« The Gospels Aren’t Ancient Fiction | Main | Challenge: A Real God Wouldn’t Have Let His Chosen People Suffer Defeats »

November 30, 2015

Comments

Brad B.,


Are you really going to try? Seriously?

Well, if you do, then a few thoughts to focus on should you move forward:

The OP Is, "Can Intelligent Design and Evolution Both Be True?"

As such, whatever logic we apply must be applied to both Design and to Evolution.

WL and myself have tried to get Mike to realize such an obvious composition of terms, but he seems to think that he himself is NOT claiming design.

Mike's own metric of design is the mind of man.

The Christian agrees with Mike that the Mind of Man designs.

And there's the rub.

Just as "evolution" demands clarification before any forward progress can be made, so too does design demand clarification before any forward progress can be made.

The Christian is happy to unpack the mind of man and what it "is" and what it "does" when it "designs" and what the verb design-ing entails (metaphysics, neuroscience, physics, philosophy of mind, etc.).

But Mike just won't go there despite the fact that the OP's question demands it and despite the fact that his own metric of design demands it and despite the fact that the Christian agrees that man's mind designs and as such seeks a thorough explanation of said mind and its said designing activities.

As you alluded to, Mike can't apply his own reasoning to the OP nor to his own terms.

But of course, the fact that the mind of man qualifies as intelligent design in both his view and in our view just is the metaphysical lock-and-key which cannot go unattended.

Not honestly, that is.

I think you can see, given WL's and my own effort to point out the obvious, that you'll be wasting your time to think you'll get logical progressions from point A to point B to point C.....to point Z on said lock and key from our friend Mike.

Given that the OP demands that both terms be defined, you will be (should you move forward with Mike) intellectually justified in demanding that both parties define both terms (evolution and design etc....).

We both agree, the Non-Theist and the Theist, that both Evolution and Intelligent Design *ARE* true.

Of course, what is needed, given such a peculiar outcome, is that all parties be willing to define all terms.

That, then, is the current state of affairs -- unless Mike wishes to tell us that laptops are *not* intelligently designed.

The reality, or actual state of affairs, that is intelligence and that is design, and that is design-ing, is 50% of the OP's question. If you want to move forward with Mike (wasting your time btw) then the metaphysical lock-and-key is the both parties agree that both evolution and intelligent design *are* true.

Hence our Non-Theist friends, if they are going to use the mind of man as their metric for design, needs to pour out some heavy-meta on that front should they presume to be able to make comments about design one way or the other.


----------------


That said, we have what you observed:


Mike cannot apply his own reasoning to his own state of affairs. In fact, his own reasoning can't even address the OP in its entirety given that his own reasoning cannot actually defend his own metric of design -- that metric being the mind of man.

Given that Mike's own reasoning cannot defend his own metric of design (the mind of man, design, design-*ing*, and so on) then clearly Mike has forfeited his intellectual right to participate in any discussion which necessitates the inclusion of *mind*, and of design, and of design-*ing*, and so on in its primary constitutions.

Why?

Because if one does not know what mind is, what design is, what design-ing is, then one does not know how to evaluate whether or not any given X is or is not designed.

And if one does not know how to evaluate whether or not any given X is or is not designed, then one has no intellectual right to foist claims of Ya/Na in this particular arena.

If you move forward with Mike, it is obvious that you'll be intellectually justified camping out on the obvious metaphysical lock-and-key given that *both* the Non-Theist *and* the Christian agree that both evolution and design *are* true.


Brad B.,

As you move forward with Mike, another component to the obvious metaphysical lock-and-key which went unmentioned, but which is necessary, is the issue of paradigmatic singularity.

Design and Evolution, both being true, cannot be treated as separate boxes floating in mid-air, apart from one another, unable to comprise one seamless singularity.

Mike seems to think that is the case -- that he can get by with treating evolution "over there" all by itself. And then, if he wants to, he can go over to this other box, his box of design "over here" and treat it.

So in moving forward with Mike, forcing his reasoning to seamlessly amalgamate evolution and design into one, seamless, singularity is another component of the lock-and-key which you should pursue with him.

I'm hoping you take the time to unpack it all with him and that he takes the time to unpack it all with you.

Can Intelligent Design and Evolution Both Be True?

Both the Christian and the Non-Theist shout their resounding, "Yes!" and the metaphysical ramifications are, simply, astounding.

But, of course, terms will need to be defined.

Thoroughly. By all parties at the table.

So, in moving forward, perhaps you should add this other necessary feature of any plausible T.O.E. to the metaphysical lock-and-key, that being the proper elimination of disparate boxes floating in midair, such that we come upon the essence of a seamless metaphysical singularity. Evolution must (coherently) feed into Design, and, Design must (coherently) feed into Evolution.


scbrownlhrm

Still not getting it are you?

You are very very confused.

"In all territories of thought which science or philosophy can lay claim to, including those upon which literature has also a proper claim, no one who has something original or important to say will willingly run the risk of being misunderstood; people who write obscurely are either unskilled in writing or up to mischief." ---Peter Medawar

Which is it schlrownlhrm?

Mike,

As I said to Brad,

"I'm hoping you take the time to unpack it all with him and that he takes the time to unpack it all with you."

I see whats going on. Basically you think I have to provide an explanation for why primates can think - i.e. have 'minds' - before one can do anything else.

Is that it? Is that the game here?

Because I can respond to that.

Mike,

As I said to Brad,

"I'm hoping you take the time to unpack it all with him and that he takes the time to unpack it all with you."

"I'm hoping you take the time to unpack it all with him and that he takes the time to unpack it all with you."

And like I said, this is meaningless.

Your dishonesty was noted when you tried to attribute a quote to me previously.

All this stuff that needs packing is simply baggage you have created that sits in your mind. You are like a hoarder who fills his house full of newspapers he has never read - except your brain is now full of junk reasons why 'metaphysical singularities' are important.

You dont have an intellectual leg to stand on. Your tripos is 3 legs short of being useful.

Nothing that you have said makes any sense and if you were intellectually honest youd try to address that.

Mike,

I'm sorry that you consider the process of using your own means and your own explanatory termini to justify your own claims to be a meaningless process.

Hopefully you'll change your mind about that so that you and Brad can engage in that process.

"I'm sorry that you consider the process of using your own means and your own explanatory termini to justify your own claims to be a meaningless process"

You need to be able to describe what you mean in simple language, and then come up with a reasoned argument as to why whateveritisyouwant is important.

This is simply gobbledigook.

You repeatedly insist on this type of gobbledigook and bizarre justifcations like "because physics" without doing the hard yards of explaining why this is necessary.

Hopefully you'll change your mind about that so that you can actually have a discussion at some point in your life.

Mike,

Yes, we know you consider the activity within neurons, and neuroscience in general, to be "gobbledygook". Though, we are hoping you'll see the value of neuroscience as we attempt to unpack, explain, what it is that the verb "design-ing" actually "consists of".

Neuroscience is a fascinating field -- hopefully your intellectual aversion to unpacking its science vis-à-vis physics will fade one day and permit you to discuss it further with Brad.

Of course, pending said discussion with Brad B, it is entertaining watching you respond to each request to dive into neuroscience and physics by referring to neuroscience and physics as "gobbledygook".

Thank you for those many, many gifts.

It's made for an early Christmas for all of the Christians in this thread.

The comments to this entry are closed.