Playing Fast and Loose with the Facts: How Ken Miller Misrepresented Phil Johnson

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 25, 2013

News}

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

An old debate, featuring Dr. Kenneth Miller and Dr. Paul Nelson, has found its way onto YouTube. The debate took place at the time of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in Pennsylvania in 2005. Moderated by Sally Satel at the American Enterprise Institute, it focuses on the question of teaching evolutionary theory and intelligent design in science classrooms.

Ken Miller’s presentation is predictable: He talks about the type III secretion system and the fusion origin of chromosome 2; about how ID is allegedly nothing more than a negative argument against evolution and really a form of disguised creationism. His arguments have been so thoroughly responded to at ENV and elsewhere that further discussion is unnecessary.

I do, however, want to draw attention to a particular moment in the debate, which you can view for yourself by playing the above video from 39 minutes in. Miller quotes Phil Johnson as stating:

The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to “the truth” of the Bible and then “the question of sin” and finally “introduced to Jesus.”

On his PowerPoint slide, Ken Miller even provides a citation to Church & State magazine, and it turns out that this very article is available online.

You will find that the quote from Miller’s PowerPoint presentation is not from the pen of Phil Johnson at all. Rather, it is a paraphrase or (more accurately) a caricature of Johnson by Rob Boston, a critic of ID! Here’s the passage from the original article:

A second speaker itching to get his religious perspective into public schools is Phillip Johnson, a University of California at Berkeley law professor who has written several books attacking evolution. Asserting that Darwinism is “based on awful science, just terrible,” Johnson said the theory has “divided the people of God” and that means “the way is open for the agnostics to say, ‘We need to put all of this aside.'”Johnson calls his movement “The Wedge.” The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to “the truth” of the Bible and then “the question of sin” and finally “introduced to Jesus.”

Surprisingly, this quotation is attributed to Johnson on several webpages (e.g. here, here, and here), although Wikipedia does correctly attribute the statement.

Cross-posted from Evolution News & Views.

Comments

KN: Thanks for your remarks in 39 above. It looks as if Gregory has taken himself out of the game, so your advice may have come too late for this round, but if Gregory returns -- as I expect he will, since he is obsessed with attacking ID, and seems to be planning to base his entire academic career on that activity -- I hope you will repeat that advice. I will try to follow it. I had originally suggested that we not reply to Gregory whenever he mentioned "Big-ID versus small-id," in hopes of getting him off that kick. But people gave in to temptation and kept responding to posts in which he appealed to that distinction, with the predictable result of more obscure posts containing endless wrangling about vocabulary that only Gregory seemed to understand. Given that a specific boycott of posts on ID versus id (posts which everyone here agreed were irritating and confusing) was not achievable, I'm not sanguine that people here would be able to carry out a general boycott of Gregory's posts (until such time as he changed his behavior). But we can hope that everyone will rise to the occasion. The only way to stop attention-seeking behavior is to cease to reward it: one must withhold the attention that the attention-seeking person is craving.Timaeus_{March 22, 2013
March
03
Mar
22
22
2013
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
This is upside-down and inside-out; as usual for Mung who embraces playing the devils’ advocate.
There is no devil. It follows that I cannot be his advocate.
Theology, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise, can benefit significantly from designating creationism (and neo-creationism) as ideology.
There is zero chance that Islam will denounce itself as an ideology. Can we deal with reaLity here, Gregory? otoh, Christianity has never wedded itself to literalism. Gregory's problem is that he cannot get past his own ideology of "human eXtenstion" to join those of us who are decades beyond that ideology.
Again, Mung, just read ‘ideology’ in this case (there is also a positive definition) as the over-extension of a concept into a field where it doesn’t belong.
Do you mean over-eXtension? Where does it eXtend from? Gregory's problem is that he is too obsessed with the creation/evolution/ID debate. He can't see the danger of literalism beyond those self-imposed boundaries. It's never occurred to him that literalism could impact the Gospel. My own awareness of literalism came from a different source entirely. It came from considering the writings of not Morris, but Lindsey. Which idea is more dangerous I ask you? That the world was created 6000 years ago, or that the world will end between September 3 2013 and September 7 2013? Yes, my own vision includes that of Gregory but goes beyond it. Will he join me, or is he too attached to his pet project against ID?Mung_{March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

I shouldn't have called Greg a fool. Let me put it this way: when a potentially cerebral person persistently indicates that reasoned arguments are opaque to him, surely his attitude is more than a little questionable, and you are wasting your time and effort responding to his ambagious, dialectical shenanigans.Axel_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Now! Now! Timaeus... Don't be ordering him to answer questions however relevant, even crucial. He would normally love to answer the questions put to him by ID-believing polemicists, but he's darned if he's going to be ORDERED!!!!! to do so. And I have every sympathy with him. There's far too much bullying on the Net. So, there! PS: It's taken y'all a long time to realise that arguing with a post of Greg's just makes two fools. He makes that Elizabeth seem a 'straight arrow'.Axel_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

