“C.S. Lewis vs The New Atheists” by Peter S. Williams (Promo Video)

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 15, 2013

News}

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

Comments

H'mm: Re Gregory at 1 above in response to a discussion of the exchange between C S Lewis and the new, a priori materialist, blind watchmaker thesis, religion is child abuse circle of new atheists:
anyone who thinks ‘ID’ and ‘apologetics’ are *completely unintegrated* is either naive or simply hasn’t read Big-ID literature
Notice, the loading [as I highlight], that the design inference in the hands of those who argue that on empirical evidence we may infer inductively from tested reliable signs that certain objects are designed, is here held to be an integral part of the thin edge of a wedge for a hidden religious agenda; inviting the onward agenda of accusations on theocracy, war against science, etc that are ever so familiar. This -- by now, willfully -- misrepresents the actual point made since the early 1980's (and in part made by people who have no connexion to the Christian faith such as Sir Fred Hoyle) that there are things in the world that -- on inductive explanation and investigation of a type commonly used in historical sciences such as forensics or reconstructions of the past of land forms etc -- point to design as best causal explanation, per the known alternatives, chance, necessity, art. Once that investigation is carried out objectively -- as has been done -- it stands on its own merits, and snide motive mongering is then tendentious and willful well poisoning, if it is persisted in in the teeth of cogent correction. As, sadly, we are evidently seeing. That is a good slice of why I hold Gregory's game with upper/lower case ID to be wholly tendentious and useless or worse than useless. Not only does it not fit what I have been doing, and what many others have been doing, it is a feed-point for all sorts of demonstrably false but damaging propagandistic talking points of the type I just spent a fair bit of time exposing in the case of Wikipedia. Frankly, for all I know, Gregory is yet another sock puppet from the usual suspect sites. Similar to the now common tactic of I am an X but this is what I say, and then spewing forth the usual sort of talking points designed to poison atmosphere and twist issues into strawmen. Even if he is not, he is at minimum indulging enabling behaviour and has no good reason to do this, when the real issue is very simple: is or is not it the case that there are empirically tested, reliable signs of design in our world? If not, simply produce a solid counter-example. That would suffice to finish any design theory movement. That this is not being done, but instead we find every sort of manipulative rhetorical tactic being used, tells me that the truth is that the objectors have no real answer to the provide an example challenge. That is, in fact, it is so on the merits that there are abundant signs that are well tested and point to design as best explanation of any number of objects in our world. Where some of these are the living cell, major body plans and the fine tuned cosmos that accommodates life. Sure, those empirically grounded warrants then may help shift the balance of weight on various worldviews, but that is beyond science. Not that that means such are unimportant! KFkairosfocus_{February 17, 2013
February
02
Feb
17
17
2013
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Yes, it is called trying to have your cake and eat it too.Gregory_{February 17, 2013
February
02
Feb
17
17
2013
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
anyone who thinks ‘ID’ and ‘apologetics’ are *completely unintegrated* is either naive or simply hasn’t read Big-ID literature.
Elsewhere today Gregory attacks ID'ists for the lack of a more holistic approach. So which is it?Mung_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Congrats, Mung. You are on the road to becoming a post-Big-IDist! lol. If you weren't so fixated on drive-by mudslinging against ID and the DI we might even have a conversation. Are you asserting that Big I Bid D Intelligent Design fails to acknowledge the limitations of the scientific method?
Mung_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

"what the limits are to what science can tell us" Congrats, Mung. You are on the road to becoming a post-Big-IDist! As we all know, 'design in society,' i.e. design *NOT* in nature, is not part of Big-ID theory.Gregory_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Small i small d intelligent design: Science can only tell us so much, and then we must integrate what science tells us within a larger worldview picture. Big I Big D Intelligent Design: Science can only tell us so much, and then we must integrate what science tells us within a larger worldview picture. But far be it for anyone to insist that we keep the part that science can tell us separate, or explore just what the limits are to what science can tell us when it comes to design in nature.Mung_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Yes, precisely. It is 'apologetics.' Peter S. Williams will certainly agree that is what he is doing. It's written plainly on his ID.plus blog. Likewise, anyone who thinks 'ID' and 'apologetics' are *completely unintegrated* is either naive or simply hasn't read Big-ID literature. All non-IDist ideologues easily see the connection. All we're asking for, the silent and sometimes vocal majority, is for people at UD to admit this publically. IDM-ID has nothing to do with religion, theology/worldview, you say? Hogwash. Big-ID is a 'natural science-only' theory? Ludicrous. But that's what they actually want you to believe!Gregory_{February 16, 2013
February
02
Feb
16
16
2013
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply