Home » Intelligent Design, Religion » Suppose ID wins…

Suppose ID wins…

For the sake of argument, let’s surmise that, after a long controversy, finally ID succeeds in scientifically convincing all people that life and the universe are designed. Good, but what happens now? If the universe is a design there must be a designer. What is the designer?

It is likely that evolutionists convinced to ID were atheists or at least agnostic. Therefore for these persons, quite paradoxical, accepting ID could imply a very critical point in their intellectual path.

Let’s start with the worse possibility. The worse case for them would be to equate the designer with something that has nothing to do with God, or – worse – even with something that is a caricature of God. This is clearly the case, for example, of the “flying spaghetti monster”. Maybe such disgusting invention came from insane or disturbed persons, nevertheless come to mind the René Guénon’s words:

One can consider satanic, in some measure, any theory that exceedingly deforms the idea of divinity; first of all, according to this point of view, would be the conceptions of a God that evolves and those of a limited God. (L’erreur spirite, part II, chap. X) [my translation]

Hence, technically, to greater reason, “the church of the flying spaghetti monster”, has an ultimate satanic inspiration. Moreover it clearly shows the sign of grotesque, as often satanic productions do. This explains also why this “church” (or better, this “anti-church”) is against all religions. For these reasons, before this sort of things, I don’t laugh at all.

If a Darwinist convinced by ID risks to fall in an incorrect or malicious conception of the Great Designer, then I go until to say that it is better the atheist evolutionist remains such. Because blasphemy and sacrilege are far worse than simple ignorance and negation. That said by an ultra anti-Darwinian (my name speaks clear).

But let’s consider the serious evolutionists, who have demonstrated their intelligence by recognizing the truth of ID. At this point they are in a somewhat intermediate position. They have abandoned materialism but haven’t yet reached theism. They are in a risky middle ground between two opposite worldviews. I said “risky” because they face a cross-road. On the right there is true spirituality, on the left there is false spiritualism. False spiritualism is far worse than materialism. If they abandon materialism to go towards false spiritualism, it would be better for them to remain materialists. That said by an ultra non-materialist.

Countless times it has been said that ID theory per se is simply a scientific design inference. That ID theory doesn’t specify a designer. That the ID inference is unrelated to the identity of the designer, etc. This is true in a sense. But in my opinion to leave fully undefined the designer, without giving at least an hint about, is not to do a good service to our converted friends evolutionists. To have won the scientific controversy without offering a global framework of knowledge, a correct complete worldview, could be a lost opportunity or even counterproductive for them. An ID proponent who has helped to lead those evolutionists towards an ID non materialistic position, has some responsibility about their future intellectual iter, iter which is necessarily related to such worldview. As a metaphor, if you help someone to get across a perilous river, then you cannot leave him alone in the middle, you have to escort him to the opposite side.

It is having in mind my part of responsibility that, in a previous post I tried to explain that theism is an implication of the design inference on the cosmos and give an idea about the Great Designer.

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

116 Responses to Suppose ID wins…

  1. Cancelled on request by Gregory

  2. 2
    shotgunwildatheart

    This addresses the materialists, but are there Christian theological positions in which ID (as an information theory) would be unhelpful?

    As a Calvinist, I hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith which says God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass, even (we believe) down to the smallest crook in the bank of a river.

    What would specified complexity be in this sort of universe? True, it may be a great scheme for helping decide if it’s a rock or an arrowhead we’re looking at, but when applied to creation, all of which has been intelligently designed, it seems superfluous.

  3. This is one of the strangest posts I’ve read at UD. A mixture of wishful thinking, bad grammar, and confusing ideas.

    First, what’s niwrad’s logic behind sometimes capitalising ‘Designer’ and sometimes not (i.e. writing ‘designer’)? 6 times small ‘designer’ & 2 times Big ‘Grand Designer’. Is there any logic to it or is it just unintentional flip-flopping?

    I guess we get a hint of his rationale here:

    “in my opinion to leave fully undefined the designer [sic - Designer], without giving at least an hint about, is not to do a good service to our [theistically] converted friends evolutionists.”

    But in this instance niwrad, of course, equivocates ‘designer’ and ‘Grand Designer.’ Does he not?

    My answer to “Suppose ID wins”: World War IV would be on the brink because then, finally, after many years looking backwards, only backwards, to the ‘origins’ (of life, biological information, humans, etc.), the IDM, huge/gigantic as it will then be, will turn to look forward. Iow, it will be time to consider ‘Intelligent Designing’ as a process that human beings can and should do. It will mean ‘Intelligent Designing’ the future as gods on Earth. That’s what IDist ‘success’ would look like.

    One person participation on this UD list has already been involved in making ‘smart’ weapons/killing devices for military purposes (according to what he said at ARN). IDism, victorious against ‘natural’ evolutionary theories of change-over-time, will become a ‘neutral’ (wink) theistic geo-political strategy for wiping out all ‘undesirables’ from the Earth; theists or spiritualists vs. atheists or materialists. P. Johnson’s ‘born again or die’ prophecy will have been fulfilled. All monotheists around the world will become ‘IDists,’ like a neo-neo-Marxian ‘international.’

    Atheists are of course ‘undesirables’ according to IDT because an atheist technically cannot accept IDT and still remain an atheist, due to Dembski’s ‘transcendent Designer’ criteria. [Aside: this is why IDists today tend to shrink away from debates with theists who thoughtfully reject IDT after having tasted it and focus instead on atheists and agnostics.]

    Mr. anti-Darwin, Darwin-backwards ‘niwrad’ says as much already: “theism is an implication of the design [sic - Design] inference on the cosmos.”

    So atheists would be either escorted or wiped off the face of the Earth, due to the hypothetical ‘victory’ of IDT. That would be the IDist vision of ‘historical justice.’

  4. For the sake of argument, let’s surmise that, after a long controversy, finally ID succeeds in scientifically convincing all people that life and the universe are designed.

    The idea is a bit far fetched. ID would first need to actually become scientific. There was a discussion of this very topic at TSZ: What if ID were true? Then what?

    Assuming the hypothetical, I don’t actually see much of a problem. Most evolutionists will agree that the problem of Origin of Life is as yet not fully settled, so a clear scientific resolution would be welcomed.

    They have abandoned materialism but haven’t yet reached theism.

    It is not clear why they would abandon materialism. Strong scientific evidence of design would probably be seen as material evidence, and thus as supportive of materialism. And it is not clear why they would even consider theism. They might perhaps consider deism — a non-interventionist designer that started things off. Most would not see deism as opposed to materialism.

  5. Gregory #2

    I wrote this post honestly but you seem not to appreciate the spirit of pacification I tried to express (maybe due to my “bad grammar and confusing ideas”, sorry for that).

    You wrote “atheists are of course undesirables” for IDers. In general at UD many atheists comment and have good debates with many IDers. In particular, in my post, I called them “friends”. As a consequence I cannot follow you in your World-War-IV-would-be-on-the-brink animus.

    I think that P. Johnson’s born-again-or-die “prophecy” was not directed to atheists only, rather – rightly – to all men. We all need to “born again”, sure to simply believe in ID strictu sensu is not enough to escape the intellectual death. This was another implicit, somehow hidden, meaning of my post.

    About the “designer/Designer” issue, usually I use lowercase in generic sense and uppercase when God is directly implied.

  6. From the OP:

    The worse case for them would be to equate the designer with something that has nothing to do with God, or – worse – even with something that is a caricature of God.

    This sums up ideology perfectly: don’t mention [my particular] god, but we all know that’s what I mean.

    Instead of pretending that ID “wins”(an absurd expression in any case), a better fantasy might be imagining ID as a science. The best hope for the Pinocchio of ID is to become real, not to “win.”

  7. Neil Rickert #3

    Thanks for the link to your TSZ article I have read, where you consider my same hypothesis (telepathy? :)).

    A designer of the cosmos cannot be supportive of materialism, because it means mind over matter, and materialism is nothing beyond matter.

    If with “deism” you mean sort of engineer who fabricates the cosmos and then goes home, this is unconceivable in traditional metaphysics. This is the reason I didn’t consider that solution, for a person who has understood that the cosmos is designed.

  8. LarTanner #5

    Don’t you think that ID is also science and science is also ID? Both try to infer causes from effects. Yes, ID implies a particular type of cause: intelligence. But actually there are also sciences that deal with effects of intelligent causes. So why to deny the status of science to ID only? Advice from a friend: don’t call ID “Pinocchio”, it could be a boomerang.

  9. darwin @7:

    Don’t you think that ID is also science and science is also ID?

    No.

    Both try to infer causes from effects.

    BFD. Historical studies try to infer causes from effects. Some literary studies do this. Inferring causes does not make a science; use of scientific methods and reasoning do.

    Yes, ID implies a particular type of cause: intelligence.

    No, actually ID insists — not implies — a particular type of cause. Does ID consider other potential types of causes? Does ID seek to understand design itself? or intelligence itself. What scientific tools and techniques do ID theorists bring to the study of the universe? Answer: none.

    So why to deny the status of science to ID only?

    There’s no ‘status’ in ‘being a science.’ ID is not the only ideology that I would not call a science. Indeed, now that it’s school time, view the course catalog at any undergraduate institution: you will find plenty of academic disciplines that do not identify themselves as sciences.

    If ID wants to be a science, its champions should practice science.

    Advice from a friend: don’t call ID “Pinocchio”, it could be a boomerang.

    I imagine you are saying this in the same tone of voice as Prince Humperdinck in the movie version of the Princess Bride: “I would not say such things if I were you….”

    Inconceivable!

  10. Have you forgotten that we already have an example? I am speaking of Antony Flew. Based on four phenomena (for want of a better word)—the existence of laws governing the operation of the material world, the fine tuning of the physical and cosmological constants, the existence of the Universe, and the emergence of life on the planet—Flew abandoned his atheism and embraced the existence of God.

    The God he believes in is the God of Aristotle, which, quoting David Conway, he describes as follows:*

    …to the Being whom he considered to be the explanation of the world and its broad form, Aristotle ascribed the following attributes: immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness or indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence. There is an impressive correspondence between this set of attributes and those traditionally ascribed to God within the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It is one that fully justifies us in viewing Aristotle as having had the same Divine Being in mind as the cause of the world that is the object of worship of these two religions.

    In spite of this, Flew did not become a Christian. He limited his belief to a God who is the creator of the Universe and of life, and characterized himself as a “deist”.

    For myself, I see one element of the Judaeo-Christian God that is missing from the above list, namely the notion that God sets out rules for our behavior which He commands us to follow on pain of rather severe Divine punishment, a notion that I reject in any case.

    *Page 92 of There Is a God

  11. Mr. Rickert states in regards to ID ‘winning’:

    The idea is a bit far fetched. ID would first need to actually become scientific.

    Which I find to be an extremely hypocritical statement since, contrary to ID, Darwinism has no demarcation criteria to judge whether it is even ‘science’ in the first place:

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
    Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-details/

    Whereas nobody can seem to come up with a rigid demarcation criteria for Darwinism, Intelligent Design (ID) does not suffer from such a lack of mathematical rigor:

    Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
    http://evoinfo.org/publications/

    ,, the empirical falsification criteria of ID is much easier to understand than the math is, and is as such:

    “Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.”
    - Dr Behe in 1997

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Well, do neo-Darwinists have evidence of even one molecular machine arising by Darwinian processes?,,, I have yet to see a single novel protein arise by neo-Darwinian processes (Axe, Behe, Sanford) much less a entire molecular machine! Without such a demonstration and still their dogmatic insistence that Darwinism is true, then as far as I can tell, the actual demarcation threshold for believing neo-Darwinism is true is this:

    Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/

    How Darwinists React to Improbability Arguments (Dumb and Dumber) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9IgLueodZA

    ,, I hope neo-Darwinists, since they consider themselves such experts on what is and what is not science, can help us to designate a more rigid threshold for neo-Darwinism, since as far as I can tell, without a rigid demarcation criteria, neo-Darwinism is in actuality the pseudo-science they accuse Intelligent Design of being!

  12. Bruce David #9

    You are right that Antony Flew is emblematic. However I am not sure that, if really Flew believed in the Being of Aristotle, he could be called a “deist”.

    About the fact that Flew did not become a “Christian”, I suspect that we all will not be judged by God based on a simple single label (like the number plate in the cars). Too simplistic and, at the very end, unjust. Quite differently, I think that God will judge us based on a set of things whose cardinality is uncountable.

  13. “Based on four phenomena…Flew abandoned his atheism and embraced the existence of God.” – Bruce David

    Do you think there might have been anything ‘personal’ involved for Flew too? This ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ qua objective, positive ‘strictly [natural] science’ schtick is already old.

    Guess what though, folks. IDists here at UD will likely avoid the OP’s hypothetical scenario. Why? Well, they haven’t a clue what would happen if IDT ‘wins’ (which is indeed an absurd expression). DI leaders, perhaps, have their own twisted fantasies (as Dembski, Wells & Nelson expressed in playful print form – 2025). But the rank and file followers here at UD aren’t expected to be visionaries or even to look forward at all.

    (“No,” they’ll insist. “You’re wrong simply because you’re an anti-IDist, even if you’re not a materialist, reductionist or ‘Darwinist.’ UDers are visionaries too, just like Miley Cyrus is, ahead of the times and not in any way shameful to the faithful!”)

    That said, IDT thus far has been almost entirely backward-looking, as I mentioned above. It’s the potentially forward-looking part of IDism that would define the hypothetical that niwrad dreams about. Not a surprise that he/she didn’t comment on that aspect of my remarks.

    “About the “designer/Designer” issue, usually I use lowercase in generic sense and uppercase when God is directly implied.” – niwrad

    The problem with this is that IDism purposely blurs the line between ‘designer’ and ‘Designer,’ between ‘Intelligent Design’ qua ‘strictly [natural] scientific theory’ and the traditional ‘design argument[s]‘, which are not ‘scientific,’ but ‘theological.’ Dembski makes it somewhat clear in his 2004 book, but the rank-and-file do as they please because the so-called ‘theory’ of Uppercase ‘Intelligent Design’ is so amorphous, without a singular genius originator. IDism flip-flops, as evidenced here by the definitions of IDT given at UD. So in IDT-talk, ‘generic’ vs. “God is directly implied” becomes a communicative shell game; the language changes in churches, books, universities and in schoolboard court cases.

    Thus, folks here like Torley, StephenB, and even teddy bear Cordoza, purposely (read: intention) choose to capitalise ‘Designer’ in their own personal meaning of ‘Intelligent Design Theory.’ For them ‘universal designism’ seems to be given feature of their theistic ID stance.

    As for niwrad’s disingenuous “spirit of pacification,” get a new (not intentionally antagonistic) name then, humble yourself and come to respect Darwin’s important contribution to human knowledge about nature for what it is: significant and meaningful.

    Pope John Paul II and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences concluded this. And they didn’t lose their faith. Why can’t you do the same? Is it American individualistic fundamentalism standing in your way?

    ‘Darwin didn’t do it’ should become a catch phrase in the IDist fantasy land niwrad wants to inhabit.

  14. If ID wins, you should continue following the evidence where it leads, and experience tells us (i.e. car and airplane design and making) that something like the universe – and life itself – cannot be designed and accomplished by one “Great Designer”; you need a lot of designers – thousands or millions – very well organized to make it.

    If you continue following the evidence and logic reasoning, you will find that nobody – even “God” – has the unlimited resources to create and maintain a “flesh and blood” or “real” universe.

    If you follow the evidence, experience, best explanation and logic from our own world, there is only one way to create a universe like the one we live in, and it is in a computer simulation. This would not be a simulation like in “The Matrix”, “brain in the vat”, Sim City or similar, where all people living in the simulation are commanded by minds living in the real world. This kind of simulation would be autonomous, with little intervention from the designers.

    In the future, we will be able to create our own simulated universe inside a powerful computer, and, at some time in the simulation, simulated people living inside it will ask the same questions we are asking now: Where do we come from? Are we designed or the product of chance and natural selection? Is there a God? Will we answer their questions or let them figure them out?

    If you think the universe is too big to be simulated, and that the computer running the simulation would be as big as the universe itself, you may be wrong. Please go to this site to know why:

    http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com

    Consciousness will also be simulated some day in the future. You can see how this is done now on video games, like FIFA 2014 (you command one player and the rest are played by the computer, according with each player’s personality):

    http://youtu.be/0TAV4r1ldog

    For more information about the simulation argument and hypothesis, go to:

    http://simulation-argument.com

    Video interview with Nick Bostrom, author of the simulation argument and hypothesis:

    http://youtu.be/nnl6nY8YKHs

  15. 15

    “”Have you forgotten that we already have an example? I am speaking of Antony Flew. Based on four phenomena (for want of a better word)—the existence of laws governing the operation of the material world, the fine tuning of the physical and cosmological constants, the existence of the Universe, and the emergence of life on the planet—Flew abandoned his atheism and embraced the existence of God.

    The God he believes in is the God of Aristotle, which, quoting David Conway, he describes as follows:*”"

    Bruce, if you had the pleasure of watching some of Flew’s last video interviews you will see that he came even closer to Christianity and theism then even you stated he did.

    The best clue to this is when he was asked in his interview if he believed in an afterlife.

    His answer was “I sure hope there isnt one”
    To me that answer was out of fear. Flew was deftly afraid that he would go crazy or get bored for all of eternity living forever. Flew knew the compelling evidence for the afterlife because he was good friends with Gary Habermas, but it all boiled down to not trusting that Christ would never allow us to get bored in heaven that was his only problem as far as coming to Christ was concerned. HE was alot closer then most of us think.

    And he stated that if he ever came all the way back to classical theism he would be not only a Christian but a zealous believer in Christ.

  16. You seem to have established in #10 that Neil Rickerts is brain dead, bornagain. Would this not be one instance when it would be an act of kindness to ‘pull the plug’?

    #13: And who’s going to coordinate it rprado, for crying out loud. Why on earth, anyway, would not one omniscient, omnipotent God be able to design, create and sustain this universe and as many others as he chose to?

    The physical scale of this whole universe is next to nothing to him. The gulf between the Creation and its Creator is unbridgeable, infinite. It is a categorical difference.

    I believe, ‘prado’ means ‘meadow’ in Spanish; and I fear I can see you in the not too distant future eating grass in a meadow, like Nebuchadnezzar.

  17. 17

    “”If ID wins, you should continue following the evidence where it leads, and experience tells us (i.e. car and airplane design and making) that something like the universe – and life itself – cannot be designed and accomplished by one “Great Designer”; you need a lot of designers – thousands or millions – very well organized to make it.”"

    Rprado, the Christian God is the necessary uncaused cause, and by the description of him, he can create this universe easily with just a thought.

    Why would you assert that many Gods are needed to create it, if this is well within the power of the Christian God to do it easily?

