Reclaiming Design | The BioLogos Forum

So darwinists can refer to artificial selection to explain natural selection, bur the DI cannot reference human design to explain design in nature.

That’s just hypercriticism.

@joao @Gregory @Christy @johnZ

In other words, the science of Cryptology would be able to determine if Joao and Gregory are the same person, or not. Design can be empirically detected.

@piopo

I think it would allow you to talk about statistical likelihoods, not empirical proof. Hmmm, that sounds familiar…

1 Like

I moved a post to a new topic: Materialism, Meaning, and Purpose

@Christy

Ok, let it be. But also, it is interesting to note that you skillfully added some parameters which can eventually help to discern if Joao and Gregory are or are not the same person:

(1) tendency to use passive voice;
(2) pre-posed adverbial causes;
(3) rhetoric questions;
(4) some pretty sophisticated tools;
(5) pre-analysis of lexical categories.

Of course I am willing to consider that statistics may also play a role in the application of these five items but I really don’t know.

I wonder what an expert Crytographer would have to say about this case. Wouldn’t be surprised to get as an answer, “go ask the Linguist…” :wink:

“statistical likelihoods, not empirical proof. Hmmm, that sounds familiar…” @Christy & @piopio thanks for this - you’re cracking me up! :relaxed:

In case you weren’t around near the beginning of BioLogos Forum, when Gordon J. Glover was active here, these videos that he made offer some IDism humour & also this one - Design Detective2. I didn’t appreciate them as much then, but now they make me chuckle.

I wonder what algorithm the expert (IDD) Cryptographer will use to discover if an ‘intelligent cause’ was involved in our language at BioLogos. :passport_control:

I disagree. It was a significant discussion item.

However, a person wanting to portray two identities would make a valiant effort to display two styles of writing. But it would be more difficult to hide the personality behind the writing.

There’s not some intentionally vague “design” being detected here, piopio. We’re talking about who did something. If you want to claim that this is analogous to ID, you need to explain why everything stops at design and the identity of the designer(s), as well as how the design was implemented, are off limits.

Yes, you did, when you made your predictable and bombastic comments about what “ID says” or “ID affirms.”

You have set yourself as the sole arbiter of what is truly ID, who speaks for ID, etc.

And you went on for an entire page about Dover. No one is making you respond to anything.

Just so the record is clear, Eddie, do you really believe that IDists at the DI don’t equivocate over ‘varieties of design’?

If you want to be impressive as staying on-topic about ‘reclaiming design’, then it would help if you start talking about non-IDT examples of ‘design’, ‘design theories’ and/or ‘design arguments’. That’s when it’ll start to appear that you have interest to stay on-topic (and please stop writing lengthy posts on Wedge or Dover trial, even if provoked).

Also, a friendly suggestion: don’t tell BioLogos what it should do to incorporate “Intelligent Design” jargon into its approach. It is unbecoming and looks forced. And, it’s simply not going to happen. :wink:

“Nothing is stopping them from incorporating the word ‘design’ into their self-definition: they could call their position “EDDC” – “Evolutionary, Design-Driven Creationism.”” - Eddie

That sounds like something that might not catch on, just maybe not. Hmm…why not? Because it is clunky and looks awful to say. Perhaps that’s your most elevated vision of collaboration between BioLogos and the DI, Eddie. Trust me; it’s not very attractive to look at.

“The Discovery Institute has no legal monopoly on the English word ‘design.’ The problem, as I’ve pointed out, is that TE leaders…” - Eddie

That’s true, i.e. the DI has ‘no legal monopoly’ over the term. Check.

Yet the Discovery Institute has gone to great lengths (not only with PR, but with its Fellows) to capture the word ‘design’ for itself, to try to carve out a ‘design niche’ as a way of opposing (neo-)Darwinian evolutionary biology. Do you deny this, Eddie? (Niche construction, btw, a pretty cool idea which arose within the general evolutionary paradigm.)

Above I mentioned Dembski’s books, which conveniently left the ‘Intelligence’ out of the title. O’Leary equivocated about ‘varieties of design’ just a couple of days ago on ENV, referring to someone who is not a ‘design theorist,’ when she really should have said ‘not an IDist.’ This kind of stuff happens OFTEN in the DI’s communication strategy, by its Fellows and among IDists. ‘Just design’ is on intelligentdesign.org’s ‘About’ page, as well as Uncommon Descent’s. One only has to open their eyes to frankly and honestly admit the equivocation of ‘varieties of design’, which comes across as ‘claiming design’ for the IDM.

And let’s be clear. There are no such people as ‘TE/EC leaders,’ to be likened to the ‘DI leaders’ of the IDM. The latter fund the main texts and participate in the PR that distributes, agitates and drums up support from young people for IDism. People who endorse TE/EC [notice that TE/EC doesn’t do things by itself, Eddie] don’t need ‘leadership’ for a view that is so widely accepted, i.e. across the Catholic and Orthodox churches, and among many mainstream Protestant churches. They just try to do good, responsible science, if they are laypersons who are scientists. It really is an ‘evangelical thing’ historically where YECism and now IDism have mainly taken hold, and mostly (but not exclusively, of course), in one specific country: the USA.

“the representation that somehow ID people have monopolized the word ‘design’ and the concepts connected with it, so that TE/EC is [sic: people are] tongue-tied to express the idea of design, is simply a non-starter.” - Eddie

It simply doesn’t seem like evidence of equivocation and ‘claiming design’ by the DI is something that you like to admit in public, Eddie. But trust me, the evidence is there. And no, people who accept TE/EC do not appear ‘tongue-tied,’ but rather it seems to me they may be somewhat embarrassed by the fact that new ‘radical, revolutionary IDists!’ have come to the surface among them, especially in their evangelical churches. It’s probably a shock to try to deal with this occurrence, which actually plays out a bit like espionage, given the DI’s cloak and dagger tactics (which I’m privy to, having witnessed them inside the DI). Is trying to ‘claim design’ for their scientistic ideology of IDism while disrespecting or simply ignoring all of the other ‘varieties of design’ out there, as well as the sincere wishes of other theists, e.g. the theistic design argument, in any way wrong or embarrassing to IDists?

“There is a massive basis in the evangelical, Reformation tradition for seeing God as a designer. The avoidance of the term “design” and kindred words is therefore no religious necessity, but a deliberate TE/EC [sic: peoples’] habit, chosen entirely by the TE/EC leaders themselves, under no duress or compulsion.” - Eddie

A massive basis or a grossly exaggerated focus on ‘design/Design’ particularly by the IDM? Have you ever taken a pause in your pro-IDT strategies, Eddie, to consider that a preference to ‘avoid’ the term ‘design’ has basically been forced on people by the damaging deeds and attitudes of the DI and its IDM? Leaders around the world that I’ve met, both scholars and those in the Church, who are certainly not ‘Darwinists’ and many of whom think carefully through issues involving evolution and creation, origins and process of change over time, nature, culture, society, politics, religion, etc. have told me directly that ‘design’ has been unfortunately stained by the DI and IDM. Have you never met someone like that, Eddie?

If not, then maybe where you live the influence of YECists and now more recently IDists is not as obvious, serious or troubling as it is for people like Brad (and probably several others at BioLogos), whose story in this thread is quite intriguing. Is that even possibly true, perhaps based on location, Eddie? Please be charitable with the fact that others might just see and experience things differently than you and have a legitimate cause for concern among evangelicals that you don’t share.

As for ‘kindred words,’ whatever those are, I really do hope the IDM doesn’t stain them with its revolutionary ideology too!

“the good words are already used by movements opposed to our position. This puts us in an awkward spot.” – Brad (OP)

Yes, though ‘BioLogos’ is your key neologism. It demonstrates you are a ‘science & faith’ organisation upfront and openly, unlike the DI, which is secretive and ‘nuanced’ about it. If the DI finally came clean admitted IDT is a triadic ‘science, philosophy and theology/worldview’ topic first and foremost, it would lose much of its appeal among evangelicals (but might gain some surprising and curious things alongside).

“They can ‘reclaim’ design any time they want; all they have to is start expressing their Christian faith…” - Eddie

As I’ve said to you in the past, Eddie, which you’ve avoided without explanation; they don’t want ‘design’ for their own. They want it to not be abused by the DI and used as a backdoor apologetics attempt to trick people into conversion to the Christian faith with the appearance of a ‘scientific inference.’ By distinguishing ‘design argument’ from IDT, warning is made effectively against this.

“Go ahead, IDists, try to build IDT and discover the ‘proofs’ you seek ‘in nature’, the supposed empirical evidence (i.e. not just probabilities), if you want. But do not pretend to control or even speak for a theistic design argument within your ‘strictly natural science’.”

There has been no empirical proof offered about the when, where and how of the so-called “Intelligent Designing” ‘in nature’ by scientists. IDists express a passionate ideology that is actually just chasing shadows dressed up as ‘scientifically’ as possible. But then again, Eddie, as you’ve said here before at BioLogos, you personally don’t insist on the ‘scientificity’ of IDT, so you’re really not defending or properly representing the DI’s ‘strictly scientific theory,’ though you regularly write of what ‘ID says’ and ‘ID affirms.’

“if they are so eager to reclaim the word ‘design,’ they don’t just start using it as part of the description of their view of evolutionary creation.” - Eddie

Above I quoted a couple of BioLogos’ uses of the term ‘design’ in post #75. Did you miss that, Eddie? Sure, you can choose to avoid admitting they already use the term ‘design’ or admit it, then holler for them to use it more widely and aggressively than they already do. But let us be clear, and this is important: they are rightfully referring to ‘design argument’ and NOT IDT. BioLogos accepts ‘intelligent design,’ but rejects IDism. That seems to me a responsible, coherent and comprehensible position.

What more does one need to see that making a distinction between these two ‘varieties of design’ / ‘design arguments’ is both necessary and helpful and that the DI should thus finally accept that and publically acknowledge it? Do you think the DI ever will, Eddie? I sure hope Jantzen’s book can help in this endeavour. Thanks to Brad and Jim for bringing it up.

Besides, how far into absurdity do IDists want to go with design-centrism and design-obsession (leading to a kind of ‘Expelled Syndrome’): Do they wish to propose changing “This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it” into “This is the day that the Lord has designed, let us rejoice and be glad in it”? Please eventually get over the fact that BioLogos people are quite clearly not ‘obsessed’ or ‘so eager’ with over-using the term ‘design/Design’ like IDists are and consider if a healthier, more productive and balanced life may await you post-IDism.

That’s likely coming to the end of what I can say, suggest and hope for if Eddie simply won’t openly acknowledge the DI’s equivocation over ‘varieties of design’ here at BioLogos.

p.s. @Joao, in case it helps, I can confirm that the DI currently has no ‘explicit’ policy of getting IDT taught in schools. They walked that dog back, especially since Dover, but even a couple of years before it. What they certainly are very active in doing now, however, is getting IDT taught to home-schoolers, in church groups and at Sunday schools, e.g. with DI Press published textbook, workbook & DVD: “Discovering Intelligent Design” (2013). Not the same as the University of Chicago Press 1995 book “Discovering Design” eds. Richard Buchanan and Victor Margolin, which is, yet again, NOT an IDist book, but rather a book about other ‘varieties of design.’ What do you know; sometimes the DI gets it right to distinguish ‘design’ from ‘Intelligent Design.’ Let’s see more effort at that non-equivocation!

In case I missed it in the fog of e-communication, it seems to me that Christy and piopio were having some fun jokes with each other about IDism. It didn’t seem piopio was claiming “this is analogous to ID[T],” quite the contrary. Please correct me piopio if I misunderstood. But you are surely correct imo Joao about how you end that sentence as a critique of IDism. Their answer up 'til now is simply: minimalism. Funny things, those claims to ‘minimalist revolutions!’ :wink:

Yes. Have you? And have you looked at the relevant data for yourself, or do you limit yourself to textual analysis?

Varieties of design: Design personality. Design couple. Design fraternity. “Designer Guys” and “Design Rivals”. Design series. Design eyes. Design world.

Perhaps Eddie wasn’t aware of this television show so awareness of those ‘varieties of design’ continue to elude him.

NONE of those ‘design’ uses has to do with supposedly strictly scientific ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ (or whether or not the new USA SSM law was ‘intelligently designed’; it was already ‘designed’ & ‘created’ in Canada a decade ago).

RIP designer Chris Hyndman.

[quote=“Eddie, post:173, topic:746”]
I have not set myself up as the sole arbiter of what is truly ID. I merely report what Discovery says and what is in the writings of the ID leaders. I am acting as middle man here, not as arbiter. I am explaining what ID means for the benefit of outsiders (TEs and atheists).[/quote]
That’s an explicit claim to being the final arbiter! If you were modest, you would qualify it by writing “what I think ID means.”

[quote]There are a few within the TE community who have a good idea what ID is about (Ted Davis is one), but by and large statements of TE leaders about ID are flawed in one or more respects. When that happens, I speak up.
[/quote]That’s just another admission that you hold yourself up as the final arbiter of what ID is, and far worse, what “ID says” or “ID affirms.” That’s what those inaccurate grammatical constructs mean–that you have decided what ID is.