How do we know that Francis Beckwith is not an Intelligent Design theorist? Well, first of all, because he has publicly said that he isn’t. Second, because some ID defenders themselves have (with evident frustration with him) publicly said that he isn’t. And third, because the metaphysical position he is committed to – Thomism – is incompatible with standard ID methodology, or at the very least is hard to square with it. (My own readers know that I have been pretty hard on ID, both in The Last Superstition – which Frank kindly endorsed – and in the long and bloody combox exchange we all had on this subject some months back. Fr. Edward Oakes pitted Thomism against ID in a well-known exchange in First Things some years ago. Beckwith cited Prof. Michael Tkacz’s Thomistic critique of ID here. Etc.)
But ID critic Prof. Barbara Forrest will hear nothing of it. Beckwith is an “ID supporter,” she assures us, his protestations notwithstanding. In support of this claim, she marshals copious evidence of what everyone already knows, and what Beckwith has never denied: that he thinks the usual constitutional arguments against teaching ID in public schools are no good. I see a Stove Award in Prof. Forrest’s future; at the very least, this very fine specimen of the non sequitur should put her in the running. Presumably Prof. Forrest takes the view that her fellow philosophers should be able to teach arguments for (say) dualism, idealism, theism, and natural law theory in public universities. Does this show that she is a “supporter” of these views? Of course not; certainly her work gives evidence of precisely the opposite of sympathy for these views. So how does Beckwith’s defense of the teaching of ID show that he “supports” ID? The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t.
Why, then, does Forrest pretend otherwise? Well, the non sequitur is not the only weapon in her arsenal of fallacies. She is also an absolute master of guilt by association, and precisely because she deploys it so clumsily. Her unwary reader thinks: “Huh? But that argument sucks! Well, she can’t mean that, then. To be sure, I don’t know what the hell she does mean, but by golly the good people at Americans United for Separation of Church and State would never associate themselves with someone who’d resort to such crudities. So…” And before you know it the reader, or at least the reader who already agrees with Forrest anyway, is convinced that the argument must be good, because the only alternative is that it is so unspeakably awful that it should never have appeared in print or even pixel.
And here’s the thing. Forrest really, really wants to be able to call Beckwith a “Creationist.” That’s the scare word of choice among the anti-“Texas Taliban” brigade. You let that sucker fly, and you’ve won the debate, or shut it down, anyway. At the very least, you’ll get plaudits from Leiter Reports, and goodness gracious sakes alive there’s nothing better in the world than that! So: “Creationist” he must be labeled. Since your gang has already succeeded in assimilating “ID theorist” to “Creationist,” at least among people deficient either in actual knowledge of ID theory or in intellectual honesty, you can pull it off as long as you can peg Beckwith as an ID theorist. Trouble is, he isn’t one. What to do? Easy: Non sequitur comes to the rescue of guilt by association. Beckwith defends the right to teach ID theory, “therefore” he is an ID theorist, “therefore” he is a Creationist. The weasel expression “ID supporter” helps this fallacious Double Shot go down easier.
Keep it up, Prof. Forrest, and that Stove Award is yours!
Comments (40)
Barbara Forrest is a nut. Is leiter's obsession with Beckwith so corrupted him that he is willing to stand by Forrest's irrational lunacy?
Question: are warfield and derose going to call leiter on this, or will they maintain their sycophant status?
Posted by t aquinas | May 12, 2009 5:17 PM
I think this raving of Forrest's is related to my post below on the next phase of the culture war. For a certain type of liberal, it is not enough to disagree with or refute an idea. Everything they regard as culturally threatening must be portrayed after the model of, say, Holocaust denial--as both empirically risible and morally reprehensible. Hence, anyone who argues that (in this case) ID be given a run for its money, that its arguments should be considered, etc., is on a par with a person who says we should teach the so-called "evidence" against the Holocaust in the schools. Everything, to this sort of liberal, has to be ratcheted up a notch. Opponents must be demonized, and allies must be required to go along with the metalevel claim that a given view is not merely false but entirely beyond the pale of civil discourse.
In my opinion, this strategy will at least in some quarters (and in one sense) backfire. The more politicized philosophy, science, and history become, the more likely it is that the masses will simply cease to trust experts altogether, which will make them more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and crazy, unsupported claims that really are empirically risible.
Posted by Lydia | May 12, 2009 5:26 PM
Heh. Well, I guess that's all they got.
Posted by Albert | May 12, 2009 6:00 PM
In my opinion, this strategy will at least in some quarters (and in one sense) backfire. The more politicized philosophy, science, and history become, the more likely it is that the masses will simply cease to trust experts altogether, which will make them more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and crazy, unsupported claims that really are empirically risible.
Yes, but will this result occur before, or after, the US has ceased to be a viable entity? I don't think we can sit back on our laurels (who, by the way, sits on their laurels - just asking?) and wait for folks to see through them so-called experts.
The other possibility is that the bread and circuses will be so effective that people will stop caring what the experts say because they stop caring about anything at all except when the next circus is.
Got to wrap this up to load up my recording of "Idol", which I missed while waiting in line for my welfare check. See you after the show...
Posted by Tony | May 12, 2009 6:10 PM
I can hardly wait until Bradley Monton is labeled a creationist.
See here: http://idpluspeterswilliams.blogspot.com/2008/11/atheist-philosopher-bradley-monton.html
Posted by Bobcat | May 12, 2009 7:26 PM
I read Forrest's response and found it well reasoned. She point by point responds to Beckwith's protestations. Unlike this response by Mr. Feser, who did not address any of the points made. In essence, this post is the non sequitur that Mr. Feser is complaining about.
If Mr. Beckwith wants to smell like roses, he shouldn't roll around in manure.
Posted by MememicBottleneck | May 12, 2009 7:50 PM
Bobcat, you're the second person I've heard say that. Good call.
Mr. Bottleneck (!) simply proves my point: Holding that ID is worth discussing is now "rolling around in manure." Did I say, "Everything has to be ratcheted up a notch"?
Posted by Lydia | May 12, 2009 8:02 PM
From the perspective of a reactionary conservative, the Constitution is a dead letter. I call it a dead letter because its present implementation doesn't give a conservative anything that they wouldn't win in a democratic contest, and in many cases doesn't even give that. Conservatives only get their way in the courts when the votes have shifted in the democratic arena substantially toward their side. Look at the example of the NRA---they got absolutely nowhere by trying to use the courts to enforce the very clear language of the 2nd amendment. The NRA only managed to basically win on the issue when it went to the people and implemented an effective stick against its political enemies. Constitutions only matter when a critical mass of people have a transcendent view of it---a near religious loyalty (i.e., they'll follow what it demands even when they don't like the results, and won't try to weasel out of it), and we're not there now.
Therefore it really doesn't matter whether 'the Constitution forbids teaching of creationism, evolutionism, or IDism' or not. What does matter is if you have the necessary votes to force your preference and the willingness to go to the mat over it. So decide what you want, and be willing to attack politically and through whatever other means your ethical systems allow any political or judicial organ that gets in your way. If judges say, 'you can't do that', attack the judges. An impeachable offense is....drum roll...whatever the necessary voting block (usually 50%+1 or 2/3) says it is. The gentlemen's rules of engagement don't protect you, and the other side wouldn't respect them if the roles were reversed, so stop playing by them. Why keep playing soccer if the referees allow the blue team to always use their hands but call the penalty with extreme prejudice against the red team? That is, if you want to 'win' (do be sure to answer that most important question---what does it mean to win, or 'what do you want?'. There's no reason why Alinski's methods can't be used outside the left.
Posted by David | May 12, 2009 8:19 PM
Let me ask this question. What supporting evidence is sufficient to allow a theory to be taught in science class? It's been a while and my memory may be hazy, but I recall that being the main bone of contention when these debates were raging at Right Reason. Some ID opponents wanted it banned altogether, but most, including myself, were opposed to it being taught as if it were a proven alternative to evolution. If you want ID to function as a limited critique of evolution (that still accepts common descent), or if you want to teach a science philosophy course about the methods and evidence supporting the various laws and theorems of science generally, those are both appropriate contexts for addressing ID in a careful way. On the other hand, the Discovery Institute making thinly supported extraordinary claims that are later explained by ordinary science is bad strategy and very bad methodology.
Posted by Step2 | May 12, 2009 9:06 PM
Careful, all...bring up Brian Leiter in a thread that's likely to attract his attention, and you can expect a bunch of first-time posters to come zooming in on you.
He's funny, that way.
Posted by steve burton | May 12, 2009 9:26 PM
Step2, I assume the question of the best or most responsible way to teach origins controversies is quite different from the question of whether a) one should teach such controversies at all and b) whether it is literally unconstitutional to do so.