I know it's not my place to say this, but here goes anyway: I believe that Gregory should be shunned by the interlocutors at Uncommon Descent. I find Gregory's ideas quite interesting, from what I can make of them, and I enjoy reading his posts. But his constant swipes and personal attacks on Timaeus are simply intolerable. I can only imagine what Gregory might say about me if he knew who I was in "real life." Since the topics here do not seem to be heavily managed, UD is basically a self-governing community. And since no one here has administrative tools, the main tool we have is the power to shame and to shun. I therefore suggest that, in light of Gregory's ad hominem and really quite nasty swipes at Timaeus, that the Uncommon Descent community strongly consider ignoring all of Gregory's posts until such time as he completely and permanently desists from all insinuations about the lives and careers of other blog participants.Kantian Naturalist_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Well, group, I think that we may finally have received Gregory's goodbye message, with #36 above. The *first* thing we note is that Gregory leaves us without telling us what the great competition was that he said he had won, and how it was supposed to make him an authority beyond all of us here on ID matters, and leave him too busy to bother any further with us rubes. I guess whatever it was, it fell through, or we would be hearing the announcement on the loudspeaker. The *second* thing we note is this: "For any perceived insults to persons I’ve made at UD, I now apologise. Sometimes e-messages can go too far or strike too close and one rarely knows the sensitivities of one’s dialogue partner. My intention has never been to insult, but rather to educate" This is either greatest block of lying, or the greatest example of self-induced delusion, ever published on the internet. Gregory truly thinks that he has uttered only "perceived" insults here? So they were all in our minds? He didn't call us academically incompetent, dishonest, crafty, hypocritical, politically motivated, cowardly, duplicitous, deceptive, intellectually and socially outdated, undeserving of having an academic job, etc.? And he didn't *know* "the sensitivities of his dialogue partners"? When they *repeatedly told* him that he was being insulting, ad hominem, condescending, rude, bullying, boastful, etc.? He didn't *know* he was being offensive? It was all an honest mistake? How can any human being utter such blatant untruths, in front of the very audience which has the evidence that they are untruths, with a straight face? Does he actually think that anyone, in any context, would ever count such a self-justifying statement as a sincere *apology* for wrong done? A statement that lacks even an iota of remorse or repentance? Is this how he wants to go out? Finally, Gregory ends in intellectual delusion: "as someone who knows about ID theory and the IDM better than many IDists themselves" An assertion calculated to drop the firmest of jaws, coming from a man who has had to be corrected hundreds of times for his erroneous statements about almost every aspect of ID theory. And the only evidence he could provide that could possibly override the impression of abysmal ignorance he has created here -- *testimony from his teachers at the Discovery summer school that he really knows his ID theory* -- he is unwilling to provide. I wonder why. After all, if he could get notes from Behe, Dembski, Wells, Meyer, West, etc., saying: "We disagree with Gregory, but we have to admit that he is one of the best summer students we ever had. He showed up punctually for all the classes, and always had all the readings done, as he demonstrated by his careful referencing of arguments from the texts in all the sessions. He showed an understanding of all the key scientific concepts used in ID argumentation. His theoretical grasp of ID makes him fit to define ID and to teach it in a wide variety of contexts." -- in that case, we would all have to defer to Gregory's certified expertise. But oddly enough, both his report card and his academic transcript seem to have gone missing. Thus, regarding Gregory's knowledge of ID, if I may borrow a leaf from Gregory's book, and quote his words incompletely: "I’m not in a ... position to be a teacher to the IDM." I certainly agree with that statement. (And if Gregory makes some unreasonable protest about my manner of quoting, let me say that every single word I've reproduced comes from his own post, and the words are even in the original order. So it's a totally academically honest rendering of your intentions -- right, Gregory?) Finally, I think it's very appropriate that Gregory closes with a quotation about Narcissus. After the experience of the past few years, I feel I've known Narcissus personally.Timaeus_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Re: Gregory at 35 Gregory was shown exactly where he willfully took my words out of context to misrepresent my position, and his excuse is that I did in fact write the words that he quoted. Pathetic. Academically dishonest to the end. He writes: "Yes, I realise I am speaking to/about my elder, whom normally I would honour." Hypocrisy. Gregory has spoken many, many times with extreme disrespect to and about people who are older than he is, here, on BioLogos, on the old ASA list, etc. George Murphy, Ted Davis, Dick Fischer, Elizabeth Liddle, Darrel Falk, Jon Garvey, John West -- the list goes on and on. Gregory respects neither age, nor sex, nor religion, nor anything else; if someone persists in disagreeing with him, he starts unloading the abuse. And then he wonders why people are so unreasonable as to dislike him. Finally, I note that Gregory declines to answer my question about Fuller and Feser yet again. And since a clear answer to that question is absolutely essential to justify the theological case (based on univocity) that he makes against ID, his refusal to answer means that he loses the argument by default. Do I need to prove that he fails to answer due to cowardice? No. All I need to prove is that he fails to answer. Because he fails to answer, my interpretation of Fuller (based on numerous explicit statements, and contradicted by no passages from Fuller adduced by Gregory), stands. So that's a wrap.Timaeus_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

