The ID Deception and the ‘atheist’ advantage in design arguments//Decoding World History and the correct approach to design in history

Update: Decoding World History ED 1_6dcdx

The ID group complains of censorship. But they are hoist on their own petard. After twenty years they still haven’t discussed the issue of design in history: the eonic effect and its interpretation.

The ID gambit is a sneak attack on god thinking but it can’t work because it can’t mix two modes: demonstration as science and faith as religion. You can’t produce much of an ID argument is you are also committed to taking ‘god’  as ‘faith’.

—————-
We have discussed Barzun here many times, but here we see the discotuters are trying to absorb him into their propaganda, as they did with Wallace.
Barzun is one of the best critics of Darwin, in an unexpected time and place. Barzun has no connection to Meyer with his current ‘god’ campaign.

The ID critics have produced a lot of useful work exposing Darwinism but then the ID angle confuses the issue with an uncritical equation with theology.

Let’s be clear: you cannot use the ID argument if you combine evolution reasoning with Biblical history. The Old Testament seems a prime example of
intelligent design, the problem is that it is not history but myth.

The issue of ‘intelligent’ design is hopelessly confused. So what if evolutionary design seems intelligent? We cannot conclude anything because we have no knowledge of anything with that supposed property.
The ID people have played with fire and will end up confounded: the best approach to design, perhaps even ‘intelligent’ design, is atheism. Once the archaic god idea is flushed out the discussion poses its real mystery.
We cannot determine whether phenomena in nature that look ‘intelligent’ have any ‘personal’ aspects in any category of thought.
We have put ‘atheist’ in quotation marks because atheists are almost as confused as religious believers, but they can at least evade simplistic confusions over ‘god’ created by the deceptive ‘intelligent’ adjective designed with guile to bridge pseudo-science with biblical faith.

The discussion of ‘design’ in history is brought to a new coherence by the study of the ‘eonic effect’ and our model of history. Then we do indeed see ‘design’ in nature and yet we are not sure exactly what it points to .

Source: Recognizing the “Transformative” Impact of Barzun’s Darwin, Marx, Wagner, Eighty Years Later | Evolution News

 Has Darwinism destroyed trust in science?

The publication of Decoding World History triggered unexpectedly the sudden new strong interest in Descent of Man Revisited (2012) which is getting many downloads every day, several thousand in the last few months, the secular Darwin critic, the nightmare of the Darwinians who expect a regime of propaganda can’t be broken from outside, even as the ID group finds a huge audience, but mostly religious creationists. Decoding is doing well, about ten new readers a day, plus those who simply follow the website, numbering in the tens of thousands, which over time is a lot, given the zero advertising budget, cancel culture times 3: biologists, Judeo-Christians, Marxists, etc…These works are still at the point they can be ignored but times are changing and at some point soon the public will start wondering how the whole science community could have been so wrong for so long. Here figures like Dawkins with their fanatic atheism think the theory of natural selection will be a theology slayer. But that tactic doesn’t work anymore despite the fact that ID has made inroads to the Christian Right. The ID group at sites like Uncommon Descent does good work, up to the point that theology enters. They tried at one point to push back against their own tendencies but it mars what is often better science than anything in the secular Darwin camp who are more or less muzzled house dogs.
This seems to spook biologists who think that enforcing Darwinism will defend against the religious. The opposite has happened. And now even secularists use such sites disregarding the theological mice that scamper across the site.
We have suggested using the term ‘design (in nature)’ without the predicate ‘intelligent’ since the claim that a certain level we find ‘mind’ in nature suffers a lack of real proof. The ID champion Dembski promotes something called the ‘design inference’ but it seems unclear. Design in nature seems indeed ‘intelligent’, sometimes, but there is a ‘feeling about something’ and then there is real proof. But they may be right. Spinoza, Hegel, after all believed in intelligent design, considered to be in the secular sphere.  Ditto for ol’ Isaac Newton, no less. So the ID group might be right, but then they have undermined their own stance: the ID factor is inside nature. So what sort of somewho designs animal forms inside nature. The ID group stranded themselves inside nature though some might claim they can extend the argument to a supernatural divinity. Nope.
A key resource here is Kant whose so-called antinomies are a challenge to theists and atheists both. Furthermore, if you find design nature you cannot include the saga of the Old Testament and combine that with science.
The ID group is attacked but they have performed a service in critiquing Darwin even as they unwittingly sabotage their own biblical theology. To find (intelligent) design in nature is thus a new brand beyond theism, a sort of crypto paganism, Scandal. Three cheers for the Gaian earth goddess.

To see a discussion of design in nature one can recommend Decoding World History and/or Descent of Man Revisited. Decoding WH especially highlights the factor of design in history, ‘intelligent’ in quotation marks, it seems, but without the idea of ‘god in history’ which was a fallacy from the start. The remarkable account in the Old Testament of the emergence of monotheism is really a kind of ‘cargo cult’ discovering the eonic effect.
Strangely the Israelites warned against using the term Yahweh, instead enjoined IHVH. What the original vision was is lost to us.
To see the point here note that in terms of the eonic effect atheist Buddhism emerges in exact synchrony with theistic Israelitism. So we are left with a mystery, what factor in nature stands beyond theism and atheism?
The Darwinist biologists have forced the issue: you can’t trust that science isn’t just propaganda. But as we have noted many times the term science applies to the hard sciences, and ‘evolutionary theory’ is the cutoff: The type of the hard sciences doesn’t apply, as far as we know.
So now we know: scientists indulge in propaganda, conceal it using the science of propaganda, and get a pat on the back from capitalist, nice job, survival of the fittest, competition, hey guys, its science.

Source: Descent of Man Revisited World History: The Hidden Clue to Human Evolution  – 1848+: The End(s) of History