Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Video: ‘Intelligent Design: The Most Credible Idea?’ — A Lecture by Dr Stephen C Meyer

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Comments
'Primordial, Breckmin. But, unfortunately, when exposing atheists’ utter, utter folly simply by referring to the findings of science,...' I should have added, 'never mind common sense', since we'e always having to drag them back from their droll, post-partum fantasies to the question of the ultimate origin of matter; even though the Big Bang is widely accepted now. But then so is quantum mechanics - for all the interest they show in the lessons that imparts, such as the primacy of mind.Axel
January 15, 2013
January
01
Jan
15
15
2013
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
'Statistical information (probabilities) do NOT address real causes in causal systems and chance is not a real cause. This must be exposed.' Primordial, Breckmin. But, unfortunately, when exposing atheists' utter, utter folly simply by referring to the findings of science, is 'like shooting a fish in a barrel', where a particular truth figures on a scale of significance becomes irrelevant, lost in all the madness. How could a professor in some scientific discipline, who believes that nothing could have turned itself into everything, and could not be persuaded that that is the height of absurdity, be open to even slightly less obvious truths. Since I've been following this forum, I've always felt aware that the whole forum is dedicated to a kind of epistemic psychiatry. Brilliant scientists and philosophers arguing ever so politely and respectfully with little more than ventriloquists' dummies, and mad ones at that, for whom the acquisition of academic accreditations would reflect more a butterfly mind than an interest in truth. One poster expressed the matter and its inevitable upshot, very concisely the other day: it's a massive philosophical deficiency that the materialists exhibit, and it can only end in tears before bed-time. I mean he didn't put is as poetically, or perhaps undignifiededly, but that was the gist of it.Axel
January 15, 2013
January
01
Jan
15
15
2013
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
I do not recall being particularly hostile to Gregory in the past and even agree with him on certain topics. But then I discovered him telling untruths and had the gall to point it out to him. I wondered why he felt it necessary to resort to lies. If he has a case to make, surely it should be based upon truth and not lies. His response was to add more lies to his prior lies in order to excuse them. And we're still not discussing the content of the presentation, are we.Mung
January 9, 2013
January
01
Jan
9
09
2013
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
BA77 (cont’d) “I understood you clearly when you said you did not hold natural science as the only true science.” – BA77 Good. Thanks for saying that. Then please start to follow that evidence where it leads. If you did choose to follow that evidence, then you would also start to understand that ‘other’ sciences than simply ‘natural sciences’ are also ‘true science(s)’ (though that’s your term, not mine). Indeed, when I speak here about the IDM, people regularly and intentionally (but unnecessarily) seem to get offended. Why? Because they can therefore be ‘objectively’ studied themselves (because they are part of the IDM) for how and why their prior beliefs, values and who they actually are influences how and why they have come to accept Big-ID theory as a theory. Many people here at UD claim that Big-ID is only about ‘scientific’ FSCI or ‘origins of life’ or ‘origins of biological information’ and *not* actually about people, about human beings, about US. Yet they want other people, more people, everyone (!) to positively believe in Big-ID, to accept it and teach it in schools; they want a ‘cultural renewal’ in America spearheaded by Big-ID theory. This is almost humorously backwards in priority from a humanitarian perspective when considering ‘objectivistic’ Big-ID as natural science-only. The approach you take is full of contradiction, BA77, because if you accept that “natural science is not the only true science,” as you’ve suggested to me here in this thread, while at the same time demanding, nay, protesting that Big-ID is authentically and properly called ‘natural science-only,’ then it is you and the IDM that is in a no-win situation fighting windmills. The obvious contradiction is not held by someone like me who is ‘objectively’ observing the IDM as a human-social scientist. Yet you seem to want to deny me and my colleagues even the possibility of studying those who posit Big-ID as a natural science-only theory, people like yourself, simply because you claim ‘it is!’ a (duck, aka) natural scientific-only theory. This doesn’t make any sense to scholars (even theist-scholars) who take time to study the IDM phenomena and report about it honestly. Otoh, IDists