the constant intervention of God.

    How on earth do ‘natural laws’ obviate the need for the constant intervention of God?

  30. Mung:

    First of all, I agree with you that Giberson’s thought on religion and science is extremely inadequate. You can’t say enough negative things about Giberson to please me.

    However, his point in the statement you quoted is not really objectionable, once you grasp what he means by “intervention.” The word “intervention” for him means an occasion when God breaks his own natural laws. For example, you fall off a cliff, and are sure to die, but then an angel sent by God causes you float to the ground, in defiance of the law of gravity. That is what Giberson means by “intervention.” And he’s dead against interventions, not only because he sees them as a danger to scientific explanations of things — which presume there are regularities, laws, etc., but also for theological reasons. He shares the Enlightenment prejudice that a God who works through natural laws is superior to a God who manipulates matter directly, in an ad hoc manner. Most TEs have the same prejudice. So an “intervening” God is not only a threat to science, but represents “bad theology” in his view.

    So he would say that God works *through* natural laws — keeps planets in orbit and plants growing and animals reproducing and so on by sustaining the regular operations of nature. And he sees this as the Christian teaching, that God is active by “powering” nature, not by tampering with it. Now, to be fair to Giberson, Newton and Boyle also believed that God generally acted through natural causes, e.g., in the order of the solar system, and when they did natural science they did not posit angels moving the planets etc. They looked for laws. What separates Newton and Boyle from Giberson and many other modern TEs is that Newton and Boyle did not think that the “no-intervention” notion applied when it came to explaining *origins*. They took it for granted that in order for God to create the universe, life, etc., he had to work above and beyond natural laws — indeed, natural laws were the result of his creative activity, not some binding set of rules through which he was bound to act.

    Modern science, breaking with Boyle and Newton, has ventured to explain not only the operations but also the origins of everything in the universe via natural laws, without any reference to “interventions” — i.e., special divine actions. Most TEs are onside with this. Very few TEs will openly affirm (whatever some may privately suspect) that God used a miracle to create the first cell, or to give some hominid a truly human soul. They are committed — almost all of them, when speaking publically — to a wholly naturalistic account of origins.

    Is this Biblical? No. In the Bible God is dynamic and personally active. But most TEs also accept the Enlightenment project of Biblical criticism, which allows them to take large portions of the Bible with a grain of salt. So the passages which clearly depict a hands-on God in the process of creating the world, they write off as mere poetry, or the confusion of primitive minds which had not yet grasped science, or the like. They will thus cherry-pick passages, pointing out, for example, that in the Red Sea episode, God sends a wind to part the waters (“See, God works through natural laws — wind is a natural phenomenon!”), while completely ignoring that the way the wind *works* in the story is downright *un*natural, and completely ignoring many other things in the same Exodus story, such as the rods turning into snakes, manna from heaven, etc., where the Biblical narrative clearly indicates that the power of God is interrupting the normal course of nature.

    TEs intensely dislike the idea of God acting in the natural world as a human being might act, exerting his personal will here and there in particular situations. If the Bible had not yet been written, and a committee of TEs were put in charge of writing it, all the miraculous language, except the Resurrection, and maybe some of the healings, would be expunged. Everything would be explained as remarkable coincidences (the result of “randomness” which can create anything, according to BioLogos), coincidences which the pious characters in the stories and the narrators *ascribe* to God. So miracles would become: “Gee, if you hadn’t happened along with a wagon full of food and water at just the time you did, I would have died of hunger and thirst in the desert; it must be the hand of God,” instead of “And I was dying of thirst in the desert, and behold, from the sky which had been clear a moment before, water and food rained down, because God commanded the heavens to send down food to save me.”

    “Intervention” is the four-letter word of TE theology. Well, actually, it is the *other* four-letter word, the main one being “ID.”

  31. Timaeus:

    The word “intervention” for him means an occasion when God breaks his own natural laws.

    But for God to break one of His natural laws it would require that God be subject to the natural laws that he created to govern nature. But God is not a natural thing and cannot be subject to natural law. I’m sure you agree, lol.

    I think that Young Earth Creationism is misguided due to a faulty hermeneutic. I think that Theistic Evolution is just incoherent.

  32. Alternatively, I argue that God, incapable of non-existence, is the most ‘natural’ being that exists.

    God, who has His existence apart from any “natural law” other than the “natural law” that God must exist, cannot logically establish laws which govern His own existence.

    The alternative is that God can establish laws that govern His actions. Given that God is also pure Act, this again is not possible.

    Not to mention the problem that “God either cannot or chooses not to violate natural laws” creates for the historical narrative of the Bible and the resurrection of Christ.

    I’m guessing this is why we don’t see all that many TE’s here.

  33. Karl Giberson:

    Who is right – Collins or Behe? And how do we decide? Almost all the controversies about science within the evangelical world – and elsewhere – come down to this sort of situation – multiple experts, often impressively credentialed, but with opposing views. Behe and Collins both claim to speak for science. I want to suggest that, despite the apparent symmetry of the two sides in this case, that Collins should clearly be preferred over Behe.

    Collins promotes scientific ideas that are shared by tens of thousand of other credentialed scientists.

    Behe, otoh, is a crank.

    The pages of leading science magazines discuss those ideas.

    They never discuss anything by Behe. He’s a crank.

    Scientific meetings put those ideas on their programs.

    Behe, that crank, can’t even get an invite.

    Grants are awarded to study those ideas.

    Any grant awarded to Behe is a clear case of government malfeasance.

    Biotechnology companies research new products based on those ideas.

    Research based on the idea that “it just happened, that’s all” is incredibly productive.

    Some pharmaceutical companies even have products for sale based on those ideas.

    Research based on the idea that “it just happened, that’s all” is incredibly profitable.

    In contrast, Behe’s ideas are shared by a tiny number of scientists, and most of them are less credentialed than he is.

    Behe’s credentials are a magnet for other cranks.

    Collins’s group of colleagues is hundreds, perhaps thousand of times larger than Behe’s.

    That explains the intellectual black hole.

    The ideas about intelligent design promoted by Behe are almost nonexistent in the scientific literature.

    Real scientists cannot be bothered to publish results refuting the claims of a crank like Behe.

    Some of the ideas, in fact, have never been written up and submitted to a science journal.

    Yawn.

    They appear only in his popular books.

    Therefore, they are not worth publishing.

    Behe’s ideas are not discussed at scientific meetings…

    Any meeting which discusses his ideas is not a scientific meeting.

    They are published primarily in books that are not peer reviewed…

    Unlike Charles Darwin.

    Even so, any peer of Behe can pick up his books and review them. I imagine it’s been done.

    No grants are being rewarded to study these ideas…

    Probably a lie. If not, I’ll fund a (modest) grant.

  34. Mung:

    “But for God to break one of His natural laws it would require that God be subject to the natural laws that he created to govern nature. But God is not a natural thing and cannot be subject to natural law. I’m sure you agree, lol.”

    Here you are trying to be too clever, and reading more into Giberson’s position than what he is saying. (I agree Giberson is incompetent in the area, but I want to be fair to him.)

    First of all, if God can break his own natural laws, he is *not* subject to them.

    Second, Giberson is not denying that God could break one of his own laws if he wanted to. He is saying that God generally does not do so, and generally shouldn’t do so. And he is saying that, because God doesn’t do so, we can be sure that life evolved from molecules to man without “interventions.”

    Notice how clever this is. The TE doesn’t have to prove that molecules are *capable* of becoming man, by showing other scientists the pathway by which this might happen, with detailed description of mechanisms. He simply has to declare that God doesn’t break his own laws, because God is a reasonable sort of fellow who doesn’t contradict himself — and then naturalistic theistic evolution follows inevitably. Very neat. The problem is that this “proof” of naturalistic evolution is (a) theological, not scientific; and (b) based on a non-Biblical theology.

  35. @StephenB #19:

    “You ought to read “The Evidential Power of Beauty,” by Fr. Thomas Dubay, a pro-ID catholic priest (Thomist).” – StephenB

    Thanks for the referral. Can you also link us to published writing by Fr. Thomas Dubay that is ‘pro-ID’? Thanks in advance.

    “Any Catholic who opposes “Big ID” in the name of Catholicism understands neither ID nor Catholicism.” – StephenB

    No, Catholics are generally not ‘pro-Big-ID.’ They are pro-small-id (see more below). They don’t think one can ‘natural scientifically’ prove (or weaker: ‘infer’) the existence of a Big-IA Intelligent Agent, by which they and other Christians name ‘God.’ That is one of the two main differences between small-id and Big-ID: scientificity and movement. small-id and anti-Big-ID are not ‘movements,’ they are mainstream views; they are what most people, meaning Abrahamic religious persons, believe.

    [And personally, StephenB, I don’t usually use the term ‘Catholicism.’]

    “Who is more likely to admire the beauty of creation? Will it be a Big ID advocate, who thinks that God designed a bird’s wings, or an evolutionary creationist, who thinks that biological design is an illusion?” – StephenB

    You don’t yet understand the language of Big-ID vs. small-id and the difference adopting it makes possible. If you did, you wouldn’t ask such a question about ‘admiring Creation’s beauty.’ small-id advocates (who mostly don’t call themselves that!) think “God designed a bird’s wings” and flowers and people; they believe in (and thus just as readily admire the beauty of) Creation! The felt need you have to pigeon-hole ‘biological design’ is to commit yourself to the ideology of scientism, rather than to openly embrace science, philosophy and theology/worldview in a collaborative dialogue. This resistance to widening the conversation from natural-science alone to science, philosophy and theology/worldview stops our conversation from moving forward.

    Most Big-ID advocates (the leaders of the DI anyway) think that ‘Design’ (by an unnameable ‘Intelligence’) can be ‘natural scientifically’ proven (or ‘inferred’). Again, it’s the claim to ‘natural scientificity’ here that is the stumbling block. Big-ID is an attempted ‘natural scientific’ theory of origins (life, biological information, even sometimes of human beings), aimed at rivalling or even eventually over-coming ‘(neo-)Darwinian evolution’ as a theory of ‘natural history.’ Surely we do agree on that, even if you simply read this ‘definition’ of Big-ID theory with charity?

    People of faith, Muslims, Christians and Jews, Bahai’s, et al. have no need to try to ‘natural scientifically prove’ the existence of a Creator they already accept on faith. Why is this so hard for disenchanted theists who are attracted to Big-ID theory and movement to understand?

    Part of the reason, it seems, is that ‘eastern’ thinking is more holistic and integral, while ‘western’ thinking is more atomistic and fragmented, and the discourse at UD is mainly among ‘westerners.’ The eastern Abrahamic believers I’ve spoken with don’t usually see such a conflict between science and religion or science and theology/worldview. They see symbiosis or (potential) harmony amongst the over-lapping spheres.

    “The official teaching of the Catholic Church fits in with Big ID, but it doesn’t fit in with your trendy “Catholic” friends at BioLogos.” – StephenB

    Actually StephenB, I believe the first part of your statement is wrong and the second part is needless mudslinging. Big-ID theory is trying to test God’s divine action (without, wink, nudge, explicitly calling it “God’s divine action”); it is claiming a ‘natural scientific’ proof ‘(inference’) for God’s works (‘Design in Nature’). It is claiming ‘Design in Nature’ *is* real and natural science can tell us how or where or when (or even more explanitarily weak, simply that) it became INSTANTIATED (except when it usually scientifically fails to do these things). Big-IDists are sometimes trying to make their theory ‘fit in’ with the official teachings of the Catholic Church, but the vice versa scenario (of fitting the Catholic Church in with Big-ID) is not a coherent Catholic thought.

    Two examples: Here and and Here

    I’m neither a BioLogosian nor an ‘evolutionary creationist.’ My supposed “trendy ‘Catholic’ friends at BioLogos” is a myth of your own making. Please stop with this false imagination. If you’d actually read my writings, some of which you can find by clicking on my name, you’d realise that already. I’m charting an alternative route, StephenB, just as critical of ‘theistic evolutionism/evolutionary creationism’ as I am of Big-IDism, ideologies as each of them are.

    And as I’ve said many times here before, as an Abrahamic believer, I embrace, what for social-cultural-political reasons only in the dialogue here is now called (at least by me, but demonstrated in the writings of others also) ‘small-id’ or lower case id (Gingerich), the common confession that God created the universe. But please don’t ask me to give you a ‘natural scientific proof’ or ‘natural scientific inference’ of that.

    p.s. unprovoked attacks by ‘Timaeus’ are not welcome and are becoming more regular, since the Big-ID vs. small-id flip-flopping he demonstrated. I didn’t reference his name in this thread or comment on his words, but yet he jumped at me with obviously more free time on his hands than I have, demanding answers. I won’t be responding to his post in this thread.

  36. StephenB:

    I hope that you or someone else can tell me why my plea (#25 above) to Gregory to set aside wrangling about vocabulary, motivations, and cultural politics and offer us his views on the subjects of nature and God and design detection and Christianity constitutes an “unprovoked attack” (#36 above) upon Gregory.

    Be that as it may, I would like to make another remark, which Gregory will doubtless interpret as an “unprovoked attack” but which is only a factual observation, which Gregory can choose to explain, or leave unexplained, as he wishes.

    I wrote above (#21):

    “I predict that Gregory will not engage with you at all on the passages you have quoted from Humani Generis.”

    Gregory’s response to you in #36 does not address even a single line of the Catholic document. He refutes your account of Catholic thought by linking to the articles of two Catholic journalist/bloggers who give their secondhand account of the views of various Catholic thinkers. Not one of the journalists or bloggers or Catholic thinkers cited has the authority to speak for the Catholic Church on the meaning of Humani Generis. Basically, Gregory has thrown up a smattering of opinion of individual, freelancing Catholics (bloggers, journalists, biologists, philosophy professors, retired Vatican astronomers), as if such a mishmash is equal in authority to a document promulgated by the Holy See.

    I cannot grasp a conception of scholarship that puts the opinions of journalists and bloggers and other unlicensed teachers ahead of official documents of the Church whose views are being debated.

    Is it an “unprovoked attack” to note that this is not the way that scholarship in theology is done, and to ask Gregory why he proceeds in this manner?

  37. Gregory.

    You don’t yet understand the language of Big-ID vs. small-id and the difference adopting it makes possible. If you did, you wouldn’t ask such a question about ‘admiring Creation’s beauty.’ small-id advocates (who mostly don’t call themselves that!) think “God designed a bird’s wings” and flowers and people; they believe in (and thus just as readily admire the beauty of) Creation! The felt need you have to pigeon-hole ‘biological design’ is to commit yourself to the ideology of scientism, rather than to openly embrace science, philosophy and theology/worldview in a collaborative dialogue. This resistance to widening the conversation from natural-science alone to science, philosophy and theology/worldview stops our conversation from moving forward.

    You may recall that I asked you on another occasion to tell me, based on your statement that small id “assumes” design, if that meant that small id excludes design arguments that do NOT assume design, as is the case with Aquinas and Paley. I assume that you didn’t address the question because you have not given the matter any thought. Well, it’s time to think about it.

