Allow me to translate Eddies response to you:
Yes Faizal, but, to my mind ID is good theology.
There.
2 Likes
No, I jumped in to talk about a direct and explicit claim that you made. Do you need to be reminded of what you said? Here it is:
Since you think ID is very bad as science, it follows from this claim that you think it is very bad as theology, and in fact, âthinkâ is too weak, since this sentence openly charges ID with being bad at theology. And youâve failed to defend that claim.
Which is not at all surprising, since in order to defend it, you would have to know what âgood theologyâ is, and based upon your years of commenting here, I would say you do not know enough about theology to articulate that. But you can prove me wrong by demonstrating some knowledge of one or more theological traditions, and explaining how IDâs supposed theology fails in relation to that or those traditions. Iâll keep an open mind, but given that you have avoided defending your claim for a few days now, and have resorted to caviling and excuse-making to justify the avoidance, itâs unlikely you will provide an answer. The most natural inference from your silence is that you cannot defend your claim, and thatâs the inference I will draw.
No, I neither said nor implied that ID was good theology. In fact, I did not even concede that ID offers any theology. In fact, ID per se, as opposed to the private views of ID proponents, does not have a theology, though its insights are potentially theology-friendly.
I am not trying to prove that ID is good theology. The claim on the table, which I did not put there, is that ID is bad theology. No one here has proved that ID is bad theology. A few people have expressed a personal dislike of what they take to be ID theology, but their opinion of what is good or bad theology, being based purely on personal preferences and not on any theological tradition, is of no public consequence.
The only criticism of âID theologyâ that could potentially hurt ID, in terms of public relations, would be a criticism coming from the representatives of major religious organizations or from major theologians from the most historically important religious traditions. If the Pope said that ID was bad theology, that would hurt. If some âConference of American Orthodox Jewish Rabbisâ were to say that ID was bad theology, that would hurt.
The only people who have come close to actually hurting ID with the charge of bad theology are certain Thomist thinkers (who, unlike the Protestant scientists at BioLogos and in the ASA, actually know something about theology), and even in that case, their charges have not done fatal damage, since in most cases these are Thomist philosophers, not theologians, who have no teaching magisterium in theology and no official capacity to speak for Rome on doctrine; further, they have been shown to be in error in some of the claims they make about the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, and nailed to the wall by Vincent Torley and Michael Chaberek, who have provided unambiguous passages from Aquinas which destroy some of their central claims. So when someone like Feser, a good philosopher (most of the time) who can think rings around the Francis Collinses and the Ken Millers and Deb Haarsmas of the world, with their kindergarten versions of Christian theology, finds that all his bullets bounce off ID chests, ID does not need to be very worried about charges of bad theology coming from lay Christian quarters, and still less does it need to be worried about charges of bad theology coming from the atheists on Peaceful Science, who know even less (if thatâs possible) about theology than the aforementioned TE/ECs.
Of course, Faizal Ali always has the opportunity to prove me wrong, by stepping in with a devastating demonstration of his charge of bad theology, but I think you and I both know he isnât likely to ever do so.
1 Like
Hi John
Our ability to discover is evidence that the universe was created this way for a reason. The amount of evidence for discoverability is the strength of the argument. The more evidence the less likely that chance is the cause.
This argument that @vjtorley made years ago I think makes sense of not only the discoverability hypothesis but also many theological challenges such as suffering in the world. To make technological progress you not only need discoverability you need problems to solve.
1 Like
Unsupported assertion, again.
2 Likes
You seem quite confused.
ID is bad theology by its definition, as design represents a human division of labor that would be irrelevant to any omnipotent being. AFAIK design isnât mentioned in the Bible or any other holy book.
The Wedge Document says otherwise.
BTW, have you noticed that you admit that ID is not science when you go off about ID as an entity? Itâs clearly a pseudoscientific political entity, which you are implicitly admitting constantly by using political rhetorical forms.
Hereâs an experiment: letâs remove overt references to evolution and substitute âneuroscienceâ for âIDâ in some of your sentences:
In fact, neuroscience per se , as opposed to the private views of neuroscience proponents, does not have a theology, though its insights are potentially theology-friendly.
I think that even you would agree (although probably not publicly) that the substituted sentence is gibberish in any scientific context.
So when someone like Feser, a good philosopher (most of the time) who can think rings around the Francis Collinses and the Ken Millers and Deb Haarsmas of the world, with their kindergarten versions of Christian theology, finds that all his bullets bounce off neuroscience chests, neuroscience does not need to be very worriedâŚ
More gibberish in a scientific context. I do find your devotion to violent imagery, though, expected from someone who views himself/herself as a Culture Warrior.
Unlike neuroscience, ID has no insights. If you really thought it did, you would mention them. The very premise of ID, design, ablates any coherent concept of any omnipotent deity, as design represents a division of human effort. Thatâs not friendly to most theologies.
And who are the Hindu IDers you claim exist? They might be more theologically interesting.
4 Likes
The claim is the universe was designed for discoverability. The evidence is the different contents of the universe that are discoverable and make it discoverable.
Why is this an unsupported assertion?
The claim arose with respect to a specific theological argument made by ID Creationists. If you think the claim is unjustified, you are quite welcome to try demonstrate that this argument is actually a good theological argument.
1 Like
Consider this. Suppose I claimed that bananas were designed to fit in your hand. My evidence is that they do indeed fit in your hand. Would that be convincing?
5 Likes
Your initial claim is unsupported because there is no evidence the universe was designed by any conscious entity at all. You may as well claim:
âAn Intelligent Designer created the blue sky. The evidence in the sky is blueâ.
I was hoping to win a prize for being the 10,000th person to explain this to you in the last ten years. 
3 Likes
I donât find this compelling at all. While a discoverable universe is expected on the proposition that it was designed to be discoverable, itâs also expected on the proposition that the universe just accidentally happens to be discoverable. Thereâs nothing about this particular piece of evidence that leads me to think a designer was involved.
2 Likes
Nice try, but you did not write:
âThis particular theological argument made by an ID proponent (or by some ID proponents) is bad theology.â
You wrote:
You were writing about ID generally, not about particular arguments of particular ID proponents.
To defend the claim, you have to show that ID generally makes bad theological arguments. You havenât done that.
Iâm past expecting that you will ever defend your statement as written. My protest has been merely to record that you have provided nothing but assertion, without evidence or argument. If you arenât going to provide evidence or argument, donât bother replying with further evasions â just cease replying. It will save us both any further waste of time.
No, Eddie, the claim isnât about ID arguments. Itâs about the root concept of ID.
BTW, can you imagine anyone writing about âneuroscience argumentsâ?
You demonstrate that ID is pseudoscience with every post. You canât help it.
2 Likes
Alternatively, hands were designed to hold bananas, the evidence being that hands can indeed hold bananas.
This ID logic is fun!
3 Likes
I humbly suggest you familiarize yourself with how human communication is customarily conducted. If I am engaging in a conversation with a friend about a mutual acquaintance and say âWell, you know, that guy is always going off on long, verbose, off topic tangents to try and impress strangers with how educated he is,â and my friend nods in agreement, nothing more needs to be said.
And if someone overhears our conversation and then jumps in with demands that I substantiate my characterization with specific examples, Iâm really not obliged to comply. His personal opinion on the matter is, in all likelihood, of no interest to me as he was not part of the initial conversation.
3 Likes
Whoa! You are writing as if I interrupted a private conversation! This is a group conversation, and anyone registered here can legitimately join in the conversation. It is standard practice on this site for Person A to be talking to Person B, and Person C throws in some comments or objections. Itâs done to me all the time. For example, as I have been trying to get an answer out of you, Mercer has butted in with his objections and complaints about my questions.
If you donât want me or other third parties to respond to your comments, then donât post them under the topics; post them as private messages to whichever PS readers you want to reach. Then I wonât see them. But you chose to post your comment before the group. You made a public claim. Youâve got no cause to object if your public claim is challenged in a public forum.
Youâre right that youâre under no obligation to answer when someone asks you to provide evidence for your claims. Itâs also true that someone in the middle of a Ph.D. dissertation defense is under no obligation to answer his examiners when they point out apparent errors or defects in his claims. He can choose not to answer, in which case the examiners will infer that he does not have adequate knowledge, and they will fail him. So you, too, can choose not to answer objections, and you can expect that your questioners will make the same kind of judgment about your level of knowledge. In this case, the judgment is that you do not possess enough knowledge of the theology of even a single religious tradition to make a judgment over whether or not ID is bad theology.
Objects are designed with specifications. If you asked a slightly different question: were bananas designed with the specification that they could fit in primates hands that would be possible.
As far as a designed functional purpose a viable hypothesis is that bananas were designed to provide nutritional food for certain animal types. The evidence for this is that bananas contain important molecules to sustain life such as magnesium, potassium, vitamin B6, and vitamin C.
Bananas | The Nutrition Source | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.pdf (1.7 MB)
Hi Matt
For several years I did not either but after reading @vjtorley argument and thinking about it I concluded there is some real substance to this argument. The key is to start looking at the supporting evidence. Have you ever looked at the double slit experiment?
The interference pattern disappears when you detect which slit the photon passed through - therefore God!
Theism, anno 2021.
1 Like
Hi, Bill, thanks for your reply.
I think we may be talking past each other here. Whether or not the universe is designed is tangential to the point I was making. What I didnât find compelling was your original comment here:
And I didnât find it compelling due to the reasons laid out in my last comment. If thereâs something Iâm misunderstanding about your point, please lmk.
P.S I am familiar with the double slit experiment on a basic university physics course level.