To Capitalize or Not to Capitalize? ID Theory vs. BioLogos

Faith & Science Conversation
53

I’m with Christy, 'cept now it’s 43 posts.

I’ll let readers of the thread decide for themselves if I am flailing.

You answered yourself about BioLogos. Regarding Rana, he clearly identifies who he thinks the Designer is because RTB uses that as part of their Creation Model.

Your posts contain no specific examples from someone at the DI where the opposite case is called for. All this about “style guides” and “double talking” is ad hominem and non-specific. It could be that there are good examples out there of the point you are trying to make, but I’d like to see one we could debate.

Nonetheless the DI logic seems simple to me: on this thread a Muslim has agreed that id arguments are valid, yet would not agree with many at the DI about the identity of the designer. So apparently some people conclude there is a designer, then separately and from other data form an opinion about the identity of said Designer (hopefully using your capitalization).

54

MAKE THAT44 POSTS. HERE’S A WAY TO SOLVE THE CAPITALIZATION PROBLEMS.

3 Likes
55

I never heard of QANON, but there seems to be evidence of some Satanists eating babies according to the former FBI special agent Ted Gunderson In Charge and head of the Los Angeles FBI .

You can’t blame people for coming up with conspiracy theories when Government officials in the US show evidence of the existence of Satanists in high places.

What I do know however is that there is an inhumane subculture, worldwide. Inhumane meaning they have no conscience and no empathy and they do harm others around them in relationships, though I don’t know of any that do obvious ritualistic damage. I would estimate that there are around 1.5 billion of them judging on the disease figures.

I don’t submit God to any theory and I certainly don’t put God to the test of any sort. I am primarily a conscious being and a lover of The Beloved, God. Loves may come and loves may go, but the One Love forever flows.

Now, I have various hats and sure I have a scientific hat. With that hat on, one can see evidence that points to creation of the material world and everything in it, including every living form.

I don’t try to explain it as evolutionary in nature. What I am seeing is atheist scientists have come up with a theory that suits atheism and is trying to sell it to Christians and other theists. So they are trying to make a case of “look there was a little bit of nothing that exploded and condensed to become physical matter. The physical matter self organized and became living. And having random mutations, the odds are that some are going to make sense and be useful so are naturally selected. And that is the way God chose to do it.” So it suits science and accommodates theism for those who want a foot in both camp, i.e., evolutionary theory and theism.

The DI however are not prepared to do the hard yakka to show the matter of Intelligent Design. Maybe that is why they avoid the caps, IDK. I wrote to them a few years back but they didn’t answer. It is dangerous business though, so I can’t blame them. Thus, they are pointing to a few things, but nothing that is substantial.

Blasphemy is when someone tries to misrepresent God. Seeing evidence in God’s creation for the fact that God created everything including the human and animals is hardly blasphemy.

ID can be a scientific theory if the research was done properly and not just pointing here and there.

“cdesign proponentsists” appears to be c[reation]design proponentists, so maybe they are trying to get creationism taught in schools. BUT on the flip side it is also true that big pharma (the real outlier) has a heavy hand in what is taught and what is not taught. People are given to believe that they are meat robots, machines that can only be either damaged or malfunction. This facilitates the notion that they need fixing. And of course often “fixing” means “make permanent”, most commonly in psychiatry but not only. So the drug river flows. This is issue is mega and one that the DI could address but it doesn’t seem to have… “what it takes”. The day is soon to come when people realize the power they have in their hot little hands when they are prepared to take, even a sideways look, at what is implied by creationism. They may be able to take control of their own health.

Al-Ghazali essentially said that nothing is caused by natural causes as in the interactions of the physical objects. He said that as far as the physical world is concerned God is the sole cause of everything . Now he attributed this phenomenon to the notion that “God is rational”, but it would be better to see that God has given the source of the physical, which is information, rules or meaning. You can see that physicists like Leonardo Susskind of Stanford University acknowledges that all is made from information, but he is trying to make a case for the information to be physical.

Al-Ghazali also said that all interactions between mind and body are mediated by God. And certainly this has been misinterpreted by many people and no only Westerners.

And here there is a parallel between ID and occasionalism, if the full implications are considered. It is a shame that the DI are not interested. I think to some extent you are right that they are trying to push theistic science. May they don’t appreciate the full implications of creationism or maybe they have a narrow minded agenda.

I will try and give you a parallel, from my own understanding of occasionalism using the example of virtual reality. Say you have been able to create a virtual world and some characters in it, to whom you have been able to give consciousness. Some of those characters will see and study the objects around them in the virtual world and find that they obey certain laws. However, others will realize that the interactions of those objects and the laws that can be discovered dictating how they act/ react are not due to the objects themselves. The objects and the way they interact are at their source, information. And more than that the information has been given meaning or conditions in the program that created the virtual world. So the reactions seen are governed by the information and its conditions in the program.

Similarly God created the universe(s) from the relevant information that exists, from the infinite source of information, in The Mind of God and has given that information meaning or set of rules if you will. This happens when God upholds the information in the Divine Consciousness. We cannot define what is “Mind” so I have represented it as a point in my illustration below.
Mind of God

Some of the evidence comes when one realizes that one can toggle that information, i.e., set conditions or directives to the Universe. I have many example, if you want I can share some of them with you.

Where Intelligent Design is considered, as per the DI, is with respect to living organisms. This is the second condition of Al-Ghazali. That is that God control the interactions between mind and body. The “mind” though has a cap, i.e., “Mind”. Science has tried to justify the many minds theory, but not only can no evidence be shown for it, there is stark evidence to be seen for a One Mind or The Mind of God as the physicist Paul Davies has attempted to explain.

The basis is the same as for the natural world, but in a living organism the rules that govern it give it also involve the conscious being that inhabits the body or is connected to the body. The conscious being is a co-creator. So while God handles the “house-keeping tasks”, the conscious being can brings about changes when reacting to ideas or more correctly ideas that are upheld as real or true, i.e., beliefs. So for instance if a danger is perceived and the conscious being reacts with fear, this in effect raises the metabolism to a high level.

Where I see people misunderstanding occasionalism is when they try an attribute all actions between Mind (information with meaning) and body (created form arising from that information). So you hear people say that God caused them to have cancer or heart disease etc. This is not so. And I have seen that it is not only Westerners, but also some Muslims / Easterners that have interpreted occasionalism in this way.

True it is that Al-Ghazali was very influential, however the downfall of the Golden Age of Islam was due to the Mongols invaded of Baghdad. Baghdad was the intellectual centre and the cultural centre of the Islamic world. And the Mongols killed millions and destroyed many books.

The books I have read were from a library of a Sufi group in Sydney that I had attended some thirty or more years ago. I don’t recall any of these books well enough as to recommend, sorry.

56

“Regarding Rana, he clearly identifies who he thinks the Designer is because RTB uses that as part of their Creation Model.”

Yes, this distinguishes the Discovery Institute’s “intelligent design” theory from RTB’s “Intelligent Design” theory. This isn’t complicated notation for you, right? The “Creation model” is not “strictly scientific”, but intertwines with Scripture. The DI’s “ID theory” explicitly rejects dependence or reference to Scripture. We’re in agreement about this interpretation, are we not?

“Your posts contain no specific examples from someone at the DI where the opposite case is called for. All this about “style guides” and “double talking” is ad hominem and non-specific. It could be that there are good examples out there of the point you are trying to make, but I’d like to see one we could debate.”

I listed a whole bunch of books & authors who do this. Please excuse if I’m not impressed with what your posts don’t contain either. The double talking by DI fellows is quite easy and voluminous to point out. E.g. Dembski wrote in 1998, “Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” Not stated in the “strictly scientific” version of ID theory, but behind it’s “conceptualization” nonetheless, right?

Notice the capitalization of “Logos”, but not “intelligent design”? What is your explanation for this, rather than merely avoiding and failing to address it (which does make some sense given the "different’ missions of RTB & the DI, right)? So you have a positive explanation to offer?

“Nonetheless the DI logic seems simple to me: on this thread a Muslim has agreed that id arguments are valid, yet would not agree with many at the DI about the identity of the designer.”

The “DI logic” requires double talking. There is simply no way around this because (in their own words) there are “two theories of intelligent design”; one about human designers’ “designs” → creations, and one about Divine Design → Creation. The identity of the Divine Designer is not a topic “normally” addressed within “strictly natural sciences”. Are we not agreed on that?

“So apparently some people conclude there is a designer, then separately and from other data form an opinion about the identity of said Designer (hopefully using your capitalization).”

Are you serious? It would seem you are suggesting that @Ani99 used a “strictly natural scientific theory” to first “conclude there is a [super- or extra-natural] Designer”, and only then connected it with his or her religious belief in God as Creator? Wow, that’s a presumptive proposition! Usually, indeed, almost always, it happens in the other direction; first a person believes in God, and then thinks to themselves (if they don’t have better advice available to them), here’s a “strictly natural scientific theory” that bolsters my apologetics case for God’s existence, so I will use it even if “the physical instantiation of unembodied Intelligent Design has not yet been scientifically verified”.

For RTB, which you apparently represent, there is no need to insist that ID theory is “strictly scientific”. For the DI, they cannot let go of that requirement, otherwise their movement would collapse. That puts them into a much more difficult position re: capitalization than you and Rana face at RTB. Does this help to clarify some of the context around “the capitalization issue” involving ID theory?

Regarding the term “BioLogos”, it’s curious that even one or two Moderators at BioLogos sometimes forget to or simply don’t capitalize the “L”, whether intentionally or accidentally. As for me, it seems respectful to simply follow Francis Collins’ rationale, as quoted above, which does make sense. Likewise, the fact that Collins himself capitalizes “Intelligent Design” in TLoG should be much more interesting for people here in making a linguistic clarification, than the two+ doubters so far on this thread seem to allow (low tolerance for linguistic clarification?). Some realize the meaning and significance of diminutizing a Divine Name, and take it more seriously than others who are rather “loose” in their embrace of the historical linguistic tradition of the Christian Church.

The problem with the DI is that it has never explicitly stated its “style sheet” rationale. Denyse’ words about this are the first I’ve seen from someone deeply embedded in the DI’s messaging system. Her answer is unsatisfactory, then she avoided further addressing it. Yet the DI stating openly and publicly its rationale on non-capitalization of “ID theory” would be the best possible result for the most people involved.

You have every right to say “so what?”. But please don’t make the capitalization issue about yourself by trying to derail a thread that simply follows the same distinction made by BioLogos’ president as quoted in the OP, as if I’m suggesting something devious here. The deviance is displayed in the DI’s policy of double talking without explaining their rationale for doing so. Should they publicly explain their “style sheet” about this, all doubt and controversy over capitalization would then cease.

Again, Marty, you could make a contribution instead of only criticizing, by requesting such a statement from Fuz and Hugh at RTB. Their clarification on how RTB’s capitalization policy does indeed differ markedly from the DI’s non-capitalization policy, would make a helpful contribution. Would you consider saying an “Amen” with me about that, as a gesture to help, rather than constrain?

1 Like
57

Thanks for your reply. I’ll come back to this later…

1 Like
58

4 times in the recent 2 posts above you wrote the term “Biologos”, which isn’t a proper name, since it wasn’t a term coined by Francis Collins. Just curious, is it intentional? Why don’t you capitalize BioLogos with a capital “L”, Merv, since you’re a Moderator at BioLogos?

The reason I ask is because you just tried to rain on another thread, where capitalization is being discussed. There you wrote (shouted): “HERE’S A WAY TO SOLVE THE CAPITALIZATION PROBLEMS.”

Please forgive, Merv, if somehow this is a personally sensitive issue to you. Just trying to understand how or why a Moderator at BioLogos has a consistent pattern of not capitalizing the term that Collins specifically coined with a capital “L”. Thanks for help in understanding.

59

Folks, I’ve asked Merv in another thread, but the same question holds here, already asked in the OP’s title. For Merv, this isn’t about “Intelligent Design” theory at all. The question is instead: To capitalize or not to capitalize the “L” in BioLogos as Collins wrote it? Can Merv solve his own capitalization problems?

Again, for me it is very simple, and I’m trying to be respectful in communication. It may be strange, but I just write the word Collins chose, instead of refusing to respect his rationale for capitalizing the “L”. The reason I ask is because Merv seems to prefer writing in a way that doesn’t respect the neologist’s formulation, and I’m curious why that is.

60

The above post of Gregory’s originated in the “Lies of AiG” thread and refers to my post there, but I’ve moved his reply here.

No - Gregory, I’m not sensitive about this at all. I think only you are. I’m just hammering out another message entirely and gave no thought whatsoever to how I typed BioLogos.

2 Likes
61

“I think only you are.”

No, sorry, that would be simply false.

Merv, please play fair. Both Deborah Haarsma and Christy Hemphill are on “OUR” side - the people who believe it’s important to capitalize “Intelligent Design”, not on your lonely irregular non-capitalization style.

You, Merv, are the ONLY one here at BioLogos to intentionally NOT capitalize the “L” in BioLogos. Are you not aware of that? I’m just wondering, since it must be intentionally (4 times back-to-back in 2 posts), what is your rationale for that style of yours, which NO ONE ELSE here follows?

Gracious thanks for finally sharing an explanation of your own personal “style sheet” with us!

62

Fair enough - and I do want to be correct about it and not promote confusion (especially for people of other languages who have been misled by this). I think I got all my instances of it corrected in the posts you were referring to. Like I said … this isn’t a big issue for me either way, so I’m happy to try to correct my own habits on this in such a way that you can begin to concentrate on the more important things we need to be focusing on.

1 Like
63

“I do want to be correct about it and not promote confusion”

Glad for your desire to be correct and not promote confusion through intentional non-capitalization.

“I’m happy to try to correct my own habits on this”

Your regular and consistent capitalization of the “L” in “BioLogos” will be enough.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with me, Merv, only with your former “style sheet” that did not follow Collins’ “style sheet”. This is a thread about “style sheets”, after all, so thanks for revealing that yours got the capitalization wrong re: “BioLogos” and that you will now seek to intentionally correct your style sheet to join the rest of us … and Collins himself.

That’s progress in communication! :pray: Thanks, Merv.

64

Yes, much work is needed to correct the failings of young earth creationism and the “pastors” who still promote YECism in the USA. This will surely be helped by proper use of terms so that everyone can be on the same page communicatively. “Biologos” means absolutely nothing - it’s a simple misnomer; “BioLogos” has meaning as Francis Collins invested it with meaning.

65

Don’t drag me into this. There is clearly a difference between published material that goes through an editorial process and is subject to a style sheet and an internet forum where people are tapping out informal responses, sometimes on phones. I’m never going to make a big deal about the occasional god, bible, or biologos that shows up. Thinking such a thing represents some kind of conscious life choice or ideology is warped.

4 Likes
66

“Thinking such a thing represents some kind of conscious life choice or ideology is warped.”

Just simple pattern recognition actually. 4 times non-capitalization of “L” in BioLogos in 2 back-to-back posts made it simple to see there must be something intentional involved in the non-capitalization. My hunch turned out to be accurate, so obviously it wasn’t “warped.” Thankfully, Merv has accepted the correction. Your quote from the OP already “dragged” you into it, and your clarification up thread was helpful, so there’s no need to feel defensive. An error is an error; now admitted, can improve communication, while showing respect to Collins’ neologism. That’s enough & good too. Thanks.

67

I’m not feeling defensive. I’m refusing to participate in what appears to me as being annoyingly pedantic, not some noble effort to improve communication. No one is confused when people type Biologos. Deciding that missing the capital L means the typist is refusing to respect God as the creator (or Creator, don’t yell at me) is silliness. And if the ID movement doesn’t want to capitalize intelligent design, that’s their choice.

2 Likes
68

No. You continue to get this wrong. Please accept the correction yourself. There was nothing intentional about my choice to capitalize or not in my original posts. I only changed them at your insistence. No intentionality whatsoever. None. Repeat that with me. None!

1 Like
69

“I’m refusing to participate”

Ok, thank you.

“No one is confused when people type Biologos.”

It’s just not an actual word. Nobody coined that term. Collins coined “BioLogos”. He explained why he used a capital “L”. I respect his choice. That’s enough and nothing more is needed.

“if the ID movement doesn’t want to capitalize intelligent design, that’s their choice.”

Yes, of course. Likewise, if W.L. Craig, Deb Haarsma, myself, and a bunch of others “want to capitalize Intelligent Design”, that’s our choice. This is a thread that addresses why the difference matters.

70

Sure, ok, then I must be wrong Merv. I don’t have a problem admitting it. After all, I don’t have access to your rationale for regularly using “Biologos” instead of “BioLogos”, that’s why I was asking you for it.

You wrote: “Fair enough - and I do want to be correct about it and not promote confusion.”

It is indeed “fair enough” to simply use the term that Collins coined. What else is needed for “gracious” dialogue than that?

71

Sure. And there are rules about the proper use of who and whom. And you aren’t supposed to capitalize Gospel unless you are referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. But when it comes to grammar and orthography conventions, people don’t do what they are “supposed to” all the time, and most of the time it has absolutely no effect on communicating well. So, it’s good to ask oneself, is this an issue where communication is actually being hindered by not following a convention? Or am I just being an obnoxious grammar Nazi? The stuff about DI’s style sheet is interesting trivia. But their choosing not to capitalize intelligent design is not really leading to mass confusion anywhere. Neither is a lowercase L in BioLogos. I hope knowing that you are the most technically correct person gives you a sense of joy and satisfaction that outweighs the social capital this thread is costing you, because I guarantee most people are just rolling their eyes at this point when you go on about capitalization and how you are better than everyone.

1 Like
72

“you are better than everyone”.

Not hardly. Sorry to disappoint you, but that’s just unfortunate projection.

Francis Collins is the decorated natural scientist here, right? He coined “BioLogos”. Merv was simply wrong to keep spelling it a different way than Collins intended. Does that make him “worse”, or just now corrected? My humble apology if you are offended by correction of your colleague’s spelling.

As for social capital, the key point of this OP is quite consistent with whatever “social capital” BioLogos has among evangelicals, so that’s obviously not an issue here:

“When capitalized, however, ‘Intelligent Design’ refers to a more particular set of views and arguments as exemplified by the work of the Discovery Institute.” – Deborah Haarsma (Reviewing “Darwin’s Doubt”: Introduction - BioLogos)

As well as with the leading donor of the Discovery Institute.

“All Christians believe in intelligent design with a small ‘i’ and a small ‘d,’ though they have every right to critique the particular theory called intelligent design.” – Howard Ahmanson (Am I an Occasionalist? Christian Philosophy and Intelligent Design | Evolution News)

Their clarification and warning means enough to take seriously. And the many other people who recognize the importance of distinguishing “Intelligent Design” from “intelligent design” in written form validate that it makes sense to do so. No one is forced, but it does make sense and helps in communication, especially given the DI’s repeated demand that ID theory is “strictly scientific”. If it’s about “Intelligent Design” using a Divine Name, then obviously ID theory about God/Designer violates standard meanings of “natural science” theories.