(cont’d) Stephen (sterusjon) asked why I’ve been ‘doing this’ at UD. Much of the IDM is simply a reaction to Richard Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker” (1986). But what IDists should imo have responded to is “The Extended Phenotype” (1982), to Dawkins’ scientific contribution and left the work of apologists to apologists, like Alistair McGrath and John Lennox (who in “God’s Undertaker” also expresses his thoughtful reservations about the concept duo ‘Intelligent Design’). Instead, IDists chose to become scientistic apologists against an ideological ‘naturalism’ that their under-developed philosophy of science, American-style (MN, Christian ethicist P. de Vries) didn’t enable them to overcome. When he’s not speaking like an apologist for atheism and/or agnosticism, Dawkins actual writes interesting natural science, e.g. the ‘pipedream’ at the end of Extended Phenotype, But Not Too Extended is quite provocative. Yet what he calls ‘memes’ are an over-extension of Dawkins’ gene-centric view.
“I still haven’t the faintest idea how human extension has any possible bearing on natural phenomena or creation.” – Jon
My work on ‘human extension’ offers one of the most direct challenges to ‘memes’ currently available. It rejects ‘naturalism’ as a pseudo-social-scientific theory of ‘change-over-time’ and likewise overcomes ‘evolutionism’ by inquiring about ‘things that don’t evolve.’ If you are against ‘universal evolutionism,’ you should be for ‘human extension.’ It just so happens that at the same time, over the years, I have come to reject Big-ID theory, in part for the very reason that it needs to be named ‘Big-ID’ – it is just as ‘scientistic’ as the naturalism that it seeks to overturn. Human Extension is not a ‘naturalistic’ theory; it studies ‘human character’ and decision-making, including innovation, invention and development. It studies the ‘effects of intelligence’ (as Demsbki likes to say) in a much more coherent and fruitful way than Big-ID theory. If Jon doesn’t think that counts as ‘creation,’ then that’s his prerogative. As far as what bearing it can and perhaps will eventually have on ‘Intelligent Design’ theory, it’s a game-changer waiting to happen. Extension is an inherently teleological term (unlike ‘design’) that can apply not only to human beings, but also to non-human ‘creation/Creation’. What did the universe ‘extend’ from and what is it extending to? What does information or do patterns of information extend from/to? Simply stating ‘intelligence/Intelligence’ exists (voilà-tout) is only a minimally meaningful answer, based too much on the implications. What next? Let’s go further than what Big-ID theory disallows by fiat – let’s look at who, when, where, why and how too. The explanatory power of human extension vastly outperforms that of 'ID theory.' If you would like to learn more about human extension, just click on my name and follow the links. It is an on-going project for the long-term. I predict it will outlast Big-ID theory and make a much more productive global contribution to scholarship. ‘Design theory’ as commonly understood has already and will continue to likewise contribute much more than Big-ID ideology to human knowledge. When talking about ‘design,’ we don’t just need to look speculatively into the distant past, at the origins of life, information or human beings. Instead, we are or can be involved proactively in ‘designing’ for today and the future. That is a massively important feature of human extension about which Big-ID theory has demonstrated almost total lack of foresight. In short, Steve Fuller’s sociological vision of ‘ID’ is forward-looking compared to Big-ID’s backward-looking cosmologism. Human extension likewise acknowledges this important backward/forward distinction. Axiomatically, then, from a scientific perspective it makes sense to say: human-made things are (usually) ‘designed’ and non-human-made things are ‘not designed.’ This allows space for people like KF to contend that beavers and other animals are also ‘designers,’ just non-human ones. But going that track requires KF to face Dawkins, Tinbergen, Lorenz, Trivers and other ethologists regarding the possibilities and limits of (human and non-human) consciousness and ‘creaturely’ creativity. When Fuller suggests ‘nature as divine technology,’ he is already letting a theological foot in the scientific door, which goes beyond and is much more insightful than ID leaders’ views, and much more forthcoming in admitting “Of course the ‘Designer’ [that ID leaders dance around talking about] is God.” In either case, contending “everything [in nature and/or creation] is designed” is not only an audacious hypothesis outside of natural theology; it is also beyond feasibility according to the ‘rules’ and limitations of natural science to discover. I agree with Stephen (sterusjon); right now as it is framed ID theory “is just too damn big a project.” Jon claimed he is “still a theistic evolutionist.” But he is a TE who is using IDM terminology more and more regularly and railing against BioLogos for their theology. But no one should discount that Big-L in ‘Logos,’ which enables them to write: “BioLogos is a community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith, guided by the truth that ‘all things hold together in Christ.’ [Colossians 1:17]” Its fine for Jon to challenge BioLogos’ theology, if that’s his calling; but it has little to do with their science why he rails against them. My calling involves providing a way of moving beyond both of these ‘paradigms’ (i.e. ID and BioLogos) and also beyond evolutionism as an ideology that dehumanises people. In so far as both the IDM and BioLogos are working to go beyond evolutionism, I can work together with them also. Unfortunately, ID theory seems to be stuck particularly on (neo-)Darwinian evolutionary biology and otherwise allows ‘evolutionism’ free reign on topics like ‘technological evolution’ (Dembski) and ‘social movement evolution’ (Johnson). This was clearly demonstrated at the DI’s Summer Program; I reject definition 1 of ‘evolution’ as (holding a monopoly over) ‘change-over-time’, and they reject definition 3 of ‘evolution’ as the adequacy of RM+NS in natural history. So, it doesn’t seem like there is much common ground for cooperation. Definition 2 of ‘evolution’ is ‘common descent’ and one needn’t even bother asking for consensus here at ‘Uncommon Descent’ blog! ;) Stephen asked about my motivations and goals, and I have written about this here in the past, if not altogether openly (again Stephen, remember this is an IDist website and I reject IDism). My goals are to work hard in research and teaching, for student development, to discern truth and falsehoods, to do good scholarship, to talk straight and sure even when it stings or mends to listeners, to dance and sing when a topic permits it, to ask tough questions, to live, laugh, learn, grow and most importantly to follow my calling, wherever it leads. Now it has led me to face the difficult post-Soviet landscape in Eastern Europe and there are many ways to belong and contribute. And it has led me to reject Big-ID theory as an unnecessary ideology that even Protestant evangelicals in the United States should oppose. For any perceived insults to persons I’ve made at UD, I now apologise. Sometimes e-messages can go too far or strike too close and one rarely knows the sensitivities of one’s dialogue partner. My intention has never been to insult, but rather to educate and as someone who knows about ID theory and the IDM better than many IDists themselves, I’m not in a terrible position to be a teacher to the IDM. My intention has never been to make friends with IDists at the cost of truth. Students at the DI’s Summer Program know this first hand and we got along just fine (they will remember the skit at the end in the Indigenous restaurant). For the anti-IDism and post-Big-ID arguments I’ve provided here, I offer no apology and stand behind them as one of the most well-informed and IDM-connected ‘detectives’ of the DI and IDism on the planet. Have I been on a ‘fool’s errand’? Have I been making a “meaningless expenditure of my energy” at UD? Yes, perhaps. But then again, maybe it is only as wrong as was Ivan Durak. And with that I think it is time for me to go. If I do come back occasionally, please don’t call me “ignorant, stupid, or insane,” as several IDists have repeatedly done here at UD. You folks sound more like a reactionary, dystopian, emotionally perfect match with new atheists than ‘revolutionary’ intellectual giants when you do. And no one need seek legitimacy or dignity from such a gang of IDist partisans as you have demonstrated yourselves to be here at UD.
“[I]t is accidental to us, not to God.” – John Henry Newman

“The point of the Narcissus myth is not that people are prone to fall in love with their own images but that people fall in love with extensions of themselves which they are convinced are not extensions of themselves.” – Marshall McLuhan

‘Intelligent Design’ theory is an extension of the creationism of 20th century American philosophy of science, which IDists have fallen in love with, ignoring all the other ‘design theory’ that currently exists in order to promote their ideological crumbs.