    If only the assumption of design counts as “small id,” then it should be evident that small ID cannot appreciate the beauty of design patterns that, by definition, are merely being assumed and have not been observed (detected). Big ID, on the other hand, does not take the existence of design patterns on faith; it detects those patterns and, through that detection, recognizes the beautiful proportions inherent in them. One cannot appreciate beauty and its proportions if both are simply taken on faith.

    If small id, therefore, excludes design detection through inference, then it also excludes the possibility of appreciating beauty, which is inseparable from design detection. You can’t appreciate a beautiful woman’s face by simply accepting as an article of faith that the pleasing proportions are there; you must be able to apprehend (detect) them through observation. You cannot appreciate the beauty of Mozart by simply believing that his composition was designed, you must hear the design of that composition played out. Is this not clear to you?

    So, the question is, how can small id appreciate the beauty of a design that cannot be apprehended in the design patterns? Or is it the case that small id DOES include design arguments that begin with observation, in which case, small ID collapses into Big ID and your distinctions become meaningless. So, my challenge persists. Define “small id,” including at least some of the elements and problems that I have indicated.

    Most Big-ID advocates (the leaders of the DI anyway) think that ‘Design’ (by an unnameable ‘Intelligence’) can be ‘natural scientifically’ proven (or ‘inferred’). Again, it’s the claim to ‘natural scientificity’ here that is the stumbling block. Big-ID is an attempted ‘natural scientific’ theory of origins (life, biological information, even sometimes of human beings), aimed at rivalling or even eventually over-coming ‘(neo-)Darwinian evolution’ as a theory of ‘natural history.’ Surely we do agree on that, even if you simply read this ‘definition’ of Big-ID theory with charity?

    I think we can agree on that.

    People of faith, Muslims, Christians and Jews, Bahai’s, et al. have no need to try to ‘natural scientifically prove’ the existence of a Creator they already accept on faith. Why is this so hard for disenchanted theists who are attracted to Big-ID theory and movement to understand?

    Reasonable people want to know that their faith commitment is not just a flying shot in the dark. That is why Romans 1:20 tells us that we can infer God’s existence through the evidence of his handiwork. It makes no sense to simply believe something that we can know beyond a reasonable doubt. If we know that God exists, then we can believe in his revelation with the confidence that our faith commitment is grounded in reason. Muslims and Bahai’s simply take their religion on faith, without putting it to the test of reason. Christians believe because reason has provided the intellectual preparation for a higher faith in God’s word. Faith should be permitted to illuminate reason only after faith has passed the test of reason.

    Part of the reason, it seems, is that ‘eastern’ thinking is more holistic and integral, while ‘western’ thinking is more atomistic and fragmented, and the discourse at UD is mainly among ‘westerners.’ The eastern Abrahamic believers I’ve spoken with don’t usually see such a conflict between science and religion or science and theology/worldview. They see symbiosis or (potential) harmony amongst the over-lapping spheres.

    I don’t know of anyone at UD who disagrees with the notion of over-lapping spheres. I have been preaching that sermon for about ten paragraphs now. Why the strawman?

    Most Big-ID advocates (the leaders of the DI anyway) think that ‘Design’ (by an unnameable ‘Intelligence’) can be ‘natural scientifically’ proven (or ‘inferred’). Again, it’s the claim to ‘natural scientificity’ here that is the stumbling block. Big-ID is an attempted ‘natural scientific’ theory of origins (life, biological information, even sometimes of human beings), aimed at rivalling or even eventually over-coming ‘(neo-)Darwinian evolution’ as a theory of ‘natural history.’ Surely we do agree on that, even if you simply read this ‘definition’ of Big-ID theory with charity?

    Sure, I can accept that description of “Big ID” as a working or operative definition. I am very easy to get along with.

    Now we must evaluate your comments about “Catholicism.” I realize that that you don’t like that word, so I will try not to offend your sensibilities any more than is necessary. My purpose for citing the passages in Humani Generis was to provide a solid theological footing for understanding the Church’s teaching on origins and evolution. If you read the two paragraphs I cited, you will find nothing in that document that discourages, much less forbids, the science of detecting design patterns in nature (what you call “Big ID”). Note that the Catholic Church is very open-minded about these things. Being pro-science, it encourages research from just about every perspective that you can imagine. Very few approaches are prohibited. That is why one should pay close attention when the Church actually does take a negative stand and state explicitly that a certain philosophical or scientific world view violates the spirit of Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

    What, then, are some of the few things that a Catholic must avoid if he is to remain faithful to the letter and spirit of magisterial teachings? I will explain the point and then provide the portion of the document [in brackets] that confirms it:

    First, a Catholic cannot, without good reason, dogmatically assert that “the” theory of evolution is true, that is, he must seriously entertain the possibility that he could be wrong, weighing both sides of the argument with serious deliberation, at least until all the evidence is in and the verdict is overwhelmingly positive.

    [“However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure…”] [Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question].

    Second, a Catholic must rule out any world view that posits the emergence of mind from matter or the notion that an immaterial soul, of which the immaterial mind is a faculty, was the product of naturalistic evolution. The soul is understood to be a spiritual substance, so matter cannot bring it into being. Obviously, naturalistic or materialistic evolution would not make the cut.

    [“for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God”].

    Third, a Catholic must rule out “polygenism,” the theory that the human race has descended from two or more ancestral types.

    [“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”]

    Interestingly, most of the “Catholic” journalists you cited ignore the aforementioned points. They are politically and legally free to do so, of course, but they do so solely on their own authority. They do not speak for the Church. Indeed, Father Coyne, former head of the Vatican observatory, and one of your sources, was removed from his post, probably because of his belligerence in the teeth of official church teachings.

    Now I do think it is fair to point out that, informally and unofficially, at least two popes have discouraged the Creation Science paradigm (what you and I call “Creationism”) and have argued that it is unscientific. I think that their position is eminently reasonable, but I hasten to add that informal comments by a pope, though they deserve to be taken seriously, are not binding for Catholics and do not carry the same weight as an encyclical, which is binding. I think it is fair to say that John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both advocates of common descent and a guided evolutionary process, putting them at odds with Theistic Darwinists, who propose unguided evolution in the name of God, and Creation Scientists (Creationists), who ignore sound Biblical hermeneutics and embrace a “literalist” (as opposed to “literal”)reading of Genesis.

    It is also true that many of the common teachings of the Catholic Church (a second level that is encouraged and recommended but not binding) have been influenced by Augustine and Aquinas, just as they have been influenced by Plato and Aristotle. Accordingly, some would like to claim that ID’s approach to scientific detection is incompatible with Aquinas’ philosophy of nature. Among those who promote this view, we can include Ed Feser, Ed Oakes, Thomas Heller, and Francis Beckwith. At UD, we take note of that. However, what these authors will not tell you is that many other Thomistic philosophers think that ID and St.Thomas are eminently compatible.

    So, I don’t know why I should give any more weight to your anti-ID thomists than you give to my pro-ID Thomists. Indeed, the fact that the anti-ID Thomists refuse to mention the pro-ID Thomists suggests a compromised level of scholarship on their part. Only agenda-driven ideologues do not want to hear the other side of an argument, and only agenda-driven ideologues withhold critical information. I am, therefore, less than congenial with agenda-driven Catholic ideologues when they attack ID in the name of Catholicism and Thomism, even though both their Church and their master would disapprove of their actions.

  38. Optimus @24, thank you for the kind words.

  39. Timaeus @37, I am at a loss to explain why Gregory would characterize your comments @25 as an unprovoked attack. Perhaps he didn’t realize that I had praised you @23 for practicing the virtue of meekness in the face of his unwarranted attacks on your character and that you were simply responding to my compliment. Apparently, he is not aware of the fact that it was I and not you that broached the subject.

  40. StephenB:

    Thanks for your answer in 40, and for your good response to Gregory in 38. It appears that Gregory has exited the discussion, both under this column and under the other one where these issues are currently being discussed. Let’s review what happened, and think about what Gregory’s exit means.

    Gregory made charges that you did not correctly understand the Catholic position on evolution, and made assertions of his own about that position. You conceded to him certain points, but on certain other points, you responded with authoritative statements from the Vatican. He has refused to engage with those statements, and instead has responded with the opinions of dissident Catholics who have no teaching authority.

    I am not Catholic, but I have immense respect for the Catholic Church. And if I were Catholic, I would be a conservative one, not a liberal one. Humani Generis would for me outweigh the opinions of liberal bloggers or liberal university professors.

    I think Gregory would like the Catholic teaching on evolution to be other than it is.

    To be sure, Catholicism is more evolution-friendly than evangelical Protestantism has been; but it still doesn’t go as far as Gregory would like it to go. Well, fine. Gregory can criticize the Roman Church if he wishes, and urge it to change. What he doesn’t have the right to do is misrepresent Rome’s teaching in order to defend his own views on evolution. And that’s what he often does.

    I not know why Gregory will not yield to the evidence of documents. I do not know what motivates him, what his agenda is, where he would like Christianity to go. What I do know is that, when it comes to questions of religious doctrine and religious history, he argues unfairly and in an academically unacceptable manner.

    I’ve asked Gregory to lay his cards on the table, explain to us his views on God, evolution, the true form of Christianity, etc. If we knew where he was coming from, we could have a much more constructive dialogue with him. We might be able to find points of agreement. But all we know of Gregory’s thought is what views of God, evolution, and Christianity that he *dislikes*. We know what he will aggressively denounce. We know what he negates; we have no idea what he posits. The question is why Gregory will not offer any positive statements.

    Of course, if Gregory offered positive statements, he would then be in the same position as the rest of us. Just as our expressed views, precisely because they are not hidden, but open, can be criticized by Gregory, so if his views were open, not hidden, they could be criticized by us. He would then potentially be on the defensive, rather than on the offensive. And perhaps he does not want to open up himself in that way.

    Whatever his reasons, he has given us nothing to discuss. I no longer wish to spend time refuting his charges of low motivations, dishonesty, political scheming, cowardice, scientism, etc. If he is not going to set forth his own views, I don’t really wish to converse with him any longer.

    I can’t tell others here what to do, but one strategy that might reduce the number of aggressive attacks on all of us would be not to respond to Gregory again until he sets forth doctrines of his own. *Not* objections to Discovery or ID or creationism etc., but his own doctrines. If we all simply went silent until he set forth his own position, answering along the way the many questions he has left unanswered about what he believes, he would have to either articulate his position — which would be useful to all — or give up posting here out of boredom, when no one replied.

    This is my suggestion. I of course have no way of enforcing it, and no desire to enforce it. But it might improve matters. The status quo — with Gregory dropping in here every few weeks and berating and insulting people, and then leaving when challenged to defend his own views — is not acceptable. If anyone has another suggestion for how to talk more constructively with Gregory, I’m all ears.

  41. Timaeus, @41

    I am not sure that UD has a full-time moderator these days. It seems that the thread’s author is now the one who is expected to play that role. With great sadness, VJT found it necessary to cut off all communication with Gregory. On several other occasions, kairosfocus has held the line on civilized behavior and deleted comments from writers who refused to stay on topic. Following their lead, other authors could delete his recklessly insulting comments, press him to answer questions, and prompt him to disclose his own views. I don’t think you should have to withdraw from the discussion in order to make that happen.

    While Gregory’s behavior has always eccentric, it becomes downright bizarre when he interacts with you. I know that it has been going on for a long time, but I can find no rhyme or reason for it. In a way, it is a tribute to your standing as an ID paragon, since he sends his most passionate and contempt-filled ID rants in your direction. At this point, though, I don’t think anyone takes him seriously. How many times can he write, “I despise Timaeus,” or “small id is good; Big ID is bad, or “Steve Fuller and I are the two smartest people in the world” without becoming a caricature of himself. I don’t think you will have to freeze him out. As this generation’s “Johnny-one-note,” he will burn himself out.

  42. StephenB,

    If I provided you with incontrovertible evidence that you (and anyone else reading this) could personally “follow where it leads,” but that in fact challenges your position, would you be willing to publically admit it when you saw it or not?

    Yes or No?

    In the intervening days since last contact, I’ve found clear and present evidence. Not highly technical, but readable to non-scholars and scholars equally. It should be obvious to anyone who cares to take just a few minutes of their time to read it. And it gets right at the heart of your unwillingness to admit Big-ID/small-id waffling is even happening. Would you be willing to face up to the evidence, StephenB?

    In any case, I see you still have no hesitation to give false testimony by trying to put words into my mouth (“I despise Timaeus” – StephenB), just like your (culture-war) ‘comrade’ Timaeus’ bad communication habits. Such is what one has to face when getting ‘in the trenches’ with Big-IDists like you guys. Please realise that I see through your ‘tar and feather’ tactics and it doesn’t faze me.

    In this thread, johnnyb offered congratulations to Deborah Haarsma and Jeffrey Schloss. That’s a positive non-culture-warring move, for which I applaud him. I have a feeling he and I would get along just fine in person, not just internet chatter. He is also welcome to reach me via my real-life contact, from following links on my name.

    I would also offer my congratulations to Deb and Jeff. The new directions that BioLogos will push (with renewed Templeton grant) might be interesting, e.g. the recent Venema series offering an Intro to Evolution. StephenB, nullasalus, vjtorley and Timaeus only sheepishly if at all support educating YEC’s out of their YECism, as BioLogos bravely does. No doubt, BioLogos has picked a worthy battle, one which Big-ID on the contrary exploits to its own financial gains and consequent reputation losses.

    Nevertheless, I disagree strongly with both Deb and Jeff’s approaches to evolution and evolutionism. It may be provocative what develops from these disagreements.

    In #2 above, I made a simple prediction: BioLogos will not (read: in the foreseeable future) embrace (Big-ID) Intelligent Design theory. This was in response to johnnyb’s congratulation to BioLogos’ new leaders, “whether BioLogos embraces Intelligent Design [theory] or not.” I stand by that claim and don’t think anyone here at UD would hypothesise otherwise. If they would care to offer a way that “BioLogos will embrace Intelligent Design,” which I doubt they will, could please share it here? So far, Big-IDists have got nothing constructive to offer.

    One hyper-IDist at BioLogos even tried to humorously claim him-self an ‘intelligent design theistic evolutionist.’ But that obvious mask was soon dropped for the reality of his anti-TE/EC position. He has and continues to mock and condescend with his supposed ID-wisdom towards (Open Theism and) BioLogos for its possibly primitive evangelical theology, while at the same time not defending Big-ID for its ‘science-only’ facade. These things make the sociological fact of (pseudo- and quasi-) IDists and IDism so curious to observe!

    You folks may or may not be seeking (a) mediator(s) in your American culture-war stand-off. You may or may not think you need one, as self-righteously individualist a culture in which you live in the USA. The truth is that some people on this Earth don’t think they need *any* help or correction, even when the evidence and need stares them straight in the face. My question thus is: if you discover a competent mediator (i.e. someone who isn’t a professed IDist, TEist, or ECist), would be willing with their help to negotiate or adjust your meaning of ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ (small-id/Big-ID) theory/paradigm if reality proves that BioLogos will not accept Big-ID theory based on good reasons?