  18. “Does ID seek to understand design itself? or intelligence itself. What scientific tools and techniques do ID theorists bring to the study of the universe? Answer: none.”

    LT,

    You ask that ID do everything before it can do something. Just because it can’t explain intelligence fully, does not mean that it cannot identify reliable indices of design in features of the world. Indeed, people who study intelligence (psychologists, neuroscientists, etc) struggle to define it. Will you tell them that they bring nothing to the study of the universe if they devise an intelligence test?

  19. bornagain77, why don’t you stop bombarding these nice Darwinist chappies with that constant stream of spam, citing evidence from multiple sources, mathematical proofs, etc, and just argue with them on their own favoured basis, i.e. anecdotally (on their part, occasionally interspersing it with updates concerning astonishing new, chocolate flavours?)

  20. “You wrote “atheists are of course undesirables” for IDers.” – niwrad

    No, I didn’t. Please go back and re-read what I wrote.

    Some IDists speak of ‘Intelligent Design’ *as if* it is not a concocted ‘theory,’ that is supposed to be ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ and *not* a mixture of science, philosophy and theology/worldview.

    “an atheist technically cannot accept IDT and still remain an atheist, due to Dembski’s ‘transcendent Designer’ criteria.”

    IDism discriminates against atheists, which is why in an IDT-victorious scenario atheists must disappear from the Earth. Scientific proof of the Intelligent Designer responsible for ‘Intelligent Design’ would destroy atheism as an ideology, in favour of ‘Universal Designism.’

    Collin, psychologists and neuroscientists are not involved in formulating ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ (IDT). You know this, right? They are studying people or more specifically, peoples’ brains; not ‘the universe’ in a cosmological sense.

    The lowercase ‘intelligence’ that psychologists and neuroscientists study differs *categorically* from the ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ theory of Uppercase ID that the DI pushes, as it relates to OoL, OoBI and human origins. You know this, right Collin?

    p.s. niwrad, please be welcome to delete #1 in this thread as I messed up on the formating

  21. wallstreeter43 #17

    “Rprado, the Christian God is the necessary uncaused cause, and by the description of him, he can create this universe easily with just a thought.”

    That’s what you were taught at home and in school. It’s a dogma. Read it aloud; it doesn’t sound logical. Nobody, even God, can create anything with just a thought. The designers should have first thought this universe with us in it, then planned its software implementation, coded everything and then hit the run command.

    “Why would you assert that many Gods are needed to create it, if this is well within the power of the Christian God to do it easily?”

    I prefer to call them “designers”; not Gods…and it was not an easy task. On the contrary, it should have been incredibly complicated to create this simulation. We are just starting to reverse-engineer it to learn how it was done.

  22. Axel #15

    “Why on earth, anyway, would not one omniscient, omnipotent God be able to design, create and sustain this universe and as many others as he chose to?”

    Nobody, even God, has the infinite resources needed to create and sustain a “flesh and bone” or “real” universe. The only way to do that is through software and, even using it, God cannot do it alone. He needs a lot of help. Read my previous reply.

    “The physical scale of this whole universe is next to nothing to him.”

    I would rephrase it as: The physical scale of this simulated universe is for us – its inhabitants – next to nothing to its designers.

    “The gulf between the Creation and its Creator is unbridgeable, infinite. It is a categorical difference.”

    I would rephrase it as: The gulf between the simulated universe and its designers is unbridgeable, infinite. We are not able to access the designers’ world.

    “I believe, ‘prado’ means ‘meadow’ in Spanish; and I fear I can see you in the not too distant future eating grass in a meadow, like Nebuchadnezzar.”

    Prado means “meadow” in Spanish and you are making the common mistake of attacking the messenger instead of the message.

  23. niwrad:

    The worse case for them would be to equate the designer with something that has nothing to do with God

    But that’s what they already do. So in my book it get a big so what?

  24. Axel:

    You seem to have established in #10 that Neil Rickerts is brain dead

    Not brain dead, but certainly on life support!

    How relevant now is his claim that a computer can be fully understood by describing the electrical impulses that take place!

    So much more then, a human being on life support.

  25. Niwrad, re. #11:

    About the fact that Flew did not become a “Christian”, I suspect that we all will not be judged by God based on a simple single label (like the number plate in the cars). Too simplistic and, at the very end, unjust. Quite differently, I think that God will judge us based on a set of things whose cardinality is uncountable.

    Well, my view—and I know I am in the minority on this site—is that God won’t judge him at all, nor any of the rest of us either. I don’t believe that we were sent here to be good little boys and girls and that we will get our reward or punishment after we die based on how well we did.

    I go with what God said to Eben Alexander during his famous near death experience (Proof of Heaven): “You can do no wrong.” I believe that Christianity, indeed all the major religions, misunderstand the purpose of life on earth. We are made in His image and likeness, and our purpose here is to experience that. In order to experience anything, it is necessary to have the experience of not-that as well. So all of our “sin” is simply the experience of the opposite of Who We Really Are: love, wisdom, truth, and power. Eventually, after we have thoroughly experienced not Who We Really Are, we begin to experience our True Nature. This takes many lifetimes. In between lifetimes, we definitely review our last life, not in judgment, but to be clear about what we did and the effect our choices had on all those whose lives we touched.

    There is a certain irony in the fact that many atheists, like Christofer Hitchens, for example are in this cosmology fairly advanced souls, in spite of their atheism. I say this because of their obvious integrity, kindness, and care for the well being of others.

  26. Collin@17:

    You ask that ID do everything before it can do something. Just because it can’t explain intelligence fully, does not mean that it cannot identify reliable indices of design in features of the world.

    Bull. I ask that ID put out a robust theory of the thing(s) it claims to be a theory of. How can if reasonably offer “an ID did it” if it provides no guidance on what I is, what D is, or what “did” includes?

    Hence ID = ideology. Creationism in a cheap tuxedo, as it were.

    For the record, don’t care that ID is creationism. It’s the lying and self-delusion of IDiots that I find fascinating.

  27. Collin:

    I took some time and thought and effort to respond to a comment of yours at:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ic-thread/

    My response is #74. In it I correct what appears to be a misunderstanding you have about the work of Michael Denton.

    I just want to make sure that you saw my comment. I have no way of knowing that at the moment, because you haven’t responded. If you don’t want to discuss Denton further, just say so, but at least let me know whether or not you read the comment.

  28. Gregory:

    I do not wish to engage in rancorous conflict with you, or in any clash of egos. However, I would like to point out that one of the statements you made above is not in accord with the facts.

    You wrote [in #2 above]:

    [Aside: this is why IDists today *tend to shrink away from debates with theists who thoughtfully reject IDT after having tasted it* and focus instead on atheists and agnostics.] (emphasis added)

    I know of no evidence for this statement, and plenty of evidence against it. Here is a small sampling of counter-evidence, showing that ID people are eager to engage with theists who are critical of ID and/or accept Darwinian or other forms of evolution:

    1. Behe will debate theistic critics of ID with pleasure. There is an excellent podcast debate of Michael Behe with Stephen Barr, and of course he has many times debated Ken Miller. And of those two, at least Barr surely qualifies as “thoughtful.”

    2. ID people tried regularly to engage Francis Collins prior to his NIH appointment (when no conflict of interest concerns prevented him from debating over creation, evolution, and design issues). To the best of my knowledge, he turned down 100% of all challenges to debate by ID people. This was very frustrating to ID people, because Collins regularly stated false things about the ID position, and would not show himself publically responsible for those statements by replying to ID critics.

    3. Karl Giberson was regularly challenged by ID commenters on the BioLogos website; he almost never replied to comments there. He would never defend his position in sustained argument. The same was true of Kathryn Applegate and indeed of almost all BioLogos regular or frequent columnists, except for Enns, Davis, and Venema.

    4. In the one case where Giberson appeared more flexible to ID concerns and more self-critical regarding some versions of the TE/EC position, a UD columnist responded positively to his apparent open-mindedness and tried to further dialogue with Giberson and BioLogos, based on Giberson’s remarks. Giberson remained entirely silent, blowing a good chance for ID/TE rapprochement.

    5. Francis Beckwith dropped in here a few times to toss a few Thomist bombs. He was taken up by several commenters here who wanted to discuss very specific passages and teachings of Thomas Aquinas. He exited the scene instead of responding. Basically his implied position was: “I know Aquinas, you guys don’t, so just accept me as your teacher and learn.” But in fact the commenters showed textual evidence that Beckwith did *not* understand some aspects of Aquinas, and he turned tail. It was Beckwith who ended the discussion, not the ID folks.

    6. At the “vibrant dance of faith and science” conference a few years back, ID proponents Stephen Meyer and Doug Axe agreed to debate Darrel Falk and Randy Isaac. It was all set up, but then the TE team pulled out of the debate. They had a legitimate pro forma reason for doing so (an unnecessarily aggressive write-up prior to the debate by a misguided Discovery staffer), but no really substantial reason, given the fact that Meyer and Axe were known to them as very polite and civilized Christian debaters.

    7. At the Wheaton Conference, a BioLogos-TE team finally agreed to engage an ID team, but one or more members (no one will own up to it) of the TE team vetoed the publication of the proceedings, so that the world never got to see the relative strength of ID and TE positions.

    8. Vincent Torley has responded very vigorously, and with great erudition, to Thomist critics such as Tkacz, Beckwith, and Feser. There are thousands of words of his columns here to prove that. William Dembski has also engaged the neo-Thomists on many occasions, including here on this site, in columns of his own or commenting on other people’s columns. Jay Richards has also responded to some of the Thomist critique of ID (and to the position of Plantinga as well).

    9. ID people have many times debated theists Denis Lamoureux and Steve Matheson, on stage, before TV cameras, and on the internet.

    10. I do not know whether or not Steve Fuller counts as a theist in your book. If he does, he is certainly a theist with whom ID folks have interacted. He even has authorial privileges on this site. Obviously they are not shying away from his critique if they give him a platform to air it!

    11. I myself have written tens of thousands of words on this site, and a similar amount as a guest of Ted Davis on the old ASA list, when he relayed my Timaean views to the others there. I have not shied from taking on Murphy, Isaac, etc. in direct debate. And if you look at earlier years of the ASA talk group, before I was there, you will find Paul Nelson actively involved, and, for a time, Cornelius Hunter. Possibly also Wells, Meyer, and Dembski, though I haven’t thoroughly searched the archives.

    12. Biola University, an ID-sympathetic place, invited Karl Giberson to speak to the students there, showing its willingness to engage with the TE/EC viewpoint.

    I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point. There is no lack of will on the ID part to engage with thoughtful (or non-thoughtful) theistic evolutionists / evolutionary creationists. ID people are not afraid, do not “shrink away,” and do not try to avoid debates with such people. Rather, they welcome and even seek out such debates.

    In light of this evidence, I hope you will modify your statement. However, if you don’t, I will not engage in a war with you over it. I am not interested in any kind of “victory” over you. I just want the facts placed on the table. The readers here can judge how much ID folks “shrink away” from thoughtful non-ID theists and their criticism.

  29. 29

    Larry,

    Can you provide a few examples, with the accompanying details, of the lies that ID proponents promote in their papers and books?

  30. When biological ID “wins”, I predict the same thing will happen as when cosmological ID (fine tuning of the universe) “won”: the atheists will resort to unprovable multiverses to account for extremely improbable events. If we can say that the reason the fundamental constants have values so well suited to the development of life is because we just happen to be in the lucky multiverse where that is true, you could also say that the reason irreducibly complex biological systems exist is because we just happen to be in the lucky multiverse where all the right mutations happened at once. In fact, I think the only reason atheists have not already resorted to this argument is that it would mean conceding that the “creationists” were right all along that random mutations and natural selection are insufficient to explain all of biology. Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” could well have been written by an atheist, with the only difference being that those things beyond the edge of evolution would be attributed to the anthropic principle rather than an intelligent designer.

  31. Gregory #19

    p.s. niwrad, please be welcome to delete #1 in this thread as I messed up on the formating

    I would do it, but then wordpress renumbers the comments and the pointers in the comments become wrong.

    Gregory #12

    As for niwrad’s disingenuous “spirit of pacification,” get a new (not intentionally antagonistic) name then, humble yourself and come to respect Darwin’s important contribution to human knowledge about nature for what it is: significant and meaningful.

    But I do respect “Darwin’s important contributions to human knowledge about nature”! The problem is that Darwin’s theory (ameba-to-man naturalistic unintelligent macroevolution by natural selection) is cent percent wrong. Also if I am the more pacific guy on earth, I cannot say that a thing is correct when it is wrong. My name wants to somehow symbolize the reestablishment of the truth. Nothing of personal with Darwin though. I don’t counter men, I counter errors.

  32. When biological ID “wins”, I predict the same thing will happen as when cosmological ID (fine tuning of the universe) “won”: the atheists will resort to unprovable multiverses to account for extremely improbable events.

    That’s aiming pretty low. For an ID philosophical schema to “win,” the fact of a designer must be taught in high school science class, with the same ease that one would teach that the sky is blue. As it is, ID “winning” the cosmological debate looks a lot like ID losing the debate, except with some minority view skirmishing over philosophical questions.

    A materialist would probably let you have biological ID on these terms, since ID “winning” means little more to you than being able to denounce the hypocrisy of materialists.

  33. rprado

    what you say represents a perfect confirmation of the necessity of my article. You are not a materialist, you well understand that the universe is designed, but you speak of many cosmic “designers” because “God has not the infinite resources…”.

    Have you read the article I linked at the end? There I explain that the First Cause is unlimited and, as a consequence, the manifested universe is infinitesimal compared to this Source. This Metaphysical Infinite (which has nothing to do with the mathematical “infinities”, which aren’t unlimited at all) is really the first thing to grasp, if you want to know the truth.

  34. CS3, you wrote:

    When biological ID “wins”, I predict the same thing will happen as when cosmological ID (fine tuning of the universe) “won”: the atheists will resort to unprovable multiverses to account for extremely improbable events.

    Eugene Koonin wrote a paper proposing an infinite multiverse as a solution to the improbability of the origin of the RNA replication and translation system.

    The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life – Eugene V Koonin (Biology Direct 2007, 2:15)

    That paper was submitted on the same day to the same journal as a more serious paper that cites it as an alternative hypothesis and lists Koonin as a corresponding author:

    On the origin of the translation system and the genetic code in the RNA world by means of natural selection, exaptation, and subfunctionalization – Yuri I Wolf and Eugene V Koonin (Biology Direct 2007, 2:14)

    Uncommon Descent has already covered some of Koonin’s writings, in 2011: Eugene V. Koonin’s Darwin-free book free on Kindle! – No. 1 in Biology (In that thread, a commenter CanuckianYankee claimed that Koonin’s book isn’t Darwin-free but praises Darwin.)

    If “ID wins” I think there would be a lot of speculation. For instance, does life as we know it have a built-in intelligence that can perform experiments and accumulate the results in DNA, to use them later? If so, where did that come from? Has life always existed in an eternal or time-looping universe? Were there past civilizations or other intelligent species of Earth life that produced GMOs? Were there intelligent extraterrestrials who visited Earth or sent a probe, seeding some lifeforms here?

    The questions could keep people entertained with science fiction possibilities for centuries. That is, there’s no need for everyone to start believing in Ahura Mazda just because they accept ID.

  35. Some facts noted, timaeus, with your usual ‘timaean’ IDist tilt.

    What I had in mind specifically was V.J. Torley refusing to discuss with me the obvious links between Uppercase Intelligent Design Theory (and Torley does correctly use Uppercase letters) and religion, in his case, with Catholicism (and I linked you already to the threads with Torley on Feser’s site where Feser disabuses Torley, but you haven’t commented on it). Likewise, there’s another person on this site, currently engaging in censorship, who won’t respond to a legitimate theistic critique of IDism, just going after atheists instead. So, yes, the blanket statement in this case was too broad, though in my own case, it is a demonstrated fact.

    Indeed, rather than saying IDists won’t ‘debate’ theistic critics of ID, which is clearly not accurate, it is more accurate to say there are certain questions that IDists won’t answer in ‘discussions.’ They either pull a Gish Gallop or simply will not address significant and indeed highly-damaging challenges to their ‘strictly [natural] scientific theory’ and pretenses to ‘Scientific Revolution!’ This is partly why BioLogos Foundation refused to ‘debate’ with IDists, who are actually trained by the DI and its PR and legal team to ‘debaters’. And frankly, timaeus, this is one thing that makes IDism so hard to stomach for many people; it is still an echo of the creation vs. evolution ‘debates’ of the 20th century.

    That ‘third way’ you claim to be looking for, is not to be found within IDism as a political movement or as a ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ theory/ideology. And you, timaeus, of all people participating here at UD have demonstrated the most hard-headed ‘debate, deBatE, DeBaTe!’ attitude towards people who reject IDism.

    Notice the ‘Suppose ID WINS’ debate-like attitude displayed even in the title of this thread?

    That said, I will thus adjust my challenge to timaeus, in case he is healing yet from his particularly over-developed case of Expelled Syndrome: I challenge timaeus to a formal ‘discussion’ of IDT and TE/EC, which will be published on my blog, not here at UD. If he would like to offer another location where it will be published, he is welcome. But UD is not ‘neutral’ territory. This ‘discussion’ just between he and I, will aim to solve (some of) the antinomy between IDism and TE/EC, indeed considering a ‘third way’ or ‘third ways’ to productively move the general science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse forward.

    Gregory

    p.s. of course, there was no need to make a comment on “Suppose ID wins,” timaeus, the main theme of this thread, which I have addressed above, but rather simply to ‘correct’ me with your careful attention to events and people in the ID Movement.

  36. I thank you for qualifying your earlier remarks, Gregory.

    On one of your specific points, I have not read all of the places on Feser’s site where Feser criticizes Torley, but I have read some of them. I am not convinced by Feser’s position on many points. But I was not trying to defend Torley’s theology against Feser’s theology; I was only pointing out that Torley has never shied away from criticizing Feser. One might judge Torley’s position to be weaker than Feser’s; one could never say that Torley has feared to address Feser.

    There is nothing wrong with “debate”; it is a standard part of academic life, and has been so since the founding of universities in the Middle Ages. Indeed, I wish there were more “debate” in the world — by which I mean not rancorous, name-calling internet shoutfests, but genuine, thoughtful exchanges, where respectful opponents give and take points, learning from each other as they argue, instead of reflexively saying no every time the other side says yes.

    Certainly I agree with you in your criticism of many past “creation vs. evolution” debates. I studied them for many years in my youth (when I always took the Darwinian side), but came over time to regard them with disgust. And I’m including the tactics and attitudes on *both* sides in that remark. I thus had no intention of returning to the popular arena where evolution was discussed, until ID came along; I saw in Michael Behe someone who could discuss design in nature rationally, and thus rise above the false polarization of creation and evolution.