“The best way to predict the future is to design it.” – Buckminster Fuller
Gregory_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

Because ‘Timaeus’ is such an awkward hermit-like IDist, he arrogantly imagines that IDists understand *everything*. Indeed, Timaeus himself uses superlatives and absolutes so often in his writing that people might be mistakenly led to believe that he is a tenured professor, that he is an important scholar in demand, that people pay attention to him in the academic world. Unfortunately for him, he isn’t and they don’t. He apparently pissed off enough people at the university where he previously worked with his self-righteousness religious studies ‘teachings’ (read: IDist radicalism) that telling about it to IDists would only give ‘ID’ a bad name. Perhaps that’s why he hides his real name behind the Greek ‘Timaeus’ and says sugary things to everyone pro-IDist. Like ‘the teacher’ in Dan Brown’s story, only a bad ending will come from following Timaeusean IDism. Yes, I realise I am speaking to/about my elder, whom normally I would honour. In this case, my elder has been so disgustingly antagonistic and chock-full of false testimony that he gave away his pathway to tenure and credibility. And he has been so uncharitable here at UD in his crusade to defend IDism that dealing ‘fairly’ with him is a tall order. Look, I can’t be held responsible for what Timaeus wrote. I just quoted directly from him and drew the ‘implications’ from it. Timaeus wrote: “Fuller, unlike the ID folks, understands the clash between univocity and analogy.” It’s similar to how Timaeus at first supported the distinction between upper case Big-ID and lower case small-id, but then later flip-flopped thus contradicting himself. Who is guilty for these words and self-contradictions but Timaeus himself? Why does he seek to blame me that he has demonstrated himself as a flip-flopper? Yet again we are supposed to be patient witnesses to Timaeus’ chicanery. In one breath he claims that theology has *nothing* to do with Intelligent Design theory because IDM-ID, if one reads the leaders, is a ‘natural-science-only’ theory. However, then he spouts off and contradicts himself with the following:
“this Franciscan way of speaking about God provides a theological basis for ID.”
Is there a ‘theological basis for ID’ or not? It seemed Timaeus was denying that in the past. Maybe this is yet another flip-flop possibility for him. Timaeus then accusing me of being an intellectual coward is quite cute – like nice big cheeks and a double chin. ;) He has now ducked my challenge to him for a recorded public debate in neutral E-space. And he has not ever submitted a paper to an academic journal about ID theory, as if he had confidence that what he blurts out here at UD has any resemblance to truth. He doesn’t even write at UD behind his own name. What does that say for IDism, that one of UD’s ‘best and brightest’ can’t even summon the courage to promote his own non-IDM-ID ideas in public without a mask? “Blame the others,” has been the typical IDist answer, which we are to expect again. Keep dreaming of a ‘Revolution-baby’! No nearer to reality or the rehabilitation of Timaeus’ tenure possibility will happen than that.Gregory_{March 11, 2013
March
03
Mar
11
11
2013
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

"Some IDists would rather ‘attack’ one of the biggest figures in science/faith dialogue, Francis Collins (either just because he rejects Big-IDism or because of his personal theology), than take a stand against Young Earth Creationism!" Define "one of the biggest figures." Collins is "one of the biggest figures" if one goes by the sales of his popular (and intellectually lightweight) book. He is "one of the biggest figures" if one goes by his accomplishments in science. He isn't "one of the biggest figures" if one goes by "depth of thought about science/theology questions." Indeed, his thought on the subject of "science and theology" is less than sophomoric -- warmed-over Ken Miller, and not even as intellectually interesting as Ken Miller. And yes, regarding theological depth, it is more appropriate to attack some of Collins's ideas than to attack Young Earth Creationism. I may think that YEC misreads Genesis, but if it does, that's an intellectual or hermeneutical error, not an error of attitude. The trivializing of much of the Old Testament that you see in Collins and his ilk, on the other hand, embodies an error of attitude. They want the Jesus who saves, but they don't really like the idea of a sovereign God who is actively in charge of the universe. Many TEs have strayed a long, long way from the original evangelical Christianity of the Reformation. I thus find myself in the odd position of sometimes agreeing with TEs on the non-literalness of this or that part of Genesis, while being repelled by their attitude and motivations. They want to get rid of the clash between the Bible and modernity by surrendering whole territories to modernity without a fight; at least the YECs' reverence for the text never lets them forget for an instant the great difference between a Biblical and an Enlightenment way of looking at the world. Collins is a great scientist with a theology fit for a child. I was going to say that the same applied to his former BioLogos columnists, Falk and Giberson -- but of them that statement would be only half-true. I leave it others to discern which half.Timaeus_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

cont'd? really? i can't wait.Mung_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