    As for StephenB’s question whether or not “small id excludes design arguments that do NOT assume design, as is the case with Aquinas and Paley.” The answer can only be found if StephenB will ever stop fronting the current Big-ID ‘objectivistic’ and/or ‘neutralistic’ position that Big-ID is a natural science-only theory. Even in this thread he spews such ludicrous ideas. Once he stops that, we can possibly address his reflexive question properly. Aquinas and Paley were obviously not ‘natural scientists’ as the term is generally understood now and they cannot be mis-appropriated as Big-IDists as the IDM has already done with A.R. Wallace.

    But this message simply and clearly aims to know if StephenB will “follow the evidence where it leads” or not. Is StephenB ready to face ‘incontrovertible evidence’ against his position? It’s a simple as that.

    Gregory

    p.s. What most baffles me and even makes me chuckle about in this thread is that it appears ‘Timaeus’ seems to actually think he is personally (anonymously) doing “scholarship in theology” at UD His generation (as he told us here at UD when he responded to Steve Fuller; he is born in 1956) didn’t grow up with computers and the internet, didn’t program at a young age like mine and many at UD did, and thus may find it hard to distinguish between blogs, on-line forums, academic venues and professional journals, etc. We may excuse him for his confusion. But what really must be a far stretch of the imagination for most reading this is that Timaeus actually seems to think that UD is a venue for serious theologians to publish themselves (even their most significant ‘public’ works) and that this is what he is doing here! I can say honestly, that I don’t consider UD as such a site, even if Timaeus desires to see this venue that way and expects others to agree with him. Unless he has no other venues to be published, surely Timaeus is merely teasing us :P

    p.p.s. I had read the passage from Humani Generis before you cited it, StephenB. Imo, it does not credit your unsupported Big-IDist ideology. So it wasn’t worth addressing here. I answered your question above and showed how your ‘trendy’ accusation was mudslinging bunk. Perhaps you will display the basic human dignity to understand this and treat me more fairly in future communication.

  43. Gregory announced (36 above) that he would not be responding to my post on this thread. Interestingly, this resolve has not stopped him from taking a number of personal swipes at me on this thread (43 above). It does not seem to have occurred to Gregory that substantive discussion of an argument is more useful to readers than sniping and digging. It also does not seem to register on him — though he has been told scores of times over the past few years here — that he would be more respected by everyone here if he (a) responded to counterarguments instead of ducking them; and (b) refrained from ad hominem remarks. So he seems to be shooting himself in the foot; he wishes more respect from everyone here, yet continues in the behavior which everyone has told him earns their disrespect. This is irrational. But someone with a Ph.D. is supposed to be rational. Something doesn’t figure.

    I won’t respond to Gregory’s edgy tone in kind. I will simply make some factual corrections to his swipes at me.

    I never said that I was conducting scholarship here on UD. I have presented certain results of scholarship (my own, and others’) here, where the subjects of discussion have warranted it; but original scholarship I present in other venues. What I present here are intelligent layman’s arguments relevant to what columnists and commenters have written. If these arguments happen to be informed by over 30 years of scholarship, I cannot help that.

    Gregory may be surprised to know that I once took a course in computer programming. More important, however, is that I know the condition of the very existence of computer programs; they cannot arise out of chance, but require intelligent agency. And Bill Gates himself once said that DNA is more complex than any software ever produced. Gregory has not yet drawn the inference for the question of design in nature; I drew it long ago. I therefore would not trade my older education, which taught me how to reason, for any of the alleged advantages Gregory had from growing up in a generation that had computers in high school (at the expense of grammar, compositional skill, Latin, reading comprehension and many other things that modern high schools have scrapped).

    Regarding Gregory’s p.p.p.s. to StephenB, I employ my “misdirection filter” and translate it as: “I’m not going to reply to your argument from the passage from Humani Generis, because Humani Generis blows away my argument about official Catholic teaching on evolution, and any attention I draw to the document will reveal that, no matter how cleverly I try to finesse the words to make them say something that they don’t; so it’s best that I keep the reader’s mind off Humani Generis altogether.” Of course, Gregory got himself into this problem, by posturing as if he knows something about the Catholic position on evolution, when in fact he is not Catholic and has no training in Catholic theology. Why he can’t just defer to StephenB’s superior knowledge of the tradition is anyone’s guess.

  44. As for ‘burning out,’ there is not much time remaining. I have enough energy to out-produce the entire IDM! This was evidenced at the DI summer program in discussion with other genuinely interested persons, who had not yet become Big-ID ideologues.

    Something big has happened in the past few days; a game-changer, so to speak. I won a scholar competition that will change my role and position in these discussions over the next two years. As a result, I must soon depart from Uncommon Descent, as educated dialogue here does not seem to help the situation and I am not willing to compromise my academic credibility by giving this site (and by implication, Big-ID theory) my time and attention.

    This is so even if I think many of you (from e-contact) are perhaps decent people aside from your obvious embrace of the ideology of Big-IDism. So perhaps you can now understand, StephenB, that people do in fact take me seriously (especially students!), even actual high-level scholars and international colleagues. I take this honour as a sign of being much better balanced that the average uneducated American Big-IDist/neo-creationist.

    In anticipation of my near-departure, I highly recommend for you to read Max Weber’s “Science as a Vocation,” which can be found here

  45. Gregory, for the umpteenth time, has referred to the time he spent part of a summer (actually, it was only something like 8 days) at the Discovery Institute; generally his references serve the purpose of mild boastfulness — e.g., he is an expert on ID because he took the program. Here the reference supports great boastfulness — he “outproduced” (whatever that means) “the entire IDM” (Gregory was never a man for understatement), and “other interested persons” saw the “evidence” for this.

    Yet, when asked to describe his activities at the DI summer course, Gregory has repeatedly refused to do so. In other words, he refuses to give us the information we need to evaluate the claims of his superior training and insights regarding ID. I’m sure many here are starting to wonder why Gregory wants us to accept the claims, but will not provide any substantiation for the claims.

    For example, Gregory could get permission from some of the students he talked to at Discovery, to quote or paraphrase their judgments of his brilliance. Then we could, if we wished, check his claims by speaking with the people whose words he was relaying. He could also let us know which teachers in the program thought he outstripped all the other students in understanding. We could, then, write to those teachers and ask them if Gregory was in fact so excellent.

    Of course, these are not the only reasons why Gregory’s account would be useful. Anyone thinking of taking the summer program would like to have an account from someone who has gone there before. I already stressed the value of this in earlier posts. But in the context of Gregory’s current boasting, an account becomes more than useful; it becomes imperative. Otherwise we must regard Gregory’s account of his own performance as partisan and unreliable.

    Finally, Gregory must be joking when he implies that he has been making a big sacrifice of time and credibility in speaking to the lowly people at Uncommon Descent. It is not as if anyone asked for his help here. But his “excuse” for leaving does not make sense even in his own terms. If it was damaging his credibility with academia to talk to us rubes here, why has he been doing it all along? Why hasn’t he shunned the place? And if the Chairs and Deans at his Eastern European teacher’s college haven’t indicated displeasure at his activities here for the past two years, why would anyone at his new institution (presuming he is moving) do so?

    In any case, if Gregory has got a promotion, I offer him my congratulations. But as far as ID goes, it won’t make any difference. ID proponents argue mainly about two things: natural science and theology. Gregory has no qualifications to comment on either, so whatever his new job is, it won’t be a “game changer” as far as his authority in ID discussions goes.

  46. I guess Gregory’s willingness to serve as a mediator was a limited time offer.

    And it looks like I wasted 10 bucks on Bejan’s book. Gregory won’t be around to discuss it.

  47. The purpose of my participation is not to demonstrate my brilliance or excellence at all. I’m a pretty humble guy, after all I’ve been through and who I’ve met. People who know me know that. My words and experience at the DI summer program simply show that it is possible, nay indeed logical, to reject Big-ID theory qua theory, having been through the indoctrination of the DI in regard to ‘scientificity.’

    It would be improper to speak in depth of the IDM’s summer program here at UD, in Big-ID friendly (and sometimes frantic) territory. Most partisan folks here simply wouldn’t accept any criticism or the reality of that event, even truth be told about it. Here’s an example: Discovery Institute promotes a science, philosophy, theology/worldview agenda first and foremost. E.g. it prays, in the evangelical Christian tradition, before meals. That is, other than when it is double-speaking a ‘natural-science-only’ agenda.

    Likewise, blog-format written messages reporting this kinda thing usually wouldn’t be the right medium to challenge a person’s (world)views. Big-IDists here at UD are likely going to stay Big-IDists, come hell or high water. This isn’t a place for critical thinking and discovery; it is a place for ideology and back-patting. My contribution here has been to reveal the ideology and back-patting, which some people are too sensitive or radical to allow.

    “ID proponents argue mainly about two things: natural science and theology.” – Timaeus

    If that’s the case, then why, Oh LORD, why hasn’t ‘Timaeus’ the timid North American intervened in support of my words when I’ve made that very same point to others at UD!?! Coward, intentionally ignorant, back-stabbing. jealousy, etc.? Why hasn’t he had the baXXs to come forward and defend me against the ignorant relativist ‘little-big-tenters’ here at UD who falsely imagine that there is such a thing as a human-social science of ID? He knows that there is no such thing and could easily say so to his ‘tribe.’

    Why not? Because, ladies and gentlemen, he’s (status among you, weak to the truth) afraid.
    As for who I’ll be working with this will include both natural scientists and theologians, and I think StephenB would well approve. ‘Timaeus’ is a D-leaguer in the realm of scholarship, who dreams of playing with the big-boys. But hey, Jeremy Lin and others have made it to the highest stage. So why can’t ‘Timaeus’ eventually have the courage and try to publish in a peer-reviewed journal (not just in ID-friendly journals or books) and maybe eventually come out of the closet or return to the tenure-track that he sadly fell off?

    People understand this; I don’t speak down to people. My task and real life service is to lift people up. Timaeus acts under on-line masks towards me as if he is on such a high horse. Yet I know something about the actual (real person) position on which he sits. He seems to think Big-ID theory can elevate him to the top of the ladder that he once dreamed to achieve, even if he doesn’t defend Big-ID’s scientificity. He wants to be a revolutionary for Big-IDism. And I’m simply delivering a reality check to him about this ideology, this movement, this quasi-science. It’s not going to happen the way he thinks in his historian’s, religious studies agenda.

    In this thread I’m not really interested in ‘Timaeus’ anymore and would rather he spend his weekend elsewhere. My patience here is for StephenB’s response to ‘creationism’ as ideology, which he asked me for and to which I responded. I gave him a concise challenge in #43 and #36. Will he rise to meet it?

  48. Gregory:

    If I provided you with incontrovertible evidence that you (and anyone else reading this) could personally “follow where it leads,” but that in fact challenges your position, would you be willing to publically admit it when you saw it or not?

    Yes or No.

    I will be happy to admit in public to any error for which I should be held accountable, either of a factual nature. If you will lead the way and show me where I am wrong, I will gratefully respond. The only thing that counts is the truth.

    As for StephenB’s question whether or not “small id excludes design arguments that do NOT assume design, as is the case with Aquinas and Paley.” The answer can only be found if StephenB will ever stop fronting the current Big-ID ‘objectivistic’ and/or ‘neutralistic’ position that Big-ID is a natural science-only theory.

    I don’t know what to say to someone who cannot comprehend his own formulations. Inasmuch as the reputed difference between “small id” and “Big ID” informs your life’s mission, you should be able to tell us what each category means.

    There is a very simple reason that I asked you to take this simple, yet disciplined, intellectual jog. It was clear to me that you have yet to undertake the most basic of all mental exercises: You do not yet know the meanings of your own operative terms. Do Aquinas and Paley qualify for the “small ID” class, in which case they violate your criterion of “assumed design,” or are they to be cast out into the Twilight Zone with no category to cover them? This is no small problem for you.

    I had read the passage from Humani Generis before you cited it, StephenB.

    As a non-Catholic, you knew exactly which encyclical to go to and where to find the passage?—and you just happened to go there in advance of our discussion? That is quite a coincidence. Have you drawn many royal flushes lately?

    Either way, I am less interested in when you read the passages and more interested in your ability or inability to comprehend them. Find the relevant passages and show how they forbid or even discourage a scientific inference to design.

    Imo, it [Humani Generis]does not credit your unsupported Big-IDist ideology.

    I know that this will be a stretch for you, but—WHY does it not support Big IDism. You are here to give REASONS for your opinions, not to just state them.

    So it wasn’t worth addressing here.

    Any thoughtless or unsupported reply to my carefully-crafted refutation is worth addressing.

    I answered your question above and showed how your ‘trendy’ accusation was mudslinging bunk. Perhaps you will display the basic human dignity to understand this and treat me more fairly in future communication.

    You answered no questions and you demonstrated nothing. You simply offered an uninformed opinion without even a semblance of an argument.

    There are plenty of “trendy,” “anti-Magisterial” Catholics running around and I don’t hesitate to label them for what they are. Insofar as they accept the evolution of mind from matter, they violate both the letter and spirit of Humani Generis, which means that they are, indeed, “anti-Magisterial” Catholics. I can defend that charge all day long.

    With respect to my relationship with you, I am always open to a new beginning and the happy prospect for a fruitful dialogue. I don’t hold out much hope, though, because I have no reason to believe that you will ever disclose your own position on evolution or answer questions about the meaning of “small id.”

  49. first para @49should read..”either of a factual [or interpretive nature"].

  50. Gregory:

    “I’m a pretty humble guy.”

    There is a disconnect between the way Gregory perceives himself, and the way others see him. I would suggest that the cause of this disconnect lies in the way that Gregory presents himself. Unfortunately, pointing out to Gregory the way he comes across, even quoting back to him words of his which to all normal readers seem self-promoting, boastful, or arrogant, makes zero difference in his behavior.

  51. Gregory:

    Aquinas and Paley were obviously not ‘natural scientists’ as the term is generally understood now and they cannot be mis-appropriated as Big-IDists as the IDM has already done with A.R. Wallace.

    I didn’t ask you about “Big ID.” I asked you about “small id.” According to you, small id is the “belief” that God created the universe and the “assumption” that design is real. Yet Aquinas and Paley did not proceed in that fashion. Quite the contrary, they began with observation and tried to prove God’s existence through inferential reasoning. They did not begin their proofs by believing or assuming anything. In which category, then, do Aquinas and Paley belong?

  52. Regarding this exchange:

    “ID proponents argue mainly about two things: natural science and theology.” – Timaeus

    Gregory: “If that’s the case, then why, Oh LORD, why hasn’t ‘Timaeus’ the timid North American intervened in support of my words when I’ve made that very same point to others at UD!?!”

    Answer: Because you have not made “that very same point.” *My* point is that sometimes ID people talk about science (when they are trying to prove design in nature), and other times they talk about theology (when they are trying to address the implications of design in nature, or when they are responding to criticism from TEs, or when they are setting forth their personal religious positions in popular books). *Your* point is that the whole ID enterprise (detecting design in nature) is dishonest because it is really a covert way of slipping theological assumptions into scientific discussions. And I disagree with that point. And I have challenged you for many months now to produce even a single passage from an ID theoretical book which illegitimately imports theological assumptions into a scientific argument. You have not been able to find a single passage, let alone show that this practice is so widespread as to nullify the entire ID project.