    But how was Behe treated? He was violently assaulted by those (Coyne, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, etc.) who have every interest in dragging the discussion back to “creation versus evolution.” And even many TEs, who should know better, i.e., who should know that Behe is not anti-evolution, have often tried to construe his arguments as anti-evolutionary ones. It seems that whenever a thinker comes along and tries to redirect the stale intellectual debate over origins along more constructive lines (e.g., in Behe’s case, toward design versus chance, rather than creation versus evolution), he pays a price. Thomas Nagel is now taking similar heat. It seems that the grooves of “creation versus evolution” are dug so deep that most people can’t think outside that box.

    I’ve never spoken of “scientific revolution” in connection with ID. Others perhaps have. I prefer a much more low-key, modest statement of arguments in favor of ID, along the lines of “in this particular case, intelligent design seems to provide *the best explanation at the moment* for the origin of this organism or system.” Unfortunately, even low-key, humble, guarded presentations of ID are jumped on with extreme savagery by the anti-ID crowd, and this polarizes matters. It’s very hard to find someone who says a scientifically cautious “maybe” to ID. Everyone seems to be either hardcore “pro” or hardcore “anti.” I don’t think this is an intellectually healthy situation for scientific discussion.

    As for the language of “winning,” I’d prefer that everybody put truth above “winning.” And sincere commitment to truth, more often than not, ends up with *everybody* admitting that to some extent they have been wrong and to some extent the other side has been right. Sincere commitment to truth weakens the partisan spirit, and that’s a good thing. What we need today, whether the debate is over evolution or global warming or any number of other things — is less partisan spirit, and more truly open-minded discussion, where people on all sides say: “This is a complex question with many interacting features. Let’s stop posturing and put literally everything on the table for negotiation, and work together rather than against each other, in order to find some answers.” I certainly haven’t found this to be the spirit in these debates, except among a few, among whom I would include (the list is not exhaustive) Ted Davis, nullasalus, Jon Garvey, and Vincent Torley. A big fraction of the people who post here or elsewhere on the internet have planted their feet in one place, and, to the extent that they listen to the other side at all, it is only in the spirit of “and what lousy, easily refutable argument is this guy going to offer next?” rather than the spirit of “this person may be on to something that I haven’t really thought carefully about, so I will avoid knee-jerk response and maybe even think about what he says for a few days instead of offering the first superficial and shallow refutation that pops into my head.” The popular debate greatly suffers because it is animated by partisanship, rather than by the assiduous truth-seeking of the scholar or philosopher.

  37. ID has already won as unguided evolution doesn’t have any support and the evidence supports design.

  38. Neil Rickert:

    ID would first need to actually become scientific.

    It is scientific as it can be tested and potentially falsified. OTOH unguided evolution, which is being taught as science, cannot be tested.

    Most evolutionists will agree that the problem of Origin of Life is as yet not fully settled, so a clear scientific resolution would be welcomed.

    The OoL directly impacts all subsequent evolution. The only way to infer unguided evolution is to have an unguided OoL. If the OoL = design then the inference would be organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design.

    Strong scientific evidence of design would probably be seen as material evidence, and thus as supportive of materialism.

    Only if you totally redefine materialism…

  39. I doubt LarTanner and Neil Rickert know what science is…

  40. For example- LarTanner and Neil-

    What are the alternatives to ID and how can they be tested?

    Please be specific.

  41. ba77 writes:

    Which I find to be an extremely hypocritical statement since, contrary to ID, Darwinism has no demarcation criteria to judge whether it is even ‘science’ in the first place

    I have been clear enough that I am not a Darwinist. Where’s the hypocrisy?

    Evolutionary biology is clearly science, and evolutionary biologists are not all Darwinists.

  42. Well Mr. Rickert if you are so offended at the charge of hypocrisy (and I make that charge for all theories of ‘evolutionary’ biology which a priorily excludes design as a viable hypothesis), please feel free to provide the exact criteria by which any naturalistic theory of origins may be mathematically falsified! Without such a rigid falsification criteria, you, and everyone else, are, whether you realize it or not, practicing philosophy rather than science.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-469738

  43. Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) –

  44. Neil Rickert:

    Evolutionary biology is clearly science,

    In what way is it science, Neil? No one knows how many mutations it takes to get a flagellum in a population that never had one, meaning there isn’t any quantification.

    So please be specific as opposed to the bald assertion.

  45. In “real life”, it has been my experience that most people who consider themselves “theistic evolutionists” actually hold views that are compatible with intelligent design. However, ID has been so vilified, and equated with traditional “creationism” by some scientists, and in popular culture, that, unless they have taken the time to independently research ID, they are eager to distance themselves from it, in order not to appear to be ignorant.

    For example, in grad school, I had a few discussions on this topic with someone who considered herself a theistic evolutionist and had a low opinion of intelligent design. She even had BOTH a Christian fish ornament AND one of those fish with legs and the word DARWIN on the back of her car. However, after learning more about what intelligent design actually says, and reading a little of Behe’s Edge of Evolution (especially the “No Interference” section on pages 229-232), she had this to say (quoting an e-mail):

    “I do agree with the view of creation given in those pages. Thus, I agree to agree with you about creation…The book (and my own views) holds that God may have used natural selection (fit animals eating less fit animals) and evolution as part of his creation process….[However] I think “Theistic Evolution” is a perfectly valid term, and better suited to describe our shared views than “Intelligent Design,” and one which will be palatable to more people (as the term “Intelligent Design” and its followers have had a bad rap in recent years). In short, I agree with you about creation. But I will continue to be a “theistic evolutionist” when people ask about my creation views. Although I do have more respect for the “intelligent design” perspective now.”

    For those who have not previously read it, I think this article by Jay Richards is a pretty interesting read on the topic of what I think is, in many cases, an issue of “confrontational agreement” rather than true disagreement between “real life” theistic evolutionists and ID.

  46. “I’ve never spoken of “scientific revolution” in connection with ID [meaning 'Intelligent Design Theory']. Others perhaps have.” – timaeus

    Perhaps?! timaeus, are you either deaf or blind or ‘perhaps’ both? Or are you trying to intentionally distort the truth demonstrated in the public record?

    Meyer, Dembski, Wells, Nelson – do these names not ring any bells for you? Apparently even your beloved Behe has claimed (on radio) that IDT would constitute a ‘scientific revolution’ – perhaps the ‘greatest in history’ – *IF* it can be ‘scientifically’ proven. And it is precisely the ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ facade of IDism that this thread is claiming as a hypothetical future ‘victory.’

    Things you say like this, timaeus, which are incredibly dishonest, apparently as a wish to cast doubt on whether or not IDist leaders actually believe they *are* scientific revolutionaries (they surely do – just follow the evidence!), display the ‘partisan’ spirit you disingenuously claim to detest. Why not be honest and truthful?

    If you’re going to put ‘truth above winning,’ timaeus, then you should stop spinning your self-serving timaean-IDist rhetoric. Or were you actually unaware that IDist leaders (and many of their evangelical followers) speak and have spoken regularly of ‘scientific revolution’ wrt IDism?! Dembski’s even got a book called “The Design Revolution” (2004). Did you not know this?!

    timaeus is obviously trying to play a joke on reality here with his perhaps! It was a joke, right?

  47. Of related note: Researchers have finally developed a somewhat useful mathematical model for molecular biology that has some actual predictive power as to what organisms may or may not do in a given environment by ignoring the Darwinian ‘historical accidents’ presupposition and using a ‘top down’ physiological perspective instead:

    Simple Math Sheds New Light On a Long-Studied Biological Process – Aug. 7, 2013
    Excerpt: Hwa and his team arrived at their surprising finding by employing a new approach called “quantitative biology,” in which scientists quantify biological data and discover mathematical patterns, which in turn guide them to develop predictive models of the underlying processes.
    “This mode of research, an iterative dialogue between data quantitation and model building, has driven the progress of physics for the past several centuries, starting with Kepler’s discovery of the law of planetary motion,” explains Hwa. “However, it was long thought that biology is so laden with historical accidents which render the application of quantitative deduction intractable.”,,,
    “When we plotted our results, our jaws dropped,” recalls Hwa. “The levels of the sugar uptake and utilization enzymes lined up remarkably into two crossing lines when plotted with the corresponding growth rates, with the enzyme level increasing upon carbon limitation and decreasing upon nitrogen and sulfur limitation. The enzyme levels followed the simple mathematical rules like a machine.” ,,
    Hwa points out that the physiological insights derived from simple mathematical relations guided them to figuring out both the strategy and molecular mechanisms their bacteria employ to coordinate carbon metabolism with those of other elements.,,

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....155154.htm

    Of somewhat related note, Denis Nobel, who is ruffling quite a few Darwinian feathers with his recent lectures on Youtube, is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences

  48. “ID[T] succeeds in scientifically convincing all people that life and the universe are designed.”

    Would this not count as a ‘scientific revolution,’ according to timaeus?!

  49. It is having in mind my part of responsibility that, in a previous post I tried to explain that theism is an implication of the design inference on the cosmos and give an idea about the Great Designer.

    Design at the biological level has more implication for human relations. Even Francis Collins said he accepts ID at the cosmological level when he spoke at George Mason University a few years back. Even Steve Barr I suppose accepts ID at the cosmological level.

    ID at the biological level makes God highly involved in the affairs of life because he was aware of every molecule of the cell and how it would develop into an adult, hence he is aware of every molecule of life.

    Strictly speaking, it is possible God created angels that created space aliens that created human life. ID doesn’t strictly preclude that possibility, and there are some ID proponents favorable to God creating extra terrestrial mechanisms that created life on Earth. See Rob Sheldon’s extra-terrestrial OOL hypothesis. Sheldon is sympathetic to ID, he is an author at UncommonDescent, but argues for a different OOL route than others:

    http://link.springer.com/conte.....1-4_21.pdf

    Abstract

    The triumph of Democritean materialism over biology in the nineteenth century was tempered in the twentieth century by the discovery that time was not eternal and that life was too complicated to spontaneously organize. This led to the paradox of assuming only material causes for life’s origin while making them practically impossible. We address this 150-year-old origin-of-life (OOL) problem by redefining it as an information threshold that must be crossed. Since Shannon information has too little capacity to describe life, we expand it to include time and correlated information. Generalized to Einstein’s spacetime, we show that information capacity implies information flow, and flows imply an “ether,” a material carrier. From recent discoveries of fossilized microbial life on carbonaceous CI1 meteorites whose D/H ratios, albedo, and elemental abundance are all cometary, we identify the material carrier with comets. With sufficient cometary density, which we hypothesize may be supplied by the missing galactic dark matter, nonlinear correlations amplify the probability that comets can assemble life from distributed information sources. If information is conserved, as suggested by many cosmologists, then this distributed information source becomes the boundary condition of the 4-sphere describing the Big Bang. Recent advances in theoretical physics suggest that the assumption of the conservation of information along with the conservation of energy is sufficient to derive Newton’s laws, making materialism a corollary of information and the OOL a trivial result of imposed Big Bang boundary conditions as transmitted through the cometary hydrosphere.

    I don’t think there is anyway to know whether God used proxy agents as proximal designers (like angels) except by Him telling us and we accepting it on faith. So such questions are accessible only by the Designer Himself telling us and our willingness to believe him without formal proof (since I think formal proof would be impossible anyway).

    I have suggested Sanford’s genetic entropy argument, which affirms Christ’s genealogy, suggests who the Designer is the Judeo-Christian God since this specialized knowledge of when humanity emerged seems to only proceed from a divine source (because ancient humans certainly did not suppose this!).

    Even if the YECs don’t win their case immediately over the age of the universe, Sanford has won his case that humanity is recent special creation (not likely an evolved being), and that counts for a lot. My only criticism of Sanford’s work is he uses Darwinian notions of fitness (reproductive success) instead of Design notions of fitness (functionality).

    Wome will not immediately think ID is true even if they concluded the fossil time of death was recent. Much less will they believe in God or the Judeo-Christian God as attested by the Table of Nations in Genesis or the genealogy of Christ in Luke 3.

    See:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....elievable/

    I accept that they will not believe even in light of such evidence. But for me, how can I ever believe life was all a mindless accident? That takes too much blind faith, imho.

    Finally, in light of the uncertainties, and in light of the fact formal proofs of the most important issues will forever elude us, and that only through reasonable faith and God’s grace will we find the truth, I argue that creationists and pro-ID theists have far less to lose if they are wrong. On those grounds, ID and theism are a superior wager on what idea is right.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....t-mistake/

  50. Neil Rickert #39

    I have been clear enough that I am not a Darwinist.

    Hurrah Neil! Then you are an IDer. There is no third way. Design or no-design. See my previous “A third way between evolution and design?”:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....+design%3F

    I knew you are an intelligent person. Welcome on the ID movement!

  51. “Hurrah Neil! Then you are an IDer. There is no third way.” – niwrad

    Yet another joke on this thread! (However, Neil Rickert does believe in/ambiguously point to lowercase ‘intelligent design’ theory in philosophy.)

    The absurdity of IDists saying “If you’re not a ‘Darwinist’ then you’re an IDist is really too much.

    “We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.” – Star Trek

    Btw, niwrad, I’m curious what is your native language? How does ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ translate from American English into it? Where I am currently living, the concept duo translates (back into English) as ‘Intelligent Project’.

    Iow, no need to talk about ‘design/Design’ b/c it obviously blurs the human-made/non-human-made distinction.

  52. “Even Francis Collins said he accepts ID at the cosmological level when he spoke at George Mason University a few years back. Even Steve Barr I suppose accepts ID at the cosmological level.”

    Look, it’s the fudge factor again, no integrity or truth allowed!

    Collins and Barr and the vast majority of Abrahamic monotheists (incl. Baha’is, Muslims, Christians & Jews) accept that there is a Creator, which they call different names. In natural theology, traditional ‘design arguments’ have been used. But though Collins and Barr accept traditional theological ‘design arguments,’ they also thoughtfully reject IDism, iow, the ‘strictly [natural] scientific theory’ championed by the DI-led IDM.

    Folks like Salvador T. Cordoza are willfully ignorant of the nuances and try to exploit people in the USA less educated and ‘perhaps’ just as evangelical as they are.

    At least Salvador openly notes the difference between ‘intelligent designer’ and ‘Intelligent Designer’ in his posts, which a guy like timaeus hasn’t the courage to acknowledge or willingness to write with clarity.

    Let me add to #2 (thanks for deleting #1 niwrad), that “If ID wins” freaky people like the pro-censorship author of #47 will dance like deranged little men, gloating over and using missle tracking on atheists.

    Atheists simply won’t last long in an ‘IDT victory’ scenario; they will be positively discriminated against and forcefully oppressed as inferiors by the temporary governing IDist regime.

    We’re still not sure if the victorious IDists will turn to finally be forward-looking or not because niwrad hasn’t yet addressed that. But still, it should be clear: “atheists are not allowed” in the IDism victory scenario.

  53. Gregory #49

    Now that I begin to know you I find you more likeable than thought after all.

    Have you read my “A third way between evolution and design?”? There I provide arguments on the ID/Darwin tertium non datur. You say it is a joke, why specifically?

  54. niwrad writes:

    There is no third way. Design or no-design. See my previous “A third way between evolution and design?”

    I have seen that. It is absurd.

  55. Mr. Rickert, what is truly absurd is this:

    “The truly extraordinary claim — indeed, the wildly and irresponsibly outrageous claim — is that a highly scalable, massively parallel system architecture incorporating a 4-bit digital coding system and a super-dense, information-rich, three-dimensional, multi-layered, multi-directional database structure with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing file allocation, concatenation and bit-parity algorithms, operating subject to software protocol hierarchies could all come about through a long series of accidental particle collisions. That is beyond extraordinary. It is preposterous. It is laughable.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....s-part-ii/

  56. Gregory:

    In 34 above, I wrote what I thought was a substantive and moderate reply containing many points you would agree with. In 44, your response deals with only *one word* from that reply. That word is an adverb! And an adverb in a sentence which is not essential to the argument of my post!

    How about some comments on things you agree with?

    As for your question, I am aware that Dembski wrote a book called *The Design Revolution.* I have not read it. I have no plans to read it. I have read his less popular and more technical works. I did not get the flavor of “revolution” from those works. What I got from them was a sober argument about the creative limitations of Darwinian and chemical origin-of-life mechanisms. But in any case, I agree with you that there is no need for ID theorists to speak of “revolution.” I think that it is for future historians of science to say what theories were “revolutionary”; I think present-day scientists should just try to do good science, and leave grand judgments to posterity.

    The remarks about dishonesty etc. were uncalled for and serve only to generate unnecessary friction. No dishonesty was intended. I cannot think of more than once, in the ID works that I have read, that ID theorists have claimed to be enacting a “revolution.” I recall only one remark of Behe to that effect from all his books and articles, and it was uncharacteristic of Behe’s modest style, so I count it as what statisticians call an “outlier.” As for the other active scientists among the ID people — I don’t recall Denton, Sternberg, Gauger, Axe, Minnich, or Marks speaking of “revolution.” Maybe non-scientist Johnson spoke of “revolution” — but I’ve read none of his books.

    No dishonesty was intended. The most you could accuse me of is understatement. I could have written instead: “Dembski has spoken of revolution, but I cannot think of many other cases where ID proponents have used that language.”

    So I accept your (over-wrought) criticism of one of my adverbs. Did you agree with the remaining 99% of my post? It would help matters if you would acknowledge common ground where it exists.

  57. Neil Rickert:

    I have seen that. It is absurd.

    Cuz Neil sez so and that’s that.

  58. On another subject, Gregory wrote:

    “Iow, no need to talk about ‘design/Design’ b/c it obviously blurs the human-made/non-human-made distinction.”

    How does ID blur this distinction? No ID theorist known to me has ever suggested that stars, planets, the first life, armadillos, dinosaurs, the first flowering plants, etc. were *made by humans*. ID theorists are very clear that these things differ (in their historical origin) from computers, clocks, cities, etc.

    We can also put this point in terms of “designing” (in place of “making”): To suggest that natural objects were designed is not to suggest that they were *designed by humans*. There is no conceptual blurring between “designed by humans” and “designed by someone else.” The distinction is very clear.

    Indeed, those who are guilty of “blurring” (that is, of sliding in an intellectually uncontrolled manner from one concept to a different concept) are those who suggest that it is just obvious that “natural” things are not “designed” things. We do not know that natural things are not designed. Many, most, or even all natural things may be designed for all we know. But masters of blurring such as Eugenie Scott have been able to subtly link “natural” with “not designed” in the public mind. It is to the great credit of ID that it has exposed this illegitimate move to public scrutiny.