want human-social scientists, i.e. those who study (small ia) ‘intelligent agents’ to be their friends, so that Behe’s Big-ID “all humane studies” and the Wedge Document’s Big-ID plans can potentially be fulfilled (although social sciences have already fallen behind according to that schedule). Otoh, when there is a human-social scientist that looks closely at the various meanings of Big-ID, small-id and at the IDM, creationism and evolution, it proves time and again to be simply too much for IDists to respect and accept. So how can we find common ground in this predicament? I’m open to suggestions from you or others at UD. UD intentionally pushes Steve Fuller to the margins, calling him derogatively a ‘secular humanist’ (check the Wiki page again, which doesn’t even call him that anymore!) even though he writes and speaks more profoundly to the core of ‘intelligent design’ (small-id) and also about what ‘Intelligent Design’ (Big-ID) actually means (reflexively speaking ID leaders believe that human beings are made in imago Dei and that the [Big-D] ‘Designer’ is obviously meant to be the Abrahamic ‘God/Allah/Yahweh’) than anyone in the IDM, everyone pro-ID here at UD included. Why do you folks do this; just because Fuller is not a natural-physical scientist, but rather a philosopher and sociologist of science and knowledge? As if ‘origins of life’ is such a profoundly important scientific field, the ‘most important question’ according to Johnson, even though completely fails to address daily human themes like education, health, food and water, transportation, citizenship, justice, freedom, democracy and almost all other basic human needs? What remains to be said is a simple prediction. The Intelligent Design movement qua movement will get bowled over (think Alabama vs. Notre Dame Jan. 7, 2013) by people who actually study (small i) ‘intelligence.’ That is, ifff IDM leaders break down and allow such things as what Meyer said in Cambridge to be studied by ‘Big-ID’ researchers. Big-ID has generally avoided scholarship about (small i) ‘intelligence’ that is to be found plentifully in the human-social sciences (e.g. small-d ‘design theory’ or Universal Design theory) because Big-IDists are really, privately, personally, undeniably, predominantly (and most often apologetically) interested in ‘transcendent (Big I) Intelligence’ and not ‘mundane (small i) intelligence’. Most human-social scientists, on their part, will have nothing to do with Big-ID, as an attempt to scientifically prove the Origin(s) of Life using probabilistic arguments and (univocally predicated) pseudo-theological language based on subjective information theory, which is easily appropriated by both theists and atheists. This is why Big-IDists at UD have disallowed themselves to respond clearly and unequivocally about precisely which ‘intelligent agent(s)/Intelligent Agents’ they are referring to as source(s) of ‘information/Information.’ The IDM has therefore lost the human-social sciences because it tactically ignores them, philology included, even though for a couple of years it tried in the Summer Program to promote positive Big-ID in the humanities and social sciences. That’s a simple fact. Why isn’t the IDM focussed intently on the human-social sciences? Why did Meyer bow to Fuller admitting that ID-theodicy is a legitimate topic at Tyndale? For that matter, why was Fuller invited to the Dover trial, as a sociologist of science, rather than a philosopher of science (biology) like Michael Ruse at the 1981McLean trial? These are questions that have not been given a satisfactory answer by the IDM, by Big-ID theorists or by anyone at UD. For this, BA77, for intentional ignorance of humanitarian ‘ID’, an apology or at least open recognition is still needed. GregoryGregory
January 9, 2013
January
01
Jan
9
09
2013
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
BA77, Your apology in #110 is accepted. Thanks. Don’t worry, there are no hurt feelings. I’ve been offended enough times by both IDists and anti-IDists to take what both say and write on blogs and in internet forums with the proverbial ‘grain of salt.’ That's what one gets for offering a non-extremist third way! Face-to-face communication makes a different impression and probably we would get along just fine that way, even if I still reject Big-ID and you support it. Things have taken a bizarre turn at UD. I’ve been called (rather aggressively) a ‘heresy hunter,’ stupid, a liar, and ignorant of ID, while as anyone who pays attention knows I’ve studied Big-ID and written one of very few defended master’s theses partially on Big-ID and the IDM and promote the Abrahamic traditions. The intentionally bitter insults and rejections have happened not simply for disagreeing with Big-ID, but for pointing out the fantastically important difference between Big-ID and small-id, which Harvard historian of science, astronomer and Mennonite Christian Owen Gingerich first identified in “God’s Universe” (2006). This clear and appropriate distinction reveals Big-ID’s true colours better than anything proposed by ‘new atheists’ or ‘materialist Darwinists.’ It is also a much more difficult challenge to anyone who would wish to be called an ‘ID’ promoter or supporter, requiring their views of philosophy, science and theology/worldview. How else can one explain the strange exclusivity situation at UD, than by referring to Talleyrand: “the United States has 32 religions, but only one sauce”? And I’m rudely told “it’s a free country” (an American expression) by an Australian living in Japan, who knows I don’t live in the USA, and who believes “God-talk has a legitimate place in science”!! Obviously that person doesn’t do science and isn’t in danger of publishing a paper about Big-ID in a peer-reviewed academic journal anytime soon. It might seem IDists at UD are completely closed to constructive criticism of Big-ID, even by or especially by fellow (aka small-id) Christians. That may be a minority feeling in the movement. But there are a few posters at UD who simply don’t want to hear anything other than what they’ve been indoctrinated to say and believe about Big-ID. I find this both alarming and disappointing, even if it is understandable by the logic of social movements. Phillip Johnson and Paul Nelson, of course, have and do work closely with Stephen C. Meyer, which shows how ‘evangelical’ the core of IDists actually is. Remember, folks, I’m contending that Big-ID, what some of you call ‘intelligent design’ and others (seemingly theologically) call ‘Intelligent Design,’ as a supposedly natural scientific-only THEORY, is better seen as a science (both natural-physical and human-social), philosophy, theology/worldview discourse. Many IDists seem to find this humble claim simply intolerant and will not allow it a voice at the discussion table!!! Bah, humbug to science, philosophy, theology/worldview collaborative conversation, they just want to start counting probabilities and specificities. Perhaps I should be silenced at UD even for suggesting it. From a decade of studies, I can state openly that Big-ID actually is not, and cannot possibly be (because of its history and because people reflexively ‘do science’ not in an ideological vacuum) simply a ‘natural science-only’ theory. Meyer gave up his own ‘natural scientistic’ (read: natural science-only) language at Tyndale in his ‘theodicy-friendly’ response regarding ID to Steve Fuller, which is now available in video to the public. This demonstrates how insistence on ‘natural science-only’ has become an ‘entrenched idea’ in the IDM, a people-aren’t-going-to-change position, which imo should be energetically resisted and hopefully, collectively overcome. (cont’d)Gregory
January 9, 2013
January
01
Jan
9
09
2013
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Re: "An intelligent agent…" used by Biped Alan Fox wrote:
Such as a person? A god? An imaginary being? What are you including in your set of intelligent agents? Or are we still being coy on the subject?
I would suspect that Upright Biped would be referring to theistic implication that is CONCLUDED from scientific observation. From a cumulative case it would first address the logical conclusion of a "candidate creator." It would NOT be an imaginary construct such as a FSM (you can't create all matter if you are made up of matter) or some finite assertion from mythology (a being that is so limited)nor some finite "person" (as you are probably thinking of when you use the word 'person') any more than it would be a pink unicorn, an orbiting tea pot or an invisible dragon in your garage. These concepts are nonsense and do NOT address the logical concept of a 'candidate' creator within agnostic theism... such as any higher power... or a deistic type creator which created/designed and left the natural order...OR an Infinite Creator Who has the power to create and sustain all matter in the universe. The Intelligent Designer/Creator that is concluded from scientific observation (that allows for common sense theistic implication) would logically be powerful enough to create all matter in the universe. This is the type of Intelligent Agent true unbiased science points to when you don't approach scientific investigation with the blinding presuppositions of materialism.Breckmin
January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
Mung... like Dawkins book..... The magic of reality?Andre
January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Gregory and the Meyer Video (Post #2) Par. 1: Doesn't discuss the content of Meyer's presentation. Par. 2: Briefly touches on the OOL, which is somewhat tangential to the video, but... Gregory:
Methinks Meyer is far too specialised and fixated on OoL to reach most people...
There's a reason for that. I believe Meyer even addresses it in the video. Gregory:
Meyer’s DI-based and (right-wing American) funded Big-ID is unnecessarily scientistic – it seeks to be ‘science-only,’ aloof, detached, elitist.