  53. StephenB:

    Gregory says he does not wish to talk to me any longer. That’s fine; I’d rather he talked with you. I’d rather he answered:

    a. Your challenge regarding Humani Generis.

    b. Your question about Paley and Aquinas.

    If he would respond honestly and fully to these two things, I would be satisfied that he really wishes to have an intellectual discussion. If he ducks responding, or answers only glibly and superficially, I will know that he is doing culture politics as usual.

  54. Timaeus

    Gregory says he does not wish to talk to me any longer.

    That would seem to be an acceptable alternative so long as he also refrains from talking about you.

    That’s fine; I’d rather he talked with you. I’d rather he answered:

    a. Your challenge regarding Humani Generis.

    b. Your question about Paley and Aquinas.

    I would certainly be willing to openly discuss these matters with him in a spirit of friendliness and mutual respect. The future does not have to equal the past. Change is possible at any time.

  55. StephenB:

    Yes, if Gregory could refrain from taking shots at me in his discussions with others here, I would be less inclined to respond to him. I wouldn’t even mind if his references to me were neutral, e.g., “You and Timaeus have said, whereas nullasalus and Kantian Naturalist have said …”. But mere reporting is never enough for Gregory. He has to editorialize. Thus, it’s always more like “I care not for your arguments, nor those of the rhetorician Timaeus, who doesn’t even have enough courage to …”

    But of course, even if Gregory stopped attacking me tomorrow, all the other problems would remain. Even when addressing others, he still frequently makes ad hominem remarks, and he frequently dodges the hardest questions, and he is fixated on certain themes which he repeats over and over again, even when people here indicate that they aren’t interested in discussing them. I do not understand the motivation behind any of this behavior. If it were exhibited only in my case, I might attribute it to some historical grudge against me personally; but it seems to apply to everyone here who dares to defend ID.

    I cannot imagine that Gregory converses this way with his Dean, his departmental Chairman, his departmental colleagues, scholars he meets at conferences, or anyone on whom his hiring, tenure, or academic career might depend. If he did speak to other scholars in that way, his academic career would be short-lived indeed.

    In any case, I look forward to his answers to your challenges, if they should ever come. For what it is worth, I agree with your interpretation of the Catholic document, and I think your point about Paley and Aquinas is excellent, since Gregory must either denounce them as Big-ID or admit that they are only small-id; and either path will put him in an untenable situation. He is on the horns of a dilemma. That is why I expect that he will avoid answering you.

  56. One thing I am thankful for, StephenB, is that we are both interested in truth.

    “I will be happy to admit in public to any error for which I should be held accountable, either of a factual nature [or…?]. If you will lead the way and show me where I am wrong, I will gratefully respond. The only thing that counts is the truth.” – StephenB

    Beauty and goodness also count in my view, but that’s beside the main point here (because Big-ID is not an ‘aesthetic’ theory; it claims to be a ‘natural scientific-only’ theory).

    Here is evidence that Uncommon Descent blog flip-flops between writing non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) and capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case), from UD’s own Definitions, FAQ’s and Glossary:

    UD’s definition of ID starts out small, i.e. non-capitalised:

    The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

    Yet in the *very next paragraph* it flip-flops to capitalised Intelligent Design (Big-ID, upper case):

    In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.

    No reason for this flip-flop is given.

    In the FAQ’s, even just in Response 1 (there are many other examples in FAQ’s too), the authors flip-flop immediately between non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) and capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case):

    Dr William Dembski, a leading intelligent design researcher, has aptly stated:
    “Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

    In the Glossary, it starts out with capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’(Big-ID, upper case):

    “As is typical of scientific, technological or academic fields of endeavor, Intelligent Design has its own technical vocabulary.”

    Elsewhere, in the Glossary, non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) is written:

    “FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligent design.”

    Intelligent design [ID] – Dr William A Dembski, a leading design theorist, has defined ID as “the science that studies signs of [small-i] intelligence.”

    Flip-flopping between capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case) and non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) is thus tolerated and seemingly even encouraged at Uncommon Descent blog!
    StephenB, would it be right to assume that you were one of the ‘Contributors’?”

    SB is a Philosopher-Communicator with an emphasis on the application of sound common sense reasoning to the design controversy, GP is a Medical Doctor with a focus on the microbiology and microevolutonary issues, and KF is an Applied Physicist and educator with interests in information technologies and related information theory and statistical thermodynamics.

    In the face of this incontrovertible evidence of flip-flopping, what’s your next move, StephenB? If you say something like, “so what if it *is* happening; I’ve never denied it,” then you’ve got a credibility problem on your hands. You know it’s happening, but turn a blind eye to and thus support the waffling at UD.

    Otoh, you could simply say that it was different authors of each paragraph and the final result was simply an over-looked mixture of Big-ID and small-id. But this would just prove the point I am making about flip-flopping the capitalisation vs. non-capitalisation. Frankly, I don’t know the motives of why people would choose to do this. Perhaps you could help people to understand it.

    You could also choose to wave away the distinction between upper case and lower case versions of ‘ID’ as if it doesn’t matter, but doing so would be to insult dialogue partners who contend that it *does* matter. Among those persons, obviously along with myself, include decorated scientists, scholars and thinkers in the Abrahamic tradition: e.g. O. Gingerich, S. Barr, G. Murphy, T. Davis, R. Isaac, et al.
    You are a Big-ID writer yourself, StephenB. Even vjtorley seems to understand the difference in capitalisation quite well and honours it. But for the sake of ‘movement unity’ will you ignore this evidence or will you face up to it and seek to correct it; for the sake of improved communication and honesty?

    In the common search for truth, thanks for your patience as evidence is presented which can be ‘followed where it leads’ and where an ‘inference to the best explanation’ (i.e. for flip-flopping between small-id and Big-ID) can be discussed.

    Gregory

    p.s. you can find a more detailed message on this topic at Human Extension.

  57. Gregory

    There is no flip-flopping.

    There is no reason to reckon with the tendentious distinction you are trying to insert, and so there is no significance to the variation, save where ID may refer to something a bit more official. Yes, there are those who believe in design, but unless such also accept the credibility of the warrant for empirical detectability of design per the design inference on tested and reliable signs in cases that exhibit such, they are not design thinkers in the relevant sense.

    The underlying issue, as yet again pointed out to you here, is the inductive, empirical warrant for the design inference on sign.

    Which, thank you, stands well grounded.

    (And, indeed, other than where the a priori materialism of today’s new magisterium in the lab coat is called into question, is not even controversial. So, the real fill-in-the-blanks question is: the empirically observed evidence that shows that a plausible chemical stew in some pond or comet etc produces Cell-based life forms from chance behaviour or circumstances and the necessity of laws of physics and chemistry is ___________. Similarly, the evidence of observed origin of body plans per blind chance variation and differential reproductive success in ecological niches is _____________. Publications include ____________ . Where also the Nobel or equivalent prizes won for this work is/are _____________ . [For sure, success in any of these two would win such a prize.] If you cannot readily fill in these blanks, that is strong evidence that you cannot pass the test of a shown adequate cause capable of the effects in question. The world around us is abundant testimony that he only empirically known source of FSCO/I is design, with posts in this very thread being cases in point of string data structures meeting a functionally specific and complex specification, on which we routinely and uncontroversially infer that these are designed, not produced by lucky noise on the Internet. As to whodunit, that is often harder to do, what looks like posts by G may — for all ordinary viewers or commenters can tell — in fact be the blog owner under cover drumming up controversy by putting up a strawman target!)

    KF

  58. Beating A Dead Horse
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI

    Thing ought to be glue by now! :)

  59. KF: “There is no flip-flopping.”

    Is this the same KF who along with StephenB (awaiting confirmation or disconfirmation of this) is one of the ‘Contributors’ to the flip-flopping Big-ID/small-id language?

    Contributors: “KF is an Applied Physicist and educator with interests in information technologies and related information theory and statistical thermodynamics.”

    If so, no wonder he flat-out denies it.

    It is of little consequence if KF thinks Big-ID/small-id is a ‘tendentious distinction.’ It is already in the literature, authored by someone many times more credible and well-spoken than KF and his IDist comrades. Thus, KF can simply choose to respect people who make the important distinction or not.

    “design thinkers in the relevant sense” and therefore also “design thinkers in the irrelevant sense.” Yes, indeed, KF!

    p.s. but I’m still trying to think of the most recent applied physicist appearance on Saturday Night Live -) It might have been Saul Alinsky, oh wait…

  60. Gregory, I’ve seen more that my share of arrogance in dealing with neo-Darwinists who proclaim themselves to be wise, but you sir take the cake.

  61. ‘One thing I am thankful for, StephenB, is that we are both interested in truth.’ – Greg

    Well, what a relief that is. I’d just this minute been thinking of the futility of arguing with an eristic opponent.

  62. Gregory:

    One thing I am thankful for, StephenB, is that we are both interested in truth.

    LoL! All evidence to the contrary, of course.

    And Gregory, when you leave make sure the door doesn’t slap you in the arse on the way out- you may get a black eye…

  63. Gregory:

    Here is evidence that Uncommon Descent blog flip-flops between writing non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) and capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case) … No reason for this flip-flop is given.

    So?

  64. Gregory:

    It is of little consequence if KF thinks Big-ID/small-id is a ‘tendentious distinction.’ It is already in the literature, authored by someone many times more credible and well-spoken than KF and his IDist comrades.

    Peer-reviewed papers on small-id vs Big-ID?

    Where?

  65. Onlookers:

    Kindly cf here, also, in context.

    Gregory has obviously lost all hope of addressing matters on serious merits, and has decided to resort to Saul Alinsky’s nihilistic and utterly uncivil tactics:

    5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” . . . .

    13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. [NB: Notice the evil counsel to find a way to attack the man, not the issue. The easiest way to do that, is to use the trifecta stratagem: distract, distort, demonise.] In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

    “…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

    “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

    This tells us a lot about both his failure on the merits, and, unfortunately, about his failing a character test.

    Obviously, he has nothing cogent to say on the merits but hopes to annoy or insult to get a reaction that can be played up rhetorically. Let us take due note.

    As to the game of playing with terminology, had Gregory et al simply said that there is a difference between:

    a: those who think the observed cosmos is designed and/or significant features in it but who may think that design is not empirically recognisable per observable signs, and

    b: those who hold, further or differently that per empirically testable and reliable signs, we may infer from observing certain features of objects etc that they are best explained on design

    . . . that would have been one thing.

    And, indeed, that is not controversial at all.

    But that is not what is at work here.

    What poisons the whole terminology that he would force-fit on us, is that he and apparently others, refuse to acknowledge the basic fact that there is no a priori commitment on the part of design theory as a scientific enterprise that the world is a creation by God or the like supernatural entity or that life in it is a similar product.

    That is, the whole issue of the investigation of potential and now credible signs of design [such as the FSCO/I that G has tried to brush aside or mock . . . observe his failure to actually come to grips with it . . . ], pivots on an empirical analysis that in the end, apart from where it is inconvenient to the dominant a priori materialist school of thought that Lewontin so aptly exemplifies, is not even controversial.

    Gregory also tries to inject humanity onto the situation, as though we are locked up to humanity. But it has been repeatedly pointed out to him that being human is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain cases of known design. For instance already brought to his attention and brushed aside without serious consideration, beavers are not human and though limited are obviously intelligent designers of their dams that are adapted to circumstances of flow, etc. Similarly, when it comes to design of electronics and related systems such as computers, as I know from experience, being knowledgeable and skillful is what we need, not being human.

    Someone taken off the streets is most likely to “let the smoke out” of the components [an old joke usually trotted out when someone has smoked a component or a board in a lab . . . it happens], or do harm to himself or others. Indeed, such a one would be well advised that electricity is in fact tangible, but by the time you feel it, it may be too late.

    KF

  66. “Let us take due note.” – KF

    “There is no flip-flopping.” – KF

    Evidence is obviously not very important to KF! The flip-flopping is evident. As an IDist, he simply doesn’t want to see it. Just cover your eyes, KF.

    “Is this the same KF who along with StephenB (awaiting confirmation or disconfirmation of this) is one of the ‘Contributors’ to the flip-flopping Big-ID/small-id language?”

    A simple Yes or No will suffice, KF. Thanks.

    “Gregory also tries to inject humanity onto the situation, as though we are locked up to humanity.” – KF

    To ‘inject humanity’?! Yeah, that would be a horrible thing wouldn’t it? ;) To work towards humanising people instead of dehumanising them, as empiricists, materialists and naturalists are wont do. KF thinks that’s a bad thing?

    “Go away you, anyone who tries to ‘inject humanity’ – we IDists (made in KF’s image) are just trying to physicalise a Big-ID natural science theory here – no humanity allowed!”

    No shock here; I’m a human being. Aren’t you KF? Sometimes it seems doubtful. You seem to have been Alinskyed!

    “not being human.” – KF

    Purposely misanthropic?!

  67. Where are the peer-reviewed papers on small-id vs. Big-ID?

    Anyone?

  68. Someone taken off the streets is most likely to “let the smoke out” of the components [an old joke usually trotted out when someone has smoked a component or a board in a lab . . . it happens], or do harm to himself or others.

    I remember a guy back when I was in the Navy working on a piece of high voltage radio equipment with a ring on. PoW!

    Talk about letting the smoke out.

  69. Mung:

    Youch!

    Did he burn the hand?

    I hope he remembered the one hand in the pocket rule that prevents a current through the heart.

    I assume, the ckt breakers and fuses blew in good time, but it always seems that solid state components can’t be saved by a trip out. I have not done a lot with valves [tubes for you Americans], but they should be more robust, on principle.

    KF

    PS: I see Gregory is pulling more of his down spiral into self-discrediting. He has invented or popularised an idiosyncratic and tendentious pseudo distinction that he is stamping his little feet as he demands others follow. On pain of being mocked, it seems. Meanwhile, he is failing to address the pivotal issues. In a context where his attention has been repeatedly drawn to the, 2 + 2 = 4, so we can safely infer that he has no serious case on the merits but is trying to get a distraction and gain attention.

  70. “in the literature” = Owen Gingerich “God’s Universe” Belnap Press, 2006. Upper case ID vs. lower case id.

    Let Mung play his sorry song some more! :(

  71. Gregory:

    The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion

    [an alleged flip flop]

    In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.

    There is no flip flop. ID is one member of a class that contains several other modes of scientific design detection, including forensic science, SETI, cosmological fine-tuning, archeology etc. Thus, ID can be defined narrowly, as one member of a class, or broadly, as the class itself. The point is to show that ID is not unique, drawing on the same idea as many other forms of design detection. Always read for context.

    As is typical of scientific, technological or academic fields of endeavor, Intelligent Design has its own technical vocabulary.

    [an alleged flip flop]

    FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligent design.