  59. timaeus, can you really be that clueless? Your perhaps shows you haven’t the faintest idea even why the website ‘Uncommon Descent’ was set up in the first place. And it doesn’t seem like you have the will to openly inquire about the motivations behind IDism. Honestly, you’re displaying such anti-social tendencies, as if all you can do is write ideologically and critique, but don’t actually pause to think about people and their dreams, aspirations, desires, which is what niwrad’s thread on “Suppose ID wins” is all about.

    “I did not get the flavor of “revolution” from those [so-called ‘technical’] works.” – timaeus

    Have you no taste buds or are you just a horribly selective reader? Dembski says the same thing in “ID: THE Bridge between Science and Theology.” Just because it is not explicitly stated in “The Design Inference” does not mean it is not implied. That you have completely missed this undercurrent behind the ‘Movement’ of IDism tells a lot about your Expelled Syndrome isolationism.

    A few months back timaeus proclaimed to me that ID leaders actually don’t acknowledge such thing as an ‘Intelligent Design Movement.’ So I showed him quotations from Meyer, Dembksi and Nelson where they actually do acknowledge such a thing. timaeus could have learned, but likely still doesn’t believe what the public record says. Instead, he just wants to focus his big brain on a ‘pure theory’ of Uppercase ‘Intelligent Design,’ which of course doesn’t actually exist.

    Now, he thinks that perhaps IDM leaders sometimes, or it just happened once, speak of a ‘scientific revolution,’ but he’s not sure. How can we possibly trust timaeus and his perhaps?

    timaeus is apparently amazingly naïve regarding the larger context in which the ‘strictly [natural] scientific theory’ of IDism is being posed that he is publically defending here at UD. Apparently he is likewise intentionally oblivious of the political aspirations of IDists, which niwrad demonstrates in this thread. How very strange of timaeus for a person who writes political theory, as he has mentioned here at UD.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....58431.html

    Perhaps?! The DI says advertises to students: “guarantee your part in the scientific revolution!”

    Why doesn’t timaeus know about this? He will probably retort that he is just interested in ‘pure theory,’ without any humanity involved in it whatsoever. Abstract ideas is timaeus’ game; parading it as ‘strictly [natural] science’ is pretty lame.

    IDists think there is a ‘scientific revolution’ going on, a ‘Design Revolution,’ centred around the concept duo ‘Intelligent Design’. niwrad’s OP reveals this typically – ‘win the revolution!’.

    Let’s hear what Dembski (whom Colson calls a ‘revolutionary’ in the Foreword), the founder of this blog says: “For there to be a revolution, there must be revolutionaries willing to put their necks on the line. They must be willing to take the abuse, ridicule, and threats that the ruling elite are capable of inflicting.” http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/designrev061003.htm

    Isn’t this precisely the way that most defenders of IDism here at UD feel about themselves and how they present themselves as ‘debaters’ to their ‘opponents’ (which they think of as ‘enemies’)?

    Jonathan Wells and Casey Luskin speak of IDism as a ‘scientific revolution.’ Benjamin Wiker is particularly delusional about how ‘scientifically revolutionary’ he thinks IDT is. http://www.discovery.org/a/1422

    Stephen C. Meyer took Charles Thaxton’s concept duo of choice ‘Intelligent Design’ (which he in turn borrowed from engineers) and believes he’s a scientific revolutionary, along with his comrades, including the YECist Paul Nelson. Meyer says openly in interviews that ‘Intelligent Design’ is in the early stages of a ‘scientific revolution.’ This is not a secret, it is published in the public record, so one must wonder what timaeus spends his time reading if he genuinely didn’t know about this typical ‘scientific revolution’ talk among his fellow IDists.

    If Behe didn’t think he was involved in a ‘scientific revolution,’ he would probably quickly and responsibly drop the label ‘IDist’ and return to a more reasonable position. He could even continue to doubt the comprehensiveness of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories and the Modern Synthesis, without having to take the now stained label ‘IDist’. But like I’ve said before, Behe is horribly deficient in philosophy of science, so this partially explains why he has been seduced by mainly Protestant evangelical IDists and their scientistic quest for legitimacy.

    “As for the other active scientists among the ID people — I don’t recall Denton, Sternberg, Gauger, Axe, Minnich, or Marks speaking of “revolution.” Maybe non-scientist Johnson spoke of “revolution” — but I’ve read none of his books.”

    Might that perhaps be because they are doing nothing ‘revolutionary’ on a scientific level?!
    Having read none of Johnson’s works is likewise strange, given that Johnson is the ‘father of the IDM,’ according to Dembski, Meyer, Behe, et al. Why not read Johnson? And why speak down to him as a ‘non-scientist’?! This is typical of the IDist ‘strictly [natural] scientistic’ attitude.

    “I agree with you that there is no need for ID theorists to speak of ‘[scientific] revolution’.” – timeaus

    Then why do you think they continue to do this, timaeus?

    You may not personally believe IDT constitutes a ‘scientific revolution,’ timaeus. It is even somewhat obvious (though still ambiguous due to contradictions) that you do not. But regardless, your voice counts for little-to-nothing amongst ID leaders – you have no influence on them and have never published a paper on IDT – and you don’t even subscribe to their definition of IDT as a ‘strictly [natural] scientific theory.’ So imo, your solo version of ‘timaean IDism’ is not really worth listening to.

    But nevertheless, you’re imo the best that UD has to offer so far, which is why I provided an updated challenge to you. Your lack of response, disrespectful in dialogue, is typical of how you avoid the most difficult questions for IDism. I wouldn’t expect you to fare well in a discussion in neutral territory, away from your comfort zone defending IDism amongst IDists. And likewise it doesn’t seem like you will even address the theme of this thread.

    “How about some comments on things you agree with?”

    That is one of the most deliciously ironic questions I’ve heard from timaeus in about 4 years in communication circles with him on-line. :p Trained in the arts of evasion and spin, including religion and philosophy, timaeus has had ample opportunity to agree with important points against IDism, and even towards an alternative ‘third way.’ But, ladies and gentlemen, he has never gathered his courage to provide support outside of IDism or shed light on a way to overcome the antinomy. And as an obvious Expelled Syndrome victim, timaeus is in a rather undesirable, isolated position. Perhaps a neutral site discussion would help straighten him out?

  60. #56 is a waste of time answering. timaeus cannot possibly be so foolish as to not realise the dependence on analogy from human-made things to non-human-made things in IDism displayed in the works of Meyer, Behe, Dembski, et al.

    Mousetrap, Easter Island, Mt. Rushmore, etc., etc.

    If he will display some courage to publically discuss with me outside of UD, I’ll gladly meet his misunderstanding and blurring. He’s got lots of excuses, but then again, he doesn’t have a very strong case for IDism either.

  61. Student Q: Would it be possible that someday we could actually engineer a life form in a laboratory?

    Professor A: Of course! From the rate we are advancing in our knowledge, this is inevitable.

    Student Q: Could we use an uninhabited area as a test tube for experiments in natural selection, for example an area on Mars?

    Professor A: Yes, I suppose so.

    Student Q: Is it possible that there’s an advanced civilization of some kind among the Earth-like planets in the Cosmos?

    Professor A: Yes, most certainly. We’re not unique!

    Student Q: Could the Earth have been the test tube of such a civilization?

    Professor A: That’s an utterly preposterous suggestion that could only have been suggested by an unscientific dimwit incapable of cogent thought, coherence sentences, or correct spelling. Your suggestion is simply a thinly veiled attempt at inserting religion into serious scientific research and discussion. Get out of my class, you intolerent jerk.

    Student Q: I see.

  62. I think life is full of evidence of intelligent design and that random mutations don’t explain it, but I do not believe in theism of the Abrahamic sort. I wrote a previous comment to this thread that was rejected or not approved yet, in which I concurred with CS3 in comment #29 and gave a link to a scientific paper that is evidence that his prediction already happened in 2007.

    In my opinion, silly science-fiction-like speculations would happen because of people accepting or considering intelligent design. Silly religious-like speculations would also happen.

    If possible, I’d like the moderator or thread-owner to make some suggestion of what was objectionable about my previous comment, if anything.

  63. 63

    to not realise the dependence on analogy from human-made things to non-human-made things

    Gregory’s analogy argument against ID fails under material analysis, and he knows it. That is why he refuses to enter into a discussion with me on the topic. His refusal is well documented.

    If he will display some courage to publically discuss

    Pure comedy.

  64. 64

    Gregory, in place of your nauseating political detritus, why don’t you try reading von Neumann, and Polanyi, and Pattee. Why do you think that Crick proposed an adapter? Why do you think Nirenberg’s experiment took on the structure it did? Try educating yourself.

  65. CS3 @ 43:

    ID has been so vilified, and equated with traditional “creationism” by some scientists, and in popular culture, that, unless they have taken the time to independently research ID, they are eager to distance themselves from it, in order not to appear to be ignorant.

    This is of course the precise intent of such dishonest rhetoric. It is multiplied by personal vilification, outing, outing that tries to hold innocent family — including children — hostage, career busting, intimidatory political/legal malpractice and worse. A sorry picture.

    In that light, it is the reasonable duty of care and to justice to seek and stand up for truth and those unjustly targetted. Otherwise, here is where we end up, though perhaps not so crudely blatant. Scapegoating, smearing and stereotyping that erects and knocks over a strawman caricature, soaks it in ad hominems and sets alight, is extremely dangerous — and I am here speaking to BOTH the shameful targetting of design thinkers and the even worse targetting of “Creationists.” (Those who imagine that tyranny is the sole province of “religion” . . . such a handily broad-brush smear in the hands of such rhetors, “theocracy” etc, have swallowed another pernicious smear, one that no educated person after C20 has any right to — as the moans of well over 100 million ghosts affirm. The attempts to dodge and divert on this subject in the new atheistical literature, speak loud and sickening volumes.)

    The Academy, Media, pressure groups, unjust and/or lazily incompetent judges and too many educated people are playing with dangerous matches that can set conflagrations that they probably have no idea that would result. I suspect both Darwin and Marx would have been appalled at where the movements they gave impetus to so often ended up over the past 150 years, but that simply underscores the importance of identifying and addressing seriously the moral hazards in systems of thought.

    Already, there is a lot to answer for, with what is happening in our mortally sick civilisation.

    (We literally need a miracle of cultural renewal and reformation. Only a miracle can save us now, and it is not going to come from some media anointed glib political messiah or “brilliant” academic star — we need sober soundness that gives the plain unvarnished hard to swallow truth, not more slick media star packaging that tickles our itching ears with the pleasing flattery we so love to hear — “LIE-rics” as some would pun in my homeland. Historically, such has come from the prophets, who too often paid with their lives for championing unwelcome truths of repentance and reformation. [Cf the discussion here on the dangers of democracy when the people fail the test of prudence based on due diligence and indulge in Tuchman's march of folly.])

    KF

  66. Gregory (re 57):

    I was trying to find common ground with you, and thought I had found some in our agreement that the “creation versus evolution” debates had been a disaster and had to be transcended, in our agreement that advertising a “revolution” is not the best way of framing new ideas, and in our agreement that talking about “winners” and “losers” in intellectual debates was not constructive.

    Instead, you have focused two posts, the second longer than the first, on my use of the adverb “perhaps,” while throwing into the second post a bunch of other things over which we have in the past disagreed. It is clear that you aren’t in the mood today to look for potential agreement, but to recall past disagreement; i.e., you are not being “forward-looking” — as you recommend that I should be. So I’m dropping all discussion of the contents of posts 33, 34, 44, 54 and 57 above. Life is too short to quarrel when options for agreement are not being explored.

  67. Gregory wrote (58):

    ” … timaeus [sic] cannot possibly be so foolish as to not realise the dependence on analogy from human-made things to non-human-made things in IDism displayed in the works of Meyer, Behe, Dembski, et al.

    “Mousetrap, Easter Island, Mt. Rushmore, etc., etc.”

    I of course not only *realize* but *openly affirm* that ID writers regularly employ such analogies, and I say that they do so quite rightly. But that fact does absolutely nothing to blunt my criticism of what Gregory previously wrote.

    Gregory did not write: “ID people use unconvincing analogies between the products of human design and the products of nature.” If he had written that, I would have privately disagreed with his judgment, but would not have commented on the statement, since it did not contain any *factual error*.

    However, what Gregory wrote was:

    “Iow, no need to talk about ‘design/Design’ b/c it obviously blurs the human-made/non-human-made distinction.”

    He clearly here made the charge that talking about “design/Design” in nature “blurred” the distinction between human-made objects and non-human made objects. This was no mere disagreement in judgment; it was a downright factual error. I therefore said that ID was guilty of no such blurring, and asked Gregory to provide evidence of such blurring.

    His “evidence,” it now seems, is that ID people employ analogies from human design to infer design in nature. That is no evidence for “blurring” at all. A properly constructed analogy does not “blur” anything. The things compared in the analogy are compared in one respect only, or in a limited number of respects; they are not likened in all respects, and are not identified or confused with each other.

    I challenge Gregory to find a single sentence in all of ID literature where the ID writer has been unclear about the fact that clocks, computers, Stonehenge, etc. are man-made objects, and that atoms, molecules, bacterial flagella, camera eyes in cephalopods, etc. are not man-made objects. If he cannot find such a sentence, his charge that ID/id “blurs” the distinction is utterly groundless.

    As I explained clearly above, “designed” does not imply “designed by humans,” and without that implication, Gregory’s charge falls to the ground. To say that a clock and a bacterial flagellum are both designed is not to deny that the two objects had quite different designers, one human and one non-human. Therefore, the distinction between human and non-human designers is not blurred when design inferences are made.

    Rather, it is Gregory who “blurs” things by confusing “drawing an analogy between two things” — a perfectly legitimate intellectual tool when used carefully — with “blurring together two things” — which of course is a faulty intellectual operation.

    My motive in writing the above is not to score a “victory” over Gregory, nor even to convince Gregory that the “design” analogy is a good one, but merely to establish that Gregory’s charge, as stated, is without basis. Whatever may be the flaws in ID as an enterprise, “blurring the distinction between human-made and non-human-made” is not one of them.

  68. T:

    In the particularly relevant case of digitally coded, algorithmically functional and specific, coded information in string data structures, we are not dealing with analogies but instantiations. In that respect the code in a Hello World exercise and in protein-making DNA are cases of the same thing, especially if we compare the object code for the Hello world.

    Evolutionary materialists need to account for:

    i: the origin of codes [a linguistic phenomenon], for

    ii: the origin of algorithms [step by step finite, end directed procedures -- reflective of purpose], and for:

    iii: for the origin of physical, organised execution machinery for same,

    on an observationally grounded basis, through forces of blind chance and mechanical necessity.

    This, they have not done, nor is such in prospect.

    As a consequence, we are entitled to infer on characteristic signs, from the only observed adequate cause of such — skilled intelligence acting in design — to design as the best empirically and analytically warranted explanation of these phenomena. Phenomena that lie at the root of the tree of cell based life.

    Which means that we have no proper right to a priori rule out such design all along the rest of the tree.

    Especially, in absence of positive empirical demonstration of a vast, incrementally accessible “continent” of functional forms in the relevant configuration spaces, but instead every good reason to see that when many well matched parts need to be put together in specific arrangements to achieve a complex function, we will find such clusters of functional configs in “islands” isolated by “seas” of non-functional configs.

    And this, is of course a legitimate metaphor that uses an equally legitimate analogy.

    Where also, it is noteworthy that in the closing words of Origin, Darwin’s essay on the tangled bank, tries to do just that.

    I will only add that in my opinion, these issues are a big part of the reason why, over eleven months since it was put on the table, the offer of a free- shot- at- goal essay hosted at UD in support of the evolutionary materialist school of thought that needs to address the above, has not been seriously taken up.

    There have been mockings, dismissals, complaints, distractions, an attempt to point to Darwin and attempts to point to the 29 alleged evidences, but none has been serious and properly responsive. (Indeed, I took time to address both the 29 evidences claims and Wikipedia in absence of a serious take-up.)

    I would suggest that, if a feature length 6,000 or so word article that can link onwards to hearts content and makes the core evo mat case in light of pivotal empirical evidence has not been constructed in more time than it takes for a baby to be born, that speaks utter volumes on the want of decisive empirical facts and the significance instead of the question-begging ideological imposition notoriously acknowledged by Lewontin in his 1997 NYRB essay:

    the problem is to get them [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [“Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. (If you have swallowed the dismissive talking point that this clip is "quote-mined" I suggest you read the fuller cite and my comments on it as linked just above.)]

    So, on the merits, there is a serious case and question for advocates of evolutionary materialism to answer. One, that unfortunately is far too often begged ideologically by making a priori impositions such as Lewontin outlined. Indeed, it has proceeded so far as to make question-begging, historically and evidentially unwarranted radically ideological redefinitions of science. Redefinitions that substitute materialist ideology for open-minded, open ended, observational evidence led seeking of the facts and the truth about our world. As an illustration of this, I cite the US National Science Teachers Association Board’s position-defining remarks made in July 2000:

    The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . .

    Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work . . . .

    Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge. [[NSTA, Board of Directors, July 2000. Emphases added.]

    We can therefore — per, “actions speak louder than words” — easily and freely infer from this broad pattern of behaviour as well as the narrower exchanges we have seen in and around UD, that the debates on all sorts of points and the volleys of objections to design thought that we see fired off again and again are in the end fundamentally distractive from an astonishing lack of warrant for the core evolutionary materialist case.

    KF

  69. scordova, re #47:

    I don’t think there is anyway to know whether God used proxy agents as proximal designers (like angels) except by Him telling us and we accepting it on faith. So such questions are accessible only by the Designer Himself telling us and our willingness to believe him without formal proof (since I think formal proof would be impossible anyway).

    In the books Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls, Michael Newton relates case studies of people he has hypnotized to recall not only past lives but their experience between lives. Several of them reported that during these interludes between lives they were being trained in the creation of matter, including living things. Based on this, it seems that the designers of life on earth were in fact souls like us but not while incarnate in a body.

  70. If timaeus had integrity, he’d just admit that his self-imagined *innocent* ‘adverb,’ his ‘perhaps’ about IDists’ statements re: IDism as a ‘scientific revolution’ was either 1) dishonest or 2) displayed gross lack of knowledge about the actual claims of ‘scientific revolution’ thrown around regularly by IDists, including ID leaders.

    I’m not interested in impugning timaeus’ honesty without reason, so I’ll choose to just believe he simply didn’t know what he was talking about, just as when he didn’t know that IDist leaders speak openly about their ‘Movement.’ This way, timaeus can make his own timaean-IDT as an isolated, persecuted excuse to avoid the American political ‘Movement’.

    ‘Scientific Revolution!’ is what this ‘wins’ thread is all about. Yet timaeus doesn’t want to talk about it because it is obviously inconvenient for his Expelled Syndrome situation. I guess what remains is address timaeus’ tangents, which is usually a waste of precious time.

    “It is clear that you aren’t in the mood today to look for potential agreement” – timaeus

    Not if you’re going to act as completely oblivious to the CONTEXT in which IDT is framed. No, sorry, timaeus, I’m not interested to avoid the truths of the IDM’s activities and public statements, as it seems you are hell-bent to do, welcoming ignorance as your pro-IDism shield.

    timaeus, here’s a hint: if you want to find common ground with me and other anti-IDist theists, admit openly and clearly, without rhetorical flourish and spin, that IDism is properly understood as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation and that it is not and cannot be a ‘strictly [natural] science.’ Is that too much to ask for?

    Admitting this would be somewhat similar to what you’ve already stated re: speaking against the language of ‘scientific revolution.’ Will you not take a reasonable and responsible step further? A whole lot of world-class scholars and scientists (a small few of whom you cite as TE/ECs) already understand and accept this interpretation of IDism.

    (cont’d)

  71. “ID writers regularly employ such analogies [between human-made and non-human-made things], and I say that they do so quite rightly.” – timaeus

    That’s both timaeus’ opinion and it is also the folly of many IDists who think the same way. Stephen C. Meyer is largely responsible for this with his ‘historical sciences’ demarcation and his talk is thoughtlessly regurgitated by 14 yr-olds re: ‘forensics,’ archaeology, cryptography, SETI, etc. and even by William Lane Craig.

    ““blurring together two things” — which of course is a faulty intellectual operation.” – timaeus

    That’s exactly what Meyer does by attributing ’causes now in operation’ to OoL. No ’causes now in operation’ can be ‘scientifically’ attributed as the ’cause’ of OoL because no human beings were present there/then. IDism, as a search for the effects of Uppercase ‘Intelligence’ strictly ‘in nature’ therefore cannot properly base its analogy on the current ‘creativity’ of lowercase ‘intelligent’ human beings.

    Indeed, this is what makes IDism a subset of ‘creationism’ rather than an independent, quasi-apologetics ‘strictly [natural] scientific theory.’ And it makes human beings into ‘gods,’ as I wrote in #2, in regard to forward-looking IDism *if* IDT were to succeed in its ‘scientific revolution!’

    What makes the leap from human-made (‘mundane design’) to non-human-made (‘transdencent Design’) a legitimate analogy other than IDist wishful thinking? The only thing I can think of is the Christian concept of imago Dei, which timaeus and many others here have already scoffed at having anything to do with the ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ IDT. Why do they scoff? Because that would mean admitting that IDism is properly understood as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation and that it is not and cannot be a ‘strictly [natural] science.’

    “talking about “design/Design” in nature “blurred” the distinction between human-made objects and non-human made objects.” – timaeus

    Yes, this shortened quote tells the truth exactly.

    Hello, Earth calling timaeus; do you still not recognise the powerful and appropriately meaningful distinction between Uppercase Design and lowercase design (or between Uppercase Intelligence and lowercase intelligence)? No, you said that you intentionally continue to ignore it along with the rationale of world class scholars such as Owen Gingerich who espouse it.

    Are people to trust an Expelled Syndrome victim like timeaus, writing pseudonymously at UD over a world class, widely published scholar such as Gingerich? I don’t think so.

    Lowercase ‘design’ *can* refer to human-made artefacts or objects. There are of course many other terms than merely ‘design’ related to human beings conceptualising, planning and making or manufacturig things too. I have spoken several times at UD how lowercase ‘design theory’ is already a respectable and (oftentimes) uncontroversial ‘science’ in the Academy. It is IDism’s particular usage of Uppercase ‘Intelligent Design’ that is problematic in its natural-scientism, not ‘design theory’ as it is usually used. timaeus said previously he could not even imagine actually studying ‘designing’ as a process because he thought/thinks it is merely abstract, on the level of ideas alone. It is perspectives such as timaeus’ that are outliers in the Academy because they distort commonly understood (and even normal technical) meanings for their radical ideological purposes.

    Uppercase ‘Design,’ in terms of a ‘transcendent Designer’ (Dembski 2004) is not a ‘strictly [natural] scientifically’ provable claim. Mere probabilism and informationism don’t and can’t bridge this gap. This is why the IDM outright refuses to study the ‘Designer’ or to name the ‘Designer’ (except for speaking personally about their ‘motivations’) as part of its so-called ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ theory. Thus, the study of lowercase human ‘designers’ and ‘designing processes’ differs fundamentally and categorically from IDT’s implied ‘Designer’ and ‘Designing’ processes, both of which IDT is conveniently (largely for political purposes) fuzzy or silent about.

    What timaeus and also the IDM *actually* mean is not that lowercase ‘design’ is supposedly to be ‘strictly scientifically’ found ‘in nature,’ but that actually only Uppercase ‘Design’ can possibly be found ‘in nature,’ which is the ‘product’ (timaeus’ term) of a ‘transcendent Designer’ and *not* a human being. But that brings the discussion swiftly into the realm of natural theology and *out* of natural science proper, thus destroying the ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ facade performed by IDist leaders and much of the IDM. If IDism is actually natural theology and not ‘strictly [natural] science,’ then why not call it what it is instead of reverting to natural scientism?

    This is why they flip-flop between meanings based on audience and agenda. If timaeus had read P. Johnson, he would realise the thread of Johnson’s anti-naturalism running through most IDist leaders, which requires that the ‘Designer’ was *not* a ‘natural’ entity. The Designer of ‘Nature’ itself must have been non-natural, so goes the logic. In the latter case, this is surely already consistent with traditional theological ‘design arguments,’ which make *NO PRETENSE* to being ‘strictly [natural] scientific.’

    timaeus may also just not know these things; he might be oblivious to this too. But it is really not so difficult to comprehend this once one has read not only the pseudo-neutral ‘technical writings’ of IDists, but also many of their ‘other’ writings, interviews and speeches as well.

    And honestly, timaeus, how simple-minded do you take your readers to be? You write the acronym ‘ID,’ but it is the acronym ‘IDT’ that you actually mean to refer to because ‘Intelligent Design’ by itself is simply an assumption or assertion without a theory. You are assuming what the ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ theory called IDT is trying to prove. But you know this and continue trying to spin rhetoric in the IDM’s favour. Not while I’m watching, friend.

    ‘Discussing’ things with timaeus isn’t like a normal conversation, folks. He doesn’t feel obliged to answer direct questions and often opens monologues as if in isolation, then expecting you to engage with him, impatiently. Why hasn’t timaeus read ‘the father of the IDM,’ P. Johnson? Silence and more dialogical disrespect from timaeus. It makes me wonder why I even offered to ‘discuss’ the topic with him in a neutral forum, away from the IDist circus and ‘scientific revolution’ attitudes.

    Enough. I don’t have any more time to waste on ‘timaeus’ and his Expelled Syndrome fantasies and self-pity if he can’t learn to face reality.

    Please, carry on with the ‘scientific revolution!’ discussion of “Suppose ID wins” in this thread. It would be interesting to hear more IDists directly address niwrad’s futuristic question.

  72. 72

    Just passing by and observing — and especially interested in Gregory’s commentary. I have never seen such a passionate anti-ID attitude from a theist — or even from most ID-hating atheists, really. So, it’s captivating and fascinating to read. Why the anger? What’s driving it?
    I can’t guess what it is at the personal level. But a few clues emerge. This, I think is the strongest:

    Behe is horribly deficient in philosophy of science, so this partially explains why he has been seduced by mainly Protestant evangelical IDists

    Key term: Protestant evangelical. That’s usually the target among anti-ID-theists. Am I close?

    Anyway, a few comments — not worth much, so no need to reply, but just wondering mainly.

    the thread of Johnson’s anti-naturalism running through most IDist leaders, which requires that the ‘Designer’ was *not* a ‘natural’ entity.

    The logic is fascinating, for certain. Johnson writes against naturalism. So do other IDists. Therefore, this requires that the “Designer” was not a natural entity. Marvelously twisted reasoning – and pretty unique at that.

    Stephen C. Meyer is largely responsible for this with his ‘historical sciences’ demarcation and his talk is thoughtlessly regurgitated by 14 yr-olds re: … SETI,

    14 year olds regurgitate an argument and therefore it must be wrong. The search for ET is limited to ‘nature’ so no IDist can accept Panspermia. Right?

    the pseudo-neutral ‘technical writings’ of IDists

    They’re liars, trying to manipulate people?

    Why hasn’t timaeus read ‘the father of the IDM,’ P. Johnson?

    Perhaps, like me, he’s not interested in the IDM but rather in what IDT is?

    It makes me wonder why I even offered to ‘discuss’ the topic with him

    I wonder that also. It’s not like you had a few brief comments and some of the ordinary anti-ID ridicule to offer also. You’ve been going on for pages. Back to my first point — what is driving this? I think you said something earlier about ID wanting some kind of global domination and a program to (violently?) eliminate all atheists from earth. I thought you were joking.

    your voice counts for little-to-nothing amongst ID leaders – you have no influence on them and have never published a paper on IDT – and you don’t even subscribe to their definition of IDT as a ‘strictly [natural] scientific theory.’ So imo, your solo version of ‘timaean IDism’ is not really worth listening to …

    As above, you seem so impassioned about the importance of all of this. That never made sense to me, not only from yourself, but other anti-IDists. If the concept is so obviously wrong, then just refute it and move on.

    I guess your point is that “there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory” and Darwinism is perfectly compatible with theism (even Catholicism, as you referenced Pope John Paul II), so ID is a deceitful scam by Evangelical Protestants to try to win converts. Or something like that?

  73. Hello CD Proponentist,

    How about taking a shot at the OP’s supposition? If you are an IDist that might be entertaining.

    “finally ID succeeds in scientifically convincing all people that life and the universe are designed [Designed].”

    If ID ‘succeeds’ as niwrad hypothesises, what will happen to ‘atheism’?

    “not interested in the IDM but rather in what IDT is”

    Hmm, another CONTEXT ignorant IDist, while the IDM spawned IDT (Pajaro Dunes 1993) and maintains the ‘scientific revolution’ fervour it generates in its proponentists’ eyes? Is it purposeful close-mindedness or just lazyness?

    Science is a social activity and as such it is meaningful, interestingly so in the case of IDism, to explore who, where, when, why and how the CONTEXT of IDism was built. Scientific hypotheses, like IDism, are sometimes built for ideological reasons, rather than the simple and noble quest for truth.

    You can focus on some kind of imagined ‘anger’ if you choose CD, but that is your projection, not what I wrote.

    Perhaps in your view IDism has nothing to do with American evangelical Protestantism. But it most certainly is connected, too much so, in Dembski’s eyes(“Becoming a Disciplined Science,” 2003). And frankly, his opinion counts a lot more than yours.

    Interesting name btw. IDism is a mistake in process. Self-deprecation?

    - Gregory

  74. 74

    Hi Gregory – thanks for your reply.

    It looks like you skipped over some of the better points I offered, but that’s ok with me. Again, my main interest is trying to figure out what is driving your energetic response.

    How about taking a shot at the OP’s supposition? If you are an IDist that might be entertaining.

    We’ll I’d hope to be entertaining in any case, but ok – here’s a shot.

    “finally ID succeeds in scientifically convincing all people that life and the universe are designed [Designed].”

    First of all, some huge percentage of “all people” cannot be scientifically convinced of anything, since one has to have some background in science in order to be scientifically convinced and I think most people on earth have no scientific competence at all. So, it’s a totally unrealistic proposal to start. Beyond that, there are several variants of IDT and some considerable debate (among those who accept some of the concepts) so the idea that “all people” (even if excluded only to scientifically capable) will be convinced by ID is equally far-fetched. This is pretty basic stuff and we don’t even have to get into the ID proposal for global genocide to get that far. But for some reason, these two (and I could offer many other) points weren’t quite enough for you, it seems.

    If ID ‘succeeds’ as niwrad hypothesises, what will happen to ‘atheism’?

    William Dembski will wage a global crusade to kill them all off? I don’t know. Aside from the fact that a person can remain as an atheist and, at the same time, see evidence of a Designer (non-natural, or supernatural), people will look for some source for the design. The irrefutable evidence of cosmological fine-tuning hasn’t stopped atheists from proposing a multiverse.

    Yes, some atheists will change their views. I don’t understand why you’re making such a big deal about this. You’re a theist. What would happen if everybody was convinced by your argument on the existence of God? The entire world would be ruled by Gregory the Anti-IDist? I’m sorry that I don’t see your argument here at all.
    Why is this line of argumentation so compelling to you?

    Hmm, another CONTEXT ignorant IDist, while the IDM spawned IDT (Pajaro Dunes 1993) and maintains the ‘scientific revolution’ fervour it generates in its proponentists’ eyes? Is it purposeful close-mindedness or just lazyness?

    I disagree with your historical analysis. There are other Evangelical-hating anti-IDists who trace the origin of IDT back to William Paley. Others go back a little farther, to Plato or the Old Testament. But in any case, I think you’re selling the design argument a little short.

    Science is a social activity and as such it is meaningful, interestingly so in the case of IDism, to explore who, where, when, why and how the CONTEXT of IDism was built.

    Yes, I think that topic would be interesting for a sociologist to pursue. But in fairness, it’s important not to take a too-narrow view, as if design arguments started in the 20th century.

    Scientific hypotheses, like IDism, are sometimes built for ideological reasons, rather than the simple and noble quest for truth.

    Well, Darwinism certainly was built for ideological reasons, and is maintained for such today. For some reason, I don’t see your hostility directed against the purveyors of Darwinist ideology though. I would like to understand that more.

    You can focus on some kind of imagined ‘anger’ if you choose CD, but that is your projection, not what I wrote.

    Ok, if I was mistaken about your hatred for ID and for IDists, then I misread your commentary.

    Perhaps in your view IDism has nothing to do with American evangelical Protestantism.

    Good guess, but nope — not at all. A better way to research my views would be to ask first, rather than make a false assumption. But honestly, I think the above is exactly what you do with IDists in general. You draw a false conclusion based on incomplete data.

    But it most certainly is connected, too much so, in Dembski’s eyes(“Becoming a Disciplined Science,” 2003). And frankly, his opinion counts a lot more than yours.

    One of the things I like about ID is that almost nobody argues from authority in this way. I’m very familiar with some of the Thomistic ID-haters, for example, and they always use this approach. ID is “Paleyism” for them — and, of course, Paley was a heretic. Therefore, what more proof does one need? ID is obviously false. But ID concepts remain convincing to serious thinkers (including many Catholics) whether Paley had anything to do with them or not. It’s the content of the idea that counts, not the originator or the intent. It’s not like Scripture. With that, we want to know who the Prophet was. Who was the originator of that doctrine? Who was the seer who received that text? But scientific ideas either “work” or they don’t. It doesn’t matter if they were discovered by an evil person or by a saint. True, it may bias us a little, but we don’t need an argument from authority to evaluate lab tests.

    Interesting name btw. IDism is a mistake in process. Self-deprecation?

    No, I’m depreciating whoever it was who came up with that hilariously illiterate tag, as if that was going to stop people from exploring ID. I can only get a laugh out of the incredible arrogance of such things — and I hope some day you’ll join me with at least a smile for it.

  75. 75

    Ooops — you almost got me there, Gregory. Talk about the Gish Gallop. That was a quick little switcheroo that pulled me off topic and I almost missed the most important point.

    I commented:

    Key term: Protestant evangelical. That’s usually the target among anti-ID-theists. Am I close?

    You replied:

    Perhaps in your view IDism has nothing to do with American evangelical Protestantism.

    Ahhh – got it. I was more than close. It really is about Evangelical Protestantism. Outstanding. In fact, you added a very nice qualifier … it’s the “American” version of this religious view.

    Ok, I’m probably very sympathetic to your theological views in many ways. But I hope you will see that you’re carrying a very heavy chip on your shoulder in this regard. It’s a bias that is obvious to me, and it detracts from what should be more a calm, objective and disinterested approach.

    It’s one thing to react against American Protestantism (as I do myself) but it’s another to equate ID with that particular religious tradition. The roots of ID are far older and can be found in classical Western thought. Why not try to build bridges? I do understand that there is a justifiable fear and concern about the cultural domination that does flow from the American Protestant character, and it’s very difficult to seek a truce with a hungry lion, but a better approach may be to offer your scientific, cultural, theological and philosophical positions as proposals. Start with the common ground and then seek to move the discussion in favor of your arguments.
    Simple brute-force attacks on ID really will not work. I can’t see how you’d gain any ground.
    Keep in mind — as an evolutionary-theist, you’re already in a very vulnerable position in the scientific community itself. Why not try to get more support where you can?

  76. Hi CD Proponentist,

    “It looks like you skipped over some of the better points I offered, but that’s ok with me.”

    Yeah, that’s a chronic feature with IDists at UD replying to me too. timaeus is pretty much an experienced offender at ‘pick one point and push on it,’ seemingly intentionally proud to miss the wider context and “some of the better points.” But hey, since communication is the name of the game; we all do it differently, as persons not robots, don’t we?

    “I think most people on earth have no scientific competence at all.”

    Well, no scientific training, yes, that’s a cold hard fact. But “no scientific competence,” I wouldn’t agree. Especially when it comes to the human-social sciences, everybody has some competence *because* they/we are reflexive human beings. There are incompetent people when it comes to sociability and interpreting society and their place in it. But everyone, in my books, has something to contribute that you or I or any of your fellow IDists doesn’t ‘possess’ in terms of experience, which could be deemed ‘scientific’ in the sense of specialised, systematic knowledge. If you meant by restricted fields ‘natural-physical scientific competence,’ sure, there’s probably less than 1% of Americans who have an MSc or PhD in a natural-physical science.

    The DI’s intentional ‘scientism,’ given this situation, is therefore quite a sad state of affairs. A broader and deeper understanding of ‘science’ could be found by them in the East (and L. Margulis need not be their role model). They could give up their scientism if they elevated their philosophy of/in science.

    “the idea that “all people” (even if excluded only to scientifically capable) will be convinced by ID is equally far-fetched.”

    We are agreed. But its niwrad’s hypothetical, so I played along. You, CD, still have offered little in answer to “Suppose ID wins.” As an IDist, probably you should have much more to say.

    “Aside from the fact that a person can remain as an atheist and, at the same time, see evidence of a Designer (non-natural, or supernatural), people will look for some source for the design [Design].”

    Let’s talk angels, then, peace be with them. How can a person believe they saw an angel and at the same time disbelieve in angels? It’s illogical, isn’t it?
    Similarly, how can a person “see evidence of a Designer” (properly capitalised, Uppercase Designer), and yet remain an atheist? It doesn’t make sense.

    If one believes in something that spiritually transcends ‘Nature,’ then they are a theist of some kind. Yet this clearly shows the implicationist ideology of IDism that disqualifies it as a ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ theory. And it also demonstrates how IDism openly discriminates against atheists, while seeking to ‘scientifically/apologetically’ convert them to theism. Are you cognizant of these ‘conversion’ efforts implicit in IDism, CD?