Posted by Lydia | May 12, 2009 10:25 PM
Metaphors are great for country songs, but it makes for bad philosophy (even in rural Louisiana)
Btw, BF was invited to respond to my talk by the Federalist Society, She declined, since she couldn't cut and paste and use elipsses in a public venue in which I could challenge her.
Posted by Francis Beckwith | May 12, 2009 10:37 PM
Step2 has a good point. It is one thing for a theory to be imprudent to teach, another for it to be imprudent to teach to school kids, and yet another for it to be illegal to teach.
As far as being unconstitutional: it is not even unconstitutional for the state school to teach that Presbyterianism is the only true religion. There simply is no traction for any real argument about the teaching of ID being against the constitution. False arguments abound.
There are many things it is unacceptable to teach school kids about - sex ed is a perfect example. The subject is unfit for the classroom. That does not mean that sex should not be taught (nor - ha ha - that sex does not exist).
Furthermore, there are many things that school kids are not equipped to evaluate appropriately. So teaching them controversial subjects as something that they should lock horns with (before they have the tools to win such a locking of horns) is a pedagogic mistake. On that basis, they should be taught neither ID (as a scientific subject) nor evolution, because neither of these are properly within their grasp.
Prudence dictates that if you absolutely MUST teach something about the origins controversy to school kids, you should present the most likely prospect with limited detail, present some of the reasons why it is held in doubt, and reinforce repeatedly that they have not yet been given the tools to discern an appropriate adjudication of the issues.
Posted by Tony | May 12, 2009 11:10 PM
I suppose if you do not show utter contempt for ID, you will get the Carrie Prejean treatment.
Posted by Kurt | May 13, 2009 2:42 AM
I consider myself a liberal theist, that is: most of the time I find this blog rather disgusting, though often interesting. This time, however, I fullheartedly agree - never thought of a thing like that! The extent to which the ID-hypothesis has been distorted and people who think it deserves a fair discussion have been denigrated is just unbearable. It's a shame that a renowned journal like "Synthese" offers opportunity for such slander.
To be sure, I don't think that ID is adequate, neither with respect to scientific method nor with respect to natural theology, but its proponents (and legal defenders) should be treated by their words, not by made-up insinuations of sinister (fundamentalistic) motives.
Bravo, Edward!
Posted by Grobi | May 13, 2009 4:00 AM
Brad Monton *has* often been misidentified as a creationist. He sometimes begins his talks with a disclaimer that he is, in fact, an atheist. (And a glutton for punishment.)
Posted by Flavius Id | May 13, 2009 8:12 AM
Ed (and Francis),
It would be good if one (or both) of you could respond to this calumny: http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2009/04/francis-beckwiths-letter-to-the-editor.html
I used to read Sandefur regularly, as I thought he wrote well about property rights and the legal issues involved in the war on terror. After this post, now I'm not sure what to think. I thought this section of his post was particularly interesting for Ed:
"What Beckwith is seeking is to establish an equivalence between natural explanations of phenomena and magical “explanations” of phenomena"
He then links to another one of his older blog posts called "All Epistemologies Are Not Created Equal", which gets at the heart of his philosophical differences between Ed and Francis. As someone who still hasn't read Ed's book (shame on me...but I did buy it!) it would be fun to read your take on these Sandefur posts in your own blog posts.
Posted by Jeff Singer | May 13, 2009 11:53 AM
Sandefur looks like a real nasty piece of work. Notice his bizarre statement about our own Paul Cella: "...who, though not a Holocaust denier, is an enthusiastic defender of the Crusades..." Um, what? Where did Holocaust denial even _come in there_?
What a bizarre person.
By the way, good Bayesians know better than to be cowed by talk of "magic" and how it "isn't an explanation." The best explanation supported by the evidence is the best explanation supported by the evidence. I love the way these kook-ball, totalitarian, new-atheist style naturalists throw around the word "epistemology." You know, if they say it often enough someone might think they know spit about epistemology. Newsflash for Sandefur: Ruling out explanations a priori is exceedingly poor epistemology. Speaking as an epistemologist.
But that would take Ed's thread rather afield.
Posted by Lydia | May 13, 2009 12:01 PM
Lydia,
His "bizarre statement" about Paul actually gets worse, because he used the "argument" that because this website (and Paul) don't think the Crusades (or at least some of the Crusades) were uniquely horrible events in world history, we all support genocide:
"Just scanning over this blog is enough to shock and dismay any reasonable reader. “Liberals and neoconservatives,” Cella complains, are “quick to join the chorus of ritual denunciation of, for instance, the Crusades. But if the invasion of France, purposed toward her liberation from a foreign oppressor, was just, how can we not also embrace, as least in theory, the invasion of Asia Minor and Palestine, purposed toward the same, by the Crusaders?”
If Francis Beckwith is so concerned about being “put in the same category” as those who embrace horrific, genocidal positions, what is to explain his participation with this weblog?"
I hereby nominate Sandefur for a Stove award for the following flawless logic: an invasion by group X of a foreign land once under the control of group Y, to remove the current rulers, group Z, and place that land back under the control of group Y is genocide.
Posted by Jeff Singer | May 13, 2009 12:08 PM
I write from the library at Princeton that houses the undergraduate thesis of Brian Russell Leiter (84): Capitalism and Democracy: Toward an Economic Bill of Rights (I've not seen it, but I would not be surprised if it was dedicated to Gus Hall, Alger Hiss, and Henry Wallace)
Here's the problem folks: Barbara Forrest is not concerned about truth or justice. For if she were, she would have, at some point in her "unmasking of me," contacted me to verify or check certain facts. She also would have given a complete account of certain events that when presented in that way do not "prove" anything odd. Consider, for example, her discussion of my book and articles on ID and the law. She never mentions that they are for the most part from my MJS dissertation at the Washington University School of Law, a work that I penned under the mentorship of philosopher of law, Stanley Paulsen. She also does not mention that I had already been accepted into the program and had completed over half of my dissertation prior to being awarded a modest $9000 fellowship by Discovery (and that should be seen in light of the nearly $45,000 for tuition and living expenses). She also does not say that the bulk of the funding I received is from a pathologist in Las Vegas who is no fan of ID and gave money to UNLV while I was there to support a talk by atheist Michael Scriven. (The pathologist gave me $18,000). She also does not tell you that there are some parts of my dissertation and subsequent publications with which DI did not agree. She also does not tell you that the MJS degree, though certainly not a JD, is not chopped liver. She also does not tell you that I address in my recent memoir why I went to Wash. U. and why I pursued the MJS over the JD. It's all in Return to Rome, if she ever took the time to read it. And if she had contacted me I would have told her that I went for the MJS on the advice of Kermit Hall (the late historian) and Jules Coleman (philosopher of law), both of whom earned a nearly identical degree at Yale, the MSL. Professor Hall, one time president of Utah State, is the editor of the Oxford Dictionary of Supreme Court Opinions (that title may not be quite right) and Coleman is one of the top philosophers of law in the world, teaching the required torts course at Yale, even though he has no JD. If Forrest wants to diminish my credentials in this cheap way, then she must do it to these men (and others) as well.
I'll leave it to my peers to judge whether or not I am a "legal scholar."
I should note, before I go (and my wife catches me on the computer), that Forrest is completely mistaken about my visit to her home state. As my wife will tell you (she books all my speaking engagements), I told the folks at both Southern and LSU that I did not want to talk about ID and the law. LSU acquiesced and asked me to talk on natural rights and the atheism, something based on my Santa Clara piece. The Southern folks insisted and invited Ms. Forrest to be respondent. She refused, just as my wife predicted to them. And even in the Southern talk, I steered away from addressing Louisiana's internal political wars on this issue as well as the larger question of ID's status as science. When it comes to the former, I really have no interest. For what it's worth, I think that most of these legislative attempts at balance treatment or something of that sort are a complete waste of time and energy. In most cases, well-meaning church-folks pick up ID and try to run with it, and usually in the most foolish and idiotic ways. I want no part of that. That's why I have refused every time to testify before government bodies on this matter since that fateful afternoon in 2003 when I stupidly accepted an invitation to testify by a member of the Texas School Board. It is a decision I regret, since my brief 3-minute testimony has been twisted and read uncharitably by so many, including Brian Leiter (who I had not actually not heard of before I came across his blog attacking me; I guess I should have known who he was, but I'm just too lowbrow for that bourgeois elitism).
For those who are so "convinced" of Forrest's cut and paste hack job of my work, let me suggest you read the works in context. There is a reason she includes many elipses: what's missing is inconvenient. There is a reason she doesn't contact me and dig deeper: it's inconvenient to her narrative.
For the record, I am a theistic evolutionist, always have been. Just never thought it was worth talking about, since I never felt I had a dog in that race. Folks, I made my peace with Darwin a long time ago.
I am, however, not a materialist. I think the entire worldview collapses from its own weight and cannot account virtually anything important in our lives: morality, personhood, personal continuity over time, mental causation, the existence of numbers, etc.
The thinker whose views I'm closest to is Etienne Gilson, author of From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again, which will be released this fall by Ignatius Books.
Forrest correctly notes that I am no longer a DI fellow. Does she tell you why? No. How come? She never asked me. Why didn't she ask me? You'll have to ask her that. But I suspect that if she can't find by using Google, she doesn't bother checking.
Now, let me get back to having fun at Princeton.
Love and peace from Nassau Street,
Frank
Posted by Francis Beckwith | May 13, 2009 1:24 PM
"Forrest correctly notes that I am no longer a DI fellow. Does she tell you why? No. How come? She never asked me. Why didn't she ask me? You'll have to ask her that. But I suspect that if she can't find by using Google, she doesn't bother checking."
I'll ask. Why are you no longer a Discovery Fellow?
Posted by Joe McFaul | May 13, 2009 1:56 PM
Well, granted that MememicBottleneck's criticism of Ed Fesser's own entry here seems to evince that very engagement of "non sequitur" which ironically the entry itself doth protest; however, the above recently-published comments by Dr. Beckwith himself would seem to provide a detailed refutation concerning facts initially presented in the case by his fiercest detractor or, at the very least, a good red target for all his other hostile detractors to assail.
Posted by aristocles | May 13, 2009 2:05 PM
Joe, I'm glad you asked that question. I will answer it as soon I can on this blog. Right now I am in Princeton with my wife. (She is buying shoes and I snuck off to the library to write this; I saw your com on my ipod touch about 10 minutes ago). Because I want to write my comments fairly and carefully, it's not right for me to do so on the run. So, it probably won't appear until next week sometime.
One more Forrest story, if you can bear it.
Several years ago she and Glenn Branch wrote this piece for AAUP's Academe:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070404003943/http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2005/05jf/05jfforr.htm Both Walter Bradley and I responded: http://telicthoughts.com/105/ In my response I write:
"The authors state that twenty-nine descendants of my department's namesake (J.M. Dawson) requested that Baylor remove me from my post. They don't mention the support for me from my provost, department chair, department colleagues, and numerous professors from around the world, some of whom disagree with my views. One of them, Kent Greenawalt of Columbia Law School, was so aghast at the Dawsons' use of a quote of his to hurt my appointment that he wrote a letter to my chair condemning it."
Now, you would think if Forrest were a real scholar wanting to do real history that she would be curious about that letter and want to get her hands on it. After all, it's pretty significant: the most well-respect church-state law professor in the U.S. supports the embattled DI guy at Baylor. There's probably a movie in that story somewhere. But did she ask me for the letter? Did she express curiosity about it? Not on your life. Why? Because it may disrupt her narrative; it was inconvenient to her political and ideological crusade.
For someone who thinks "empirical evidence" is the be all and end all of knowledge, you'd think that Forrest would actually consult it once and a while. But that's not the case. For it's not about evidence. It's about propping up the web of imaginary intrigue that resides in her mind.
I've privately emailed Forrest on several occasions to correct things she has written about me. Does she ever reply personally, as professional academics should do with one another when discussing their works? No, not once. What she does do is blog about it, or writes some incoherent tirade as an appendix to the publicly accessible article (as she did on one occasion that she cites in her recent blog post).
This is not the sort of activity that one attributes to a curious and inquisitive mind seeking to understand and fairly critique those with whom she disagrees. No, it reveals a cast of mind that is both voyeuristic and exhibitionist, and therefore deeply self-referential and thus incapable of being taught or talked with.
Posted by Francis Beckwith | May 13, 2009 4:22 PM
You're kdding. Come over to the Nassau Inn. Downstairs, we're exorcising Woodrow Wilson's ghost from the tavern, while talking lacrosse and the horrors of the Enlightenment with fellow dissidents.
Posted by Kevin | May 13, 2009 5:11 PM
I'm sitting in la mezzuluna having dinner with my wife. Then we're off to aaron burr hall for a lecture on George Washington's political philosophy
Posted by Francis Beckwith | May 13, 2009 6:06 PM
Fine, but raucously watching EWTN's coverage of B16 over cake and ales in the Tiger Cage is a guilty pleasure that is hard top.
Should have seen the faces on the disgruntled feminists and soccer fans.
Posted by kevin | May 13, 2009 7:01 PM
How do we know that Francis Beckwith is not an Intelligent Design theorist? Well, first of all, because he has publicly said that he isn’t.
From that link:
Even if one finds Dawkins’s views flawed, as I do, one need not embrace the arguments of ID advocates in order to rationally embrace intrinsic purpose or even design.
Accepting the conclusions and offering political/legal aid and comfort? Yeesh, how dare someone suggest Beckwith is an IDer! How dishonest of them to ignore the fact that he is an IDer for (supposedly) different reasons than Michael Behe?
Posted by Mike | May 14, 2009 12:30 AM
Accepting the conclusions and offering political/legal aid and comfort? Yeesh, how dare someone suggest Beckwith is an IDer!
So the ACLU is a far-rightist paleolibertarian organization that favors the right of business and communities to discriminate on the basis of political views and sexual orientation? After all, it helped Hans-Hermann Hoppe defend his academic freedom to call for, "discriminating against communists, democrats, and habitual advocates of alternative, non-family centered lifestyles, including homosexuals." That's, "offering political/legal aid and comfort," isn't it?
Or perhaps your argument is sophistry? I'm going to go with the latter myself.
Posted by brendon | May 14, 2009 2:42 AM
Brendon, re-read the very short quote from Beckwith I offered. He uses the passive voice to claim belief in "design." He does believe in design, just not the most popular account of it. I assume that Hoppe's ACLU supporters would not claim a similar belief in Hoppe's views.
It is these sorts of controversies that make me highly suspicious of Protestant "returns" to Augustine and Catholic "returns" to Aquinas. Seems like nostalgia to me, the foolish desire to live in a world without everyone from Descartes to Kant to Darwin to Heisenberg.
I'd still really like to know what someone with a teleological view of nature does with the fossil record. How do you explain away the myriad of failed/extinct species we find? This is only one example of the larger issue that goal-directed nature is simply pre-scientific.
Posted by Mike | May 14, 2009 3:32 AM
Brendon, re-read the very short quote from Beckwith I offered.
I did. Just because they agree on legal conclusions, like Hoppe and the ACLU, doesn't mean they agree on the substantive issues that the legal cases are discussing. And since I actually understand Dr. Beckwith's metaphysical position, I know the that the distinction he's drawing is a real and substantial one. Someone who believes otherwise could either admit they don't understand his metaphysical position and ask him to clarify. Or they could demonstrate that they do understand it and then attempt to offer an actual argument as to why it isn't substantially different than ID.
Or they could not argue at all, but rather be a snarky tool and then act as if they had won some kind of great intellectual victory. Three guesses as to where you fall, and the first two don't count.
I'd still really like to know what someone with a teleological view of nature does with the fossil record. How do you explain away the myriad of failed/extinct species we find?
I no more needs to explain it away than I needs to "explain away" the fact that it takes a whole lot of seeds to grow a single dandelion. Finality is not contrary to contingency.
Posted by brendon | May 14, 2009 5:58 AM
How do you explain away the myriad of failed/extinct species we find?
Um, they went extinct.
Any more stumpers?
Posted by George R. | May 14, 2009 6:02 AM
Posted by The Deuce | May 14, 2009 11:08 AM
Just because they agree on legal conclusions, like Hoppe and the ACLU, doesn't mean they agree on the substantive issues that the legal cases are discussing.
Really? The court battles concerning ID feature Aristotelian substance as an issue? Really?
The last twenty years of the origins debate has been great fun. It is a constant stream of people screaming "I'm not a creationist!" but then backing up creationists wholesale. Now the same thing is happening with ID. It's almost as if those who distance themselves from their allies are being disingenuous.
I like how you take a quote in which Beckwith specifically says that we don't need to accept the arguments of IDers as evidence that he is an IDer.
It's a short quote, man. It shouldn't take special reading skills to read to the end and see the bit about "design."
Oh, I see. By "IDer", you actually mean "non-atheist". Thanks for clearing that up, you little anti-intellectual authoritarian thug.
You don't know me or what I believe. Internet tough guys are so cute.
Posted by Mike | May 15, 2009 12:09 AM
Really? The court battles concerning ID feature Aristotelian substance as an issue? Really?
No, they don't, "feature Aristotelian substance," which seems to be exactly why Dr. Beckwith and, for example, the DI do not agree on the substantive issues, only on the legal ones. Perhaps if you put more effort into understanding what you read and less into being a snarky tool, you would understand that that was precisely my point. But, in my experience, you seem to think that scorn is somehow equivalent to an actual argument, so perhaps not.
Here, I'll make it simple. I believe in design. I do not believe in ID, as the movement understands itself. The former is a belief that stems from metaphysics, the latter is a belief that design can be demonstrated via the empirical-mathematical scientific method. It is thus not incoherent to hold both positions. Something you would know if you, for example, read the paper by Prof. Michael Tkacz that Dr. Feser linked in the post. Or even Fr. Oakes' reply to his critics, linked in the same.
But you just feel free to redefine these terms to mean what you want them to mean and then acting as if you've proved something. Maybe equivocation has stopped being fallacious while I've been writing my thesis. But I doubt it.
Posted by brendon | May 15, 2009 1:56 AM
Posted by The Deuce | May 15, 2009 12:52 PM
Two more Forrest boners:
First, I didn't have "my name removed." I quit, which resulted in my name being removed. Barb presents it as if I am still affiliated with DI but just had my name removed from the website. Not true. I quit. But she would have known that if....and here's the clincher...she had asked me. But again that would disrupt the narrative.
Second, sorry Barb, you're very strange article was not the proximate cause of my quitting DI. (She, of course, doesn't claim that. She just says, rather ominiously, that my name was removed after she "outed me." That's just weird, since everyone, I mean everyone, knew I was a DI fellow. In fact, it was a point of contention when I was hired at Baylor and made the national news.)
I had wanted to quit Di in 2004 and 2007, but was talked out of it, twice. As a gift to my wife, on our 20th anniversary, July 11, 2007, I quit DI. It was Frankie, not Barb, that was the inspiration. I hate to break it to you, Barb, but it was another woman.
My wife was sick and tired of my whining about how I didn't agree with this or that thing DI was doing in relation to my home institution, Baylor, as well as its public comments on several subjets. So, she threw down the gauntlet and said, "Quit whining or quit DI."
That's why my tenure was so brief. When I read that description on its website, along with its theological requirements (which may or may not still be there), I quit the advisory board.
I agreed to be an advisor because these were kids that needed adult mentorship. But when I saw what it committed me to, something inconsistent with my own understanding of my own intellectual project, I quit.
But Barb would have known this, if...and here's the clincher... she had just asked.
Posted by Francis Beckwith | May 15, 2009 3:09 PM
Monton a creationist? No, he's just one more philosopher arguing for the FAA to regulate pig farming, on the philosophical basis that flying pigs pose a threat to aviation.
Posted by Ed Darrell | May 19, 2009 5:25 AM
I'm interested. Got a scan you can send to me?
I'm not sure why her failing to cite the letter has anything to do with her statement. Does Dawson contest that 29 descendants of the founder of the organization wrote? How many was it, 25? Does Dawson contend that there were no descendants, and that the were all intelligently designed instead?
And, on what basis do you say Dawson is the most well-respected church-state law professor in the U.S.? Who did that ranking?
What did Dawson say that was significant? I'd like to know.
Posted by Ed Darrell | May 19, 2009 7:12 PM
"My wife was sick and tired of my whining about how I didn't agree with this or that thing DI was doing in relation to my home institution, Baylor, as well as its public comments on several subjets."
All right, I'll bite. You've piqued my interest. Why are you no longer a Discovery Fellow? What made your wife so sick and tired?
Did you disagree with their support of Intelligent Design?
Posted by Joe McFaul | May 20, 2009 12:17 AM
Ed:
I'm not going to cross that bridge again. I'm tenured, promoted, and am enjoying life at Baylor. I'm not going to refight a battle I won. It would be unseemly and disrespectful of the Dawson family, some of whose members I've come to know and respect. And one is a colleague.
Sometimes memories should remain memories. The beauty about memories like this is that they eventually get buried in an avalanche of joy. That's where I am at now.
I only bring it up in reference to Forrest in order to show that she is not interested in the truth.
And Joe, I'm working on it. (I am a pretty busy guy; so please be patient)
Frank
Posted by Francis Beckwith | May 20, 2009 5:09 PM