    Again, you are not reading for context. In this case, the class indicated is the whole of [science, technology, and academia], as opposed to the smaller class indicated earlier [scientific design detection].

    Further, the difference in punctuation [Intelligent Design] vs. [intelligent design] is simply a difference in a formal and informal expression of the same idea. There is no reason to keep capitalizing the same term if you are going to use it a hundred times.

    Some people capitalize Big Bang Cosmology; others don’t. Some people capitalize Relativity; others don’t. No one I know keeps the same punctuation when the context is already understood.

    Note Wikipedia on the Theory of Relativity:

    “The Einstein Theory of Relativity”
    and

    “The theory of relativity, or simply relativity, generally”

    If context is understood, punctuation usually doesn’t matter. You are chasing your own tail.

    StephenB, would it be right to assume that you were one of the ‘Contributors’?”[of the FAQ]

    Yes.

    In the face of this incontrovertible evidence of flip-flopping, what’s your next move, StephenB? If you say something like, “so what if it *is* happening; I’ve never denied it,” then you’ve got a credibility problem on your hands. You know it’s happening, but turn a blind eye to and thus support the waffling at UD.

    I have already provided more than enough evidence to show that the problem resides with you and your misplaced obsessions, which are irrelevant from an analytical perspective. For some reason, you have a terrible time differentiating the whole from its parts, which would explain why your attempt to synthesize a whole (Big ID, small id) fails. Among other things, you don’t know which parts (Aquinas, Paley) belong to your whole (small id).

    This is a common problem. Some people have the talent to analyze (take the whole apart) and synthesize (form the whole from the parts), others are better at one or the other, and a few, like yourself, struggle in both areas. The good news is that the right kind of disciplined study can correct this deficiency. If you are wise, you will take my advice and attend to it.

    You could also choose to wave away the distinction between upper case and lower case versions of ‘ID’ as if it doesn’t matter, but doing so would be to insult dialogue partners who contend that it *does* matter. Among those persons, obviously along with myself, include decorated scientists, scholars and thinkers in the Abrahamic tradition: e.g. O. Gingerich, S. Barr, G. Murphy, T. Davis, R. Isaac, et al.

    I don’t think anyone, you or those cited in the above paragraph, knows what “small id” means. I know that Owen Gingerich and you both think you know what it means, but when I asked you if Aquinas and Paley qualify for that class, you had no answer. If you cannot respond to that simple inquiry, then your category has no meaning and is useless as an analytical tool. The same can be said for Big ID. (The “wholes” are not analytically connected to the “parts.”)

    I have studied Gingerich’s inadequate definitions of these terms. They seem no different from yours. I assume, then, that Gingerich would also be unequal to the task of answering my questions. If anti-ID partisans cannot define their terms in a rational way, then no one should bother to take them seriously.

    You are a Big-ID writer yourself, StephenB. Even vjtorley seems to understand the difference in capitalisation quite well and honours it.

    You allow your dialogue partners only one of two choices: [a] ignore your unreasonable refusal to use common terms or [b] humor you and use the only language that you can understand, which is your own. I cannot speak for VJ, but I suspect he was practicing that noble art known as “stooping to conquer.” (The more informed person reaches down to lift up the less informed person by entering into his world).

    As a general rule, the owner of a highly-developed, well-trained mind does not carry on about it. If the intellectual superiority is there, there is no need to call attention to it– everyone will recognize it. If isn’t obvious to everyone, it isn’t there.

  72. The ‘human being’ who goes by the name of ‘kairosfocus’ at Uncommon Descent blog is obviously not willing to answer a very simple question.

    It sure seems that he is a flip-flopper, if one follows the evidence where it leads and makes an inference to the best explanation. He WANTS us to be confused by his beaver-loving misanthropism!

    2 + 2 = 4 and UD definitions flip-flop between small-id and Big-ID. Speak the truth!

    Yes or No, was ‘Kairos Focus’ one of the ‘Contributors’ to UD’s Definition, FAQ’s, and/or Glossary?

    Only a coward would not answer this simple question, since answering it would not compromise KF’s IDistic pseudonym here at all. Does KF have the courage to answer truthfully or will he just spew more rhetoric like his mentor Saul Alinsky?

  73. Gregory:

    “in the literature” = Owen Gingerich “God’s Universe” Belnap Press, 2006. Upper case ID vs. lower case id.

    lol. In a popular book you mean, taken from his Noble lectures. So all academics are now supposed to follow his distinction along with all of us here at UD who have never cared to make any such distinction or thought it at all important that one need be made.

    The previous books are all essentially secular in the sense that they are not written from an explicitly Christian perspective. Even the books by Flew and Gingerich [God's Universe], which support belief in God, have no explicitly Christian component.

    – Karl W. Giberson

    So there’s nothing explicitly Christian about small-id. Is that due to it’s “big tent” ideology or is there some other reason? Just what sort of god does small-id get folks to?

  74. Gregory:

    Yes or No, was ‘Kairos Focus’ one of the ‘Contributors’ to UD’s Definition, FAQ’s, and/or Glossary?

    Only someone who has failed to pay attention to what kf has written would question whether he had contributed.

  75. Hi, everybody. I want to report some statistics concerning two of the issues in this discussion. I’ll avoid personal characterizations and simply state the facts.

    Re StephenB’s question to Gregory on Aquinas and Paley:

    The question was raised in Comment #38.
    Gregory has replied to Stephen and other 8 times since then.
    Gregory has not yet answered the question.

    Re StephenB’s challenge to Gregory on Catholic teaching:

    The passages from Humani Generis were posted in Comment #19.
    Gregory has replied to Stephen and others 9 times since then.
    Gregory has not yet provided any counter-exegesis of the passages.

  76. No. Can’t be, Timaeus. Gregory is a truth-seeker. We have his word for it.

  77. No, it can’t be. Flip-flopping *cannot* happen by IDists! We have their/your word for it, right?

  78. 79

    It appears to me that Gregory has staked some significant part of his career and his perception of himself on this supposed distinction between “big-ID” and “little-ID”, and so is resistant to correction and interprets those that attempt to correct him negatively to preserve his perspective. He’s left no room for the motivations of others to be something other than what he believes them to be in terms of how they argue about ID.

    It would be difficult indeed to find out that much of what you have spent so much time developing a professional life around is simply a matter of mistaking variances of punctuation for an intentional expression of wholly different categories of thought on the part of ID advocates.

    I mean, it never even occurred to me, when I read the FAQ, that there was any categorical distinction between the capitalized versions of ID and the non-capitalized. People have different reasons for capitalizing things at different times. Generally I don’t capitalize ID when I’m just talking about obvious cases – human ID … and do capitalize it when I’m referencing the theory itself. However, I never for a second think anyone is going to infer from that that I’m talking about two entirely different things.

  79. StephenB,

    “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.” – F. Nietzsche

    #72 is one of the most unbelievable posts I’ve read at UD.

    The truth is that UD (links provided above) flip-flops between non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) and capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case) in its own definitions of ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design.’

    Proof of this has been given. It should no longer be in doubt; this can only be purposefully denied (falsified) by the very flip-floppers who promoted it in the first place, seemingly with the support of their culture-war pro-ID accomplices.

    “Big-ID comrades, join StephenB and KF by denying the truth. Lie for Big-ID!”

    StephenB said: “I will be happy to admit in public to any error for which I should be held accountable.”

    Should anyone believe him after this charade in #72?

    “There is no flip flop.” – StephenB

    Yet evidence proves that there *is* flip-flopping.

    Why does StephenB now renege on his word? Anything, even lying is what he seems willing to do for Big-ID theory? Stephen C. Meyer and John G. West would be proud of the PR movement they’ve engineered with such responses as StephenB’s here.

    I am reading for context, StephenB. I am a context thinker. You, sir, are simply spinning untruths to try to protect an error that you are admittedly complicit in.

    So, we’ve got this bachelor-level ‘philosopher-communicator’ who doesn’t think capitalisation makes any difference at all!?

    That’s the IDM in a nutshell – flip-flopping double-speak. Wedge. No talk of ‘designers/Designers,’ except when speaking in evangelical Protestant churches. It is so easy for most ‘normal’ people to see through this façade.

    “Gingerich would also be unequal to the task of answering my questions.” – StephenB

    Another joke from ‘StephenB!’ Are we really supposed to believe that a top-level scientist, one of the leading Copernicus scholars in the world, should take a back seat to a pseudonymous blogger named ‘StephenB,’ a non-scholar, a man who hasn’t published, who is not a professional, and who simply posts at a blog hosted by the IDM?! Are we really supposed to attribute such superior authority to ‘StephenB’ because he can’t face the truth of his own blog-published words here at UD?

    There are serious delusions and misanthropies that people here are holding about their level of knowledge and understanding. This thread shows it quite clearly.

  80. i HerebY refuSe to foLlow anyonE’s rulEs about cApitaliZatIOn

    and punc-tUatiOn FOr THAt maTter

    caNT WRiTE anyMore RIghT nOW

    the capITaliZatiON POLIce aRe knoCKIng oN My DoOr

  81. lol LoL LOL lOl LOl lOL

  82. Poor Owen Gingerich. It seems he didn’t get the memo from Gregory.

    He says “design” when he means “Design” and he says intelligent when he means Intelligent. And he uses the word intelligent univocally, etc. etc.

    And now I’m confused. I was going to file his little book under Intelligent Design but now I’m thinking it more properly belongs under Creationism.

    What do you think Gregory?

  83. ‘So, we’ve got this bachelor-level ‘philosopher-communicator’ who doesn’t think capitalisation makes any difference at all!?’

    Can’t help himself, can he? Greg’s Golden Rule:

    When cornered, say, ‘I’ve got a higher academic qualification than you’! (… and, ‘My dad’s a policeman, and he’s got a hundred guns!’)

  84. Well, Gregory, since you’re a demonstrated and proven liar, no one should believe anything you say.

  85. The truth is that UD (links provided above) flip-flops between non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) and capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case) in its own definitions of ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design.’

    How many different definitions of Intelligent Design are there here?

    In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.

    ok, who capitalized Intelligent Design and forgot to capitalize Intelligent Cause? You’re Fired!

  86. Stupid Winblowz.

    I created an “Intelligent Design” folder and then tried to create an “intelligent design” folder so that I can keep the two separate and distinct, but it would not allow me to do that. Perhaps Gregory could write to Bill Gates and explain the importance of being able to use both names?

    I guess I could put one folder inside the other, but which belongs inside which? Or I could put one of them inside the Creationism folder, but which one?

  87. Many highly intelligent people…long for a universe where God continually and dramatically intervenes in the natural world.

    – Owen Gingerich

    Isn’t that the Christian message?

  88. Onlookers:

    Gregory, in his attempted challenge [to which, in his mind I must reply to on pain of cowardice . . . ] inadvertently reveals one of his problems.

    Had he simply read the UD Weak Argument Correctives (resources tab, this and every UD page . . . ), introduction, he would know the answer that has been on open record since January 2009.

    This further shows a basic problem, i.e. G has evidently not read the WAC with a goal of understanding. Fortunately, that is easy to remedy.

    Such may even help resolve many of the seemingly enormous problems he perceives.

    KF

  89. F/N: G needs to realise that the fact that he has been corrected by two of the principal authors of the WAC in its current form is a clue that his concerns are overblown. As to accusations of duplicity, they fall of their own weight, once there is — as we have seen — a persistent failure on his part to address the matter on the merits. But then, even painful attention is attention, and G has managed to side-track yet another thread. KF

  90. The current brouhaha over Intelligent Design is ultimately an argument over the role of the miraculous, though it is seldom discussed in such stark terms. Since I believe in a created universe, one fashioned with staggering intricacy and beauty, am I an advocate of Intelligent Design? Dare I, as a scientist, believe in design? And is there a difference between believing in design and accepting Intelligent Design, capital I capital D?

    – Owen Gingerich

    Well gee. Since the terms remained undefined, who knows?

    Is Gingerich defining Intelligent Design as the belief that God continually and dramatically intervenes in the natural world?

  91. kf,

    I know, it’s hilarious. Or pathetic. Can it be both?

    What sort of ‘scholar’ refuses to do his homework?

  92. At least someone is listening to Gregory!

    http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

    Discuss.

  93. More pages that have been scrubbed due to Gregory’s crusade:

    http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

  94. Mung:

    87 above raised a smile. :-)

    The dry wit will probably be wasted on our over-serious social science friend, but it was very nicely done!

    Your finds in 93 and 94 are great. Of course, we know what the response will be: “The DI duplicitously uses lower-case letters to conceal the scientistic, ideological, “science-only” agenda of their project, which is Big-ID.”

    You see, Mung, once someone has latched onto a conspiracy theory, no amount of evidence can make any difference. All evidence counting against the theory will simply be finessed as “diabolically clever deception” or the like. So Gregory’s conviction — that the whole DI, and all of us here, and anyone anywhere who endorses ID arguments, are involved in a massive cover-up which portrays ID as science but actually intends to turn America into a fundamentalist theocracy — is irrefutable.

    We could point out to him that none of us has never met any of the others, and that with very few exceptions we don’t even know each other’s real names or locations or phone numbers or e-mail addresses, which would make it very hard for us to conspire. We could point out to him that each of us has a unique stance toward Christianity — some not being Christian at all, some being Protestant, some Catholic, some YECs, some OECs, some Christian evolutionists — which again would make it hard for us to consciously collaborate. We could point out similar divisions within the DI itself, with agnostics, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, YECs, OECs and evolutionists all having high positions of influence. We could point out to him the hundreds of columns here which have discussed the nitty-gritty of random mutations and information theory and have not discussed God at all. We could point out to him the refereed journal *Bio-Complexity*, which does not discuss religious issues at all. We could point to him many places, here and elsewhere, where ID proponents have been critical of YECs. We could point out to him the growing list of people who endorse (or are at least sympathetic to some aspects of) ID who are not Christian, but Deist, agnostic and even atheist — Nagel, Monton, Flew, Barham, etc. We could point out to him that our criticisms of Darwinism are often shared by qualified evolutionary biologists or other scientists who have no known religious belief — Shapiro, Newman, Margulis, Venter, etc. We can show him authors like Paley and Aquinas who were not funded by American fundamentalists. None of it matters. Gregory’s theory is beyond falsification. (And thus, by Popper’s definition, his theory is not scientific, not even social scientific.)

    Nonetheless, your comments are welcome, because I take them to be, not attempts to convince Gregory by more evidence that his ID/id distinction is hopeless and cannot be sustained, but attempts to show its absurdity. I’m reminded of the Monty Python sketch of a dramatic courtroom trial which goes on for 10 or 15 minutes with all formality and solemnity, near the end of which we are informed that it is over a parking ticket! If someone is going to propose, as a serious academic thesis, that some profound distinction is to be found in the capitalization — more often accidental than planned — of ID/id — we are into Theater of the Absurd, and a mind more like that of Beckett than of Paley or Dembski is called for. Glad to have you here, to give us a sense of proportion in these matters.

  95. T,

    Obviously Bill Gates himself is in on the conspiracy.

    Thank you.