(cont’d) The theological creation/small-id views held by Jon Garvey, sterusjon, vjtorley, Mung, StephenB, nullasalus, Timaeus or anyone else, including myself, should not be seen as threatened or challenged by marking this helpful ID/id distinction. It simply encourages us to recognise the proper realms of the discussion, indeed, to recognise the conversation about creation, evolution, ID, BioLogos is one that necessarily involves science, philosophy and theology (or worldview). There should be no reason for people to hide from this reality, just as sterusjon has clearly stated his views affirming this openly and unabashedly in this thread. To say that ID theory operates in a worldview and personality *vacuum* and that it is a natural-science-only neutral theory is so disingenuous that one can only listen to it so many times, after which there’s really no point in listening anymore. Personally, I’ve reached that limit here at UD. Stephen says:
“it is the only way for the intelligent design proponent to hope to make any progress in convincing the natural processes only advocate.”
Trying so hard to convince ‘natural processes only advocates,’ iow, to seek legitimacy from natural scientists in itself defeats the purpose of P. Johnson’s Wedge, which was partly aimed at ‘naturalism.’ If they turned their attention to the ‘who, when, where, why and how’ involved in ‘designing processes,’ then IDists would perhaps gain some legitimacy by actually producing results; unfortunately for them, they would also in the process cease being IDists. So, as of now, their theory is practically useless qua ‘science,’ other than as a pseudo-naturalistic apologetic that tries to attract former or current YECs with a theological ‘design argument’ disguised as cutting-edge biology, cosmology, physical-informatics or other natural sciences. Mung suggested in this thread that I am “so focused on Creationism as an ideology that he refuses [I refuse] to see the greater danger to Christian theology.” This is upside-down and inside-out; as usual for Mung who embraces playing the devils’ advocate. Theology, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise, can benefit significantly from designating creationism (and neo-creationism) as ideology. Much idolatry is present among YECists, e.g. bibliolatry (which, thankfully, BioLogos is working hard to help expose and to heal the USA’s literalistic Protestantism). IDists seem so ‘social movement’ happy to have parasitic, undereducated YECs joining them in their ideological hymn to ‘Intelligent Designism’ that they are willing to over-look certain blatantly obvious ignorance in their ‘creation science’ approach to natural science. Some IDists would rather ‘attack’ one of the biggest figures in science/faith dialogue, Francis Collins (either just because he rejects Big-IDism or because of his personal theology), than take a stand against Young Earth Creationism! Again, Mung, just read ‘ideology’ in this case (there is also a positive definition) as the over-extension of a concept into a field where it doesn’t belong. So, teleologism is the seeing of purpose, plan, goal in everything, even when it does not possess those things. The same can be said of ‘designism,’ which is an appropriate ideological label for those who think that “everything is designed,” which is what many hardcore/evangelical IDists believe. The –isms themselves may be clumsy or even unaesthetic words, but their functional purpose in the conversation is quite clear; they warn people against exaggeration and over-reaching. They speak logically, reasonably and carefully about the dangers of ideology involved in IDism. I’ve written here numerous times that the proper (rightful) fields to study ‘design’ and ‘intelligence’ are human-social and applied sciences, not natural-physical sciences where ID leaders seek to ‘find signs of Intelligence,’ i.e. ‘in nature.’ Thus, ID theory is to me a kind of ‘designism’ that tries to scientifize ‘design in nature,’ just in a theist-friendly/worldview-invested way instead of an atheistic way like Adrian Bejan, whom the IDM is quite understandably ignoring. vjtorley, however, thinks UD should pay more attention to Bejan’s version of ‘design in nature,’ so perhaps some IDist will finally act.
“The field of the sciences of human action is the orbit of purpose and of conscious aiming at ends; it is teleological.” – Ludwig von Mises
The proper fields of ‘teleological’ thought are clearly the human-social sciences, which Timaeus reluctantly (flip-flopping as usual) admits is not the ‘real’ domain of IDM-ID theory (he says ‘it could be’). Indeed, and quite surprisingly, IDM-ID theory actually takes the teleology *out* of ‘design’ by refusing to speak about ‘designing processes’ and ‘designers,’ i.e. who have goals, plans, purposes, etc. in their minds. Only by appealing in disguise to univocal predication (i.e. between humans and God) do IDists seek to overcome this very real gap. Yet by not openly admitting that theology is in any way involved, the IDM’s tongues are tied in contradiction. By stating they think, as some people at UD have said, that Big-ID theory *could* study human-made things (e.g. the ‘anything with FSCO/I’ approach, which was already predicted in the Wedge, and by Behe in 1999), but just doesn’t waste time on that because it is after ‘bigger fish’ is a colossal joke that can only be sold and bought because cosmologists and biologists keep thinking and portraying themselves as kings of the imbalanced Academy. Indeed, only if one wants to openly and honestly call ID theory as ‘natural theology’ does it actually qualify as a ‘teleological’ field. But then, if so, it categorically *cannot* be a natural science-only as Big-ID theory currently requires. As one of UD’s most respected writes:
“I hold that science can and should leave room for the supernatural, and that God-talk has a legitimate place in science.” - vjtorley
That’s either natural theology or scientific theology, but it is surely not ‘natural science’ as actual ‘scientists’ understand the term. And thus, some/many IDists want to create an altogether new definition of ‘science’! It is a ‘Christian science’ or ‘theism-friendly science,’ just like ‘creation science’ is a theologically-driven agenda promoted evangelistically by mainly Protestant fundamentalists. That is why you folks constantly lose in the courts of public opinion. (cont’d)Gregory_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

“Supporters of Intelligent Design accept more of evolutionary science [than YECs], but argue that some features of life are best explained by direct intervention by an intelligent agent rather than by God’s regular way of working through natural processes.” – BioLogos
That’s a pretty good update of their definition of Big-ID since the site launched a few years ago. Of course ‘intelligent agent’ is ambiguous, but that doesn’t seem to matter much to Big-IDists. It is for this kind of ambiguous and implicationist language that people don’t take the IDM seriously. Which ‘intelligent agent(s)’ – is it/are they natural, supernatural, human, alien, or…? Answer: “Not allowed to talk about it; not part of the natural scientific theory of ID.”
“Like all Christians, BioLogos believes in an intelligent Creator, but unlike those in the ID movement, we are skeptical that the tools of [natural] science can be used to detect specific instances of His activity. God works through natural processes, so all things observable through science are His handiwork. Science and Scripture are not in competition, and we do not believe that science should be the sole arbiter of truth in ‘proving’ God’s existence. A diversity of viewpoints regarding the age of the earth, common ancestry, and the identity of the “Intelligent Designer” exist within the movement.” – BioLogos
The only thing perhaps objectionable to some IDists at UD might be the “detect specific instances of His activity.” Big-ID theory doesn’t say anything (except when speaking passionately in churches) about who the Creator/Designer is, even though most non-IDists know exactly what they mean. Thus, using the term ‘His’ is presumptuous, but expected. The ‘diversity of viewpoints’ appeal is also well-known, though I can’t count how many times people at UD have sought to remind and educate me about it as if I and others don’t already understand the notion.
“the forced relocation of God by doubtless well-intentioned Christian apologists into the hidden recesses of the universe, beyond evaluation or investigation. Now that's a real concern. For this strategy is still used by the intelligent design movement—a movement, based primarily in North America, that argues for an ’intelligent Designer’ based on gaps in scientific explanation, such as the ‘irreducible complexity’ of the world. It is not an approach which I accept, either on scientific or theological grounds. In my view, those who adopt this approach make Christianity deeply—and needlessly—vulnerable to scientific progress.” – Rev. Dr. Alistair McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion)
Like Francis Collins’ rejection of Big-ID theory, this faithful rejection of Big-ID theory comes from a major player in the international landscape of science and religion discourse. IDists can, of course, scoff at it as they are wont to do. But it is only done to their sheltered ideological dismay. It is thus perfectly justified and scholarly (in so far as very few scholars take ID seriously as a natural-science-only claim) to continue highlighting the differences between small-id and Big-ID, which aims to clearly distinguish theological design arguments from the naturalistic ‘Intelligent Design’ theory, a distinction that both Alistair McGrath and BioLogos also make, in addition to Owen Gingerich, Stephen Barr, James M. Tour, and many others. The fact is that most people already realise this distinction and why it is valid and have simply accepted it, and, after too much over-hyped rhetoric and chest-puffing from neo-creationist IDists, stopped talking about Big-ID theoiry.
“Since I assume a Designer behind everything in nature, I see no need or benefit in ‘scientifically’ proving design.” – Hornspiel (at BioLogos)
Doesn’t that seem ‘reasonable’ and ‘logical’ and ‘intuitive’ for evangelical Christians to conclude? It is really only marginal, anti-mainstream, wanna-be ‘revolutionaries’ who beg and plead to differ. These are the kinds of folks who advocate for 'Intelligent Design' as a natural-science-only theory of origins. Of course, this doesn’t for a second mean that anti-IDist Christians, Muslims and Jews must stop either talking about or believing in the(ir) Creator. It just means that the concept duo ‘intelligent’ + ‘design’ has been irreparably tainted *for them* by its association with the politically-oriented Discovery Institute and the IDM’s ‘teach the controversy’ IDism in America. And we have a right to reject the folly of the IDM's-ID theory as a crass attempt to re-insert 'creationism' into public schools. Theology against IDism (cont’d)Gregory_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

“NM and G[regory] are conspicuously absent from a thread in which natural theology and its links to design[/Design] are explicitly on the table.” – KF Not speaking for NM, but you are forgetting, KF, that I was ‘excused’ from participation on vjtorley’s threads because he felt I was challenging his belief that one can faithfully be both a thinking Catholic Christian and an IDist at the same time. So the typical accusation is empty. In my view, Ed Feser (who is a thinking Catholic Christian that rejects Big-ID) has thoroughly debunked Torley’s Big-IDist position. The Thomist rejection of Big-ID has been supported in other recent threads. Torley has said he doesn’t know a single IDist in Japan, after living there for several years. While I’ve already been in contact with one (he was previously a DI Fellow) and have never even visited Japan! Obviously Torley's not looking very hard in his activistic IDism. And coming from a guy who repeatedly claims FSCO/I is a universalistic measure and thus a victory for Big-ID theory, KF, your physicalist theoretical appeal to natural theology is disingenuous. If you want to talk natural theology at UD or on your website, be welcome. Just don’t call ‘IDM-ID’ a theory of ‘natural theology’ unless you want to openly admit that ‘ID’ is not *only* a natural scientific theory. You can’t have it both ways, though many IDists like to try. (cont’d)Gregory_{March 10, 2013
March
03
Mar
10
10
2013
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

timothya:
Here is a clue: personal beliefs are irrelevant in science.
LOL!Mung_{February 28, 2013
February
02
Feb
28
28
2013
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Timothya: I see that, in my preceeding post, my tongue got stuck in my cheek a couple of time. I hope you do not mind. Stephensterusjon_{February 28, 2013
February
02
Feb
28
28
2013
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Timothya, To all the statements of what I believe, which you block quoted, you may now add this one: I, personally, believe you missed my point entirely. I was not attempting to scientifically answer anyone of the questions. I was trying to point out, for Gregory’s benefit, that within the community of intelligent design proponents there is only one of the questions, “what?”, where we can come to anything resembling consensus. Since all the others are inextricably entangled with our individual point of view, that it is a fool’s errand for him to so intent in his campaign against what he perceives as Big ID. Does that help? You say:
Now you have a chance to explain the difference between your mode of thinking and how a scientist thinks.
Although, I not even trying to make any scientific statements (everyone one of my answers was a personal philosophical/theological statement by intention) I will rise to your bait. Since you challenged me, allow me to state the corresponding answers to the first two questions. I trust that will suffice to make my point. I am reasonably sure I could frame the remainder is a very similar flavor. It would be, I think, colossal waste of effort, however. What?: I, Dr. Natural-processes-only Scientist, believe that humankind can be completely explained in terms of random chance events and natural law, without any need to invoke the actions of an intelligently designing entity. (Cite:Timothya’s Philosophy of Science 101, page 1.) Who?: I,personally, believe that Nobody did it. (Cite: None available (Trust me, I just know there is Nobody, at least Nobody that really matters.)) Pray tell, how is the “scientific” form of the equivalent answers to these questions any different than mine. They are just as inextricably entangled with philosophy and theology as mine. It is obvious that they, in fact, are not scientific statements at all. You did not block quote me on another point I tried to make about the natural processes only vs some intelligently designed aspects points of view. So here is what I had to say:
Alas, the vast majority of our opponents are unreachable because they refuse to focus on the “what” question and, instead, want to drag in the “who, where, how, when and why” questions where each of them, also, has non-negotiable, albeit, indefinite answers. They, consciously or unconsciously I know not, seem to be oblivious to the fact that the “who, where, how, when and why” questions are inextricably entangled with philosophy and theology and that there is no hope of solving the conundrum, natural processes only vs some intelligently designed aspects, by discussion of those questions. The only place that intelligent design proponents agree is in the area of “what.” The only place that intelligent design proponents can, in unity, engage the natural process only advocate is in the “what” question. The “what” question is the area of the multifaceted issue where we have the common ground of empirical observation (science) with the natural processes only advocates. Unfortunately, it seems, that most of them would rather ignore the empirical venue in favor of the philosophical and theological “who, where, how, when and why” questions.
It seems you missed that point, too. From our differing perspectives there is no hope of meaningful dialog around the “who, where, how, when and why” questions. But, in your response to me that is directly where you headed. Why, am I not surprised? But, irony of irony, you proceeded to prove my very point by invoking Isaac Newton and his belief, as you put it, regarding alchemy. In this discussion, his beliefs, in this regard constitute the answer to the “what” question. Now, I suspect that you are convinced that his answer to the “who” question would be defective, in your view, and somehow make some appeal to his Christian belief in God. That being the case, if he where alive today, how would you proceed to convince him that his confidence in alchemy was ill-founded? Would you sit him down and explicate from philosophical and theological and atheistic works to somehow convince him that his answer to the “who” question is wrong and try to convince him that your particular answer is correct? Somehow, I doubt it. Rather, I think, you would appeal, rightly so, to observable data and repeatable experimentation as that you can bring to bear on the “what” of the first question. If you were to choose to engage him with the philosophical and theological aspects of his answer to "who", you quickly get bogged down in he said, she said nonsense. If you proceed by addressing the "what" by means of what can be presented for his personal observation, I think he would readily abandon his false conceptions in the issue and return to repose, satisfied that he had yet more knowledge of the marvels his Creator' handiwork. :) Get my point, now? Stephen PS. Alchemy has an element of truth. It is possible to transform common materials into gold and silver. Nucleosynthesis, you know. Just sayin'.sterusjon_{February 28, 2013
February
02
Feb
28
28
2013
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Sterusjon posted this:
What?: I, Stephen R Jones, conclude that humankind is the result of the actions of an intelligent designing entity. Who?: I, personally, believe that the intelligent designing entity is the God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (Gen 1:26-27.) Where?: I, personally, believe that that intelligent designing entity implemented its design on earth near and probably west of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:7-8.) How?: I, personally, believe that that intelligent designing entity implemented its design by rearranging the soil into the form and correct constituants of a human being and subsequently invigorated that non-living (static equilibrium) corpse into a organism in dynamic equilibrium that is characteristic of life (Gen 2:7.) When?: I, personally, believe that that intelligent designing entity implemented its design some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago (based on historical records beginning with Gen 5:1.) Why?: I, personally, believe that that intelligent designing entity implemented its design for the immediate purpose of bringing into existence an entity with characteristics that resembled many of its own (Gen 1:26) as well as for the ultimate purpose to become “all in all” (I Cor 15:22-28.)
Very good. Now you have a chance to explain the difference between your mode of thinking and how a scientist thinks. Every one of your what, who, when etc statements begin with "I, personally, believe . . ." Here is a clue: personal beliefs are irrelevant in science. Isaac Newton personally believed that alchemy worked. So what? The facts denied his beliefs. You believe that your god scooped up the northwestern corner of the Garden of Eden and poofed it into a human. So what? Do you have any single piece of verifiable evidence that this event ever actually happened? Your beliefs are (perhaps) interesting, but it is up to you to produce evidence that your version of what who when etc actually happened. Otherwise your beliefs belong in the same category as "UFOs stole my baby".timothya_{February 28, 2013
February
02
Feb
28
28
2013
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Joe says 'And evolutionists say that the “theory” of evolution is atheistic.' Would this be a good time to introduce 'Big-Evolution' as in 'Evolution disproves God', and 'small-evolution' as in the kind we observe in nature and can only account for minor variations? ;) (Couldn't resist it) Sterusjon, I really appreciated your post. Thank you.PeterJ_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

Timaeus, Thanks for your kind acknowledgement of my effort. After I submitted it, I noticed a few typos. I hope they didn’t impede anyone’s comprehension too greatly. Stephensterusjon_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

Mung:
. . . ID seems to be a middle ground that I can be comfortable with, precisely because it limits itself. [Emphasis added.] What Gregory sees as an evil I see as a good.
Exactly.Eric Anderson_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

T, Having come from young earth creationism and dispensationalism myself, while I can see them as both as hindrances to the advance of the Gospel and putting into question the meaning of Christ's sacrifice and the Church, I do at least see the underlying hermeneutic. Getting back to the OP, I have never understood Miller. I read Finding Darwin's God and immediately labelled him a liar and a hypocrite. Whether right or wrong that's been my general view of TE since. I don't find myself in the YEC camp, and I don't find myself in the TE camp, and for now ID seems to be a middle ground that I can be comfortable with, precisely because it limits itself. What Gregory sees as an evil I see as a good. lolMung_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Jon:
I read “Darwin’s Black Box” in 1998
But that's not the reason for your fall from grace. You should have first consulted the list of banned books, and it was your failure to do so that is responsible for your fall. There wasn't just one apple on the tree, you know.Mung_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Yet the very idea of natural theology designates a method, rather than a settled body of beliefs and assumptions. There is no single continuous narrative of natural theology within the Christian tradition which defines one approach as normative and others as heterodox or marginal. - McGrath, Alister E. A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology
Poor Gregory.Mung_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

Mung: Re 16: I agree. Whatever defects "creationism" may have are defects only of Biblical hermeneutics; whereas the defects evident in the writings of a wide range of TEs are defects in fundamental Christian doctrine, especially the doctrines of creation, omnipotence, sovereignty, providence, etc.Timaeus_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Stephen: Thanks for your gracious and common-sense-filled intervention. You have captured in words the frustration that many people here have felt. I agree with you that the "what" question is the central one for ID. And it is astounding how many, not merely atheists but theistic evolutionists, want to deflect attention from their failure to deal with the "what" question by constantly drawing attention to the other questions.Timaeus_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

focused -> fixatedMung_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Gregory is so focused on Creationism as an ideology that he refuses to see the greater danger to Christian theology.Mung_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Gregory, I have been looking on for sometime now and watching what has appeared to me to be 'irrational ravings' against the 'sinister ulterior motivations' of the principals in the intelligent design movement and the 'shameful herding instincts' of those who are in some way impressed with the truth value they see in the intelligent design movement's claims. The preceding delimited phrases are my own characterizations of what you may be thinking that I have gleaned from many of your comments over many different threads that have covered many different topics. I beg your indulgence while I attempt to show you why you are wrong to spend so much energy in the way you have been doing. For my part, I am very much aware that my thoughts on what I see as actual, intelligent, design in the world around me are inextricably intertwined with my philosophical and theological beliefs about the world at large. I may be speaking out of turn, but I doubt that there is any intelligent design proponent so self-deluded that he believes differently about himself. You have excoriated intelligent design proponents for their refusal to address the questions of “who, where, how, when and why” with respect to their supposed intelligent designer. Well, I’ll expose myself for all to see. What?: I, Stephen R Jones, conclude that humankind is the result of the actions of an intelligent designing entity. Who?: I, personally, believe that the intelligent designing entity is the God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (Gen 1:26-27.) Where?: I, personally, believe that that intelligent designing entity implemented its design on earth near and probably west of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:7-8.) How?: I, personally, believe that that intelligent designing entity implemented its design by rearranging the soil into the form and correct constituants of a human being and subsequently invigorated that non-living (static equilibrium) corpse into a organism in dynamic equilibrium that is characteristic of life (Gen 2:7.) When?: I, personally, believe that that intelligent designing entity implemented its design some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago (based on historical records beginning with Gen 5:1.) Why?: I, personally, believe that that intelligent designing entity implemented its design for the immediate purpose of bringing into existence an entity with characteristics that resembled many of its own (Gen 1:26) as well as for the ultimate purpose to become “all in all” (I Cor 15:22-28.) Can I prove all of the previous answers? No! Can I demonstrate that any one of them is true? Possibly the answer to “what?” No, to all the rest. Where then would I best pursue an argument, I wonder? There are my answers to all the questions that intelligent design proponents are accused of being unwilling to address. They do, I admit, lack some precision. Usher was more assured of the exact day the first man was formed than I am, for instance. Neither can I give you a lat-lon for the place where God scooped up the soil with which He formed the first man. Others have chosen not to explicitly deliniate their answers to the these questions. It is not that they have not considered the questions. I’m sure the vast majority, even if not every one, of those interested in origins have given the questions considerable thought and have at least tentative answers for some of them. For many the answer comes down to a great deal of speculation or a simple "I have no idea." But, as you can see from my answers to the question, there is little hope of coming to anything like a consensus. I know that the overwhelming majority of intelligent design proponents here at UD consider my answers to be complete and utter, hopeless nonsense. Many have said as much and many more implied it. Other than the common point of the conclusion that empirical evidence strongly suggests that some of what we observe around us is the product of an intelligently designing entity, I have no other common ground with the vast majority of those that agree with me on this one point. It is eminently practical, I think, among those of who agree on this one point, to confine our discussion to its finer points by addressing the observations and techniques that may affirm or disaffirm our collective conclusion of the presence of products of an intelligently designing entity in the world in which we exist and avoid discussions were we disagree and are unlikely to ever come to consensus. That does not mean I am a sinister, two-faced, flip-flopping hypocrite when I do address the questions of “who, where, how, when and why” and thereby leave the domain of the “what” question. It is sometimes appropriate to do that. For example, although, it is highly unlikely I can have a fruitful discussion with very many of the others here because we are just too far apart- it is just too damn big a project- there is the potential for another YECist and I to sit down for a while and come to total agreement as to the “who, where, how, when and why” questions. How would it be wrong to engage in that discussion even in full view of those who largely disagree? Why is it duplicitous to engage in a focused discussion of only the “what”, which can be addressed on the common ground of empirical observation (scientifically), when there is no hope of dealing with the philosophically and theologically entangled “who, where, how, when and why” questions. As you have noticed, everyone has at one time or another displayed that additional depth to their thinking. It is just not always productive to bring it into the discussion. In some contexts, Yes. In most contexts, No. Does that mean that I must always be explicit about the inevitable affect all of my answers to the origins questions have on the bits and pieces of everyday life? I think not. The synergy of facts that I believe in- That I am an intelligently designing being designed and formed by my God in His image for a purpose beyond my mere present existence has ramifications in every aspect of my life. That synergy informs such things as my social views of the family, how it should be ideally structured and what its purpose is as well as where it originated. It impacts moral issues, why there is both good and evil as well as where they both came from and why I am ordained to experience them both and how evil's presence will be ultimately rectified. That does not mean that that family and morals are inherently intelligent design issues. But it does not mean it is verboten to discuss them in light of my belief in intelligent design. Discussions about any and all of life's many facets need not be partitioned off from intelligent design thought in all situations. It is just that it is not often very productive to broaden a particular discussion to include intelligent design when one of the parties is not even on the same page about it. I conclude that the intelligent design proponent’s insistence on focusing on the “what” question which is accessible on empirical ground (scientifically) to the exclusion of the “who, where, how, when and why” questions is entirely valid. Indeed, it is the only way for the intelligent design proponent to hope to make any progress in convincing the natural processes only advocate. Alas, the vast majority of our opponents are unreachable because they refuse to focus on the “what” question and, instead, want to drag in the “who, where, how, when and why” questions where each of them, also, has non-negotiable, albeit, indefinite answers. They, consciously or unconsciously I know not, seem to be oblivious to the fact that the “who, where, how, when and why” questions are inextricably entangled with philosophy and theology and that there is no hope of solving the conundrum, natural processes only vs some intelligently designed aspects, by discussion of those questions. The only place that intelligent design proponents agree is in the area of “what.” The only place that intelligent design proponents can, in unity, engage the natural process only advocate is in the “what” question. The “what” question is the area of the multifaceted issue where we have the common ground of empirical observation (science) with the natural processes only advocates. Unfortunately, it seems, that most of them would rather ignore the empirical venue in favor of the philosophical and theological “who, where, how, when and why” questions. Although, I now see you have some rational point underlying your id/ID crusade, I think, in the big picture, it is a meaningless expenditure of your energy and the internet’s bandwidth. But, if you insist on pursuing your agenda, I suggest you be a little more transparent with your own philosophical and religious perspective and let us all know why the abrahamic tradition is important to you and how it frames your perspective on the crusade you are waging. After all, you have often bashed intelligent design proponents for not being forthright about their true beliefs and motivations. It appears to me that even the brightest posters here are befuddled by what it is you hold to and what your motivation is. I think a little more clarity on what it is you are trying accomplish and why is in order. In short- Just where the heck are you coming from and where do you hope to get to? Oh, one more thing. A little grace in your presentation may serve you well. Stephen R Jones. PS. No CV will be found. I am just an un-Phd-ed dolt. Easily dismissed, if that what you wish do. PPS. My fellow YECist- I pray I have done justice to our cause as you see it from your perspective.sterusjon_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Oh, but wait (stop, hold your horses, folks), ID theory is supposed to officially have *nothing* to do with theology/worldview!
Straw man.Mung_{February 26, 2013
February
02
Feb
26
26
2013
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply