I note that at least we are somewhat on speaking terms again.

(That is to the good – I trust you understand that last time around I spoke to tactics, and that anger on implications of a prevalent trend does not deflect that trend from its path.)

I must suggest on your material point, that there is a reason for raising the question that evolutionary materialism as a theory that grounds reality in nothing but a physical IS, has a serious problem then trying to ground any OUGHT, i.e it is in the strict sense AMORAL.

And evolutionary materialism is held to be not just a worldview but SCIENCE, indeed it is now being embedded in redefinitions thereof that have been proffered in recent years by, for example the US NAS.

So, to point that out is not to denigrate but to point to a key point of incoherence in a now dominant worldview, one that needs urgent correction.

On the point that you have declared yourself a rhetor [presumably in the postmodern mould], I have noted that this explains the pattern of your comments in recent months, a pattern that has been observed on by others.

I will simply note in response that unless truth rises above competing narratives and rhetorical devices to that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, discussion is fruitless. (Cf for instance how CY documents how for nearly a decade the “definition” of ID as presented by Wikipedia has evolved, but never towards the plain, easily accessible truth.)

And, unless we move beyond rhetoric as power games for control of Plato’s Cave, we cannot make progress from en-darkenment of one species or another. (Also, the subtler point of Jesus’ story on two sawyers is that it is the junior who is down in the pit with dust pouring into his face. Unless the senior shows ability to respond to that fact, the dismissals of protests or concerns from down in the pit — however imperfectly made by a fallen individual — will ring hollow. In our day, it is plainly the evolutionary materialism dominated establishment that holds institutional power, so is prone to distorting and agenda serving totalising metanarratives.)

These I have remarked on to CY earlier.

GEM of TKI

The REAL problem my dear sirs, is that evolutionary materialism is not “just” a theory of allelle frequencies, it is a worldview core claim motivated on the claim tha ti t [sic] is practically certain “science,” a claim that de-moralises the world for those who adhere to it. And, amorality is ever an enabler of immorality.

So, we need to learn some lessons from painful history.

In that context, I observe that — quite predictably JT et al (I cross reference a parallel discussion, pardon . . . ) — a mere link to relevant facts (as I gave at 111 above) is not enough to get a focus on the merits of the issue.

So, I must now take up the painful duty of actually citing just how herr Schicklegruber and his ghostwriters drew a significant part of their inspiration form the stream of Darwinism that dews upon Descent of Man and flowed through German culture.

Aristotle noted that good ethos (or rhetorical character) includes three components: intelligence, virtue, and good will. Your intelligence is clear, your good will toward your opponents less so.

PPPS: DK @ 188: “rhetoric (my own scholarly field) . . . “

A light bulb goes on . . . .

(Now we know the why of a pattern of argument visible for months in this blog, and coming from DK as a representative of the Anti Evo agenda of talking points.

That’s beneath you.

You have raised a serious point, false enlightenment (and BTW, I have had to expose sectarian groups that were destructive, cf how I approached the challenge here).

Jesus addressed the challenge of thinking oneself enlightened when one is only en-darkened, in Matt 6:

22″The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

In Jn 8, he amplifies the implications:

43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say . . . 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! . . . If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

In short, one can be blinded by commitment to an agenda and live in a cave of false light and manipulative stage shows.

But, notice what happens to Socrates in that cave: his chains fall off, he rises,a nd sees the apparatus of manipulation, then is foerced to ascend tot he real world outside the cave of shadow shows. With much pain, he gradually is accustomed to the light of the truth and the good.

Then, he takes pity on his fellows in bondage to lies and agendas and tries to help them. Only to be found stumbling as he tries to communicate and interact,a nd only to find himself the object of persecution. Notice how Plato subtly shifts instead of directly accusing the Athenians: such a one is in danger of his life.

Now, in our own situation we can see some key factors:

1 –> The likeliest and most dangerous manipulators are those who hold power and act ruthlessly in that cause.

2 –> Manipulators seek to close minds and drive wedges of misunderstanding, hostility and mistrust between people, so that they can rule over a polarised community, marginalising the truth and the right.

3 –> So, the weapons of truth and open-hearted mutually respectful discussion on comparative difficulties are the obvious counter to the strategy of divide, deceive and rule.

4 –> Here, truth does not equal agenda: truth is that which says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not.

5 –> And, truth no 1 for us finite, fallible and too often ill-willed is that error exists. it is undeniably and not just contingently true, with all that that implies.

6 –> Further, exploring our world unfettered (but responsibly and mutually respectfully) is the safest way to detect error and move towards the truth.

7 –> So, when we see a pattern of distraction, distortion, hostility scapegoating, demonisation and dismissal [as Mrs O'Leary has been highlighting], it is a strong warning sign.

8 –> Also, since the turnabout accusation is a classic tactic of those who do that, one should insist that claims of such be warranted. Mrs O’Leary has done so.

____________

GEM of TKI

I did another test on “effective style of comment,” on the current ethics thread, at 111 and again this morning at 237, after the linked materials from key historical documents were ignored.

This again shows how a link to unwelcome material facts is routinely studiously ignored by those with an axe to grind. (Notice, too the darwinist advocates’ attempt to deflect from the relevant history, to try to suggest that herr Schickelgruber was a creationist, to try to suggest that Christians etc are just as guilty, etc. In short, we see turnabout accusation and immoral equivalency rhetoric — classic features of the distract, distort, demonise, dismiss pattern of rhetoric. And that in the immediate context of dealing with a sadly notorious exemplar.)