    “Why is this line of argumentation so compelling to you?”

    Because IDists, led by Meyer, Behe, Dembski, et al. at the DI, absolutely insist upon the ‘strictly [natural] scientificity’ of IDism. I think they are deluded and purposely distortive. If they dropped that insistence, we’d be in a very different communicative situation. But we’re not and the DI seemingly *cannot* change its scientistic ideology.

    “The irrefutable evidence of cosmological fine-tuning hasn’t stopped atheists from proposing a multiverse.”

    Well, some people think that the ‘evidence’ is more ‘philosophical’ or ‘theological’ than ‘scientific,’ which is fine by me. There are currently thoughtful, scholarly theists who are also seriously considering a ‘multiverse,’ which is fascinating stuff. Your ‘irrefutable’ sounds likewise ‘passionate’ to me, CD. :P

    “I think you’re selling the design argument a little short.”

    No, CD, I most surely am not. It is IDists who are trying to piggyback on (the) theological “design argument(s)” (though Dembski flip-flops between suggesting there is a singular ‘the’ or many ‘design arguments’ in his 2004 and probably elsewhere) with their scientistic IDism. Do you not recognise the difference between a ‘design argument’ that is theological and ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ that is claimed to be and paraded by the DI’s PR machine as ‘strictly [natural] scientific’? If you don’t see the difference, please explain what is blinding you.

    (cont’d)

  77. Kairos
    “…digitally coded, algorithmically functional and specific, coded information in string data structures, we are not dealing with analogies but instantiations.”

    They are not just analogies. Processes in the cell are working how you described them above and they unfold just like in any other automated system except cell’s nano machinery is made of chemical components.

    Anti ID people get stuck on this idea that operations in the cell are just chemistry at work. No- processes in the cell are logical and sequential. If anything they are well organized, like a small problem solving system, in which environment presents problems and built in mechanisms provide solutions.

    We can freely call some of the cell’s components nano machines because they operate by controlling energy or force. Anytime we find energy control by clever component arrangement is the key insight to intelligent intervention.

  78. “Evangelical-hating anti-IDists who trace the origin of IDT back to William Paley.”

    There are also evangelical Christians in the USA who thoughtfully reject IDism, quite a few actually. Obviously they are not ‘evangelical-hating.’ They likewise won’t allow IDists the rhetorical distortion of claiming they can “trace the origin of IDT back to William Paley” because Paley’s was a ‘natural theology’ approach. Otoh, DI-led IDists insist on the ‘strictly [natural] scientificity’ of IDism. You do realise this difference, don’t you CD?

    “it’s important not to take a too-narrow view, as if design arguments started in the 20th century.”

    Of course not – a too-narrow view.” I’m trying to help enlarge yours, if you’re willing CD. ‘Design arguments’ are obviously old (just like the Earth is ‘old’). But IDism, iow, the ‘theory/hypothesis’ currently known as ‘Intelligent Design’ is undeniably a late-20th century concoction. Do you disagree?

    P. Johnson is the ‘father of the IDM’ and brought together many who became ‘leaders’ of the IDM and DI Fellows at a strategic meeting in 1993. But the man who ‘coined’ the term ‘Intelligent Design’ (borrowing from engineers), which was strategically taken on-board by IDists at Pajaro Dunes in the contemporary IDM sense is Charles Thaxton. Are we on the same page reading history?

    As for ‘Darwinism,’ what you mean by that is not clear. I’ve made it a policy not to discuss ‘Darwinism’ with IDists and you seem to be one, are you not? IDists tend to be (along with their sibling YECists) horribly distorted and highly partisan re: ‘Darwinism’, just as are the so-called ‘Darwinists’ they enjoy dancing with so much. I am not a Darwinist, don’t like ID/new atheist dances and do my part in changing things re: Darwin’s legacy in the Academy. You can follow my links if you’d like, CD.

    “if I was mistaken about your hatred for ID and for IDists, then I misread your commentary.”

    Yes, you were mistaken. Apology accepted, if that’s what it was.

    “ID concepts remain convincing to serious thinkers (including many Catholics) whether Paley had anything to do with them or not. It’s the content of the idea that counts, not the originator or the intent.”

    The ‘concepts’ you think are ‘convincing’ are actually not unique to IDism. Looking for patterns (aka pattern recognition), specifications, measuring information, applying probabilities (even falling into probabilism), making analogies between human-made things and non-human-made things, transferring concepts from one field (legitimate ‘design theory’) into another (illegitimate ‘Design in Nature scientism’), claiming that there is an ‘edge’ or ‘limit’ to evolutionary theories, looking for improvements to Darwin’s 19th c. insights and contributions, etc. None of this is ‘owned’ or even controlled or led by IDism, despite what heroism (“THE NEWTON OF INFORMATION THEORY”) your ID leadership and their PR machine try to propagandise to you.

    What serious thinkers (including many Catholics) calmly and rationally reject is IDism’s pretenses and overconfident claims to being in the midst of a ‘scientific revolution!’ That’s a rather sensible and responsible position to take, don’t you think CF, given the outlandish things that some IDist leaders have said (e.g. Dembski’s ‘Waterloo’ comment and VISE strategy, the Wedge document, etc.).

    As for rejecting *any* arguments from authority, that would be silly. Please stop your irresponsible challenge to wisdom’s workings. There *is* a hierarchy of knowledge and learning that most ‘normal’ people accept, Expelled Syndrome victims aside.

    One must seek to learn from those who know, whether in art, music, sports or science. Only idiots, in the technical sense of the term, would seek to ‘learn’ from those without knowledge. Of course, that is unless one is an autodidact or hyper-individualist, which is somewhat rare. What IDists often fail to realise (protestors to reality as they predominantly are) is that they are excluding themselves from holding any authority (read: credibility) simply because they want IDT to be an ‘everyman’ theory, a theory which explains or describes everything, and thus nothing.

    This also explains why there is no singular genius or paradigm figure of IDism; no Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg, or even a Kuhn. IDists have no great scientific authority to appeal to, so they claim *all* appeals to authority in education and knowledge are faulty.

    “scientific ideas either “work” or they don’t. It doesn’t matter if they were discovered by an evil person or by a saint.”

    No offense, but you’re a fool to say that, CD. Please go read some sociology of science from the 20th century. Endure a little ‘scientific reflexivity’ and you’ll realise how brutally ignorant and outdated your amoral ‘objectivism’ claims actually are. Even the ‘hardest’ natural science, friend, physics or mathematics, is in the end answerable to the hermeneutic turn that 20th c. philosophy has shown us.

    But you probably haven’t wrestled with, digested or meditated upon F. Schleiermacher, W. Dilthey, E. Husserl, M. Heidegger or H.-G. Gadamer, have you? Ignore them and the hermeneutic turn and your IDist ‘scientism’ is simply a needless barrier to communication and the betterment of humanity. I don’t care if you accuse me of making ‘appeal to authority’ for wanting to dig deeper into reality than you and the IDM do, CD.

    IDism is one of the most misanthropic ‘theories’ on the table today and apparently intentionally so since the collapse of the DI’s “ID in Humanities and Social Sciences” program. And if you really think the fate of IDT is mainly about “lab tests” that require no appeals to authority, higher knowledge or even wisdom, CD then you’re most probably not worth giving much time and attention to on this topic.

    “whoever it was who came up with that hilariously illiterate tag [CD Proponentist]”

    You do know the source of your own pseudonym, don’t you? It was low-quality or inattentive editors of the book “Of Pandas and People,” a mistake successfully exploited against IDism, and convincingly linking the histories of YECism and IDism, at the Dover trial. That’s why I said: “IDism is a mistake in process.” Sociologically, it is a fascinating train wreck with some nice scenery on the way to behold.

    “It’s one thing to react against American Protestantism (as I do myself) but it’s another to equate ID with that particular religious tradition..”

    Dembski has said as much in print. Take it up with him if you don’t accept my interpretation.

    So, you’re neither American nor a Protestant Christian, CD? If so, that would make you a minority among IDists. Cold hard fact.

    “my main interest is trying to figure out what is driving your energetic response.”

    My energy comes from above and beyond the IDM and its scientistic IDism.

    When the dialogue is concerned with timaeus, mostly the energetic response is because he is in such a sad state of affairs, spinning rhetoric and avoiding the political reality of the IDM. I honestly wish better for him, which would include dropping the unsustainable charade of IDism, remedying himself from Expelled Syndrome and finding legitimate uses for his talents elsewhere.

    It’s better than being ‘dispassionate’ or a highly unrealistic Expelled Syndrome deluded IDist, isn’t it?

    Don’t worry, CD, I’m smiling. :P IDists are usually decent people, even if deluded pseudo-scientific revolutionaries or wannabe scientific revolutionaries. I’ve met quite a few IDists in person, including DI leaders up close. But given the joyful-martyr-marginal-sadness of their Expelled Syndrome, one needn’t hold that against IDists personally.

    I watched “ID[ism] in the Humanities and Social Sciences” come crashing down from within at the Discovery Institute. It wasn’t a pretty site, as John G. West would know best. So niwrad’s hypothetical “success” for IDism is a far-fetched notion to imagine; it seems we are agreed, CD. I guess people can try their best to entertain him here.

    Rest assured it won’t be timaeus, who won’t for the life of him actually address the hypothetical: “Suppose ID wins.” He probably hasn’t thought that many years/decades/centuries ahead, mainly looking backwards like a conservative classicist, poor IDist propaganda pony.

  79. Upright BiPed:

    Pure comedy.

    What’s wrong with comedy!?

    p.s. That’s why I don’t think Gregory should be banned. Comedic relief!

  80. “The roots of ID are far older and can be found in classical Western thought.”

    See above, distinguishing ‘design argument(s)’ from ‘Intelligent Design Theory.’ Reading Dembski (2004) should somewhat clarify the difference. And btw, you’re displaying the same bad habit as timaeus speaking about ‘ID’ without the ‘Theory,’ CD. What’s the story behind this conflation?

    “a better approach may be to offer your scientific, cultural, theological and philosophical positions as proposals.”

    Rest assured, I’m continually moving forward with proposals and activities. You can contact me privately by following the links if you wish. Use a pseudonym if you prefer and I will respond accordingly.

    “Start with the common ground and then seek to move the discussion in favor of your arguments.”

    Yes, this is a fine and tested strategy. But it’s not suitable here in IDism’s ‘bloggers’ lair. The playing field is not fair. Which is why I challenged timaeus to a ‘discussion’ elsewhere. (He’s not that confident or swift on the uptake, as usual leaving “the better points” out.)

    And besides, the concept duo ‘Intelligent Design’ is stained beyond cleansing. What credible and serious scholar would want to subject themselves to any kind of official association with this ‘Movement’?

    “as an evolutionary-theist, you’re already in a very vulnerable position in the scientific community itself.”

    I’m not “an evolutionary-theist,” whatever that is. Please don’t try to assume or patronize my ‘position’ as timaeus has done. ‘The scientific community’ / communities is/are alive and well and sciences continue to ‘advance’ without IDism and IDists’ fears of Darwinian evolution and the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

    “Why not try to get more support where you can?”

    What is support from IDists actually worth these days, CD, especially in science when a vast range of both scientific and science and religion organizations worldwide has soundly and convincingly rejected IDism? IDists continue to rely on right-wing evangelical funding for the survival of their ‘hive’ in the DI. Can you give a good reason for your suggestion?

  81. Gregory:

    You can contact me privately by following the links if you wish.

    In fact, you’ll need to do that, because Gregory won’t be posting here much longer.

    See what I mean Upright BiPed?

  82. kf:

    This, they have not done, nor is such in prospect.

    I sense another UD Challenge coming on.

    Or is this just a variation on the problem posed by Upright BiPed that was never answered?

    Demonstrate that x can be instantiated in material system y using only material process z.

    Design a random generation + selection algorithm that can fool people here at UD into thinking a post of length x [characters] was generated without intelligent design.

  83. Gregory,

    Have you read Bejan’s Design In Nature yet?

    If so maybe Salvador could start up a thread where we can discuss it and he can delete our posts!

    Yes, Sal, your actions are petty and self-serving. Not Christian. Not serving the ID community.

  84. LarTanner @26:

    For the record, don’t care that ID is creationism. It’s the lying and self-delusion of IDiots that I find fascinating.

    Upright BiPed:

    Can you provide a few examples, with the accompanying details, of the lies that ID proponents promote in their papers and books?

    LarTanner:

    Oh yeah, that’s convincing!

  85. CD Proponentist:

    I was going to reply again to Gregory. I was going to point out, regarding his novel-length critique of my use of the word “perhaps,” that I had already acknowledged that “perhaps” was an understatement on my part. I was also going to point out that none of his long commentary regarding “human-made versus non-human-made things” made even the slightest dent in my argument, since all of his remarks boil down to “I don’t think the design analogy is sound,” whereas the thesis he undertook to defend was not that, but “ID confuses man-made and non-man-made things” — which is false. I was also going to point out that his remark on Meyer (whose book he not only has not read, but, by his own declaration, has no intention of reading) misinterpreted Meyer, since by “causes now known to be operating” Meyer did not mean narrowly *human* intelligence, but intelligence simply (and it is possible to conceive that “intelligence” might rest in a mind other than a human mind).

    But suddenly, I find myself feeling no need of such replies, and reading your posts, I find myself saying: “Who was that masked man?” Well done!

    I don’t recall whether we have interacted before; if we have, and I’ve forgotten, my apologies. But based on your current sally, I’d say we can expect good things from you in the future.

  86. “IDism is one of the most misanthropic ‘theories’ on the table today” (78 above)

    This statement contains the most egregious misuse of the word “misanthropic” that I have ever encountered, in my 40+ years of reading of history, political theory, literary criticism, philosophy, religious commentary, the great novels, the great plays (including Moliere’s *The Misanthrope*!), etc.

  87. You’re still a babe sucking at your mother’s teat Timaeus.

  88. SonnyE #62

    Sorry for the delay. I am the thread-owner but I haven’t evidence of your previous comment you speak of (and a fortiori I haven’t rejected it). I answer willingly to your polite request:

    I think life is full of evidence of intelligent design and that random mutations don’t explain it, but I do not believe in theism of the Abrahamic sort. [...] If possible, I’d like the moderator or thread-owner to make some suggestion of what was objectionable about my previous comment, if anything.

    Well, have you noted that in my OP I speak of theism in general terms? Often I use the term “Supreme Being” which is the metaphysical equivalent of the more theological “God” or “Lord”. If with “Abrahamic theism” you mean the three traditions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam (in historical order) they are orthodox forms of theistic tradition. Their multi-level teachings were conceived to address different people, in different countries, in different times. Therefore they can contain a lot of materials that are very specific of a geographical, historical and anthropological situation. One can like or dislike them, but a thing is sure: beyond countless differences on the surface, the ultimate deep aim of all orthodox forms of theism is pointing to the Supreme Being, the One. As a traditional dictum says, “The doctrine of Unity is unique”.

    If you “do not believe in theism of the Abrahamic sort” but understand that the universe and life have a Designer, then you – aware or not – are directed towards the same One of theisms.

  89. timaeus’ ‘perhaps’ IDists speak of ‘scientific revolution’ swing and a miss is merely symbolic of the devious ways that he tries to woo IDists at UD with his rose-coloured glasses.

    First, he claims he didn’t know about all the ‘scientific revolution’ talk by IDism leaders. *Then* he claims it was an ‘understatement,’ which would imply he *did* know, but simply ‘understated’. So which is true: he did know or he didn’t know that IDM leaders at the DI speak openly of IDism as a ‘scientific revolution,’ which is the main point of this thread, aside from timaeus’ attempts at diversion?

    Did he know about this: “We are in the very initial stages of a scientific revolution,” said Stephen C. Meyer? Probably not. Meyer’s is the logic of comradeship “for the renewal of Science and Culture” (though, ‘the renewal of’ was removed from the DI’s CSC because it was too blunt and obviously apologistic), which is obvious given Meyer is the Director of the CSC. But these are the types of things timaeus doesn’t speak about while living in a CONTEXT vaccuum about the rise of late 20c ‘Intelligent Design’ as a ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ theory.

    Just ‘Generic Design’ – y’know, not ‘design’ by designers that can actually be studied, like normal, intelligent scientists commonly work on/with – but a ‘Universalised Designism’ with almost no explanatory power that insists on being ‘strictly [natural] scientific’.

    That’s rich, folks, a good line for insurance salespersons – “Generic Design, no specifics allowed.”[And be sure to flip-flop between 'design' and 'Design' as often as possible to appear two-minded.]

    “intelligence simply” – yet another great contribution by timaeus! Or how about, ‘intelligence on a diet’?

    Embodied intelligence or unembodied intelligence? Artificial intelligence or natural intelligence? Immature intelligence or mature intelligence? It doesn’t matter to timaues. Just intelligence please!

    “You anti-IDists should stop thinking about the various ways that ‘intelligence’ is used and just comply to Stephen C. Meyer’s ‘revolutionary’ logic of IDism!” – this is timaeus’ way of bully-communicating at UD.

    Nevertheless, I’m not scared of timaeus’ tactics and see through his self-serving rhetoric. These catch phrase chips by timaeus are priceless reminders of how empty IDT’s claims are when looked at closely and reflexively by persons not already willfully committed to becoming Expelled Syndrome victims who hide from reality.

    Given timaeus’ 40+ years of reading – what, didn’t he start reading until he was 19 yrs old, since we know from when he puffed up his chest to Steve Fuller here at UD claiming condescendingly to be 3 years Fuller’s elder, I guess he started reading late for his age? – we should realise that for timaeus, updating and redefining words for new eras is not a serious option for his conservative always backwards-looking mindset. That’s probably also why he typically blurs the line between traditional ‘design argument(s)’ and ‘modern’ ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ (which it seems CD Proponentist is confused about too), the former being openly theologically-oriented and the latter claiming to be a ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ theory by wannabe ‘revolutionaries’ in the DI and IDist followers.

    I guess if timaeus had read Dembski’s “The Design Revolution” he’d realise that Dembski openly accepts ‘one of these things is not like the other ones,’ which is the basis for the much-hyped ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ Design Revolution. But probably it would be too much to expect timaeus to know what he is talking about, given his simple understatement (or now unwound dishonest rhetorical downplaying) that ‘perhaps’ IDT leaders speak of IDism as a ‘scientific revolution,’ which actually flies in the face of reality. Of course they do, timaeus, what were you thinking?

    It is sad but true that timeaus by rhetorical force of personality alone, not by force of sound argument or example, tries to dissuade people at UD from properly and meaningfully distinguishing ‘Intelligent Design’ from ‘intelligent design’, ‘transcendent Design’ from ‘mundane design,’ and ‘non-human-made things’ from ‘human-made things’. He wants it all conflated and blurred, while banging his generic IDist drum. Why?