I'm confused. I thought that was small i small d id. But that's really neither here nor there, since it has nothing to do with the content of Meyer's presentation. Par. 3: Creates straw-man version of Meyer's argument. Doesn't discuss the content of Meyer's presentation. Par. 4: Doesn't discuss the content of Meyer's presentation. Par. 5: Doesn't discuss the content of Meyer's presentation. Par. 6: Asserts Meyer's argument is question-begging. Doesn't explain why. Par. 7: Regurgigates the OOL straw-man introduced in Par. 3. Doesn't discuss the content of Meyer's presentation. Par. 8: Gregory appears to argue that many scientists already agree with Meyer, so no revolution is required. Which makes it hard to see why Gregory disagrees with Meyer. Who are these 'many scientists' that agree with Meyer, Gregory? Par. 9: Doesn't discuss the content of Meyer's presentation. Par. 10: Doesn't discuss the content of Meyer's presentation. Par. 11: Doesn't discuss the content of Meyer's presentation. Par. 12: Doesn't discuss the content of Meyer's presentation. Gregory:
We’re best to await dialogue with/from people who are genuinely interested in discussing Stephen C. Meyer’s speech at the Tyndale event.
But that person doesn't appear to be Gregory.Mung
January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
How can an effect (intelligence) be greater than it a cause (non-intelligence)?
Anything is possible when you believe in magic.Mung
January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Gregory, I can't help but feel that I've responded to you somewhat unfairly and I am sorry if I've offended you in my clumsy, brutish, behavior towards you. I could have used a lot more tact to get my points across. I seem to have miscommunicated fairly badly on a few key points. Such as the one point of distinguishing the fact that I understood you clearly when you said you did not hold natural science as the only true science. Instead of acknowledging that fact clearly to you I inappropriately let you continue to think that erroneous thought about me, which led you astray. I had moved on too quickly before preparing the ground for you to understand more deeply where I was coming from. ,,, Granted I still find your objection, from what I can make of it, to be superfluous to the main battle going on between ID and Darwinism, but none-the-less I'm sorry for any hurt feelings I may have caused you.bornagain77
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
I keep on saying to people, how can non-intelligence even mimic design if by its very nature it does not know what design is? How can an effect (intelligence) be greater than it a cause (non-intelligence)? As far as my rational mind goes it does not follow in anyway how non-intelligence could give rise to intelligence.....Andre
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
Gregory:
Right. So Big-ID, aka ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ has theological presuppositions. Thanks for conceding that! It is rather obvious after all.
I will use capital letters to emphasize the important points so it will be easier for you to follow along. Big ID requires a METAPHYSICAL presupposition that can be expressed in the following way: We have rational minds that correspond to a rational universe. In other words, the universe is orderly and can be rationally investigated. Inherent in this metaphysical presupposition is a commitment to the first rules of right reason, including the Laws of Identity, Non-contradiction, and Causality. Big ID does NOT require a THEOLOGICAL presupposition, that is, it does NOT require any apriori commitment to the proposition that God created or designed the universe for a purpose. Of course, anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that an ordered universe requires someone to do the ordering,or that a designed universe requires a designer, but that is a different subject. What you need to understand is this: Judeo Christian theology provided the INCENTIVE and MOTIVATION to do science, but its principles are not assumed by, or found in, ID's design inference process. If that was the case, it would not be an inference; it would be a tautology. (The DNA molecule was designed, therefore it was designed). Thus, ID has theological ROOTS, but it does not have theological PRESUPPOSITIONS. I have explained this fact to you many times, but you appear incapable of grasping it.StephenB
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