  96. The balance between the energy of expansion and the braking power of gravitation had to be extraordinarily exact — to such a degree that it seems as if the universe must have been expressly designed for humankind.

    – Owen Gingerich

    Shall we say that there is no known natural law which explains the balance? And shall we say that the chance hypothesis is just too incredible? If not, what on earth could turn the mind towards design?

    Let’s call this “weak id,” because the “pattern” does not conform to any independent specification.

    So what Gregory calls “small-id” we’ll just call “weak-id.”

    Or perhaps the independent specification is “human friendly.” But then that sounds just like Intelligent Design.

  97. Mung @87:

    LOL!

  98. Gregory

    So, we’ve got this bachelor-level ‘philosopher-communicator’ who doesn’t think capitalisation makes any difference at all!?

    I am not a “bachelor-level” philosopher. I obtained my graduate credentials years ago. Among those things for which I am most grateful is the fact that I was blessed with a good education at a time when higher education counted for something. I know that it is part of your perverse strategy to go after the credibility of those whose arguments you cannot answer, but this time you are barking up the wrong tree. Still, I can understand your attitude. Why worry about yet another factual misrepresentation, with so many other ethical violations already on the record.

    …. ‘StephenB,’ a non-scholar, a man who hasn’t published, who is not a professional, and who simply posts at a blog hosted by the IDM?! Are we really supposed to attribute such superior authority to ‘StephenB’ because he can’t face the truth of his own blog-published words here at UD?”

    But Gregory, you are making yourself look very foolish. I have published. I am a part of the community of scholars. Just because I, unlike you, don’t bore the hell out of everyone by listing my accomplishments doesn’t mean that I don’t have any. While you were taking all those cushy courses in sociology, I was studying physics, chemistry, higher technical math, and scholastic metaphysics.

    Meanwhile, as Timaeus has pointed out, you continue to avoid my questions. Big ID and small id are the elements that make up your life’s work, yet you cannot even tell us what you mean when you use the terms. You make wild claims about the Catholic Church and evolution, but when I correct the record and call you to account, you head for the hills. Equally important, you continue to make stupidly inaccurate claims about ID proponents flipping and flopping when the real problem is that you simply lack the analytical ability to comprehend what they are saying. From this point on, I will answer no more of your questions until you gird up your loins and begin to answer mine.

  99. Folks: I am still waiting to hear Gregory answer to the basic case for the design inference on the merits, for the “I do not know how many”-th time. KF

  100. Check out the image here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_moralisee

    Picturing God as an architect. That’s got to be heretical, right? At least as bad as God as a designer, if not worse!

  101. I kinda hope that’s the end of the matter to be honest, I mean why is this man even allowed to take up so much time and space on this forum with this rediculous argument.

    It’s plainly obvious I suppose that Gregory geniunely believes he’s onto something, and possibly sees everyone on here as running scared of him, but personally speaking, and no matter how hard I’ve tried, I just can’t figure out why that would be?

    Although I shouldn’t let that worry me, especially after looking at his blog page on this very subject as it doesn’t look like anyone who follows it(if at all there are any) was even interested. There are no comments, and only 1 like. I think that should really tell him something.

    http://humanextension.wordpres.....-small-id/

    Even KN, who Gregory named as a supporter of his argument, seems to be staying well out of it.

    Gregory, do yourself (and us) a favour, and find something else to discuss. I’m sure you might have plenty to offer.

  102. StephenB,

    Let me admit that I probably went too far in my recent post in questioning your credentials. I apologise for labelling you something that it turns out is not true. My only explanation for that is I was shocked that you would not admit the truth of the evidence I had provided. But that is no excuse for insulting your intelligence as I did.

    That said, however, the evidence still stands for itself on the links provided to UD definitions above (and I don’t appreciate KF directing me to re-read a link that I had already linked to with evidence of waffling on terms!).

    By KF stating “two of the principal authors of the WAC in its current form” – which is a rather indirect and drawn-out way of him finally answering my direct question if he was one of the principle authors or not – he apparently is – now we have two persons here who are responsible for what seems to be clear evidence of Big-ID/small-id linguistic flip-flopping at UD. It is not that my “concerns are overblown” it is that KF and StephenB need to face the facts.

    Perhaps one or both of you could tell us: Why are the terms ‘Intelligent Design’ and ‘intelligent design’ both used in the same documents in the Resources section at UD? Are you conflating these two meaningfully different signifiers? Are you purposefully equivocating between them? Why did you choose at one time to write non-capitalised ‘intelligent design’ (small-id, lower case) and at another time to write capitalised ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID, upper case)?

    Please just explain to us your reasoning behind this, if you have any to offer, i.e. if it wasn’t just a ‘mistake,’ a typo. We all here I’m sure learned in grade school that capitalization is done for a reason. So what’s yours?
    Note this clearly: I’m not asking you about the acronym ‘ID.’ StephenB tried to collapse both ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ into a single acronym. But that’s just loose, casual thought and an insufficient explanation that most people can see right through.

    “the difference in punctuation [Intelligent Design] vs. [intelligent design] is simply a difference in a formal and informal expression of the same idea.” – StephenB

    What does that actually mean? Like ‘informal,’ when IDists speak at their local Church and admit yes, the Big-D Designer is really the Deity they pray to and ‘formal’ when they try to argue with natural scientists for a ‘scientific revolution’ based on their so-called ‘technical writings’ that ‘intelligent design’ theory is a natural scientific-only theory and that it has *nothing * to do with religion or theology? What distinguishes the ‘formal’ from the ‘informal’ use of or lack of capitalisation Big-ID/small-id?

    Let me repeat, I do sincerely appreciate vjtorley’s candor on this topic. He actually explains why he capitalises ‘Intelligent Design’ and ‘Intelligent Designer’:

    “(ii) When I’m using the word “intelligent” in front of “designer,” I normally capitalize both (“Intelligent Designer”) to make it clear that I’m referring to the Designer of Nature – a Being Whom I believe to be God (although I cannot demonstrate this on scientific grounds, as science can only tell us so much about the Designer);
    (vi) 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;”

    Of course, this disqualifies his view from being ‘natural science-only,’ but that doesn’t matter for the legitimate and pious distinction he is making. The point is that non-capitalised ‘intelligent beings’ can’t do the work that Big-ID theory requires when it comes to OoL, OoBI or human origins. And it would deviate from traditional Abrahamic theology to contend that it can.

    “There is no reason to keep capitalizing the same term if you are going to use it a hundred times.” – StephenB

    Yes, there are good reasons: communicative clarity, consistency, intellectual integrity and even, yes, StephenB, piety. The fact is that more than just I see the flip-flopping. More than I alone see ‘ID’ as a (conscious or unconscious) worldview proxy. That recognition is often displayed here with the universal IDists, who think/believe that nothing is not ‘designed/Designed’ (e.g. Mung). One cannot reject their ‘ID’ without being thought to be rejecting the religious worldview that it is based on. But that position is simply ridiculous.

    I’m not even concerned if you respond to my ‘main point’ about creationism as ideology in the other thread, if you’ll just honestly explain about the sources I cited in this thread, i.e. why you and KF flip-flop between ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ without any explanation. Like I said, there’s not much time left and the evidence of flip-flopping given here is quite clear.

    (cont’d)

  103. (cont’d)

    “I don’t think anyone, you or those cited in the above paragraph, knows what “small id” means. I know that Owen Gingerich and you both think you know what it means, but when I asked you if Aquinas and Paley qualify for that class, you had no answer.” – StephenB

    It means saying clearly, rationally, deliberately and faithfully: ‘No’ to ‘ID.’ No, to the nonsense generated by the IDM and its propaganda PR machine in Seattle, Washington. No, to the pseudo-science of Big-ID that actually masquerades as scientism.

    The term ‘small-id’ or ‘lower case id’ is framed as a way of rejecting ‘Big-ID’ or ‘upper case ID,’ both the Movement (politically-oriented, right-wing American, Protestantism, school boards, etc.) and its pseudo-revolutionary claims of ‘scientificity.’ The term doesn’t need any more than the most basic positive content of its own because Abrahamic orthodoxy already exists, and we who speak of small-id against Big-ID are humble Abrahamic believers (even when we have to express ourselves like in Matthew 10:16). And Solomon (the small) did slay Goliath (the Big) (oh, what irony comes in that expression!).

    Big-IDists, however aren’t willing (yet) to invest *any* theological content to their Big-ID notion (despite S.C. Meyer’s recent theodicy quasi-applause to S. Fuller), even when it is plain to see for most people how inter-tangled Big-ID theory, and more directly older variants of the concept-duo ‘intelligent design,’ actually is historically with religious-cultural thought, sometimes (oftentimes!) creationism, and even fundamentalism in the USA. To claim ‘ID’ is natural science-only is a charade that intelligent folks no longer need entertain. Why does StephenB?

    Likewise, there is no need to label Aquinas or Paley as small-id advocates; they were both Christians. They weren’t ‘half-Christians’ or ‘neutral observationist’ Christians or check their brains at the door Christians who forgot who they were when they wrote their works. They believed “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” They were more balanced and open and explicit about their ‘natural theology’ than anyone in the IDM! They weren’t trying to ‘natural scientifically’ prove God’s, i.e. the Big-D Designer’s existence via so-called ‘natural scientific’ small-d ‘design’ theory. Their ‘design argument’ is theological, not scientific. Dembski even acknowledges this in his writings. Aquinas and Paley capitalise the divine name, as you properly do, and as vjtorley does also, StephenB!

    There are very good reasons that most educated persons who have ‘followed the evidence where it leads’ and sought an ‘inference to the best explanation’ how found the wisdom to reject the IDM and its Big-ID theory. This is why the distinction between Big-ID and small-id is made. That you seem to irrationally reject those reasons and won’t even here and now acknowledge your own part, as flip-flopping co-author of the UD definitions page doesn’t help move the conversation forward. Talking out of both sides of your mouths by seemingly supporting the flip-flop usage of either ‘Intelligent Design’ or ‘intelligent design’ to supposedly signify the same ‘class’ doesn’t help the cause; it merely highlights the IDM’s communicative waffling and stubborn wedge-iness, which most people ignore. All you need to do is change your tune and the dance will continue on.

    “If context is understood, punctuation usually doesn’t matter.” – StephenB

    Why, in the same document, the flip-flopping? What’s the rationale?

    I have said quite clearly and repeatedly: the topic of ‘Intelligent Design’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation. Yet you, StephenB, and others in the IDM, insist on a go-it-alone, natural science-only approach. That’s your self-inflicted ‘movement’ problem, not everyone else’s.

    Mung wrote: “all of us here at UD who have never cared to make any such distinction or thought it at all important that one need be made.”

    Such is the typical group-think “here at UD,” speaking on behalf of ‘we,’ ‘all of us,’ ‘IDists,’ ‘ID people,’ etc. But the factual record shows otherwise; people *do* care to make such a distinction, for whatever their personal reasons, e.g. StephenB, vjtorley, nullasalus and others. All one can conclude if the differences in punctuation are not explained further here by StephenB and/or kairosfocus, is that UD is a place that doesn’t value clarity of thought and expression, that doesn’t pay heed to facts or strive to correct and improve itself, even in its own ‘Definitions’!

    Will we see if changes in the FAQ’s, Definitions and Glossary are made, so that a consistent single term ‘intelligent design’ or ‘Intelligent Design’ is used? I guess we’ll have to wait for change or stasis from the contributors.

    Gregory

    p.s. Mung, I have a tickling feeling that if you expended just a fraction more effort and tried naming the folders ‘Intelligent Design – Big’ and ‘intelligent design – small,’ you’d be able to overcome your problem with ‘Winblowz.’ But the point seems to be; you don’t really care one way or another and support the flip-flopping at UD for ideological purposes.

  104. Gregory:

    But the point seems to be; you don’t really care one way or another and support the flip-flopping at UD for ideological purposes.

    I really don’t care one way or the other, but that’s because I really do care, for ideological reasons. That’s supposed to be a coherent argument?

    And as I was kind enough to point out for you, you’re cherry-picking your data. Not a good practice.

  105. Somehow, the universe seems rigged, “a put-up job,” as Fred Hoyle expressed it. One possibility is that the universe is intentionally and intelligently designed. …Or perhaps for reasons still opaque to us, all of these constants are forced to have these values because there is no alternative. …Or perhaps a multitude of choices and a multitude of other universes exist …

    – Owen Gingerich

    He forgot to capitalize Intelligently Designed. I wonder if he is using “intentional” and “intelligent” univocally.

    And look at the categories he uses. Necessity, Chance, and Design. Sounds like a veritable ID theorist. I’d hate to think that Dembski was actually on to something.

    p.s. The answer to the captcha was 42.

  106. Mung: It evidently has not occurred to OG that if the values of key terms and laws in physics are forced to take up the values they hold by a higher order law [and for many ot them, that is patently not so, and in other cases a tuned value works for multiple constraining reasons that bear no obvious connexion . . . ], that higher order law will itself be unreasonably and suspiciously fine tuned. One cannot get away from the fine tuning issue that easily. KF

  107. “And as I was kind enough to point out for you, you’re cherry-picking your data.” – Mung

    Yeah, in this case data picked right from Uncommon Descent blog’s ‘Resources.’ Sure, there are a quite a few sour cherries. But that’s the norm with slim pickings. ;) How ‘kind’ of you to offer!

  108. kf,

    Owen Gingerich believes in intelligent design.

    I believe in intelligent design, lower case i and lower case d.

    But I have a problem with Intelligent Design, capital I and capital D.

    As some of you have probably surmised, I’ve been re-reading Gingerich’s God’s Universe, more specifically Chapter 3. Dare a Scientist Believe in Design?

    Now while he does use small i small d to refer to his own brand of intelligent design and big I big D to refer to the Intelligent Design that he “has a problem with,” nowhere (at least in chapter 3) does he advocate that others adopt his usage.

    So as far as I am concerned Gregory is just blowing smoke when he appeals to Gingerich.

    And Gingerich, like Gregory, does an abysmal job of explaining small i small d intelligent design and why one should believe in it, and what is so different about it that so clearly separates it from Intelligent Design.

    Did we expect otherwise?

  109. Correction: Good grief, Solomon was written instead of David!

  110. PS: The other suggestion, a vast ensemble of worlds with laws, quantities and/or parameters distributed at random first spectacularly fails the test of ad hocness, i.e. it utterly lacks independent empirical warrant. Where also, a quasi-infinite array of possible worlds is utterly, extravagantly unparsimonious. Occam is laughing. Finally, it faces the John Leslie challenge: we are at an evidently isolated local operating point. So, regardless of if the wall by the road has other sections that may be carpeted with flies, this part has just the one. Bingo, it gets swatted by a bullet. That points to a marksman with a tack-driving rifle. I cannot resist hinting at the Boltzmann brain problem for such speculations too.