    One answer from timaeus should suffice: “Intelligence simply.”

    So then, “Suppose ID wins…”?

  90. niwrad wrote to SonnyE: “If you “do not believe in theism of the Abrahamic sort” but understand that the universe and life have a Designer, then you – aware or not – are directed towards the same One of theisms.”

    Thank you niwrad. I agree and appreciate your proper theistic use of capitalised sign ‘Designer’.

    This is the main point of my long, on-going disagreement with timaeus, and seemingly new disagreement with CD Proponentist: IDism is properly understood as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation and it is not and cannot be a ‘strictly [natural] science.’

    You speak about this plainly, openly, without deceit, pretense or rhetorical spin: Big-D ‘Designer,’ in whatever Abrahamic language (though you forgot Baha’is) means “directed towards the same One of theisms.”

    So much energy and effort and talent and strife and worry is wasted by IDists like Meyer, Behe, Dembski, Luskin, et al. for not calling IDism for what it actually is but cannot bring itself to be. It is the sophists of the conversation, like timaeus, who needlessly argue against, slyly twist simple logic, or just keep quiet about the main point above.

    Further above I spoke of “considering a ‘third way’ or ‘third ways’ to productively move the general science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse forward.” Do you support this niwrad?

  91. G:

    IDism is properly understood as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation and it is not and cannot be a ‘strictly [natural] science.’

    Got to love how G makes up is own terms

    ID ism. really? is that a malady?

  92. Gregory wrote:

    “Nevertheless, I’m not scared of timaeus’ tactics and see through his self-serving rhetoric.”

    Two points:

    1. I don’t wish Gregory (or anyone else) to be “scared” of anything about me. I merely wish that Gregory would pay attention to my arguments, instead of responding to them with off-topic material (i.e., endless paragraphs about ID people’s alleged motives, when I’m disputing not motives but facts), or with personal remarks.

    2. “Self-serving rhetoric” imputes a bad motive, and is an unnecessary personal remark. Such personal remarks are unfortunately common in Gregory’s posts. I do not know why. I know that whenever I made remarks (much less personal than the one above) which targeted a person rather than an argument, whether in graduate seminars or in my essays or dissertations, my graduate supervisors brought me up short and ordered me to eliminate such expressions from my writing. Apparently my training was different from Gregory’s. I cannot account for that. Maybe academic etiquette is different in Sociology, or in Russia. I feign no hypotheses. All I can say is that I prefer the traditional practice, which is that one argues against the point, not the person. And I would respectfully ask Gregory, as I’ve asked him before, to eliminate all such personal remarks from his comments.

    So much for procedural matters. On the issue of content: Yes, it is *exactly* my position that “intelligence simply” is all we need to consider *for the purpose of making design arguments*. We *learn* of intelligence, to be sure, mainly from our experience of *human* intelligence; but there is no reason to suppose that human beings are the only beings in which intelligence can or does reside. It is arguable that at least some animals are intelligent, even to the point of designing things (e.g., beaver dams); but even if we leave out animal intelligence, we certainly cannot rule out a priori the existence of superhuman intelligences, whether they reside in completely immaterial bodies or in bodies of a refined form of matter unknown to us. And as long as we cannot rule out the existence of such intelligences, the analogy upon which design inferences are based remains a reasonable one.

    There is certainly no “blurring” going on when one argues that an intelligence, akin to that found in human beings, but not itself human, may be responsible for the genetic code, the flagellum, the eye, etc. The argument properly separates the human from the non-human — which is why Gregory’s original statement — which is all I undertook to discuss — remains false.

    I am not asking Gregory to come over to my side regarding ID. I am not asking Gregory to agree with me about anything, except one thing: that his statement about “blurring” was erroneous. That is a small concession. I am asking him to admit error in one sentence out of hundreds which he has published on this page. He could prove that he is a true scholar by admitting error on this one point, while retaining all the rest of his position and continuing to oppose me in other respects.

    What I’d like to hear from Gregory is something like this: “I admit that ID proponents regularly and clearly acknowledge that clocks are not cells and that human beings are not God (or aliens or Demiurges etc.), and I admit that ID proponents do not blur the distinction between human and non-human designers, but acknowledge it. I admit also that finding a point of likeness between human and non-human designers (e.g., intelligence) is not the same as blurring the distinction between them. My original statement was not accurate, and I withdraw it.”

    Such an admission from Gregory would double or triple the academic respect I have for him, and make all future conversation easier and more cordial. I am not asking to him to surrender his entire position; I am asking him to surrender a point. He should be able to do this without “losing face,” and if he does so, I will not gloat over any “victory” in the conversation.

  93. timaeus, your arguments don’t amount to much. You defend an IDT that differs from the IDM. I’m not interested to ‘accept’ your personal IDT, or the Expelled Syndrome that obviously comes with it.

    1) Motives *are* facts when they are expressed; social facts. timaeus is purposefully oblivious to them, living in a CONTEXT vaccuum. This is his isolationist prerogative, but others needn’t live this way.

    2) I treat timaeus as a person, just as I treat everyone else as a person. Nobody here is ideology-free, nobody here is a ‘facts-only’ robot. Ideologies are fair game for discussion, espcially given how often they are involved in peoples’ expressions in this science, philosophy, theology/worldview. Please grow up and face this social reality, timaeus.

    Claiming ‘nothing personal’ on a topic of such deep personal significance as science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse is amazingly superficial. There would be no UD if personalities were not involved. That is why I recommended as a cure for his Expelled Syndrome that timaeus, in his real life, consider taking a position in one of the growing number of science, philosophy, theology/worldview programs around the world where he could put his religious studies knowledge and interest in philosophy and natural science to some productive work, away from his fanatical pro-IDism. He didn’t answer to this practical suggestion, of course. Apparently he isn’t interested in being relevant, just in pro-IDism blogging.

    As for dealing with timaeus’ ‘arguments’, we still don’t know if timaeus knew about the regular claims of ‘scientific revolution’ by IDist leaders or not, when he claimed that ‘perhaps’ people other than himself suggest IDism is a ‘scientific revolution’. He so habitually avoids answering my direct questions that he probably doesn’t even think he is doing it any longer. Anyone reading this thread can see his avoidance tactics and victim-playing. If he wants to keep his motives to himself about why he’s doing this, that’s up to him and him alone. I’m just trying to get at the truth on this issue.

    “we certainly cannot rule out a priori the existence of superhuman intelligences” – timaeus

    No, we can’t. I agree. But that conversation is not and cannot be ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ as IDism currently demands. (One would think, given that I’ve repeated it many times, timaeus would learn to acknowledge that I put emphasis on this particular phrase for a reason.) It’s o.k. imo to admit that IDism crosses the boundaries from a ‘strictly [natural] science’ hypothesis into natural theology/worldview and philosophy. Most non- and anti-IDists know this already; it is not a public secret.

    ‘Superhuman intelligences [Intelligences] are simply not within the proper domain of ‘strictly [natural] sciences.’

    “as long as we cannot rule out the existence of such intelligences [Intelligences], the analogy upon which design [Design] inferences are based remains a reasonable one.” – timaeus

    No, it’s not reasonable. It is strictly ideological, wanting to overhaul the natural sciences with a ‘Design Revolution’.

    We can and should rule out such Intelligences *IN* ‘strictly [natural] sciences’. That is, unless one invokes a theological prerogative such as the imago Dei. And in that case, it is theologically responsible to capitalise ‘Designer’ (or Creator), as niwrad has done.

    If timaeus could only grow brave enough to face the triadic discourse of science, philosophy, theology/worldview (which is daunting for EVERYONE, even the wisest, and indeed precariously wonderful as a result!), then he wouldn’t have to stoop to play these low-level parlour games that IDists play with smoke and mirrors.

    Here we have witnessed timaeus talking (perhaps for the 1st time) about ‘superhuman,’ which saves him from talking about ‘supernatural.’ Indeed, a strong point can be made that ‘superhuman’ is the rightful domain of human-social sciences, not of ‘strictly [natural] sciences.’

    “finding a point of likeness between human and non-human designers (e.g., intelligence)” – timaeus

    Do you mean ‘likeness’ as in imago Dei?

    Read this carefully, timaeus, it is an argument that is made by the theists who you don’t seem to want to read: There is no ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ way of knowing if those hypothetical ‘superhuman intelligences [Intelligences]‘ are the same in KIND to human [lowercase] intelligence. It *is* thus a faulty analogy based on the obvious desire to build a ‘Generic Design’ theory, which the IDM (but not timaeus) stringently insists is/can be a [strictly [natural] scientific’ theory.

    Thinking people, including theists who have been as patient as possible given the IDM’s over-confident ‘scientific revolution’ attitude, reject this ‘Generic Design’ hypothesis and rightly so. I have provided reasons for this and hinted at the dangers of Designism (which most IDists simply disallow themselves even to consider); timaeus does not want to hear the responsible reasons. So, we’ll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

    “an intelligence [Intelligence], akin to that found in human beings, but not itself human” – timaeus

    O.k. now we’re getting something interesting. timaeus is trying to build a hypothesis of a transcendent Designer and transcendent Intelligence(even if he still stubbornly refuses to capitalise appropriate letters). Is there any ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ evidence for this that IDT has help us discover, timaeus? What makes the hypothesized ‘Intelligence’ seem “akin to that found in human beings,” aside from philosophical and theological/worldview presuppositions of ‘superhuman Intelligence’?

    These are ANTHROPIC questions given the inclusion of human beings. Sadly, I expect timaeus to express himself as unanthropically and dispassionately as possible, following his usual pro-IDism neutralistic style.

    ‘Generic Design,’ i.e. trying to universalise the concept of ‘Design’ into the ideology of (Intelligent) Designism (read: IDism) is indeed an intentional blurring move by the IDM. It conflates unlike things under a single label: Design. timaeus can disagree with this statement all he wants; timidly, fiercely or with rhetorical spin and excuses as usual. The logic behind it still stands.

    I reject the words that timaeus has just put into my mouth (“I’d like to hear…something like this” – though he told the moderator he would not do this anymore). He can tie his personal identity and future allegiances to ‘simply intelligence’ if he wants. That holds rather weaker ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ explantory power than most scholars are accustomed to settling for.

    I’m pretty much finished with timaeus and won’t be looking for a scholarly contribution from him outside of ID-friendly blogs anytime soon. Far too much time spent trying to convince an Expelled Syndrome victim that with hope, hard work (and maybe try reading the ‘father of the IDM’ P. Johnson someday timaeus?) and clear thinking, one day he could be eventually healed and perhaps remake his career.

  94. 94

    Thanks for your replies, Gregory. As I mentioned in my first post, I’m just passing through and I was just interested in learning about the origin of your hostility to ID. Through your long commentaries, I’ve got a very good idea now about your position, so thanks for explaining that.
    No, I’m not an IDism-ist. I realize that classifying and labeling people is an extremely important exercise in sociology, but you haven’t quite got the right tag for me yet.
    I think most readers here can spot the errors and wild misrepresentations of the topic in your commentary, so I won’t get into that. It seems to me that you’re looking for a reaction rather than seeking understanding. Your focus is on the ID “Movement”, and it strikes me that you’ve created a paranoid fantasy world where this movement is both a threat to all human life on the planet, and at the same time a completely ineffectual, easily-ignored social phenomenon.
    It’s these sorts of incongruities that make it impossible to follow your argumentation. As I’ve already suggested, you’ve spent considerable time putting forth an abundance of text, with scholarly footnotes and historical references in order to explain that ID is not worth the time to discuss.
    You contradict yourself continually in this regard.
    I could go into virtually every paragraph you wrote and observe the problems, but I’ll leave that to anyone who has the time and patience. Yes, I do sense quite a lot of hostility in your attitude, even though you’ve denied that. You’re not seeing yourself as you appear to this group.
    I’ll just close with one of what could be many observations:
    You speak of the:

    ideology of (Intelligent) Designism

    For a person who seems fixated on the correct use of labels and on the definition of terms … here (as in other places) you simply invent your own terminology and leave it undefined. It’s completely ambiguous and is offered with no proof. This is the nature of a “sociological fact” apparently. This from a guy who claims to possess “clear thinking”.
    Initially, I thought your paranoid fantasy about the ID plan for global domination was amusing — and it was for a brief while. But now it’s pretty boring and even somewhat frightening. I can assure you, Michael Behe has no plans to go around killing atheists in the name of ID. I wish you would just trust me on that, but I’m pretty sure that you’re not going to believe it.
    Anyway, all the best to you.

  95. 95

    Timaeus wrote:

    Maybe academic etiquette is different in Sociology, or in Russia.

    I didn’t want to say anything about this, but since you introduced it … I can see now so many Russian/cultural characteristics in Gregory’s comments that it really puts everything in context. The first thing that struck me was the anti-American Protestant Evangelical position. That’s a widespread fear in Russia (and one in which I somewhat share) from the spreading of American Christian cults there. Following that, I hate to say it, I notice the paranoia. The fantasy of ID as secret service agents going door to door. What seems like an exaggerated fear of American influence may not be so strange from a Russian perspective. The superiority complex (I mentioned chip on the shoulder). The crying out for attention. The stream of insults. The mangling of English language — and fixation on English terms. The theological ambiguity. The anti-Darwinism (claimed but never witnessed here) — pushes one towards ID. But if there’s this in-built hatred of the ID-Movement’s Evangelical celebrities, then one has to seek a “third way”. The fear of force-conversions of atheists (obviously would be a widespread concern in Russia). The failure to recognize the many varieties of atheism (very little religious plurality in Russia over the past 70 years). I’m guessing some kind of Eastern theological position in a Western culture — some sort of modified Islamic belief. All of this fits and is essential to understanding his hatred for ID.

  96. It is time to end the non-constructive exchange with Gregory. However, before leaving, I want to rebut an absolutely false accusation about my conversational procedure.

    “I reject the words that timaeus has just put into my mouth (“I’d like to hear…something like this” – though he told the moderator he would not do this anymore).” (92)

    I most emphatically did not “put words into Gregory’s mouth,” in the normal sense of that idiom in the English language. To “put words into someone’s mouth” means to impute or ascribe to them words that they never said or thought. It means leading the reader or listener to believe: “This person says or thinks X.” Anyone reading the hypothetical retraction that I wrote can see from the context that I did not do this. I did not *say*, *imply*, *intimate*, or *suggest*, that Gregory ever *uttered*, or even *thought*, *a single word* of the hypothetical retraction that he is complaining about.

    Any reader who pays attention to context will immediately know that the hypothetical retraction was meant to represent what I *wish* that Gregory would say and think, after honestly reflecting on my arguments. But what I *wish* that Gregory would say and think, and what Gregory has *actually* said and thought, are two different things. And the context of the hypothetical retraction made it very, very clear that I recognize that difference.

    I would have been “putting words in Gregory’s mouth” if I had said “Gregory actually thinks that I am right about ‘blurring’ but will not say it.” Then I would be imputing to Gregory thoughts that he has not expressed, and reporting those imagined thoughts to the public, without any warrant for doing so. That would be morally, socially, and academically wrong. But I did not do that.

    What I promised to the moderator was not to “put words in Gregory’s mouth” in exactly the sense explained above. I meant that I would never try to lead the reader to believe that Gregory said or thought anything that he had not actually expressed in his own words. And I have kept that promise.

    But to make it absolutely clear, I will state unequivocally that *I do not believe, and do not assert, that Gregory would agree with the statement in my hypothetical retraction*. I do not wish any reader here to think that Gregory would assent to my proposed words. Nor did I ever intend for any reader to think that. My intention was only to convey to Gregory an *example* of what, in my opinion, would be a reasonable and fair response for him to make to my arguments — a response that would allow him to retain 99.99% of his views, while conceding to me one factual error in one of his sentences.

    So now, Gregory, if there *is* anyone out there who actually misunderstood my hypothetical “concession speech,” their misunderstanding is corrected. Though I never “put words into your mouth” in the accepted use of that phrase, if anyone *thought* I was putting words into your mouth, they now can no longer think that, with my clarification here. My original promise to the moderator — which was not to put words into your mouth, or else, if ever guilty of doing so, to immediately retract those words as soon as I realized it — has been fulfilled. For, even if I *were* guilty of your charge — which I’m not — I have now “retracted” my misdeed.

    In the meantime, your direct personal insult — your charge above that my motives for arguing as I do are “self-serving” — remains unretracted. And I would remind you that ceasing to issue personal insults of that kind was one of the things that *you* promised to the moderator. (If you don’t remember this, I will privately email the correspondence to you, to verify the claim.)

    As I’ve said before Gregory, I wish you the best of luck in your sociological career. I bear you no malice. But we just do not get along. It is not a question of merely academic disagreement; I get along personally very well with all kinds of people with whom I have strenuous academic disagreements. It is a question of personality types. You and I are as opposite, as human beings, as any two people could be. We disagree not merely regarding ideas, but on just about every fundamental attitude towards education, politics, religion, human relationships, etc. I would be surprised if we even liked any food, sport or television show or popular song in common.

    I have in recent months tried to overcome this personal gap by adopting a stance of strict politeness, of avoiding questions of personality and motivation, of sticking to the intellectual issues. But it is not working. You and I are never going to see eye-to-eye, never mind about contents, but even about *how to converse* about contents. We have completely different ideas about what is a direct response and what is an evasive one, what is fair and what is below the belt, what is logically sound and what is not logically sound, how much freedom we should have to make up our own meaning for words, and so on. We thus cannot even agree on *rules of conversation*, which means that any discussion of *contents* will be fruitless.

    I make no judgment between us. I merely state that we cannot get along. That is an empirical fact. And there is no point in our subjecting the good people here to the equivalent of sitcom husband-and-wife bickering. They are not learning anything from the friction between us. So let’s agree simply not to address each other in the future. If we cannot have agreement, or warmth, let us at least have detente. Again, best wishes.

  97. 97

    I don’t recall whether we have interacted before; if we have, and I’ve forgotten, my apologies. But based on your current sally, I’d say we can expect good things from you in the future.

    Thanks for your kind words, Timaeus. I don’t think we’ve interacted before. I’ve been reading this blog for about 8 years but only posted a very few times. I’ll be back again when the occasion arises.

  98. Like I said CD Proponentist, you *could* address the OP’s “Suppose ID wins” topic, or you could just ignore it and come flailing after me for pointing out legitimate and fatal flaws in the IDism that you obviously cherish. You made a baby step of an attempt to address niwrad’s topic, but obviously prefer my antagonism.

    Perhaps niwrad will respond to your #74, which calls into doubt the meaning of his OP.

