Reclaiming Design | The BioLogos Forum

[Joao]

@Eddie

The Discovery Institute never endorsed the action of the Dover School Board…[/quote]
But YOUR leading lights of ID did.

Third, while some DI personnel were involved in the trial, that was to defend ID as an intellectual project,…

As science, Eddie. Which they utterly failed to do. In fact, Behe’s testimony showed that ID isn’t science.

…what we are talking about here, which is what ID’s theoretical (not political) position is.

ID is not a person, so it cannot have a theoretical or political position.

One can know what Einstein’s theory of general relativity is, without knowing whether the Institute for Advanced Research has called for Einstein’s theory to be mandated in senior physics class.

Einstein was a person. ID is not. You do not speak for ID. Get it?

I claimed only to understand what they mean by “intelligent design.”

It means different things in different contexts to them.

If I say anything here that is false about ID, the people at the Discovery Institute are free to correct me. They monitor BioLogos regularly and if I were saying anything incorrect, I am sure they would rap my knuckles in public.

Right…the way they rapped the knuckles of Behe and Minnich for trying to defend Dover. They didn’t, so your claim is hard to believe.

…on the Discovery site and on other ID sites, you will find endless complaints of exactly the type I have made, that various critics of ID – including Francis Collins, Ken Miller, Darrel Falk, Karl Giberson, Alister McGrath, and many others – have misunderstood or misrepresented the ID position.

There is no single ID position. It varies.

You won’t find any difference between my general position and the definition of ID set forth in such statements.

Do you agree with the Wedge Document?

I maintain that the ID people themselves get to define their own position – BioLogos doesn’t get to define it for them. Nor does the NCSE, nor Jerry Coyne, nor Ken Miller, nor Feser, nor Beckwith, nor McGrath, etc.

You don’t seem to grasp my simple point, which is that YOU don’t get to define it for them either.

So the first responsibility of anyone who wants to criticize ID is to find out what ID people mean by ID, from ID sources. I’ve done my homework in that regard.

Behe claims that new binding sites are a barrier to evolution. How many binding sites differ between humans and chimps, Eddie?

[quote]Indeed, what is to stop BioLogos from inviting John West or some other ID worthy from publishing a column here on BioLogos: “What Does ID Affirm, and What Does ID Not Affirm?”

It would be a short column, simply “ID can’t affirm anything, as it is not a person.”

[Joao]

And what did you think of the testimony and decision, Brad?

[Joao]

@Eddie

I add that Alister McGrath also has displayed lack of understanding of the ID position.

There is no single ID position.

[Joao]

@dcscccc

there is no such hierarchy in the phylogeny field.

There’s still plenty of hierarchy. You should try studying it more deeply before making such sweeping claims.

[Gregory]

@Eddie

A Pyrrhic victory, to be sure.

To be sure? That appears to be an uninformed opinion; no more, no less. ‘Pretty much in decline’ seems more accurate according to data.

[johnZ]

Okay, I think there is a continuum of elementary observation about design towards a more sophisticated evaluation of intelligent design, and there is not an absolute distinction. I will say no more about this.

[johnZ]

And, as an aside, does anyone else note the great similarity between Joao and Gregory in manner of comment? Perhaps this is an example of convergent evolution… or dual identity?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@johnZ

And, as an aside, does anyone else note the great similarity between Joao and Gregory in manner of comment? Perhaps this is an example of convergent evolution… or dual identity?

What great similarity? That they share some opinions?

Joao is a multi-quoter extraordinaire and responds in short, succinct sentences. Gregory responds in paragraphs and puts his main points in bold and sometimes uses smilies. As a linguist, I think they are very distinct computer mediated discourse styles. I think its time for you to binge-watch Elementary on Netflix.

[Mohammad_Nur_Syamsu]

The mechanism of creation and design is choosing. You should ask yourself the question how can it be that while in daily life we have no problem to talk in terms of choosing things, that the wiki on free will is still a mess of contradictory points of view?

It makes no sense, that we have no problem to talk in terms of choosing means we all basically use the same understanding, and there should be no mess of contradictory points of view on the wiki.

Why does the wiki on free will not simply state the logic that we use in daily life when we talk in terms of choosing, and then goes on to link to more sophisticated ways of choosing like intelligent design?

The explanation for this is actually orginal sin. How it works is people on their own instinctively start to conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result, using the facts about what is good and evil as sorting criteria. To assert what is good and evil as fact, in stead of opinion, is the proverbial eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

What happens when people start to define choosing in such a way, is that then every time they made a decision, then the definition of choosing they use says they did the best. You can see it in the logic, if choosing is taken to mean to sort out the best result, then making a decision must mean to do the best. That way every time they made a decision, their ego get’s a boost. Drugs are released in the brain, to boost the ego. People get addicted to the drugs.

Also when people did not do the best, then the definition of choosing they use says, that they did not choose it. So it must have been an accident or a mistake or something, not their fault.

What more could anybody want, a super-ego, and no guilt for anything whatsoever. Original sin is an enormously powerful psychological mechanism.

So if you think opposition to intelligent design theory is based on academic reasoning, then you are totally of course. Like any drug addict the ego-boosters will just say whatever works to be rid of it. Then you are basically trying to cure a drug addiction with academic reasoning, it can never work.

[piopio]

@Christy

I fear that you probably missed the point of what John was trying to express. What I see in his last words is just the manifestation of his frustration for not been able to come to terms with Joao and Gregory in basically any fundamental aspect of the debate. That’s all, I think.

Unfortunately, it seems that this frustrating tendency will still be the same, unless some EC participants begin to pay concentrated attention to less radical views within BioLogos.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Eddie

The place has greatly improved, and for that I give credit to Jim and Brad, who have made it clear that there will no longer be a double standard of politeness. The person who used to call people cowards, liars, hypocrites, and violators of the commandment has come back from his last ban (probably unbeknownst to the moderators) under a new pseudonym, but is now carefully restraining himself. That’s a sign that Jim and Brad have done a good job.

I just wanted to agree that I appreciate the moderation here too. I comment fairly regularly on the Evangelical channel on Patheos and on the CT blogs and I am also fairly regularly insulted (often in pretty gender-specific ways) and condemned to hell. I have appreciated the spirited and intelligent conversation that results when people know they are expected to follow some basic rules of civility.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@piopio

I fear that you probably missed the point of what John was trying to express. What I see in his last words is just the manifestation of his frustration for not been able to come to terms with Joao and Gregory in basically any fundamental aspect of the debate. That’s all, I think.

Okay. I thought maybe his inner Sherlock was being deprived of adequate stimulation. It happens to me sometimes.

[Mohammad_Nur_Syamsu]

What about the “DNA worlds” theory

The mathematical ordering of the DNA system is the same as that of the physical universe.

That means that:

• the dna system is like a computersimulation, a world in it’s own right

• there are 3D (holographic) representations in this DNA world. The 3D representation of the adult organsim guides the development of the physical organism to adulthood.

• all that non-coding DNA, it is lots of other stuff in the DNA world, such as representations of the sun and moon, copied directly from the sun and moon itself.

• in this DNA world representations of fully functional adult organisms are chosen as a whole.

That is my interpretation of theory mainly by Peter Rowlands. Also Bernard Diaz, Vanessa Hill, Daniel Dubois, Peter Marcer, Edwina Taborsky,

picture from:

Natures Code

The basis of this theory is the theory of everything, and the theory of everything is basically just mathematics as it is, but then ordered by the zero. Creatio ex nihilo, and, ex nihilo, nihilo fit. Creation from nothing and from nothing comes nothing. Which means, the totality of the universe can only be zero. For example an action has an equal and opposite reaction, making a total of nothing. So one can have something, action and reaction, but still have nothing in total.

[johnZ]

Very distinct computer generated discourse styles?