  111. Onlookers, just above, Gregory manages to again duck the underlying issue of the evidential basis for the design inference. He then proceded to studiously avoid how in immediate response to his assertions I pointed to a link — the same one he complains about my providing — that shows that the main authors of the WACs were explicitly and publicly identified as at January 2009. That is either utterly discrediting carelessness and neglect on his part or a reflection of willful creation and pumelling of a strawman. That he then goes on to try to read into what we did three years ago an idiosyncratic pseudo-distinction between capital and common letters (which we cared naught regarding in 2009 and continue to have today) and to try to insinuate all sorts of hidden agendas that the very document he would distort dispels, is sadly telling. He needs to stop setting up and knocking over strawmen and actually read to understand in its own terms. KF

  112. Mung: Okie, how does he resolve his trilemma? (And, can you identify what he freights caps vs lower case with?) KF

  113. The link you provided is dead, KF. Send it again if you must.

    Btw, we all know already you are addressing ‘onlookers.’ What you really mean is ‘ID-friendly comrades.’ You are appealing to a community, to a supposed movement, to garner support for your ideology.

    “to try to insinuate all sorts of hidden agendas that the very document he would distort dispels, is sadly telling.” – KF

    Please just use plain English. The documents (plural) are linked to above. They clearly display flip-flopping. This is too obvious to deny.

    If you have no hidden agenda, KF, then just answer the straight-forward questions without fangling a quasi-physics-lecture about ‘FSCO/I’ – because you probably couldn’t come up with a metric for the FSCO/I of your own flip-flopping in UD’s ‘Resources’ pages!

    Obviously KF feels uncomfortable being called-out for his documented role in flip-flopping Big-ID/small-id here at UD. And we shouldn’t expect a direct answer or admission of any kind from him. That would take courage that his pseudonymous IDist role at UD does not require or afford him the liberty to make.

  114. Gregory, what’s your theory about why the Discovery Institute in their published web pages use small i small d “intelligent design.” Perhaps it’s a conspiracy?

    Now let’s suppose that someone at UD cares enough about your whinging to make the pages here match those at the DI. Then what will you complain about? That we’re all using small i small d “intelligent design” when we really ought to be using something else?

  115. 116

    I’m developing my own representations and protocols. The Greek letters ιδ can represent “ιntelligent δesign”, reasonably defined as any act of intentional design by an intelligent agent. Whereas ΙΔ can represent “Ιntelligent Δesign”, as in the process of design detection, i.e., the act of detecting the presence of intelligent agency by a prespecified methodological procedure.

    In addition, I propose that the Latin letters ‘i’ and ‘d’ are a suitable representation for the greek letters ‘ι’ and ‘δ’. Likewise, the Latin letters ‘I’ and ‘D’ can stand in for ‘Ι’ and ‘Δ’. Therefore it is appropriate to render “ιntelligent δesign” as “intelligent design” and to render “Ιntelligent Δesign” as “Intelligent Design”. This should be acceptable for all but the most tangential and obsessive, irrelevant and superficial, paranoid political characterizations.

    Furthermore, since we are reasonably intelligent and mature adults, I propose that the phrase “intelligent design” can be substituted for “Intelligent Design” where the context makes it reasonably clear that the referent is the science of design detection, and not any general act of intentional design by an intelligent agent. Of course, anywhere that “Intelligent Design” is used to reference a general act of design by an agent, I suggest it’s reasonable to infer from the context that “intelligent design” was most likely intended.

    Finally, qualifications such as IDM, idm, big-id, small-ID, moderately-sized Id, weak/strong ID, up-id, down-id, strange and charm-ID, can be suitably defined in the context in which they are presented, otherwise safely dismissed. I believe that if we rigidly follow the above procedures for clear communication about {I,i}ntelligent {D,d}esign, we can avoid sitting in the corner playing with marbles while more interesting conversations are happening at the adult table.

  116. Gregory

    It [small id] means saying clearly, rationally, deliberately and faithfully: ‘No’ to ‘ID.’ No, to the nonsense generated by the IDM and its propaganda PR machine in Seattle, Washington. No, to the pseudo-science of Big-ID that actually masquerades as scientism.

    You keep changing definitions. For now, small id means saying “no.” At one time, you (and Owen Gingerich) say it means that “God created or designed the universe.” At another time you say it means the belief or assumptions of design. At another time, you laud VJTorley when he says that, for him, it means the presence of design in nature. At another time, you laud Timaeus for saying that it means an inference to design. At yet another time, you say it is a political movement. Yet again, you say it means a religious/philosophical assumption. Yet again, you say that it means a religious/philosophical/science composite. All your definitions are different, which means that they are all useless. In some cases, they contradict each other. Your definition (small id = the assumption of design) cannot be reconciled with those of Timaeus and VJT (small id inference to design). Yet you don’t hesitate to integrate them all as examples of what you mean by small id.
    You have not thought the matter through.

    The term ‘small-id’ or ‘lower case id’ is framed as a way of rejecting ‘Big-ID’ or ‘upper case ID,’ both the Movement (politically-oriented, right-wing American, Protestantism, school boards, etc.) and its pseudo-revolutionary claims of ‘scientificity.’ The term doesn’t need any more than the most basic positive content of its own because Abrahamic orthodoxy already exists, and we who speak of small-id against Big-ID are humble Abrahamic believers (even when we have to express ourselves like in Matthew 10:16). And Solomon (the small) did slay Goliath (the Big) (oh, what irony comes in that expression!).

    Was Aristotle small id or Big ID? Was Anthony Flew, the Deist who accepts biological design arguments, small id or Big ID? Are Catholic conservatives who sympathize with the Discovery Institute, and who are clearly not right wing Protestants, Big ID or small id? Is the passage found in Romans 1:20, which teaches that God’s design is evident through observation, Big ID or small id? If the Discovery Institute stopped characterizing itself as a revolution and publically rejected the Wedge document and yet continued to argue for design patterns, would it then become small id or would it remain Big ID? You have not thought this matter through.

    Big-IDists, however aren’t willing (yet) to invest *any* theological content to their Big-ID notion (despite S.C. Meyer’s recent theodicy quasi-applause to S. Fuller), even when it is plain to see for most people how inter-tangled Big-ID theory, and more directly older variants of the concept-duo ‘intelligent design,’ actually is historically with religious-cultural thought, sometimes (oftentimes!) creationism, and even fundamentalism in the USA. To claim ‘ID’ is natural science-only is a charade that intelligent folks no longer need entertain. Why does StephenB?

    Do Christian Cosmologists who argue on behalf of a finely-tuned universe invest any theological content to their scientific arguments? Should they? Are there arguments natural science only?

    Likewise, there is no need to label Aquinas or Paley as small-id advocates; they were both Christians

    You certainly spend a lot of time and effort evading this issue. Are they Big ID or small id? I can easily answer the question because I know your categories better than you do.

    They weren’t ‘half-Christians’ or ‘neutral observationist’ Christians or check their brains at the door Christians who forgot who they were when they wrote their works. They believed “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” They were more balanced and open and explicit about their ‘natural theology’ than anyone in the IDM! They weren’t trying to ‘natural scientifically’ prove God’s, i.e. the Big-D Designer’s existence via so-called ‘natural scientific’ small-d ‘design’ theory. Their ‘design argument’ is theological, not scientific. Dembski even acknowledges this in his writings. Aquinas and Paley capitalise the divine name, as you properly do, and as vjtorley does also, StephenB!

    Of course I capitalize God’s name. But I don’t necessarily capitalize words that refer to his creation. Typically, I capitalize Intelligent Design to pay tribute to specified technology for the same reason I capitalize Big Bang theory. There is no analytical significance to it. Everyone knows what I mean whether I capitalize it or not. On the other hand, no one knows what you mean by Big ID and small id, even with your capitalizations. You don’t even know. That is why you cannot answer my questions. Were Aquinas and Paley small id? Yes or no. Was Aristotle big ID or small id? If you cannot answer, then your categories are meaningless.

    There are very good reasons that most educated persons who have ‘followed the evidence where it leads’ and sought an ‘inference to the best explanation’ how found the wisdom to reject the IDM and its Big-ID theory. This is why the distinction between Big-ID and small-id is made.

    So now we have yet a new definition of Big ID as an “inference to the best explanation.” Where did that come from? What happened to the right wing politics and sinister motives? This is nine different definitions of small id and we are still counting.

    That you seem to irrationally reject those reasons and won’t even here and now acknowledge your own part, as flip-flopping co-author of the UD definitions page doesn’t help move the conversation forward.

    No one has ever given me a rational explanation for rejecting the design inference. How can I “irrationally reject” a reason that has not been given to me? This is more bad logic on your part.

    Talking out of both sides of your mouths by seemingly supporting the flip-flop usage of either ‘Intelligent Design’ or ‘intelligent design’ to supposedly signify the same ‘class’ doesn’t help the cause; it merely highlights the IDM’s communicative waffling and stubborn wedge-iness, which most people ignore. All you need to do is change your tune and the dance will continue on.

    If you do not know the difference between a class (broad) and a member of a class (narrow), then I cannot help you. If you think that alluding to that difference is flip-flopping, then your analytical skills are compromised. But I have already alluded to that problem haven’t I?

    I have said quite clearly and repeatedly: the topic of ‘Intelligent Design’ is properly seen as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation. Yet you, StephenB, and others in the IDM, insist on a go-it-alone, natural science-only approach. That’s your self-inflicted ‘movement’ problem, not everyone else’s.

    ID is what its originators say that it is. The methodologies of “specified complexity” or “irreducible complexity” have nothing to do with philosophy or theology. They just don’t. Your unreasoned protests to the contrary do not make it so.

  117. Correction:

    I wrote, “So now we have yet a new definition of Big ID as an “inference to the best explanation.” Where did that come from? What happened to the right wing politics and sinister motives? This is nine different definitions of small id and we are still counting.”

    The last sentence was a posting error as it doesn’t apply to the two sentences that preceded it.

  118. Gregory wrote:

    “it is plain to see for most people how inter-tangled Big-ID theory, and more directly older variants of the concept-duo ‘intelligent design,’ actually is historically with religious-cultural thought, sometimes (oftentimes!) creationism, and even fundamentalism in the USA.”

    This is a charge Gregory has made many times. But what does the charge mean? “Inter-tangled with religious-cultural thought” — that is very broad and loose. What is the specific allegation being made?

    Gregory has been asked in the past, many times, to make this vague charge explicit and precise, and has never done so.

    Is Gregory implying that the arguments made for design in nature by ID theorists are tainted by, corrupted by, distorted by, or otherwise compromised by, the religious faith of the ID proponents, so that they are not valid arguments, but really only religious propositions disguised as arguments?

    If so, then he needs to go through the works of the ID theorists and show *which* arguments are thus compromised, by pointing out the religious premises that are being slipped into the argument.

    I and others have challenged him to go through Signature in the Cell, Darwin’s Black Box, The Design of Life, etc., and show us where these religiously-corrupted reasonings are. He has declined to do so.

    Here are some *possible* reasons why he might have steadily refused this challenge: (1) He does not want to make the effort to read the intellectually demanding writings of the ID theorists; (2) He does not think he has sufficient math and science to understand the writings of the ID theorists; (3) He strongly suspects, in advance of reading the books, that in fact he will find no evidence of arguments corrupted by religious motivations, and he does not want to have to eat crow when he finds out that he is wrong.

    Of course, all of these reasons are intellectually and/or morally discrediting to anyone motivated by them. And I don’t want to judge Gregory negatively in advance of his answer; he may have a very justifiable reason, that I haven’t thought of, for his dialogical un-cooperativeness. But he now needs either to state why he won’t defend his accusation, or to retract the accusation.

    Alternately, if he is *not* accusing ID people of illegitimately importing religious beliefs into their design detection arguments, then what exactly is his beef against design detection arguments? Why can’t he just assess them on their scientific and/or philosophical merits, and explain why he doesn’t accept them? Why does he have to talk about religious entanglement at all?

    I don’t expect an answer. But since Gregory is about to leave us, I wanted it recorded for posterity that, while still reading, he refused this challenge yet again. And I think he must have set the UD record for the number of unanswered questions and unanswered criticisms. I doubt his record will ever be surpassed. He is the Gretzky of evasion in the ID-TE-Darwinism arena.

  119. F/N: Onlookers — and this denotes just that, now and hereafter — kindly observe the WAC intro, here and particularly how it is signed off and by whom as at Jan 2009. Gregory has yet again managed to dodge acknowledging the substantial fact that corrects his accusations and invidious insinuations. As tothe tendentious accusations of willful ambiguity, circa Jan 2009, G’s objections were not an issue, and in light of the evident incoherence and want of soundness coupled to obvious motive mongering,t hey still are not an issue. What is simply not being done is to actually address the design inference on its merits, as last summarised here. KF

  120. PS: Both links are hereby certified “not dead.” KF

  121. PPS: Cf here.

  122. “For a long time, Intelligent Design (ID) proponents, enlightened by current scientific knowledge and faithful to its methods.” – StephenB, GPuccio and Kairosfocus (Jan. 2009)

    O.k., so kairosfocus has personally ‘signed off’ to capitalise Intelligent Design (Big-ID, upper case). Noted.

    This surely verifies, rather than ‘corrects’ the evidence that UD flip-flops between ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Intelligent Design’. Even robot programs can tell the difference.

    “what’s your theory about why the Discovery Institute in their published web pages use small i small d “intelligent design”? – Mung

    They’re trying very hard not to be two-faced in public, even while everyone since the Wedge document knows their motivations. I met John G. West, Bruce Chapman, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, et al. and understand this desire quite clearly, in light of 20th century creation(ism) vs. evolution(ism) opposition and school board cases. UD, however, as a blog that is focussed on ‘Serving the Intelligent Design Community’ has obviously not yet reached the DI’s level. Instead, it flip-flops between ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ with no explanation why.

    A simple fact: UD’s definitions of ‘ID’ waffle between small-id and Big-ID. Why bother debating this?

  123. Gregory:

    A simple fact: UD’s definitions of ‘ID’ waffle between small-id and Big-ID. Why bother debating this?

    Perhaps because it’s false?

    You claim that UD has multiple definitions of “intelligent design.” Or is it “Intelligent Design” that has multiple definitions? Or is it your claim that UD has one definition of “Intelligent Design” and a different definition of “intelligent design”? I’m still not clear on this.

    ID Defined

    The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

    ok

    Are you claiming that UD should have capitalized intelligent design to make it clear that they are talking about Big I Big D Intelligent Design?

    But isn’t their definition here consistent with the way intelligent design is defined by the Discovery Institute?

    In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.

    You think here, because Intelligent Design is capitalized, that they are introducing a new definition of intelligent design that is quite different than the previous one?

    Really? Because that’s absurd.

    I don’t see any waffling of definitions. I see a single definition.

  124. …a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence.

    – Owen Gingerich

    Poor Gregory.

  125. Interestingly, in the 1994 book Evidence of Purpose, Owen Gingerich also has a chapter with the title Dare a Scientist Believe in Design? in which he never once distinguishes between intelligent design and Intelligent Design. He even goes so far as to ask “Dare a Scientist Believe in Supernatural Design?” His answer is, yes.

    Some relevant quotes:

    “…there does seem to be enough evidence of design in the universe to give some pause.”