A more direct and sufficiently detailed corrective intervention is clearly required.

Let us see what happens now that some suitably highlighted relevant documents are in play.

Here is my prediction, drawing on a classical remark by a key C1 figure:

John 3: 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

In the end, the real issues are spiritual-moral, not stylistic or technical.

GEM of TKI

PS: JT, it should be fairly easy to cross check to see if my reasoning on basic thermodynamics and information issues is well founded; starting from the point that we recognise signal in the midst of the possibility and reality of noise, as a first step in information theory; thus the central role played by signal-noise ratio and noise figure and noise temperature, etc. If you cannot address these on the merits, then you are simply dependent on talking points supplied by others; and in light of the issues pointed out int he weak argument correctives, that is not wise on this matter.

“I therefore simply make reference here, noting that while it tends to be de-emphasised in modern discussions, Plato clearly spoke to a situation where dominant community forces manipulate the intellectual environment to foster their power agendas.”

I percieve though, how Plato’s Cave analogy could be misused, and perhaps has been misused. One could perceive themselves as having “seen the light” to the exclusivity of all others, or simply within the context of a small elite group – such as in the esoteric notions of the Gnostics – a light that can only be seen by the initiate, and through the practice of particular religious counterintuitive insight.

And indeed, many religious cults do just that.

How would you address this aspect – I know I’m getting way off topic here.

A light bulb goes on . . . .

(Now we know the why of a pattern of argument visible for months in this blog, and coming from DK as a representative of the Anti Evo agenda of talking points. I therefore simply make reference here, noting that while it tends to be de-emphasised in modern discussions, Plato clearly spoke to a situation where dominant community forces manipulate the intellectual environment to foster their power agendas. That is why the concept that truth is that which says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not, is so vital. And, it is why on the design controversy to the merits, to the merits, to the merits, we must go. Even if this requires significant effort on a fairly technical apparatus of facts and reasoning.)

GEM of TKI

Kairos, according to Wiki:

Kairos (??????) is an ancient Greek word meaning the right or opportune moment (the supreme moment). The ancient Greeks had two words for time, chronos and kairos. While the former refers to chronological or sequential time, the latter signifies a time in between, a moment of undetermined period of time in which something special happens. What the special something is depends on who is using the word. While chronos is quantitative, kairos has a qualitative nature.

There is a well-known hymn by Lowell (originally a protest against the US-Mexican war, also protested by Finney) — Once to every man and nation — that captures the essence of my focus on kairos:

Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light.

Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.

By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,
Toiling up new Calv’ries ever with the cross that turns not back;
New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong;
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.

And that should show why I take a very dim view of rhetoric indeed, insisting that its primary value as a field of study is essentially defensive. (I think that the focus on making the decision on important matters should be on dialectic, not rhetoric: using comparative difficulties across factual, logical and explanatory power issues; as I elaborate here in a lecture note.)

As to why an emphasis on the design issue, I think this is at the crux of the existential kairos facing our science-dominated civilisation. Science is at kairos, and our civlisation is at kairos. (And, as you know, my feeling is that on current track, the USA as the leading country in the civlisation, is looking at trends that look frighteningly like those facing the USSR circa 1980. I am not optimistic, for your nation, and as a result, for our hemisphere and the wider world. But where duty calls, I must not be wanting there.)

GEM of TKI

PS: JT et al. While I appreciate concerns on clarity, I sometimes find that one highly relevant reason why some things seem to be utterly unclear is that there is a conceptual block driven by a worldviews clash. (Initially P seems reasonable, and P => Q, but prevailing commitment to F => NOT-Q. So, one then tends to see onward rejection of P, but often at the expense of logical incoherence and absurdity.) That is why a comparative difficulties approach as underlying cognitive strategy is so powerful: it does not require commitment to any one view to enable understanding, and by forcing consideration across the range of relevant views, it broadens and deepens understanding. And while I can be obscure at times, I suspect this cognitive dissonance is what is at work in much of the “difficulty” some find with what I have said, especially since many have been convinced of the accuracy of a hostile agenda driven strawmannish picture of the basic points of design theory. And . . .

PPS: I have relevant pieces of paper, education, qualifications and experience to write with some knowledge on the information theory and thermodynamics based approach to the design issue I have raised, as should be immediately apparent from a look at the always linked — which BTW is not at all anything new. (That’s part of why I insist that we should not forget TMLO.) Just as I have some relevant qualifications and experience to remark on strategic change and related communications issues. (I also note that in the end, you have come to agree with me on my basic thrust on such: summaries are brief heads up primers at best; it is in the details and balance on the merits that the issue must be decided. This especially holds in a context of significant controversy in which education and correction of misinformation are relevant. But in the end, it is to the merits, to the merits, tot he merits that we must go.)

Yes I am familiar with Kairos – just didn’t associate it with “renewal,” but now that makes sense in reference to what you stated as a “moment of decision.” I can see how it can be a very persuasive term. So Gem’s ministry is focused on renewal (or should I say – the moment of decision, which leads to renewal). Makes sense. Thanks for the etymology.

KF, maybe you could expand on this?