    “you’ve created a paranoid fantasy world where this movement is both a threat to all human life on the planet” – CD Proponentist

    Actually I don’t think the current IDM or IDT are much of any threat at all to human life. There’s nothing paranoid about that. I’ve observed the social reality of the IDM and IDists up close (perhaps we’ve even met in person, CD?). They’re a pretty immunized, puritanial, nothing-that-exciting, dependable lot. Honestly, I think many ID proponents need a bit more excitement in their lives, which is perhaps why they are so fanatically interested to take the label ‘Revolutionary’ following Dembski’s lead. If you don’t think timaeus gets a personal rise (and fall) out of his perceived defence of the IDT citadel as if it was Middle Earth, then you don’t know him from his writings very well.

    It’s convenient and expected but meaningless for you to project ‘paranoid fantasy’ onto me, CD Proponetist. But then again, your chosen pseudonym attests to the failure of IDism as a ‘strictly [natural] scientistic’ fantasy, so between us who is the more ‘fantastical’ is up for grabs. (Of course, here at UD, the ‘community’ will say I am, which makes sense to them on ideological grounds.)

    The scenario that niwrad painted is a stark one indeed, which I tried to meet appropriately. Most IDists are harmless, neo-creationists, under-educated folks (although more educated than YECists). There are a few vicious ones and a disenchanted cynical IDist is definitely *NOT* a pretty sight. The vast majority of ‘practising’ scientists don’t take IDists seriously and only humour them as easily misled. They are gullible to the Kuhnian ‘paradigm shift’ as neo-creationist wish-fulfillment against ‘evolutionary theories,’ following their level-one American PoS.

    Meyer could have done much more productive for humanity with his Cambridge University HPS degree than being seduced into activism by Thaxton and Johnson, taking the reigns of the CRSC/CSC, then thrashing speculatively about OoL and writing books over-confidently as a ‘revolutionary’ in fields that he has little training (Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt). At least Meyer is not totally closed to involving IDT with theodicy in a science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse, but of course that would self-destruct IDT as it is currently known.

    Most IDists are only ‘heard’ with their IDism in their local evangelical church settings, with a very small few of them actively trying to convert their local school boards into ‘teaching the controversy’ or getting anti-evolution stickers in textbooks, etc. A harmless people; nice, even kind, but not to be trusted based on their infatuation with PR, legalism and American politics.

    “ID[Theory] is not worth the time to discuss.” – CD Proponentist

    Well, you might be onto something there. Carry on then, CD.

    “you haven’t quite got the right tag for me yet.” – CD Proponentist

    How about this: “A person who takes the unfortunate name of an editorial error”? That seems right, at least on the surface. You called the person who made that editorial error ‘illiterate,’ but what that makes you then is anyone’s opinion. He/she who embraces illiteracy?

    Well, you could openly admit here that you are *NOT* an IDT proponent, supporter or even (gasp) ‘ID theorist’. It seems rather obvious that you are pro-IDT and playing coy about it is surely what many ID proponents do (according to Expelled Syndrome). So don’t volunteer anything you don’t want to, CD. Keep as mysterious and passerby as you like! ;)

    Or why not tell us an appropriate ‘tag’ for you, CD? I imagine you’ll go back into hiding like a typical IDist showing Expelled Syndrome symptoms.

    Again, ‘hostility’ is your own projection. I am making a calm, clear, rational, coherent criticism of IDism and the IDM. And I do it smiling. I am showing IDists that they are not immune from being studied for what they actually say and do, some of which is in the public record (most of which timaeus apparently hasn’t read, in his isolated hermit cave). To IDists, this might sound ‘hostile’ or ‘angry,’ or at least discomforting (which is how many natural scientists feel when someone observes them as ‘specimens’) due to how it shows the weaknesses in their ideology and Movement. But I mean no ill-will to IDists, just by offering a much needed reality check during their tribal chants of ‘Scientific Revolution!’

    “the ID plan for global domination” – CD Propnentist

    Nowhere did I state that; that’s just the culture war you are engaged in getting under your skin as projection. But I did say something which you haven’t addressed and likely won’t CD, that IDT actively discriminates against atheists and atheism and explained why & how above.

    You, sir, would have a lot of work on your hands to prove otherwise because of Dembski’s writings and Johnson’s earlier texts and interviews. The polemics which IDism has created by its presence, the way the term ‘Intelligent Design’ is now badly stained and smelly for most honest theists who want nothing to do with the DI’s political, PR, legal machinations, speaks gravely against any evidence of a positive contribution that IDT has made to humanity.

    Like I said; nice people, unfortunately sucked into ideological revolutionary fervour.

    As for Michael Behe, please give him my regards. Let me assure you, he seems like a loveable even if naive guy (still a decent well-published specialist, apparently until recently) and I wish him “all the best” as well…while encouraging him to study more philosophy IN science, thus leading him away from willingly labelling himself as a ‘Scientific Revolutionary! in the name of the tainted concept duo of ‘Intelligent Design.’ He can find me again for conversation if he wants to.

    His personal-RCC theology and faith will eventually live on well without IDT (or Dembski, Meyer, Wells, Nelson, et al.) and his disassociation from the Movement will likely spur his future career or at least bring him back scientific credibility that has been seriously eroded. Oops, I guess that last comment belongs in the “Suppose ID loses” thread.

  99. CD Proponentist:

    Thanks for your reply.

    I can neither confirm nor deny your speculations about Gregory’s intellectual or personal motives. First of all, I know little about contemporary Russia or contemporary Russian universities. (Which I mentioned, and only in passing, because Gregory did his Ph.D. at a Russian university; if he had done his Ph.D. at Ghent I would have used the example of Belgian universities.) Second, I confess that, despite years of interaction with Gregory, I have few clear conceptions of his motives, and it would be wrong of me to impute motives to him that I do not know. Also, it is best that I not discuss him in public in the third person. On this subject, therefore, I must leave you to your own resources.

    Nonetheless, I reaffirm my appreciation for a number of the insightful remarks you made in your earlier posts. It is good to know that I am not alone in my reactions.

  100. Gregory #90

    Further above I spoke of “considering a ‘third way’ or ‘third ways’ to productively move the general science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse forward.” Do you support this niwrad?

    I support the traditional worldview (its major representative in the modern times was Guénon). According to this worldview, the hierarchy of knowledge has metaphysics at its top and all sciences below. Metaphysics should illuminates sciences and in turn sciences should be “supports” to help reaching metaphysics.

    This worldview has been destroyed by the pseudo-intellectuality of modernism and all its errors (rationalism, materialism, scientism…). The results are before our eyes: intellectual confusion and practical disasters in all fields. We are all involved in this downfall. The cure would be the reestablishment of the true traditional intellectuality.

    What has to do IDM/IDT with this situation? ID can help to correct one of the above errors: evolutionism (a sub-error of scientism). ID is a tool. It is not perfect, but one must begin to use what is available, waiting for better tools. Even one could object that is a tool using the same concepts of the error it pretends to refute. In a sense it is so. It tries to refute evolutionism with the same paradigms of scientism. It makes scientism self-refute. But after all it is a Tantra principle to use poison as medicine…

    P.S.
    Given I am the thread owner and I started it with a spirit of pacification, I grieve that the discussion risks to end with acrimony. Then I gently invite please Gregory, Timaeus and CD-Proponentist to a small act of friendship. Anyone has it own character and writing style but I think no one is really bad. It would be fine, if possible. If that is not possible among “four cats” (as they say in my country), then we cannot marvel at the conflicts between nations… Thank you.

  101. I will state unequivocally that *I do not believe, and do not assert, that Gregory would agree with the statement in my hypothetical retraction*. I do not wish any reader here to think that Gregory would assent to my proposed words. Nor did I ever intend for any reader to think that.

    Thanks for the apology. I do not like it when you write things like “Gregory *should* say this…”

    I’d thought you would have known that by now.

    “conceding to me one factual error in one of his sentences.” – timaeus

    If you still don’t understand what ‘Generic Design,’ ‘Universal Designism’ and ‘Scientific Revolution’ mean, timaeus, there is probably not much insight that can help you. I stand by what I wrote and think your IDist propaganda knows almost no limits of incredibility.

    What is disappointing is that you are apparently willing to throw so many fellow theists under the bus as ‘liberals’ or ‘TEs’ based on your narrow reading list and ‘revolutionary’ IDist sympathies.

    “The specialist is one who never makes small mistakes while moving toward the grand fallacy.”

    I’ve been trying to help you avoid this grand fallacy, timaeus, but you apparently *want* to embrace IDism as your personal ideology uber alles. Perhaps go see a Catholic or Orthodox priest who is scientifically trained that could help straighten you out about your Expelled Syndrome timaean IDism?

    “You and I are as opposite, as human beings, as any two people could be.”

    Typical timaean exaggeration noted. Well, then you should watch “The Matrix,” timaeus. You are Agent Smith, I am Neo.

    Actually, I don’t think you’re a very good opposite. Unfortunately, though, you’ve chosen or forced yourself *not* to be in a position to publish scholarly work about evolution, creationism and ID, so we couldn’t find any common ground outside of your preferred ID-friendly blogging.

    timaeus, you completely misunderstand PERSONHOOD, more than almost any person, certainly not any ‘humanities’ scholar I thought ever could. By all means, please *do* involve questions of personality and motivation, that is such an important part of this conversation…*IFF* you’re willing to reciprocate. The impersonal, objectivistic (not just Randian) neutralist myth has been tragically swallowed by IDist scientism to much hurt. This reflects why I do not suffer from Expelled Syndrome while you most clearly do.

    How can you close your eyes, ears and heart so unbelievably tightly as to not even realise (i.e. to completely FORGET) the humanity, flesh and blood and spirit that you are purposefully leaving out of your pro-IDism (and that the IDM leaders are intentionally leaving out) based on your Expelled Syndrome, timaeus? It just boggles my mind that this is even possible.

    “I make no judgment between us. I merely state that we cannot get along. That is an empirical fact.”

    timaeus, get healed my friend. Wake up and discover how to overcome Expelled Syndrome. I am hoping for your eventual recovery, improved health and peace of mind.

    Gregory

    p.s. CD Proponentist; I am not Russian, but your #95 is disgustingly myopic about the world today and wrongfully disparaging to people of a sovereign nation, free from American cultural imperialism and flush with fruitful thinkers on the topic of science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse, which the DI-led IDM is too cowardly to announce as its obvious raison d’être.

    p.p.s. just a note to add that since I’ll eventually be posting a thread about ‘timaeus’ (one of the most strong-headed and enigmatic characters ‘in but not of’ the IDM) on my blog, the genuine offer to him in this thread of having an open one-on-one discussion with him there, which is still open, provides him the courtesy of an opportunity to represent his own vision of IDism in his own words, rather than simply being de-knotted and untangled by my witness to his pro-IDT, Expelled Syndrome shenanigans.

  102. Thanks niwrad for your gentle counsel. I wrote #101 before reading and didn’t mean to exaccerbate the tension.

    “What has to do IDM/IDT with this situation? ID can help to correct one of the above errors: evolutionism (a sub-error of scientism).” – niwrad

    Intention fairly stated. But I don’t think IDM/IDT is actually capable of this. Behe accepts evolutionary theory to a significant degree. Dembski even accepts ‘technological evolution.’

    Asking the question “what are examples of ‘things that don’t evolve’?” is too difficult philosophically for DI-IDM leaders (I have personal experience of this face-to-face with them) or for IDT’s narrow focus on OoL, OoBI & human origins. They’re just not ready for it.

    The overwhelming and seemingly ever-present desire to ‘appear scientific’ by the IDM, the ‘strictly [natural] scientific]’ theory requirement of Dembksi, Behe, Meyer and their PR and legal teams at the DI is too much to expect IDism to contribute fruitfully on this topic. I’ve been following this topic since before I’d heard of ‘Intelligent Design’ and the most entrenched problems have not been solved by IDism by a long-shot.

    If you’re “waiting for better tools” perhaps the time is already upon us, niwrad. But you must first be willing to let go of IDism as an over-confident ‘scientific revolution’ propaganda chant that actually doesn’t have much to offer on a practical scientific level.

    “It tries to refute evolutionism with the same paradigms of scientism.”

    Yes, that is close to IDT’s meagre and superficial efforts to overcome evolutionism.

    niwrad, I’ve found a better way. And there’s no reason to discard theological ‘design arguments’ in order to simply embrace ‘strictly [natural] scientistic’ IDism to walk that path.

    Yes, ‘scientism’ is a problem. We are surely agreed (even timaeus will likely nod his head shell-shocked). I’ve just written a review of a book about it. But scientistic IDism is not an appropriate solution. That needs to be clearly understood and put into CONTEXT of what Johnson’s IDM is/was trying to achieve.

    Respectfully,
    Gr.

  103. p.s. and btw, I’m quite serious about what I wrote in #3 wrt the OP’s ‘win’ scenario:

    “finally, after many years looking backwards, only backwards, to the ‘origins’ (of life, biological information, humans, etc.), the IDM, huge/gigantic as it will then be, will turn to look forward.”

    Finally looking forward as a ‘theory’! If we can imagine ourselves ‘intelligently xyz___ing’ on Earth; would that not make us more like ‘gods’? A humble theology/worldview would certainly then be required for moral and ethical purposes, should human beings gain control of ‘evolving/intelligent xyz___ing’ their/our futures … even as it may aim at post-humanism and artificial eternal life.

  104. 104

    Second, I confess that, despite years of interaction with Gregory, I have few clear conceptions of his motives, and it would be wrong of me to impute motives to him that I do not know. Also, it is best that I not discuss him in public in the third person. On this subject, therefore, I must leave you to your own resources.

    Ok, good advice, Timaeus – thanks.

  105. 105

    If you still don’t understand what … ‘Universal Designism’ … mean(s)

    I took a minute to try Google and learn what that term means. Strange, only one reference to the term can be found — and it points to this blog. :-)

    How about Designism itself? That’s much better, there’s actually a blog that explains it:

    What is Designism?

    http://www.beadesigngroup.com/.....ignism.php

    It’s good to keep up to date with the global ID conspiracy in all its manifold forms!

  106. G:

    So atheists would be either escorted or wiped off the face of the Earth, due to the hypothetical ‘victory’ of IDT. That would be the IDist vision of ‘historical justice.’

    Setting aside the paranoia for the moment, whose victory would you like to see, Gregory?

  107. niwrad:

    Prior to your call for acts of friendship, I had wished Gregory the best in his sociological career, and invited a cessation of hostilities. I remain, however, puzzled by his behavior. In response to your call for peace, he declares that he did not wish to exacerbate tensions; how he thought he would avoid exacerbating tensions by accusing one of his interlocutors of being “self-serving” and the other of being a “fool” I cannot imagine.

    Gregory:

    If your offer of a platform on your website requires revealing my civilian name, I must respectfully decline. If it allows me to retain my stage name without threat or even hint of exposure, I *might* consider making an appearance.

    However, if met by a dialogical treatment *anything like* the treatment I have been met with in the replies above, my first posting would quickly become my last. I would also expect an immediate apology for the adjective “self-serving” above, and a retraction of that characterization of my motives, as well as an apology for all the times you have called me cowardly, hypocritical, duplicitous, etc. on this site — and more than a pro forma apology, an actual admission that such language was improper for a Christian and a scholar to use — plus a promise never again to use those or similar terms about me here or on your site or in any other public venue. (And if I have ever used similar terms on this site to describe you, you can point them out and I will issue a similar apology, and make a similar promise of non-repetition of the offense.)

    And of course, my final decision on whether or not to participate would depend on what you were planning to discuss. It would have to be a topic that interested me, i.e., it would have to be something pertaining to “the strength of the arguments for design in nature.” I am not interested in the sociological analysis of the intelligent design movement, or in the real or alleged personal religious or political motivations of design proponents, or in debates over the capitalization or non-capitalization of words or initials, or in ascertaining why Discovery is so lousy at social science.

    In order to avoid an unnecessary waste of time on your part, I would suggest that you send me, privately (at my gmail address), and in advance of publication, your proposed first column concerning my thought on ID, and I would then tell you whether or not I would be interested in contributing to a discussion framed in such a way. Of course, if your purpose is only to savage me and my thought, you can do that without my participation. But if you are interested in actual dialogue, you will be glad to include me in the planning of your “series” on my thought.

    I add that, while it is flattering to hear you are considering “showcasing” my thought (even if primarily to show its weaknesses), I doubt that my thoughts about ID are worthy of any special attention, and I affirm that the writings of thoughtful biologists such as Denton and Sternberg would be of much more value to your readers than anything I could say. So I would recommend that you write about them, rather than me.

    If you find my suggestions here unreasonable, we need not debate them; let us simply part in peace.

  108. Well, in the end I want to thank all the commenters: they offered many ideas, which could be opportunities for others posts in the future.

    Especially I wish to thank the three formidable debaters Gregory, Timaeus and CD-Proponentist for having accepted my invite to conciliation. I well know conciliation is never an easy task (ask my wife… :) ).

    Timaeus, yours #107 is more than an act of friendship and I like its last word “peace”. Gregory is calm and likely is considering Timaeus’ gentle invite to dialogue even outside UD. CD-Proponentist proved to be a wise mediator between the two. I am glad of all that. Thank you.

  109. If ID wins we’ll put Gregory in front of a firing squad and after all the guns have fired we’ll ask him to explain how it is that he is still alive.

  110. Mung (#84) and Upright Biped,

    Two recent lies are the “Cornell” conference and the “science” class of Hedin and BSU. The first is an instance of trying to flim-flam a publisher with inflated credentials, the other is an attempt to use a science class for religious proselytizing.

    We can review many more, but let’s not be naive and act as though ID was honest in any sense.

  111. LoL@ LarTanner-

    There isn’t any evidence that anyone tried to flim-flam a publisher Larry. You made that up. And Hedin’s class was all about science. Again just because you don’t know what science is doesn’t mean anything here.

  112. The facts of the “Cornell” ID conference- oops that refutes Larry…

  113. Oh, I didn’t realize the fair and balanced “Evolution News and Views” has weighed in on the topic. Yeah, whatever they say is probably credible.

    LOL!

  114. Well we know what you say is NOT credible. And ENV has the facts that not even you can dispute.

    So LarTanner posts total nonsense, gets called on it and chokes.

    Very typical…

  115. Let me quote the title of a post made on UD today, 3 September 2013:

    Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference Chapter 12—“Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information?”—Excerpt

    The title is a lie. It is not the “Cornell OBI Conference,” but just the “OBI Conference.”

    Cornell had nothing to do with the conference. Cornell did not sponsor the conference. Cornell did not publicize the conference.

    Don’t talk to me about my credibility, Joe, while UD is telling its lies from right behind you.

  116. Larry you are grasping at straws, again. The conference was held at Cornell. There have been other ID conferences so saying “Cornell” specifies which one.

    Also UD has NOTHING to do with Springer. IOW you are running around with the goalpost in typical cowardly fashion.

Leave a Reply