    “Now if we understand that science’s great success has been in the production of a remarkably coherent view of nature rather than in an intricately dovetailed set of proofs, then I would argue that a belief in design can also have a legitimate place in human understanding even if it falls short of proof.”

    “I see no reason that an appreciation of the astonishing details of design should prevent us from trying to search further into their underlying causes. Hence I am not prepared to concede that arguments from design are necessarily contrascientific in their nature.”

    “I do think a science totally devoid of the idea of design may be in danger of running into a blank wall. And this brings me to ask again, is the idea of design a threat to science? and I answer no, perhaps design might even be a necessary ingredient in science.

    “I believe that the Book of Nature … suggests a God of purpose and a God of design.”

    Poor Gregory.

    Owen Gingerich: Disguised Friend of Intelligent Design

  126. Dr. James M. Tour wrote:

    “I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label.” – James M. Tour

    This is a perfect example that distinguishes ‘Intelligent Design’ (ID), from ‘intelligent design’ (small-id), why it makes sense and is valid to do so. Do people at UD not respect Dr. James M. Tour’s language, even as they continue to deny me the rationale for making this important distinction? VJTorley only plays one side of the IDM’s Wedge strategy in his usage of Dr. Tour against ‘macroevolution.’ That’s not at all a surprising or unusual situation here at UD.

    The Creation that Dr. Tour ‘sees,’ however, is through the eyes of faith; it does not require ‘natural scientific proofs.’ johnnyb surely understands this distinction. Indeed, that is the orthodox view of believers in the Abrahamic faiths. It is also why Big-ID theory is seen by most people as highly problematic; because it absolutely insists upon its natural scientificity.

    Peoples of the Abrahamic faiths who reject Big-ID’s claims of natural scientificity, can stand safely and securely knowing that small-id does not reject, nay, it even embraces a ‘design argument’ made on faith. That is a theological/worldview or apologetic claim, not a specifically, intentionally natural scientific one as Big-ID currently requires.

    And frankly, people in free countries deserve the right to reject ‘design’ language as far as possible because it has been so badly (made in the image of neo-creationism) tainted by the IDM and its conservative, right-wing political PR machine. Distancing oneself from the IDM’s natural scientistic Big-ID language is smart on many levels, including when one is searching for ‘best explanations for the evidence.’ The significant numbers of proud neo-creationists in the IDM, however, constantly drag the conversation back into apologetics and theology/worldview, even while professing that ID theory deals with ‘natural-science-only.’

    “The validity of the design argument…depends not on the fruitfulness of design-theoretic ideas for science, but on the metaphysical and theological mileage one can get out of design.” – Dembski (2004: p. 65)

    How much metaphysical and theological mileage do UDists wish to “get out of design” while flip-flopping between small-id and Big-ID?

    Distinguishing Big-ID from small-id serves another important purpose (unlike Timaeus’ narrow institutional-political definition); it liberates phrases like ‘design theory’ and designations like ‘design theorists’ or ‘design thinkers’ from the restrictive shackles of the IDM. Indeed, the IDM has placed so little focus on actual designing processes, that people are almost forced to conclude that the IDM is dysanthropic, that it outright ignores designing processes by human beings. Do not pro-ID advocates at least wish to know why this is so?

    The real ‘design theorists,’ the more productive ones, the ones who don’t need to hide behind internet sock-puppets out of fear of being ‘expelled,’ want nothing to do with Big-ID theory; they feel it is a misuse of the concept, just as I do. They study designing processes and even take part in designing and planning. They are not afraid of studying ‘designers’ because they know they are dealing with small-d human designers, not aliens or gods.

    A couple of months ago I was at a conference with about 1400 people interested in ‘design theory,’ science, and society and no one there was interested in Big-ID neo-creationism. These productive and active scholars, many more accomplished than anyone in the IDM, easily see the historical connections Big-ID theory has in the U.S.A. with the ideology of (neo-)creationism and understand that is not a brush they wish to be painted with. They want their ‘design,’ the common understanding of ‘design’ to be distinguished for healthy communicative purposes from ideological IDM uses.

    p.s. and look at how foolish Mung is in #126, to call Gingerich a “Disguised Friend of Intelligent Design” when he deliberately distanced himself from it!

    (cont’d)

  127. (cont’d)
    Verifying the legitimacy of non-IDists to distinguish small-id or small-d ‘design theories’ (because we *can* study and interact with ‘designers’) from the IDM’s (avowed ignorance to the study of designers) Big-D ‘Design theory,’ shouldn’t therefore be too much to ask.

    The only folks who would perhaps in principle object to this logical communicative distinction are those who would claim ‘everything is designed,’ thus rendering their ideologically scientistic theory almost completely void of explanatory power by virtue of its supposed universalism. StephenB, Timaeus, KF, Mung and several others here are hovering with IDistic fervour around such an ‘everything [in nature] is designed’ ideology.

    “Everyone knows what I mean whether I capitalize it or not.” – StephenB

    Everyone?! Even the lady I just passed on the street carrying groceries in the snow? That’s a presumption you can perhaps only make (and even unsurely of) at UD and other insulated, ‘insider’ Big-ID sites. And it likely at least partially explains why the UD page “ID Defined” flip-flops between ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Intelligent Design.’

    That’s the key point in this dialogue! You probably toss a coin and chose ‘randomly’ which variant (capitalised or non-capitalised) to write at any given time unless common grammar-school language rules of capitalisation simply slipped your mind, didn’t you, StephenB? There’s no rhyme or reason for it, is there? Just chance, just luck whether the ‘i/I’ or ‘d/D’ is capitalised or not!

    What we readers don’t know yet, is if the evidential capitalisation/non-capitalisation flip-flop in UD’s definition of ‘ID’ was/is intentional or accidental. Will StephenB or KF offer us some information about that?

    I highly doubt they will brave a direct response to this simple question. I’ve become accustomed to stone-walling from them when their natural scientistic ideology is directly challenged like this “follow the evidence where it leads” example provides. At least both StephenB and KF have admitted they are the authors of the flip-flopped versions of id/ID at UD. That is a start! ;)

    “No one has ever given me a rational explanation for rejecting the design inference.” – StephenB

    We both believe in Big-D Design or Big-C Creation, StephenB; we are both Abrahamic believers. This requires more than just a natural scientific theory to ‘prove/infer’ ‘design/Design’. People have tried to provide you with rational explanations for disallowing Big-ID to be properly called a ‘natural-science-only’ theory, but you have not embraced that. You have walked away from that rationality to embrace instead an American political-educational movement based on neo-creationist ideology.

    If what you call ‘the design inference’ is actually intuitive or emotional or aesthetic, rather than purely rational, if it is understood as natural theology instead of natural science, then Big-ID theory’s continual harping on the necessary scientificity of ‘the design inference’ should be publically stopped. No more pretending.

    Would you not stand up for the adoption of a healthier triadic discourse, StephenB, between science, philosophy and theology/worldview than what is currently demonstrated by the IDM in demanding that ‘the design inference’ is and must only be a ‘natural scientific’ theory?

    One thing is clear: UD flip-flopping has been shown to exist in their own definition of ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design.’ While conducting research, I simply ‘followed the evidence where it led.’ And my (outsider) ‘inference to the best explanation’ is that they flip-flopped on purpose as communicative IDist propaganda (which as insiders they deny could even possibly exist!).

    But we won’t know the truth unless/until they come clean and give us an answer.

  128. StephenB, Mung, etc.

    This will be a good practice of restraint for us. Since Gregory persists in talking about Big vs. small ID, we should simply not reply. See my advice in post 449 under:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com...../#comments

    Let’s try it!

  129. T,

    I am on board, but sometimes I just can’t resist the urge to mock, lol.

    For example, Gregory claims he’s being denied “the rationale for making this important distinction.”

    But what could be further from the truth? The fact is that he has given no rationale. One would think that given it’s asserted importance he would be engaged in vigorous debate over his ideas and the reasons for them.

    But alas.

  130. But we won’t know the truth unless/until they come clean and give us an answer.

    I just ran out of Big-S Soap.

    We both believe in Big-D Design or Big-C Creation, StephenB; we are both Abrahamic believers.

    Gregory believes in Big-C Creation but denies being a Big-C Creationist.

    One has to wonder what little c creationism entails.

  131. “he has given no rationale.” – Mung

    The rationale is simple: Abrahamic believers who do not wish to be confused with or tainted by Discovery Institute-based ‘Intelligent Design’ theory or its activists and proponents, people who do not wish to defend a natural scientific theory of ‘Intelligent Design,’ and who reject both creationism and evolutionism require dialogical space for a third way. They/We reserve the right to define such dialogical space. By showing that Big-ID is obviously scientistic, while small-id is properly and clearly theological in orientation, consistent with classical ‘design arguments,’ it puts the IDM in an awkward position.

    It means that IDM-ID theory cannot any longer piggy-back on (natural) theological ‘design arguments’ (as Dembski has made clear in his popular writings to distinguish ‘design argument(s)’ from ID theory, but then blurs the distinction regularly) because it has committed itself (wisely or not) to a natural-science-only meaning of ‘Intelligent Design’. Big-ID theory deals with Origins of Life, Origins of BioLogical Information, and sometimes Human Origins. It does not focus on, it makes no claims about, it gives no insights into other realms; it is limited like any natural scientific theory must be.

    This likewise confirms that there is no such thing as an ID theory of human-made things, of artefacts, which obviously requires small-i and small-d designations. The small-id designation acknowledges what the DI reluctantly had to admit; there is little chance on Earth that an ID theory of humanities and social sciences will ever be developed! And when he is being honest with himself, even your ringleader against acknowledging the right to anti-ID dialogical space, Timaeus, admits this.

    The supernatural or non-natural ‘Designer(s)’ that is/are required by IDists in the carefully/roughly hidden background of ID theory is thus exposed for what it is: quasi-natural science parading its share of theology/worldview. Timaeus can call it rational-empirical all he wants, this doesn’t change the IDM leadership’s historical attack upon naturalism and why it demands something supernatural or non-natural to be involved.

    Admitting this poses a very serious challenge to IDism as it is known by IDists today (leave aside that non-IDists often see ID theory ‘in context’ more clearly than IDists themselves, who are shrouded in ideological self-righteousness). This is surely why the wily ‘Western’ religious philosopher ‘Timaeus’ is trying as hard as he can to block all conversation about the Big-ID/small-id meaning, claiming like propagandists do, that the distinction is not meaningful and he simply made a mistake in supporting it when he first heard it at ASA. His flip-flopping on the topic has been documented at UD. But the import of this flip-flop and more importantly, of the meaning of the valid distinction has yet to be understood.

    Your “Big-S Soap” example, Mung, shows that you simply do not understand the significance of the distinction.
    “Gregory believes in Big-C Creation but denies being a Big-C Creationist. / One has to wonder what little c creationism entails.” – Mung

    I deny being either a Big-C Creationist or a small-c creationist. Both positions are unnecessary and contrary to the spirit of the Abrahamic faiths. Notice, Mung, that even Timaeus and I are in agreement that your attempt to save ‘creationism’ (by adding a ‘neo-’ to it) is an endeavour destined for failure in the USA.

    This is why Richard Bube of ASA wrote “We Believe in Creation” here, to distinguish theological/worldview belief in Creation from the ideology of creationism. Though notice also, as an Anglo-American writer, Bube was unwilling to even write the term ‘creationism’ or face the ideological meaning of the term, since ideology has taken on such a negative or pejorative meaning, coming through Marx and Engels, Horkheimer, Adorno and others, from the Germans to the American attitude. Americans (and perhaps somewhat less so, most Canadians) are highly under-developed in their abilities to discuss ‘ideology’ at a knowledgeable and balanced level.

    But since Mung, StephenB and perhaps even Timaeus simply will not, based on whatever their own personal fetishes with creationism are, admit that creationism is an ideology, first and foremost, the conversation cannot move forward. This is yet another signal that it is time for me to move on, given such backwards-oriented resistance from Big-ID-land.

    Once you folks realise/admit/discover/acknowledge/understand/interpret/commit yourselves to the view that not only is creationism an ideology, but so is Darwinism, and so is evolutionism, and so is IDism, then you can overcome the barriers that Dembski and co. have set in believing that Darwinism is (merely) a scientific theory and that therefore scientistic ID theory is (it must be!) the ‘saviour of Western civilisation,’ to paraphrase Timaeus.

    I’m sorry, Mung, that you don’t yet see this situation (notice that I’ve written nothing about ‘theocracy,’ though people here regularly accuse me of suggesting that), but my approach gets rid of much of the garbage you are still stuck sifting through with your under-developed American IDist pseudo-philosophy of science. I’d recommend flying East, and experiencing some of the light of knowledge that has come, like the Magi, with unexpected gifts.

    p.s. let me repeat again, along with johnnyb in the OP, I would like “to eXtend my congratulations to Deborah Haarsma,” and also to tell her ‘en guarde’ because her ‘theistic evolutionism’ is something to be hopefully corrected and overcome.

  132. Gregory:

    Big-ID theory deals with Origins of Life, Origins of BioLogical Information, and sometimes Human Origins.

    And the origin of the universe, this galaxy, this universe, our earth/ moon system and the origin of the laws that govern all of it.

  133. Gregory:

    The rationale is simple: Abrahamic believers who do not wish to be confused with or tainted by Discovery Institute-based ‘Intelligent Design’ theory or its activists and proponents, people who do not wish to defend a natural scientific theory of ‘Intelligent Design,’ and who reject both creationism and evolutionism require dialogical space for a third way. They/We reserve the right to define such dialogical space. By showing that Big-ID is obviously scientistic, while small-id is properly and clearly theological in orientation, consistent with classical ‘design arguments,’ it puts the IDM in an awkward position.

    Yes, we understand that you all want to piggyback on the popularity of intelligent design and sell as many books on on the topic as you can while claiming you’re not like them other people.

    Why else did you glom on to intelligent design? Why don’t you call yourselves little c creationists to make sure you’re not confused with those Big C Creationists and make that your “dialogical space for a third way”?

    Let me tell you why. Because you’d rather be associated with intelligent design and the DI than those other people.

    Hypocrites and opportunists.

  134. Get that monkey of ID theory off my back.

    “you’d rather be associated with intelligent design and the DI than those other people.” – Mung

    I’ve seen through this smog. It makes no sense for a serious thinker, explorative and curious person, Abrahamic believer to be associated with either ‘creationism/Creationism’ or ‘Intelligent Designism.’ This is why it makes sense to define a “dialogical space for a third way.”

  135. It makes no sense for a serious thinker, explorative and curious person, Abrahamic believer to be associated with either ‘creationism/Creationism’ or ‘Intelligent Designism.’ This is why it makes sense to define a “dialogical space for a third way.”

    Let me suggest the following title for your third way:

    intelligent design creationism

  136. Thanks. Human Extension works just fine already. I believe in Creation, but will never become a (neo-)creationist. I suggest you get over your fetish with creationism, Mung. A healthier way forward is possible.

    Do you at least accept the rationale provided in #132? Probably not, but hey, at least it was shown to you. And that will not happen much longer.

Leave a Reply