"That said, I predict the remainder of this thread, now that Timaeus is participating, to consist of distraction from actually facing what Stephen C. Meyer said and did in Cambridge summer 2012." On the contrary, Gregory, I would like nothing better than to hear your detailed discussion of Meyer's arguments as presented on the video above. I'd like to hear your assessment of his arguments regarding information theory and the origin of life. But you don't really want to discuss Meyer's talk. You want to discuss Fuller's talk, and Meyer's response to Fuller's talk, even though we already discussed the latter things in great detail under an earlier column. So you aren't really showing much "courtesy" (104) toward Meyer's ideas at all. The rest of us are interested in Meyer's ideas for their own intrinsic worth. Therefore, we will listen attentively to any comments you have on Meyer's discussion -- provided that they are comments which seriously engage the intention of Meyer's discussion, as he outlines it in his opening words. That is, focus on the science, and save the discussion of philosophical and theological implications for later. You have on a number of occasions made comments against various people at the Discovery Institute. Above, you make some against Bruce Gordon. You have also more than once mentioned or alluded to a training seminar you did at Discovery. Should we take it that your training seminar left a bad taste in your mouth regarding ID? If so, perhaps you could lay out for us what the activities were in that seminar, who the teachers were, what you learned, and what exactly it was about the experience that turned you so much against ID. If we knew what you were so ticked off about, we might be able to respond to you more constructively. But all we know is that the very mention of Discovery makes you see red; we don't know why. Those of us who never attended the seminars will need your help to understand why Discovery is such an intellectually bankrupt institution as you imply. In any case, a Happy New Year to you and your family, abroad or at home.Timaeus
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Gregory, all I've seen from you so far is your patting yourself on your back as to how smart you think you are and a condescending tone to anyone who you find beneath you. I call your manners being a arrogant jerk, but that is just me!,,, Now if you ever want to come down to the real world and get into the actual evidence I will light you up like a kindergartener! But then again that's just me thinking you are not qualified to defend yourself empirically!bornagain77
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Gregory, and here I thought you wanted to discuss the content of Meyer's presentation. Silly me.Mung
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
BA77, Mung is as thoroughly unqualified as you and equally as disrespectful towards those of us who are qualified to speak with knowledge where you have little or none. I am not your average American anti-IDist! You are ill-prepared to argue with my theistic anti-evolutionistic position because you've never faced someone like me. Yes, Meyer deserves my courtesy and has/will receive it. He is requested to show the same courtesy on that next day, as he showed in Cambridge to Steve Fuller, who put him in his intellectual place and even inspired him to be braver than he had been before. The legacy of this event is not Meyer's speech, which many of us have all heard before, but his exchange with Fuller, which is why I highlighted it again above. My horse is rather middle-of-the-road! Dependable and well-travelled and loveable. Sometimes she runs like Secretariat and sometimes like the donkey in the meadow. I wouldn't trade her because that's what I've been dealth. This small-id vs Big-ID conversation is not just about 'the actual evidence' as if science is Science and philosophy is inconsequential to human life. It is about worldview. It is about belief. It is about intuition. It is about more than natural-science-alone will EVER be able to claim. Do you not understand this simply because you are infatuated with being an IDist, with defending Big-ID? Or is there something more to it than that? Me saying that I would light you up in a 1-on-1 basketball game is not 'arrogance.' It is truth, it is fact, it is reality. You have your own ways you would light me up, which I would not contest as you are now trash-talking to me. That seems to be something you don't want to face and your pseudo-scientific defence of Big-ID is suffering for it.Gregory
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Gregory, I second Mung, come down off your high horse for crying out loud and get into the actual evidence, your self righteous act is getting old very quick!bornagain77
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
BA77, can you actually speak for yourself? I'm not patting myself on the back. Have you no shame?! Let's start with what you've actually said for yourself, trying like a Big-ID activist to put words in my mouth: "Gregory, if you say that only ‘natural science’ is true science" - BA77 #66 “I do not say or think that only ‘natural science’ is true science.” – Gregory Can BA77 possibly accept this, in his heart of hearts!?!?! Yes or no would suffice. Silence and no answer is expected based on precedent. I'm getting the impression that American IDists are among the least repentant and most self-righteous believers in the Abrahamic tradition. Can/will BA77 prove this impression wrong?Gregory
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Gregory:
Stop putting words in my mouth and act with some integrity!
Does Meyer deserve the same courtesy from you?
We’re best to await dialogue with/from people who are genuinely interested in discussing Stephen C. Meyer’s speech at the Tyndale event.
