Congratulations to New BioLogos President

_{Jonathan Bartlett

January 29, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

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.

Comments

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.Gregory_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

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 creationismMung_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

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."Gregory_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

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.Mung_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

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.Joe_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

“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.Gregory_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

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.Mung_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

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.Mung_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

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: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-argument-for-intelligent-design/#comments Let's try it!Timaeus_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

(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.Gregory_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

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)Gregory_{February 19, 2013
February
02
Feb
19
19
2013
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

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 DesignMung_{February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

...a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence. - Owen Gingerich
Poor Gregory.Mung_{February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

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.Mung_{February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

"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?Gregory_{February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

PPS: Cf here.kairosfocus_{February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

PS: Both links are hereby certified "not dead." KFkairosfocus_{February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

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.Timaeus_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

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.StephenB_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

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.StephenB_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

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.Chance Ratcliff_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

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?Mung_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

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.Gregory_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Mung: Okie, how does he resolve his trilemma? (And, can you identify what he freights caps vs lower case with?) KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

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.kairosfocus_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Correction: Good grief, Solomon was written instead of David!Gregory_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

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?Mung_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

"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!Gregory_{February 11, 2013
February
02
Feb
11
11
2013
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply