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

Star of David; Land of Myth 

What is there about our shared journey that permits us, with ease, to consciously blind ourselves to the grief of others because it aches too much to see the obvious? That upends echoes of pain as screams come in unbearable waves that leave no doubt of its horrible source of crimes, in progress, of broken families and dreams never to be dreamt? What finds escape in crafted denial that accepts no combat from waves of reality… for to handle truth is, seemingly, well beyond our collective capacity?  It is the story of our day: Star of David ; land of myth. More

Source: Star of David; Land of Myth – CounterPunch.org

Deprogramming historical brainwashing

The eonic effect needs a college course… June 19th, 2018 ·
The previous post raised the question of historical study using the eonic effect. The eonic effect should be the subject matter for a college course, but unfortunately professional historians are extremely critical of anything that smacks of ‘speculative’ history and would never allow such a course. Perhaps that can change. Continue reading “Deprogramming historical brainwashing”