Do you have any plans to quote some item of interest from Meyer's presentation and then discuss, or should we expect more straw men and red herrings? Many of us are waiting to discuss the actual content of the video with you. Meyer claims the cell does actual information processing. What say you? You appear to admit to the existence of "biological information." But what makes biological information so different from other kinds of information such that it can only be spoken of analogically? If it is so different from the information humans are used to dealing with, why were we able to recognize it and label it? How is it that we are able to apply the same mathematics and other sorts of analysis to the genetic code that we apply to human generated codes? Doesn't that indicate something more than mere analogy? By all means, let's discuss the video.Mung
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
And as hard as it may be for someone of such a high personal opinion of themselves to accept, not only were the Judeo-Christians presupposition necessary for modern science to brought to a sustained maturity, but 'the end of science' finds a very credible resolution within the Judeo-Christian framework! The Galileo Affair and the true "Center of the Universe" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_USbornagain77
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
The Origin of Science Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a patheist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle's works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle's works in Latin.. As we will see below, the break-through that began science was a Christian commentary on Aristotle's De Caelo (On the Heavens).,, Modern experimental science was rendered possible, Jaki has shown, as a result of the Christian philosophical atmosphere of the Middle Ages. Although a talent for science was certainly present in the ancient world (for example in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids), nevertheless the philosophical and psychological climate was hostile to a self-sustaining scientific process. Thus science suffered still-births in the cultures of ancient China, India, Egypt and Babylonia. It also failed to come to fruition among the Maya, Incas and Aztecs of the Americas. Even though ancient Greece came closer to achieving a continuous scientific enterprise than any other ancient culture, science was not born there either. Science did not come to birth among the medieval Muslim heirs to Aristotle. …. The psychological climate of such ancient cultures, with their belief that the universe was infinite and time an endless repetition of historical cycles, was often either hopelessness or complacency (hardly what is needed to spur and sustain scientific progress); and in either case there was a failure to arrive at a belief in the existence of God the Creator and of creation itself as therefore rational and intelligible. Thus their inability to produce a self-sustaining scientific enterprise. If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.htmlbornagain77
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Gregory instead of you patting yourself on the back as to how smart you are, and how dumb the rest of us are, perhaps you would care to actually show me why the Judeo-Christian presuppositions which lay at the heart of the founding of modern science are 'pseudo-science'.bornagain77
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Obviously, BA77, you didn't read my lips. You continue to confuse my clarity on behalf and in defense of orthodox Abrahamic faith with what you choose to call 'arrogance' on behalf of your fanatical marginal evangelical activism for Big-ID. “I do not say or think that only ‘natural science’ is true science.” - Gregory Can BA77 possibly accept this, in his heart of hearts!?!?! Silence and evasion to this has been BA77's tactic thus far. Humility and charity is nowhere to be seen. Obviously BA77 has not read any of my publications if he believes even an inkling of his statement to be true. My confidence in the face of folks like Bruce Gordon is noteworthy. And since Gordon hasn't an answer to my challenges to his Big-ID, perhaps people at UD might be willing to admit their Big-ID case isn't as strong as they hope it might be. That said, I predict the remainder of this thread, now that Timaeus is participating, to consist of distraction from actually facing what Stephen C. Meyer said and did in Cambridge summer 2012. If so, #2 and #57 in this thread offer direct challenges that no-one in the IDM has thus far confronted with satisfying defences for their 'natural-science-only' theory of Big-ID.Gregory
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Gregory your arrogance is astounding! "Christian-friendly pseudo-science in schools and American culture" Really, could your prejudice not be more transparent!bornagain77
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Gregory: You complained about a petty typing error in one of StephenB's posts. You said that it seemed "intentional or sloppy." (I hardly think that anyone would write "you're" for "your" intentionally!) I think that unless your own posts are error-free, you should let such trivial errors lie unmentioned. Many times your posts have contained typos, spelling errors, etc. For example, when you you misspelled the name of Denis Alexander, was that "intentional or sloppy"? And did you see StephenB complaining about it, or did he stick to the subject at hand?Timaeus
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
BA77: Though I could possibly appreciate your ID Movement zeal as if you have a cause worth defending (Christian-friendly pseudo-science in schools and American culture), obviously you are currently acting simply as a fanatical IDist who can't allow himself to even consider alternatives and don't yet seem to notice it or to care if you do. "if you say that only ‘natural science’ is true science" - BA77 Read my lips: "I do not say or think that only 'natural science' is true science." Please say this over and over again out loud to yourself while standing on your head TEN TIMES so that you will perhaps start to understand something instead of nothing. Stop putting words in my mouth and act with some integrity! That you appear to be simply incapable of understanding my position reveals why yours and others' IDist fantasies are so widely rejected by scientists, both Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic around the world today. Meyer seems to be aware of this, even if this video was in a faith-friendly venue for him. You speak of Judeo-Christian, BA77, but conveniently forget the Muslim contribution to 'modern science.' This shows how blind you are to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Here, start to get educated. You quote Bruce Gordon as if he is an authority to debunk legitimate criticism of Big-ID. I met Bruce Gordon and fully outworked him regarding Big-ID because he is simply not fit for PoS on a global scale, as capable as he is in physics, analytic philosophy, systematic theology and playing the piano. He is now teaching at a private Christian university in New York and no credible top-level university will likely hire him to teach Big-ID friendly PoS. You have a habit of drowning conversations with links and quotes, BA77. But you haven't displayed an answer to the very real challenges I raised to Meyer above in this thread. What is worse, you treat me condescendingly like an atheist, who rejects Big-ID because of that worldview. But the truth is that I am not an atheist, and I reject Big-ID because it is presumptuous and arrogant about the limits and possibilities of human knowledge, wanting to try to re-define ‘natural science’ to involve ‘intelligent causes’ when 40-60% university fields today already involve ‘intelligent causes’ in their scholarship. Humble yourself, bornagain77! You might learn something instead of peddling a regurgitated Big-ID party-line.Gregory
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
“Please show me how in blue blazes ‘natural science’ can even be practiced without theological presuppositions” - BA77 #78 Right. So Big-ID, aka 'Intelligent Design Theory' has theological presuppositions. Thanks for conceding that! It is rather obvious after all. Do you still seriously not understand how you are actually agreeing with my view that Big-ID is properly seen as a science, philosophy, theology discourse, and not just a 'natural science-only' affair?!?Gregory
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Gregory wrote: "Methinks Meyer is far too specialised and fixated on OoL to reach most people, compared with how broadly Fuller conceives of ID; not just nature in the distant past, but contemporary human insights, choices and innovations. Iow, Fuller’s independent scholar (non-Big-ID) view of ID is one that actually matters (or at least can matter) to most people." Since when is "reaching most people" the first concern of someone trying to communicate a new truth about nature? The results of Clerk Maxwell and Einstein certainly were not accessible to "most people" when first presented. I guess that Clerk Maxwell and Einstein were too "fixated" on calculus, matrices, etc. to enable "most people" to understand their work. Did that make their work a false interpretation of nature? Is that how we measure scientific truth now, by how easily accessible it is to the lazy and vulgar who won't take the time to learn some math and science before offering an opinion on mathematical and scientific matters? This "democratic" requirement of epistemology is something that I've not yet encountered in serious philosophy of science. I would be more interested in hearing Gregory's comments on the validity of Meyer's arguments than his protest that Meyer's method of argument is not "democratic" enough. (I would add, as one of those who has read Meyer's book all the way through -- something I believe Gregory has not done -- that Meyer goes out of his way to make some very difficult technical material in the life sciences accessible to as many people as possible. So the charge of "elitism" is not warranted in Meyer's case.)Timaeus
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Alan Fox wrote: "I’m an agnostic, Gregory." I'd say, based on observation of many of your arguments, that "agnostic" is too weak a word. I'd say that while you might be *formally* agnostic -- i.e., you don't take a firm public position one way or the other on the existence of God -- your private position is *de facto* atheistic; i.e., you think and reason and conduct your life *as if* God did not exist, and you put the onus on those who believe in God to alter this stance. A true agnostic would show much more openness than you do. A true agnostic would be reading as much Dostoevsky and Lewis and Chesterton and Augustine as Dawkins and Dennett and Coyne and Monod. A true agnostic would spend as much time on Christian blog sites as on skeptical and atheist ones. A true agnostic would spend a good deal of time reading the New Testament, and other religious texts from various traditions, wondering whether things in these texts might be true. So I don't accept your self-classification. I think that "agnostic" is the word you use to hide from others (and perhaps from yourself) a pretty hard-boiled *de facto* atheism. Alan Fox also wrote: "No-one here has said much to gainsay my opinion that pure philosophy has recently had much impact on the advancement of human society and knowledge." Actually, in two recent discussions here, people said a great deal, but much of what they said, you didn't respond to at all, and what you did respond to, you responded to with off-topic blathering about the French economic and educational systems. Then you abandoned those discussions. So you lost those discussions by default.Timaeus
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Here is the best explanation I can offer to those that don't get it, DNA is like a book, the cover is matter, the pages are matter, even the ink is matter, the words in the book however are not. There is nothing in the universe that can create the specified information in a book other than a mind, the same applies to the specified information contained in DNA, it does not consist of any matter.....Andre
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply